Crime Las Vegas Mass Shooting

[Rav1nHunter]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/historical-comparisons



The stats about Fallujah in 2004 shocked me.

They don't show enemy combatants or civilian deaths

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

With an inaccurate yet automatic weapon this guy killed 58 people and injured another 500+...

He put to shame the clock tower yup and the DC sniper.

You can say it's inaccurate but look at the fucking damage.

And he just handed a playbook to psycho who's sympathetic to any cause he seems fit where civilians need to die. Not only civilians but also first responders have to deal with this bullshit.

It wasn't automatic, but...

Clock tower dude didn't have 22k people all crammed together and got met with civilian gunfire. DC sniper would shoot somebody and leave. Not sure how well those compare. Just how much do you think you need to neuter guns in order to slow down rate of fire to whatever rounds per minute is shown to eliminate mass shootings? Then tell me how you assess your chances of getting the Constitution changed to enact it.

It is inaccurate. The guy couldn't kill one person per minute of firing. That's not impressive, all things considered. As for the injuries, we've no idea (that I've seen) how many were hit directly, hit by fragments bouncing off pavement, or injured while trying to flee. I'm not saying this isn't all very bad. I'm saying that switching out weaponry might not necessarily have the drastic effect you think. I'm presuming you think it would have a drastic effect or you wouldn't be looking to curtail a fundamental civil liberty.

The "playbook" wasn't really expanded here. Firing a gun (or arrows,etc) from an elevated position is a well-known strategy dating back throughout human history. You yourself referenced Whitman. Do you think nobody of a mind to do so could figure out a similar plan without this one particular instance? Even so, what's done is done. What greater atrocity do you think whatever law you're proposing will preemptively erase from history.

 

[Rav1nHunter]

Grow a set of balls and say what you really mean.

The majority of gun deaths in the US are by handguns and committed by black people who happen to vote Democrat.

I assume he meant gangbangers of all colours and races

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Well I do live in a country where freedom of expression isn't protected by our constitution by the way. But I think comparing the right to have a gun to the right to have an opinion is wrong. What about if your neighbour really like atom bombs, should he be free to own them and let them off with his mates while having beers?

No offence taken by the way, interested in your perspective. As an outsider of course I don't understand your country's gun culture, it's completely alien to me and to be honest it's a bit fucken scary. You do have a nice country though, I've been a few times but there are some obvious differences to our cultures that's for sure.

I'm sorry to hear that. Self-defense and communication are fundamental. A society where you can only communicate and defend yourself as per government instruction doesn't sound like the pinnacle of success. I don't believe my neighbor should have atom bombs or nukes, and I believe the Constitution needs amended to state that. Laws need adapted as technology adapts.

Come visit me in Hawaii and we'll go to the range. If you don't understand the sporting appeal I'll be shocked. I understand the scary part. That's human nature. What overcomes that is a little familiarity. With familiarity comes understanding.

Where in the states have you visited?

 

[Oeshon]

So it's possible that Melbourne and probably most of Australia really is as great a place to live as I think it is?

So (correct me if I'm wrong) Americans need guns to protect themselves from their own government? I hear they need them for "protection" but it doesn't really get defined who they need protection from. Also the "because I want to have a gun and it's a free country" argument which I'll never buy that, I'm afraid.

Australia and Melbourne are incredible places to live in. We are INCREDIBLY lucky to be living when and where we live. The amount of freedom and safety we live in today is a rarity in human history. I want to continue living to the same standard of freedom and safety (or even more). I don't own a gun or like guns and would love to have less guns.

 

[GSP_37]

If only there was something like a Time Cop who could travel back in time and kill the evil shits before they do bad shit to innocents.

 

[HIMBOB]

lol. Neither. Equal is irrelevant. Overall effectiveness is. Both fail. As evidenced by the drug war

So you're trying to go with dishonest, but i really think idiot could be more fitting.

Do you think coke is cheaper in Mexico or in America?
Why would that be?

 

[jimmas99]

Grow a set of balls and say what you really mean.

The majority of gun deaths in the US are by handguns and committed by black people who happen to vote Democrat.

Yeah gang members are notorious for voting, fucking idiot....

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So you're trying to go with dishonest, but i really think idiot could be more fitting.

Do you think coke is cheaper in Mexico or in America?
Why would that be?

If your assessment is correct then no point in asking me any more questions. Enjoy your freedom from upsetting local news articles.

 

[HIMBOB]

Australia and Melbourne are incredible places to live in. We are INCREDIBLY lucky to be living when and where we live. The amount of freedom and safety we live in today is a rarity in human history. I want to continue living to the same standard of freedom and safety (or even more). I don't own a gun or like guns and would love to have less guns.

Guns are awesome fun.

But wouldn't ever consider having more toys as worth the corresponding increase in murder and mayhem that would result.

 

[HIMBOB]

If your assessment is correct then no point in asking me any more questions. Enjoy your freedom from upsetting local news articles.

As long as you stop deliberately misleading people all is well.

 

[PEDS Help me Post]

If only there was something like a Time Cop who could travel back in time and kill the evil shits before they do bad shit to innocents.

Dude, there already is...

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

As long as you stop deliberately misleading people all is well.

Right after you stop beating your wife.

 

[ens189]

Buddy is shopping for bump stocks right now and can’t find them. Wonder if they were sold out or pulled off the shelves.

 

[faustian]

Can you quote that part? My understanding was they ruled that a class of weapons commonly held (in that case handguns) couldn't be banned.

It wasn't the case ruling as it wasn't the issue, but there was mention of it in the opinion's reasoning

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.​

The reasoning is sound. The whole point of the 2nd was to give normal everyday citizens the right to form militias to defend themselves vs a standing army by allowing citizens to possess weapons which would normally be used in military combat. So to then say that citizens are prohibited from owning weapons which would normally be used in military combat is to completely contradict the intent of the amendment

Now does this mean you can walk around in public with an M-16?

That's a separate issue. It's one thing to keep arms, it's another to bear them

 

[MacDuffle]

...

 

[MacDuffle]

Its nerf or nothing

This gun control message brought to you by hasbro

 

[FacePunch]

Buddy is shopping for bump stocks right now and can’t find them. Wonder if they were sold out or pulled off the shelves.

I'll sell him mine, they suck.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It wasn't the case ruling as it wasn't the issue, but there was mention of it in the opinion's reasoning

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.​

The reasoning is sound. The whole point of the 2nd was to give normal everyday citizens the right to form militias to defend themselves vs a standing army by allowing citizens to possess weapons which would normally be used in military combat. So to then say that citizens are prohibited from owning weapons which would normally be used in military combat is to completely contradict the intent of the amendment

Now does this mean you can walk around in public with an M-16?

That's a separate issue. It's one thing to keep arms, it's another to bear them

Thanks dude. That makes sense in that of course full auto is unusual. It's been taxed and cock-blocked since 1934. Nothing like doubling the price of a gun to deter access to select-fire functionality. Additionally, it makes sense that more and more guns would have greater varieties of specialization as to purpose. So something useful could be less common. The difference between relying on one crescent wrench vs. a nice set of sockets.

Bearing by militias would certainly imply in public. They are, after all, a public service.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Buddy is shopping for bump stocks right now and can’t find them. Wonder if they were sold out or pulled off the shelves.

Nothing sells guns and parts like a mass shooting.

Americans going to America. Its almost hard to feel bad when we have a mass shooting. Its why I can't help but laugh when a kid shoots his mom with her purse gun.

Mass shootings are part and parcel of living in 'Murica.