50+ dead in mass shooting - Las Vegas

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

Guns and such were not in his wheelhouse

His brother says that he knows the guy had a gun safe in his house. The police said that they found another 19 guns in his house.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're asking the wrong questions. Here are a few clues. Guns don't have a mind of their own. Guns aren't intelligent, moral entities. Guns don't have the capacity to make choices.

Right...a mentally unstable person was able to pass whatever check he needed to, to purchase guns that he had no business having.

Maybe it shouldn't be so easy to get a gun.

[FantasticDan]

YouTube

[woodtoo]

Originally Posted by Clocker

His brother says that he knows the guy had a gun safe in his house. The police said that they found another 19 guns in his house.

When and where did he get those?

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Part of the answer to the first question involves some nitpicking. An automatic weapon is one that keeps firing if you pull the trigger and don't release it. A semi-automatic weapon requires you to release the trigger and pull it again to fire another round. Many states prohibit civilian ownership of automatic weapons, and where they are legal, they require a special federal license and a federal tax, I think it is $200.

"Need" is an irrelevant concept in this context. Why does anyone "need" a car that can go over 100 mph? Semi-automatic weapons are not a "need", but they are a practical evolution of the technology, just as automotive technology has evolved, and many people prefer them for many reasons. Many of them are civilian applications of military technology. Many other things we use developed the same way. Once the technology is there, it is cheap and efficient to use it.

People in favor of stricter guns laws are reacting in a knee-jerk manner and not thinking clearly. The LV shooter did not break any gun control laws, and he did not do anything that would break any gun control laws currently proposed by anti-gun people. Most mass shooters in this country did not break any gun control laws. The few that did are proof that such laws are not effective.

And most people pushing for more laws have no clue what they are talking about. Hillary Clinton and others are using this crisis to politicize another gun control proposal, outlawing "silencers". There is no such thing as a silencer. There are sound suppressors. People who are familiar with them say that a suppressor on a weapon such as was used in LV reduce the sound to about the level of a jackhammer.

The majority of citizens are "accepting" of shootings because they know that more gun control laws will not prevent them, any more than Prohibition prevented people from drinking.

Yes, we have a lot more violent deaths here than in the "more civilized" countries in Europe. We also have a much higher rate of traffic deaths per capita. Culturally, we differ greatly from Europe in many regards, including guns and cars. Guns are part of our culture, past and present, and we still have many legitimate uses for them. They are here to stay.

Mass murders are not a gun issue, they are a mental health issue. And many of those in favor of banning guns find mental health to be a huge privacy issue that the government should not be involved with.

Appreciate the explanation. I don't see it as an all or nothing. I feel like people think those in favor of stricter gun laws want to take away their guns. It's not like that.

Maybe it should be harder to get a gun. Obviously we have a serious issue in this country with mental health. That's only going to continue to get worse.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Do you use a silencer on your deer rifle? One lib gun grabber said that hunters use silencers so that the deer won't hear the shot coming at it. I think he was implying that wasn't very sporting.

Haha!

There are very few real world perks to suppressors.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I know they're not a new creation and I think the discussion is a good one. I appreciate you explaining it further.

What I'm getting from your post is it makes it easier to hunt. You'd still hunt without semi automatic weapons. But it's easier with semi automatic guns?

I would and I see where you are going with this. The problem most have is then the slippery slope argument begins to get some steam. Say in a perfect world every Semi-Auto was removed from society the next thing a person is going to go for is a revolver, lever, or pump action gun... then the whole discussion begins anew.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

... I feel like people think those in favor of stricter gun laws want to take away their guns. It's not like that.

...

Some of us just appreciate that there is still one Constitutionally granted right that citizens are still fighting for and defending. I have zero use for a gun and have never owned one, nor do I intend to. If I thought that these proposed laws were any sort of real solution it might be a little different but I don't see access to guns as the root problem to make the priority component to address when someone decides to kill fifty plus and try for hundreds more.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Do you use a silencer on your deer rifle? One lib gun grabber said that hunters use silencers so that the deer won't hear the shot coming at it. I think he was implying that wasn't very sporting.

