After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]Laws prohibiting the number of weapons one could own, the type of weapons one could purchase, and the type of aftermarket accessories legally able to be added to those weapons would have severely hampered his ability to carry out this attack.
The shooter had 9 guns in his hotel, and owned a total of seventeen. Many of the weapons he owned, and the ones he committed his attack with, were magazine-fed assault rifles. He also owned high capacity magazines, and he had legal aftermarket trigger modifications that simulated fully automatic fire. All of this was legally owned.
If he had not had multiple "fully automatic" assault rifles with high capacity magazines, he could not have carried out his attack. It's as simple as that.
Prohibit the sale of magazine fed weapons to civilians. Restrict them to shotguns and bolt-action rifles, suitable for hunting, and to revolver weaponry suitable for self defense. Prohibit the private sale of existing magazine fed weapons, as well, and seize and destroy any weapons found in which the owner cannot provide proof of original ownership.
Violence can still be perpetrated with the above weapons, but not [I]nearly[/I] with the same rapidity or coverage as seen in our deadliest shootings. While it may still be possible to acquire magazine fed weapons [I]illegally[/I], it adds several barriers and complications. You must be able to locate a black market dealer, you must deal with the imminent risks of involving yourself with violent criminal enterprises, you must have substantially more money on hand to purchase what you're trying to purchase, what you're trying to purchase may be damaged or unreliable due to the lack of quality control or care before it fell into your hands, if ownership of such weapons is illegal it also increases the risk of discovery and arrest, if you are discovered with a weapon that may have already been "hot" before you purchased it, you could find murder charges appended to your illegal arms charges, etc, etc.
Furthermore, even the aforementioned legal civilian firearm types (revolvers, bolt actions, etc) should require a comprehensive criminal and medical background check, with anybody discovered to have a history of criminal behavior or psychological disorders being permanently and irrevocably barred from owning firearms.
Yes, I know, this pisses all over your fun little hobby, but your fun little hobby isn't worth the level of death and despair those taking advantage of it are responsible for in this country. I don't give a lick if legal and law-abiding gun owners are inconvenienced and have to find a new hobby, because they chose a hobby glorifying instruments of death, and those instruments are being used to their intended purpose to horrifying effect on a regular basis.
I also find no stock in the constitutional defense for gun ownership in this regard, as the constitutional right to gun ownership came at a time in which its creators couldn't even [I]conceive[/I] of the weapons of mass destruction we have on the shelves of every gun store in the country today. That archaic amendment is fully incompatible with modern society. As for having the firepower to rebel against the state? Grow up, tbh.[/QUOTE]
With that many blatant exaggerations and lack of understanding, you should run for office.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52742362]yeah, but you can stab people, or blow them up, or drive a truck in to them.
I'm not pro gun, but at a point I don't want people to restrict guns and then except that to be the big fix that's causing these attacks to happen, and then ignore deeper issues.
yeah, if he didn't have a gun it's doubtful he'd kill as many people as he did, and I don't think civilians should have access to these types of firearms, but I don't think a gun was the deciding factor between him carrying out an attack and not carrying out an attack.[/QUOTE]
This is part of the issue with this whole debate; One side thinks it has to be either all or nothing.
If gun control could change a madman's mass-shooting with 50 dead into a knife rampage with 5 dead that'd be a massive success.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52742357]Not as big of a problem as it's made out to be. They're going to be unreliable, inaccurate, low in capacity and anybody who sees it or hears about it will instantly know it's illegal.[/QUOTE]
If I can build full auto stens, so can anyone else. The difference being I can do it legally. Don't pretend people aren't smart enough to make a gun, it's not rocket science. Anyone with basic tools and access to Google can make a sten from scratch, and anyone with moderate knowledge on machining can build an M16 from scratch.
[QUOTE=Mud;52742338]It being fair or not is not relevant to me at all. I own guns too, most of my family does but i do not deny the fact that it sounds like a very effective solution. That is what matters to me.[/QUOTE]
I don't think I can really deny that it is an effective solution, but I don't think it is the right solution.
I don't like it because it punishes people who have done no crimes no have any aspirations to any such crimes.
It'd be like banning free speech because of people using it for hate speech. It would punish people who do no wrong. I know this isn't exactly equivalent because this relates to loss of life, but most people who have guns don't run around shooting people. And most people don't run around slinging hate speech.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52742362]yeah, but you can stab people, or blow them up, or drive a truck in to them.
