Author Topic: Deadliest Mass Shooting In US history: Las Vegas 50+ dead, 200 hundred injured.  (Read 6932 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30792
  • Tommy Points: 5149
Sadly, this won't be the last time this happens in this country. Maybe not the last time something like this happens this year. There are a lot of evil people in America that have access to guns and with the 2nd Amendment, continued relaxation of gun laws and the NRA lobby, that's not going to change.

My guess is by 2030 there will be twice as many guns in America as there are people. We are the laughing stock of the civilized world with the way we handle guns in this country.

My thoughts and well wishes go out to all the victims and their families.

Offline Sketch5

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2451
  • Tommy Points: 206
Maybe let the bodies, of the many victims senselessly and tragically killed, get cold before we start arguing that tired gun debate?

Okay, how about we cite to many of the other similar (but slightly lesser events) in recent years then? Or how about we note that as of yesterday, the House was planning to vote on two laws that further increased access to guns and silencers later this week?  http://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/amp/Pair-of-pro-gun-bills-on-move-in-House-12243745.php 

If Congress gets to keep voting to continue down this path, why should we have to stop talking about it because the very things we're arguing that we want to prevent keep occurring?  That's nonsense.

Also, I'm sorry that you find the gun debate "tired" even after so many were just killed by a single person.

People need to do actual research about gun "silencers" and what they do. Hollywood has created huge misconceptions about the efficacy of gun "silencers" and how much they actually muffle sound. It's to help reduce some recoil and muffle the sound enough to protect the shooter's hearing, which is very beneficial to sportsmen and hunters who do a lot of shooting. People act like allowing silencers will lead to silent executions and gunfire, but those fears just aren't based in reality. Watch some YouTube videos to see just how "silent" these silencers make guns (Hint: they don't).

The other piece about concealed carry reciprocity is a bit more controversial. While I do think federal concealed carry reciprocity should trump state laws due to the second amendment being a federally protected right of US citizens, the "constitutional carry" states that don't require training or licensure for concealed carry make me hesitant on this. There absolutely should be some amount of training required to concealed carry.

I just became a CCW holder in Ohio, and I had to take a day-long course in pistol carrying safety and gun law to get my license. This included both a written test and a shooting competency test at the range. I think some kind of training like this should be required to be able to legally take advantage of concealed carry reciprocity across state lines.

EDIT: Statistics have even empirically proven that CCW holders who go through these types of training are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the US, so there shouldn't be any issue with mandated concealed carry reciprocity - as long there's required training to get the CCW license.

I went and watched some youtube videos on this. The first couple videos were exactly what you said. Not a huge difference. Then a couple more there were a more noticeable difference. But you could still hear it pretty well, so your point seem valid.

But then I saw a really good one were they guy set his camera up like the other videos, but also a audio one down range. Being right next to it appose to 50 yard or more is a huge difference. With out the silencer you can still hear the pops very well. With , you can hear it, but if you're in a crowed mall or concert, no way. And thats were the issue lies.

But your right that most people are good law abiding citizens. Problem is trying to keep it that way. 

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16940
  • Tommy Points: 805
Maybe let the bodies, of the many victims senselessly and tragically killed, get cold before we start arguing that tired gun debate?

Okay, how about we cite to many of the other similar (but slightly lesser events) in recent years then? Or how about we note that as of yesterday, the House was planning to vote on two laws that further increased access to guns and silencers later this week?  http://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/amp/Pair-of-pro-gun-bills-on-move-in-House-12243745.php 

If Congress gets to keep voting to continue down this path, why should we have to stop talking about it because the very things we're arguing that we want to prevent keep occurring?  That's nonsense.

Also, I'm sorry that you find the gun debate "tired" even after so many were just killed by a single person.

People need to do actual research about gun "silencers" and what they do. Hollywood has created huge misconceptions about the efficacy of gun "silencers" and how much they actually muffle sound. It's to help reduce some recoil and muffle the sound enough to protect the shooter's hearing, which is very beneficial to sportsmen and hunters who do a lot of shooting. People act like allowing silencers will lead to silent executions and gunfire, but those fears just aren't based in reality. Watch some YouTube videos to see just how "silent" these silencers make guns (Hint: they don't).

