Las Vegas shooting: Reports of shooter at Mandalay Bay Casino

[Faun]

I don't have to.

Look up the FBI stats and you will see plain as day that knives are used to kill many times more than rifles.

. How many at one event though ?? The knives lose.

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

 

[Marion Morrison]

. How many at one event though ?? The knives lose.

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Paddock had class III weapons. In other words, weapons he used are already restricted.

 

[Faun]

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Paddock had class III weapons. In other words, weapons he used are already restricted.

He purchased all of his weapons legally.

 

[Skull Pilot]

. How many at one event though ?? The knives lose.

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Of course it holds water.

You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.

This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.

 

[MindWars]

Explosive Compilation: Las Vegas Survivors Speak Out, Multiple Shooters In Multiple Locations

 

[westwall]

Really? I can't think of a single murder that has been prevented because they are against the law. Do provide a link for a case where the law prevented a murder. I am truly interested.

. No law prevents all murder, all speeding or anything in the like, but if caught then we can say during the trial that you knew the law, and yet you decided to break it, and now the punishment under the law will be this. This is supposed to act as a deterrent against others who may consider doing the same, but because they know about the law, and what happened to the law breaker, then it hopefully will cause the new potential law breaker to not go down the same path.

Ummm. Had you bothered to read my response that is what I stated. Laws don't prevent crime. They merely codify the punishment for doing the crime. You people want to punish tens of millions of people for the criminal misdeeds of a few thousand people. Sounds kind of dumb. You all claiming to want life to be "fair" and all.

Not being able to own a machine gun is punishment?

Yes. I own several and if you take them away for no cause that is indeed punishment. Punishment of a financial nature as they are fantastic investments, punishment of a loss of freedom to pursue happiness as I enjoy shooting them, and punishment of a lack of due process as you are punishing ME for the criminal misdeeds of a few who will ignore your stupid law ANYWAY.

No one has threatened to take any guns from anyone and believing that they`re coming for your precious is a sign of paranoia. Paranoia is a recognized symptom of mental disease. Should you really be playing with guns?

Yes, they have. Your continued denial is ridiculous given the verifiable evidence that is out there in video, and written form. The ultimate goal of any authoritarian government, which ALL progressive governments are, is the disarming of the citizenry, and the complete concentration of power in the hands of the government. That is proven through centuries of history. As is the fact that once a weapons ban begins, it never ends. First one type is taken away, then another, then another until finally only the rich, and the powerful have weapons. We have THOUSANDS of years of history showing this to be true.

Your last little jibe merely shows that you have no facts to back you up, merely insults and lies.

 

[westwall]

Just for a laugh... post s link to the data supporting your claim of how popular you think knives are...

I don't have to.

Look up the FBI stats and you will see plain as day that knives are used to kill many times more than rifles.

. How many at one event though ?? The knives lose.

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

Your claim is already refuted by the SCOTUS ruling in US v Miller from 1934 that held that the ONLY weapons that are protected by the 2nd Amendment are those of a military nature. You are flat assed wrong.

 

[beagle9]

That was you I used a perfectly valid psychological term.

Like I said you need to get a hold of your emotions and think rationally

Just for a laugh... post s link to the data supporting your claim of how popular you think knives are...

I don't have to.

Look up the FBI stats and you will see plain as day that knives are used to kill many times more than rifles.

. How many at one event though ?? The knives lose.

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

. What part of this don't you understand that when these things happen in such a tragic situation, that they are highly unique in nature ? This is why it forces the hand to look deeper into the entire event, and this is in order to make sure that such an event doesn't become a routine type event used by a population that has become so fractured, that it is almost impossible to know when or where the next event will occur. The only thing we can do is limit the damage by taking out some of the tools that made the horrific event so deadly. The bumpstock needs to go because it allowed the rate of fire to be so great that 58 souls lost their lives & 500 more we're maimed and injured in a 10 minute time span. That is unexceptable by any sane people's standards. Using time stats based upon crime in the country is a distraction that is used to cloud the issue.

 

[beagle9]

Really? I can't think of a single murder that has been prevented because they are against the law. Do provide a link for a case where the law prevented a murder. I am truly interested.

. No law prevents all murder, all speeding or anything in the like, but if caught then we can say during the trial that you knew the law, and yet you decided to break it, and now the punishment under the law will be this. This is supposed to act as a deterrent against others who may consider doing the same, but because they know about the law, and what happened to the law breaker, then it hopefully will cause the new potential law breaker to not go down the same path.

