FWIS3

So, I don't think it's going to happen this time, but do you think there's ever going to be a moment where people think perhaps a man should not be able to have a dozen automatic weapons with which to murder dozens and injure half a thousand people?

I just find it incredible that we have come to this. I'm currently reading the book Columbine, about that particular shooting, and what's particularly striking to me is remembering how defining that event was for my generation in school at the time, and how strict gun laws almost happened as a result. The idea that such a huge reaction happened nationwide for "only" thirteen people sounds positively innocent by now.

Rommie wrote:So, I don't think it's going to happen this time, but do you think there's ever going to be a moment where people think perhaps a man should not be able to have a dozen automatic weapons with which to murder dozens and injure half a thousand people?

No, I don't think it will happen.

I've been posting a recurring theme on Facebook today. Well two....

If not now, then when?. Already we are hearing people say if we talk about solutions now we are playing politics. Fine, what is the appropriate waiting period? It has been over a year since the Pulse nightclub shooting - is it time yet? It is almost five years since Sandy Hook - is it time yet? Someone tell me what is the waiting period, I'll wait, and then let's start the debate.

We are also already hearing all the usual arguments - if you make semiautomatic weapons illegal, only criminals will have them. Gun regulations don't work. We need more mental health care, not more gun regs. We need more "good guys with guns". If you take guns away we'll just kill each other with pointed sticks. Yet, somehow, no other first world nation has this level of harm.

And so every time we have a mass shooting like this we do NOTHING. The same old, same old arguments circle the drain, and we do nothing. At this point, someone try SOMETHING, ANYTHING. Congress - pass a BAD law to try to do something, at least we'll know that doesn't work. Heck, make a token legislative gesture. Either that, or everyone admit that this is just part of life and start teaching gunshot first aid to everyone.

But what do I think will happen... nothing.

The unusual part here is that he used automatic as opposed to semi-auto. He either modified them from semi to full auto or used a bump stock. It sounded like a full auto so I'm suspecting a home mod.

Why am I fixated on that?
Well, if he got a hold of a full auto it will be the first time in recent history. It might set off restrictions on them. Currently you can own one but in very exceptional circumstances. That might change if he legally had them.

If he used a modified semi, that is already illegal to do. Given the vast numbers in circulation I doubt anything will be done. Maybe tougher laws on modifications but it would be unenforceable.

If he used a bump stock, they may ban them. There is no 2a protection for them that I am aware of. Its not a firearm nor is it a key component in one.
I always hated the things. Nothing good about them.

They might however pass legislation to reduce restrictions on noise suppressors. If you are going to be shot, at least the noise won't scare you or your loved ones if you are a victim of a mass shooting.
Your government cares about your happiness.

Latest report I read said police found 2 bump stocks in the hotel room.

What Swift said. If we as a nation are unwilling to do something after Sandy Hook, it will not happen. The fact that there is a rising number of people that actually believe Sandy Hook to be a hoax only solidifies my pessimism.

geonuc wrote:What Swift said. If we as a nation are unwilling to do something after Sandy Hook, it will not happen. The fact that there is a rising number of people that actually believe Sandy Hook to be a hoax only solidifies my pessimism.

My crazy nephew has already started posting "suspicious" articles from dubious "news" sources about the Vegas shooting.

Thumper wrote:Latest report I read said police found 2 bump stocks in the hotel room.

I read that too. What I didn't know is there is a company producing shoulder held bump stocks that allow accuracy in use. All the ones I saw were hip style.
That makes it now as dangerous as a fully auto.
Long range, highly accurate, cheap and legal. Wtf?

vendic wrote:

Thumper wrote:Latest report I read said police found 2 bump stocks in the hotel room.

I read that too. What I didn't know is there is a company producing shoulder held bump stocks that allow accuracy in use. All the ones I saw were hip style.
That makes it now as dangerous as a fully auto.
Long range, highly accurate, cheap and legal. Wtf?

