Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[stoic-one 1,588]

Just now, aujeff11 said:

As the DS said, “guns are for fun; Weapons are for fighting.”

It’s possible the shooter last night used a crank actually. The rate of fire wasn’t that much to be automatic.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I can shoot a 30 round magazine in around 7 seconds without one, and probably more accurately.

[wdefromtx 3,615]

6 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

That is a poor understanding from which to start, as you have immediately aligned the majority of gunowners (and their lobbies) against you, and have thus resulted in accomplishing nothing.  It is a knee-jerk response to incidents like this where the outcome would have been just as bad if the perpetrator used some homemade pipebombs, Molotov cocktails, and a rental U-Haul truck to mow into a crowd.  I grant that firearms simplify the planning and execution, but a person that committed to such an action will not be deterred by a lack of firearms availability.  They move along to Plan B.  The unfortunate reality is that such atrocities cannot be legislated away.

There are some reasonable gun control reforms though, that would probably be beneficial, but discussing banning firearm types or magazine types is a terrible place to start if you want to actually pass anything (especially now).

Exactly, if he was this messed up in the head he would have found another way to do damage.

 

He had a private pilot's license he could have easily rented a plane and crashed into it as a way to do it. Especially with McCarran Int'l across the street.

 

With that said, I don't necessarily agree with stockpiling all these AR's and converting them etc. Seems like something more can be done in that aspect. 

[AUDub 11,957]

2 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

As I mentioned in the other thread, I can shoot a 30 round magazine in around 7 seconds without one, and probably more accurately.

For kicks, I slowed the video and I posted in the other thread and counted roughly 100 shots when he first started shooting. Probably had a drum.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just now, stoic-one said:

As I mentioned in the other thread, I can shoot a 30 round magazine in around 7 seconds without one, and probably more accurately.

Regardless, the guy used a weapon that rained bullets down from the sky and caused 450 plus injuries. Accuracy, be damned.

[stoic-one 1,588]

Oh, and as far as Bambi is concerned, it's actually ILLEGAL to hunt dear with a 223 AR in many states, it's not because of capacity, it's because the round is considered too small.

These all powerful "assault" weapons use a caliber much weaker than most hunting rifles...

[stoic-one 1,588]

6 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Regardless, the guy used a weapon that rained bullets down from the sky and caused 450 plus injuries. Accuracy, be damned.

We're early into this debacle so we don't know if accuracy played a role or not. Unless you know how many of the casualties were from GSW?

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, stoic-one said:

We're early into this debacle so we don't know if accuracy played a role or not. Unless you know how many of the casualties were from GSW?

I think it’s pretty obvious that accuracy wasn’t required to cause the damage that it did.

[stoic-one 1,588]

11 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

With that said, I don't necessarily agree with stockpiling all these AR's and converting them etc. Seems like something more can be done in that aspect.

I'd like to know who is doing this, because I don't think it's a common as the press tries to make it sound. I own a ton of rifles and pistols, nothing full auto.

Hell, Greg Jarret on FOX seems to think a "bullet button" makes an AR a full auto weapon and has said so live on TV. He's an idiot, and it's false

[stoic-one 1,588]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I think it’s pretty obvious that accuracy wasn’t required to cause the damage that it did.

IN. THIS CASE.

Shooting into a crowd from overhead, there's a reason for the thread title used in the other forum:

The deadliest mass shooting in US history

 

History, in context.

[aujeff11 6,243]

10 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

IN. THIS CASE.

Shooting into a crowd from overhead, there's a reason for the thread title used in the other forum:

The deadliest mass shooting in US history

 

History, in context.

Do you think there is a reason for tinkering with weapons?

[stoic-one 1,588]

Just now, aujeff11 said:

Do you think there is a reason for tinkering with weapons?

Absolutely, to make them easier to use and more accurate, what's your point?

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, stoic-one said:

Absolutely, to make them easier to use and more accurate, what's your point?

Increasing the rate of fire to 700+ makes them more accurate? Well I’ll be damned.

[stoic-one 1,588]

Just now, aujeff11 said:

Increasing the rate of fire to 700+ makes them more accurate? Well I’ll be damned.

You didn't specify that sir, so climb off your horse please. I'm not a gun noob, please haul that stuff somewhere else and shovel it.

