Las Vegas

[LisztesFerenc]

Exactly, and I keep thinking what has gone wrong along the way that this keeps happening? For example, a little more than 100 years ago you could go to the hardware store and buy a couple sticks of dynamite to get rid of that stump in the back pasture. One can no longer do that, but the fact remains around 1900 you could indeed do that. No one blew up a building in Ok-city or anything like that. Why is it happening now?

  There's a correlation between population density and crime rates, and in 1920 the US population was less than a third of what it is today (106 million vs. 323 million). The year JFK was assassinated, the US population was 58% of what it is today.

[Regina Minx]

...No one blew up a building in Ok-city or anything like that...

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_dynamite_campaign
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9502E3D91031E033A25755C0A9649C94659ED7CF&legacy=true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia#Assassination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism#Emergence_of_modern_terrorism
https://cromwell-intl.com/travel/usa/new-york-revolutionary/anarchists.html
https://www.amazon.com/Dynamite-Treason-Plot-Terrorism-Victorian/dp/0752463780

[LisztesFerenc]

  So, "proof" that this was a false flag operation: the festival is called Route 91, and it happened on the 1st of October, put those together and you have 91101, or 9/11/01. I should really purge my friends list on facebook.

[Retribution]

I got a problem with the limit on number of firearms idea. I think I explained that in previous posts so we will agree to not agree there.

On the other fronts, yes, it happened in the past I reckon. But maybe it has increased with the population. I do not know. It just feels like it is more prevalent now. Maybe because of better news coverage it just seems more prevalent. Hell, I do not know, I am just guessing. As I think about it I also wonder if the "success" of terrorism has made such things more prevalent. I just know I am 50 years old and do not recall these things happening near as often when I was a younger man.

[DominantPoet]

  So, "proof" that this was a false flag operation: the festival is called Route 91, and it happened on the 1st of October, put those together and you have 91101, or 9/11/01. I should really purge my friends list on facebook.

If you add together the two ones that gives you 2, and you get 90210. That show had a spin-off named Melrose Place, and another named Models Inc. The franchise has 3 shows in total, therefore - Half Life 3 confirmed.

*head desk*

It never ceases to amaze me the inane lengths people will go to come up with these "conspiracies".

[Oniya]

There are two factors in the 'outside help' conspiracy theories.  One is (as I mentioned before) why does Group X want you to believe that they helped Paddock.  The other is 'Why do you want to believe that Group X helped Paddock.'  The idea of 'other' is one possibility, but there is another, more primal reason that Timothy McVeigh himself stated when interviewed about whether he had outside help.  He told the interviewer "...'the truth is, I blew up the Murrah building and isn't it kind of scary that one man could reap this kind of hell?'"  (Source)

[Iniquitous]

There wasn't anything that triggered any systems in place now, but...  I'm getting different numbers on how many guns he had in the room, but yesterday I think it was I heard he had bought 45 guns in different towns and different states over the course of a year. Who needs that many?  I mean, growing up my parents had a few in the house, but not that many.  And they were all hunting rifles, not assault weapons.  My roommate knows a guy who has an AR who thinks it's fun to take it to a shooting range and decimate the target.  But he just has the one.  One of the common sense things that need put in place is a national registry so that someone is made aware if an individual starts buying high powered weapons like there is no tomorrow.  Personally, I don't think civilians need assault weapons, but one is a whole lot different than 45.  When you're buying that many in that short of a time you can't be up to anything good.

Bold part mine.  Some people collect guns just like others collect porcelain cat knick knacks. My youngest brother collects guns (and has quite an awesome collection).  And again - I hate that "civilians don't need assault weapons" crap.  The average US citizen wouldn't be able to tell what was an assault weapon and what isn't. (Case in point - the AR-15 does not mean Assault Rifle-15. It means Armorlite Rifle -15.)   The average US citizen doesn't even really understand the difference between semi-automatic (which is what an American can legally own) and an automatic (which the American cannot legally purchase). The lack of understanding about weapons in general is why I hate all of these discussions about gun control from every day citizens. Usually, the conversation ends up in arguments because of that lack of understanding and knowledge.