In this situation, why do you need accuracy; you are shooting into a mass of people?

Accuracy in firearms is somewhat very vague.
E.g. a hunting rifle is considered accurate if it can place 3 shots at 100 yards in a 3 inch diameter circle.
A varmiting rifle needs to put 3 in less than a 1 inch circle, preferably less than a 1/2 inch.
A sniping rifle has to put 3 in about 12 inches at 1000 yards etc.

Holding a gun at the hip is nowhere as accurate as on the shoulder. Most people couldn't hit a barn at a 100 yards off the hip. It takes serious skill. Likewise, almost every one can hit a barn at that distance off the shoulder.

The report I read was the shooter was about 400 yards away. Off the hip I'd be lucky to hit a lake at 400 yards. Its a skill I've long lost. Off the shoulder however is completely different. Almost anyone with basic practice can do it.
That's why I consider them dangerous. When any moron without much effort can effectively mow down dozens of people using legally available hardware.

By the same logic, a hip fire version can be just as dangerous at close distance. Hence my reason for hating bump stocks. They are no good for hunting. They only have a wow factor to them. That is not enough reason to allow them imho. I'd feel a lot better if they were banned. Mind you, I don't much care for semi autos either.
In the gun world these substitute quantity of fire for quality of fire.
It wouldn't bother me one bit if they made only single shot guns available.

Now reporting as many as ten or twelve firearms each with bump stocks. Since the weapon itself was not necessarily designed for full auto use, it can overheat and or jam. So he had nearly a dozen, each equipped with bump stocks...

Yeah, and it sounds like it was ten seconds of nonstop firing, a few seconds pause, then restart. I'm no expert but sounds to me like the guy could have easily just shot bullets out of one and moved to the next.

So I guess there are no limits on how many semi automatic but really automatic weapons one can own?

Nope. No limits at all.
I watched a video and it was analysed to have about 90 rounds fired in about seven seconds.
So it also meant large capacity magazines.
Each gun would have overheated so he needed many of them.
To be honest, I'm surprised there wasn't more deaths and injuries. If he had used all the weapons assuming they all had similar magazines, that's about 1000 rounds.

The hit ratio was just over 15%
Maybe he was using a hip based bump stock.
Also possibly fmj's.

I know if sounds weird but given how bad it could have been with that amount of ammo and auto fire it turned out to be a far better outcome than I'd have expected.
E.g.. Port Arthur. Similar numbers using only two semi autos. Norway shootings which killed and injured more with only two semi autos.

I suspect there will be a buying spree on bump stocks followed by discussion on restricting them. With an inevitable copy cat attack by either lone nut jobs or Muslim extremists who just got given a great idea.

vendic wrote:I know if sounds weird but given how bad it could have been with that amount of ammo and auto fire it turned out to be a far better outcome than I'd have expected.

No, not weird, I've had the same thought. It also seems he was at least contemplating explosives (had purchased ammonium nitrate and other things) and he was not planning on getting out alive. I'm almost surprised he didn't end the incident by blowing himself (and lots of other people) up, rather than just shooting himself.

I also suspect that we had 58 dead and 500 injured, versus two or three hundred dead and a similar number injured, because of the fast response of bystanders, first responders, and modern emergency medicine.

Yeah. Fucking mental on so many levels. But then, when people like this keep dreaming their Rambo fantasies, I really don't think much is going to change.

Like, even if the guy who did this was not a white American male accountant, I guarantee the "solution" to the problem would be to just ban that ethnicity than tackle maybe not allowing one to buy a dozen semi-automatics and bump stocks. But frankly I'll be amazed if even the latter gets banned.

To continue off the Rambos in my last post, I did find this a bit hilarious in a karma kind of way.

Wow. I'm sure that security would have let in a guy to a concert with a high power rifle and scope, you know, just in case a lone mad man with a gun firing at a crowd decided to show up. Wtf is wrong with these idiots.

