Las Vegas Mass Casualty Attack

[Deleted member 2897]

Seriously, do you even read the articles that you post?

You are calling the Sheriff a liar again.

You are putting words into my mouth again. So creepy how obsessed you are with that.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Imagine how many lives we could save if we extended this philosophy.

Extended it where, beyond those who shouldn't have guns? No thank you. Lets focus on those that shouldn't have guns. I don't want to disarm innocent people. There are literally tens and tens and tens and tens and tens and tens of thousands of uses of guns in self defense every year.

 

[forensicbuzz]

How many people would have died if the killer had used a knife?

Unfortunately you're more interested in promoting a radical solution than actually listening to someone else's perspective and entering into a reasonable discourse. To cherry-pick that point and apply it to a single event is incredibly ridiculous and shows you have a very focused agenda. So, I won't continue to debate the issue with you.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

How many people would have died if the killer had used a knife?

If 12 would you ban all knives?

 

[WreckinGT]

Unfortunately you're more interested in promoting a radical solution than actually listening to someone else's perspective and entering into a reasonable discourse. To cherry-pick that point and apply it to a single event is incredibly ridiculous and shows you have a very focused agenda. So, I won't continue to debate the issue with you.

Thats fine, and that is your decision but I'm not sure many would agree that trying to limit casualties by forcing someone to use a knife over a military rifle is a radical solution. You aren't interested in debating any solution that might limit gun use, which is fine but it effectively ends the debate.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

[QUOTE="Whiskey_Clear, post: 402691, member: 735]
As for mag capacity. I’m no Navy Seal...but I can reload a Glock or AR mag in a fraction of a second. Mag capacity restrictions won’t help. They will simply cause law abiding citizens to carry more mags on their persons than they would otherwise have to in order to carry the same amount of ammo. So it will only encumber the law abiding.

I can too, but the point is that potentially the shooter may have to fumble in his pockets for the next clip or he’s distracted by his next target or someone shooting back or he’s a clutz and drops it etc., any break in the shooting can save lives.[/QUOTE]

And maybe the gun might jam. Should we then ban guns that have proven reliable in function because a possible hypothetical jam might save lives.

Your solution is a non solution imo. Even someone with no training, just marginal familiarity with working components, won’t be slowed down to any significant degree.

 

[WreckinGT]

If 12 would you ban all knives?

Nope, because knives actually have a purpose other than killing other humans, and 12 would be an extreme example. Do you support legalizing nuclear weapons?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Thats fine, and that is your decision but I'm not sure many would agree that trying to limit casualties by forcing someone to use a knife over a military rifle is a radical solution. You aren't interested in debating any solution that might limit gun use, which is fine but it effectively ends the debate.

You have refused to answer the questions I posed to you earlier so......

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Nope, because knives actually have a purpose other than killing other humans, and 12 would be an extreme example. Do you support legalizing nuclear weapons?

Firearms are used in hunting and recreation also btw.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

So you acknowledge that a guy with a knife probably won't do nearly as much damage as a guy with an AR-15?

If someone breaks into my home wielding a knife I’m grabbing a gun. If they have pistols I want a rifle in hand. If there are multiple perps I want multiple mags on hand.

Is that clear enough?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Thats fine, and that is your decision but I'm not sure many would agree that trying to limit casualties by forcing someone to use a knife over a military rifle is a radical solution. You aren't interested in debating any solution that might limit gun use, which is fine but it effectively ends the debate.

Assault Weapon. Military Rifle. Such scary terms which mean nothing. You would be really well served by watching some YouTube videos on bolt action, pump action, and semi-automatic guns. Repeat after me - they are Murder Weapons. All of them.

If law enforcement had done its job, this kid wouldn't have been legally allowed to buy a gun. Now, that doesn't mean he would still end up with a bunch of guns, but at least I think it would improve our odds. If he had tried to buy one on the black market and been unable, I don't think he would have gone in there with knives. But after pulling the smoke detectors and then setting off smoke bombs, if you don't think he could have killed 10 students by knives, I don't know what to tell you. That would have been easily possible. Personally, I would have put my money on running people over in his car - I don't think a person crazy like that who is determined to kill a bunch of people and even expressed it publicly will just give up with 1 road block. That's why I keep pounding the table on law enforcement doing their jobs - this guy should have been in the court system and eventually in prison.

 

[UgaBlows]

What do Parkland, Washington Navy Yard, Garland Texas, Fort Hood, Charleston, Boston, Orlando Night Club, San Bernadino and others have in common? Yes, they were all mass shootings...what else do they have in common? The shooter should have not had a gun at any of those but law enforcement didn't do their job.

I can too, but the point is that potentially the shooter may have to fumble in his pockets for the next clip or he’s distracted by his next target or someone shooting back or he’s a clutz and drops it etc., any break in the shooting can save lives.

And maybe the gun might jam. Should we then ban guns that have proven reliable in function because a possible hypothetical jam might save lives.