The other piece about concealed carry reciprocity is a bit more controversial. While I do think federal concealed carry reciprocity should trump state laws due to the second amendment being a federally protected right of US citizens, the "constitutional carry" states that don't require training or licensure for concealed carry make me hesitant on this. There absolutely should be some amount of training required to concealed carry.

I just became a CCW holder in Ohio, and I had to take a day-long course in pistol carrying safety and gun law to get my license. This included both a written test and a shooting competency test at the range. I think some kind of training like this should be required to be able to legally take advantage of concealed carry reciprocity across state lines.

EDIT: Statistics have even empirically proven that CCW holders who go through these types of training are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the US, so there shouldn't be any issue with mandated concealed carry reciprocity - as long there's required training to get the CCW license.

I went and watched some youtube videos on this. The first couple videos were exactly what you said. Not a huge difference. Then a couple more there were a more noticeable difference. But you could still hear it pretty well, so your point seem valid.

But then I saw a really good one were they guy set his camera up like the other videos, but also a audio one down range. Being right next to it appose to 50 yard or more is a huge difference. With out the silencer you can still hear the pops very well. With , you can hear it, but if you're in a crowed mall or concert, no way. And thats were the issue lies.

But your right that most people are good law abiding citizens. Problem is trying to keep it that way.
And a hunter can just wear ear protection, which is far better ear protection.  There is no need for a silencer to protect hearing. 

The issue is not just with laws but enforcement of said laws.  If every time someone was caught with a silencer that person had all guns confiscated, paid a huge fine, and spent time in jail, then silencers would disappear (even for criminals).  If you did the same thing with whatever gun restrictions you had, like say semi-automatic rifles, then those types of guns would disappear (even for criminals).  If you make the penalties strict enough, you can eliminate whatever sort of weapon you want to.
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Offline matteo

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 484
  • Tommy Points: 135
Maybe let the bodies, of the many victims senselessly and tragically killed, get cold before we start arguing that tired gun debate?

Okay, how about we cite to many of the other similar (but slightly lesser events) in recent years then? Or how about we note that as of yesterday, the House was planning to vote on two laws that further increased access to guns and silencers later this week?  http://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/amp/Pair-of-pro-gun-bills-on-move-in-House-12243745.php 

If Congress gets to keep voting to continue down this path, why should we have to stop talking about it because the very things we're arguing that we want to prevent keep occurring?  That's nonsense.

Also, I'm sorry that you find the gun debate "tired" even after so many were just killed by a single person.

People need to do actual research about gun "silencers" and what they do. Hollywood has created huge misconceptions about the efficacy of gun "silencers" and how much they actually muffle sound. It's to help reduce some recoil and muffle the sound enough to protect the shooter's hearing, which is very beneficial to sportsmen and hunters who do a lot of shooting. People act like allowing silencers will lead to silent executions and gunfire, but those fears just aren't based in reality. Watch some YouTube videos to see just how "silent" these silencers make guns (Hint: they don't).

The other piece about concealed carry reciprocity is a bit more controversial. While I do think federal concealed carry reciprocity should trump state laws due to the second amendment being a federally protected right of US citizens, the "constitutional carry" states that don't require training or licensure for concealed carry make me hesitant on this. There absolutely should be some amount of training required to concealed carry.

I just became a CCW holder in Ohio, and I had to take a day-long course in pistol carrying safety and gun law to get my license. This included both a written test and a shooting competency test at the range. I think some kind of training like this should be required to be able to legally take advantage of concealed carry reciprocity across state lines.

EDIT: Statistics have even empirically proven that CCW holders who go through these types of training are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the US, so there shouldn't be any issue with mandated concealed carry reciprocity - as long there's required training to get the CCW license.

I went and watched some youtube videos on this. The first couple videos were exactly what you said. Not a huge difference. Then a couple more there were a more noticeable difference. But you could still hear it pretty well, so your point seem valid.

