WTF? (**NSFW**)

[matmacwc]

1 hour ago, Duck said:

You really have to watch out for those big foam shooting nerf guns, really look like AKs and ARs these days. Especially the ones painted light blue and red.

Thats what she said.

[waveshaper]

Some early info;  The Shooter Stephen Paddock? 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know;

https://heavy.com/news/2017/10/stephen-paddock-las-vegas-route-91-mandalay-bay-shooting-shooter-gunman-suspect-photos-motive/

[Hacker]

That sure sounds like a lot of sustained fire in that video.  A big magazine and bumpfire or full auto.  :(

[VMFA187]

That sounded eerily similar to a movement to fire drill we'd conduct in The Basic School with a platoon+ worth of Marines firing M-16s. I'd be interested to know what weapons he possessed that allowed him to maintain that sustained rate of fire.

I actually checked out of a hotel yesterday morning that was a quarter mile away from that location prior to doing my ATP/737 Type Rating check ride Sunday evening.

[LJDRVR]

Sounds like a belt-fed weapon to me. Low cyclic rate and a whole lot more than thirty rounds.

[FourFans]

11 hours ago, LJDRVR said:

Sounds like a belt-fed weapon to me. Low cyclic rate and a whole lot more than thirty rounds.

Concur.  Sounds a lot like a Stoner or an M-60.  Either way, a lot of firepower for someone to sneak into a hotel room, especially someone not known as a gun guy.  Appears to be a lone wolf gone crazy, but it doesn't smell right.

Prayers and condolences to the victims and their families.

[ClearedHot]

Turns out it was a bump fire stock, I am guessing much of the confusion is from echos.   The Mandalay Bay has a very unique shape and he was moving back and forth between two shooting positions in the suite.

[Buddy Spike]

No fucking way was it just a dude having a bad day. This was planned.

[ClearedHot]

35 minutes ago, gearpig said:

How to you get over 20 weapons to the 32nd floor without raising suspicions?

Really? 

On family trips I've had baggage carts loaded with all kinds of stuff (including weapons), and no one has ever said a word.  He was there for a few days, I would bet he used a push cart a few times and it looked like bags or boxes.

[ClearedHot]

I hear what you are saying but I doubt it went down like that.  I was in a hotel for three days last week and kept the do not disturb sign on the entire time, I don't like people in the room around my stuff, he could have easily done the same.  Also, you are assuming he used gun cases...this guy obviously planned this out and I am betting he was smart enough to pack and transport stuff in nondescript containers, luggage, or boxes. 

This guy was smart enough to find a perfect ambush overlook sight and install a bump fire stock.  I don't think it takes a great leap of imagination to think he could package his weapons to look like anything but weapons and make a several trips over the course of three and a half days to get his weapons unobserved into his room.  I know I could.

Unless you are advocating we search every person entering every building in the country you won't stop this type of situation from occurring when there is a determined madman.

[Lord Ratner]

If the only outcome is that bump fire stocks are outlawed, the NRA will be lucky. And they should have been illegal already.

I'm a big fan of the 2nd. Bigly in favor of it. But you can't answer this massacre with "that's the price of freedom."

Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.

[JustHangingOut]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.

I will respond with one reason to consider for removable magazines.

Consider the home invasion scenario where you have multiple homes invaders with the intent to harm you and yours.  The majority of malfunctions within a semi-automatic firearms tend to be the feeding device.  A removable magazine is essential to you remedial actions when dealing with a malfunction in a gun fight.  If Tap/Rack/Pull doesn't work, the next option is, drop the mag, clear the jam, insert new mag, go.

Again, this is one reason to consider.  I am sure there are many more reasons individuals can come up with.  For me in my home, I always have multiple magazines loaded and ready to go for every self-defense firearm in my home.

[Buddy Spike]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If the only outcome is that bump fire stocks are outlawed, the NRA will be lucky. And they should have been illegal already.

I'm a big fan of the 2nd. Bigly in favor of it. But you can't answer this massacre with "that's the price of freedom."

Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.

Shall not be infringed.

It's the only justification necessary.

 

[Lord Ratner]

Shall not be infringed.
It's the only justification necessary.
 

You'll lose. Automatics are illegal. Grenades. We need to do better than arguing the old men who wrote the 2nd amendment surely would have been cool with what happened in Vegas.

[Buddy Spike]

Just now, Lord Ratner said:

16 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

Shall not be infringed.
It's the only justification necessary.
 

You'll lose. Automatics are illegal. Grenades. We need to do better than arguing the old men who wrote the 2nd amendment surely would have been cool with what happened in Vegas.

