Las Vegas SHooting

[Grytviken]

Tbh I thought it was a good meme making fun of british knife laws. But now I see it was pretty much spot on. Wtf is knife amnesty?[/spoiler]

They regulate knives like we do guns in the USA. When you order a steak at a restaurant you have to call a special police officer to come cut it into giblets for you.

[Taser]

They regulate knives like we do guns in the USA. When you order a steak at a restaurant you have to call a special police officer to come cut it into giblets for you.

Wonder what throwing knives are in britain? Assault knives? WMD's? That person would be top of the most wanted list.

[Grytviken]

http://surrenderyourknife.co.uk/support/government-petition-to-see-capital-exposure/

"There is an overwhelming tide of public opinion that wants to see this incredible national monument “fulfil its destiny ”, in raising countrywide awareness of the epidemic that has now become knife crime.
This scourge and ever increasing problem is currently going largely unchallenged, with more and more weapons surfacing on our streets.
The monument was created for one purpose only, to focus a spotlight on this national embarrassment, both our government and our educational system need to accept there’s far more to be done, and grasp this nettle.
We can only succeed in doing this with your support; as such we have created the Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife petition. Only with your help can the National Monument Against Violence and Aggression, and its message reach those it was intended for, to ensure no one is left in any doubt , that this blight needs conquering."

Signed and petitioned. Brits should butter their toast with a spoon, it will give them more time to think about the liberal communists they've put up in their government.

[SixThumbs]

Yes it would be disrespectful to consider any options that might theoretically prevent a crisis like this from re-occurring 

If there was no crisis, there'd be no reason to discuss firearm control.

Good luck putting up a vote for two-thirds of the house and senate to amend the constitution on anything at this juncture, it's ignored half the time anyway.

And maybe I meant it in the interest of the firearm manufacturers who've just gotten a surge in sales.

[Oberyn]

According to the LVPD he'd been planning this for about 11 months, based on what we know of his gun accumulation pattern. We know he's a democrat donor (albeit a minor one), and possibly took part in anti-Trump demonstrations following his election (pussy hat parade links STILL not touched by any news media, either to confirm or deny).

Hmmm, I wonder what happened 11 months ago, on November of 2016? 

[POOPHAMMER]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

(click to show/hide)

Tbh I thought it was a good meme making fun of british knife laws. But now I see it was pretty much spot on. Wtf is knife amnesty?

Ok guys.. I am dead. Officially dead

[Jarold]

The focus on banning silencers (lolwat) and now bump stocks is fucking absurd. The left just has to leverage this into something political before the bodies have even cooled, I guess.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/03/ban-bump-stocks-las-vegas-shooter-automatic-fire

Retards. Even this article says,

The demonization of fully automatic fire is hilarious. 58 dead after thirteen minutes of firing from a perfect elevated vantage point, at a largely stationary, massive group of targets... is fucking awful, and I guarantee we have the retarded bump fire device this guy used to thank for it. Had he been going for accuracy and aimed single shots, the dead would number in the hundreds. But no, let's ban the bump fire device that made him inaccurate and wasted all his ammo, because... well, no reason, except as one more step in the eternal quest of the left to slowly but surely ban more and more things.

I agree with you about the stupidity of the silencer talk, but I have a few objections about other things. I think that no one should need to own a full auto weapon. The only reason to own one is for fun or to utterly destroy something. I own an AR-15 and I can tell you I only bought it for two reason, just in case and for fun. In the standard caliber they come in it isn't useful for hunting and a 30 round mag is really just overkill for hunting animals as well. Only useful for hunting humans. However, I think in theory assault weapons are good for the general population to have in order for the government to be kept in check. But, only for that purpose.

As for the bumpstock being less effective than just single fire? I find it hard to believe single fire would've been more effective. Maybe if he had his guns sighted in with scopes and was well trained. However, have you ever tried to shoot a weapon sighted in at a flat angle and then tried to shoot downhill at the same distance? It doesn't hit the same spot. I'm sure a trained person could compensate but he wasn't. Also, I think you underestimate how hard it can be to kill someone unless you are specifically aiming for vital areas, especially with today's medical care.

