Active shooter on Las Vegas strip.

[Ghostpanther]

To imply that getting a drivers license is by any stretch of the imagination difficult is just whatever. They might as well not even have one. Anyone who knows better is going to just outright laugh if you try and hold up a drivers license as evidence to your argument.




Stopped reading here. lolwat?

You are either justified in your self defense or not, there is no varying degrees such as "trigger happy" or "not so trigger happy".

This is so true. I know a relative, who admitted she needed glasses and only guessed at the eye test for her exam to get her driver's license. She passed. :P

- - - Updated - - -

Source?


Who exactly are these 'good guys' that need 100 round magazines? I doubt there are any. I'm not talking about restrictions like California where you can't have more than 8-9, I'm talking about not needing more than 20-30.

There is this interesting video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

[Dangg]

To imply that getting a drivers license is by any stretch of the imagination difficult is just whatever. They might as well not even have one.

Just because your countries driving license tests are a joke doesn't mean the concept of requiring one is useless. There are other countries where the tests are strict and people fail until they get months of practice.

[Ghostpanther]

Just because your countries driving license tests are a joke doesn't mean the concept of requiring one is useless. There are other countries where the tests are strict and people fail until they get months of practice.

And just because other countries do not allow their citizens to carry/possess firearms for self protection, does not mean we should not allow our citizens. And thankfully we have a Constitution which guarantees that will not happen as it stands.

[chazus]

There is this interesting video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

Precisely why I asked for a source... Because this kind of video is one of those 'fits the narrative' things. They were using small magazines, 10-15 rounds.

Two factors are relevant here.

1) They were firing slow, controlled bursts at specific targets, which usually isn't the case in these shootings. Quick, unaimed shots are what are more common. I base my experience off my own gun which supports 18+1 rounds. I can go through the same ammo they did in half the time, even while aiming. You better believe if I had 100 rounds to go with, and wasn't worried about aiming, I could go through that in about ~30 seconds.

2) The second shooter wasn't some random girl who bought a bunch of guns. She was clearly trained. Maybe not a multi-decade veteran of shooting, but she knew what she was doing. I've run gun ranges. People don't drop a magazine and slamp a new one in that easily unless they've been shooting a while.

My point being... Reducing these things won't fix the problem, but it will certainly make it harder, or lower the kill count.

[Ghostpanther]

Precisely why I asked for a source... Because this kind of video is one of those 'fits the narrative' things. They were using small magazines, 10-15 rounds.

Two factors are relevant here.

1) They were firing slow, controlled bursts at specific targets, which usually isn't the case in these shootings. Quick, unaimed shots are what are more common. I base my experience off my own gun which supports 18+1 rounds. I can go through the same ammo they did in half the time, even while aiming. You better believe if I had 100 rounds to go with, and wasn't worried about aiming, I could go through that in about ~30 seconds.

2) The second shooter wasn't some random girl who bought a bunch of guns. She was clearly trained. Maybe not a multi-decade veteran of shooting, but she knew what she was doing. I've run gun ranges. People don't drop a magazine and slamp a new one in that easily unless they've been shooting a while.

My point being... Reducing these things won't fix the problem, but it will certainly make it harder, or lower the kill count.

I agree it may have made a difference in the Vegas shooting if he had been using semi-auto, rather than the Bump Stock addons for automatic fire. But if he had been limited to 10 round magazines, instead of 30 round ones? I do not think it would have made much difference at all if he had spent much time practicing. One can switch out a magazine rather quickly, with only a second or two elapsing. Which is what the video clearly shows. Try it yourself after practicing some.

[Spectral]

I get what you're saying, but you're also saying "Lets do nothing".

When someone offers an option, and the response is "I don't think that'll work", that's the same as doing nothing. I imagine this conversation will happen again in a month or two next time this happens, and people discuss all the small changes that could be made that we decide won't help.

Well, yeah, my stance is that we should do nothing. I should have just said so for clarity!

[PACOX]

I get sideways looks if I try to buy compressed air for my PC or benadryl for sinus flair ups but by a bunch of guns and bump stocks no one bats an eye.

Im not for repealing the 2nd but for fuck sake this country needs better UNIFIED gun regulation.


The point isnt to get rid of gun violence, its to mitigate occurances like mass shootings. The argument "well most gun deaths are due to mass shootings so we dont need regulation" is like saying seatbelt laws are needed because more car accidents dont result in someone going through a window.

[chazus]

I agree it may have made a difference in the Vegas shooting if he had been using semi-auto, rather than the Bump Stock addons for automatic fire. But if he had been limited to 10 round magazines, instead of 30 round ones? I do not think it would have made much difference at all if he had spent much time practicing. One can switch out a magazine rather quickly, with only a second or two elapsing. Which is what the video clearly shows. Try it yourself after practicing some.

That's sort of my point, too. This guy may have been practiced. From what I can tell, he's a long time gun owner/user... But I'm more talking about the future. A lot of shootings are not by skilled people. Any small dents that can be made in making 'easy' killing would help.