[Oniya]

The average US citizen doesn't even really understand the difference between semi-automatic (which is what an American can legally own) and an automatic (which the American cannot legally purchase).

From the StoreHouse:  A semi-automatic weapon is one where the trigger must be pulled once per shot, but can be operated without pause until the magazine is empty.  With an automatic weapon, the trigger may be held down for continuous fire, although most military-issued automatics include a '3-round' burst setting to help save on ammo.  (If you haven't hit your target in 3 rounds, you need to aim better, soldier!)

[Regina Minx]

From the StoreHouse:  A semi-automatic weapon is one where the trigger must be pulled once per shot, but can be operated without pause until the magazine is empty.  With an automatic weapon, the trigger may be held down for continuous fire, although most military-issued automatics include a '3-round' burst setting to help save on ammo.  (If you haven't hit your target in 3 rounds, you need to aim better, soldier!)

Ffffff. Calling a marine a soldier....

[LisztesFerenc]

Bold part mine.  Some people collect guns just like others collect porcelain cat knick knacks. My youngest brother collects guns (and has quite an awesome collection).  And again - I hate that "civilians don't need assault weapons" crap.

  Its true though, you don't need assault weapons. Collecting isn't a need. Going through the possibly actual uses of a gun:

  1. You can say you need a handgun for self-defense outside the home = not an assault weapon
  2. You need a rifle to  go hunting = could be an assault weapon, but doesn't have to, the ammo capacity doesn't have to be that high
  3. Shot gun can be used for hunting I believe, and you can say you need a shotgun for home defense = again, typically not an assault weapon

  That basically covers any "needs" you can possible have for guns. You may want to collect others, but that's no longer need.

[Retribution]

Trying not to argue as I have already said I do not agree, but in this case I am failing. One could argue that running water and electricity is not needed. I deal with not having either in hunting camp all the time. But that does not mean I plan on trying to go without when they can be had. One can argue free speech is not needed there are countries that do just fine without it. Does not mean I plan on giving up that right without a fight. Some can argue a vehicle is not needed people got by with horses for a long time. Anyway, you get my point I simply find that argument vexing. I have a big problem with another citizen or my government telling me what I do or do not need. I view it in the same vein as as politicians trying to tell same sex unions that they do not have the right. Who to hell died and made them god to dictate a life style?

Anyway, on that note I shall end my rant there. But as I have stated before I am sure I have a lot more firearms than most of you would think I "need." I consider that my business not yours. As for the three round burst autos? You see, on rock and roll it is hard as heck to hit something. The muzzle climbs and the effects of recoil make precise aim difficult. Three round bursts make the shooter slow down and aim. They also reduce the effect of muzzle climb. Full auto is for suppressing fire, keep the enemies head down. This guy had success with what amounted to full auto because he had a large mass he was shooting into. Spray and pray worked because all he had to do was point in the general direction.

[LisztesFerenc]

Trying not to argue as I have already said I do not agree, but in this case I am failing. One could argue that running water and electricity is not needed. I deal with not having either in hunting camp all the time. But that does not mean I plan on trying to go without when they can be had. One can argue free speech is not needed there are countries that do just fine without it. Does not mean I plan on giving up that right without a fight. Some can argue a vehicle is not needed people got by with horses for a long time. Anyway, you get my point I simply find that argument vexing. I have a big problem with another citizen or my government telling me what I do or do not need. I view it in the same vein as as politicians trying to tell same sex unions that they do not have the right. Who to hell died and made them god to dictate a life style?

  You're reading WAY too much into what I said. I said you don't need assault weapons. That's all. Nothing about dictating your life style, nothing about needing to give up your right. Simply that any need you can have for guns would involve semi automatic weapons.

