Active shooter on Las Vegas strip.

[Wiyld]

Here are two I know of off the top of my head

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

Did you notice this part of that link?

Following the Las Vegas Strip shooting Adam Weinstein, a senior editor for military news and culture website Task & Purpose, claimed that the gun's existence was a hoax perpetrated by his grandfather Private First Class Kenneth Weinstein

How ironic is that.

- - - Updated - - -

No I am talking about actual real world products.

Why are cars allowed to go faster than 75mph? In the USA the highest interstate speed is 75mph with the majority being 70mph.

Yet I can go buy a cheap Honda civic and easily travel faster than 100MPH. Most modern cars can reach 120mph without much issue. Then you get into the sports car category and we are talking 160+ MPH or in simple terms, more than double any legal speed limit.

Texas has highways all over the place with 80-85 mph limits....just sayin

[Xinder]

Here are two I know of off the top of my head

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

The first example states it may not have even been real because no one has ever seen on or seen any drawings of one. Just a bunch of correspondence about one. The second one is touted for its inconsistency because of relying on flintlock as the primary firing mechanism.

[Ghostpanther]

Eh, there were some super early attempts at multishot guns. Some worked better then others but the fact that they didn't get used in warfare should tall you how useful they really were.

True, but the concept did exist and to say the Founding Fathers had no ideal how far technology may evolve with firearms is not accurate ether.

[Deleted]

Depends on how we do it. We could do gun buybacks like I believe Australia did, and like there have been in the US in cities over the years. That gets a large number of initial guns off the streets. If folks want to continue to own and safely store them/pass them down that's fine as well, but the guns become those peoples responsibility to secure and failure to do so becomes a legal problem that ends with them losing said gun.

It's not as if there aren't methods of dealing with it, nor is it like people thing that magic exists and will somehow spirit all the guns away.

We just need to start the conversation in a meaningful way, because you're jumping straight to the very end and we've got a long, long, long, long road to walk before we're anywhere near there.



We do, and there are plenty of different approaches to that issue. But we need to fucking get started, first. You guys are jumping straight to the last fucking chapter, and this is, and should be, a discussion and a process. We're not there yet, we have a long way before we are.

There's no chapter, and the discussion has been had. Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Try as much as you want, but you'll lose every time. We have the numbers, and we are organized. We are committed to our right, to our duty as American citizens, and our self reliance/independence.

[Daelak]

Some people are going by the definition that's in Nevada law.



https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-...l#NRS202Sec441

Which is far to broad, IMO.

This definitely falls in line with their definition, and anyone's definition if they aren't deluded to who knows what. This was a terrorist attack.

[Ragedaug]

With that logic it makes no sense to worry about terrorists either, with your 'muslim ban' and walls, considering cars kill several multitudes more people than that.

Either way, there is no reason for people to be able to legally buy semi-automatic or near automatic weapons. They are guns designed for assault, not for self-defense. There is nothing you need an AK47 for or an M16 you can't defend yourself from with a simple handgun.

For the life of me I can't figure out why the left thinks we need more handguns. You are more likely to get stabbed to death than be killed with an "assault rifle", yet that's what you are scared of.

Granted this weekend's tragedy is a glaring example of why fully automatic rifles and magazine capacity are heavily regulated/illegal, but the bigger issue is that there are people willing to commit these murders and those bad people are what we should focus on, not the implement they choose to use.

[AeneasBK]

Yet I can go buy a cheap Honda civic and easily travel faster than 100MPH. Most modern cars can reach 120mph without much issue. Then you get into the sports car category and we are talking 160+ MPH or in simple terms, more than double any legal speed limit.

Good question, did you know the answer or just employing rhetoric. Why *can* cars accelerate up to speeds of 100MpH when there isn't any legal need for them to do so?

[Daelak]

There's no chapter, and the discussion has been had. Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hear ye hear ye, time to remove the judicial branch, for we have finally finished the discussions and interpretations of the constitution, and we have come to its ideal interpretation.

You authoritarians have always been a curse on this country.

[Wiyld]

This definitely falls in line with their definition, and anyone's definition if they aren't deluded to who knows what. This was a terrorist attack.

My understanding is that terrorism requires that someone does one of those things listed in an attempt to cause political change. It has more to do with the motivation than the method.

[petej0]

The first example states it may not have even been real because no one has ever seen on or seen any drawings of one. Just a bunch of correspondence about one. The second one is touted for its inconsistency because of relying on flintlock as the primary firing mechanism.

True, but the "technology" existed and the framers were aware of such firearms.

[crewskater]

Yeah, because preventing suicides is bad...right?

Where did I say that? People like you are the worst and can't engage in a conversation.

[Daelak]

My understanding is that terrorism requires that someone does one of those things listed in an attempt to cause political change. It has more to do with the motivation than the method.

He terrorized over 22,000 people. PTSD and physical scars don't care about the motivation.

[petej0]

Yes, because only America has the problem with gangs, and poverty, etc...

But at least you said what I have been saying. Americans don't care about gun deaths, so long as they have their toys. And by toys I mean deadly weapons.

How does banning "assault rifle" affect the rate of handgun deaths used by gangs?

[Ghostpanther]

Yes, because only America has the problem with gangs, and poverty, etc...

But at least you said what I have been saying. Americans don't care about gun deaths, so long as they have their toys. And by toys I mean deadly weapons.

I think there are too many Americans who want to blame the toys ( tool ) than the root cause of these.

[urasim]

This definitely falls in line with their definition, and anyone's definition if they aren't deluded to who knows what. This was a terrorist attack.

ter·ror·ism
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

[AeneasBK]

There's no chapter, and the discussion has been had. Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Try as much as you want, but you'll lose every time. We have the numbers, and we are organized. We are committed to our right, to our duty as American citizens, and our self reliance/independence.

Uh-huh When it happens I'll be thinking of this post

[Daelak]

True, but the "technology" existed and the framers were aware of such firearms.

This semantic talk about what the framers knew is meaningless. Most of them would have agreed to execute the Confederate generals and political leaders after the civil war if they were alive and dissolve the existing constitution for one without the concessions made to Southern Authoritarians. And most would of agreed to have dissolved the constitution tens of times since then to keep up with the changing mores and norms of society. They didn't want some sacred text, just a framework that free white men could live with without massacring each other.

[Deleted]

Who said anything about bowing our heads? While there is only so much you can do cost effectivly, in a free society you do have an element of "shit like this is gonna happen". As long as you can buy dangerous items in stores and make homemade pipe bombs, bombs, purchase firearms, automobiles, knives, chemicals you are bound to have shit like this go down. You cant protect everything, you cant put security stations in malls during Christmas time because some idiot may walk in with a bomb vest on and walk into a crowd and kill himself. You cant put security guards on buses to check people getting on for pipe bombs. You cant put barricades around school bus stops to protect kids from a maniac in a car.

They prefer security over freedom. They don't stand for anything other than their safety. They get scared, and like cowards, ask for their rights to be taken away.

[Ragedaug]

Uh, dunno, maybe the thread of the title is a give-away?

Some dude legally purchased up to 50 semi-automatic weapons and killed near 60 and wounded 400 people with it.

If he only had a single fire handguns he couldn't have done near as much damage.

Those weren't legal purchases.

[Daelak]

ter·ror·ism
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Yeah he terrorized civilians, and he definitely inflamed the debate on firearms. What did you think would happen?