Mass Shooting at Concert in Las Vegas

[seanbrock 1,684]

I don't own guns and have only shot them a few times, but I know a lot of people that own them as a hobby. To me, plenty of hobbies could be a danger to others. Owning assault rifles for sport doesn't really make you more deadly than learning chemistry or learning to drive a truck. Here's a decent list of other vehicle attacks since you asked earlier.

 

Your last point, I surely agree with. Making it harder to obtain should be fine. If you're just a hobbyist then by taking a little extra time and effort to acquire your gun you are saving lives.

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

 

 

Over the same span of time in one country I got 34 shootings. There's 11 instances of people driving a car into a crowd in that link across 8 countries.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Have you ever traveled?

 

Nobody who works in a hotel asks to search your bags or even asks you what's in your bags. It's none of their business. If a hotel did that, they would lose customers left and right. People expect privacy in a hotel.

Well then it's time to change that, at least when hotels at times overlook thousands of people

[blotsfan 2,112]

But the founding fathers intended for man to bring automatic weapons into hotels!

[Omerta+ 1,206]

So now that we've established the fact that rebelling against the government would be fucking suicide, what reason does someone need to have a fully automatic assault rifle? To hunt? To stop a home invasion? What happens when there are a bunch of people firing their gun in a crowd trying to stop a shooter? Who do the cops go after when they get to the scene. This argument is just so fucking completely and utterly retarded. I don't have a problem with hand guns or hinting rifles but everything else should be illegal and honestly I think even permits to carry are dangerous.

If we do have to have guns there has to be background checks, mental evaluations and mandatory training. This is crazy.

 

Lol, you undid yourself in two sentences. Fully automatic weapons are illegal. Which means only criminals have them lol.

But the founding fathers intended for man to bring automatic weapons into hotels!

 

They probably didn't think polio would ever be cured, but I bet they would have taken it. We were closer to automatic weapons then, than we were to a cure for polio.

 

Trying to say that the founding father would not have approved of technology is cherry picking. I bet they wpuld take those fancy car things, or phones, or microwaves, and treatments for multiple diseases. Guns though, that is a problem, especially semi automatic rifles.

 

As to the automatic ones they are already illegal, why that keeps getting brought up I dont know.

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Zack_of_Steel

[oochymp 2,393]

It's a hotel in vegas.they have security cameras all over the place. That would have been a red flag.thats suspicious to even a fool.

Vegas is also a major tourist destination, meaning a lot of people staying at those hotels (and really, hotels in general) are probably going to be getting a lot of souvenirs. I imagine that the fucker wasn't bringing in gun cases, is it really that suspicious for someone to be bringing a lot of bags to their hotel room?

 

Well then it's time to change that, at least when hotels at times overlook thousands of people

Would you really be on board with letting a hotel search your bags? There are plenty of safe, legal reasons you might not want the hotel rummaging through your bags, maybe you've got a bunch of sex toys you don't want to show off, or have sensitive paperwork, or even more innocuous imagine you're going on a vacation with your girlfriend and plan to propose at some point, would you want that surprise spoiled when the hotel pulls out a diamond ring searching your bags?

[Sarge+ 3,436]

It's a hotel in vegas.they have security cameras all over the place. That would have been a red flag.thats suspicious to even a fool.

 

Security cameras can't see inside bags.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Security cameras can't see inside bags.

 

LOL, that is just what they want you to think.

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

 

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

 

 

Over the same span of time in one country I got 34 shootings. There's 11 instances of people driving a car into a crowd in that link across 8 countries.

 

Comparing frequencies now is worthless when my point is that without guns people would still find simple ways of mass killing that are as available if not moreso than guns are now. My links were to illustrate the damage that can and has been done with something as innocuous and everyday as a vehicle.

 

 

Well then it's time to change that, at least when hotels at times overlook thousands of people

 

You were for extending the Patriot Act, huh?

Edited October 7, 2017 by Zack_of_Steel

[Thanatos 2,847]

The idea that you need a fully automatic weapon to inflict a ton of damage is a foolish one to have. Makes it slightly easier, sure, but he could have accomplished similar results with semiautomatic rifles.

 

Hell take a handgun, like the one I own, the glock 22 which standard holds 15 round mags(16 rounds with one in the chamber), take just a few mags of that and can put 100+ rounds down range pretty quickly. Get the extended mag that holds 22 and do even more damage. Sure with a handgun you're gonna have to be closer than what he was, but before police can intervene you could hurt a ton of people all the same.

 

If you spent just a bit of time training you could take a bolt action rifle and in a crowd like what he was shooting down on do quite a bit of damage.

 

The guy who shot up the Orlando nightclub used a semiautomatic rifle and a handgun and killed what, 50 people before police finally got to him?

 

The outrage about guns after every shooting honestly borders on hilarious. This guy just wanted to kill a bunch of people. He could have killed more with methods that don't even involve a gun(see Oklahoma City bomber, 168 dead without a single round fired).

 

You mention background checks and shit and that's all fine and good but background checks wouldn't have prevented this anyway. This dude was clean as a whistle. Just some rich dude who seemingly minded his own business, no felonies, etc.

 

This is the kind of guy that if guns weren't around he would have found other means, and he had more than enough finances to do it(It's not even that expensive to build a bomb. He could just put a bomb in his car, run it in to the crowd, detonate it, kill damn near everyone at the concert).

 

Some people are just fucked in the head and guns are just one way they can express just how fucked they are.

 

This is really not true or just missing the point. Automatic weapons can fire thousands of rounds a minute. A true semi-auto can fire, at best, a few hundred. There are ways around this by cheating the definition via some sort of modification, but a true semi-auto, where you have to manually squeeze the trigger every time, will never reach anywhere near a fully automatic rifle's output.

 

The issue is the amount of bullets it can put out in such a short time. For example, had this shooter had only a semi-auto, it certainly results in far less loss of life, given people would have had a lot more time to find shelter.

 

However, I do agree that based on everything we know, this is one of those that would not have been stopped. The dude was a rich guy who could have easily illegally modified semi-autos to be automatic by fully legal means, if he had to do so.

 

Sometimes, there is really nothing you can do to stop a tragedy like this, but the logic that we shouldn't even try to limit these kinds of shootings- when we can do so without sacrificing our own rights- because some tragedies can't be stopped is just insane.

 

Background checks wouldn't have stopped this guy, but they're still a good idea, (not saying you are saying otherwise, but that seems to be the implication sometimes when I'm talking with people about this issue).

Edited October 7, 2017 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Our Republican president and even the NRA are in support of banning bump stocks (the mod to allow for near auto firing of a semi-auto weapon), so I theoretically you shouldn't really have to worry about that. If it's change you want, I think you will get it. As I mentioned in my previous post though... Our government is slow as hell, so who knows, I guess.