  And comparing it to running water and electricity is a bad example, there are health complication associated with not having ready access to them. There are no health complications associated with not having access to assault weapons.

[Retribution]

I was not referring to assault weapons I was referring to limits on numbers of firearms a person may be allowed to have. Perhaps I used bad examples, but at the end of the day that is just something I will not go for. But we can also have a disagreement on that and still be civil which we both are. So sorry if my tone was poor.

I guess at the end of the day here is the real rub for me on that. Take 911, Oklahoma, whatever tragedy or terrorist event. Part of the intent of those perpetrators is also to affect the way people live. Or at least I think that is part of what it is. In the case of 911 for example they were very successful in that area.

Call me obstinate, but when it comes to things like this to quote Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge "do not give the bastard the satisfaction."

[LisztesFerenc]

I was not referring to assault weapons I was referring to limits on numbers of firearms a person may be allowed to have. Perhaps I used bad examples, but at the end of the day that is just something I will not go for. But we can also have a disagreement on that and still be civil which we both are. So sorry if my tone was poor.

  To be clear, when I talk about guns and need, its the same thing I mean when I say "No one needs to own more than 3 houses". I don't oppose people owning 4+ houses, I'm not saying they should lose that property or have their rights to ownership compromised in any way, I am simply stating that they don't need to have that many.

I guess at the end of the day here is the real rub for me on that. Take 911, Oklahoma, whatever tragedy or terrorist event. Part of the intent of those perpetrators is also to affect the way people live. Or at least I think that is part of what it is. In the case of 911 for example they were very successful in that area.

Call me obstinate, but when it comes to things like this to quote Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge "do not give the bastard the satisfaction."

  I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your point her with reference to 9/11. Are you against the security measured that have been introduced since then, as the change to our lifestyle meant giving "the bastard the satisfaction"?

[Oniya]

  I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your point her with reference to 9/11. Are you against the security measured that have been introduced since then, as the change to our lifestyle meant giving "the bastard the satisfaction"?

I know I enjoyed being 'randomly selected' for special screening when flying up for my husband's grandmother's funeral.  In a stunning coincidence, he was 'randomly selected' as well on a different flight (he'd been OTR).  I'm sure that the fact we were flying same-day tickets had nothing to do with that.

[Retribution]

Unfortunately we had to take those measures. So no, though I do question the usefulness of say airport security patting down a 90 year old woman in a wheelchair to show they are not profiling.

Just lets not change more than absolutely needed. Otherwise bad guy wins so to speak.

[Retribution]

I know I enjoyed being 'randomly selected' for special screening when flying up for my husband's grandmother's funeral.  In a stunning coincidence, he was 'randomly selected' as well on a different flight (he'd been OTR).  I'm sure that the fact we were flying same-day tickets had nothing to do with that.

I know a poor bastard who happens to have the same name as someone on a watch list. He allows all day to board a plane.

[Serephino]

I am not saying people shouldn't be allowed to collect guns.  What I am saying is that if a person does end up having a large number, especially if they are high powered, that somebody knows about it.  If a person just wants to collect, and doesn't plan on going on a shooting spree, what is there to hide?  I'm not sure exactly how many guns my parents had when I was little.  They each had a deer rifle, and a bird shot gun, my dad had an antique Brownie that was a family heirloom.  And except for my dad shooting up a neighbor's back porch one night, they were responsible with them. 

Also, there is a difference between buying a few collectible firearms in a year vs 45 in one year.  Chances are, if you are buying a lot of them very quickly, you're not up to any good.  I am not anti-gun.  I just really want to see something put in place to stop this crap.