I'm not pro gun, but at a point I don't want people to restrict guns and then except that to be the big fix that's causing these attacks to happen, and then ignore deeper issues.
yeah, if he didn't have a gun it's doubtful he'd kill as many people as he did, and I don't think civilians should have access to these types of firearms, but I don't think a gun was the deciding factor between him carrying out an attack and not carrying out an attack.[/QUOTE]
The guy owned fucking [b]aircraft[/b] and people are pointing at the firearms as if a ban on high-capacity magazines would have solely averted tragedy.
I was at a meeting today with my thesis handler who research command and control within our defenses, and of course the shooting was brought up since it happened recently and was somewhat relevant to our research area.
"Banning guns", "better mental health", "more detailed background checks" are solutions that are easy to think about and easy to visualize. But obviously if you give it 10 seconds of thoughts, you'd understand they are extremely involved and may in the end not solve the problem at all. Because you're looking at this problem from an extremely top-down and static point of view.
Right at this moment from what I've read about the shooter, it wouldn't seem that any of the solutions I mentioned, except a total ban and magically vanishing all guns from the US would have stopped him.
Me and my handler talk a lot about Islamic terrorism, and how an individual becomes an extremist. We try to model and simulate an individual and the factors that affect him in daily life that'd cause him to "snap" and become an extremist. But it's so damn hard without being very intrusive and you start affecting more people than intended. Anyway, so without being too intrusive, you could affect different very detailed factors, things like banning extremist groups from Facebook in order to minimize their exposure to the public in an attempt to "steer" sensitive individuals away from extremism.
In the state that the US is right now, it seems to me that it's only these small factors that you realistically can and "are allowed" to change to minimize the risk for shootings like this to happen. Just pulling out of thin air, but say, x-ray the bags of tourists when they check-in at a hotel, surround open venues with protective glass or whatever. They don't require changes to any laws, and can be done right now.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52742362]yeah, but you can stab people, or blow them up, or drive a truck in to them.
I'm not pro gun, but at a point I don't want people to restrict guns and then except that to be the big fix that's causing these attacks to happen, and then ignore deeper issues.
yeah, if he didn't have a gun it's doubtful he'd kill as many people as he did, and I don't think civilians should have access to these types of firearms, but I don't think a gun was the deciding factor between him carrying out an attack and not carrying out an attack.[/QUOTE]
Dood, a guy in Nice killed more people with a rental truck than this guy killed with automatic rifles. A gun is not the end all be all of murder.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52742324]So basically punish 100,000,000+ people for the insane acts of <30k?
Brilliant logic. While we're at it lets also heavily restrict who can buy diesel fuel, and how much they can buy. All you need to kill even more people is to rent an Isuzu NPR from Ryder, buy a couple hundred gallons of diesel, get a few hundred pounds of ammonia based fertilizer, and hop on Google to reenact the OKC bombing. We cant have that, now can we, so lets fuck over millions of innocent and law abiding people because an extreme minority cant control themselves!
Here's a better and more practical idea: Mandate high rise hotels fit their facilities with windows capable of resisting a .308 indefinitely. That would have stopped this guy cold, and it wouldnt inconvenience and punish a third of the country to do so.[/QUOTE]
It's not punishing anybody, it's just controlling an item responsible for a public health crisis.
I obviously don't expect y'all to agree with me, being gun advocates, but I don't think that your ability to own an item takes precedence over peoples' lives.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52742357]Not as big of a problem as it's made out to be. They're going to be unreliable, inaccurate, low in capacity and anybody who sees them or hears about them will instantly recognize them as illegal.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.paladin-press.com/product/Home_Workshop_Guns_For_Defense_and_Resistance_Vol_I/Home_Workshop_Guns_and_Ammo[/url]
[url]https://www.google.com/amp/www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/08/05/bill-holmes-homemade-smg-others-spotted-australia/amp/[/url]
[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNcLjtfj1o0[/url]
Please check out these links rebutting your claim. As for magazines, those can be purchased quite cheaply, or made out of sheet metal and springs. It would be rather difficult to ban steel pipe, springs, and sheetmetal, wouldn't it?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742397]It's not punishing anybody, it's just controlling an item responsible for a public health crisis.