But then I saw a really good one were they guy set his camera up like the other videos, but also a audio one down range. Being right next to it appose to 50 yard or more is a huge difference. With out the silencer you can still hear the pops very well. With , you can hear it, but if you're in a crowed mall or concert, no way. And thats were the issue lies.

But your right that most people are good law abiding citizens. Problem is trying to keep it that way.
And a hunter can just wear ear protection, which is far better ear protection.  There is no need for a silencer to protect hearing. 

The issue is not just with laws but enforcement of said laws.  If every time someone was caught with a silencer that person had all guns confiscated, paid a huge fine, and spent time in jail, then silencers would disappear (even for criminals).  If you did the same thing with whatever gun restrictions you had, like say semi-automatic rifles, then those types of guns would disappear (even for criminals).  If you make the penalties strict enough, you can eliminate whatever sort of weapon you want to.

nope

Offline Eddie20

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7398
  • Tommy Points: 787
Maybe let the bodies, of the many victims senselessly and tragically killed, get cold before we start arguing that tired gun debate?

Okay, how about we cite to many of the other similar (but slightly lesser events) in recent years then? Or how about we note that as of yesterday, the House was planning to vote on two laws that further increased access to guns and silencers later this week?  http://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/amp/Pair-of-pro-gun-bills-on-move-in-House-12243745.php 

If Congress gets to keep voting to continue down this path, why should we have to stop talking about it because the very things we're arguing that we want to prevent keep occurring?  That's nonsense.

Also, I'm sorry that you find the gun debate "tired" even after so many were just killed by a single person.

People need to do actual research about gun "silencers" and what they do. Hollywood has created huge misconceptions about the efficacy of gun "silencers" and how much they actually muffle sound. It's to help reduce some recoil and muffle the sound enough to protect the shooter's hearing, which is very beneficial to sportsmen and hunters who do a lot of shooting. People act like allowing silencers will lead to silent executions and gunfire, but those fears just aren't based in reality. Watch some YouTube videos to see just how "silent" these silencers make guns (Hint: they don't).

The other piece about concealed carry reciprocity is a bit more controversial. While I do think federal concealed carry reciprocity should trump state laws due to the second amendment being a federally protected right of US citizens, the "constitutional carry" states that don't require training or licensure for concealed carry make me hesitant on this. There absolutely should be some amount of training required to concealed carry.

I just became a CCW holder in Ohio, and I had to take a day-long course in pistol carrying safety and gun law to get my license. This included both a written test and a shooting competency test at the range. I think some kind of training like this should be required to be able to legally take advantage of concealed carry reciprocity across state lines.

EDIT: Statistics have even empirically proven that CCW holders who go through these types of training are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the US, so there shouldn't be any issue with mandated concealed carry reciprocity - as long there's required training to get the CCW license.

I went and watched some youtube videos on this. The first couple videos were exactly what you said. Not a huge difference. Then a couple more there were a more noticeable difference. But you could still hear it pretty well, so your point seem valid.

But then I saw a really good one were they guy set his camera up like the other videos, but also a audio one down range. Being right next to it appose to 50 yard or more is a huge difference. With out the silencer you can still hear the pops very well. With , you can hear it, but if you're in a crowed mall or concert, no way. And thats were the issue lies.

But your right that most people are good law abiding citizens. Problem is trying to keep it that way.
And a hunter can just wear ear protection, which is far better ear protection.  There is no need for a silencer to protect hearing. 

The issue is not just with laws but enforcement of said laws.  If every time someone was caught with a silencer that person had all guns confiscated, paid a huge fine, and spent time in jail, then silencers would disappear (even for criminals).  If you did the same thing with whatever gun restrictions you had, like say semi-automatic rifles, then those types of guns would disappear (even for criminals).  If you make the penalties strict enough, you can eliminate whatever sort of weapon you want to.

1st paragraph - The argument would be made that when tracking, sound is a key component.

2nd paragraph - In theory it sounds great. However, you aren't living in the real world. By that comment I could tell you have no idea on how broken the criminal justice system really is. You have an endless about of criminals getting off on CCF by a convicted felon for the most nonsensical of reasons. And these are individuals convicted of forcible felonies, so you know I'm not referring to a simple cocaine possession.

