Las Vegas shooting: Reports of shooter at Mandalay Bay Casino

[westwall]

"The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock."

This ^^ is definitely the dumbest thought of the thread. All you nutjobs can go home now, because you're not going to top this one, no matter how hard you try.

Guess what the lead FBI agent agrees with me. It was him that told me that the asshat also had to stop due to fatigue. I did not know that. You silly people rely on movies and silly memes backed up by a total lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. The only silly people are you who ignore real evidence to support your emotion driven agenda.

"Stopped after fatigue".... after firing off how many rounds into a crowd? No, I doubt very seriously any serious person ever said to you that the "bump stocks saved lives". I think that's your contribution. And it is moronic. But, strangely, you are not a moron. This happens because you choose to take untenable positions, and it forces you to say dumb things.

I have no idea. There was a break while he was recovering. Time that were he using just a straight old self loader, and AIMING, he could have killed many more. My position is not moronic. It is based on fact. It is based on the knowledge I have with machineguns (I actually own them and shoot them) and the decades of experience I have with firearms.

 

[westwall]

"The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock."

This ^^ is definitely the dumbest thought of the thread. All you nutjobs can go home now, because you're not going to top this one, no matter how hard you try.

Guess what the lead FBI agent agrees with me. It was him that told me that the asshat also had to stop due to fatigue. I did not know that. You silly people rely on movies and silly memes backed up by a total lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. The only silly people are you who ignore real evidence to support your emotion driven agenda.

. So what... So he had to stop due to fatigue, but that doesn't negate the damage he was doing until his old ace gave out. What if a younger stronger guy would have been the shooter ? The results could have been far greater damage. So in the hands of a killer was what ? Weapons that were efficient in killing 58 & wounding 500 in a matter of minutes is what. I mean it's getting downright ridiculous when the innocent in this country can't enjoy a concert, marathon, school day, night at the theater without crazy bastards with assault weapons mowing them down. How about let's stop the weirdo crazies then ?? What, the PC crowd won't let you ? So the dying will just continue ?? Pathetic.

His initial burst of fire was the most destructive. This is well known. After the people began running he didn't hit very many. That too is known. He was doing the typical spray and pray style of shooting which results in lots of noise, but very little damage. It is a good thing he was not an experienced shooter. Just like the asshole lefty who tried to murder the Congressman, he too believed that merely shooting lots of bullets equals mass casualties. They are both wrong. The sad fact was he made it absolutely certain that his first attack would be effective. But that was due to the confined nature of his targets (it's real easy to shoot fish in a barrel) rather than his effectiveness with the guns.

I agree that it is sad that venues like this are an easy target. How about coming up with something that will actually save lives? Banning guns we KNOW, doesn't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock."

This ^^ is definitely the dumbest thought of the thread. All you nutjobs can go home now, because you're not going to top this one, no matter how hard you try.

Guess what the lead FBI agent agrees with me. It was him that told me that the asshat also had to stop due to fatigue. I did not know that. You silly people rely on movies and silly memes backed up by a total lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. The only silly people are you who ignore real evidence to support your emotion driven agenda.

"Stopped after fatigue".... after firing off how many rounds into a crowd? No, I doubt very seriously any serious person ever said to you that the "bump stocks saved lives". I think that's your contribution. And it is moronic. But, strangely, you are not a moron. This happens because you choose to take untenable positions, and it forces you to say dumb things.

I have no idea. There was a break while he was recovering. Time that were he using just a straight old self loader, and AIMING, he could have killed many more. My position is not moronic. It is based on fact. It is based on the knowledge I have with machineguns (I actually own them and shoot them) and the decades of experience I have with firearms.

Ah, argument to authority. Okay. You shot machine guns before. Into crowds. Then rifles. Into crowds. And you noticed the semi-automatic rifles allowed you to kill more, upon comparison. Okay.

I'm only half-joking. Yes, i think it's moronic. No, I do not think he would have killed or wounded more people with a semi-auto rifle. I think that idea is absurd.

 

[beagle9]

"The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock."

This ^^ is definitely the dumbest thought of the thread. All you nutjobs can go home now, because you're not going to top this one, no matter how hard you try.

