Las Vegas Music Festival Massacre

[L'Emmerdeur]

Galaxian went on at length about the effective firing range of the AK-47. That's already been shown to be a red herring. In addition, the gun shown mounted on a bipod in the photo of the shooter's room appears a version of the AR-15. That has an effective firing range of 550 metres/600 yards (source).

[pErvinalia]

The rumour now is he was radicalised. Filipino wife, devout muslimic country that....she's brainwashed him I'd guess?

Phillipines is predominantly catholic.

[pErvinalia]

Galaxian went on at length about the effective firing range of the AK-47. That's already been shown to be a red herring. In addition, the gun shown mounted on a bipod in the photo of the shooters room appears a version of the AR-15. That has an effective firing range of 550 metres/600 yards (source).

Fake gun.

[Rum]

According to one of the videos posted earlier the thing was planned by 'anti-gun nuts'. Clinton, Zionists and the Rothschilds were involved. The idea was to get the public to agree on more gun control. It is all in the video - honest.

That deep gubmint lot must be pretty dumb mind you if they think a few dozen more deaths from mass shootings will prise guns out of America's clammy hands. Which makes me for one have a bit less confidence in our Lizard overlords.

While I do not subscribe to any unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, I think the gun issue in the US is a bit more nuanced in the minds of voters here than we're often given credit for. To most people it's not a function of "criminal shooting incidents justify more gun control, of whatever kind..." -- people seem to really be interested in understanding what gun control measures one is referring to, and how that might lead to fewer criminal gun incidents.

For example, just saying "another mass shooting! We need sensible gun control, now!" Doesn't do it, does it? I mean, what's being talked about? If one says that the sensible measure is to turn in all guns over a BB gun, except with special permits, so only law enforcement, rich people, politicians and the military, will for all practical purposes, be permitted to have guns, most of the electorate would think that goes too far. However, if you say, "strictly limit certain weapons, and enact better registration, licensure and background check laws, and close gun show loopholes an such, and limit quantities of ammo and weaponry" then I think you might get some mainstream support for the suggested measures. I think getting some regulation on those bump stock items and other modification packages is a good idea too.

I don't have a gun, but I've thought about it. I don't want a handgun, though. I would like a rifle or a shotgun.

But the thing about this Vegas shooter, is that he seems to be someone who, and this is just what I'm sensing in the wind, was somehow radicalized, and that together with him being somewhat of a nut case, had him out to target a crowd of Trump supporters. Maybe it's time to revisit the left wing playbook from prior shootings, like the Gabby Giffords shooting - it's "rhetoric" that causes these blockheads to act out like this - all this "punch a Nazi" stuff, and the "alt right are racists" and "all white people are racists" and all that - it's inciting people, looks like. They're stealing property, breaking windows, hitting people with bike locks, bottles and batteries, and bringing weapons to political protests.... this is just the natural consequence of the leftist political messages.... if one had the notion that "rhetoric" incites people to do violence, one might draw that conclusion, just as reasonably as the old theory that the Bush administration inspired violence because of its "top down" culture.... and the "martial rhetoric" in political campaigns got the shooter to target Gabby Giffords....

You seem to be suggesting that gun ownership and mass gun killings are separate issues. I would suggest that the problem is 'gun culture'. A few stats (on the BBC web site for anyone to grab) include:

Gun related killing as a percentage of all homicides - USA 64% (as opposed to 30% Canada, 4% UK)
Gun ownership per 100 population 90 (highest in the world)

There are loads of statistics out there you can throw at this, but they boil down to gun ownership being seen as a human right. The end result is that the 'norm' is that guns are part of life and that these sorts of incidents (which admittedly make up only a very small proportion of gun deaths) are worth the price. Most of the rest of us look askance at that and see instead a country trapped by it's own rules (the 2nd Amendment), struggling to do something about it, but unable to. Paralyzed in effect. It is horrible to see.

[Forty Two]

I didn't mean to suggest that gun ownership and mass killings are separate issues. I meant to illustrate that there are gun regulations and there are gun regulations, and it is not really an end to the debate to say that one is for or against gun regulations. The reality is more nuanced, in that one must be specific as to what regulation or ban or law one is proposing, and how will it be worded. Is one proposing a wholesale "ban" (which hardly any western democracies do) or is one proposing a regulatory regime of some kind? Is one proposing to address certain kinds of weapons and not other kinds? If so, how, specifically, is that to be done?