Offline jpotter33

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23109
  • Tommy Points: 2843
Maybe let the bodies, of the many victims senselessly and tragically killed, get cold before we start arguing that tired gun debate?

Okay, how about we cite to many of the other similar (but slightly lesser events) in recent years then? Or how about we note that as of yesterday, the House was planning to vote on two laws that further increased access to guns and silencers later this week?  http://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/amp/Pair-of-pro-gun-bills-on-move-in-House-12243745.php 

If Congress gets to keep voting to continue down this path, why should we have to stop talking about it because the very things we're arguing that we want to prevent keep occurring?  That's nonsense.

Also, I'm sorry that you find the gun debate "tired" even after so many were just killed by a single person.

People need to do actual research about gun "silencers" and what they do. Hollywood has created huge misconceptions about the efficacy of gun "silencers" and how much they actually muffle sound. It's to help reduce some recoil and muffle the sound enough to protect the shooter's hearing, which is very beneficial to sportsmen and hunters who do a lot of shooting. People act like allowing silencers will lead to silent executions and gunfire, but those fears just aren't based in reality. Watch some YouTube videos to see just how "silent" these silencers make guns (Hint: they don't).

The other piece about concealed carry reciprocity is a bit more controversial. While I do think federal concealed carry reciprocity should trump state laws due to the second amendment being a federally protected right of US citizens, the "constitutional carry" states that don't require training or licensure for concealed carry make me hesitant on this. There absolutely should be some amount of training required to concealed carry.

I just became a CCW holder in Ohio, and I had to take a day-long course in pistol carrying safety and gun law to get my license. This included both a written test and a shooting competency test at the range. I think some kind of training like this should be required to be able to legally take advantage of concealed carry reciprocity across state lines.

EDIT: Statistics have even empirically proven that CCW holders who go through these types of training are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the US, so there shouldn't be any issue with mandated concealed carry reciprocity - as long there's required training to get the CCW license.

I went and watched some youtube videos on this. The first couple videos were exactly what you said. Not a huge difference. Then a couple more there were a more noticeable difference. But you could still hear it pretty well, so your point seem valid.

But then I saw a really good one were they guy set his camera up like the other videos, but also a audio one down range. Being right next to it appose to 50 yard or more is a huge difference. With out the silencer you can still hear the pops very well. With , you can hear it, but if you're in a crowed mall or concert, no way. And thats were the issue lies.

But your right that most people are good law abiding citizens. Problem is trying to keep it that way.
And a hunter can just wear ear protection, which is far better ear protection.  There is no need for a silencer to protect hearing. 

The issue is not just with laws but enforcement of said laws.  If every time someone was caught with a silencer that person had all guns confiscated, paid a huge fine, and spent time in jail, then silencers would disappear (even for criminals).  If you did the same thing with whatever gun restrictions you had, like say semi-automatic rifles, then those types of guns would disappear (even for criminals).  If you make the penalties strict enough, you can eliminate whatever sort of weapon you want to.

Huh? How the hell is a hunter supposed to hear something coming towards him with ear protection? That makes no sense whatsoever. And, again, no, "ear protection" is not a better option, as evidenced by the fact that we already have ear protection and people still need more. Spending a good while at a gun range will still leave your ears ringing the rest of the day, even with "ear protection" on. You don't know what you're talking about here.
Quote from:  Ron Swanson
It's never too early to learn that the government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer's teet until they have sore, chapped nipples.

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17694
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Sheriff now reporting 58 dead, 515 injured. From one guy. One.

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32977
  • Tommy Points: -27981
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I'm in favor of some gun control, very little of which would have helped here.

Limiting high capacity magazines seems sensible.  I'm not opposed to requiring licenses and mandatory training (preferably free of charge) to possess guns. Some sort of mandatory reporting for people diagnosed with certain mental illnesses (so long as there is an appeal process).