Guess what the lead FBI agent agrees with me. It was him that told me that the asshat also had to stop due to fatigue. I did not know that. You silly people rely on movies and silly memes backed up by a total lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. The only silly people are you who ignore real evidence to support your emotion driven agenda.

"Stopped after fatigue".... after firing off how many rounds into a crowd? No, I doubt very seriously any serious person ever said to you that the "bump stocks saved lives". I think that's your contribution. And it is moronic. But, strangely, you are not a moron. This happens because you choose to take untenable positions, and it forces you to say dumb things.

I have no idea. There was a break while he was recovering. Time that were he using just a straight old self loader, and AIMING, he could have killed many more. My position is not moronic. It is based on fact. It is based on the knowledge I have with machineguns (I actually own them and shoot them) and the decades of experience I have with firearms.

Ah, argument to authority. Okay. You shot machine guns before. Into crowds. Then rifles. Into crowds. And you noticed the semi-automatic rifles allowed you to kill more, upon comparison. Okay.

I'm only half-joking. Yes, i think it's moronic. No, I do not think he would have killed or wounded more people with a semi-auto rifle. I think that idea is absurd.

. I agree the idea is absurd in this case, because the target was the same (fish in a barrel), so each option would have drawn different results. The semi-automatic couldn't have done the amount of damage the bumpstocked assault rifle done in the hands of this killer. It is why the killer chose the weapons and methods he chose in the plan.

 

[beagle9]

"The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock."

This ^^ is definitely the dumbest thought of the thread. All you nutjobs can go home now, because you're not going to top this one, no matter how hard you try.

Guess what the lead FBI agent agrees with me. It was him that told me that the asshat also had to stop due to fatigue. I did not know that. You silly people rely on movies and silly memes backed up by a total lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. The only silly people are you who ignore real evidence to support your emotion driven agenda.

. So what... So he had to stop due to fatigue, but that doesn't negate the damage he was doing until his old ace gave out. What if a younger stronger guy would have been the shooter ? The results could have been far greater damage. So in the hands of a killer was what ? Weapons that were efficient in killing 58 & wounding 500 in a matter of minutes is what. I mean it's getting downright ridiculous when the innocent in this country can't enjoy a concert, marathon, school day, night at the theater without crazy bastards with assault weapons mowing them down. How about let's stop the weirdo crazies then ?? What, the PC crowd won't let you ? So the dying will just continue ?? Pathetic.

His initial burst of fire was the most destructive. This is well known. After the people began running he didn't hit very many. That too is known. He was doing the typical spray and pray style of shooting which results in lots of noise, but very little damage. It is a good thing he was not an experienced shooter. Just like the asshole lefty who tried to murder the Congressman, he too believed that merely shooting lots of bullets equals mass casualties. They are both wrong. The sad fact was he made it absolutely certain that his first attack would be effective. But that was due to the confined nature of his targets (it's real easy to shoot fish in a barrel) rather than his effectiveness with the guns.

I agree that it is sad that venues like this are an easy target. How about coming up with something that will actually save lives? Banning guns we KNOW, doesn't.

. The only other option is to go through the criminal elements arsenal in society, and to strip that element of it's weapons, but good luck with that one in this dysfunctional screwed up country now. The left wants the good citizens to go first, but do they have their fingers crossed behind their back ? I think they do.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Breaking Update!



Explosive Compilation: Las Vegas Survivors Speak Out, Multiple Shooters In Multiple Locations

 

[westwall]

"The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock."

This ^^ is definitely the dumbest thought of the thread. All you nutjobs can go home now, because you're not going to top this one, no matter how hard you try.

Guess what the lead FBI agent agrees with me. It was him that told me that the asshat also had to stop due to fatigue. I did not know that. You silly people rely on movies and silly memes backed up by a total lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. The only silly people are you who ignore real evidence to support your emotion driven agenda.

"Stopped after fatigue".... after firing off how many rounds into a crowd? No, I doubt very seriously any serious person ever said to you that the "bump stocks saved lives". I think that's your contribution. And it is moronic. But, strangely, you are not a moron. This happens because you choose to take untenable positions, and it forces you to say dumb things.

