The Survival Podcast Forum

Armory, Self Defense, And EDC => Firearms (Including Long Guns, Pistols) => Firearms Legislation And News => Topic started by: surfivor on October 04, 2017, 04:24:37 PM

Title: post vegas shooting
Post by: surfivor on October 04, 2017, 04:24:37 PM

 I liked what the Oklahoma congressman said today when asked about the power of the NRA. He said the NRA reflects citizens views and that he is not answerable to the NRA but to the citizens
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Mr. Bill on October 05, 2017, 01:15:30 PM
The NRA issued this statement (https://home.nra.org/joint-statement/):

Quote
In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented.  Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control.  Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks.  This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world.  In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.  The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.  In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities.  To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.

Blaming loose firearms regulation on the Obama administration. :banghead:  My respect for the NRA leadership is approximately zero.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: David in MN on October 05, 2017, 01:26:37 PM
The NRA issued this statement (https://home.nra.org/joint-statement/):

Blaming loose firearms regulation on the Obama administration. :banghead:  My respect for the NRA leadership is approximately zero.

You forgot the deep secret of the NRA... they hate guns. Just a shill for the GOP these days.

I'm glad my 2 year old already has her lower. Man was mommy PISSED when she opened that box.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 05, 2017, 02:21:26 PM
The NRA issued this statement:
Quote
In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities.  To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence.


Utterly ridiculous and, frankly, offensive.

Nevada already has some of the most lenient (and mostly sensible) gun laws.  If you have one and you're not a felon or anything, by all means, you can open carry, even if you don't live here.  We allow concealed carry for permit holders from 30 states. 

But reciprocity has nothing to do with what happened Sunday night.  Private business owners are allowed to restrict firearms on their property, which is (I think) perfectly within their rights.  Casinos and their entertainment venues have it covered all by themselves, so you generally aren't allowed to bring them to large events like that.  It's just too much of a risk, and even if you do feel the need to defend yourself from something like this, it's likely you'll do more harm than good by interfering in what is almost always a very well executed plan to shut down the threat.

So let's say the people at the concert were armed.  I'm assuming handguns only, because what idiot walks into a concert with a 10 gauge or a sniper rifle.  Seriously.  So this guy is going to be able to shoot 500 yards and accurately hit a target he can't see with no danger to innocent people in the rooms on either side, above or below?  I call bullshit.  I'm sure there are people out there that could do it, but they would likely already be employed by MGM International for a very large chunk of change.

They're using it as an excuse to "OMG! Protect yourself!" when the people at the concert wouldn't have been allowed to have guns there anyway.  Total BS.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: machinisttx on October 05, 2017, 07:15:55 PM
At 500 yards, the average self defense handgun cartridge is no real danger to a human target.

When Charles Whitman was shooting people from the clock tower back in 1966, the responding cops were happy that armed citizens showed up to assist. That's not the only instance, just the first one that came to mind. It's sad commentary on the state of America that anyone would argue against similar actions. Unsettling as well.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 05, 2017, 07:25:38 PM
Once you agree that any inanimate object is a contributing factor in people being killed, then you have given up the argument against gun control.  The NRA just agreed (before it even became a legislative issue, if it ever would have!) that gun control is good.  They just want to argue how much is OK.  MORONS.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: BLACK SHIRT on October 06, 2017, 07:46:13 PM
Once you agree that any inanimate object is a contributing factor in people being killed, then you have given up the argument against gun control.  The NRA just agreed (before it even became a legislative issue, if it ever would have!) that gun control is good.  They just want to argue how much is OK.  MORONS.

THIS!!! The NRA just sold out its membership.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Chemsoldier on October 07, 2017, 07:32:07 AM
My understanding is that the NRA is arguing that they want to push for national reciprocity and not fight it if the ATF wants to reclassify the slide fire system as an NFA violation just as they have a dozen other trigger shenanigans over the years.

To be honest, that may be the best way to go forth. The left is going to beat the right over the head with this if the slide fires remain not just legal, but not even NICS worthy. If ATF simply reclassified it as NFA then no anti-gun votes are done.

Otherwise, it will be probable an anti-gun congressional vote will happen and I don't think we want either side to have the voting record as ammunition going into the next congressional election.

I don't like it, shall not be infringed means just that, however we have been infringing continuously since the civil war and this ain't the hill to die on. Don't let the progressives drive a wedge between committed gun rights advocates and general conservative supporters of the 2A.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 07, 2017, 08:20:39 AM
Nutty Feinstein just introduced a bill on the subject.  Lots of consequences if passed.

It will completely eliminate aftermarket triggers and even factory tunable triggers.  Anything which lessons trigger pull, weight, or geometry would be banned as that would "accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun."

It can also be construed to eliminate higher capacity magazines, in fact the main language on rate of fire comes directly from her last bill on magazines.

There is no grandfather provision or even conversion to NFA item.  For it to be enforced would require a door-to-door confiscation.

And, of course, not only is the military exempt but all tenticles of federal government.  So you are good if you are a congressperson or supreme court justice.  Special privaleges for special people.

It is so bad on so many levels it is hard to imagine a worse piece of legislation. It is completely disengenuous, political opportunism.  And if it couldnt be worse she is trying to use her dauughter to sell it in saying she was a victim of the shooting!  How was she a victim?  Well she has been traumatized because supposedly she considered going to the concert.   ::)

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a/7/a7493ca2-0cd7-416a-8d1f-929d89e71572/0141802AFBB99AC5EA299D5B71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf (https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a/7/a7493ca2-0cd7-416a-8d1f-929d89e71572/0141802AFBB99AC5EA299D5B71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf)

ALB17865 S.L.C.
115TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. ll
To prohibit the possession or transfer of certain firearm accessories, and
for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
llllllllll
llllllllll introduced the following bill; which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on llllllllll
A BILL
To prohibit the possession or transfer of certain firearm
accessories, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Automatic Gunfire
5 Prevention Act’’.
6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON POSSESSION OF CERTAIN FIRE-
7 ARM ACCESSORIES.
8 Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amend-
9 ed—
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (1) in section 922, by inserting after subsection (u) the following: ‘‘(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), on and after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun. ‘‘(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.’’; and (2) in section 924(a)(2), by striking ‘‘, or (o)’’ and inserting ‘‘(o), or (v)’’.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Chemsoldier on October 07, 2017, 09:49:31 AM
That is Feinstein. Tell everyone it is about machine guns as insert poison in it to force pro-gun people to vote against it so she can cast them as bad people.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 07, 2017, 10:34:26 AM
This just in.  JMs have  just been declared an illegal firearm accessory.  And unlike a bump stock or trigger crank they actually increase accuracy and reliability.  Look how easily any rifle can be converted with a JM attachment:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tUeqoV3ibQg (https://youtube.com/watch?v=tUeqoV3ibQg)

This just shows how absurd using rate of fire as a criteria for legislation is.  It isnt a slippery slope.  It is a cliff.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: David in MN on October 07, 2017, 11:03:59 AM
Step 1) Ban the slide fire stock.

Step 2) Establish a black market.

Step 3) Cody Wilson releases a file so you can 3D print your own.

Step 4) Everybody who wants one has it.

The idea that technology can be stopped by paper. When will we give up on this idiocy?
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 07, 2017, 02:10:26 PM
This just in.  JMs have  just been declared an illegal firearm accessory.  And unlike a bump stock or trigger crank they actually increase accuracy and reliability.  Look how easily any rifle can be converted with a JM attachment:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tUeqoV3ibQg (https://youtube.com/watch?v=tUeqoV3ibQg)

This just shows how absurd using rate of fire as a criteria for legislation is.  It isnt a slippery slope.  It is a cliff.

Jerry is the boss!  He is in a very small group of firearm experts over the last 130 yrs that mastered all types of small arms at the very pinnacle of precision and speed. Simply amazing and every video of him is worthwhile.

As to your general point, yes, any number of "devices" such as shoestring, belt loop and such can be used to the same effect as the bump/slide stock.  Over the years I have come to the conclusion that we should quit trying to outlaw objects (drugs, weapons, etc.) and limit our criminal laws to behaviors.  Ridiculous that a bank or fund can party and gamble and lose tens of billions of client money (and get reimbursed with taxpayer money, while many of those clients are destroyed!), or a federal agency can "walk" guns to foreign drug cartels and no one gets arrested, let alone spends time in prison.  But OMG if you get caught owning a baggie of weed or a short barreled longarm without a stamp (right, Randy Weaver?) you face the full wrath of LE and armies of public paid attorneys.  Outlawing "things" never prevents crime and never works and is a sink hole of public expenses.  A person with a clean record who becomes determined to kill people is nearly impossible to prevent. If he is willing to murder then he won't pay attention to other laws, either.   Allowing citizens to be armed at all times in whatever manner at least gives a chance for faster stopping of the violence.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 08, 2017, 08:28:21 PM
Nancy Pelosi hopes a bumpstock ban will be a slippery slope:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2zbVhto5kw8 (https://youtube.com/watch?v=2zbVhto5kw8)
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: DrJohn on October 09, 2017, 07:25:37 AM
To me rate of fire is like the term assault weapon.  My rate of fire would probably be different than yours with the exact same equipment, and compared to Jerry Miculek's, lol... 

Who is going to decide what the "ROF" is for each gun?  If I change the trigger so it is smoother, but I don't change my ROF, will that be okay, if its not - who is going to determine that my ROF increased, the gravel pit police?  What if I build my own gun from the ground up and choose a Timmney Trigger, does that make my gun okay, but the factory gun with an aftermarket Timmney not okay?

Maybe they should just say you cannot exceed the maximum ROF inherent in the design - you know the  ROF determined by the physical limitations inherent on the design, i.e. the amount of time it takes to extract and eject the spent cartridge case from the firing chamber, re-cock the firing mechanism, and load a new cartridge into the firing chamber.  This way the Jerry Miculeks of the world, and the rest of us can just go about our lives, hurting no one but paper and steel...
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 08:23:36 AM
At some point we do need to acknowledge that not all gun owners are responsible or even reasonable gun owners, though the vast majority are, and that those who aren't can do a hell of a lot of damage in a short amount of time with things the way they are now.

Also, the founding fathers could no way have known the capabilities, both in speed and capacity, of firearms we have now.  I have a feeling they would not be arguing, "Hell yeah, everyone needs 40 semi-autos if they want them!" even if they could see 200 years into the future.

We need to work some compromises here, and not just get into the "2nd Amendment says I can do whatever I want!" and "Ban them and melt them all down!" shouting between the two minority factions when the remaining 90% of Americans are fine with a reasonable discussion and some restrictions.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 09, 2017, 08:44:59 AM
At some point we do need to acknowledge that not all gun owners are responsible or even reasonable gun owners, though the vast majority are, and that those who aren't can do a hell of a lot of damage in a short amount of time with things the way they are now.