Mind you, I'm an avid gun owner, and stupid laws are stupid.. .But there are also small, simple things that can be changed that would help, even a little. If there were 40 deaths instead of 59, thats an improvement. Nobody is going to 'suffer' over not being able to get 100 round magazines without some federal scrutiny.

[Cerus]

Source?


Who exactly are these 'good guys' that need 100 round magazines? I doubt there are any. I'm not talking about restrictions like California where you can't have more than 8-9, I'm talking about not needing more than 20-30.

There are more but this is one of the better ones I’ve seen.

https://youtu.be/MCSySuemiHU


I’ve yet to see a 100 round magazine when shopping for my AR. That would be a rediculous size but if they make em and someone wants to use them then more power to em. Mag restrictions don’t go after those types anyway. They go after “high capacity” AR mags which are actually standard 30 rounds and place rediculous capacity restrictions on hanguns.

The ‘94 AWB specifically targeted the above and it did nothing to curb gun crime. Gun crime has also gone down since its expiration. That tells anyone with a lick of common sense that more gun laws don’t stop gun violence because criminals don’t give two shits about the law. They don’t care if they law says they can’t own a gun. They don’t care that the law says they can’t modiying their gun to fire full auto. They don’t care that a sign on the door says no guns.

More gun laws only affect law abiding gun owners. Period. We have plenty of laws on the books. The problem is they aren’t enforced or they’re enforced lightly.

There’s a shooting down here in Southern IL almost every week these days. Every single one of them is comitted by a felon which means no gun in any state. They don’t care what that law says so what good will more laws do?

Ban gun ownership all together. It won’t stop gun crime at all anymore than the ban on drugs has stopped that problem. The difference is that you’re hurting people like myself and leaving us defenseless. My firearms are for sport shooting and self/home defense. One of which is an AR15 with several 30 round mags. Why do I need that many? Because if someone threatens me or my family I want to be sure I have the firepower to protect them. My EDC is 10 or 17 rounds depending on the season. A 50-70% miss rate leaves only a few rounds on target and unlike the movies, one bullet rarely stops a bad guy. Even the best marksman will miss most of their shots when adrenaline is high.

[Travis B]

Why do we need cars that go 100+ mph that are sold to every day people?

People don't like having this discussion, but as long as any Joe can walk into a dealership and purchase a 4000lb land rocket capable of 160+ mph I don't think your going to garner much talk on things like magazine size. It doesn't matter if the intent is completely different from each other. Both products offer the same principal. We are a nation of more is more, not less is more.

Alright, you've convinced me. The government should treat guns more like cars. So that would mean:

1. You have to pass a test before using a gun.
2. You have to be at least 16 to use a gun.
3. You have to register your gun and the government will keep track of all gun owners in a database.
4. You have to buy insurance for your gun.
5. You have to get your gun inspected annually.
6. You have to pay a an annual excise tax on your gun.

I think you might be onto something here.

[Delana]

Alright, you've convinced me. The government should treat guns more like cars. So that would mean:

1. You have to pass a test before using a gun.
2. You have to be at least 16 to use a gun.
3. You have to register your gun and the government will keep track of all gun owners in a database.
4. You have to buy insurance for your gun.
5. You have to get your gun inspected annually.
6. You have to pay a an annual excise tax on your gun.

I think you might be onto something here.

Sounds like a good way to arbitrarily revoke people's right to bear arms...oh wait. The authority is not granted to the state to do that.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And if you're actually worried about getting caught in a mass shooting, you're irrational. You should be more scared of your bathroom.

[Z-Man]

you can be 64 year old and be in very good shape, he was not fucking 90 year old...

It's not like he had to free climb up the outside glass to get the guns into his room. With wheeled suitcases and elevators, George Burns could have done this. Betty White could have slipped the bellhop a Benjamin and everything would have been in room before she finished her first martini.

I miss the days when we had real conspiracy theories. Back in my day, a 64-year old MKUltra sleeper agent was something to be feared.

[Themius]

if only chicago had strict gun laws cause they work right guys? /s

People say this point all the time and I always think it is a stupid point.

Let's say you live on the border of a town.. It is illegal to buy gum in your town... but across the street there is a gum store... so you go across the street and buy gum and return to your town.

Trying to say regulation doesn't work and pointing to Chicago is stupid being that all it proves is that super targeted regulation that does nothing concerning the surroundings doesn't work... it doesn't mean regulation itself doesn't work at all lol

[Enthusiastic Steward]

It's not like he had to free climb up the outside glass to get the guns into his room. With wheeled suitcases and elevators, George Burns could have done this. Betty White could have slipped the bellhop a Benjamin and everything would have been in room before she finished her first martini.

I miss the days when we had real conspiracy theories. Back in my day, a 64-year old MKUltra sleeper agent was something to be feared.

The more damning thing is his mounting cameras outside his room. Because as heavily monitored as Vegas hotels are you know that was seen. But he's a high roller, so meh, whatever.

[Dangg]

And just because other countries do not allow their citizens to carry/possess firearms for self protection, does not mean we should not allow our citizens.

Strawman argument. Other country allow people to posses certain firearms if you fullfill the requirments.
I have one myself. You always assume just because reasonable people don't want that everybody can purchase/carry a gun with lax checks , they want to take all yer guns away.