I have no idea. There was a break while he was recovering. Time that were he using just a straight old self loader, and AIMING, he could have killed many more. My position is not moronic. It is based on fact. It is based on the knowledge I have with machineguns (I actually own them and shoot them) and the decades of experience I have with firearms.

Ah, argument to authority. Okay. You shot machine guns before. Into crowds. Then rifles. Into crowds. And you noticed the semi-automatic rifles allowed you to kill more, upon comparison. Okay.

I'm only half-joking. Yes, i think it's moronic. No, I do not think he would have killed or wounded more people with a semi-auto rifle. I think that idea is absurd.

What a moronic response. No you doofus, I don't shoot into crowds. I shoot paper targets. However, you DON'T SHOOT ANYTHING at all. So you have no clue what you are babbling about.

 

[westwall]

"The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock."

This ^^ is definitely the dumbest thought of the thread. All you nutjobs can go home now, because you're not going to top this one, no matter how hard you try.

Guess what the lead FBI agent agrees with me. It was him that told me that the asshat also had to stop due to fatigue. I did not know that. You silly people rely on movies and silly memes backed up by a total lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. The only silly people are you who ignore real evidence to support your emotion driven agenda.

"Stopped after fatigue".... after firing off how many rounds into a crowd? No, I doubt very seriously any serious person ever said to you that the "bump stocks saved lives". I think that's your contribution. And it is moronic. But, strangely, you are not a moron. This happens because you choose to take untenable positions, and it forces you to say dumb things.

I have no idea. There was a break while he was recovering. Time that were he using just a straight old self loader, and AIMING, he could have killed many more. My position is not moronic. It is based on fact. It is based on the knowledge I have with machineguns (I actually own them and shoot them) and the decades of experience I have with firearms.

Ah, argument to authority. Okay. You shot machine guns before. Into crowds. Then rifles. Into crowds. And you noticed the semi-automatic rifles allowed you to kill more, upon comparison. Okay.

I'm only half-joking. Yes, i think it's moronic. No, I do not think he would have killed or wounded more people with a semi-auto rifle. I think that idea is absurd.

. I agree the idea is absurd in this case, because the target was the same (fish in a barrel), so each option would have drawn different results. The semi-automatic couldn't have done the amount of damage the bumpstocked assault rifle done in the hands of this killer. It is why the killer chose the weapons and methods he chose in the plan.

Yes. They could. And they would have done even more. Like I said, you have no idea what you are talking about. A trained shooter, such as me, would have done far more damage than this asshole did.

 

[westwall]

"The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock."

This ^^ is definitely the dumbest thought of the thread. All you nutjobs can go home now, because you're not going to top this one, no matter how hard you try.

Guess what the lead FBI agent agrees with me. It was him that told me that the asshat also had to stop due to fatigue. I did not know that. You silly people rely on movies and silly memes backed up by a total lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. The only silly people are you who ignore real evidence to support your emotion driven agenda.

. So what... So he had to stop due to fatigue, but that doesn't negate the damage he was doing until his old ace gave out. What if a younger stronger guy would have been the shooter ? The results could have been far greater damage. So in the hands of a killer was what ? Weapons that were efficient in killing 58 & wounding 500 in a matter of minutes is what. I mean it's getting downright ridiculous when the innocent in this country can't enjoy a concert, marathon, school day, night at the theater without crazy bastards with assault weapons mowing them down. How about let's stop the weirdo crazies then ?? What, the PC crowd won't let you ? So the dying will just continue ?? Pathetic.

His initial burst of fire was the most destructive. This is well known. After the people began running he didn't hit very many. That too is known. He was doing the typical spray and pray style of shooting which results in lots of noise, but very little damage. It is a good thing he was not an experienced shooter. Just like the asshole lefty who tried to murder the Congressman, he too believed that merely shooting lots of bullets equals mass casualties. They are both wrong. The sad fact was he made it absolutely certain that his first attack would be effective. But that was due to the confined nature of his targets (it's real easy to shoot fish in a barrel) rather than his effectiveness with the guns.

I agree that it is sad that venues like this are an easy target. How about coming up with something that will actually save lives? Banning guns we KNOW, doesn't.