A mom leaving a loaded gun in her purse for a toddler to find is irresponsible.  Planning a massacre suggests a different adjective.

Quote
Also, the founding fathers could no way have known the capabilities, both in speed and capacity, of firearms we have now.  I have a feeling they would not be arguing, "Hell yeah, everyone needs 40 semi-autos if they want them!" even if they could see 200 years into the future.

Careful, that narrative is a bit trite.  So is my canned response for the last decade or longer.  "The founders couldn't have imagined smart phones and social media when the wrote the first amendment."
Also, personal cannons were a thing in the late 18th century.  Most often installed on merchant ships for pirate defense, but I digress.

Quote
We need to work some compromises here, and not just get into the "2nd Amendment says I can do whatever I want!" and "Ban them and melt them all down!" shouting between the two minority factions when the remaining 90% of Americans are fine with a reasonable discussion and some restrictions.

This is the most complicated and the most important.  In most negotiations each party wants something from the other. When buying a car, you want the car, the seller your money.
Anti-gun people want our guns, accessories, at least some aspects of how we own and operate them. What does an anti-gunner have that a gunner wants?
That's the problem.  We're not trading anything.  One party has NOTHING to lose.  By definition how can this be a compromise?






Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 09, 2017, 09:15:29 AM
Also, the founding fathers could no way have known the capabilities, both in speed and capacity, of firearms we have now.  I have a feeling they would not be arguing, "Hell yeah, everyone needs 40 semi-autos if they want them!" even if they could see 200 years into the future.

The founders had privately owned ships capable of leveling cities!  Who do you think held all the artillery and other items while there was no standing army?  They saw the issue as a matter of character not device.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 09:29:51 AM
The founders had privately owned ships capable of leveling cities!  Who do you think held all the artillery and other items while there was no standing army?  They saw the issue as a matter of character not device.

But not everyone was capable of owning those ships.  You really think the average accountant had one?
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 09:40:22 AM
A mom leaving a loaded gun in her purse for a toddler to find is irresponsible.  Planning a massacre suggests a different adjective.

Both do damage, though.  It's just a matter of motive and scale.

Careful, that narrative is a bit trite.  So is my canned response for the last decade or longer.  "The founders couldn't have imagined smart phones and social media when the wrote the first amendment."
Also, personal cannons were a thing in the late 18th century.  Most often installed on merchant ships for pirate defense, but I digress.

Okay, but again, I can use the F word over and over again in a public place, even over a microphone or on all social media at once and no one dies.

This is the most complicated and the most important.  In most negotiations each party wants something from the other. When buying a car, you want the car, the seller your money.
Anti-gun people want our guns, accessories, at least some aspects of how we own and operate them. What does an anti-gunner have that a gunner wants?
That's the problem.  We're not trading anything.  One party has NOTHING to lose.  By definition how can this be a compromise?

It's a compromise because there really are some people that want all guns outright banned, and it has happened in other countries.  Compromise is when those who believe others should have no guns and those who think they should have all guns meet in the middle and say "These guns are fine, and these guns are not, and these people will do these things to keep these types of firearms while these types will have no restriction."  It's not always about money or trading this for that, and sometimes it's about doing the right thing, not "If I give something, then I have to get something, or forget it!"

Sometimes compromise is about allowing some restrictions in exchange for not having others.  But all I hear from the hardcore guns rights activists are "Slippery slope!!!" if you talk about any restrictions whatsoever.  I don't ever hear "Maybe that one change might keep certain firearms capable of spitting out thousands of rounds in just a few minutes away from people that are either irresponsible or capable of using it on a human just because they're pissed off."

There is no give on either side, but both sides also forget that neither represents the majority of Americans, most of whom want a little regulation but not a lot.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 09, 2017, 09:47:58 AM
Both do damage, though.  It's just a matter of motive and scale.

Okay, but again, I can use the F word over and over again in a public place, even over a microphone or on all social media at once and no one dies.

It's a compromise because there really are some people that want all guns outright banned, and it has happened in other countries.  Compromise is when those who believe other should have no guns and those who think they should have all guns meet in the middle and say "These guns are fine, and these guns are not, and these people will do these things to keep these types of firearms while these types will have no restriction.

Sometimes compromise is about allowing some restrictions in exchange for not having others.  But all I hear from the hardcore guns rights activists are "Slippery slope!!!" if you talk about any restrictions whatsoever.  I don't ever hear "Maybe that one change might keep certain firearms capable of spitting out thousands of rounds in just a few minutes away from people that are either irresponsible or capable of using it on a human just because they're pissed off."

There is no give on either side, but both sides also forget that neither represents the majority of Americans, most of whom want a little regulation but not a lot.

With respect, I fundamentally disagree with your thoughts on compromise.

Suppose there's a fence dividing the property of neighboring ranchers.  One rancher moves the fence 100 yards into the neighboring ranch.  This of course infuriates the other rancher and he demands the fence be restored to it's original location.  The rancher who moved the fence refuses.  A family feud ensues, violence, etc.  Third party peace negotiators are brought in, and they broker a compromise deal to move the fence just 50 yards.

Theoretically, if a rancher periodically steals from the other, he'll ultimately be allowed to keep some of the plunder. I believe this is very much the strategy of anti-gun people. Attempt to take everything, but when they only keep a fraction, it's "reasonable", "common sense", "compromise".


Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Chemsoldier on October 09, 2017, 09:57:06 AM
I think pro-gun folks can get some things they want from anti-gunners.

CCW reciprocity that forces NY, California, etc to accept other states permits is a compromise on the anti-gunner's side.  The anti-gunners have those states in a hammerlock that is not going away anytime soon. Recognizing out of state permits, with their looser standards will seriously loosen the arguments for more restrictive in state permitting.  This will lead to more permits, and more people with guns for serious purposes is good for gun rights.  A person with a gun for self-defense is far more useful to the cause of the 2A than two people with guns primarily for bird hunting.  The extreme anti-gunners are ceding an expansive gun control regime.  They love Europe and its gun laws, CCW being common everywhere makes that flatly impossible here.  I have never met anyone to get a permit and become a "get rid of them all" person afterwards, they could still be quite anti-gun, but by European standards they are still pro-gun loonies. 

Basically the freedom of expanding the carrying of weapons is far far more powerful for good than the bad of say adding a marginal piece of junk like the bump fire stock to the NFA list.  Hell, if you really want to carve out an exemption that it be the only type of "full-auto" that can be added to the registry new.  But, the point is expand freedom now in places that has stubbornly resisted rather than living in terminal fear that any measure at all will be the start of the end of our freedoms later. 
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Mr. Bill on October 09, 2017, 10:23:45 AM
My friend Andrew Wiegand posted this essay on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/penguinsscareme/posts/1814019775293005) -- I'll repost it here because he says things a lot better than I could:

Quote
I think very nearly all gun control advocates are decent, fine people. I mean that in all sincerity. Granted, some of them may get pretty heated sometimes toward people who oppose gun control for whatever reason. But it's a contentious issue that often tends to show people on any side of it in their worst light, I get that. For the most part, I really do think the best of nearly all people who advocate gun control.

But I think that actually lies at or at least near the root of the problem. People think gun control is a good idea because they think like decent, fine, moral human beings.

Try thinking like a monster.

I'm going to list off a quick series of facts, and I invite you to think about them not from the perspective of a decent human being, but from that of a rotten, hateful, motivated, dedicated, ambitious, creative, patient, seriously damaged maniac. Hear me out.

The parts necessary to augment an ordinary Glock with fully automatic fire capability are legally available in nearly finished condition, with no background check nor any other state involvement of any kind. The fully assembled selectfire sear is smaller than a pack of tic tacs, and could easily be made of nonferrous metal.

The bumpfire stock that politicians are now talking about outlawing already exists as a data file in the wilds of the internet. The specs can be downloaded by anyone with an internet connection, and printed out by anyone with a 3D printer.

There is a popular trigger device available now called a "binary trigger" that discharges a round not only every time you pull the trigger, but also every time you let off the trigger, effectively and legally doubling your potential rate of fire.

There is a device called a "gat crank" that you can legally clamp onto your trigger guard, and it's literally a crank that you turn by hand, it fires 3 rounds per revolution, and it increases your rate of fire to about that of a machine gun. It costs $40 to purchase, but you could easily make your own if you couldn't buy it.

There is a machine now called a "ghostgunner" that you can buy which is no bigger than a toaster oven that will churn out as many finished rifle and pistol frames as you care to make, all at the mere touch of a button. No background check, no serial number, nothing. It's not especially practical, but it is an important proof of concept.

You can buy a flamethrower through the mail just the same as you would buy a pair of pants or a jar of Vegemite.

Commonly available explosive compound "tannerite," same story.

You can make a silencer in a matter of a few minutes out of commonly available household items.

The United States Army makes its field manuals on irregular warfare, improvised munitions, and many other related subjects freely available for download right from its website.

There are so many ways to make homemade acids and poisons, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Homemade bombs or explosives, same story.

Boobytraps, same story.

The gasoline in your car and the heating oil in your cellar are horrifying, cruel, diabolical weapons. Did you know you can totally make your own napalm? It's true.

Why am I prattling on about all this? Because I want you to understand that it's unstoppable. The reason we don't see mass murders every other day isn't because a 16" barrel on a rifle is legal but a 15" barrel is illegal. it's not because a machine gun or a silencer is illegal for civilians without a government permission slip but legal for civilians with one. It's because the vast, vast majority of people don't want to kill each other.

I know this is going to sound cliche. I know this is going to sound like, "GuNs dOn'T KiLl PeOpLe, PeOpLe kILl pEoPlE." But I'm not trotting out a platitude here. I'm sincerely speaking from the heart. The problem is not bumpfire stocks, or legally owned machine guns, or even illegally owned machine guns. The problem- the root problem, the only problem- is people who want to kill other people.

Look, I'll be totally honest with you. I'm still a twelve year old boy at heart in some ways. That show Mythbusters that used to be on? Loved it. When they would blow up a cement truck, or fire a rocket sled into a concrete wall, or cut down a tree with a machine gun? Oh man, that was awesome. I would totally love to do stuff like that. Plus I do believe in the concept of armed personal self defense, as well as the concept of presumed innocence. It's fair to say I have a dog in this fight.

Unfortunately, people like you won't let me live the whole Mythbusters thing. It's okay, I'm not mad about it, I understand that you're coming from a good place with that, even though I don't agree with it. But I really want you to know that you're not accomplishing anything (apart from depriving me of my right to pursuit of happiness).

Think like a monster. Think about all the different ways you could so easily commit mass murder if you wanted to, and nobody would be able to stop you. Thankfully, 99.99999% of people aren't like that. What to do about the tiny minority of people that are like that? I don't know. But I think that's where the discussion needs to be: people, not objects.

