Las Vegas Shooting

[GooooMarquette]

Yep - thanks forgetful.

Regardless of any disagreements, we all agree that Campos was a hero.  Between him and the many people who risked their lives to help others escape, there is still hope for humanity.

Jonathan Smith is another great example....

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/us/las-vegas-shooting-jonathan-smith-tom-mcgrath-hero-intv/index.html

[Tugg Speedman]

walmart just pulled all their bump stocks

my understanding of a bump stock-it may have saved lives in the long run here-stay with me here-

     yes, he had a few rifles equipped and loaded and ready-why-because they jam as they are finding they did.  the gun gets so hot and it the chamber isn't meant for this rapid fire-it jams very predictably.  if he would have had a number of semi-autos all ready, chances are there would have been fewer jams and he could have gotten more shots off in the long run-i'm happy as hell he didn't!

also, where are/were the anti gun people with all the inner-city shootings?  is it because there are usually only one two or three at a time and they're spread out over a number of hours?  in other words do not fall into the category of "mass shootings"?  one other point-the anti-gun people dismiss too easily all of the arguments we put forth-note-they are legitimate arguments.  i don't think there is a need to re-hatch them here, but we can i guess

bottom line-i am by no means trying to diminish vegas- was a nasty nasty incident committed by a very evil individual

This is exactly correct, the guns do overheat and jam easily.  They are not designed for auto shooting.

That is why some think he brought up to 12 guns with bump stocks.  He did not reload but picked up another gun.

[Tugg Speedman]

read this at another site and it made me chuckle:

Weird, you can buy 49 firearms, bunch of ammo, pounds of ammonium nitrate, but I can’t by more than two boxes of Claritin D within a 30 day period.

He bought his first gun in 1982.  It took him 35 years to accumulate this many guns.

[jesmu84]

He bought his first gun in 1982.  It took him 35 years to accumulate this many guns.

You're not entirely wrong. It did take him 35 years to accumulate 49 firearms. However...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/04/las-vegas-shooter-bought-33-guns-last-12-months/730634001/

[Tugg Speedman]

To all hunters out there:  why couldn't we define "hunting rifles" as one shot, then reload?

I can hit a deer with one pass of my car.  If you can't hit it with one shot, you aren't a very good hunter.

Should handguns have only one shot then reload? Your question is a fair one, should semi-auto weapons be banned, it's a clear definition. I don't think it would ever, ever pass....but at least it is a definable, enforcable standard.

The first semi-automatic gun was invented in 1885.  It is 140-year technology and virtual every pistol made in the last 100 years is semi-automatic.  The vast majority of rifles since WW1 are semi-automatic.

Gun owners understand this and that is why when gun novices say "ban semi-automatics" gun owners hear "ban all guns."

Think of making automatic transmission cars illegal and think of how many we have made and how it radically changes all cars on the road.  That is what it means to ban semi-automatic guns.  It is functionally the same as saying "ban all guns."

[rocket surgeon]

By that time, it's too late, rocket!

I thought we were about preventing deaths, not about getting cops to the scene after somebody is dead (or several somebodies are dead). The idiot who was allowed to be packing in a tavern might have shot 5 innocent people ... because he was too drunk to get the guy he wanted to kill.

Guns in bars is about as bad an idea as any legislator has ever come up with, and that's a pretty big list.

ok, first of all, bars are private businesses and they have the right to ban handguns(as many do) if they so choose.  my opinion-that's fine.  a couple of problems, in my opinion-1) you are telling all your customers that there are NO handguns in the bar and 2) great! now you've just advertised to all crooks-no handguns here.  would you put a sign outside your house stating the same?

  when the government starts to mandate to private business they cannot allow firearms-well, sounds like we will then have a problem with the 2nd

if i have to, i can pull a bunch of stats out that show most of the mass shootings occur in "gun-free" zones

yes, in a perfect world, EVERYONE is safe from everything bad.  unfortunately my friend, bad chit happens to good people too often.  we have for good reasons, tried to protect us from ourselves throughout our being here on earth.  doesn't hurt to keep trying, but at some point, we must weigh risk/reward. 

note-the wynn is now one of the first in vegas to check bags i believe?  don't know if airport style security is next?  this will probably go through some growing pains before they find an acceptable solution.  now, by solution, i mean something that the customers will tolerate and feel is acceptable.  if they will do next to anything to "feel safe"-the customer is always right.  right now, yes of course many seem willing to do anything as we are coming off the worst mass shooting in our history.  but if i'm going to have to stand in line and get felt up every time i come and go from a casino hotel-hello Pottawatomie, oneida, rivers, etc...i'm staying home to gamble-just saying. 