. The only other option is to go through the criminal elements arsenal in society, and to strip that element of it's weapons, but good luck with that one in this dysfunctional screwed up country now. The left wants the good citizens to go first, but do they have their fingers crossed behind their back ? I think they do.

Jeez. let's look at other country's that have tried that. Hmm. Mexico for instance. It is illegal for anyone to have a military weapon of any sort. In fact they will shoot you on sight if you have one. Care to guess what the murder rate is in Mexico?

Are you really that incapable of thinking about a problem? We already have country's that have all the laws you want and guess what they don't fucking work. Try something different instead of the same tired old stupid responses that we already know don't work.

 

[pwjohn]

You can be sure it's not a Muslim.

Yup

 

[beagle9]

"The bump stock saved lives. His accuracy was diminished because of that stock."

This ^^ is definitely the dumbest thought of the thread. All you nutjobs can go home now, because you're not going to top this one, no matter how hard you try.

Guess what the lead FBI agent agrees with me. It was him that told me that the asshat also had to stop due to fatigue. I did not know that. You silly people rely on movies and silly memes backed up by a total lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. The only silly people are you who ignore real evidence to support your emotion driven agenda.

. So what... So he had to stop due to fatigue, but that doesn't negate the damage he was doing until his old ace gave out. What if a younger stronger guy would have been the shooter ? The results could have been far greater damage. So in the hands of a killer was what ? Weapons that were efficient in killing 58 & wounding 500 in a matter of minutes is what. I mean it's getting downright ridiculous when the innocent in this country can't enjoy a concert, marathon, school day, night at the theater without crazy bastards with assault weapons mowing them down. How about let's stop the weirdo crazies then ?? What, the PC crowd won't let you ? So the dying will just continue ?? Pathetic.

His initial burst of fire was the most destructive. This is well known. After the people began running he didn't hit very many. That too is known. He was doing the typical spray and pray style of shooting which results in lots of noise, but very little damage. It is a good thing he was not an experienced shooter. Just like the asshole lefty who tried to murder the Congressman, he too believed that merely shooting lots of bullets equals mass casualties. They are both wrong. The sad fact was he made it absolutely certain that his first attack would be effective. But that was due to the confined nature of his targets (it's real easy to shoot fish in a barrel) rather than his effectiveness with the guns.

I agree that it is sad that venues like this are an easy target. How about coming up with something that will actually save lives? Banning guns we KNOW, doesn't.

. The only other option is to go through the criminal elements arsenal in society, and to strip that element of it's weapons, but good luck with that one in this dysfunctional screwed up country now. The left wants the good citizens to go first, but do they have their fingers crossed behind their back ? I think they do.

Jeez. let's look at other country's that have tried that. Hmm. Mexico for instance. It is illegal for anyone to have a military weapon of any sort. In fact they will shoot you on sight if you have one. Care to guess what the murder rate is in Mexico?

Are you really that incapable of thinking about a problem? We already have country's that have all the laws you want and guess what they don't fucking work. Try something different instead of the same tired old stupid responses that we already know don't work.

. What kind of government does those other countries have ???? I thought so......... So you are suspect of government, law enforcement, and our republic because the liberals are mixed into it so much now, (and their power is so strong now), that you and others who think like you feel that you must continue to have equalizers in case the crap hits the fan??? Now I can't blame you for feeling this way, becauseI I am the same, so what to do then ? Are we to just let the nation continue to be attacked over and over again, while we sit there clinging to our guns and Bible as Barack Obama once said ?? Was Obama talking like we are a bunch of fools trying to hold on in a world that him and his ilk was attempting to change into a world unrecognizable by most in the country ??

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just for a laugh... post s link to the data supporting your claim of how popular you think knives are...

I don't have to.

Look up the FBI stats and you will see plain as day that knives are used to kill many times more than rifles.

. How many at one event though ?? The knives lose.

Of course they do. Sane people know that.