At the end of the day, we can disagree about this or that, and that's fine. I have no problem with that. But the last thing I want to say is, I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't automatically assume some sort of character malignancy on my part over this.

I saw this earlier today:
"I am willing to accept stricter gun control as the price of reducing mass murder.
I am willing to accept mass murder as the price of loose gun control.
Pick one."

My problem with that is it presents the issue as if there are only two ways of thinking about it, all other ways of thinking about it are invalid, and the second way of thinking about it is monstrous.

It's a rhetorical construct designed to shut down conversation, to silence discussion, and to mischaracterize anyone who disagrees with the narrative. And above all, it's a rejection of critical thinking, which I especially resent.

Alright, that's it. I know this wasn't very brief. Thanks for sticking with me this far.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 09, 2017, 10:43:15 AM
Basically the freedom of expanding the carrying of weapons is far far more powerful for good than the bad of say adding a marginal piece of junk like the bump fire stock to the NFA list.  Hell, if you really want to carve out an exemption that it be the only type of "full-auto" that can be added to the registry new.  But, the point is expand freedom now in places that has stubbornly resisted rather than living in terminal fear that any measure at all will be the start of the end of our freedoms later.

This is exactly the NRA's thinking.  Bumpstock on NFA list in exchange for national reciprocity and hearing protection act. That is a compromise.

So, RitaRose and SmutfHunter, do you support this reasoned compromise?

Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 09, 2017, 10:55:25 AM
This is exactly the NRA's thinking.  Bumpstock on NFA list in exchange for national reciprocity and hearing protection act. That is a compromise.

So, RitaRose and SmutfHunter, do you support this reasoned compromise?

On a practical level?  Sure.
I'll trade a gimmick accessory I had no interest in buying in exchange for retail sales of suppressors (non NFA) and the ability to CCW across the lower 48 states.

The thing is, this is at the highest political levels.  I've not met any friend/neighbor/coworker who's anti-gun that thinks an increase in CCW or suppressors are acceptable.

I guess my concern isn't just getting favorable legislation, but normalizing ourselves in mainstream society.  I'm not a dangerous nut job because I hand made 300 rifle rounds this last weekend, or shot a quarter sized group at 200 yards.

Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 10:56:55 AM
Suppose there's a fence dividing the property of neighboring ranchers.  One rancher moves the fence 100 yards into the neighboring ranch.  This of course infuriates the other rancher and he demands the fence be restored to it's original location.  The rancher who moved the fence refuses.  A family feud ensues, violence, etc.  Third party peace negotiators are brought in, and they broker a compromise deal to move the fence just 50 yards.

Now let's say the one rancher has property with an old mine right on the edge, and he doesn't keep a decent fence around it.  Yes, you have to go onto his property to fall in, but it's literally right on the edge, so people can fall in without meaning to.  Sometimes people even push them in, which is their bad, but saying "Most people don't do that" doesn't magically make them alive again.  They're still dead.  The town keeps asking him to put a fence around it and are even willing to pay for it, but the rancher says "I have the right to not fence my property.  It's not me that is causing these people to die, it's those nutjobs that keep pushing them in.  The town has already done everything they can to identify those that are likely to push people into the well as they walk past the property, but they don't always know ahead of time.

Would it not be in the best interest of the public in general to build a fence around the abandoned mine, whether the rancher wants it or not?  Is his freedom to do whatever he wants with his property more valuable than the people who die because they keep getting pushed into the mine bu a minority of people who want to kill them?

Outlandish example, but the right to be able to kill someone and the right to own property are not even close to the same thing either.  One can easily do harm while the other will not impact anyone but yourself no matter what you do.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 10:57:30 AM
This is exactly the NRA's thinking.  Bumpstock on NFA list in exchange for national reciprocity and hearing protection act. That is a compromise.

So, RitaRose and SmutfHunter, do you support this reasoned compromise?

I think they're completely separate issues, but if they want to use them as bargaining chips, then I guess that works.

ETA: I don't have a problem with reciprocity (my state recognizes concealed carry form 30 other states) but I don't like the "hearing protection" deal.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 09, 2017, 11:01:57 AM
but I don't like the "hearing protection" deal.

even our enlightened European cousins can buy suppressors as easily as rifle slings

Does paying a $200 tax and waiting 6-9 months make us safer than buying them from Walmart?  Please explain...
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: DrJohn on October 09, 2017, 11:27:52 AM
Now let's say the one rancher has property with an old mine right on the edge, and he doesn't keep a decent fence around it.  Yes, you have to go onto his property to fall in, but it's literally right on the edge, so people can fall in without meaning to.  Sometimes people even push them in, which is their bad, but saying "Most people don't do that" doesn't magically make them alive again.  They're still dead.  The town keeps asking him to put a fence around it and are even willing to pay for it, but the rancher says "I have the right to not fence my property.  It's not me that is causing these people to die, it's those nutjobs that keep pushing them in.  The town has already done everything they can to identify those that are likely to push people into the well as they walk past the property, but they don't always know ahead of time.

Would it not be in the best interest of the public in general to build a fence around the abandoned mine, whether the rancher wants it or not?  Is his freedom to do whatever he wants with his property more valuable than the people who die because they keep getting pushed into the mine bu a minority of people who want to kill them?

Outlandish example, but the right to be able to kill someone and the right to own property are not even close to the same thing either.  One can easily do harm while the other will not impact anyone but yourself no matter what you do.

And what about all the cliff edges around the world?  Who pays to put up and maintain the fence, what would the fence due to the view?  Is spoiling the view worth the safety you get in return?
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 09, 2017, 11:31:49 AM
And what about all the cliff edges around the world?  Who pays to put up and maintain the fence, what would the fence due to the view?  Is spoiling the view worth the safety you get in return?

When safety trumps all else, things like this happen:

UK anti-stabbing knife
(https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/knife.jpg?w=400&h=192)
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Survival Librarian on October 09, 2017, 11:33:43 AM
But not everyone was capable of owning those ships.  You really think the average accountant had one?

Respectfully, how many people are capable of owning 40 semi-automatic "assault" rifles? Does the average accountant have 40 of them?

While the beliefs of the founders were as devise and varied as any more recent congress, as a group, they were much more concerned with the oppression of freedoms by the government than the misuse of those freedoms by the average citizen. In fact, one of the first acts of congress was Militia Acts of 1792, which mandated that every citizen own a firearm and associated supporting equipment that met the current military standard upon obtaining the age of 18. This puts the founders' beliefs much closer to those of Switzerland, where every citizen expected to serve in the militia and retain their service weapons and combat gear, than those of the modern US.

While I'm unable to find to what extent this law was actually enforced, it remained in effect until the Militia Act of 1903, where the government took responsibility for arming militias. So for 111 years, citizens of the US not only had the right to bear arms, but were required by federal law to have a firearm (and supporting equipment) that met the current military standards. If we were strictly following the founders intent, we should be advocating the mandatory ownership by every citizen of an M16 and associated combat gear.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm)
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 11:36:28 AM
And what about all the cliff edges around the world?  Who pays to put up and maintain the fence, what would the fence due to the view?  Is spoiling the view worth the safety you get in return?

Yeah, we actually do put up barriers in the places where people visit a lot.

(http://images.trvl-media.com/media/content/shared/images/travelguides/destination/6140738/Grand-Canyon-20210.jpg)



Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 11:41:05 AM
While the beliefs of the founders were as devise and varied as any more recent congress, as a group, they were much more concerned with the oppression of freedoms by the government than the misuse of those freedoms by the average citizen. In fact, one of the first acts of congress was Militia Acts of 1792, which mandated that every citizen own a firearm and associated supporting equipment that met the current military standard upon obtaining the age of 18. This puts the founders' beliefs much closer to those of Switzerland, where every citizen expected to serve in the militia and retain their service weapons and combat gear, than those of the modern US.

(Emphasis mine)

So required to own A weapon, not dozens of them, and be trained in how to use it.

That's nothing like what we have now where you can literally buy as many as you can afford and you need absolutely zero training in how to use or secure them.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 11:42:09 AM
even our enlightened European cousins can buy suppressors as easily as rifle slings

So... because the Europeans do it, then it must be right?
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 11:45:15 AM
Does paying a $200 tax and waiting 6-9 months make us safer than buying them from Walmart?  Please explain...

Are we talking guns, noise suppressors, semi-auto, handgun, rifle, shotgun, knife... what are we talking about a tax and a waiting period for?

Waiting period?  Yes.  Yes, it does make "us" safer if we're talking about "us" being people that are involved in domestic violence situations where someone gets angry at their partner leaving and wants to show them who is really boss.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 09, 2017, 11:48:24 AM
So... because the Europeans do it, then it must be right?

Yes.  Because the vast majority of anti-gun people I interact with like to compare the USA to other "developed" countries, and inevitably UK and/or Europe is the cited example.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 09, 2017, 11:52:16 AM
Are we talking guns, noise suppressors, semi-auto, handgun, rifle, shotgun, knife... what are we talking about a tax and a waiting period for?

Waiting period?  Yes.  Yes, it does make "us" safer if we're talking about "us" being people that are involved in domestic violence situations where someone gets angry at their partner leaving and wants to show them who is really boss.

sound suppressors - the technology developed contemporaneously with automobile exhaust mufflers.

You know how a lot of gas powered lawn and garden equipment almost requires hearing protection, but modern passenger cars do not?
That's all I want.  I don't expect any of my guns to be "silent", I just want to cut the noise level down.  The fact this is illegal is silly to me.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Survival Librarian on October 09, 2017, 12:03:12 PM
(Emphasis mine)

So required to own A weapon, not dozens of them, and be trained in how to use it.

That's nothing like what we have now where you can literally buy as many as you can afford and you need absolutely zero training in how to use or secure them.

Not to be obstinate, but you are saying you would be fine with every citizen in the US owning a military spec M16 with full combat gear, provided they only owned one and were trained in it's use?
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 12:03:31 PM
I don't expect any of my guns to be "silent", I just want to cut the noise level down.  The fact this is illegal is silly to me.

But why?  Why is that important?  Can't you just wear hearing protection?

I think my point is that, in order for people to not fight so hard to get rid of guns in general (which is not something I, or most people, in any way want), then the gun community (which I am part of) has to give a little on the things that they see as something they like or want in order to make it so that the people using firearms to kill or injure others are easier to catch.  Otherwise it just gets the minority of people who want them gone completely evidence that they do harm, and they'll fight to get rid of them like they have already done in other countries.

But let's be honest.  There are plenty of times when easy access to a large number of firearms or firearms with a large capacity was the reason why more than just a few people died.  They're NOT the same as a knife or a samurai sword or even a car bomb.  But it's like there's no discussion of what gun owners are willing to give up so that people stop dying in the large numbers that they are.  They're stuck on "Second Amendment says I can do whatever the hell I want!"

