Mass Shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada

[ainsworth74]

Government shouldn't control guns, or healthcare, but should be in charge of women's bodies... :roll:

Or as I saw somewhere or other online "Ownership of guns is a fundamental right, access to healthcare is a privilege"...

 

[Busaholic]

Or as I saw somewhere or other online "Ownership of guns is a fundamental right, access to healthcare is a privilege"...

And we (or 52% of we) wish to leave the EU so that we can get cosier with Trump-land.

 

[najaB]

A modern assault rifle can't dump 250 rounds into an area target in 30 seconds or less!

The rate of fire with a bump stock isn't that far off a machine gun. You'd easily be able to fire over 400 rounds per minute.

 

[najaB]

White House: ‘This Is Not The Geologic Era To Debate Gun Control’ (The Onion)

WASHINGTON—Deflecting questions in the aftermath of the mass shooting in Las Vegas that killed 59 people and injured over 500 more, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters Tuesday that this is not the geologic era in which to debate gun control.

“Out of respect for the families of the victims, we’re going to hold off on engaging in discourse over the regulation of firearms for a few eons,” said Sanders, adding that it would be premature to discuss enacting any sort of policies to prevent mass shootings until the next ice age has set in, likely long after the extinction of the human race.

“Once the nation has had time to properly grieve and the continents have completed millions of years of tectonic migration to collide into one supercontinent, then we can bring this issue to the table. However, until a new dominant species rules the earth, it’s just not appropriate to address this issue.” At press time, Sanders said that a more realistic time to discuss gun control was after the sun expanded into its red giant stage and engulfed the planet.

 

[Bromley boy]

Whilst a vickers Gun is normally crewed by three men, in this situation one would prove easily sufficient - all that is required is a spray fire belt-dump. Followed by reloading and dumping another belt.
The target area is large and is extremely full of people.
The first firing cycle of 250 rounds would be over in under 30 seconds.

With the help of a couple of duffle bags it can likely be moved from a parking garage to your room without raising too many eyebrows, there will be huge numbers of people moving around in the parking structur and hotel anyway, a nondescript man with a carry all is not unusual.. The only thing that might be slightly of an issue is the tripod mount.
The man did after all have a large number of weapons in the room with him, how did he get all that into the room without anyone seeing him?



A modern assault rifle can't dump 250 rounds into an area target in 30 seconds or less!
And accuracy is irrelevant in this situation - we have evidence that the shooter was bump firing anyway, good luck hitting individual people at 500 yards like that!

I’ll defer to your superior firearms knowledge - although I maintain there’s no way a vickers machine gun could do as much damage as a modern assault rifle, in the vast majority of “spree killer” type circumstances. .

If the argument is “there’s no point banning modern assault rifles because the same attack could be perpetrated using a legally acquired WW1 era water cooled machine gun instead.” Doesn’t that just point to a deeply flawed system, and a need to ban all firearms?!

What earthly reason is there for civilians in a modern, civilised society with a functioning police force to own military grade weapons?!

 

[najaB]

Doesn’t that just point to a deeply flawed system, and a need to ban all firearms?!

I agree with the first part of this statement, but strongly disagree with the second. There are a lot of reasons for people to own firearms, though very few reasons for them to own (semi)automatic rifles.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I agree with the first part of this statement, but strongly disagree with the second. There are a lot handful of reasons for people to own firearms, though very few reasons for them to own (semi)automatic rifles.

Fixed that for you...

 

[najaB]

Fixed that for you...

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that there are a lot of reasons for a handful of people to have firearms.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

What earthly reason is there for civilians in a modern, civilised society with a functioning police force to own military grade weapons?!

Unfortunately for most Americans, the reason is defence.

Although as mentioned above, there are few cases where an apparent spree killing has been stopped or curtailed by civilians, there are many cases where armed criminals have been stopped by home owners, shop owners etc. who have fired back.

Because home owners have guns, so criminals have guns, so home owners have bigger guns etc. etc. If you suddenly take the homeowners out of the equation and outlaw their guns, then criminals are not likely to give theirs up, so things become very one sided, goes the argument.

Therein lies the big problem facing American gun control. Like unilateral nuclear disarmament - you can hand over your weapons in the hope that this means you won't be a target, but if the others still have their weapons then potentially all you have done is mark yourself out as a free target.

This was the big difference from the UK - most firearms owned even before the regulations came in were recreational, the American middle class stereotype household with the handgun in a lock box for 'emergencies' is pretty much unknown and even the notion of gun ownership is looked on very differently. If you tell someone you have a collection of firearms and you don't live on a farm, you would get some very weird looks.

 

[najaB]

Unfortunately for most Americans, the reason is defence.

It might be the reason that they give, but it's not a rational one. Long bore rifles with high capacity magazines full of high-velocity, steel-jacketed bullets are offensive weapons, plain and simple.