Ummm. Had you bothered to read my response that is what I stated. Laws don't prevent crime. They merely codify the punishment for doing the crime. You people want to punish tens of millions of people for the criminal misdeeds of a few thousand people. Sounds kind of dumb. You all claiming to want life to be "fair" and all.

Not being able to own a machine gun is punishment?

Yes. I own several and if you take them away for no cause that is indeed punishment. Punishment of a financial nature as they are fantastic investments, punishment of a loss of freedom to pursue happiness as I enjoy shooting them, and punishment of a lack of due process as you are punishing ME for the criminal misdeeds of a few who will ignore your stupid law ANYWAY.

No one has threatened to take any guns from anyone and believing that they`re coming for your precious is a sign of paranoia. Paranoia is a recognized symptom of mental disease. Should you really be playing with guns?

. Just as you used the mental card, well don't you think that the card is attempted to be used now as a way to remove guns from people ? Taking guns or wanting to take guns away by schemes or technicalities is unexceptable, and it should be resisted always. Now banning a bump stock is more than likely exceptable in the eyes of many, but that's it.

 

[beagle9]

I don't have to.

Look up the FBI stats and you will see plain as day that knives are used to kill many times more than rifles.

. How many at one event though ?? The knives lose.

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

Your claim is already refuted by the SCOTUS ruling in US v Miller from 1934 that held that the ONLY weapons that are protected by the 2nd Amendment are those of a military nature. You are flat assed wrong.

Huh ? Never mind... Don't elaborate please.

 

[beagle9]

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Of course it holds water.

You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.

This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.

. So you could give a crap less about 600 people being mowed down in 10 minutes by a lone gunman all due to him legally purchasing the tools in which modified the weapons in order to do such a thing ?? Gotta keep that dam bumpstock legal eh ? To hell with the damage it caused eh ?? If it we're up to you, then seatbelts would have never been created and/or would have never gotten the chance to prove that lives can be saved by just clicking it in, and this after they were installed. If it we're up to you, then helmets would have never been created for motorcycle riders, and they wouldn't be there to save lives as they do today. Many things were resisted until the results started rolling in, and creating the very stats in which you love to reference here.

 

[westwall]

Just for a laugh... post s link to the data supporting your claim of how popular you think knives are...

I don't have to.

Look up the FBI stats and you will see plain as day that knives are used to kill many times more than rifles.

. How many at one event though ?? The knives lose.

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

. What part of this don't you understand that when these things happen in such a tragic situation, that they are highly unique in nature ? This is why it forces the hand to look deeper into the entire event, and this is in order to make sure that such an event doesn't become a routine type event used by a population that has become so fractured, that it is almost impossible to know when or where the next event will occur. The only thing we can do is limit the damage by taking out some of the tools that made the horrific event so deadly. The bumpstock needs to go because it allowed the rate of fire to be so great that 58 souls lost their lives & 500 more we're maimed and injured in a 10 minute time span. That is unexceptable by any sane people's standards. Using time stats based upon crime in the country is a distraction that is used to cloud the issue.

The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock. Paris has proven beyond doubt that you can't prevent anything from happening. Your laughable assertion that by banning the bump stock this would somehow have prevented this asshole from getting one is absurd. He planned this for months. I have talked at length with one of the lead FBI agents and he states that the asshole was researching the attack for at least half a year based on his google searches. Based on what law enforcement knows it would have been better to ban google than any of the other tools he used.

 

[westwall]

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Of course it holds water.

You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.

This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.

. So you could give a crap less about 600 people being mowed down in 10 minutes by a lone gunman all due to him legally purchasing the tools in which modified the weapons in order to do such a thing ?? Gotta keep that dam bumpstock legal eh ? To hell with the damage it caused eh ?? If it we're up to you, then seatbelts would have never been created and/or would have never gotten the chance to prove that lives can be saved by just clicking it in, and this after they were installed. If it we're up to you, then helmets would have never been created for motorcycle riders, and they wouldn't be there to save lives as they do today. Many things were resisted until the results started rolling in, and creating the very stats in which you love to reference here.

The same number were mown down in Paris where every wet dream gun control law you want is already on the books. Evil people, intent on doing evil, and with the means to do so, are going to do it. You might as well make a law that says millionaires can't have guns for all the efficacy your laws would have.

 

[beagle9]

I don't have to.

Look up the FBI stats and you will see plain as day that knives are used to kill many times more than rifles.

. How many at one event though ?? The knives lose.