Can we limit capacity?  Is 100 round magazines on 40 semi-auto firearms okay for one person to have in a hotel room?
Can we limit the sheer number of firearms people own?  Is 10 reasonable?  Is 100 reasonable?  Is 1,000?   Is a small explosive okay? A nuclear weapon?

When you get down to it, everyone wants limits.  You don't want your ex-wife to have a nuclear weapon.  It's just a matter of where we're willing to draw the line.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 12:05:05 PM
Not to be obstinate, but you are saying you would be fine with every citizen in the US owning a military spec M16 with full combat gear, provided they only owned one and were trained in it's use?

No, but I would feel better about it if I knew they had been vetted (no mental illness, criminal history, violent history) and been trained in how to use and store it.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: DrJohn on October 09, 2017, 12:21:40 PM
Yeah, we actually do put up barriers in the places where people visit a lot.

(http://images.trvl-media.com/media/content/shared/images/travelguides/destination/6140738/Grand-Canyon-20210.jpg)

Look closer - more people are standing on a small wall were the railing is deformed, right at the edge I might add, than behind the rail. Case in point, more people accept the risk rather than ruining the view.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 12:27:35 PM
Look closer - more people are standing on a small wall were the railing is deformed, right at the edge I might add, than behind the rail. Case in point, more people accept the risk rather than ruining the view.

Look even closer.  The railing looks like it's not there because it goes lower in the middle along with the path.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: FreeLancer on October 09, 2017, 12:28:25 PM
5 Gun Myths:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-gun-violence/2017/10/06/c4536e44-a9ed-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.e53f88e399cd (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-gun-violence/2017/10/06/c4536e44-a9ed-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.e53f88e399cd)

They poke at some of the sacred cows on both sides of the debate. No big surprises for me, except #4, I thought there was data showing decreased violent crime with concealed carry.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: DrJohn on October 09, 2017, 12:50:33 PM
Look even closer.  The railing looks like it's not there because it goes lower in the middle along with the path.

I did, before I posted.   I found a larger version of the photo; the railing is depressed, i.e. damaged, right in front of where most of the people are standing.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 01:06:16 PM
5 Gun Myths:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-gun-violence/2017/10/06/c4536e44-a9ed-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.e53f88e399cd (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-gun-violence/2017/10/06/c4536e44-a9ed-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.e53f88e399cd)

They poke at some of the sacred cows on both sides of the debate. No big surprises for me, except #4, I thought there was data showing decreased violent crime with concealed carry.

All the others were no surprise to me either, but like you, I'm surprised by #4.  I would have figured it would have close to no impact at all, and especially not increase crime.  Maybe a case of correlation =/= causation?
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 01:10:02 PM
I did, before I posted.   I found a larger version of the photo; the railing is depressed, i.e. damaged, right in front of where most of the people are standing.

I'm not going to argue this anymore because it's ridiculous, but not, it ins't damaged, at least not in that picture.  It'a lower area so, logically, the waist high railing goes down with people's average waist height.  You can literally see the full gown adult male putting his hand on it without having to stoop.  The part to the left of him is bent down because it's connecting to the railing on the lower portion.  If it were "damaged," there's not a snowball's chance that the NPS would allow people to stand right next to it.

And now I'm done with this ridiculous sidetrack.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Survival Librarian on October 09, 2017, 01:33:27 PM
All the others were no surprise to me either, but like you, I'm surprised by #4.  I would have figured it would have close to no impact at all, and especially not increase crime.  Maybe a case of correlation =/= causation?

Just a thought, looking at the summary of the study linked in the article. It shows no increase in murders or property crimes, but an increase in violent crime. They don't specify what exactly is the criteria for violent crimes, at least in the summary and you have to buy the report if you want to read it. By common definitions, excluding murder and property crimes from violent crimes, that leaves only assaults.

Pulling a gun on someone in most area's will land you with an assault charge, even if it is in self defense and is dropped later. This could just be a result of more people being armed and having a firearm during a confrontation. Since there is no corresponding increase in the murder rate, it doesn't seem to be making those types of situations worse, generally speaking. But without seeing the full study and how exactly they sourced and quantified the data, that's just speculation on my part.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 09, 2017, 01:52:10 PM
But why?  Why is that important?  Can't you just wear hearing protection?

No.  Best hearing protection only reduces it by about 30db.  This still leaves room for gradual hearing loss over time and some people are susceptible to tinnitus.  To be totally safe requires both suppression and hearing protection.  In europe it is also a matter of population density.  Without suppression it is hard to maintain shooting ranges. This is becoming an issue in some parts of US now.

But let's be honest.  There are plenty of times when easy access to a large number of firearms or firearms with a large capacity was the reason why more than just a few people died.  They're NOT the same as a knife or a samurai sword or even a car bomb.

Even this shooting was no where near a car bomb.  A car bomb is a completely different scale in terms of danger.  In the oklahoma city bombing more than 150 people died.  And that was a very crude, unrefined bomb which had to penetrate concrete walls. Even so, if you took the OCB and put it in the Vegas venue we would be looking at thousands dead.  One suicide vest bomber in a crowd will kill hundreds.  We are lucky this guy's pilot license wasnt up-to-date as he could have loaded up his plane with explosives and fly right into the venue probably killing most of the 22,000 person crowd.

Can we limit capacity?  Is 100 round magazines on 40 semi-auto firearms okay for one person to have in a hotel room?

Here is the thing, the hotel had a strict no gun policy.  So did the concert.  These bans did zero, zilch, nada to prevent the incident.  Nor do the total bans in Europe.  France has a total ban on semi-autos.  Yet 89 people were killed and 413 were injured at the concert attack in paris.

And regards bumpstocks, reports now are that most of the guns with bump stocks were found jammed.  So casualties probably would have been worse without them.  A decently trained marksman can fire an average of twelve aimed shots a minute (this includes 10 round magazine changes).  Over ten minutes (time of actual shooting) that is 120 well placed shots.  With a 50% mortality rate that is sixty people.  A higher death toll than seen here (so far...lets hope it stays that way).  And without the easy to spot rapid fire it possibly could have gone on a lot longer.

Which brings up another point, we dont know how many people were actually shot versus injured in other manners or even how many shots the shooter got off.  The FBI and local law enforcement havent released that info.  So there isnt even enough information to have an informed policy discussion.

In short, as security experts keep saying, but politicians continue to ignore, you cant stop these incidents by eliminating "means". They can only be prevented by disrupting "opportunity" and "motive".  But even then some will make it through.  So you have to work to minimize them when they do occur.  And I have to say the Vegas police, private security, and civillians did that amazingly well given the circumstances.  Heck, we saw people breaking into/stealing trucks to make make-shift ambulances to carry people to hospitals.  We need to tell these types of stories more to get people mentally prepared on how to react - i.e. with courage and decisiveness.

It would be foolish to further erode rights (we have thousands of gun control laws already on the books) without definitve proof of any benefit.  Especially when efforts to prepare the citizenry on how to respond have been totally innadequate.  Politicians should address that first.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: David in MN on October 09, 2017, 02:37:56 PM
I was discussing with my father who always critiques the strategy. He likes to opine that we're lucky people who want to hurt others don't think very hard.

If you want to hurt people, the number of guns you have is irrelevant. If there had been 375 rifles laying about 325 at best wouldn't be touched. If anything it proves incompetence or illness.

When I look at the strategy used I don't think slidefire. With 2 shooting positions high up and far away my mind goes right to belt fed. For all the "meticulous planning", the wrong weapon was selected.

I don't know why a fully automatic AR is such a horrifying thing. This shooter had the money and record to go buy a semi version of a SAW if he didn't want to go class III. Still a deadlier option than an AR.

I know we're going to debate the AR and it's features. But oit's not some magical thing. In this instance we should be thanking God nobody bumped into this asshat at the range with an M60. Or a collector with an old MG42. The mag changes probably saved a lot of lives.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 09, 2017, 03:20:40 PM
To David's point, when I took CERT training a few years back, on the terrorism segment our in class assignment was to plan a terror attack.
Our assignment was to plan the most horrific terror attack possible using conventional means (no EMP, no sci-fi bio-weapons, etc.).
Part of me doesn't want to share too much on the internet, but basically a public event was targeted using unsuspected means.  It really came down to the logistics of blocking points of egress, and causing panic.
A team of 4 dedicated people with a few weeks of planning could cause thousands of deaths.

Thankfully, highly effective analytical planners don't often want to hurt others.  Even more rare are groups of such folks.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 09, 2017, 03:33:41 PM
I know we're going to debate the AR and it's features. But oit's not some magical thing. In this instance we should be thanking God nobody bumped into this asshat at the range with an M60. Or a collector with an old MG42. The mag changes probably saved a lot of lives.

Good points.

It wasnt officially reported yet, but one officer said he used a few100 round mags.  That is most likely why the baners are pushing a "rate of fire" narrative.  The language the democrats pulled into the bill was from the magazine ban they failed to pass last time.  So it is going to most likely be a bait and switch to get that passed. The messages they are systematically feeding to media are:

Shooter used bump stock that is why attack so deadly.
Bump stock increases rate of fire just like full auto.
We banned full auto because of rate of fire.
So we should ban bump stocks.
Higher capacity magazines increase rate of fire too.
So both bump stocks and higher capacity magazines must be banned.

These are the mental baby steps they use on public who dont understand firearms at all.it is very carefully crafted to mislead.


Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Carl on October 09, 2017, 04:46:03 PM
  Let's hope none of his firearms had a bayonet They make a rifle so much more deadly. :P.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 04:49:59 PM
It wasnt officially reported yet, but one officer said he used a few100 round mags.  That is most likely why the baners are pushing a "rate of fire" narrative.

It wasn't just "a few."

He had them stacked like bricks all over the hotel room.

60 Minutes - 2017 October 08 - Storming Room 135 (https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/storming-room-135-secret-weapon-the-restaurateur/) - starting at the 2:10 mark for the story, 8:50 for what they found when they entered the room.

Interviewer: What do you see?
LVMPD: An armory.
Interviewer: An armory?
LVMPD: So many guns.  So many magazines.  Stacks and stacks of magazines everywhere.  Just in suitcases neatly stacked, against pillars that were in the room, all stacked up.  Rifles placed all throughout... it looked just like a gun store.  We were tripping over long guns.



Off topic:
I'm crushing a bit on Bitsko.  Cute guy, loves dogs, rescuer type... yeah.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 09, 2017, 05:40:23 PM
Gun laws work because (mass) murders don't want to break the law when they kill dozens of people.

/sarcasm

We had far fewer gun laws before 1968 and I can't remember anything like these school/mall/concert shootings happening back then. And yes you could buy semi-auto rifles and pistols via mail-order or at Sears or Penny's with zero paperwork, just cashola.   The most infamous shootings back then were with scoped rifles or revolvers.