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

. What part of this don't you understand that when these things happen in such a tragic situation, that they are highly unique in nature ? This is why it forces the hand to look deeper into the entire event, and this is in order to make sure that such an event doesn't become a routine type event used by a population that has become so fractured, that it is almost impossible to know when or where the next event will occur. The only thing we can do is limit the damage by taking out some of the tools that made the horrific event so deadly. The bumpstock needs to go because it allowed the rate of fire to be so great that 58 souls lost their lives & 500 more we're maimed and injured in a 10 minute time span. That is unexceptable by any sane people's standards. Using time stats based upon crime in the country is a distraction that is used to cloud the issue.

1% of all murders take place in mass shootings so it really isn't that common

 

[Skull Pilot]

And here we go with the tunnel vision

It doesn't matter to you morons that 99% of all murders happen outside of mass shooting events you are fixated on the 1%

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Of course it holds water.

You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.

This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.

. So you could give a crap less about 600 people being mowed down in 10 minutes by a lone gunman all due to him legally purchasing the tools in which modified the weapons in order to do such a thing ?? Gotta keep that dam bumpstock legal eh ? To hell with the damage it caused eh ?? If it we're up to you, then seatbelts would have never been created and/or would have never gotten the chance to prove that lives can be saved by just clicking it in, and this after they were installed. If it we're up to you, then helmets would have never been created for motorcycle riders, and they wouldn't be there to save lives as they do today. Many things were resisted until the results started rolling in, and creating the very stats in which you love to reference here.

His weapons were not modified.
And the point you can't seem to grasp is that only the person who committed the crime is responsible for the crime.

99.995% of people who won semiautomatic rifles will never kill anyone but you don't give a shit about their rights you would rather let the actions of a few be the reason to deny the many of a protected right.

It doesn't matter to you that he could have done the same or worse with pipe bombs, or a big ass truck and a snow plow

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Of course it holds water.

You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.

This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.

. So you could give a crap less about 600 people being mowed down in 10 minutes by a lone gunman all due to him legally purchasing the tools in which modified the weapons in order to do such a thing ?? Gotta keep that dam bumpstock legal eh ? To hell with the damage it caused eh ?? If it we're up to you, then seatbelts would have never been created and/or would have never gotten the chance to prove that lives can be saved by just clicking it in, and this after they were installed. If it we're up to you, then helmets would have never been created for motorcycle riders, and they wouldn't be there to save lives as they do today. Many things were resisted until the results started rolling in, and creating the very stats in which you love to reference here.

The same number were mown down in Paris where every wet dream gun control law you want is already on the books. Evil people, intent on doing evil, and with the means to do so, are going to do it. You might as well make a law that says millionaires can't have guns for all the efficacy your laws would have.

. Not everyone obeys the laws your right, but at least the laws show that the majority weren't negligent in the situation, and this is because they had the laws in place at the least, and now that they (the laws) have been broken, then here comes the consequences. It is the very foundation of our justice system, and our ability to say we have a civilized society.

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Of course it holds water.

You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.

This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.

. So you could give a crap less about 600 people being mowed down in 10 minutes by a lone gunman all due to him legally purchasing the tools in which modified the weapons in order to do such a thing ?? Gotta keep that dam bumpstock legal eh ? To hell with the damage it caused eh ?? If it we're up to you, then seatbelts would have never been created and/or would have never gotten the chance to prove that lives can be saved by just clicking it in, and this after they were installed. If it we're up to you, then helmets would have never been created for motorcycle riders, and they wouldn't be there to save lives as they do today. Many things were resisted until the results started rolling in, and creating the very stats in which you love to reference here.

The same number were mown down in Paris where every wet dream gun control law you want is already on the books. Evil people, intent on doing evil, and with the means to do so, are going to do it. You might as well make a law that says millionaires can't have guns for all the efficacy your laws would have.

. Not everyone obeys the laws your right, but at least the laws show that the majority weren't negligent in the situation, and this is because they had the laws in place at the least, and now that they (the laws) have been broken, then here comes the consequences. It is the very foundation of our justice system, and our ability to say we have a civilized society.

We already have laws against murder.

 

[2aguy]

Here is a number for how many rifles are in the U.S.....and that is from 2009, and they still don't break the number down into semi-auto vs. bolt action...so just imagine...

And a whole 2 were used in Vegas...out of 110 million rifles........

