Mass Shooting in Las Vegas - 58 Dead at Least 515 Injured, Suspect Killed - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Aman;52738446]Yeah, ISIS officially claimed it which is odd. They don't [I]usually[/I] claim BS so maybe he actually did have some Islamic terror lone wolf in him? But, this would be their third false claim in recent months. So it doesn't feel right. Probably not ISIS related. [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLI21MHWkAIM7WJ.jpg:large[/IMG][/QUOTE] They tried to claim the shooting in last year Munich for themselfes aswell. The kid was a right-motivated and lurked his turkish and arab students to a mc donalds, where he opened fire at them.

I'd imagine gun control would only be taken truly seriously when a big name politician gets gun downed. I'm not being edgy or anything, it just seems THAT'S when shit gets real

[QUOTE=Pascall;52739075]At this point, I doubt it too. It's upsetting but at what point will people say, "Hey, maybe there's something we should be doing about this."? Baffles me why 'thoughts and prayers' seem to be the extent.[/QUOTE] what are you gonna do? it's already illegal to shoot people, and this guy did it no less than 573 times. if guns were illegal (and there's no doubt in my mind that his already was) people would get guns illegally (like he no doubt did), and a mental health reform does nothing for the people who don't want help (which by my count is a pretty significant number).

[QUOTE=redBadger;52739067]The good time to talk was when children were gunned down at Sandy Hook. Really don't know when the wake up call will be if there ever is one.[/QUOTE] What came of those talks was a blanket ban that wouldn't have done anything to prevent further tragedies like this. If you want real, moderate, and civil discussion about this, then we need to vote out most of the people in the current government.

[QUOTE=butre;52739121]what are you gonna do? it's already illegal to shoot people, and this guy did it no less than 573 times. if guns were illegal (and there's no doubt in my mind that his already was) people would get guns illegally (like he no doubt did), and a mental health reform does nothing for the people who don't want help (which by my count is a pretty significant number).[/QUOTE] I don't know because I'm not a lawmaker or anyone involved in law. Nor am I at all familiar with guns or gun regulations since I have no interest in owning one. Considering it a futile effort is not a great thing to think about, that's all.

[QUOTE=butre;52739121]what are you gonna do? it's already illegal to shoot people, and this guy did it no less than 573 times. if guns were illegal (and there's no doubt in my mind that his already was) people would get guns illegally (like he no doubt did), and a mental health reform does nothing for the people who don't want help (which by my count is a pretty significant number).[/QUOTE] I'm going to assume the majority of those injuries came from trampling unless the police say otherwise.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52739111]I'd imagine gun control would only be taken truly seriously when a big name politician gets gun downed. I'm not being edgy or anything, it just seems THAT'S when shit gets real[/QUOTE] Like that shooting at a congressional softball game a couple months ago?

[QUOTE=Pascall;52739075]At this point, I doubt it too. It's upsetting but at what point will people say, "Hey, maybe there's something we should be doing about this."? Baffles me why 'thoughts and prayers' seem to be the extent.[/QUOTE] Because its the easy response. No one wants to tackle the issue of how to prevent things like this because the bottom line its probably going to involve gun regulation in some way. And even suggesting that is a great way to make yourself nationally unpopular. So you say you're keeping the victims in your prayers and move on.

Or when congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head and survived?

My view on this debate has always been that even though the purchase of illegal guns would continue, the overall circulation of firearms will decrease. Obviously if guns were illegal they'd still be purchased. No one thinks suddenly making it illegal will take all the guns off the street. Every gun that enters a criminals hand, however, was manufactured for a legal purpose. A factory made it either for military or consumer use. If you make guns harder to purchase, and demand goes down, supply will [I]eventually[/I] decrease as well. If less people are legally buying guns, the factories will make less guns. If there are less guns, there are less in circulation (both legal and illegal), and therefore less gun violence.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52739125]I don't know because I'm not a lawmaker or anyone involved in law. Nor am I at all familiar with guns or gun regulations since I have no interest in owning one. Considering it a futile effort is not a great thing to think about, that's all.[/QUOTE] the thing is, lawmakers don't have any better ideas than you or I do. we're all thinking with human brains, only difference is that lawmakers are better at wording things in absolute terms.

Tbh the idea of him having had a silencer as well is pretty scary

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52739153]Tbh the idea of him having had a silencer as well is pretty scary[/QUOTE] It's really not though? As it has been said before in the thread, silencers do not silence gunshots. They're still well over 100 decibels, which is about as loud as a jackhammer. As far as I know, suppressors only work well when using subsonic ammunition, which still does not mask the shot entirely.

[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;52739176]It's really not though? As it has been said before in the thread, silencers do not silence gunshots. They're still well over 100 decibels, which is about as loud as a jackhammer. As far as I know, suppressors only work well when using subsonic ammunition, which still does not mask the shot entirely.[/QUOTE] Its also important to note (and I can speak from experience) that subsonic ammunition in something like an AR15 does not have enough oomph to cycle the bolt: you have to do so manually, and on an AR this would [I]really[/I] slow down your rate-of-fire. Not to mention the decrease in velocity and such, either.

