Las Vegas Mass Casualty Attack

[A Love Supreme]

I appreciate your first paragraph, but your second paragraph suggests that you are not serious.

How so?

 

[A Love Supreme]

So I can tell you know that basically everything you said wouldn't have prevented this. So that begs the question, why pass laws that won't do anything?

With regards to your assertion it would be different if it were a foreignor or immigrant - possibly. Especially if they were here illegally or weren't vetted since terrorists specifically try to come here and kill people.

Why have laws at all?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Why have laws at all?

Presumably they do things. That's the point. Is this a serious question?

If you are really interested in stopping these types of events, why wouldn't you hunt for solutions that would actually stop them? Why would you want to pass laws that wouldn't?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Liberal politicians are in a tizzy, I believe it's mostly contrived as they repeat this mantra after every similar incident but fail to address the massive amount of murders that take place in large cities, often where gun control laws are very restrictive.

"Evil" AR-15s were used in this incident. The current favorite long arm of Americans, and the current most hated weapon by the left for that reason primarily. The weapons used with the bump stops allegedly fitted to them most likely reduced the fatality rate imo. A competent marksman, with a quality optic properly zeroed, using careful aim for each shot, would likely have killed far more victims in that crowd. This would be true if said hypothetical shooter had utilized a bolt action rifle with same quality optic properly zeroed, imo.

Hillary has used this incident to denounce "the hearing protection act" and declared more people would have been killed if this perp had utilized a suppressor. She only demonstrates her ignorance of firearms in general and suppressors in particular. Suppressors heat up very quickly and would likely have caused a weapon malfunction with the rate of fire utilized by the perp. There are many misperceptions about suppressors due in large part to Hollywood portrayals of same.

But I agree, no law did or would have prevented this attack.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Why have laws at all?

To deter crime and punish violaters that offend. Pretty simple concepts.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Liberal politicians are in a tizzy, I believe it's mostly contrived as they repeat this mantra after every similar incident but fail to address the massive amount of murders that take place in large cities, often where gun control laws are very restrictive.

"Evil" AR-15s were used in this incident. The current favorite long arm of Americans, and the current most hated weapon by the left for that reason primarily. The weapons used with the bump stops allegedly fitted to them most likely reduced the fatality rate imo. A competent marksman, with a quality optic properly zeroed, using careful aim for each shot, would likely have killed far more victims in that crowd. This would be true if said hypothetical shooter had utilized a bolt action rifle with same quality optic properly zeroed, imo.

Hillary has used this incident to denounce "the hearing protection act" and declared more people would have been killed if this perp had utilized a suppressor. She only demonstrates her ignorance of firearms in general and suppressors in particular. Suppressors heat up very quickly and would likely have caused a weapon malfunction with the rate of fire utilized by the perp. There are many misperceptions about suppressors due in large part to Hollywood portrayals of same.

But I agree, no law did or would have prevented this attack.

I read he shot several thousand rounds. To your point, if he shot several thousand rounds and killed 59, that's a pathetic ratio, thankfully.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I wrote bump stops but meant to write "bump stocks".

 

[AE 87]

How so?

Seriously? You don't think your suggestion that everyone who may disagree with you are racists undermines your credibility as someone interested in honest discussion?

Imagine you read the following post.

I think that there are many common sense laws that both the right and the left can agree on. Federal Background Checks already exist, and there can be discussion on who should be restricted. Perhaps there could be laws against allowing those who cannot purchase firearms to have access to legally possessed firearms.

However, let's be real, those who speak the loudest about gun control laws are really American hating pinko communists who really just want to destroy our country. Once they undermine the second amendment, they'll go after the first. They don't believe in freedom of speech or freedom of religion any more than the right to bear arms. They want freedom from speech (that they don't like) and freedom from religion (that they don't like).​

Would that second paragraph make you more or less likely to engage in thoughtful communication over the first?

 

[A Love Supreme]

Presumably they do things. That's the point. Is this a serious question?

If you are really interested in stopping these types of events, why wouldn't you hunt for solutions that would actually stop them? Why would you want to pass laws that wouldn't?

I've already stated that I'm not a policy maker. I don't have the solution to this problem. And I never said I did. I just had some ideas and was throwing them out there. I just hate how we as a country always do nothing after these tragic events.

 

[A Love Supreme]

Seriously? You don't think your suggestion that everyone who may disagree with you are racists undermines your credibility as someone interested in honest discussion?

Imagine you read the following post.

I think that there are many common sense laws that both the right and the left can agree on. Federal Background Checks already exist, and there can be discussion on who should be restricted. Perhaps there could be laws against allowing those who cannot purchase firearms to have access to legally possessed firearms.