So in short, since he wasn't highly trained the bumpstock improved his chances of killing and injuring more people by increasing lead down range. The reason being that people are a lot harder to kill if you aren't able to hit them in vital areas. Ie, more bullets = higher chance to hit a vital area or cause significant blood loss from multiple wounds.


Horrific event though and even more horrific that people immediately jumped on this to promote their own views. (Directed at media outlets and politicians, not you guys)

I think this quote is trending on facebook but eh its still good: "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald Reagan

[Xant]

I agree with you about the stupidity of the silencer talk, but I have a few objections about other things. I think that no one should need to own a full auto weapon. The only reason to own one is for fun or to utterly destroy something. I own an AR-15 and I can tell you I only bought it for two reason, just in case and for fun. In the standard caliber they come in it isn't useful for hunting and a 30 round mag is really just overkill for hunting animals as well. Only useful for hunting humans. However, I think in theory assault weapons are good for the general population to have in order for the government to be kept in check. But, only for that purpose.

No one needs to own anything at all. That's not a good argument. Fully automatic rifles aren't any more lethal than semi automatic rifles, so there's no reason for them not to be available.

As for the bumpstock being less effective than just single fire? I find it hard to believe single fire would've been more effective. Maybe if he had his guns sighted in with scopes and was well trained. However, have you ever tried to shoot a weapon sighted in at a flat angle and then tried to shoot downhill at the same distance? It doesn't hit the same spot. I'm sure a trained person could compensate but he wasn't. Also, I think you underestimate how hard it can be to kill someone unless you are specifically aiming for vital areas, especially with today's medical care.

Of course bumpstocks make you less effective. Every professional statement says this, it's just a gimmick. Why wouldn't he have his guns sighted? Why would he need to be well trained? He obviously thought it through and even had calculations next to him for hitting the targets (though why he'd have them when he was just firing full auto is bizarre.)

So in short, since he wasn't highly trained the bumpstock improved his chances of killing and injuring more people by increasing lead down range. The reason being that people are a lot harder to kill if you aren't able to hit them in vital areas. Ie, more bullets = higher chance to hit a vital area or cause significant blood loss from multiple wounds.

That's not how it works; there's a reason Western militaries almost never use full auto, and that reason isn't because they don't want to put more lead down range for higher enemy casualties. It's because fully automatic fire when not in CQB decreases enemy casualties and wastes time and ammo. If you're not "highly trained", that's all the more reason to stick to single fire. You need to be "highly trained" to use full auto effectively.

[Paul]

He virtually had unlimited ammo and spare rifles. What was well limited was time and his target was a crowd. He didn't have nerves of steel either, at least compared to our armchair terrorist here. Keeping that  in mind, burst fire doesn't seem that unlogical to me.

[Xant]

He virtually had unlimited ammo and spare rifles. What was well limited was time and his target was a crowd. He didn't have nerves of steel either, at least compared to our armchair terrorist here. Keeping that  in mind, burst fire doesn't seem that unlogical to me.

Yes, and he wasted much of said time by spraying wildly. And he didn't use "burst" fire lmfao. I knew you lied about being in the military. Or maybe you didn't but you were a cook or some shit. They didn't even teach you what burst fire means. But then again that's probably not very useful information when cleaning pots.

[Jarold]

No one needs to own anything at all. That's not a good argument. Fully automatic rifles aren't any more lethal than semi automatic rifles, so there's no reason for them not to be available.
Of course bumpstocks make you less effective. Every professional statement says this, it's just a gimmick. Why wouldn't he have his guns sighted? Why would he need to be well trained? He obviously thought it through and even had calculations next to him for hitting the targets (though why he'd have them when he was just firing full auto is bizarre.)
That's not how it works; there's a reason Western militaries almost never use full auto, and that reason isn't because they don't want to put more lead down range for higher enemy casualties. It's because fully automatic fire when not in CQB decreases enemy casualties and wastes time and ammo. If you're not "highly trained", that's all the more reason to stick to single fire. You need to be "highly trained" to use full auto effectively.