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

. What part of this don't you understand that when these things happen in such a tragic situation, that they are highly unique in nature ? This is why it forces the hand to look deeper into the entire event, and this is in order to make sure that such an event doesn't become a routine type event used by a population that has become so fractured, that it is almost impossible to know when or where the next event will occur. The only thing we can do is limit the damage by taking out some of the tools that made the horrific event so deadly. The bumpstock needs to go because it allowed the rate of fire to be so great that 58 souls lost their lives & 500 more we're maimed and injured in a 10 minute time span. That is unexceptable by any sane people's standards. Using time stats based upon crime in the country is a distraction that is used to cloud the issue.

The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock. Paris has proven beyond doubt that you can't prevent anything from happening. Your laughable assertion that by banning the bump stock this would somehow have prevented this asshole from getting one is absurd. He planned this for months. I have talked at length with one of the lead FBI agents and he states that the asshole was researching the attack for at least half a year based on his google searches. Based on what law enforcement knows it would have been better to ban google than any of the other tools he used.

. Listen now, you ain't talking to an idiot here, so please don't give me this bullcrap about the bumpstock saving lives. When you have thousands of people cornered in a corral with no where to run, do you think that Paddock gave a crap about accuracy ???? He knew what he was doing in his choosing of the weapons he used, and his choosing was as accurate as any one could have imagined.

 

[beagle9]

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Of course it holds water.

You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.

This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.

. So you could give a crap less about 600 people being mowed down in 10 minutes by a lone gunman all due to him legally purchasing the tools in which modified the weapons in order to do such a thing ?? Gotta keep that dam bumpstock legal eh ? To hell with the damage it caused eh ?? If it we're up to you, then seatbelts would have never been created and/or would have never gotten the chance to prove that lives can be saved by just clicking it in, and this after they were installed. If it we're up to you, then helmets would have never been created for motorcycle riders, and they wouldn't be there to save lives as they do today. Many things were resisted until the results started rolling in, and creating the very stats in which you love to reference here.

The same number were mown down in Paris where every wet dream gun control law you want is already on the books. Evil people, intent on doing evil, and with the means to do so, are going to do it. You might as well make a law that says millionaires can't have guns for all the efficacy your laws would have.

. Not everyone obeys the laws your right, but at least the laws show that the majority weren't negligent in the situation, and this is because they had the laws in place at the least, and now that they (the laws) have been broken, then here comes the consequences. It is the very foundation of our justice system, and our ability to say we have a civilized society.

 

[westwall]

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Of course it holds water.

You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.

This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.

. So you could give a crap less about 600 people being mowed down in 10 minutes by a lone gunman all due to him legally purchasing the tools in which modified the weapons in order to do such a thing ?? Gotta keep that dam bumpstock legal eh ? To hell with the damage it caused eh ?? If it we're up to you, then seatbelts would have never been created and/or would have never gotten the chance to prove that lives can be saved by just clicking it in, and this after they were installed. If it we're up to you, then helmets would have never been created for motorcycle riders, and they wouldn't be there to save lives as they do today. Many things were resisted until the results started rolling in, and creating the very stats in which you love to reference here.

The same number were mown down in Paris where every wet dream gun control law you want is already on the books. Evil people, intent on doing evil, and with the means to do so, are going to do it. You might as well make a law that says millionaires can't have guns for all the efficacy your laws would have.

. Not everyone obeys the laws your right, but at least the laws show that the majority weren't negligent in the situation, and this is because they had the laws in place at the least, and now that they (the laws) have been broken, then here comes the consequences. It is the very foundation of our justice system, and our ability to say we have a civilized society.

The sort of people, who do these crimes ignore the laws you so desperately want to enact. That is a simple fact. The reason why we can make the claim to have a civilized society is because we have good sanitation. As anyone who has been involved in rioting as I was when LA erupted after the King trials, the veneer of civilization is very, very thin. The only reason why we are not a third world hell hole is because of guns.

The fear of guns in the hands of the civilian population has been shown over and over and over again to be the reason why we haven't been invaded, and why the crime rate isn't astronomical. Take a look at every city where the general population has been disarmed, the violence is through the roof. Chicago is merely the most violent example, but every other city like it, is suffering in similar fashion.

The reality is gun control laws only serve to make the violent criminals more effective because they have less to fear. We know that 8% of the criminal population commits 80% of the violent crime, and it is that group that is consistently released back out into society to continue their depredations.

You want to really have an impact on violent crime? Lock those violent scum up, and throw away the key.

 

[westwall]

. How many at one event though ?? The knives lose.