Automatics are not illegal and neither are grenades. 

Why would using the Second Amendment cause me to lose? Do you support the Constitution or not?

[Lord Ratner]

Automatics are not illegal and neither are grenades. 
Why would using the Second Amendment cause me to lose? Do you support the Constitution or not?

Because the law can be changed. Hell, let's not forget that you couldn't buy the AR15 we see everywhere today back in the 90s.

If your plan for the debate is to hold a document up that can be changed by the majority and tell them they can't change it, you may not get the results you expect.

I'm very pro-second Amendment, but the one thing I hate about the people on my side is that they refuse to engage in the debate. They say stupid things like, knives kill people too, or guns don't kill people people kill people. These are stupid arguments by stupid people. Of course knives kill people, but they don't kill as many people as someone with a fully automatic gun in the top of the Mandalay Bay can kill.

You don't need a 30 round magazine for hunting. Most reasonable people would say that you don't need an entire Arsenal to fend off a home invasion by a group of well-trained Highly coordinated and numerous villains. We have to do better if we want to keep these toys. And we're not going to convince anyone that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the type of weaponry available to people today. In their day, if someone went on a rampage with a musket, they'd kill maybe two people before they got punched in the face.

[Buddy Spike]

Just now, Lord Ratner said:

Because the law can be changed. Hell, let's not forget that you couldn't buy the AR15 we see everywhere today back in the 90s.

If your plan for the debate is to hold a document up that can be changed by the majority and tell them they can't change it, you may not get the results you expect.

I'm very pro-second Amendment, but the one thing I hate about the people on my side is that they refuse to engage in the debate. They say stupid things like, knives kill people too, or guns don't kill people people kill people. These are stupid arguments by stupid people. Of course knives kill people, but they don't kill as many people as someone with a fully automatic gun in the top of the Mandalay Bay can kill.

You don't need a 30 round magazine for hunting. Most reasonable people would say that you don't need an entire Arsenal to fend off a home invasion by a group of well-trained Highly coordinated and numerous villains. We have to do better if we want to keep these toys. And we're not going to convince anyone that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the type of weaponry available to people today. In their day, if someone went on a rampage with a musket, they'd kill maybe two people before they got punched in the face.

 

So if you're "Very pro-second Amendment" then what is your solution to avoid violating infringement?  

[pbar]

4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If the only outcome is that bump fire stocks are outlawed, the NRA will be lucky. And they should have been illegal already.

I'm a big fan of the 2nd. Bigly in favor of it. But you can't answer this massacre with "that's the price of freedom."

Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.

Agreed but unfortunately compromise isn't possible with the gun control Left.  We could trade away bump fire stocks and trigger cranks as part of a compromise but that would just whet their appetite for more gun control, leading to their desired end game-total abolition of private firearm ownership.  Like a Terminator, they will not stop until they reach that endstate.  

The sad fact is that elimination of most firearms would be fairly easy to accomplish.  Once they have ownership lists, either by mandatory registration, credit card data mining, having doctors ask kids if their parents have guns, etc. then they can require you to turn them in.  They don't need to send police or military to round them up.  All they need to do is make turning them in a condition of any interaction with the government such as renewing your driver's license or license plates, getting a tax return, applying for unemployment, etc. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by pbar

[BFM this]

18 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

You don't need a 30 round magazine for hunting. Most reasonable people would say that you don't need an entire Arsenal to fend off a home invasion by a group of well-trained Highly coordinated and numerous villains. We have to do better if we want to keep these toys. And we're not going to convince anyone that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the type of weaponry available to people today. In their day, if someone went on a rampage with a musket, they'd kill maybe two people before they got punched in the face.

The second amendment is not about hunting.

The second amendment is not about a home invasion.

The second amendment is not about “toys”.

The constitution does not grant rights.  Neither does the government.  The constitution enumerates our rights.

The constitution does not empower government.  It limits government.

Kinda surprising to be having this conversation on this forum; expecting it from progressives.

 

[Lord Ratner]

15 minutes ago, BFM this said:

The second amendment is not about hunting.
The second amendment is not about a home invasion.
The second amendment is not about “toys”.
The constitution does not grant rights.  Neither does the government.  The constitution enumerates our rights.
The constitution does not empower government.  It limits government.
Kinda surprising to be having this conversation on this forum; expecting it from progressives.

You're talking theory. We agree on the theory. I'm talking reality. And the reality is that gun owners, including the people in this thread, do a shitty job of persuading people of these theories. If enough people disagree with you, you lose your guns. That's it. Sure, a bunch of us will puff up and say something silly like "pry them from my cold dead hands." But most of us will hand them over when forced to choose between being a martyr and one day walking your daughter down the isle. 