This Las Vegas shooting is an anomaly in that he bought everything legally, and was wealthy enough to do so.  Most murderers steal their weapons or get them on the black market (someone else stole them).  They have no qualms about gun laws for crying out loud!  They plan to kill people so any other law is kind of irrelevant to them.  The mass murder problem is a software problem (human minds) not a hardware problem (guns).  Focusing ANY effort on guns and restrictions is just a distraction from dealing with the actual problem.  As the Andrew Wiegands areticle points out, there are numerous methods readily available to anyone who wants to commit mass murder.

Banning ownership or possession of THINGS is just a feel good way of ignoring the actual problem and will only punish the fellow law abiding.  When will we learn that outlawing THINGS does not prevent crime and often increases crime due to the black market that rises around it?  When will we care enough to address the real problem and quit blaming THINGS for human behavior problems?
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 05:41:42 PM
Most murderers steal their weapons or get them on the black market (someone else stole them).

Citation, please.  Unless we're counting gang on gang crime, where I would agree that's likely true.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 05:44:07 PM
Gun laws work because (mass) murders don't want to break the law when they kill dozens of people.

/sarcasm

We had far fewer gun laws before 1968 and I can't remember anything like these school/mall/concert shootings happening back then. And yes you could buy semi-auto rifles and pistols via mail-order or at Sears or Penny's with zero paperwork, just cashola.   The most infamous shootings back then were with scoped rifles or revolvers.

This Las Vegas shooting is an anomaly in that he bought everything legally, and was wealthy enough to do so.  Most murderers steal their weapons or get them on the black market (someone else stole them).  They have no qualms about gun laws for crying out loud!  They plan to kill people so any other law is kind of irrelevant to them.  The mass murder problem is a software problem (human minds) not a hardware problem (guns).  Focusing ANY effort on guns and restrictions is just a distraction from dealing with the actual problem.  As the Andrew Wiegands areticle points out, there are numerous methods readily available to anyone who wants to commit mass murder.

Banning ownership or possession of THINGS is just a feel good way of ignoring the actual problem and will only punish the fellow law abiding.  When will we learn that outlawing THINGS does not prevent crime and often increases crime due to the black market that rises around it?  When will we care enough to address the real problem and quit blaming THINGS for human behavior problems?

Okay, so since we're going to allow virtually anyone who has not yet been caught and convicted of a felony to legally posses as many guns as they would like with as large a capacity of magazine as they feel like having, what is the solution?

And if I hear "enforce the laws we already have," I guarantee you all will hear me scream no matter how far away you are.  That's a BS way to say we don't need to change a thing when obviously we do.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: David in MN on October 09, 2017, 05:47:49 PM
It wasn't just "a few."

He had them stacked like bricks all over the hotel room.

60 Minutes - 2017 October 08 - Storming Room 135 (https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/storming-room-135-secret-weapon-the-restaurateur/) - starting at the 2:10 mark for the story, 8:50 for what they found when they entered the room.

Interviewer: What do you see?
LVMPD: An armory.
Interviewer: An armory?
LVMPD: So many guns.  So many magazines.  Stacks and stacks of magazines everywhere.  Just in suitcases neatly stacked, against pillars that were in the room, all stacked up.  Rifles placed all throughout... it looked just like a gun store.  We were tripping over long guns.



Off topic:
I'm crushing a bit on Bitsko.  Cute guy, loves dogs, rescuer type... yeah.

Stacking so many guns you trip over them is hardly a sound tactic. 100 round magazines are a silly gimmick. The military doesn't use them.

This is just another example of why people uneducated on guns shouldn't make policy. Everyone is falling for the cartoon version while those who could have done far worse get ignored as there is no room for reality.

The members of this forum could probably come up with a list of better guns for such a crime that would number in the hundreds. For Pete's sake some would be from WWI. But then we wouldn't be in the cartoon narrative.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 09, 2017, 06:34:52 PM
Okay, so since we're going to allow virtually anyone who has not yet been caught and convicted of a felony to legally posses as many guns as they would like with as large a capacity of magazine as they feel like having, what is the solution?

And if I hear "enforce the laws we already have," I guarantee you all will hear me scream no matter how far away you are.  That's a BS way to say we don't need to change a thing when obviously we do.

The solution is to quit focusing about THINGS, whether it is guns, drugs, alcohol or anyTHING else.  Cars kill far more people but we don't obsess over restricting the type of cars people can own, possess or drive in order to prevent drunk/reckless driving, vehicle assaults,  or ISIS people ramming murders.  In every other situation but guns and drugs, we focus on the behavior with more education and laws about the behavior.

And we have to accept as rational people, that THERE IS NO WAY TO PREVENT MASS MURDER BY A DETERMINED PERSON WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

Tell me how yet another gun law will prevent a mass murder? 

An AR15 or AK (or most semi-auto firearms) is so easily turned into a full automatic with a little grinding that I am really surprised this guy went to the trouble of installing goofy ass stocks.  Either he was an idiot or purposefully wanted to make an issue of using goofy stocks and problematic 100-rd mags which are hugely expensive compared to milspec 30-rd mags. And of course there are a hundred other ways to use common items to kill lots of people yet we don't ban those things either.  Why so hung about about restricting guns?
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 07:39:42 PM
The solution is to quit focusing about THINGS, whether it is guns, drugs, alcohol or anyTHING else.  Cars kill far more people but we don't obsess over restricting the type of cars people can own, possess or drive in order to prevent drunk/reckless driving, vehicle assaults,  or ISIS people ramming murders.  In every other situation but guns and drugs, we focus on the behavior with more education and laws about the behavior.

And we have to accept as rational people, that THERE IS NO WAY TO PREVENT MASS MURDER BY A DETERMINED PERSON WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

Tell me how yet another gun law will prevent a mass murder? 

An AR15 or AK (or most semi-auto firearms) is so easily turned into a full automatic with a little grinding that I am really surprised this guy went to the trouble of installing goofy ass stocks.  Either he was an idiot or purposefully wanted to make an issue of using goofy stocks and problematic 100-rd mags which are hugely expensive compared to milspec 30-rd mags. And of course there are a hundred other ways to use common items to kill lots of people yet we don't ban those things either.  Why so hung about about restricting guns?

I still don't see any possible solution in that whole post.  Just "quit focusing on things" and maybe the beginnings of an idea with "focus on the behavior with more education and laws about the behavior."

So again, what do we do?  Because I still haven't heard anything proactive yet, just "not laws about guns" or some form of that.

Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 07:41:43 PM
Stacking so many guns you trip over them is hardly a sound tactic. 100 round magazines are a silly gimmick. The military doesn't use them.

This is just another example of why people uneducated on guns shouldn't make policy. Everyone is falling for the cartoon version while those who could have done far worse get ignored as there is no room for reality.

The members of this forum could probably come up with a list of better guns for such a crime that would number in the hundreds. For Pete's sake some would be from WWI. But then we wouldn't be in the cartoon narrative.

I'm not going to Monday morning quarterback the guy's mass killing tactics.  It was the police that were saying they were literally tripping over all of the guns and 100 round magazines, not leftist gun grabbers.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 09, 2017, 08:39:41 PM
I still don't see any possible solution in that whole post.  Just "quit focusing on things" and maybe the beginnings of an idea with "focus on the behavior with more education and laws about the behavior."

So again, what do we do?  Because I still haven't heard anything proactive yet, just "not laws about guns" or some form of that.

Again, we need to listen to the security experts and concentrate on opportunity and motive, not means.  First we need to ascertain if this was truly a loan effort or if there were others involved.  If others we need to apprehend them.  Second we need to understand how hotel security failed to note him bringing in the equipment he did.  One thing the hotels have immediately implemented is a mandatory daily room check. It is this type of thinking which will pay the most dividends.  There are lliterally hundreds of other things like this which are being investigated. 

On motive we dont have enough info yet for recos.  But it matters, especially understanding how he radicalized into a rampager:http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/us/las-vegas-shooting-motive/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/us/las-vegas-shooting-motive/index.html)

On response, we talked about several things already.  Medical training, mental awareness, and for goodness sake not wearing high healed shoes to events like this.  There is one picture with six different high healed shoes left behind.  It sounds silly but people need to know how bad that is in such a situation.  This is not a joke.

Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: David in MN on October 09, 2017, 08:57:26 PM
I'm not going to Monday morning quarterback the guy's mass killing tactics.  It was the police that were saying they were literally tripping over all of the guns and 100 round magazines, not leftist gun grabbers.

Which is what makes it a bad tactic. The weapons were a hindrance, not an advantage. According to the police. Your words.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 09, 2017, 09:38:27 PM
On response, we talked about several things already.  Medical training, mental awareness, and for goodness sake not wearing high healed shoes to events like this.  There is one picture with six different high healed shoes left behind.  It sounds silly but people need to know how bad that is in such a situation.  This is not a joke.

Well there you go.  Let's ban high heels then.

And cowboy boots, because one of the cops was wearing them and had to kick them off so he could run.

Mandatory tennis shoes it is.

But all of these are how to escape, which is great for prepping, but even better would be if we didn't have to run from quite so many active shooters.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 10, 2017, 03:57:34 AM
I still don't see any possible solution in that whole post.  Just "quit focusing on things" and maybe the beginnings of an idea with "focus on the behavior with more education and laws about the behavior."

So again, what do we do?  Because I still haven't heard anything proactive yet, just "not laws about guns" or some form of that.

What do we do:

1) QUIT WASTING TIME WORRYING ABOUT GUNS.

2)  Accept that bad people do bad things and we can't prevent every bad thing from happening.  What possible law would have prevented this guy from killing a lot of people?  He had the makings of a car bomb, which can be made from household items in several ways.  He was a pilot who could have crashed a plane into a dense crowd.  Our best bet is to lock people up who demonstrate unwarranted violence on others.  But a person with a clean record is nearly impossible to prevent.

3)  Spend time figuring out IF there was anything at all in his past behavior that could have been an indicator.  Did the system fail in any way, do we need to be better and reacting to something he did before, people he associated with? Maybe and maybe not.  If not, then he is one of the near impossible criminals to stop from doing his first crime.

You seem obsessed that "we have to DO something" in this event.  On average, 88 people died that day in car accidents.  What have you done about that?  About 1,000 people died that day from preventable medical mistakes.  What have you done about that?  Not everything that happens in life requires that we DO something, especially if it means applying restrictions to law abiding citizens.  Bad things happen.  We should prevent what we can without undo restrictions on the law abiding, but know that sometimes bad people will do bad things and if they die in the process there is not much left for us to do about it.