[Tasttey]

Alright, you've convinced me. The government should treat guns more like cars. So that would mean:

1. You have to pass a test before using a gun.
2. You have to be at least 16 to use a gun.
3. You have to register your gun and the government will keep track of all gun owners in a database.
4. You have to buy insurance for your gun.
5. You have to get your gun inspected annually.
6. You have to pay a an annual excise tax on your gun.

I think you might be onto something here.

However none of those things are required for owning a vehicle, or even its use on private property; only on public roads. Hell in some states we even have this concept of "Farm Use" vehicles which don't even have to meet half the above requirements (inspections/taxes/insurance) and can still be driven on public roads.

Now if you want to compare the lawful operation of a motor vehicle on public roads to a similar concept with firearms the closest likeness would be lawful Concealed Carry which requires (varies with the state):

1. Completion of a state approved training course, including both a written and proficiency test
2. Be at least 21 years of age or older
3. Submit finger prints to local LEO and have an additional background check run. Approval from local Chief Law Enforcement Officer required.
4. Be able to lawfully possess a firearm (no felony convictions, drug use, adjudicated mental issues, restraining orders)
5. Pay additional fees (both for the course and the permit)
6. Renew licence every 2-5 years.

Even with all this, your CCW permit is only good in your home state and the states that share reciprocity with it, which means the simple act of interstate travel with a concealed weapon could be a crime, even if you have the licence. http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf...in_prison.html

Imagine the shit show it would be if vehicle licences, inspections, or registrations were only valid in one (or a couple) states.

CHP Officer: "Sir, step out of the vehicle please, your licence is only good in Nevada, and you're lacking a California emissions sticker. I'm going to have to cite you for both offenses, tow the vehicle and you'll need to contact an UBER to get to your destination. Oh and your court date is in 3 weeks and be sure to have a California compliant vehicle and driver bring you to court."

[Mormolyce]

For comparison, the last time we had an attempted mass shooting, the guy was armed with a 50 year old shotgun (it was imported before the law that made registration required). He killed two people plus himself.

Kind of seems like gun laws work.

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman argument. Other country allow people to posses certain firearms if you fullfill the requirments.
I have one myself. You always assume just because reasonable people don't want that everybody can purchase/carry a gun with lax checks , they want to take all yer guns away.

He is sort of correct, Australia explicitly does not allow "self defence" as a legitimate reason for obtaining a gun license. Because that would make the requirement meaningless, since anyone can just say "self defence" as their reason.

Don't know about other countries.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do we need cars that go 100+ mph that are sold to every day people?

Note that cars are heavily regulated and there is no Constitutional Amendment preventing the government from doing so. They could absolutely pass a law prohibiting the sale of cars that go that fast, there might be legal challenges but there would be no Constitutional issue.

Guns are literally the only inanimate object that the Constitution has been interpreted to protect. Nobody ever argues that you have a right to bear spoons. The government could ban all spoons if they wanted to for some reason.

Or to take a less comical example, drugs...

[Ghostpanther]

Strawman argument. Other country allow people to posses certain firearms if you fullfill the requirments.
I have one myself. You always assume just because reasonable people don't want that everybody can purchase/carry a gun with lax checks , they want to take all yer guns away.

I think you missed the point. Which was, it does not matter if other countries do things differently when it comes to their rights or practices. It is their choice and apparently how they want it. And I am not in least concerned about my guns being taken away. I happen to feel confident because of our Constitution when it addresses the issue. It is a choice if I want to possess a firearm for self defense. But also a right.

- - - Updated - - -

For comparison, the last time we had an attempted mass shooting, the guy was armed with a 50 year old shotgun (it was imported before the law that made registration required). He killed two people plus himself.

Kind of seems like gun laws work.

- - - Updated - - -



He is sort of correct, Australia explicitly does not allow "self defence" as a legitimate reason for obtaining a gun license. Because that would make the requirement meaningless, since anyone can just say "self defence" as their reason.

Don't know about other countries.

- - - Updated - - -



Note that cars are heavily regulated and there is no Constitutional Amendment preventing the government from doing so. They could absolutely pass a law prohibiting the sale of cars that go that fast, there might be legal challenges but there would be no Constitutional issue.

Guns are literally the only inanimate object that the Constitution has been interpreted to protect. Nobody ever argues that you have a right to bear spoons. The government could ban all spoons if they wanted to for some reason.

Or to take a less comical example, drugs...

We ( US ) need gun control laws and we have them for the most parts. Some improvements could be done of course. So I agree.

What am I not right about in my response to the poster since you said, "sort of"?

Good points. We do not need cars or spoons for self defense.

[Kiri]

Sounds like a good way to arbitrarily revoke people's right to bear arms...oh wait. The authority is not granted to the state to do that.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

And if you're actually worried about getting caught in a mass shooting, you're irrational. You should be more scared of your bathroom.

There are many things that are much less likely than dying in a mass shooting that the state is tasked to do something about and does. This kind of argument is pointless.

[Mormolyce]

We ( US ) need gun control laws and we have them for the most parts.

If you think that, you don't know what gun control means.