[GooooMarquette]

The first semi-automatic gun was invented in 1885.  It is 140-year technology and virtual every pistol made in the last 100 years is semi-automatic.  The vast majority of rifles since WW1 are semi-automatic.

Gun owners understand this and that is why when gun novices say "ban semi-automatics" gun owners hear "ban all guns."

Think of making automatic transmission cars illegal and think of how many we have made and how it radically changes all cars on the road.  That is what it means to ban semi-automatic guns.  It is functionally the same as saying "ban all guns."

The ban would be moving forward.  Trying to make anything like that retroactive would be impossible.  So no, it wouldn't be banning all guns - it would just prevent the most dangerous ones from continuing to be sold.

A better analogy is the MPG requirements for new cars.  We saw that gas guzzlers were doing bad things, so the government imposed more stringent standards for new cars.  The gas guzzlers stayed on the road, but are very gradually fading away.

Solid effort, though....

[Tugg Speedman]

The ban would be moving forward.  Trying to make anything like that retroactive would be impossible.  So no, it wouldn't be banning all guns - it would just prevent the most dangerous ones from continuing to be sold.

A better analogy is the MPG requirements for new cars.  We saw that gas guzzlers were doing bad things, so the government imposed more stringent standards for new cars.  The gas guzzlers stayed on the road, but are very gradually fading away.

Solid effort, though....

I have a friend that has an actual 1871 colt 45 (145+ year-old gun) that I shot with him about a month ago (with a "quick draw" holster like the movies).  It works as good today as it did when Grover Cleveland was President.  Point is guns do not get too old and go stale (unless they are not properly cared for).

You a fan of Star Trek?  Becuase you could ban newly made semi-automatics today and with 300 million in the country (yes, that is how many we have), currently existing semis will be commonly and regularly used in the 24th century.  Jon Luc-Picard will be running for cover!

I also have a 60-year-old shotgun my dad gave me for my 12th birthday.  (Remmington 870 pump).  I still use it to this day.

So good job in finding a solution that will take about a thousand years to complete.

-----

To your incorrect analogy ...

The average life of a properly cared for car is about 11 to 12 years. 

The average life for a properly cared for a gun is at least 145 years (and counting) as my first example above shows.

[GooooMarquette]

I have a friend that has an actual 1871 colt 45 (145+ year-old gun) that I shot with him about a month ago (with a "quick draw" holster like the movies).  It works as good today as it did when Grover Cleveland was President.  Point is guns do not get too old and go stale (unless they are not properly cared for).

You a fan of Star Trek?  Becuase you could ban newly made semi-automatics today and with 300 million in the country (yes, that is how many we have), currently existing semis will be commonly and regularly used in the 24th century.  Jon Luc-Picard will be running for cover!

I also have a 60-year-old shotgun my dad gave me for my 12th birthday.  (Remmington 870 pump).  I still use it to this day.

So good job in finding a solution that will take about a thousand years to complete.

-----

To your incorrect analogy ...

The average life of a properly cared for car is about 11 to 12 years. 

The average life for a properly cared for a gun is at least 145 years (and counting) as my first example above shows.

You give a couple examples of old guns, and equate that to the "average" life?  Wow - you're really digging deep.

I'm still willing to make the change moving forward.  Given your inane belief that all the semi-automatics out there will be around for 145 years on average, you ought to be OK with that, right?

Or are you gonna stick with "let's just give up"?

[Pakuni]

Campos stopped nothing.  The perp killed himself.  I reject categorically that Campos shouldn't have been armed.  You've just asked a soldier to go to war with his good looks.  Never and an indefensible position.