Passing gun laws is a cop out, feel good action that has zero impact on preventing murders. Europe has far stricter gun laws yet has also had far worse mass killings.  Even with full automatic AK47!  How can that be, those are illegal over there?
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: RitaRose1945 on October 10, 2017, 05:10:47 AM
What do we do:

1) QUIT WASTING TIME WORRYING ABOUT GUNS.

2)  Accept that bad people do bad things and we can't prevent every bad thing from happening.  What possible law would have prevented this guy from killing a lot of people?  He had the makings of a car bomb, which can be made from household items in several ways.  He was a pilot who could have crashed a plane into a dense crowd.  Our best bet is to lock people up who demonstrate unwarranted violence on others.  But a person with a clean record is nearly impossible to prevent.

3)  Spend time figuring out IF there was anything at all in his past behavior that could have been an indicator.  Did the system fail in any way, do we need to be better and reacting to something he did before, people he associated with? Maybe and maybe not.  If not, then he is one of the near impossible criminals to stop from doing his first crime.

You seem obsessed that "we have to DO something" in this event.  On average, 88 people died that day in car accidents.  What have you done about that?  About 1,000 people died that day from preventable medical mistakes.  What have you done about that?  Not everything that happens in life requires that we DO something, especially if it means applying restrictions to law abiding citizens.  Bad things happen.  We should prevent what we can without undo restrictions on the law abiding, but know that sometimes bad people will do bad things and if they die in the process there is not much left for us to do about it.

Passing gun laws is a cop out, feel good action that has zero impact on preventing murders. Europe has far stricter gun laws yet has also had far worse mass killings.  Even with full automatic AK47!  How can that be, those are illegal over there?

You seem obsessed with "there's nothing we can do about it" and yes, I refuse to accept that.

Your three points in a nutshell:
1. Don't talk about guns.
2. No really, don't talk about guns.
3. Figure out why people kill other people, which is different for everyone, but don't talk about how they do it.

STILL the only solution I'm hearing is that we need to know why so we can prevent all of the "whys," like they all have the same reason or something.  They don't.  And I even admit that's one avenue to approach the problem.  But there are so many reasons why, it's impossible to cover even a tiny fraction of them.  There are only a few "hows," but they're completely untouchable because my right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is less important than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" taken to an extreme.

Maybe when it hits a little closer to home for you.  Maybe when you have to explain to your children why their friends are dead or paralyzed.

This is getting nowhere and I'm bowing out.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Carl on October 10, 2017, 05:15:27 AM
  I hear that it was already a GUN FREE ZONE and that alone should have made it safe for everyone... :sarcasm:


I hear that the Mandalay plans to now make daily room checks to help prevent problems as their security was pretty tight already as the security guard of their's that was shot was actually shot 6 Minutes BEFORE the mass shooting as he investigated the sound of a drill being used in that room.


Anybody else think that ,as he had calculated bullet drop for his shooting that distance from above , that he likely had some specific targets in mind?

And I agree that GUNs had little to do with it as he also fired on nearby fuel storage tanks and had explosives available ,you can't really legislate inanimate objects into only legal uses...from that height ,he could have tossed bowling balls and killed people also.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: David in MN on October 10, 2017, 05:31:06 AM
The terrifying thought is that we kneejerk and ban some gun/components and the next criminally insane shooter looks harder at his options.

The innocent were lucky this shooter incorrectly selected an AR. One can only imagine if he'd have gone the route of an unsighted belt fed gun. With the hysteria about scopes we forget how worse it would have been had he developed a "beat zone" and adjusted.

Ironically we will make the next event worse through our current discourse.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 10, 2017, 05:35:13 AM
You seem obsessed with "there's nothing we can do about it" and yes, I refuse to accept that.

Your three points in a nutshell:
1. Don't talk about guns.
2. No really, don't talk about guns.
3. Figure out why people kill other people, which is different for everyone, but don't talk about how they do it.

STILL the only solution I'm hearing is that we need to know why so we can prevent all of the "whys," like they all have the same reason or something.  They don't.  And I even admit that's one avenue to approach the problem.  But there are so many reasons why, it's impossible to cover even a tiny fraction of them.  There are only a few "hows," but they're completely untouchable because my right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is less important than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" taken to an extreme.

Maybe when it hits a little closer to home for you.  Maybe when you have to explain to your children why their friends are dead or paralyzed.

This is getting nowhere and I'm bowing out.

I have not heard anything from you on an effective response to "doing something".  OK, so you get your dream and we have European gun restrictions.  They still have mass murders.  But now every law abiding citizen is prevented from owning an "equalizer", that is a weapon for defense that makes them more equal to their attacker regardless of their physical ability.  You know, like a 110 lb woman can defend herself from a 350 lb brute with a gun, but not so well without one. All your dream accomplished was to disarm law abiding people and did nothing to prevent bad people from murdering.  That is not an effective response.

Please explain how your gun laws will prevent mass murder.  You are very emotional about this and from your comment it sounds like someone used a gun to hurt someone you care very much about.  I'm sorry for your loss and hurt.  But that is no reason to take your anguish out on law abiding people's liberty, especially when it will not make you or your loved ones any safer.  It is fine if you want to live gun free, but please don't expect law abiding gun owners to forsake a means of sport and defense just to make others feel good with a false sense of "safer."  No matter how much you want it to be so, gun laws do not prevent murder.

Most "gun violence" is in suicide, not murder.  I have a friend whose sister-in-law tried to commit suicide. She failed and so they took away rope/whatever so she couldn't hang herself. She tried cutting her wrists so they took away anything sharp (this is all of course after lengthy institutional commitments).  Finally one day she walked up a tall parking garage and threw herself onto the sidewalk. She died very tragically with everyone in her life trying desperately to save her minute by minute day after day.  Taking guns away will not stop suicide and will not stop murder. Tragedy happens and yes, sometimes there is nothing more to be done.  And hammering on other peoples' rights just to feel good is not rational or just.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 10, 2017, 05:49:16 AM
  I hear that it was already a GUN FREE ZONE and that alone should have made it safe for everyone... :sarcasm:


I hear that the Mandalay plans to now make daily room checks to help prevent problems as their security was pretty tight already as the security guard of their's that was shot was actually shot 6 Minutes BEFORE the mass shooting as he investigated the sound of a drill being used in that room.


Anybody else think that ,as he had calculated bullet drop for his shooting that distance from above , that he likely had some specific targets in mind?

And I agree that GUNs had little to do with it as he also fired on nearby fuel storage tanks and had explosives available ,you can't really legislate inanimate objects into only legal uses...from that height ,he could have tossed bowling balls and killed people also.

This is an interesting finding.  They originally speculated that the guard interrupted his shooting and that is why he stopped after only ten minutes.  But with the guard short BEFORE the crowd was shot at, you wonder why did he stop after only ten minutes and lots of ammo remaining.  Waiting for over an hour for the police to arrive at his door.   I wonder if it was that his guns jammed on those 100-rd mags?  From another forum I am hearing that Daniel Defense severely over-gassed their ports; so the ejection would be more violent.  Add that to the SureFire 100-mags being problematic already and it could well be that his guns jammed.  He may have been involved enough to buy and shoot guns, but unless he practiced frequently under similar conditions he may not have known how to clear jams.  I have seen no mention of brand/type of ammo.  A primer popping loose can totally screw up an AR15 big time and take quite a while to fix (like the primer getting scrunched between the bolt carrier and the top of the receiver wall).  Yet he had over 20 guns available to him...

The whole episode is extremely odd and horribly tragic.  They say he  planned to escape, but really?  Stashing 20-30 guns in a hotel suite on the 32nd floor and hanging around for an hour after stopping shooting?  How is that a plan to escape?  I hope they keep digging into this guy's activities and background (travel, meetings, computers, phones, everything).  He may have just been a sociopath that decided he was done with life and was going to put a dent into society before parting.  But sociopaths tend to like themselves too much for that.  They would rather harm others and slip away.  He seems to have planned this for up to a year at least.  He thought through a lot of things but failed in a lot of others.  And if ANYONE else was involved they need to be dug out and fully prosecuted.

Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 10, 2017, 06:11:54 AM
Regarding gun laws and violence, this is from one of the queens of gun bans:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/354440-feinstein-no-law-would-have-stopped-las-vegas-gunman (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/354440-feinstein-no-law-would-have-stopped-las-vegas-gunman)

Feinstein: No law would have stopped Las Vegas gunman
Quote
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in an interview broadcast Sunday that no law could have stopped the suspected shooter, Stephen Paddock, who was behind last week's mass shooting in Las Vegas.

Feinstein spoke on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” about gun legislation in the wake of the attack launched from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel targeting a country music concert.

“Could there have been any law passed that would've stopped him?” Host John Dickerson asked the senator.

“No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,” Feinstein replied.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 10, 2017, 07:20:30 AM


What's curious to me is the reports that the shooter had calculated for bullet drop, yet also used bump stocks?

How can those me combined into a single tactic?  Was he spraying or making aimed shots?

Rita,

If nothing else this thread should illustrate to you why compromise us nearly.impossible.  so why we diasgree, you no longer have to wonder why gun law won't change much.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 10, 2017, 07:02:29 PM
I already mentioned (and Carl reiterated) one of the big lessons the security experts took from this, a mandatory daily room check.  The shooter was in the room for days which allowed him to slowly bring in the equipment without arousing suspicion because of the 'do not disturb' policy of the hotel.  So, by implementing a daily check by hotel staff (e.g. cleaning staff) it is hopped that similar plans can be thwarted.  Another item which is in the works is updates to the digital security systems to use audio from security cameras to pinpoint gun shots thus speeding police reaction.  There is also talk about bomb sniffers in the parking areas.

This said, I do want to reiterate the point on shoes as it is important.  If you read the stories of the survivors they almost all mention it.  Some of the survivors report timing the pause between groups of shots.  That way they could estimate how far they could dash before the next round of shots began and thus plan for cover or crouching down to limit their exposure.  They also talk about how the area was covered in debris and how some men would carry their girlfriends because they couldn't run.  Here is one example story:

http://people.com/crime/body-cam-footage-las-vegas-shooting/ (http://people.com/crime/body-cam-footage-las-vegas-shooting/)

Another detailed the moments the festival-goers struggled to get to safety.

“I will never forget the sound of that gunfire,” Nashville, Tennessee, publicist Karen Gale, 44, said. “There were lost shoes all over the ground, women being carried by boyfriends.”


I don't like posting images of the dead victims, so instead here are some zoomed in shots of one group trying to escape.  Note the red circles I added.

(http://www.libertyassociate.com/survival_podcast/no_shoes1.png)
(http://www.libertyassociate.com/survival_podcast/no_shoes2.png)

It should be added that it just wasn't high healed shoes which were lost.  A lot were flip flops and cloth sandals worn by both men and women.