Hmmm, I have one argument to bring up about full auto vs semi-auto vs a large crowd of people. WW1 and the introduction of the machine gun, was it not able to turn one guy into a killing machine better than one guy trying to take slow well aimed shots? I know they used bolt action style guns but the concept I the same, taking slow, well aimed shots vs full auto. Now I'm talking about casaulties per minute. I know full auto fire is less effective when only shooting at one guy, but at crowd, come on.

I have seen how you have to use a bumpstock and it dies definitely decrease accuracy by a lot. But, in this case it was a decent trade off in the shooter's mind.

Also your argument about not owning anything was genius. In that case if no one needs to own anything, why do you care about people being able to own full auto guns? They don't need to after all. So why argue about it? Quit your philosophical BS.

[Xant]

Hmmm, I have one argument to bring up about full auto vs semi-auto vs a large crowd of people. WW1 and the introduction of the machine gun, was it not able to turn one guy into a killing machine better than one guy trying to take slow well aimed shots? I know they used bolt action style guns but the concept I the same, taking slow, well aimed shots vs full auto. Now I'm talking about casaulties per minute. I know full auto fire is less effective when only shooting at one guy, but at crowd, come on.

Machine guns =/= assault rifles. Machine guns are still used full auto or with sustained bursts, assault rifles are not.

Also your argument about not owning anything was genius. In that case if no one needs to own anything, why do you care about people being able to own full auto guns? They don't need to after all. So why argue about it? Quit your philosophical BS.

It apparently went over your head. Because it's not about needs. It was YOUR argument that people don't "need" to own full auto rifles, and it's a fact that no one NEEDS to own anything, so that argument makes no sense. I'm sure you rather like owning things despite not NEEDING to. I know I do.

[Jarold]

Machine guns =/= assault rifles. Machine guns are still used full auto or with sustained bursts, assault rifles are not.

It apparently went over your head. Because it's not about needs. It was YOUR argument that people don't "need" to own full auto rifles, and it's a fact that no one NEEDS to own anything, so that argument makes no sense. I'm sure you rather like owning things despite not NEEDING to. I know I do.

I see, well you're free to think what you would like. "Machine guns =/= assault rifles", that's good to know, now tell me how that provides any important information. Quick google search yield, Assault Rifle: "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use." The only important distinction I see is that a machine gun is more than likely to be belt fed, ie more ammo. Still you don't seem to bring up any points to the contrary about full auto fire into a crowd over semi auto fire being more effective. Just cherry picking random, irrelevant things.

[Xant]

I see, well you're free to think what you would like. "Machine guns =/= assault rifles", that's good to know, now tell me how that provides any important information. Quick google search yield, Assault Rifle: "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use." The only important distinction I see is that a machine gun is more than likely to be belt fed, ie more ammo. Still you don't seem to bring up any points to the contrary about full auto fire into a crowd over semi auto fire being more effective. Just cherry picking random, irrelevant things.

It's self-evident why it's more effective. Most bullets are wasted with fully automatic fire, hitting nothing or non-lethal targets. That's why it's not used with assault rifles unless clearing houses or trenches.

[Jarold]

It's self-evident why it's more effective. Most bullets are wasted with fully automatic fire, hitting nothing or non-lethal targets. That's why it's not used with assault rifles unless clearing houses or trenches.

Right, just like in the Vietnam War, I agree with you. I'm talking about a tightly grouped, crowd of unsuspecting people in the open. You stated there would have been more casualties in the given time with semi-auto fire. I'm just saying its not really a waste of bullets when you have enough ammo to use for the time it'll take for people to leave the area and then kill yourself. More bullets into the crowd = more casualties in the allotted time he had.

I'm done talking about this though, feel free to make your counter point. I'll read it but this discussion is pretty lame to have about a tragedy.