If you would like to see deer hunting that isn't sporting you need to visit Beaverdam Virgina and the surrounding areas. First you never see fish and game people anywhere. I don't even know they exist. People use hunting dogs with GPS trackers on them. Even though it is against the rules to hunt using an ATV that is done also. You can use an ATV to recover a carcass only, they use them to track their dogs who are tracking deer.

The worst thing I have seen is there is a 5 acre patch of woods a couple miles from me with clearings on 3 sides. I have seen a half dozen hunters with two dogs a piece march north to south through that patch of woods in a skirmish line while a couple guys each sit out in the clearing on the east and west sides. 10 men and even more dogs against one deer + modern technology. After they bag one the whole group will go to the local country store and hang out in the parking lot with the deer spread out on a tailgate like they are so proud of their kill.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

When and where did he get those?

You are the one that said he didn't know anything about guns. When and where did you get that information? The immediate facts indicate otherwise.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I would and I see where you are going with this. The problem most have is then the slippery slope argument begins to get some steam. Say in a perfect world every Semi-Auto was removed from society the next thing a person is going to go for is a revolver, lever, or pump action gun... then the whole discussion begins anew.

Fair enough. Am I right that it's illegal to own automatic weapons but not illegal to buy something that can basically convert semi-auto to auto?

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I know they're not a new creation and I think the discussion is a good one. I appreciate you explaining it further.

What I'm getting from your post is it makes it easier to hunt. You'd still hunt without semi automatic weapons. But it's easier with semi automatic guns?

Most modern semi-autos, whether rifles or shotguns, are gas-operated. Gas operated firearms, as a general rule, have much less felt recoil than other types of actions. That is an important consideration for a lot of people, like younger hunters and some women (admittedly a generalization there, but accurate nonetheless). Semi-autos are especially preferable for someone like myself who shoots around 10,000 12-gauge shotgun rounds annually. I could shoot an over/under at what I do, but I'd get pretty beaten up doing it, which would negatively affect my shooting.

A practical example: let's say you have a 14-year old deer hunter. He can choose between two deer rifles: a bolt-action .308 or a semi-auto .308. He can shoot the semi fairly comfortably. The bolt-action kicks the snot out of him, and he finds himself involuntarily flinching as he squeezes the trigger, anticipating the recoil. That involuntary flinch is enough to drastically affect the accuracy of his shot...and any ethical hunter strives for a quick, clean kill. In his case, he would wisely choose the semi.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Fair enough. Am I right that it's illegal to own automatic weapons but not illegal to buy something that can basically convert semi-auto to auto?

It gets weird...

You can actually own a Automatic Weapon in this country but it requires a ATF Background Check, Federal Tax Stamp, and you must purchase it through a Class III Firearms Dealer. The weapon must also be on the ATF Registry which means its made pre-1986 (I think that's the year) so there is a finite number of them out there. This drives up the cost. A M16A1 (AR 15 from the Vietnam Era) will run you a minimum of $12,000 and honestly if I had to head into battle I'd take my semi over one in a heartbeat.

The second part. Its HIGHLY illegal to convert a semi-auto. Its also very difficult as you would need to manufacture your own bolt carrier group, trigger group, and lower. It would require CNC Machinery, CAD, and a lot work. You would essentially have to manufacture your own firearm and that's where the legality issues come into play.

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I would and I see where you are going with this. The problem most have is then the slippery slope argument begins to get some steam. Say in a perfect world every Semi-Auto was removed from society the next thing a person is going to go for is a revolver, lever, or pump action gun... then the whole discussion begins anew.

I have friends who can operate a pump just as quickly as a semi-auto. Accurately.

[FantasticDan]

After Vegas shooting, fake news regains its megaphone

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/b...?smid=fb-share