So, please consider this to be a legitimate issue.  Some of us spend a lot of time on our bags, packs, and EDC preps.  But in this case, it was better to drop those preps for unencumbered movement, with shoes playing an important role in getting to safety.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Alan Georges on October 10, 2017, 07:52:09 PM
What's curious to me is the reports that the shooter had calculated for bullet drop, yet also used bump stocks?

How can those me combined into a single tactic?  Was he spraying or making aimed shots?

Total rank amateur who had read up on too much stuff but had no real-world experience?  It's only a guess, but we've all run into That Guy – albeit not usually in such an extreme form.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 10, 2017, 08:03:59 PM
Total rank amateur who had read up on too much stuff but had no real-world experience?  It's only a guess, but we've all run into That Guy – albeit not usually in such an extreme form.

Allegedly aimed shots were for fuel tanks at airport and, if he had had the chance to ready it, to set off the car bomb.  Police have said the calculations were accurate.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Alan Georges on October 10, 2017, 08:49:03 PM
Yeah, there is that I4L.  So maybe he had a multi-layered plan, one that was interrupted by police before he could pull off the later steps in it.

So many weird, weird layers to this whole thing.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 10, 2017, 09:39:54 PM
Yeah, there is that I4L.  So maybe he had a multi-layered plan, one that was interrupted by police before he could pull off the later steps in it.

So many weird, weird layers to this whole thing.

He also tried to buy tracers prior to event but he couldnt find them in stock.  So they believe he was planning to walk the bump stock ones in with the tracers.  Another of the mysteries is where he practiced.  As far as has been released they havent found a relationship with a gun range. His family said he would fly to Alaska with guns in past (when he was still piloting).  So they are looking that maybe he had property there for planning things.  But now they are trying to figure out if he meant to do the shooting that night or later and the security guard finding him prompted him to accelerate plan.  That may be why car bomb wasnt set up yet.  It is very murky.

Found another "shoe" story.  This couple flew all the way to Illinois barefoot.  ??? Talk about bugging out:

http://www.kmaland.com/news/clarinda-natives-survive-las-vegas-shooting/article_2fe21478-a9fb-11e7-84ca-a324bcf227f9.html (http://www.kmaland.com/news/clarinda-natives-survive-las-vegas-shooting/article_2fe21478-a9fb-11e7-84ca-a324bcf227f9.html)

Brian and Kate Hopper were separated from his brother Tim, and his wife Hayley. Pat says Tim knew it was gunfire immediately, and shielded his wife after both dropped to the ground.

"Hayley dropped to the ground--his wife," said Pat. "Timmy got on top of her. And, she kept saying, 'we need to go. We're going to be trampled.' And, he said, 'no, stay down.' Then, when the gunfire stopped, they got up and they ran, and they also ran away from the entrance--Hayley in the lead. Hayley said, 'Timmy never left my back. He stayed to shield me from the back.' And, they ran--only, instead of going north the way Brian and Kate apparently did, they went west."

Pat says Tim and Hayley then climbed a 10-foot cinder block wall in an attempt to escape other spectators fleeing for their lives. After losing her flip flops while running, Hayley began wearing Tim's larger sandals--only to lose those, as well. Both barefoot, the couple ran towards emergency vehicles in a nearby field.

"They came to this field," said Pat, "and Timmy said, 'we kept running across this field, and we saw this fire truck, and we thought we would be okay to go toward the rescue people.' So, he said, 'we went towards the fire truck, and as we were coming closer to it, there was also an ambulance there.' This paramedic said, 'get out of here now--shooter still active.' So, he said, 'we turned the corner--and there were bodies everywhere.'"

Without shoes and luggage, Tim and Hayley went immediately to McCarran International Airport, and flew home to Illinois. Pat learned that both her sons and daughters in law were safe and uninjured in text messages early Monday morning. As her children continue to recover from their ordeal, their mother sends this message:

"We need to be in prayer and concern for those who were lost," she said, "those who are still injured, physically, and those who are bringing home all those awful mental images.

"You know, everyone went out to have such a wonderful good time. And, to have to have lived through this--not knowing whether you were going to live or die, and just to run, and not knowing if you are running in the right direction or not. It's so important that we keep all of these people--all of these people--in our thoughts and prayers."

Pat adds her sons stress that people should continue living their lives, and, quote, "not let one evil person change that."
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Carl on October 11, 2017, 04:51:33 AM
  It's the shoes,he hates shoes...in my best Steve Martin voice....
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 11, 2017, 05:14:53 AM
  It's the shoes,he hates shoes...in my best Steve Martin voice....

Oh, that is really bad, Carl!  However, that is one of my favorite lines from his movies.  :)

I agree with Liberty though about the importance of good footwear.  Your feet are you foundation, and if you don't take care of them then you can be in a lot of pain and/or lose a lot of mobility when really needed.  And good shoes are relatively cheap considering the miles of service they provide.  Years ago I stopped buying "office" shoes for work. I have one pair of nice leather shoes for the rare times I wear a suit, but for everything else I wear sturdy walking or trail running shoes, or boots. If you get into an emergency and can't walk well, then your options become very limited.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Carl on October 11, 2017, 05:25:10 AM
  As a type II diabetic ,I must protect the feet I can't feel. I wear shoes all of the time...even while sleeping in bed,but not while bathing .
It doesn't take much ,like the stubbed toes from a night excursion to the back door for the dogs needs....I lost two toes from that one and so now ,I always wear good shoes.(Never High Heels)
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Chemsoldier on October 11, 2017, 07:43:11 AM
I do think gun owners need to consider the implications of modern media and social connections.

We are the dominant voice in firearms policy for a number of reasons.  We know a lot about guns, it makes us good at thinking about the implications of policy.  One of the biggest advantages is that we are invested.  Gun laws impact us every day unlike those who don't own guns.  The further you are into firearms, and especially carry, the more it impacts you and the more passionate you are.  There are also a LOT of us.  This is to our advantage.

The anti-gun community nucleus tends to be even more passionate.  It is heavily populated by survivors and family of victims of violence perpetrated by armed people.  Their extremely negative experience makes them die hard.  While their are plenty of pro-gun victims of violence involving firearms, you will find many who are surprisingly comfortable with some forms of firearms regulation. Thankfully for gun enthusiasts, the number of passionate anti-gun victims are relatively few. 

However, media (regular and social) may be changing the calculus a bit.  In 1995, a shooting produced a 3 minute spot on the evening news with some video and pics.  Now people get breaking updates and are bombarded by immersive video and audio from the event.  The blood, screaming, fear, helplessness of the event is transported to the viewer.  A person who has never personally touched a gun or heard a real gunshot can get some of the experience that made those anti-gunners so dyed in the wool.

At some point, appeals to reason or worse yet claims that nothing can be done will simply stop being listened to.

I am not saying gun control has to be implemented, but we likely need to put some hard, uncomfortable thought into what can be done to help with an issue that is turning into a threat to our rights.  You cannot get rid of drunken driving, its impossible.  But we did recognize that it needs to be mitigated to a degree and drunken driving has never been less common in the automobile era than it is now.

There were suggestions above about medical training and pushing that.  I totally agree, that needs to happen, period.  If for no other reason than we need to enforce within our own movement that the purpose is preparedness, not firearms cosplay.  You don't get to claim, "I'm a sheepdog!" because you carry a gun and then when you come across a traumatic amputation at a road accident shrug and say, "Let the professionals handle it."  Or at the least, you have to say in the AAR to the incident, "Maybe I should be carrying a TQ."

Also, I thought about the donating blood stories in the news after the shooting.  I think red blooded patriots should shed blood for their country.  How about donating blood regularly rather than simply after an event?  We will usually not be anywhere near the crisis, but our blood might help.  It also carries moral high ground.  That blood might save the life of a shooting victim in Chicago.  We frequently pillory the left for harping on mass shootings and forgetting the grind of gangland shootings.  Regular blood donations helps those events as well as mass shootings.  Call it "Blood of Patriots", "Tree of Liberty" or some such.

It would be a start at least.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 11, 2017, 10:34:28 AM

Also, I thought about the donating blood stories in the news after the shooting.  I think red blooded patriots should shed blood for their country.  How about donating blood regularly rather than simply after an event?  We will usually not be anywhere near the crisis, but our blood might help.  It also carries moral high ground.  That blood might save the life of a shooting victim in Chicago.  We frequently pillory the left for harping on mass shootings and forgetting the grind of gangland shootings.  Regular blood donations helps those events as well as mass shootings.  Call it "Blood of Patriots", "Tree of Liberty" or some such.

It would be a start at least.

I donate regularly when the blood bank visits my workplace.  I'm O neg (univ donor), so I figure my type is most useful.

What's weird and cool, is how my most liberal friends are surprised I do this.  "We thought you were a cold-hearted free market conservative!?"
I remind them that any of us might need blood, and I can't morally expect to use theirs if I don't also donate mine.

Not a terrible ice breaker for reaching across "the aisle" in a sense.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: David in MN on October 11, 2017, 05:37:16 PM
I used to donate blood until I had a bad experience. I got lightheaded, sick to my stomach, and very weak. Took 2 weeks to fully recover.

Interesting theory, though. I had to stop and think. Planned Parenthood gets to play both sides of the political coin. The Southern Poverty Law Center targets some real extremists and some basic conservatives. I get that the two pronged approach has merit. Be mainstream and fringe. I guess conservatives could learn from this.

But I still cringe. We do donate to several causes. Before the baby I tutored poor kids to help get them a leg up on math. I donate some of my woodwork every year to keep art and shop classes going and to support artistic communities. I wish I could give more but my family comes first. I'm a little disheartened that I have to prove myself more just because I like a little trigger time with the Mrs. When we go downtown to take in a play or an opera, we're "supporting the arts". When we go to our gun club and raise money for conservation of the local wetlands we're just "shooting shotguns".

I'm sick of having to prove my worth to pursue my happiness.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Chemsoldier on October 11, 2017, 06:34:52 PM
I'm sick of having to prove my worth to pursue my happiness.

I suppose entropy is constant, even in human events. 

Even long, stable stretches in history probably only seem that way in the rearview mirror, getting there is probably a bit more frenetic, especially before events occur that juxtapose it. 
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 12, 2017, 06:07:48 AM
I agree we are in an uphill battle to preserve our rights. Not just gun rights, but speech, privacy, etc.  The problem is that the easy thing to do in response to tragedy is to look to "the government" to do something, usually to create some new law.  REALLY?!  We need new laws?  We don't have enough already to cover every imaginable situation?  I think murder is already illegal, for instance.  we pass more and more laws that neuter individuals from handling their own problems, then are aghast when no one was there to stop a bad guy. Not speaking of this particular situation in that regard.