We have three options.

1) Continue refusing to educate and debate, and rule out all changes to the law/new restrictions. Law changes, guns are confiscated. Freedom suffers.

2) Continue refusing to educate and debate, and rule out all changes to the law/new restrictions. Law changes. 
2a) Some gun owners refuse and are killed/imprisoned in their righteous stand
2b) Most gun owners refuse and we get a catalyst to a civil war.

3) Gun owners accept that the 2nd amendment never envisioned what is possible with firearms today. They further accept that even if the framers would have loved machine guns, amendments can be amended. They start working to put a real argument together as to why 59 people should be executed at a concert so they can have removable magazines, silencers, hollow points, etc. This is not an impossible task, but it will take more than "freedom isn't free" or "Do you support the Constitution or not."

You know what's great about a civil war? All the early adopters die. I'd rather avoid that. 

51 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

So if you're "Very pro-second Amendment" then what is your solution to avoid violating infringement?  

I think republicans/conservatives need to unilaterally pass legislation (important to not include any anti-gun people, to avoid legislative creep) that makes it harder for someone to go crazy and kill people. Lots of fucking people. 

I think limitations on how quickly one can obtain weapons is a fair trade. Cooling off periods, limitations to how many guns you can buy at once. Expanded background checks. 

I don't know if those are the right answers, but I know "do nothing" isn't. You can disagree, and I'm sure many do, but I know I wouldn't be able to look a widow, or daughter, or father in the eye and say "sucks dude, but this is the cost of freedom." This wasn't a battle. No one took a stand, no one made a choice. There will be no justice; the killer is already gone, just how he wanted it. 

I'm not trying to change your minds. I'm really not. I'm still trying to internalize this disaster and work my way through what I believe it means for the future of gun rights. What I want is for you to think about where your head would be if your wife just had her head canoed while enjoying some music. If we don't argue it from that position, we lose. https://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/10/03/country_musician_changes_mind_on_gun_control_after_las_vegas_shooting.html

That's the only chance we have at keeping our guns. 

 

/Devil'sAdvocate

[RTB]

As a pro second amendment, multi-pistol, multi-AR rifle gun owner, I have to agree that simply saying “but it’s my right in the constitution” isn’t going to keep working. I don’t want my guns taken, banned or taxed into oblivion. But IMO, there’s an upper limit on what type of “arms” can reasonably be protected by the 2nd Amendment and this massacre may very alter that dynamic. Where that line is drawn is a question that is very difficult to answer. 

[nunya]

So guns are uninvented.  There are no guns.  Browning was never born.  Instead of 59 killed and hundreds injured on the strip, a truck drives into the crowd and kills 86 and injures 458.  Instead of gunfire, a pressure cooker bomb is left in the crowd and injures 170.  Now what?  Somehow when a gun is involved, everyone has a quick-fix "solution."  When it's anything other than a gun, nobody has a fucking clue what to do to keep it from happening.  

Edited October 3, 2017 by nunya

[matmacwc]

Then they start banning knives.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/17/ban-knives-delivered-shoppers-doors-proposed-government/

 

 

[Lord Ratner]

8 minutes ago, nunya said:

So guns are uninvented.  There are no guns.  Browning was never born.  Instead of 59 killed and hundreds injured on the strip, a truck drives into the crowd and kills 86 and injures 458.  Instead of gunfire, a pressure cooker bomb is left in the crowd and injures 170.  Now what?  Somehow when a gun is involved, everyone has a quick-fix "solution."  When it's anything other than a gun, nobody has a fucking clue what to do to keep it from happening.  

Agreed. But they don't have to. No one is going to outlaw semi-trucks or pressure cookers. This isn't about "how do we stop murder," it's about "how do we keep our gun rights in a changing world." 

Guess what, pressure cookers and semi-trucks weren't specifically designed to end human life. And unlike semi-trucks, we don't need access to high-powered, high-capacity firearms to keep the economy running. The opposition will waltz right past your argument and say "well we can still save 59 of those lives."

Your argument boils down to "if you can't fix everything, fix nothing," and it's a ridiculous argument coming from either side.

[tk1313]

We're trying to rationalize the response to an inconceivable evil. The fact that this evil committed the deadliest mass shooting in the US without ANY indicator(s) / motive (that we know of as of today) goes far beyond any political gun debate, and that's why it's driving everyone absolutely fucking crazy.

Edited October 3, 2017 by tk1313