LET'S BAN GUNS!

[pineapplemike]

I keep wondering why this guy didn't have a bomb set up in his hotel, why he didn't park car bombs all along the strip, etc. It seems to me that the capacity to kill is more reliant on the motivation and aspirations of the killer and less reliant on the type of weapon used

[Montegriffo]

Bump stocks are not banned.

You're a complete moron.
If only bump stocks were banned, we could charge the criminal's corpse with another crime. Typical Euro shithead thinking--let's dig up the treasonous king and behead him.
If only murder were against the law.
Why can't we just ban murder already?

If they had been banned and the law was enforced he wouldn't have been able to fire so many rounds.
Even a moron can work that out dumbass.

[StCapps]

If they had been banned and the law was enforced he wouldn't have been able to fire so many rounds.
Even a moron can work that out dumbass.

We've been over this, he was wasting bullets, firing more rounds, does not automatically lead to more deaths, he could have killed a lot more with another weapon that you don't want to ban, than he did with the weapons that he used, some of which you do wish to ban. Stop being reflexively scared of the term assault weapon, it means nothing, and banning them won't solve any of the problems that you think it will. If he had used a standard .303 hunting rifle and took his time and aimed his shots, the kill and wounded counts would have been flipped, but you are scared of guns that look and sound scary, regardless of their effectiveness, due to your ignorance of guns causing you to mistake one for the other.

Bump stocks are a waste of bullets, not effective shooting from the 32nd floor with a .556. Like I said a .303, one shot at a time, aimed, in rhythm, would actually be far more deadly in this scenario, especially with a proper scope. Just because it sounds scarier to a layman observing the shooting, doesn't mean it actually is more scary. Full-auto is overrated as all get out when it comes to kill count in non-close quarters, learn something about the subject, before shooting your mouth off about it, and proposing major policy changes that will infringe on the constitutional rights of others, that would be a good start.

You advocate for security theater, it helps you feel safe, regardless of reality, you'd rather feel like you're doing "something" as opposed to doing "nothing", if you're proposed "something" wouldn't help at all and just impedes the rights of law abiding gun owners, you don't really care, as long as you can still fool yourself into thinking that you are helping, it's all good. It's really all about feelz with you in the gun debate.

Your argument is, I'm not impeding on gun owners that much, they can still keep most of their weapons, so why aren't you cool with my plan to infringe on the rights of others? Because your proposed plan is not worth the cost of infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, that's why. Just because your nation has less mass shootings and gun deaths than the US does, that does not mean this is because of the difference between UK and US gun laws, you are deluding yourself if you actually believe that, correlation does not equal causation.

Culture is the issue, not a lack of gun control. Quit only addressing symptoms of an illness and start treating the actual illness, and maybe your solutions won't suck so badly, pro tip.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Waiting for Republicans to actually start “fixing the culture” or “supporting mental health”...

[StCapps]

Waiting for Republicans to actually start “fixing the culture” or “supporting mental health”...

The Democrats have even worse ideas for how to fix it, I wouldn't wait on either of them, that is just going to lead to disappointment. More regulations is not always the answer, what those new regulations actually are, that's a thing that matters. You can't just say "we need to do something" then propose a plan that doesn't even address the issue, and then pretend that anyone opposed to the plan doesn't want to support mental health or fix the culture.

That, right now, is the DNC's gameplan on gun control, pretend that anyone who opposes their proposed policies in the wake of a mass shooting is really just opposed to "common sense gun regulations" and "they refuse to support mental health", pretend the other side are really just evil monsters who only care about themselves and our side is the good side, fighting the good fight, trying to save lives, won't someone please think of the children? If you fall for that obvious political propaganda, that means you argue this issue on feelz.

Don't be so easily swayed by Democrats blaming Republicans for not fixing the issue, it is the fault of both parties, and the Democrats bullshit gun control proposals are a huge part of the problem when it comes to nothing getting fixed, it pretty much kills any possibility of negotiation right out the gate when they play this game, the way that they do, about the constitutional rights of others. Americans like their guns, pretending that the only Americans who do, are evil monsters, that's a non-starter for Michael Moore and co.

[Speaker to Animals]

We could disarm all the democrats. That would probably cut out about 90% of the violence alone.