Campis isn't a soldier. He's a hotel security guard.  Let's not pretend otherwise.
And to answer your earlier questiion, the Mandalay does have armed security officers. Campos wasn't one of them.

[Tugg Speedman]

You give a couple examples of old guns, and equate that to the "average" life?  Wow - you're really digging deep.

I'm still willing to make the change moving forward.  Given your inane belief that all the semi-automatics out there will be around for 145 years on average, you ought to be OK with that, right?

Or are you gonna stick with "let's just give up"?

The highlighted part is key ... a non-gun owner wants to make himself feel better because that is more important than actually solving the problem.

[GooooMarquette]

The highlighted part is key ... a non-gun owner wants to make himself feel better because that is more important than actually solving the problem.

No, it's solving the problem little by little...for my kids, grandkids, etc.  Better than just ignoring it.

Same reason I care about the environment.  Probably no monumental changes in the 40 or so years I have left...but I'd still like to try to improve things for future generations.

[Tugg Speedman]

No, it's solving the problem little by little...for my kids, grandkids, etc.  Better than just ignoring it.

Same reason I care about the environment.  Probably no monumental changes in the 40 or so years I have left...but I'd still like to try to improve things for future generations.

What is the problem you are solving again?

[GooooMarquette]

What is the problem you are solving again?

Get lost much?  You make yourself look more silly with every post.

[Tugg Speedman]

Get lost much?

Guns are a legal and constitutionally protect the product.  76 million people own at least one and there are 300 million in circulation.  Virtually all of them are semi-automatic.

So, if you want to ban them, then man up and say you willing to have your taxes raised to hire hundreds of thousands of swat team geared ATF agents to go house by house to get rid of them.  And when they physically eject you and your family from your home to rip up the floorboards to search for guns, be sure to thank them and suggest other parts of your house that can destroy looking for guns.

Because short of that, you're not getting rid of guns (sorry semi-automatics) and really just looking for a way to make yourself feel superior and good.

[MU82]

Mike, so you are OK with limiting abortions and extreme vetting of folks from some countries? Those measures, along with sensible gun control, would surely save lives. Is compromise really in the air?

Well, the first part is easy for me. I don't regard a fetus as a "life," especially not in the first 20-22 weeks. That's another debate for another time.

The second, we already vet the hell out of people! Don't forget, what our dear leader wants isn't just vetting but EXTREME VETTING. He couldn't even do a decent job of extremely vetting the people he hired to help him run his administration, but that also is another debate for another time.

Always a pleasure doing business with you, Lenny.

[GooooMarquette]

Guns are a legal and constitutionally protect the product.  76 million people own at least one and there are 300 million in circulation.  Virtually all of them are semi-automatic.

So, if you want to ban them, then man up and say you willing to have your taxes raised to hire hundreds of thousands of swat team geared ATF agents to go house by house to get rid of them.  And when they physically eject you and your family from your home to rip up the floorboards to search for guns, be sure to thank them and suggest other parts of your house that can destroy looking for guns.

Because short of that, you're not getting rid of guns (sorry semi-automatics) and really just looking for a way to make yourself feel superior and good.

You got completely lost again. Not surprising.

I never said to completely get rid of them – I said we should stop the continued production and sale of them, so that the number gradually decreases over time.

Good night Chica....

[Tugg Speedman]

You got completely lost again. Not surprising.

I never said to completely get rid of them – I said we should stop the continued production and sale of them, so that the number gradually decreases over time.

Good night Chica....

And as I said, banning current production with 300 million in circulation means the amount of guns and its usage remain high for hundreds of years. 

And since a Gun is 140 year old technology, and tens of thousands that passed a machine shop class in high school and can find their local Home Depot, they are capable of manufacturing a semi-automatic in their basement, we will have an active black market in guns for centuries.

You want to start a national registry of blue collar workers?  Every mechanic, plumber, welder, etc possesses the skill and knowledge to make a gun.  Should we restrict and regulate their activities?

Their is a big market in homemade pistols (aka “the Saturday night special “)  they can be bought for as little as $10.