I get the whole culture thing, but you can't really make a law that compels culture to change. A lot of people in the US find guns useful and of value for a variety of purposes. Other people don't. That doesn't make them wrong, and the other people right. And, ultimately, the law will have to address what arms can be privately owned, where and when can they be carried, and what regulations in terms of different aspects or features of weapons will be allowed, as well as what registration and licensure and tax regimes will apply.

We can ban all semiautomatics. Should we? Is that the proposal? If so, there will be an awful lot of pushback because semiautomatic weapons are commonly used for hunting and self defense. It only means a gun that fires one bullet for each trigger pull, but automatically reloads a round in the chamber after each shot. I mean, maybe that is the way to go - a clean break - lever action, bolt action and pump action are cool, semiauto and full auto are made illegal. What are people's thoughts here?

[Rum]

It doesn't matter how nuanced the issues are in the face of these sorts of horrors, not to mention the thousands of murders that take place per year. The point is your country appears to be helpless to do anything about it. Every attempt to introduce any sort of legislation ends up with filibustering, bills being 'talked out', the 'rigged' setup in the House of Representatives ensuring a pro-gun result and gun lobbyists making their wild claims about the erosion of personal freedoms.

You have to start somewhere but I don't think you are able to.

[Forty Two]

Well, I agree. Something must be done. But, one must understand that the fault of not passing a measure that starts somewhere does, in fact, lie on both sides of this issue. It is important what the law says and what it does. If a law that is designed to get "high powered assault rifles off the streets" is worded so that it renders all semiautomatic hunting rifles illegal, isn't there a good reason for opposing the law? Or, is the "start somewhere" a wholesale ban on semiautomatic weapons?

What has to happen is the sides actually need to come to the table and talk about the issues, instead of political posturing. As long as one side says the other has blood on their hands unless they agree to any and all measures proposed, and as long as the other side says that even the most modest regulation constitutes an infringement of a fundamental right, we will get nowhere. Something has to give. And, both sides need to meet somewhere on it.

[Rum]

Well there you have it in a nutshell. And it seems to be a situation the USA has fallen into in a number of governance areas. The checks and balances, the machinery which was designed to make it hard to get unpopular stuff done has been so fine tuned and exploited - probably by both sides - that your system seems at times paralyzed. It is perhaps one reason why someone way out of left field like Trump could grab the imagination of so many Americans who are desperate for things to actually happen rather than stumbling from one government shutdown to the next (I know that is a budgetary issue - but it is symbolic).

Unfortunately nobody is going to shift the heavyweaight constitutional pillars that support the system any time soon.

Perhaps the Constitution has served its useful life and it is time to rip it up and write another one.

..and that isn't going to happen either.

As an aside - one oddly unexpected thing about Europe is that despite a lumbering bureaucracy the system itself is very flexible and responsive. Another reason it is a pity we are leaving it.

[Forty Two]

I think if anyone has an opportunity to get something done here, it's Trump. He is not a true believer on guns, and he does not hold to absolutes on pretty much any issue. He's not beholden to the NRA, whereas other Repubs are.

I don't think it's the checks and balances on this issue. I think it's the polarized political climate. We've gotten into this activist-driven thing lately where issues can never be approached soberly and sanely. The antigunners are antigun, and if you don't support what they want, then you aren't just wrong, you want children to die horribly in the streets from automatic weapons fire in shootouts. the progunners are simply progun, and if you don't support them 100%, then you are are a commie, antiamerican gun-grabber who wants to overturn the constitution.

The former won't agree to some simple, non-invasive regulations to get started, as you say, without trying to force in a dose of overreach. The latter won't agree to anything, even a simple licensing or time,place and manner restriction because they think giving an inch means they'll lose it all. Someone has to be willing to broker a middle ground.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

I mean, maybe that is the way to go - a clean break - lever action, bolt action and pump action are cool, semiauto and full auto are made illegal. What are people's thoughts here?