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1679&context=urban_facpub

Krouse’s 2009 estimate is the most recent estimate available. He estimated that 310 million firearms were available to civilians in 2009: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns. Per capita gunstock had roughly doubled since 1968 (Krouse, pp. 7-8). Krouse’s estimates imply that the number of guns owned by Americans increased at an average rate of 4.1 percent a year from 1994 to 2009. This is at a time when the U.S. population increased by an average of 1.1 percent a year. America’s consumption of guns has grown substantially faster rate than its population.

 

[westwall]

Guess what the lead FBI agent agrees with me. It was him that told me that the asshat also had to stop due to fatigue. I did not know that. You silly people rely on movies and silly memes backed up by a total lack of knowledge about the subject at hand. The only silly people are you who ignore real evidence to support your emotion driven agenda.

. So what... So he had to stop due to fatigue, but that doesn't negate the damage he was doing until his old ace gave out. What if a younger stronger guy would have been the shooter ? The results could have been far greater damage. So in the hands of a killer was what ? Weapons that were efficient in killing 58 & wounding 500 in a matter of minutes is what. I mean it's getting downright ridiculous when the innocent in this country can't enjoy a concert, marathon, school day, night at the theater without crazy bastards with assault weapons mowing them down. How about let's stop the weirdo crazies then ?? What, the PC crowd won't let you ? So the dying will just continue ?? Pathetic.

His initial burst of fire was the most destructive. This is well known. After the people began running he didn't hit very many. That too is known. He was doing the typical spray and pray style of shooting which results in lots of noise, but very little damage. It is a good thing he was not an experienced shooter. Just like the asshole lefty who tried to murder the Congressman, he too believed that merely shooting lots of bullets equals mass casualties. They are both wrong. The sad fact was he made it absolutely certain that his first attack would be effective. But that was due to the confined nature of his targets (it's real easy to shoot fish in a barrel) rather than his effectiveness with the guns.

I agree that it is sad that venues like this are an easy target. How about coming up with something that will actually save lives? Banning guns we KNOW, doesn't.

. The only other option is to go through the criminal elements arsenal in society, and to strip that element of it's weapons, but good luck with that one in this dysfunctional screwed up country now. The left wants the good citizens to go first, but do they have their fingers crossed behind their back ? I think they do.

Jeez. let's look at other country's that have tried that. Hmm. Mexico for instance. It is illegal for anyone to have a military weapon of any sort. In fact they will shoot you on sight if you have one. Care to guess what the murder rate is in Mexico?

Are you really that incapable of thinking about a problem? We already have country's that have all the laws you want and guess what they don't fucking work. Try something different instead of the same tired old stupid responses that we already know don't work.

. What kind of government does those other countries have ???? I thought so......... So you are suspect of government, law enforcement, and our republic because the liberals are mixed into it so much now, (and their power is so strong now), that you and others who think like you feel that you must continue to have equalizers in case the crap hits the fan??? Now I can't blame you for feeling this way, becauseI I am the same, so what to do then ? Are we to just let the nation continue to be attacked over and over again, while we sit there clinging to our guns and Bible as Barack Obama once said ?? Was Obama talking like we are a bunch of fools trying to hold on in a world that him and his ilk was attempting to change into a world unrecognizable by most in the country ??

Yes. I am suspicious of any government that abuses the People as ours has done. You seem to forget that in the early 20th century there were three great socialist experiments that went on and ALL of them resorted to concentration camps. Germany famously murdered at least 3 million Jews with theirs, Stalin of course made hitler look like a piker by murdering at least 60 million of his own people, and roosevelt felt the need to deny the civil rights of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans and send then to camps in the desert where a few thousand of them died.

Let's add the Tuskeegee atrocities, and the intentional poisoning of the "Downwinders" and the biological attacks on San Francisco Bay and we already have a list of US government abuses that have led to the deaths and illness of more than ten thousand people.

We already have evidence of government abuse of power here.

 

[beagle9]

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Of course it holds water.

You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.

This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.