[QUOTE=lope;52739147]My view on this debate has always been that even though the purchase of illegal guns would continue, the overall circulation of firearms will decrease. Obviously if guns were illegal they'd still be purchased. No one thinks suddenly making it illegal will take all the guns off the street. Every gun that enters a criminals hand, however, was manufactured for a legal purpose. A factory made it either for military or consumer use. If you make guns harder to purchase, and demand goes down, supply will [I]eventually[/I] decrease as well. If less people are legally buying guns, the factories will make less guns. If there are less guns, there are less in circulation (both legal and illegal), and therefore less gun violence.[/QUOTE] making it harder to buy guns only makes it harder for people that can't afford to get through the red tape to get their hands on them. would you suggest that a man living in for example oakland, who works 40 hours a week to put food on the table for his wife and children, and is still barely making enough to scrape by, should be deprived of his right to self defense and of the right to defend his family? just because some statistical anomaly got dianne feinstein's panties in a twist? I would hope not. for the record, I find picturing dianne feinstein's panties to be just as disturbing and repulsive as you do.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52739153]Tbh the idea of him having had a silencer as well is pretty scary[/QUOTE] Sustained automatic fire with a suppressor makes no sense. Regardless don't use silencer or suppressor like a buzz word. Any weapon is just as dangerous with or without certain attachments.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52739153]Tbh the idea of him having had a silencer as well is pretty scary[/QUOTE] I don't think a suppressor would have increased the body count significantly in the footage the only thing you can hear is the sound of the bullets cracking overhead.

I think this is a good quote for today "Went to sleep as an expert in Spanish politics, Woke up an expert in firearms."

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52739153]Tbh the idea of him having had a silencer as well is pretty scary[/QUOTE] only if you don't know what a suppressor does. for starters, they don't get rid of the report of the weapon, just drop it by 10 decibels or so, somewhere near enough the safe hearing range. second, suppressors melt under sustained full auto fire. like within a couple seconds they blow out

[QUOTE=lope;52739147]My view on this debate has always been that even though the purchase of illegal guns would continue, the overall circulation of firearms will decrease. Obviously if guns were illegal they'd still be purchased. No one thinks suddenly making it illegal will take all the guns off the street. Every gun that enters a criminals hand, however, was manufactured for a legal purpose. A factory made it either for military or consumer use. If you make guns harder to purchase, and demand goes down, supply will [I]eventually[/I] decrease as well. If less people are legally buying guns, the factories will make less guns. If there are less guns, there are less in circulation (both legal and illegal), and therefore less gun violence.[/QUOTE] Your theory is great except that you can make guns in your own garage with tools and parts you can buy at your local Lowes or Menards. Even in Australia, where guns are hard to get, biker gangs are manufacturing some very well put together firearms out of garages. [img]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/c23c348170ff.jpg[/img] It's fruitless to try and ban guns of any variety.

Why is there a discussion about supressors anyway? The guns were fully automatic, which are illegal for civilians to have. So even when suppressors were made illegal, the guy could have gotten them the same way he got the weapons and ammunition.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52739153]Tbh the idea of him having had a silencer as well is pretty scary[/QUOTE] It is if you have no clue how a silence works or how effectively it works. [editline]2nd October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52739193]Why is there a discussion about supressors anyway? The guns were fully automatic, which are illegal for civilians to have. So even when suppressors were made illegal, the guy could have gotten them the same way he got the weapons and ammunition.[/QUOTE] Hillary Clinton tweeted about the potential for genocide if the gunman had used a suppressor as well. She did this in an effort to put down Republican lawmakers who are pushing for a suppressor deregulation bill at the moment.

Automatic weapons are already heavily controlled. If anything this is an example of a heavy gun control failing to do it's job. Thought don't mistake that for meaning we should just deregulate it. If criminally intent people can still get their hands on these kinds of guns, what went wrong and how do we prevent that? It's not like there are hundreds of thousands of machine guns floating around in public like semi autos. This guy wanted these guns and got them. Probably not legally.

[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52739193]Why is there a discussion about supressors anyway? The guns were fully automatic, which are illegal for civilians to have. So even when suppressors were made illegal, the guy could have gotten them the same way he got the weapons and ammunition.[/QUOTE] because hillary clinton decided now would be a good time to shoehorn politics into a tragedy

[QUOTE=RichyZ;52739203]you can't possibly try to equate a homemade gun with a professionally tooled tried and tested design if this dude used a homebrewed mac10 or tec9 equivalent, theres no way he'd get the same numbers it also takes pretty expensive tools and a good amount of technical knowhow to make a decent gun, and not just some 1 shot zipgun[/QUOTE] a Sten submachine gun can be made from raw unprocessed metal with less than $1000 in tooling, and the only technical know how required is literacy.

[QUOTE=butre;52739183] just because some statistical anomaly got dianne feinstein's panties in a twist?[/QUOTE] It's an awful lot of "statistical anomalies", if you're going to put it like that...

How do you ban guns when so many are already in circulation anyway? Like if you manage to get rid of guns, it'll take decades, generations - that could be a goal, sure, but it doesn't prevent things like this from happening (in the meantime) and so what can actually be done to effectively stop or minimalize these things from happening? Why are they happening (apart from guns)?

[QUOTE=RichyZ;52739215]the average american won't even touch their car for an oil change, do you really think some unhinged dude is gonna spend all that time machining a sten in their garage (there will always be an outlier case like that, but the average spree killer just seems unlikely to), and $1000 is still a ton more than it would cost for me to get an ak from a redneck[/QUOTE] I mean, the average american is probably not the guy who would be making the sten so this feels like a bit of an odd comparison?

[QUOTE=RedDagger;52739209]It's an awful lot of "statistical anomalies", if you're going to put it like that...[/QUOTE] even if it happens a million times, there are roughly 380 million firearms in the united states. .26% is still a statistical anomaly.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;52739215]the average american won't even touch their car for an oil change, do you really think some unhinged dude is gonna spend all that time machining a sten in their garage (there will always be an outlier case like that, but the average spree killer just seems unlikely to), and $1000 is still a ton more than it would cost for me to get an ak from a redneck[/QUOTE] As unlikely as it may seem, all it takes is for one guy with the technical know-how to start manufacturing them to sell to people at an upcharge, sans any way to trace it back to him.