Swift, I'd say the low number killed is also the use of fmj's. Hunting rounds make such a mess even badly placed bullets kill in very short amount of time. Military style projectiles most used in these shootings are not primarily designed to kill. They are designed to injure as many as possible.
E.g. a hunting round at that distance would kill people even if it hits an arm or leg. The injury is extremely severe. It doesn't just pass clean through like military ammo.
Of course he'd have to consider the rounds calibre and select the appropriate round. Luckily most of these idiots just stick with fmj's and usually 223 calibre. If you had to choose a high power combination that would kill as few people when shot, that combo would be hard to beat.
It also gives more opportunity to get medical attention.

For the record, its one reason I don't particularly want fmj's banned. They are useless for hunting but almost every mass shooter uses them. So reduces the death toll.
Only in a fucked up world does that paragraph even make logical sense.

vendic wrote:Wow. I'm sure that security would have let in a guy to a concert with a high power rifle and scope, you know, just in case a lone mad man with a gun firing at a crowd decided to show up. Wtf is wrong with these idiots.

Swift, I'd say the low number killed is also the use of fmj's. Hunting rounds make such a mess even badly placed bullets kill in very short amount of time. Military style projectiles most used in these shootings are not primarily designed to kill. They are designed to injure as many as possible.
E.g. a hunting round at that distance would kill people even if it hits an arm or leg. The injury is extremely severe. It doesn't just pass clean through like military ammo.
Of course he'd have to consider the rounds calibre and select the appropriate round. Luckily most of these idiots just stick with fmj's and usually 223 calibre. If you had to choose a high power combination that would kill as few people when shot, that combo would be hard to beat.
It also gives more opportunity to get medical attention.

For the record, its one reason I don't particularly want fmj's banned. They are useless for hunting but almost every mass shooter uses them. So reduces the death toll.
Only in a fucked up world does that paragraph even make logical sense.

Funny thing to note about *military rounds*
1. you are indeed correct that most militaries want to wound or incapacitate the enemies. It actually ties up resources and people who have to treat the wounded.
2. Dum dum rounds, fragmentation rounds, and rounds that are designed to create more damage or "kill ratios" are usually considered to be inhumane and are almost universally banned by Geneva Convention.
3. Many modern armies are using non-frangible and non-lead materials for bullets due to environmental concerns. It seems that lead bullets can create a very toxic environment in and around your shooting ranges. Who knew?

An interesting side note about the Vegas shooting was ISIS claiming responsibility for the shooting. Right now most of the experts seem to think ISIS is spreading a false story to keep people scared, uncertain, and ISIS in the news.

He did go to the Philippines a few years ago. But, he doesn't fit the profile for any of the abnormal types who would usually commit these types of attacks.

Thumper wrote:Now reporting as many as ten or twelve firearms each with bump stocks. Since the weapon itself was not necessarily designed for full auto use, it can overheat and or jam. So he had nearly a dozen, each equipped with bump stocks...

Listening to the sound/rate of fire analysis that is out there I was convinced that he was using actual automatics or semi-automatic rifles adapted to full auto. I had not realized that bump stocks had become that sophisticated. One more thing to try to ban.

For the record I am an adamant defender of 2A. I am still amazed that something as simple as a background check causes so much disagreement. For example, current law says that a gun shop has to run a background check. If the FBI doesn't respond within 3 days the shop can sell you the gun. WTF?! If you don't get a response you shouldn't be able to sell the gun. Instead, what has happened is a frank admission that the system is broken. Why would you allow someone to sell a gun if they couldn't verify the person has a "clean record"? Because, the system is so broken that they can't reliably provide the data to the gun shop owner. Compound that with the fact that many states refuse to provide the information to the FBI that is needed to maintain the database in good working order.

Then the golden circle of "nothing gets done" kicks in. People who want guns banned, regulated, or controlled in some way get frustrated and say "we need new and better laws". People who want to limit regulation, have no regulation at all, or who want it to be the Wild West all say "We have enough gun laws! We just need to use the ones we have!"