I obviously don't expect y'all to agree with me, being gun advocates, but I don't think that your ability to own an item takes precedence over peoples' lives.[/QUOTE]
By that rationale we should bring back prohibition.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742397]It's not punishing anybody, it's just controlling an item responsible for a public health crisis.
I obviously don't expect y'all to agree with me, being gun advocates, but I don't think that your ability to own an item takes precedence over peoples' lives.[/QUOTE]
If youre concerned about items causing a hwalth crisis, maybe focus on cheese burgers and drunk drivers. They both kill far more people than guns do.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52742374]If I can build full auto stens, so can anyone else. The difference being I can do it legally. Don't pretend people aren't smart enough to make a gun, it's not rocket science. Anyone with basic tools and access to Google can make a sten from scratch, and anyone with moderate knowledge on machining can build an M16 from scratch.[/QUOTE]
What really matters is how many would realistically do it, though.
Making your own wine to get out of paying exorbitant alcohol tax is both legal and so easy anyone could do it at home, and alcohol is arguably even more popular with people than guns are in the US, yet most people aren't brewing at home.
Again, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Just enough to make a difference.
EDIT:
But, no amount of legislation will be truly effective until the US realizes they have a problem. Maybe we're slowly getting there.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742397]It's not punishing anybody, it's just controlling an item responsible for a public health crisis.
I obviously don't expect y'all to agree with me, being gun advocates, but I don't think that your ability to own an item takes precedence over peoples' lives.[/QUOTE]
So when are we taking another crack at alcohol?
Is people getting drunk on the weekends [I]really[/I] worth the lives it destroys? The families?
I'm talking about saving lives here, man.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742397]It's not punishing anybody, it's just controlling an item responsible for a public health crisis.
I obviously don't expect y'all to agree with me, being gun advocates, but I don't think that your ability to own an item takes precedence over peoples' lives.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it is punishment. When you take something away from someone which they where allowed to own originally because of an act someone else did it is punishment. You're depriving people of things they had because of someone else.
This country doesn't care about people nor does it care about public health crisis. If the people in power did we would have universal healthcare, rehab would be an option for drug offenders, we would have better education, etc. This mass shooting is only going to be used to disarm and erode the rights of people who did nothing wrong.
The way we act now will define how future events are reacted too. Sorry, you can't legislate evil away and you can take, take, and take every time something happens but eventually people will snap.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52742362]yeah, but you can stab people, or blow them up, or drive a truck in to them.
I'm not pro gun, but at a point I don't want people to restrict guns and then except that to be the big fix that's causing these attacks to happen, and then ignore deeper issues.
yeah, if he didn't have a gun it's doubtful he'd kill as many people as he did, and I don't think civilians should have access to these types of firearms, but I don't think a gun was the deciding factor between him carrying out an attack and not carrying out an attack.[/QUOTE]
sure. and then he would've carried out a significantly less effective attack
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52742404]If youre concerned about items causing a hwalth crisis, maybe focus on cheese burgers and drunk drivers. They both kill far more people than guns do.[/QUOTE]
Cheeseburgers "kill" the person eating them, not the dozens of people around him.
Drunk driving absolutely SHOULD be, and IS highly illegal, so...?
[editline]3rd October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52742362]yeah, but you can stab people, or blow them up, or drive a truck in to them.
I'm not pro gun, but at a point I don't want people to restrict guns and then except that to be the big fix that's causing these attacks to happen, and then ignore deeper issues.
yeah, if he didn't have a gun it's doubtful he'd kill as many people as he did, and I don't think civilians should have access to these types of firearms, but I don't think a gun was the deciding factor between him carrying out an attack and not carrying out an attack.[/QUOTE]
Could a senior citizen have killed 58 people and injured over five hundred more with a knife from the 32nd floor of a building? Kind of an absurd argument. Go out and try to chase down and stab six hundred people. Let me know how that goes.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742435]Drunk driving absolutely SHOULD be, and IS highly illegal, so...?[/QUOTE]
And mass shootings are illegal, so, problem solved, right? Or do we need to unilaterally ban alcohol to ensure that it cannot be misused, because your right to own an item shouldn't take precedence over lives?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742435]Drunk driving absolutely SHOULD be, and IS highly illegal, so...?[/QUOTE]
come on, man, i know you understand the argument so why are you being obtuse in this way
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]Laws prohibiting the number of weapons one could own, the type of weapons one could purchase, and the type of aftermarket accessories legally able to be added to those weapons would have severely hampered his ability to carry out this attack.
