Las Vegas Mass Casualty Attack

[Whiskey_Clear]

@RonJohn
Put 60 rounds through a suppressed AR-15 in a minute and you will not want to touch the barrel or most handguards without gloves on. Put 1000 rounds through it and the weapon will overheat and parts will break...it could literally melt on you.

To those unfamiliar with bump stocks...here is a link to a utube channel from a gun enthusiast "hickock45". He's not a nut job. I'd call him a better than average, pretty good actually, marksman. He displays a type of bump stock here.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Here is another example. Fitted to an AK. Note how hot the barrel gets after about 4 mags...smoking hot and the handguard is hot even to a gloved hand. And it is not suppressed.



These devices will be the primary focus of possible agreement to restrict. But the liberals will also want to obfuscate and attempt to ban all semi-autos. The push will be significant and the uninformed will be easily swayed.

 

[RonJohn]

@RonJohn
Put 60 rounds through a suppressed AR-15 in a minute and you will not want to touch the barrel or most handguards without gloves on. Put 1000 rounds through it and the weapon will overheat and parts will break...it could literally melt on you.

I do know that they get hot. Even after a few rounds, you wouldn't want to touch the barrel or the suppressor. The one I used wasn't made out of aluminum, it had a tube milled out of steel and then hardened. The tube was a good bit larger diameter than the barrel(Of course) so it had a much larger area to dissipate heat. The baffles were made of steel but were on the inside of the tube, so couldn't dissipate heat. They would have probably been the first thing to fail. However, I don't think that the suppressor would have failed much sooner than the gun. But then again a Remington 700 wasn't made to fire 1000s of rounds. Then again many cheap AR15s weren't made to fire 1000s of rounds either.

But back to the statements that a suppressor would have made things worse. I wouldn't have made much difference to the people in the crowd. They would have still heard the bullets, and seen impacts. Even the people that weren't close to the impacts would have noticed the sounds. It would have made triangulating the shooters position more difficult.

 

[A Love Supreme]

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.

Yes it is maddening. And this issue is obviously not easy.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@RonJohn
Sry to derail this a bit. Here is an AR, full auto rapid mag dumps, less than a 1000 rounds, not suppressed.



I agree the suppressor will fail first. And the use of multiple rifles to allow cool down is viable. Also technology tends to improve. There are a lot of suppressor torture / failure videos out there. Stumbled across this one.

 

[Captain killem]

Same amount of people killed in chiraq in September and what do you hear from the democrats cricket chirps.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Here is another example. Fitted to an AK. Note how hot the barrel gets after about 4 mags...smoking hot and the handguard is hot even to a gloved hand. And it is not suppressed.



These devices will be the primary focus of possible agreement to restrict. But the liberals will also want to obfuscate and attempt to ban all semi-autos. The push will be significant and the uninformed will be easily swayed.

They will try but fail to ban semi-automatic guns. Many people don't realize the vast majority of handguns and all guns are semi-automatic. After all, who wants to hunt or protect themselves with a gun that you have to reload after every shot? Makes no sense.

 

[RonJohn]

@RonJohn
Sry to derail this a bit. Here is an AR, full auto rapid mag dumps, less than a 1000 rounds, not suppressed.

The thing that bothers me most about discussions about this incident is that people are making statements that echo their beliefs before the shooting. Politicians are using catch phrases to emphasize their political agenda. A CBS producer reportedly made comments along the lines that killing country music patrons wasn't really a big deal. People are so caught up in being on the left or on the right that an objective analysis of this incident will never happen.

Experts should analyze this and find out:

Why did he do it?(Although I don't think we will ever know. We will only have suspicions.)
Why did he choose that venue?
Why did he choose that hotel?
Why did he choose that floor? Did he choose it or was it just selected by the hotel?
Were guns his first choice of weapon? Did he attempt to produce bombs or chemical/bio weapons?
If he did attempt another weapon, why did that plan fail?
How did he get the guns to Las Vegas? How did he get the guns and ammo to his room?
How did he get remote cameras in the hallways of the hotel? How did he get the stairways to his floor jammed? How did the hotel not notice those things?
How many guns did he use? What order did he use them in? How many rounds through each gun? Did the guns jam?
What type of bullet did he use?
......

You need answers to all of those questions an many more before you can make definitive statements about what did work for him or didn't work for him, and what would have caused more casualties or what would have prevented the incident. The politicians should wait for those answers before making knee-jerk reactions and only re-proposing their already ingrained beliefs. However, the won't. It is my belief that even after reports are made the politicians at the most will only extract portions of expert analysis that support their beliefs. They will ignore everything else, and still only work for their already formed beliefs.