Those are sensible. I don't think they're all that burdensome, although requiring a license to exercise a right is problematic. Limit transfers of weapons (I.e. the gun show loophole). Even with all of those implemented tomorrow, though, I doubt there's any real change.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32977
  • Tommy Points: -27981
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Sheriff now reporting 58 dead, 515 injured. From one guy. One.

Holy hell. I'm sure we'll see copycats in the future, too. 


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Offline D Dub

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3059
  • Tommy Points: 241
I wonder if we can find common ground by reforming access to bullets instead?

Doing nothing, as the right advocates, isn't helping.   

And trying to outlaw guns, as the left advocates, seems to be making the problem worse (the way folks horde weapons these days at places like the Del Mar gun show is terrifying). 

- Put a massive tax on companies that manufacture ammo designed to kill humans

- limit number of bullets a citizen can purchase per lifetime

- put a massive sales tax on ammo, like $1000 per round or something like that so that collectors of this stuff have to pay to play

Going after bullet reform makes sense to me because real gun collectors get to keep their toys and the rest of us can feel a little safer knowing how much harder it is to obtain the lethal part of a gun. 

Fair compromise?

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23291
  • Tommy Points: 985
  • What a Pub Should Be
Sheriff now reporting 58 dead, 515 injured. From one guy. One.

Five hundred & fifteen people?  My god.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17694
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Sheriff now reporting 58 dead, 515 injured. From one guy. One.

Five hundred & fifteen people?  My god.

Many, maybe most, were probably not directly shot but injured in the mass panic as the crowd fled. Still the result of the killer's actions, still his fault.

Offline Silent Storm

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 420
  • Tommy Points: 54
Promoting expanded gun control does not address the underlying issue, which is the fact that we have thousands upon thousands of guns floating around unaccounted for in this country. There's no realistic way of going back and collecting all of these guns in order to apply the necessary controls. Personally, I see two options that could help avoid future mass shootings:

  • Introduce a gun buyback program to incent gun owners into giving up their weapons.

  • Emulate the Israeli model, which is to have metal detectors and police searches at most public venues and anywhere that is densely populated.
You are no longer black, or brown, or yellow, or red! You are now GREEN, you are light GREEN, or dark GREEN!

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1148
  • Tommy Points: 123
I wonder if we can find common ground by reforming access to bullets instead?

Doing nothing, as the right advocates, isn't helping.   

And trying to outlaw guns, as the left advocates, seems to be making the problem worse (the way folks horde weapons these days at places like the Del Mar gun show is terrifying). 

- Put a massive tax on companies that manufacture ammo designed to kill humans

- limit number of bullets a citizen can purchase per lifetime

- put a massive sales tax on ammo, like $1000 per round or something like that so that collectors of this stuff have to pay to play

Going after bullet reform makes sense to me because real gun collectors get to keep their toys and the rest of us can feel a little safer knowing how much harder it is to obtain the lethal part of a gun. 

Fair compromise?

Your solutions sound like it will just cost more to kill people. While you could argue that this will, by extension, lessen the frequency of shootings because the cost for mass murder will be prohibitive, I'm not sure it won't just provide more incentive to acquire weapons illegally. (yes, it's a valid argument).

Taxing prohibited weapons also puts the government in the gun business. So if you're looking to get rid of it completely, don't let it create any extra revenue for politicians to spend.

One thing I notice about people who tend to look favorably on prohibition and/or stricter gun laws, is that they seem to underestimate how much some people like guns. I'm surrounded by gun culture, though I don't own one myself. Many legal carriers would gladly illegally carry certain weapons/items if they suddenly became illegal. Don't underestimate the market. A war on guns would very much resemble a war on drugs in that it would have very little effect on availability and yet create an underworld of free-flowing contraband. I'm sure the prison system would love it, though.

Unfortunately, people don't just own guns because they happen to be available. I mean, I'm sure some do. Like I've thought of purchasing one and I wouldn't if it was illegal. But I'm rare where I come from and in the minority for large portions of the population.

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17694
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Guitarist from one of the opening bands chimes in on Twitter:



2nd part (I have to link it because it calls a mass murderer a swear word)