Your solution is a non solution imo. Even someone with no training, just marginal familiarity with working components, won’t be slowed down to any significant degree.[/QUOTE]

Hey you might be onto a solution, you could take it a step further and make single-shot hunting weapons the only legal firearm

I know it was a different era but How many mass murders occured during the ban on assault weapons?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

And maybe the gun might jam. Should we then ban guns that have proven reliable in function because a possible hypothetical jam might save lives.

Your solution is a non solution imo. Even someone with no training, just marginal familiarity with working components, won’t be slowed down to any significant degree.

Hey you might be onto a solution, you could take it a step further and make single-shot hunting weapons the only legal firearm

I know it was a different era but How many mass murders occured during the ban on assault weapons?[/QUOTE]

Knives, swords, and spears never run out of ammo.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

And maybe the gun might jam. Should we then ban guns that have proven reliable in function because a possible hypothetical jam might save lives.

Your solution is a non solution imo. Even someone with no training, just marginal familiarity with working components, won’t be slowed down to any significant degree.

(#1) Hey you might be onto a solution, you could take it a step further and make single-shot hunting weapons the only legal firearm

(#2) I know it was a different era but How many mass murders occured during the ban on assault weapons?[/QUOTE]

#1 - It will never happen in a zillion years. You can't defend yourself with a single shot musket. I know you were being facetious, but come on.

#2 - Have you looked at the gun laws over in Europe - per capita, they have more mass shootings and even more school shootings than we do. For example (there are tons of countries you can look at), in Finland I don't think they recognize gun permits for self-defense. They also outlaw semi-automatic weapons (I could be wrong, going from memory). The license per gun and its very difficult to get permits. Per capita in the last 10 years, they've had 1200 murders from just school shootings if you correct to our population. The Netherlands is even more strict - they don't allow guns for any other reason than hunting and target practice. They have had 165 population adjusted deaths from school shootings in the last 15-20 years. Germany is 600+. Denmark 200.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

You think there is something wrong with attempting to limit casualties? Hey, I can kill a person with my bare hands, therefore Nuclear Weapons should be legal. Is that your line of thinking?

How many armed cops do you think a single bad guy, armed only with a knife, could kill? How many when the cops are surrounding him but at a distance outside “lunge” range”. How many when one cop has an “assault rifle?”

 

[UgaBlows]

Hell the gubernmint is just gonna kill us with drone strikes anyway, i’d rather try to shoot them with a 12 guage pump

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

How many armed cops do you think a single bad guy, armed only with a knife, could kill? How many when the cops are surrounding him but at a distance outside “lunge” range”. How many when one cop has an “assault rifle?”

@WreckinGT

Here is an answer to that question.



Knife > Firearms in this instance. It’s not the weapon....it’s the determination of the attacker.

Warning graphic violence displayed in link. If you prefer not to watch...One officer killed, four officers grievously injured before the threat was stopped.

Now how do you think a classroom of unarmed high school students would fare angsinst a similar assailant? 17 or more fatalities are a possibility. But mass casualties are almost guaranteed.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Thats fine, and that is your decision but I'm not sure many would agree that trying to limit casualties by forcing someone to use a knife over a military rifle is a radical solution. You aren't interested in debating any solution that might limit gun use, which is fine but it effectively ends the debate.

If you're intent of having the last word is to mischaracterize EVERYTHING I've said in this thread, then I will disengage. Just remember, not everyone you've traded posts with have argued the same points. I'd suggest you revisit my posts. I give you permission to feel badly about your last post to me.

 

[UgaBlows]

Maybe we should consider a ban on the human race

 

[UgaBlows]

(#1) Hey you might be onto a solution, you could take it a step further and make single-shot hunting weapons the only legal firearm

(#2) I know it was a different era but How many mass murders occured during the ban on assault weapons?

#1 - It will never happen in a zillion years. You can't defend yourself with a single shot musket. I know you were being facetious, but come on.

#2 - Have you looked at the gun laws over in Europe - per capita, they have more mass shootings and even more school shootings than we do. For example (there are tons of countries you can look at), in Finland I don't think they recognize gun permits for self-defense. They also outlaw semi-automatic weapons (I could be wrong, going from memory). The license per gun and its very difficult to get permits. Per capita in the last 10 years, they've had 1200 murders from just school shootings if you correct to our population. The Netherlands is even more strict - they don't allow guns for any other reason than hunting and target practice. They have had 165 population adjusted deaths from school shootings in the last 15-20 years. Germany is 600+. Denmark 200.[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure where your getting your data and not saying it’s wrong, i mean i guess you can make statistics say whatever you want to in many cases.

https://qz.com/1212809/compare-us-m...rmany-china-russia-switzerland-and-australia/

“Research shows that countries with fewer guns have lower homicide rates. Even US states with fewer guns have fewer homicides; in a landmark 2002 study, analysis of data from 1988 to 1997 showed that states with “high” gun ownership had three times the rate of homicide than states with few guns. A decade later, a 2013 study found that every percentage point increase in gun ownership corresponded to a 0.9% higher risk of gun homicide. Countries and states that legally limit overall gun ownership simply have fewer gun deaths.”