The shooter had 9 guns in his hotel, and owned a total of seventeen. Many of the weapons he owned, and the ones he committed his attack with, were magazine-fed assault rifles. He also owned high capacity magazines, and he had legal aftermarket trigger modifications that simulated fully automatic fire. All of this was legally owned.
If he had not had multiple "fully automatic" assault rifles with high capacity magazines, he could not have carried out his attack. It's as simple as that.
Prohibit the sale of magazine fed weapons to civilians. Restrict them to shotguns and bolt-action rifles, suitable for hunting, and to revolver weaponry suitable for self defense. Prohibit the private sale of existing magazine fed weapons, as well, and seize and destroy any weapons found in which the owner cannot provide proof of original ownership.
Violence can still be perpetrated with the above weapons, but not [I]nearly[/I] with the same rapidity or coverage as seen in our deadliest shootings. While it may still be possible to acquire magazine fed weapons [I]illegally[/I], it adds several barriers and complications. You must be able to locate a black market dealer, you must deal with the imminent risks of involving yourself with violent criminal enterprises, you must have substantially more money on hand to purchase what you're trying to purchase, what you're trying to purchase may be damaged or unreliable due to the lack of quality control or care before it fell into your hands, if ownership of such weapons is illegal it also increases the risk of discovery and arrest, if you are discovered with a weapon that may have already been "hot" before you purchased it, you could find murder charges appended to your illegal arms charges, etc, etc.
Furthermore, even the aforementioned legal civilian firearm types (revolvers, bolt actions, etc) should require a comprehensive criminal and medical background check, with anybody discovered to have a history of criminal behavior or psychological disorders being permanently and irrevocably barred from owning firearms.
Yes, I know, this pisses all over your fun little hobby, but your fun little hobby isn't worth the level of death and despair those taking advantage of it are responsible for in this country. I don't give a lick if legal and law-abiding gun owners are inconvenienced and have to find a new hobby, because they chose a hobby glorifying instruments of death, and those instruments are being used to their intended purpose to horrifying effect on a regular basis.
I also find no stock in the constitutional defense for gun ownership in this regard, as the constitutional right to gun ownership came at a time in which its creators couldn't even [I]conceive[/I] of the weapons of mass destruction we have on the shelves of every gun store in the country today. That archaic amendment is fully incompatible with modern society. As for having the firepower to rebel against the state? Grow up, tbh.[/QUOTE]
What does this solve? Say this was implemented. All firearms that feed from detachable magazines are completely banned. What now? What does this do to the thousands upon thousands of magazine fed firearms already out there?
Fucking nothing is what it does.
Do you actually believe that a significant portion of gun owners are just going to be like "whelp, guess all my guns are illegal now, time to turn 'em in"? I live in Alabama and am a gun owner myself, I have plenty of first hand experience as to what these people are like and what they believe. They're not gonna peacefully hand them over. You're left with two options here, either A) forcibly disarm the entire populace to which I say yeah keep dreaming bud, or B) do something less drastic and immediate, which again, leaves you with this problem of existing guns still being out there. And if you take the second route which is the only one even conceivably viable, you've turned literally every citizen who owns a magazine-fed firearm into a potential black market dealer. And people might be less (and I say less because this is definitely a thing that already exists) open to selling their guns to people directly for cash right now, but with an absurd and draconian magazine-fed weapons ban such as this, there's gonna be a huge spike these sort of anonymous untraceable transfers as a fuck you to the government, with a strong sentiment of "keeping the second amendment alive" type shit. You can only prohibit the private sale of weapons if you know when/where it's happening, and unless you're also advocating for [i]even more[/i] mass surveillance, any two random chucklefucks can arrange a deal on social media and meet up in a Walmart parking lot. So now when someone wants to buy a magazine-fed rifle in order to commit some kind of spree shooting, instead of going to a licenced dealer who is obligated to perform a background check which could potentially prevent the sale (and of course, more checks/mandatory training/whatever can be legislated in), they can simply find one of those aforementioned chucklefucks who happens to have one of these rifles and buy it off of them.
Once again, the only people you've truly "pissed over" are the normal folks who [i]aren't[/i] gonna open fire on a crowded concert with fully automatic weapons.