I'm also against people with mental illnesses getting their hands on guns.  That would mean I could never have one, but I'm completely fine with that.  I'm not jumping up and down screaming for everyone's guns to be taken away, just asking for people to use their heads and figure out what is wrong and fix it.  Because I guarantee you that if nothing at all changes then by the end of the year, or at least by the end of next year, the Vegas shooting will no longer be the deadliest one in modern history.  Some psycho will get it in their heads to top it, and use current loopholes to do it.  I'm sick of it, so shut the loopholes already.

[Retribution]

I am not saying people shouldn't be allowed to collect guns.  What I am saying is that if a person does end up having a large number, especially if they are high powered, that somebody knows about it.  If a person just wants to collect, and doesn't plan on going on a shooting spree, what is there to hide?  I'm not sure exactly how many guns my parents had when I was little.  They each had a deer rifle, and a bird shot gun, my dad had an antique Brownie that was a family heirloom.  And except for my dad shooting up a neighbor's back porch one night, they were responsible with them. 

Also, there is a difference between buying a few collectible firearms in a year vs 45 in one year.  Chances are, if you are buying a lot of them very quickly, you're not up to any good.  I am not anti-gun.  I just really want to see something put in place to stop this crap.

I'm also against people with mental illnesses getting their hands on guns.  That would mean I could never have one, but I'm completely fine with that.  I'm not jumping up and down screaming for everyone's guns to be taken away, just asking for people to use their heads and figure out what is wrong and fix it.  Because I guarantee you that if nothing at all changes then by the end of the year, or at least by the end of next year, the Vegas shooting will no longer be the deadliest one in modern history.  Some psycho will get it in their heads to top it, and use current loopholes to do it.  I'm sick of it, so shut the loopholes already.

Hey there! If you look at the points I made earlier I think I addressed this, but I will refine my stance a bit for you. First off I have no issue with some trigger for a closer look being set off at X number of firearms in Y time period. But I get nervous about the compilation of lists. The reason being, I have worked as a government regulator for 30 years. How rule making takes place is legislation is passed then people like me and my agency's legal staff decide what the intent of the law was as well as what it means. That often times turns out to not quite be what the framers of said law had in mind. Then toss in general government incompetence and you get the idea how screwed up it can be. So yeah compiling lists of who has what firearms concerns me. It is ripe for abuse kind of like the current practice of tracking cell phone calls and the like.

Having said that, at least in my home state and four others I guide in, when one buys a firearm their name so on as well as serial number is collected for a background check. The length of waiting period varies from state to state and is ostensibly so that said background check can be conducted. And yes, they even are legally required to do this at gun shows despite news arguments to the contrary. The real rub is like in my case I travel as a hunting guide in different states, so when I purchase firearms or ammo in other states my documents are from another state. Then toss in a side od differing laws from state to state and it gets complicated. But in all cases, once the background check is done the feds require that info listing what firearm I bought is not stored on some master list under my name. But if at anytime in the future that firearm turns up used in a crime by its serial number it can be tracked who bought it, when, where. That is the sort of thing I back as well as a national list doing away with state laws that as I explained complicate things and putting it all under one UNIFORM fed law.

Also, as I am drinking my java this morn let me offer up something on "assault weapons." Here is my rub with that label. As I explained in previous posts before the "ban" I purchased a firearm I still have. It has a bayonet and lug. When the "ban" took place it was grandfathered in, but it was considered an "assault weapon" because it had a bayonet. But if you went into a gun shop they had racks of the dam things for sale they just all had, had the bayonet removed. The "ban" expired and now those racks in a gun shop have bayonets again. The thought process being that bayonet makes said firearm a military weapon used only for killing people. Take it off and it is a sporting weapon. Yet, the same semi auto action functions the same on AR, AK, or the shotgun I duck hunt with. Color me skeptical but I do not see where such things make much of a difference.

Now large capacity magazines are indeed a bit of another matter. But someone like me who is familiar with firearms looks at that and goes "uh it literally takes me a second to slap another mag in." That is also why knowledgeable sorts look at things like the Vegas shooter and wonder why to hell he carried 12 firearms or whatever it was to his room. It takes longer to pick another one up. Maybe one backup if you get a jam or whatever, but the rest is action movie BS.