It’s obvious you have never owned a gun or understand much about them.  I’m trying to show you the folly in your idea and your response is to maintain your ignorance and insult anyone that disagrees with you.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

He bought his first gun in 1982.  It took him 35 years to accumulate this many guns.

33 in the past year.

33.

[rocket surgeon]

You got completely lost again. Not surprising.

I never said to completely get rid of them – I said we should stop the continued production and sale of them, so that the number gradually decreases over time.

Good night Chica....

i would consider this idea anti-gun lite.  drip drip drip.  also, against the will of the people and do you realize how many jobs this would eliminate?  i know, you are going to focus on the job elimination.  that's just collateral damage though, eyn'a?  someone earlier said within this thread "no one said anyone here is for the total elimination of guns"  well there you have it, more or less

[ATL MU Warrior]

And as I said, banning current production with 300 million in circulation means the amount of guns and its usage remain high for hundreds of years. 

And since a Gun is 140 year old technology, and tens of thousands that passed a machine shop class in high school and can find their local Home Depot, they are capable of manufacturing a semi-automatic in their basement, we will have an active black market in guns for centuries.

You want to start a national registry of blue collar workers?  Every mechanic, plumber, welder, etc possesses the skill and knowledge to make a gun.  Should we restrict and regulate their activities?

Their is a big market in homemade pistols (aka “the Saturday night special “)  they can be bought for as little as $10.

It’s obvious you have never owned a gun or understand much about them.  I’m trying to show you the folly in your idea and your response is to maintain your ignorance and insult anyone that disagrees with you.

You certainly say a lot of crazy hyperbolic shyte, but the bold is impressive even by your standards.

I actually agree with your larger point that the cat is out of the bag when it comes to restricting certain types of guns in this country.  There are just far too many of them out there for such a restriction to make much of a difference -- somebody that wants one can get one in any number of currently legal ways.  That being said, there are certainly common sense ways to make it more difficult that have already been discussed in this topic. 

I'm going to take a wild guess that you would support none of them. 

[Pakuni]

33 in the past year.

33.

If only we had the technology that would allow law enforcement to recognize that kind of red flag.

[Pakuni]

i would consider this idea anti-gun lite.  drip drip drip.  also, against the will of the people and do you realize how many jobs this would eliminate?  i know, you are going to focus on the job elimination.  that's just collateral damage though, eyn'a?  someone earlier said within this thread "no one said anyone here is for the total elimination of guns"  well there you have it, more or less

There's a reason why slippery slope arguments are considered a fallacy, rocket.

Job elimination vs life elimination? Hmmm. Such a tough, tough choice.
Seriously, of all the cynical, inhuman and lousy arguments I've heard against gun control (and there are plenty) that may be the most cynical, inhuman and lousy.

[Spotcheck Billy]

I'm confused about where you're going with the second underlined sentence above.  First (in the first sentence I underlined) you stated that the guard actually WAS unarmed...but in the second underlined sentence you seemed to be asking what would have happened IF HE HAD BEEN unarmed. 

Answer:  we know.  He was unarmed, yet presumably stopped the worst mass shooting in American history.  To me, this shows that the answer to guns isn't necessarily more guns.  I agree with you that he is a true hero...but he clearly didn't need a gun to achieve that status.

We still don't know much with any certainty. Some theories think Campos was a 2nd shooter and he killed Paddock, shot himself in the leg and put 200 rounds through the door. If you've seen the pictures of Paddock laying on the floor, notice the casings laying on top of his blood on the carpet. Some even report that Campos had GDR on his hands.

I don't know if any of that is true but I also don't know that it isn't true.

[Pakuni]

We still don't know much with any certainty. Some theories think Campos was a 2nd shooter and he killed Paddock, shot himself in the leg and put 200 rounds through the door. If you've seen the pictures of Paddock laying on the floor, notice the casings laying on top of his blood on the carpet. Some even report that Campos had GDR on his hands.

I don't know if any of that is true but I also don't know that it isn't true.

I hear the Russians conspired with ISIS and Black Lives Matter to pull off a massive false flag operation.
I don't know of any of that is true but I also don't know that it isn't true.