 

[jon0844]

If you tell someone you have a collection of firearms and you don't live on a farm, you would get some very weird looks.

When Hatfield House hosted the Game Fair recently, a lot of people decided to openly carry their shotguns on the train. Suffice to say BTP and local police got a fair few calls, but of course they were allowed to do it. And they were there for a reason.

I can't imagine what it must be like in the USA where people happily walk up and down the street with assault rifles on show because of the 'open carry' rules. Going by the number of YouTube videos, I get the impression at lot are doing it only because they can and have no real reason to do so - unless they think they're somehow acting to defend others and are like soldiers/the police.

Boys (and girls) with their toys. It's no wonder they worship Trump who is the big boy with toys and acts the same way.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

It might be the reason that they give, but it's not a rational one. Long bore rifles with high capacity magazines full of high-velocity, steel-jacketed bullets are offensive weapons, plain and simple.

Oh believe me, I think the idea of being able to just buy an assault weapon is beyond idiocy and the facts stand for themselves that death by gunfire in the USA is disproportionately high, both for population and gun ownership levels.

At the same time though, if I knew that assault weapons were readily available to buy and that many local people had one, I might be tempted.

 

[Antman]

Unfortunately for most Americans, the reason is defence.

Although as mentioned above, there are few cases where an apparent spree killing has been stopped or curtailed by civilians, there are many cases where armed criminals have been stopped by home owners, shop owners etc. who have fired back.

Because home owners have guns, so criminals have guns, so home owners have bigger guns etc. etc. If you suddenly take the homeowners out of the equation and outlaw their guns, then criminals are not likely to give theirs up, so things become very one sided, goes the argument.

Therein lies the big problem facing American gun control. Like unilateral nuclear disarmament - you can hand over your weapons in the hope that this means you won't be a target, but if the others still have their weapons then potentially all you have done is mark yourself out as a free target.

This was the big difference from the UK - most firearms owned even before the regulations came in were recreational, the American middle class stereotype household with the handgun in a lock box for 'emergencies' is pretty much unknown and even the notion of gun ownership is looked on very differently. If you tell someone you have a collection of firearms and you don't live on a farm, you would get some very weird looks.

That's exactly it, the only way to protect yourself against the bad guys with guns is to have a gun yourself.

Any civilian trying to halt a massacre by shooting the perpetrator would run the risk of being shot themselves by somebody who thought they were one of the bad guys. It's just madness.

 

[jon0844]

That's exactly it, the only way to protect yourself against the bad guys with guns is to have a gun yourself.

Any civilian trying to halt a massacre by shooting the perpetrator would run the risk of being shot themselves by somebody who thought they were one of the bad guys. It's just madness.

This point hasn't been discussed much in the past, but does indeed prove how dumb the NRAs 'advice' was. A 'hero' could very well die at the hands of the authorities, and even end up being remembered forever more as a mentally ill, evil, monster that was part of it.

 

[DarloRich]

I’ll defer to your superior firearms knowledge - although I maintain there’s no way a vickers machine gun could do as much damage as a modern assault rifle, in the vast majority of “spree killer” type circumstances. .

For one thing the noise and visual report would make it easy to locate you!

If the argument is “there’s no point banning modern assault rifles because the same attack could be perpetrated using a legally acquired WW1 era water cooled machine gun instead.” Doesn’t that just point to a deeply flawed system, and a need to ban all firearms?!

I have owned shotguns in the past. I don't know but did when I lived in the country. I have done some pheasant shooting, clay pigeon shooting etc. There are plenty of reasons why a gun might be owned.

They key is to limit supply to those who need a gun and pass sensible checks to ensure they are of sound mind, free from criminality etc

What earthly reason is there for civilians in a modern, civilised society with a functioning police force to own military grade weapons?!

but few reasons why a gun like this might be owned!

That's exactly it, the only way to protect yourself against the bad guys with guns is to have a gun yourself.

Any civilian trying to halt a massacre by shooting the perpetrator would run the risk of being shot themselves by somebody who thought they were one of the bad guys. It's just madness.

Being armed with a pistol would have been of little use trying to "take someone out" who is situated on the 30th floor of a skyscraper armed with a hardcore rifle and a mountain of ammunition. It is total bull but it seems most Yanks are just thick on this score.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Thursday, the NRA has suggested that they'd be open to some restrictions on conversion kits (so called 'bump stocks') which turn semi-automatic weapons into fully-automatic ones. This is apparently being billed as a positive sign of change rather than what it is: obvious lip-service to any calls for REAL common-sense gun controls.

Meanwhile, House Republicans still plan to enact retrospective tax relief on purchases of silencers because apparently those tough-guy gun enthusiasts are worried about hurting their poor little earsy-wearsies!