Anyway, hope that clears up some of my views.

[ReijiTabibito]

Just wanted to chime into this thread - perhaps just this once (though if it is, this thread will probably go on for another dozen pages and I'll get reminded every time there's a new post) - but maybe my statement will spark something.

Whenever an event like Vegas, or Orlando, or any mass shooting occurs, the immediate impulse is to discuss gun control.  But to approach the problem from a lateral angle, guns aren't the problem.

(Before you decide I've gone full Heston, hear me out.)

Firearms are weapons, things designed for a very select purpose - but they rely upon a very specific supply.

Bullets.  Cartridges.  Rounds.  Call them whatever you will.  But an empty gun is essentially a very heavy paperweight, which can be used to kill people, with a factor of 'not as easy' as a loaded firearm.

French firearms law has a number of provisions, but one of its provisions is that it limits the number of cartridges that can be purchased for a weapon every year.

I'm not 100% on what the total statistics are for this, but I would imagine that Paddock expended a not-insignifcant amount of ammunition to be able to carry out this attack.  (If someone can provide me with the stats on that, that would be excellent.)  Now, maybe he'd been planning this for the last 10 years and an ammunition limit law would have done all of jack and squat (and Jack left town) against it.  But shouldn't we at least entertain the notion that if someone walks into a store and asks to buy 3000 rounds of ammunition, there should be some sort of 'hey, something's off' here alert?

[TheGlyphstone]

It probably wouldn't be nearly as effective as you might think, since reloading equipment is easy to obtain by virtue of its value to sport hunters. Similarly, gunpowder can be bought in bulk for industrial purposes and there's a huge secondhand market for empty brass. To get the same effect by putting a bottleneck on ammunition supply, you would require even more legislation and have significantly more side effects in unrelated areas.

[Doomblade403xxx]

I am not saying people shouldn't be allowed to collect guns.  What I am saying is that if a person does end up having a large number, especially if they are high powered, that somebody knows about it.  If a person just wants to collect, and doesn't plan on going on a shooting spree, what is there to hide?  I'm not sure exactly how many guns my parents had when I was little.  They each had a deer rifle, and a bird shot gun, my dad had an antique Brownie that was a family heirloom.  And except for my dad shooting up a neighbor's back porch one night, they were responsible with them. 

Also, there is a difference between buying a few collectible firearms in a year vs 45 in one year.  Chances are, if you are buying a lot of them very quickly, you're not up to any good.  I am not anti-gun.  I just really want to see something put in place to stop this crap.

I'm also against people with mental illnesses getting their hands on guns.  That would mean I could never have one, but I'm completely fine with that.  I'm not jumping up and down screaming for everyone's guns to be taken away, just asking for people to use their heads and figure out what is wrong and fix it.  Because I guarantee you that if nothing at all changes then by the end of the year, or at least by the end of next year, the Vegas shooting will no longer be the deadliest one in modern history.  Some psycho will get it in their heads to top it, and use current loopholes to do it.  I'm sick of it, so shut the loopholes already.

They do know about it bro. Any gun you buy in my state new or used has a ream of paperwork that goes along with it. The dealer or pawn shop that sells it to you have to be a licensed federal firearms dealer. There are background checks with every purchase. Handguns sold from person to person also fall under this restriction. The sheriffs department runs a check for these transactions and papers have to be filed through the government.

And let's take a look at the past few years, not only here but abroad. About 4 years ago a chinese dude went nuts in a subway station and killed a bunch of people with a knife before he was stopped. In France a man with a truck killed 80 some odd people. This isn't about the instrument. If a killer wants to kill, he will kill and you would be shocked at the number of ways they can do it. There are components to lethal devices in every hardware store, dollar general, dollar tree, and wal mart in the country. These shootings make flashy headlines and strike our jaded shock and awe centers but gun violence is not the worse problem in our society.