Yep, pretty much this; essentially, the above is the Australian model, with the following details:

* You need a shooter's licence (with background checks), each gun must be registered, and stored in a lockable safe
* Very few people will be able to obtain a hand-gun license, unless you are a member of a pistol club (and the guns need to be stored on club premises) or a licensed security operative
* under special circumstances, a license for a semi-automatic can be issued. Mainly small calibre stuff, used by farmers for pest control
* serious hunters in Australia virtually always use precision bolt-action rifles with sights and a 5 to 10 round magazine - no hunter needs a semi-automatic rifle

And I say that as a former gun owner who enjoyed hunting and guns in general. They are legitimate tools, and no-one is realistically advocating an actual ban.

[Svartalf]

I need a full auto rifle to get rid of my admrers

[normal]

Forty Two wrote:

I mean, maybe that is the way to go - a clean break - lever action, bolt action and pump action are cool, semiauto and full auto are made illegal. What are people's thoughts here?

Yep, pretty much this; essentially, the above is the Australian model, with the following details:

* You need a shooter's licence (with background checks), each gun must be registered, and stored in a lockable safe
* Very few people will be able to obtain a hand-gun license, unless you are a member of a pistol club (and the guns need to be stored on club premises) or a licensed security operative
* under special circumstances, a license for a semi-automatic can be issued. Mainly small calibre stuff, used by farmers for pest control
* serious hunters in Australia virtually always use precision bolt-action rifles with sights and a 5 to 10 round magazine - no hunter needs a semi-automatic rifle

And I say that as a former gun owner who enjoyed hunting and guns in general. They are legitimate tools, and no-one is realistically advocating an actual ban.

This. This very much resembles Norwegian law on guns. We have a very high density of guns per person here in northern Norway, but the regulations actually safeguard against lunatics getting hold of one. It just works. We usually don't murder each other, we just use them for hunting or pistol clubs

[Brian Peacock]

Well, I agree. Something must be done.

That's a start. What do you reckon would be a good first step?

But, one must understand that the fault of not passing a measure that starts somewhere does, in fact, lie on both sides of this issue.

Oh dear. You just blamed both sides.

It is important what the law says and what it does. If a law that is designed to get "high powered assault rifles off the streets" is worded so that it renders all semiautomatic hunting rifles illegal, isn't there a good reason for opposing the law? Or, is the "start somewhere" a wholesale ban on semiautomatic weapons?

Why does one need a semiautomatic hunting rifle? I know one is desirable, and more effective at producing the desired result, a kill, but why does one need one? Why should a law limiting the ownership of such weapons be opposed?

What has to happen is the sides actually need to come to the table and talk about the issues, instead of political posturing.

I'm at the table. Tell me, why would you oppose a law restricting the ownership of semiautomatic hunting rifles?

As long as one side says the other has blood on their hands unless they agree to any and all measures proposed, and as long as the other side says that even the most modest regulation constitutes an infringement of a fundamental right, we will get nowhere. Something has to give. And, both sides need to meet somewhere on it.

Do people without guns and/or who advocate severely limiting domestic gun ownership have blood on their hands? If so how?

[L'Emmerdeur]

When Forty Two essentially described a Benelli R1 as a 'basic hunting weapon' I just shook my head. This is a basic hunting weapon:

Ruger American

Bolt action, extremely accurate, very reasonable price. It's not pretty, but nobody needs anything more, really. That Benelli he posted is about 2 1/2 times more expensive, and while semi-automatics can be useful in certain situations, they are by no means 'basic hunting weapons.'

[Galaxian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=475_Hc5MheI


Instead you should stay on the provable facts. Such as muzzle flashes, multiple gun sounds (not echoes or ricochets).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zygjGyqraw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVnNKOKVhx4


'Nuf said? Lucky for you that Galaxian provides physical & witness evidence, not MSM propaganda

This is all the evidence we need.
Yes. In just the last day THREE of the videos I linked to have been removed. Bogus reasons are used. As Goebbels the Nazi Propaganda Minister said; "If you want to beat a dog, you can always find a stick!"
Welcome to Nazi Amerikkka. The NWO fascist state. But not just the USA. It's happening all over the world.
In Australia, as in many other places, they now have a 'law' (actually a criminal conspiracy) that if/when you reach the end of your jail term, they can keep you inside till you die. In other words legal niceties, such as a fair trial & fixed term of incarceration are out the window. Government...the highest form of organized crime...will do what the fuck it wants, and you can't do anything about it, because the politburo syndicates are in the same club.
Over this coming year some may notice the throttling of critical web content. But most will remain somnolent gullible buffoons