And let's say that this potential spree killer can't find anyone willing to sell a gun to them. Alright, fine. They can just ram a car into a crowded area, as we've seen demonstrated oh so recently. Or make a bomb. Or use a knife. Or use literally anything else that can potentially kill someone. You haven't stopped spree killings, you've only slightly lessened their effectiveness at the cost of vast overreaching crackdowns on civil liberties.
Tell me, how is this an improvement?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742435]Could a senior citizens have killed 58 people and injured over five hundred more with a knife from the 32nd floor of a building?[/QUOTE]
He sure as fuck could have killed 58 people and injured over five hundred more with the [b]airplane[/b] he owned. Of all the cases to bring up 'alternative means' this is absolutely, unequivocally a case where he DID have equally viable alternative means at his disposal.
[QUOTE=Potus;52741916]I've always wondered if there should be a limit on the number of guns that a person can own. So far they have found 42 guns this guy had. Why do you need that many? And maybe have a system where the more dangerous guns are kept at a gun range, but I don't know. Guns are a right, but people can be fucking stupid with them. Maybe some sort of test/class owners have to take every year to prove they are competent enough to own their guns.[/QUOTE]
Why? Last time I checked, one person can only operate one, maybe two guns at a time. The only real risk with someone owning 42 guns vs. 3 guns is the possibility of them being stolen and used in a crime, but if you can afford 42 guns, you have no excuse not to have a proper safe for them.
[QUOTE=Nukedrabbit95;52742442]What does this solve? Say this was implemented. All firearms that feed from detachable magazines are completely banned. What now? What does this do to the thousands upon thousands of magazine fed firearms already out there?
Fucking nothing is what it does.
Do you actually believe that a significant portion of gun owners are just going to be like "whelp, guess all my guns are illegal now, time to turn 'em in"? I live in Alabama and am a gun owner myself, I have plenty of first hand experience as to what these people are like and what they believe. They're not gonna peacefully hand them over. You're left with two options here, either A) forcibly disarm the entire populace to which I say yeah keep dreaming bud, or B) do something less drastic and immediate, which again, leaves you with this problem of existing guns still being out there. And if you take the second route which is the only one even conceivably viable, you've turned literally every citizen who owns a magazine-fed firearm into a potential black market dealer. And people might be less (and I say less because this is definitely a thing that already exists) open to selling their guns to people directly for cash right now, but with an absurd and draconian magazine-fed weapons ban such as this, there's gonna be a huge spike these sort of anonymous untraceable transfers as a fuck you to the government, with a strong sentiment of "keeping the second amendment alive" type shit. You can only prohibit the private sale of weapons if you know when/where it's happening, and unless you're also advocating for [i]even more[/i] mass surveillance, any two random chucklefucks can arrange a deal on social media and meet up in a Walmart parking lot. So now when someone wants to buy a magazine-fed rifle in order to commit some kind of spree shooting, instead of going to a licences dealer who is obligated to perform a background check which could potentially prevent the sale (and of course, more checks/mandatory training/whatever can be legislated in), they can simply find one of those aforementioned chucklefucks who happens to have one of these rifles and buy it off of them.
Once again, the only people you've truly "pissed over" are the normal folks who [i]aren't[/i] gonna open fire on a crowded concert with fully automatic weapons.
And let's say that this potential spree killer can't find anyone willing to sell a gun to them. Alright, fine. They can just ram a car into a crowded area, as we've seen demonstrated oh so recently. Or make a bomb. Or use a knife. Or use literally anything else that can potentially kill someone. You haven't stopped spree killings, you've only slightly lessened their effectiveness at the cost of vast overreaching crackdowns on civil liberties.
Tell me, how is this an improvement?[/QUOTE]
There's no overnight solution, and that's not what I'm advocating. Right now, such weapons are being actively created and introduced into the market. Stop it now, and over decades we can slowly reduce the existing population of such weapons through simple attrition. We don't need to conduct mass raids and seizures, charging into peoples' homes to rip them from their hands. Just kill production, pick up illegal weapons during the course of regular every day policing, and wait.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742435]Cheeseburgers "kill" the person eating them, not the dozens of people around him.
Drunk driving absolutely SHOULD be, and IS highly illegal, so...?[/QUOTE]
I feel thats a false equivalency. Thats an act, not an object used to commit that act. Its like banning all Toyotas because of a drunk driver. Or banning all alcohol to stop drunk driving (that turned out well last time).