As long as we keep looking to the government to solve every bad thing that happens then we can expect more infringement on every aspect of our personal lives.  Per Chem Soldier's point about our power is in the number of gun owners, especially those really involved, I think our best investment is not so much in the political arena first, but in helping get more people, especially youth introduced to and involved in the shooting sports.  The political power will come from a growing base of gun owners and sport shooters.  I think this interminable war going on has had the unexpected side effect of introducing millions of young men and women to the AR15 platform.  For many of them that is the first firearm they handled and have working familiarity with.  I think that is partly contributing to the explosive growth in AR15 sales over the past 23 years, that and Clinton's AWBan that told us we couldn't have them!  Just like Prohibition, you tell the people you cannot own such and such, guess what, a LOT of folks all of a sudden want to own such and suches!
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 12, 2017, 12:50:24 PM

As long as we keep looking to the government to solve every bad thing that happens then we can expect more infringement on every aspect of our personal lives.  Per Chem Soldier's point about our power is in the number of gun owners, especially those really involved, I think our best investment is not so much in the political arena first, but in helping get more people, especially youth introduced to and involved in the shooting sports. 

You aren't the first to say that, and I really hope you aren't the last.

I have in the past got a few "anti-gun" people to try shooting.  While I've not ever converted them, all were some amount less hostile, and a degree of respect was created.
I know the cool thing is to say "molon labe" or "cold dead hands", etc.  but I've got a school teacher to go from "ban all the guns" to "I still don't like them, but I learned people can use them safe and responsibly."

Empathy matters too.  If you personally know someone impacted by some legislation or regulation, you'll at least take pause before supporting it.  I'm not usually supportive of unions, but I know many people who belong to one. When there's a local economic issue that could cost their jobs, I realize that could have a material impact to their families well being.  I stop and weigh the consequences, rather than just a partisan vote.

If we could increase the number of normally liberal voters to start having some empathy toward gun ownership, that would be HUGE! (say it in a Donald Trump voice)
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Smurf Hunter on October 12, 2017, 12:59:12 PM
(https://imgur.com/0Z3SvyD.jpg)
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: David in MN on October 12, 2017, 01:21:20 PM
Gun control is a perfect example of framing a debate. The debate is whether to ban "assault rifles". What? How am I preserving my rights by taking a side in that argument?

Let me be clear. I want full auto legalized, "destructive devices" legalized, and serial numbers done away with. I want zero gun laws. Theft and murder are crimes, property isn't. I'm not a bad person because I think a Thompson is gorgeous and want one.

For those who believe in magic paper you'll note "shall not be infringed" is the most severe language in the document. To be clear, the furthest fringe of arms is protected. Nobody needed a cannon to hunt and there's only one reason to shoot buck and ball from a Brown Bess.

I'm an extremist. I get it. But I'm sick of losing one yard at a time. I want the endzone. The gays didn't win their rights by polite petition, they threw blowjob parties in city streets. They hugged the beast. When someone talks about assault rifles, the only problem is that too many are already illegal.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 12, 2017, 06:13:36 PM
(https://imgur.com/0Z3SvyD.jpg)

Is that Nancy Pelosi before camera make-up?
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 12, 2017, 06:19:15 PM
...I want zero gun laws. Theft and murder are crimes, property isn't.
...
I'm an extremist. I get it. But I'm sick of losing one yard at a time. I want the endzone. The gays didn't win their rights by polite petition, they threw blowjob parties in city streets. They hugged the beast. When someone talks about assault rifles, the only problem is that too many are already illegal.

Perfectly stated and I agree 100%.  Outlawing property is stupid and never accomplishes the stated intent.  But it is so much easier to pass laws that only have to be enforced against law-abiding citizens (as per behavior).  Not to mention that outlawing property usually means confiscation and keeping/reselling said property: WIN-WIN-WIN for LE!!  And they even look like they are "do something" about crime, although every hour spent chasing down property is an hour not spent chasing down a murder, rapist, child molester.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 12, 2017, 07:22:07 PM
Latest Gun Gripes summarizes many points in this thread:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=1237s&v=pyncXIpMv6U (https://youtube.com/watch?t=1237s&v=pyncXIpMv6U)
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 12, 2017, 10:13:25 PM
Here is another example of potential changes being made as result of shooting.  It has been leaked (not officially confirmed yet) that incendiary rounds were used against the fuel tanks.  So they will need to figure out how to better protect them.  Unfortunately, precautions are being slowed by the lapse in information sharing:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/sheriff-calls-for-more-protection-of-fuel-tanks-targeted-by-las-vegas-shooter/ (https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/sheriff-calls-for-more-protection-of-fuel-tanks-targeted-by-las-vegas-shooter/)
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: Carl on October 13, 2017, 03:57:04 AM
Here is another example of potential changes being made as result of shooting.  It has been leaked (not officially confirmed yet) that incendiary rounds were used against the fuel tanks.  So they will need to figure out how to better protect them.  Unfortunately, precautions are being slowed by the lapse in information sharing:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/sheriff-calls-for-more-protection-of-fuel-tanks-targeted-by-las-vegas-shooter/ (https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/sheriff-calls-for-more-protection-of-fuel-tanks-targeted-by-las-vegas-shooter/)

This may stem from his wanting to purchase TRACER rounds that are legal but rarely found on surplus market.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 13, 2017, 07:00:48 AM
This may stem from his wanting to purchase TRACER rounds that are legal but rarely found on surplus market.

The leaks are saying that there were only two scoped rifles and these were installed on stabalizing tripods, one in front of each window.  The note with "accurate" bullet drop information was most likely for these rifles to engage the airport fuel tanks.  This is probably the reason for breaking two windows, that is two specific targets.  The incendiary rounds were for these rifles but they didnt say how they know that (eg. were they a different caliber, were they found in or near these rifles, or if the recovered bullets which hit hit the tanks were of that type). Net, there was more to this plan than origionally suggested.

The tracers were alleged to be able to improve the ability of the bumpstock rifles.  But now there is uncomfirmed talk that there was a true full automatic found too. We dont yet know how many rounds were fired or the extent of injuries of the approximately 400 injured. So it is hard to piece together an accurate picture of the shooter's plan.  There is so much the authorities are keeping hidden from the public.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 14, 2017, 10:09:03 AM
Libertarian Party issues strong statement against "placebo politics":

https://www.lp.org/why-guns-matter/ (https://www.lp.org/why-guns-matter/)

Why guns matter

by Staff on October 4, 2017 in News

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas terrorist attack, as many of us search for something to blame, some will arrive at guns. That anger will apply both to guns and to your friends and acquaintances who support guns. Before reaching that conclusion in sadness and anger, however, I ask you to consider why millions of people, many of whom are in your own families, many of whom are your friends and neighbors, so deeply support gun rights. Why do so many intelligent people believe that blaming guns doesn’t make sense?

It’s difficult to get away with murder. It’s easy to commit murder, though, for somebody who doesn’t care about the consequences. It’s easy to murder a single person with a knife, a brick, or a shovel.

It’s also easy to kill large groups of people for somebody who doesn’t care about the consequences — somebody who plans to die anyway.

Driving a car into a school bus, or flying a plane into a skyscraper, using poison, fire, or homemade bombs are all possibilities for somebody determined to murder others. If somebody simply doesn’t care about the consequences, there are many ways to commit mass murder.

Firearms, unlike most of the above examples, are also highly effective defensive weapons. A homemade pipe bomb is not a great defensive weapon against an assailant. If you use it, you hurt yourself as much as the assailant. Poison would be an inconvenient weapon to use against a would-be mugger or rapist. A car can be used to kill a busload of kids, but it’s not a great weapon for self-defense. And, although a 747 jet can be used in a terrorist attack, it’s difficult to imagine how to use one to defend your home against an invader.

Guns, however, are effective defensive weapons. Simply brandishing a gun can often scare off a potential assailant, an effect that does not exist when brandishing a vial of poison or a 747.

There are a million ways to commit mass murder for somebody who doesn’t care about the consequences, but there are fewer ways to defend against violent assailants, or groups of violent assailants. Guns aren’t always effective as a defense in every situation, and I doubt they would have done much good in Las Vegas. Even the best tools and medicines don’t work for 100 percent of cases.

The terrorist attack in Las Vegas is the result of pure evil, or of a mind so broken as to no longer be meaningfully human. It was no crime of passion, but a planned assault carried out with military planning and precision. Someone willing to do all that damage could have found plenty of other ways to kill.

Blaming guns is easy, but it’s meaningless. The gun laws and waiting periods are distractive scapegoating, keeping our minds focused away from the truth that with or without guns, we are vulnerable. Carrying guns can make us safer, but nothing makes us 100 percent safe. Gun bans function as placebos that add no safety, only granting the illusion thereof.

We deserve better than placebo politics, where meaningless actions are taken to make us feel like something useful is happening. Legally, I believe in repealing all gun laws. They are nothing but distractions. They are simply nuisances for peaceful gun owners, and placebos for those who understand little about guns or the hundreds of other ways to kill.

As individuals, as communities, let’s try to understand and handle the actual problem: people becoming so twisted that they are willing to engage in mass murder, indifferent to the consequences. Yes, that’s a more complex problem, a harder challenge to face. It’s not something that can be accomplished with some placebo law. It is the real problem, though, the only honest and relevant challenge.

Respectfully,

Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian Party
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on October 21, 2017, 06:06:49 PM
Good explanation of ATF decision on bump stocks from one who helped make it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kryIJIrD5eQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kryIJIrD5eQ)

The NRA was very disingenuous in their criticism given that they were accurately following the definitions as laid out by law.  However, it does confirm (as do other statements from the officers involved) that the decision was sent up the chain of command and so that was factually true.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: NWPilgrim on October 21, 2017, 09:38:08 PM
Libertarian Party issues strong statement against "placebo politics":

https://www.lp.org/why-guns-matter/ (https://www.lp.org/why-guns-matter/)

Why guns matter

by Staff on October 4, 2017 in News

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas terrorist attack...

Very well written article.  It brought out some ideas I had not explicitly considered before: many ways to kill, but few effective means for defense, guns being one of the best.

I think another thing s that has to be drummed hard on, is "It is ridiculous to even talk about new gun laws when we still do not have police evidence released yet stating which, if any, of the guns in the hotel room were shot, which, if any caused death or injury."  We have politicians running around trying to stir up a panic when all we have is one photo of a couple of rifles out of the 23 that were supposedly found.  One of those had a bump stock.  We don't know if it was actually fired.  We don't even know based on released information if the alleged shooter actually did any shooting.  How insane is it to even discuss ANY new laws, let alone gun laws, when we have practically zero evidence released?

I would use the above argument just to cool off any hot head anxious to pass a law.  The fundamental issue is more along the lines of the above article: guns are uniquely suited for personal defense unlike a multitude of other means for killing people, and therefore must not be restricted.
Title: Re: post vegas shooting
Post by: iam4liberty on November 11, 2017, 03:49:05 PM
well thought out position on bump stock ban: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB0GregFjgw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB0GregFjgw)