However, let's be real, those who speak the loudest about gun control laws are really American hating pinko communists who really just want to destroy our country. Once they undermine the second amendment, they'll go after the first. They don't believe in freedom of speech or freedom of religion any more than the right to bear arms. They want freedom from speech (that they don't like) and freedom from religion (that they don't like).​

Would that second paragraph make you more or less likely to engage in thoughtful communication over the first?

Wow. Are you serious? How did you come up with me calling everyone racists who disagrees with me?

 

[A Love Supreme]

To deter crime and punish violaters that offend. Pretty simple concepts.

Then why can't we have laws making it harder to buy high powered rifles?

 

[RonJohn]

Hillary has used this incident to denounce "the hearing protection act" and declared more people would have been killed if this perp had utilized a suppressor. She only demonstrates her ignorance of firearms in general and suppressors in particular. Suppressors heat up very quickly and would likely have caused a weapon malfunction with the rate of fire utilized by the perp. There are many misperceptions about suppressors due in large part to Hollywood portrayals of same.

I have fired a .308 many times with a suppressor.(Legal of course) It was on a bolt action rifle with hand loaded rounds loaded one at a time. Nothing was in the magazine. I never fired more than about 40 round while target shooting, and usually had at least a minute between rounds as I was getting them out of the box and loading them into the chamber. Therefore, I can't make a definitive comment about heat in the suppressor causing a malfunction. However, the suppressor is a lot like a car muffler. It has chambers inside that allow the muzzle gas to expand little by little instead of in one large explosion at the end of the barrel. The holes in the baffles are larger than the bullet. The suppressor would have to warp enough for the bullet to hit the baffles to cause a problem. As to people not know what was happening if he had used a suppressor, a normal .308 ammo leaves the muzzle at 2600fps. Normal .223 ammo leave the muzzle at about 3200fps. The bullet travelling through the air is at least as loud as a .22 long rifle without a suppressor. I have read articles supporting suppressors that stated that the sound is only lowered by 30dB. If you count the bullet sound, that might be correct. However, I have fired the .308 into a hill from about 5 feet. It sounded like someone triggering an industrial air hose nozzle. I stood downrange while someone else fired a similar gun. It sounded like the gun was fired in the middle of the range, not from where the gun was fired. My take: If he had used a suppressor, everyone would have still known what was going on and would have tried to escape exactly as they did attempt. It would have been more difficult to isolate where the shooter was from the sound if you were on the ground. For someone in the hotel, it would have still sounded like the gun was being fired from the hotel room.

I was working a 26 hour shift Sunday evening, and haven't really caught up yet. I haven't had time to read much about the incident. I do however agree with you that if he: Had used a bolt action rifle with good optics and was competent with the rifle, he could have killed many more. In a crowd like that, if he had used pipes, diesel fuel, and ammonium nitrate, he could have killed and injured more people. It appears from what I have seen that he picked a large crowd and just randomly fired into it.

I don't understand what would make someone just decide to hurt random people. That includes terrorists who do it for some political or religious reasons. Hurting random people isn't going to make any pain you have go away. It isn't going to gain support of your political or religious enemies. People are going to come to conclusions about why he did it, but I won't put much faith in any conclusions. Even if he left a manifesto somewhere, there is no guarantee that even he would be telling the truth about his reasons. I am resigned to believe that I will never know his reasoning.

 

[AE 87]

Wow. Are you serious? How did you come up with me calling everyone racists who disagrees with me?

You said, "If the killer had a beard and was named "Mahmoud from the Middle East" or "Jose from south of the border," there would be a much different tone from some of our politicians."

I'm not going to debate you on whether interjecting these racist motivations on "some of our politicians" is or is not being dismissive of others who disagree with you as racist. The fact that you are feigning shock and wonderment that anyone could see this comment as an imputation of racism disgusts me.

You present yourself in the name of one my favorite songs/albums from one of my favorite musicians of all time, but I have no respect for you.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Then why can't we have laws making it harder to buy high powered rifles?

What is high powered? What is a rifle? Handguns are just as dangerous. If you outlaw things that just look scary, that does nothing. Most handguns are semi-automatic.

I appreciate you want to make things better, we all do. But you may be starting to see the crux of the problem - you can't stop evil. There isn't a government solution to every problem. If guns didn't exist at all, I predict this terrorist would have found a way to poison the water supply or gas a crowd. You get rid of rifles, he would take a handgun and add an extension. Like others have said, his use of a rifle with a bump stock probably saved countless lives. Only about 1 of every 100 of his shots killed someone.