We lose about 3500 people a year from Heroin Overdoses. About 9800 from drunk driving. 40000 in motor vehicle crashes. 8000 from cigarettes. 75000 from alcohol. All statistics easily found with a google search. So not doggin on you, but if we are going to start taking a stand against stuff that kills, there is a whole mess of things that kill just as bad, if not worse than a gun. It's not guns that kill anyway. You give a law abiding citizen a gun and its just his gun. Uses it to hunt, target shoot, or just have for protection. Literally millions of people today in our country own guns and didn't go out on a spree killing each and every day. The killer is responsible for his actions...no what he used.

[LisztesFerenc]

And let's take a look at the past few years, not only here but abroad. About 4 years ago a chinese dude went nuts in a subway station and killed a bunch of people with a knife before he was stopped. In France a man with a truck killed 80 some odd people. This isn't about the instrument.

  Then why is the murder rate in the US so much higher than any other Western country? Other than access to guns, what other unique attribute does the US have to explain this? This isn't shooting being flashy and therefor reported by the media, homicide rate per 100,000 is cold hard fact.

  Plus, that's if you only focus on murder. Many more people commit suicide by guns in the US, and whilst a common argument is they would commit suicide by other means, that is false as a quick google research will tell you.

We lose about 3500 people a year from Heroin Overdoses. About 9800 from drunk driving. 40000 in motor vehicle crashes. 8000 from cigarettes. 75000 from alcohol.

  Which are problems in all Western countries. Gun violence is, again, unique to the USA.

[Doomblade403xxx]

  Then why is the murder rate in the US so much higher than any other Western country? Other than access to guns, what other unique attribute does the US have to explain this? This isn't shooting being flashy and therefor reported by the media, homicide rate per 100,000 is cold hard fact.

  Plus, that's if you only focus on murder. Many more people commit suicide by guns in the US, and whilst a common argument is they would commit suicide by other means, that is false as a quick google research will tell you.

  Which are problems in all Western countries. Gun violence is, again, unique to the USA.

As a former law enforcement officer I have seen plenty of suicides. As a general rule the methods of suicide generally depend on whats at hand and the sex of those involved. Firearm suicides with women are rare. But the issue is not suicides either. If someone wants to kill themselves they will do it. Again a gun is not the issue in that case either. A hose from the tailpipe of your car, rope, razor blade, or overdosing are also methods of suicide. Just what I worked on or was privy too in my service, 2 hangings, 3 overdoses, 1 shotgun blast to the mouth, and last but not least the dude I dragged out of his car as he tried to asphyxiate himself with exhaust. Everyone wants to point a finger at guns and act like that is the only issue in society today. It's not. You can sit a gun someplace fully loaded and watch it 24/7. It will do nothing. It's the person who picks it up thats going to do something with it.

[LisztesFerenc]

As a former law enforcement officer I have seen plenty of suicides. As a general rule the methods of suicide generally depend on whats at hand and the sex of those involved. Firearm suicides with women are rare. But the issue is not suicides either. If someone wants to kill themselves they will do it.

  That's not true. The majority of suicide attempts fail, the majority who fail do not reattempt. These are from statistics gathered the WHO. This "if they want to they will" suits the gun lobby because it makes the suicides from guns seem as if they cannot be attributed to the instrument of choice, but it isn't true, they can. Guns are the second most lethal method of suicide and the most common in the US.

Everyone wants to point a finger at guns and act like that is the only issue in society today. It's not. You can sit a gun someplace fully loaded and watch it 24/7. It will do nothing. It's the person who picks it up thats going to do something with it.

  A bomb without the detonator won't do anything on its own either. Should it be legal to possess them as long as the two are kept separate? Of course not. A signal jammer won't do anything as long as its switch off. Can I bring mine on a plane? I won't turn it on.