Increasing cyclic rate of fire is not something I personally screw with short of tinkering with triggers to get a short reset and short crisp length of pull.

The side effect of which also allows you to shoot faster and more accurately, which also has it's purpose, but I don't expect someone that's never shot for a living or competitively to necessarily appreciate.

[aujeff11 6,243]

 

4 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

You didn't specify that sir,

Well, it falls under the umbrella of tinkering does it not? 

 

5 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

Increasing cyclic rate of fire is not something I personally screw with short of tinkering with triggers to get a short reset and s

Well others do. Like I said, could’ve been the weapon of choice in Las Vegas.

 

3 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

but I don't expect someone that's never shot for a living or competitively to necessarily appreciate.

So you’ve shot for a living? Pray, tell? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stoic-one 1,588]

4 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

 

Well, it falls under the umbrella of tinkering does it not? 

 

Well others do. Like I said, could’ve been the weapon of choice in Las Vegas.

 

So you’ve shot for a living? Pray, tell? 

 

Tinkering, armoring, gunsmithing, potato, tomato.

What others do if legal, is not my problem, or necessarily society in general. Whether you think it should be legal is why we're here, no?

In my life I've put just south of 300k rounds down range, I was in the military, and I've shot competitively, please dismount the horse.

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, stoic-one said:

In my life I've put just south of 300k rounds down range, I was in the military, and I've shot competitively, please dismount the horse

Well, that’s about boring. 300k? You keep up with your bullet count down range?  Who does that? You also called a weapon a gun. That’s not very military of you.

Ive shot competively as well. Finished second in a batallion .50 cal weapon contest which featured shooting targets from moving and stationary vehicles with day and night phases of the contest. I’ve also qualified expert on the M16, 240 B, the 249, Mark 19, and the 50 cal and sharpshooter of the M4. 

Get over yourself, dude.

[stoic-one 1,588]

Just now, aujeff11 said:

Get over yourself, dude.

As soon as you quit being arrogant, later sir.

[aujeff11 6,243]

9 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

What others do if legal, is not my problem, or necessarily society in general

When the usage of “legal” weapons rains terror on the Las Vegas, it becomes an issue for everybody and problem for society in general. 

[stoic-one 1,588]

4 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

When the usage of “legal” weapons rains terror on the Las Vegas, it becomes an issue for everybody and problem for society in general. 

Are we sure that's the case here? Seriously asking.

Edit to add:

This was a decidedly illegal act whether the weapons were legal or not is TBD, I'm not in the least trying to minimize this horrific act, but this guy was obviously a nut job.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just now, stoic-one said:

Are we sure that's the case here? Seriously asking.

Maybe not but it didnt sound like a fully automatic weapon to me. 

[stoic-one 1,588]

Just now, aujeff11 said:

Maybe not but it didnt sound like a fully automatic weapon to me. 

It didn't to me either, but I guess I'll wait for the facts to come out on that part.

[aujeff11 6,243]

https://mobile.twitter.com/abbytheodros/status/914735456943607808/video/1

Can hear the rifle better with this video.

[Strychnine 1,808]

1 hour ago, stoic-one said:

I'd like to know who is doing this, because I don't think it's a common as the press tries to make it sound. I own a ton of rifles and pistols, nothing full auto.

Hell, Greg Jarret on FOX seems to think a "bullet button" makes an AR a full auto weapon and has said so live on TV. He's an idiot, and it's false

 

Unless he was a licensed dealer or manufacturer, converting an off-the-shelf AR variant to select-fire is illegal.  Since it would have obviously been manufactured post-1986, it would be illegal for him to possess a converted AR without a manufacturer or dealer license.  If he had legally transferable (which means can be owned by anyone) automatic weapons, he spent a lot of money and time to acquire them.

EDIT:  I do own some autos.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Here is a quick list that will give you an idea of what legally-transferable automatic weapons cost:

https://dealernfa.com/product-category/machine-guns/all-transferable-machine-guns/

[AUDub 11,957]

11 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/abbytheodros/status/914735456943607808/video/1

Can hear the rifle better with this video.

Yeah I linked that one earlier. That's the one that lead me to suspect he was using a crank.