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

. What part of this don't you understand that when these things happen in such a tragic situation, that they are highly unique in nature ? This is why it forces the hand to look deeper into the entire event, and this is in order to make sure that such an event doesn't become a routine type event used by a population that has become so fractured, that it is almost impossible to know when or where the next event will occur. The only thing we can do is limit the damage by taking out some of the tools that made the horrific event so deadly. The bumpstock needs to go because it allowed the rate of fire to be so great that 58 souls lost their lives & 500 more we're maimed and injured in a 10 minute time span. That is unexceptable by any sane people's standards. Using time stats based upon crime in the country is a distraction that is used to cloud the issue.

The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock. Paris has proven beyond doubt that you can't prevent anything from happening. Your laughable assertion that by banning the bump stock this would somehow have prevented this asshole from getting one is absurd. He planned this for months. I have talked at length with one of the lead FBI agents and he states that the asshole was researching the attack for at least half a year based on his google searches. Based on what law enforcement knows it would have been better to ban google than any of the other tools he used.

. Listen now, you ain't talking to an idiot here, so please don't give me this bullcrap about the bumpstock saving lives. When you have thousands of people cornered in a corral with no where to run, do you think that Paddock gave a crap about accuracy ???? He knew what he was doing in his choosing of the weapons he used, and his choosing was as accurate as any one could have imagined.

Yes, the bump stock saved lives. After his initial burst of fire when everyone was packed in like sardines, his hit rate plummeted. Had he not been using the bump stock he would have hit far more people. Further the bump stock caused his weapon to jam at least twice that we know of, and the usage of the bump stock wears the shooter out very quickly, there was a long pause as he was resting, that is all thanks to the bump stock.

I am not claiming you're an idiot, but you don't know how bump stocks work, their reliability issues, and the loss of accuracy when guns are fired full auto.

 

[beagle9]

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

. What part of this don't you understand that when these things happen in such a tragic situation, that they are highly unique in nature ? This is why it forces the hand to look deeper into the entire event, and this is in order to make sure that such an event doesn't become a routine type event used by a population that has become so fractured, that it is almost impossible to know when or where the next event will occur. The only thing we can do is limit the damage by taking out some of the tools that made the horrific event so deadly. The bumpstock needs to go because it allowed the rate of fire to be so great that 58 souls lost their lives & 500 more we're maimed and injured in a 10 minute time span. That is unexceptable by any sane people's standards. Using time stats based upon crime in the country is a distraction that is used to cloud the issue.

The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock. Paris has proven beyond doubt that you can't prevent anything from happening. Your laughable assertion that by banning the bump stock this would somehow have prevented this asshole from getting one is absurd. He planned this for months. I have talked at length with one of the lead FBI agents and he states that the asshole was researching the attack for at least half a year based on his google searches. Based on what law enforcement knows it would have been better to ban google than any of the other tools he used.

. Listen now, you ain't talking to an idiot here, so please don't give me this bullcrap about the bumpstock saving lives. When you have thousands of people cornered in a corral with no where to run, do you think that Paddock gave a crap about accuracy ???? He knew what he was doing in his choosing of the weapons he used, and his choosing was as accurate as any one could have imagined.

Yes, the bump stock saved lives. After his initial burst of fire when everyone was packed in like sardines, his hit rate plummeted. Had he not been using the bump stock he would have hit far more people. Further the bump stock caused his weapon to jam at least twice that we know of, and the usage of the bump stock wears the shooter out very quickly, there was a long pause as he was resting, that is all thanks to the bump stock.

I am not claiming you're an idiot, but you don't know how bump stocks work, their reliability issues, and the loss of accuracy when guns are fired full auto.

. A machine gun wasn't created for accuracy, but instead was created for the spraying of bullet's in a wide swath, and in a super fast action in order to hit and mame as many as possible. The gatlin gun is the same. Do you think it right to allow gatlin guns to be sold legally at gun shows to anyone who passes a sketchy background check ?? You know in respect to the people who were slaughtered on that day, I think outlawing the bumpstock would have been a righteous gesture in regards to what took place on that day, and how exactly it was enabled to do the most damage on that day. To ignore it is to kick the can down the road, and this is what has been the case in this event after knowing what is known about the case now.