I would guess that a lot of SWAT teams started making new plans for a barricaded shooter in a hotel room with remote cameras this week.

 

[jeffgt14]

So he bought 33 rifles just in the past year. I’m not much of a gun fanatic so any of y’all who are big gun heads want to comment if that is normal? Seems like if someone was buying that much over such a short period of time it would trigger something.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

So he bought 33 rifles just in the past year. I’m not much of a gun fanatic so any of y’all who are big gun heads want to comment if that is normal? Seems like if someone was buying that much over such a short period of time it would trigger something.

I am not a 'gun head' - I've never owned a gun. I don't think I've ever shot a gun. But here is my opinion - that does sound 'extreme' to me. But here's the thing - lets say after buying 10 in a year that some alarm goes off. The FBI comes in and surveils him and tracks him. He is a white, 64 year old man who is wealthy, no criminal record, no history of mental illness, no apparent history of any extreme political or religious activities. So we'd still end up right back where we are. /throws hands up

 

[awbuzz]

So he bought 33 rifles just in the past year. I’m not much of a gun fanatic so any of y’all who are big gun heads want to comment if that is normal? Seems like if someone was buying that much over such a short period of time it would trigger something.

... not normal...

---

 

[northgajacket]

... not normal...

---

If somebody buys that many guns in one year, that should raise a red flag IMO.

 

[LibertyTurns]

If somebody buys that many guns in one year, that should raise a red flag IMO.

Isn’t that profiling?

 

[AE 87]

Isn’t that profiling?

What's wrong with that?

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Isn’t that profiling?

LOL. Yup it is.

I haven't posted since I'm despondent over what has happened and the needless cruelty of people all over the world. Nothing new in the cruelty, only technology has made it easier to kill more people without contact.

I don't see a solution in our country since the subject of gun control has been debated and resolved, so far, through the ballot box. People seem to be voting that the freedom to own guns of almost any capability is worth the collateral damage of the deaths we see. I don't agree and don't own a gun. 90 people every day are shot in this country (60 are suicide attempts) so the impact of guns has been with us for a long time. The cynic in me says even if we were able to restrict guns effectively, people would resort to bombs or poison or something else.

No solutions or hope. So I'm left with the great philosopher Jimmy Buffet whose song "Lucky Stars" says:
"Politicians speak and it makes me ill...
People are dyin' just for a thrill.
Maybe it's just evolution gone astray." https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jimmybuffett/luckystars.html

I think Paddock did it to commit suicide by cop in a blaze of notoriety. Sick. Wish he had just used one of the guns on himself before anyone else.

 

[northgajacket]

Isn’t that profiling?

Still should raise a red flag. Nobody on earth needs that many guns.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Evil has always and will always exist in the world.....until the return of Christ anyway. But I don't want to derail with religious debate.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

LOL. Yup it is.

I haven't posted since I'm despondent over what has happened and the needless cruelty of people all over the world. Nothing new in the cruelty, only technology has made it easier to kill more people without contact.

I don't see a solution in our country since the subject of gun control has been debated and resolved, so far, through the ballot box. People seem to be voting that the freedom to own guns of almost any capability is worth the collateral damage of the deaths we see. I don't agree and don't own a gun. 90 people every day are shot in this country (60 are suicide attempts) so the impact of guns has been with us for a long time. The cynic in me says even if we were able to restrict guns effectively, people would resort to bombs or poison or something else.

No solutions or hope. So I'm left with the great philosopher Jimmy Buffet whose song "Lucky Stars" says:
"Politicians speak and it makes me ill...
People are dyin' just for a thrill.
Maybe it's just evolution gone astray." https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jimmybuffett/luckystars.html

I think Paddock did it to commit suicide by cop in a blaze of notoriety. Sick. Wish he had just used one of the guns on himself before anyone else.

The U.K. And most countries in Europe have no guns. So they save thousands of gun deaths per year. But their violent crime rate is double ours. If we had their crime rate, we'd have TEN MILLION more violent crimes per year.

So yea, the gun deaths here are terrible, but we also have to keep everything in perspective.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Still should raise a red flag. Nobody on earth needs that many guns.

The number doesn't matter. Many Americans own more and aren't psychos. The intent of and actual use of them is what matters.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The U.K. And most countries in Europe have no guns. So they save thousands of gun deaths per year. But their violent crime rate is double ours. If we had their crime rate, we'd have TEN MILLION more violent crimes per year.

So yea, the gun deaths here are terrible, but we also have to keep everything in perspective.

Actually recent terror attacks in Europe have involved full auto weapons.