 

[AE 87]

Lott Link

Europe, which has all the gun controls that are being pushed in the aftermath of the Las Vegas carnage, has actually suffered more bloodshed from these types of attacks than the U.S.

You heard that right: Countries such as France may have made all semi-automatic guns illegal, but that hasn’t stopped killers from getting fully automatic machine guns to use in mass shooting attacks. All four of the 2015 mass public shooting in France involved machine guns, including the 130 people killed in November of that year in multiple attacks including one at a concert venue.

...
There were 29 such shootings (four or more fatalities in a public place, according to the FBI’s official definition) in the U.S. during the eight years of the Obama administration; 26 in Europe. The rate at which people are killed is virtually the same in the European Union as in the United States.​

 

[A Love Supreme]

You said, "If the killer had a beard and was named "Mahmoud from the Middle East" or "Jose from south of the border," there would be a much different tone from some of our politicians."

I'm not going to debate you on whether interjecting these racist motivations on "some of our politicians" is or is not being dismissive of others who disagree with you as racist. The fact that you are feigning shock and wonderment that anyone could see this comment as an imputation of racism disgusts me.

You present yourself in the name of one my favorite songs/albums from one of my favorite musicians of all time, but I have no respect for you.

Ok man. It stinks that you have come to the conclusion that you see a racist comment here. It is not. Sorry you feel that way. I still have respect for you as a person even though I don't know you and we disagree on one topic. Peace.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Lott Link

Europe, which has all the gun controls that are being pushed in the aftermath of the Las Vegas carnage, has actually suffered more bloodshed from these types of attacks than the U.S.

You heard that right: Countries such as France may have made all semi-automatic guns illegal, but that hasn’t stopped killers from getting fully automatic machine guns to use in mass shooting attacks. All four of the 2015 mass public shooting in France involved machine guns, including the 130 people killed in November of that year in multiple attacks including one at a concert venue.

...
There were 29 such shootings (four or more fatalities in a public place, according to the FBI’s official definition) in the U.S. during the eight years of the Obama administration; 26 in Europe. The rate at which people are killed is virtually the same in the European Union as in the United States.​

Perhaps an even bigger problem is that those countries have 2x the violent crime rate. If we had no guns and our crime rate jumped to match theirs, we'd save 30,000 gun deaths but we'd have literally 10 MILLION more violent crimes. Not sure about those trade offs...not that we could ban guns and confiscate them anyway.

 

[RonJohn]

Then why can't we have laws making it harder to buy high powered rifles?

High powered rifles are what the Democrats said should be legal in the mid 90s when the "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted. They said that .308s and 30-06s were used to hunt and should be legal. However "scary looking" guns should be regulated. The problem with more regulations on "assault weapons" or "high powered rifles" is that they make scary looking things illegal, but don't really make any difference.

 

[A Love Supreme]

What is high powered? What is a rifle? Handguns are just as dangerous. If you outlaw things that just look scary, that does nothing. Most handguns are semi-automatic.

I appreciate you want to make things better, we all do. But you may be starting to see the crux of the problem - you can't stop evil. There isn't a government solution to every problem. If guns didn't exist at all, I predict this terrorist would have found a way to poison the water supply or gas a crowd. You get rid of rifles, he would take a handgun and add an extension. Like others have said, his use of a rifle with a bump stock probably saved countless lives. Only about 1 of every 100 of his shots killed someone.

I never said outlaw these weapons. I just want some obstacles to be put in place. I think it's possible there can be some form of gun regulations to try to prevent these mass shootings from happening without violating the 2nd Amendment. I understand there is evil and crazy people in the world. I just hate that this stuff happens and want ways to stop it. We haven't even talked about the role of mental health, drugs, and our violent culture have on this. I want our country to talk about all these things.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I never said outlaw these weapons. I just want some obstacles to be put in place. I think it's possible there can be some form of gun regulations to try to prevent these mass shootings from happening without violating the 2nd Amendment. I understand there is evil and crazy people in the world. I just hate that this stuff happens and want ways to stop it. We haven't even talked about the role of mental health, drugs, and our violent culture have on this. I want our country to talk about all these things.

I know. Everything you said makes perfect sense. But think about it – here you have a man who has been on this earth for 64 years, has no history of any mental health disorders, has never had any run-ins with the law, had a good stable job and made tons of money. .. I mean, if you were going to severely restrict who you would sell any type of gun to, he would fit the profile. That is what is so maddening about these things. As engineers we think that there has to be an answer to every problem, but it never seems that easy when you try to put it into practice.