Excuse me?! How about we fix the ones we have and see if they actually work as intended then? Or try something and then revoke it if it doesn't work?

The one bit of good news about this issue is that congress is probably going to table the law they were considering that would have made it easier to buy silencers.

Rommie wrote:To continue off the Rambos in my last post, I did find this a bit hilarious in a karma kind of way.

That guy is just a freak and deserves to be laughed at.

But it connects to the whole "good guy with a gun" NRA mentality. Multiple studies have shown that "good gun with a gun" is a myth (there was a great 60 Minutes episode for one). What matters is neither your good intentions nor the fact that you are packing, you need to develop the quick analytical skills, the controlling of your emotional response, and the muscle memory to respond to a shooter in a public situation. You don't get that just because you got your concealed-carry permit, or even spending a lot of time on the gun range. You get that by doing scenario training as police and military units do.

The reason that there is a three day limit is the 2a that you support. If one had to wait for an all clear then you are effectively preventing gun sales.
Same reason they can't make ammo really expensive.

For the record, in this age if they can't make an automated search function that can give an answer in seconds, then they are either completely incompetent or deliberately delaying.

Probably more former than latter.

I was just as surprised as you about the rate of fire. It sounded very consistent. Though in another video I saw the sound was distinctly from a bump stock. So he may have had either modified guns, trigger turrets or a high quality bump stock that's shoulder mount as well as the basic bump stocks.

I hate the things. Their only practical use is ego based sense of grandeur. The ultimate expression of which is a killing spree. Like some of the marketing for them says, "you'll be smiling for days".
Wtf?
A fucking gun is not for making you smile or make you happy. Its a tool. A very specialized tool that people need to respect not fucking worship or use like a happy pill.

Swift wrote:But it connects to the whole "good guy with a gun" NRA mentality. Multiple studies have shown that "good gun with a gun" is a myth

Yeah, we had a thread here a few years back where I pointed out the same thing.
Die harders will refuse to accept it though.

It is total and complete bullshit. The standard reasoning goes like this: you never hear about the good guy stopping a mass shooting perp because it never became a mass shooting. The good guy did his job...

Funny thing is, you don't get to hear of a gunman armed like crazy shot dead early on. Because if people did that, Bubba would be shot at Wal-Mart while exercising his right to carry an ar15 while selecting chicken. Because this is America. That's how we shop for food here...

vendic wrote:

Swift wrote:Funny thing is, you don't get to hear of a gunman armed like crazy shot dead early on. Because if people did that, Bubba would be shot at Wal-Mart while exercising his right to carry an ar15 while selecting chicken. Because this is America. That's how we shop for food here...

Maybe we got confused and thought it said "The Right To Bare Arms".

SciFiFisher wrote:

Maybe we got confused and thought it said "The Right To Bare Arms".

Well that can't be the case. Acceptable attire for men requires that they be fully covered except their hands and heads.
If they don't abide, they are excluded from many places of power.
So no right to bare arms applies.

vendic wrote:For the record, in this age if they can't make an automated search function that can give an answer in seconds, then they are either completely incompetent or deliberately delaying.

Probably more former than latter.

I'll have to disagree. I am completely convinced it is the latter (deliberate delay). The NRA doesn't want any checks, but that would be too blatant, and so they let apparent incompetency be the scapegoat.

Why else, for example, has the US prohibited the CDC and other agencies from doing ANY research on gun violence for decades, and deliberately handcuffed (pun partially intended) the FBI and other agencies from even collecting data in a usable form? IIRC, the FBI collects data from police departments on shootings, but they collect the data in paper form, and they just stockpile it, they never enter it into any sort of database. There is some basement some place filled with decades of this paperwork.

The NRA and the gun industry don't want this data, because god forbid it might indicate some course of action that would decrease their profits.