Come on man.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52742443]He sure as fuck could have killed 58 people and injured over five hundred more with the [b]airplane[/b] he owned. Of all the cases to bring up 'alternative means' this is absolutely, unequivocally a case where he DID have equally viable alternative means at his disposal.[/QUOTE]
Why are you parading this around as a fact? I'll admit I don't know that much about airplanes, but it looks like he only had a license to fly small planes, and I find it hard to believe he could kill 58 people and injure over 500 with that. Did he own something bigger, because I haven't found any info on that
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742452]There's no overnight solution, and that's not what I'm advocating. Right now, such weapons are being actively created and introduced into the market. Stop it now, and over decades we can slowly reduce the existing population of such weapons through simple attrition. We don't need to conduct mass raids and seizures, charging into peoples' homes to rip them from their hands. Just kill production, pick up illegal weapons during the course of regular every day policing, and wait.[/QUOTE]
When do we do this with alcohol?
It destroys families, causes drunk driving, people get into fights and possibly kill each other, causes disease.
I just simply don't think your right to get drunk on the weekends is worth the little girl who daddy rapes her while shes drunk, or the college kids who got drunk, fought, and accidentally killed the other when he hit his head on the way down.
Begin phasing put high abv. Beverages and high capacity breweries, and sick the cops on the shiners who pop up.
Alcohol, the demon of our time, will be gone eventually. Its simple attrition.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742452]There's no overnight solution, and that's not what I'm advocating. Right now, such weapons are being actively created and introduced into the market. Stop it now, and over decades we can slowly reduce the existing population of such weapons through simple attrition. We don't need to conduct mass raids and seizures, charging into peoples' homes to rip them from their hands. Just kill production, pick up illegal weapons during the course of regular every day policing, and wait.[/QUOTE]
Wait while the gun industry immediately comes up with workarounds for your feel-good legislation, Democrats suffer political backlash like they did after the 1994 AWB, 3D printing makes it easier and easier to flaunt government regulation.
Also, you really should learn from history:
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742452]There's no overnight solution, and that's not what I'm advocating. Right now, such [b]beverages[/b] are being actively created and introduced into the market. Stop it now, and over decades we can slowly reduce the existing population of such [b]beverages[/b] through simple attrition. We don't need to conduct mass raids and seizures, charging into peoples' homes to rip them from their hands. Just kill production, pick up illegal [b]alcohol[/b] during the course of regular every day policing, and wait.[/QUOTE]
That was with a product that was consumed through its use, far harder to retain for long periods of time, and not nearly so zealously protected by the populace.
How'd that work out?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52742477]Why are you parading this around as a fact? I'll admit I don't know that much about airplanes, but it looks like he only had a license to fly small planes, and I find it hard to believe he could kill 58 people and injure over 500 with that. Did he own something bigger, because I haven't found any info on that[/QUOTE][url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lasvegas-shooting/las-vegas-police-look-for-motive-in-deadliest-mass-shooting-in-modern-u-s-history-idUSKCN1C70FU]The cops found a supply of ammonium nitrate[/url], which can make a pretty big explosion and kill [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing]almost the same amount of people.[/url]
From the article:
[quote=Reuters]Lombardo said a search of the suspect’s car turned up a supply of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer compound that can be formed into explosives and was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a federal office building that killed 168 people.[/quote]
[QUOTE=MissingNoGuy;52742485]The cops found ammonium nitrate, which can make a pretty big explosion and kill [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing]almost the same amount of people.[/url][/QUOTE]
An airplane filled with explosives is a whole other story. What catbarf said made it sound like killing almost 60 people with a small plane alone would be an easy feat
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52742500]An airplane filled with explosives is a whole other story. What catbarf said made it sound like killing almost 60 people with a small plane alone would be an easy feat[/QUOTE]
I don't think its a stretch to claim a plane loaded down with aviation fuel crashing in to a crowded concert could kill 60 people
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52742500]What catbarf said made it sound like killing almost 60 people with a small plane alone would be an easy feat[/QUOTE]
At a densely-packed concert, absolutely. The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramstein_air_show_disaster]Ramstein air show disaster[/url], a small-aircraft accident that didn't involve a pilot deliberately plowing into the crowd, killed 67 and injured another 500. I find it implausible to suggest that a deliberate terrorist attack couldn't achieve the same.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.