 

[westwall]

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

. What part of this don't you understand that when these things happen in such a tragic situation, that they are highly unique in nature ? This is why it forces the hand to look deeper into the entire event, and this is in order to make sure that such an event doesn't become a routine type event used by a population that has become so fractured, that it is almost impossible to know when or where the next event will occur. The only thing we can do is limit the damage by taking out some of the tools that made the horrific event so deadly. The bumpstock needs to go because it allowed the rate of fire to be so great that 58 souls lost their lives & 500 more we're maimed and injured in a 10 minute time span. That is unexceptable by any sane people's standards. Using time stats based upon crime in the country is a distraction that is used to cloud the issue.

The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock. Paris has proven beyond doubt that you can't prevent anything from happening. Your laughable assertion that by banning the bump stock this would somehow have prevented this asshole from getting one is absurd. He planned this for months. I have talked at length with one of the lead FBI agents and he states that the asshole was researching the attack for at least half a year based on his google searches. Based on what law enforcement knows it would have been better to ban google than any of the other tools he used.

. Listen now, you ain't talking to an idiot here, so please don't give me this bullcrap about the bumpstock saving lives. When you have thousands of people cornered in a corral with no where to run, do you think that Paddock gave a crap about accuracy ???? He knew what he was doing in his choosing of the weapons he used, and his choosing was as accurate as any one could have imagined.

Yes, the bump stock saved lives. After his initial burst of fire when everyone was packed in like sardines, his hit rate plummeted. Had he not been using the bump stock he would have hit far more people. Further the bump stock caused his weapon to jam at least twice that we know of, and the usage of the bump stock wears the shooter out very quickly, there was a long pause as he was resting, that is all thanks to the bump stock.

I am not claiming you're an idiot, but you don't know how bump stocks work, their reliability issues, and the loss of accuracy when guns are fired full auto.

. A machine gun wasn't created for accuracy, but instead was created for the spraying of bullet's in a wide swath, and in a super fast action in order to hit and mame as many as possible. The gatlin gun is the same. Do you think it right to allow gatlin guns to be sold legally at gun shows to anyone who passes a sketchy background check ?? You know in respect to the people who were slaughtered on that day, I think outlawing the bumpstock would have been a righteous gesture in regards to what took place on that day, and how exactly it was enabled to do the most damage on that day. To ignore it is to kick the can down the road, and this is what has been the case in this event after knowing what is known about the case now.

Man you really don't know anything do you? Have you ever read a treatise on infantry combat? Clearly you have not. A machinegun is designed to lay down fire, to keep the enemies head down, so that your infantry can maneuver to the enemy's flank and attack from the side. How about you read some actual tactical manuals before you make a complete fool of yourself again.

 

[beagle9]

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Of course it holds water.

You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.

This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.

. So you could give a crap less about 600 people being mowed down in 10 minutes by a lone gunman all due to him legally purchasing the tools in which modified the weapons in order to do such a thing ?? Gotta keep that dam bumpstock legal eh ? To hell with the damage it caused eh ?? If it we're up to you, then seatbelts would have never been created and/or would have never gotten the chance to prove that lives can be saved by just clicking it in, and this after they were installed. If it we're up to you, then helmets would have never been created for motorcycle riders, and they wouldn't be there to save lives as they do today. Many things were resisted until the results started rolling in, and creating the very stats in which you love to reference here.

The same number were mown down in Paris where every wet dream gun control law you want is already on the books. Evil people, intent on doing evil, and with the means to do so, are going to do it. You might as well make a law that says millionaires can't have guns for all the efficacy your laws would have.

. Not everyone obeys the laws your right, but at least the laws show that the majority weren't negligent in the situation, and this is because they had the laws in place at the least, and now that they (the laws) have been broken, then here comes the consequences. It is the very foundation of our justice system, and our ability to say we have a civilized society.

The sort of people, who do these crimes ignore the laws you so desperately want to enact. That is a simple fact. The reason why we can make the claim to have a civilized society is because we have good sanitation. As anyone who has been involved in rioting as I was when LA erupted after the King trials, the veneer of civilization is very, very thin. The only reason why we are not a third world hell hole is because of guns.

The fear of guns in the hands of the civilian population has been shown over and over and over again to be the reason why we haven't been invaded, and why the crime rate isn't astronomical. Take a look at every city where the general population has been disarmed, the violence is through the roof. Chicago is merely the most violent example, but every other city like it, is suffering in similar fashion.

The reality is gun control laws only serve to make the violent criminals more effective because they have less to fear. We know that 8% of the criminal population commits 80% of the violent crime, and it is that group that is consistently released back out into society to continue their depredations.

You want to really have an impact on violent crime? Lock those violent scum up, and throw away the key.

. I've already covered the idea of locking the criminals up in a manor that is equal to their crimes. Until that is done, then what should we do ??