[SuburbanFarmer]

So we can’t take away crowd-killing weapons, and we can’t lower the crazy, or address the issues. Therefore, the answer is “open season, deal with it”

[StCapps]

So we can’t take away crowd-killing weapons, and we can’t lower the crazy, or address the issues. Therefore, the answer is “open season, deal with it”

Crowd killing weapons aren't effective crowd killers the way that most of these mass shooters taking shots at crowds are using them, plenty of non-"crowd killing" weapons are usually better for the job, including many hunting rifles, so what is the purpose of banning "crowd-killers" again? That's right you don't have a reason, you just don't like guns that look and sound scary, you don't really care about how effective "crowd killing" weapons are at their jobs, it's all about feelz. You don't even what weapons would the most useful against crowds and mislabel the one's that scare you the most as "crowd killers", it's asinine.

If a weapon can be rigged to fire at a high rate and you call it by a scary label, then you're scared of it, regardless of how effective of a weapon it is in mass shootings, you just assume full-auto will automatically be more effective against any crowd than a semi-auto weapon would, and that is just flat out false. Your ignorance of guns is showing, you are too easily scared by scary labels that mean nothing. |

Aim matters, wasting bullets, not that useful of a tactic when it comes to killing crowds, the shooter is more important than the weapon, full auto doesn't change that equation, except in very tight quarters, counter ambush scenario, and even then it's value as a tactic is overblown. Full-auto doesn't even work that well at suppressing fire, it just wastes more bullets the vast majority of the time, and causes the shooter to reload quicker, which actually reduces the effectiveness of it's suppressing fire capabilities, as opposed to enhancing them, in most scenarios. Really you don't have any idea about what is the most effective tactical use of full-auto fire, yet you propose policy changes as if you are well versed in the subject matter and it's obvious that these are changes that need to be made, when that clearly is not the case.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

I keep wondering why this guy didn't have a bomb set up in his hotel, why he didn't park car bombs all along the strip, etc. It seems to me that the capacity to kill is more reliant on the motivation and aspirations of the killer and less reliant on the type of weapon used

I think you're exactly right, but it seems this guy's aim, so to speak, was inflicting terror rather than a high body-count--or he didn't really think it through: though it was a strangely elaborate set up, what were all those guns for? Could you imagine if he had devised some stupid way projecting sticks of dynamite into the crowd? Or if he had had an M32 with frags? Or if he had had some similarly dedicated friends? It looks like he settled for the blaze of glory idea--like he enjoyed first person shooter games and that his imagination was a little weak. They're pretty sure now that he fired upon two huge airport fuel containers expecting them to explode.

[de officiis]

So we can’t take away crowd-killing weapons, and we can’t lower the crazy, or address the issues. Therefore, the answer is “open season, deal with it”

Crowd killing weapons aren't effective crowd killers the way that most of these mass shooters taking shots at crowds are using them, plenty of non-"crowd killing" weapons are usually better for the job, including many hunting rifles, so what is the purpose of banning "crowd-killers" again? That's right you don't have a reason, you just don't like guns that look and sound scary, you don't really care about how effective "crowd killing" weapons are at their jobs, it's all about feelz. You don't even what weapons would the most useful against crowds and mislabel the one's that scare you the most as "crowd killers", it's asinine.

If a weapon can be rigged to fire at a high rate and you call it by a scary label, then you're scared of it, regardless of how effective of a weapon it is in mass shootings, you just assume full-auto will automatically be more effective against any crowd than a semi-auto weapon would, and that is just flat out false. Your ignorance of guns is showing, you are too easily scared by scary labels that mean nothing. |

Aim matters, wasting bullets, not that useful of a tactic when it comes to killing crowds, the shooter is more important than the weapon, full auto doesn't change that equation, except in very tight quarters, counter ambush scenario, and even then it's value as a tactic is overblown. Full-auto doesn't even work that well at suppressing fire, it just wastes more bullets the vast majority of the time, and causes the shooter to reload quicker, which actually reduces the effectiveness of it's suppressing fire capabilities, as opposed to enhancing them, in most scenarios. Really you don't have any idea about what is the most effective tactical use of full-auto fire, yet you propose policy changes as if you are well versed in the subject matter and it's obvious that these are changes that need to be made, when that clearly is not the case.

I think your argument would be more persuasive if you could show that most of the people who are committing these sorts of acts care about learning how to effectively use a scoped rifle to kill people. At least anecdotally, that doesn't seem to be the case; instead, it appears that the people who are doing these things are attracted to and are using the semi-automatic, spray-and-pray type of weapon. Certainly that was the case here, and it was the case of Sandy Hook and the Orlando shooter as well. I don't think the government, in deciding what reasonable measures should be taken to reduce the risk of these situations, needs to ignore the evidence of what is actually being used, just because a hypothetical maniac could inflict more damage with training on a high-powered, scoped rifle.