. So you could give a crap less about 600 people being mowed down in 10 minutes by a lone gunman all due to him legally purchasing the tools in which modified the weapons in order to do such a thing ?? Gotta keep that dam bumpstock legal eh ? To hell with the damage it caused eh ?? If it we're up to you, then seatbelts would have never been created and/or would have never gotten the chance to prove that lives can be saved by just clicking it in, and this after they were installed. If it we're up to you, then helmets would have never been created for motorcycle riders, and they wouldn't be there to save lives as they do today. Many things were resisted until the results started rolling in, and creating the very stats in which you love to reference here.

His weapons were not modified.
And the point you can't seem to grasp is that only the person who committed the crime is responsible for the crime.

99.995% of people who won semiautomatic rifles will never kill anyone but you don't give a shit about their rights you would rather let the actions of a few be the reason to deny the many of a protected right.

It doesn't matter to you that he could have done the same or worse with pipe bombs, or a big ass truck and a snow plow

. Bottom line is you could care less about those people who lost their lives like that, just as long as you can keep your dam bumpstock, and no telling what else you think you need to battle the U.S. military one day. Good grief.

 

[beagle9]

As always, you don’t even know what the argument is. I’m not saying guns should be taken away. I own one and don’t want it taken. The Second Amendment offers me that right. The argument is there are some firearms that should be restricted from the public. Like automatic military grade rifles already are. As well as semiautomatic rifles which can be operationally modified to simulate automatic weapons.

There is no reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. None whatsoever.

less than 2% of all murders are committed by rifles of any kind.

Your argument, it’s a small minority so let’s do nothing, doesn’t hold water. There are many weapons the general public are banned from owning. Weapons that can fire off hundreds of rounds per minute serve no use beyond our military.

Of course it holds water.

You want to ban a weapon because it's used in mass murder which is only 1% of all murder. It doesn't matter to you that 99.995% of people who own semiautomatic rifles will never even bump fire one never mind turn it on a crowd.

This must lusted after ban of yours will do absolutely nothing to lower the murder rate.

. So you could give a crap less about 600 people being mowed down in 10 minutes by a lone gunman all due to him legally purchasing the tools in which modified the weapons in order to do such a thing ?? Gotta keep that dam bumpstock legal eh ? To hell with the damage it caused eh ?? If it we're up to you, then seatbelts would have never been created and/or would have never gotten the chance to prove that lives can be saved by just clicking it in, and this after they were installed. If it we're up to you, then helmets would have never been created for motorcycle riders, and they wouldn't be there to save lives as they do today. Many things were resisted until the results started rolling in, and creating the very stats in which you love to reference here.

His weapons were not modified.
And the point you can't seem to grasp is that only the person who committed the crime is responsible for the crime.

99.995% of people who won semiautomatic rifles will never kill anyone but you don't give a shit about their rights you would rather let the actions of a few be the reason to deny the many of a protected right.

It doesn't matter to you that he could have done the same or worse with pipe bombs, or a big ass truck and a snow plow

. Hard to get those items up stairs to a perch over looking thousands in order to slaughter as much as he could, so your comparisons in order to try and spin this are moot points at best. Do you think that there are never any precautions to be taken in order to stop such a thing from happening again ??

 

[beagle9]

. So what... So he had to stop due to fatigue, but that doesn't negate the damage he was doing until his old ace gave out. What if a younger stronger guy would have been the shooter ? The results could have been far greater damage. So in the hands of a killer was what ? Weapons that were efficient in killing 58 & wounding 500 in a matter of minutes is what. I mean it's getting downright ridiculous when the innocent in this country can't enjoy a concert, marathon, school day, night at the theater without crazy bastards with assault weapons mowing them down. How about let's stop the weirdo crazies then ?? What, the PC crowd won't let you ? So the dying will just continue ?? Pathetic.

His initial burst of fire was the most destructive. This is well known. After the people began running he didn't hit very many. That too is known. He was doing the typical spray and pray style of shooting which results in lots of noise, but very little damage. It is a good thing he was not an experienced shooter. Just like the asshole lefty who tried to murder the Congressman, he too believed that merely shooting lots of bullets equals mass casualties. They are both wrong. The sad fact was he made it absolutely certain that his first attack would be effective. But that was due to the confined nature of his targets (it's real easy to shoot fish in a barrel) rather than his effectiveness with the guns.

I agree that it is sad that venues like this are an easy target. How about coming up with something that will actually save lives? Banning guns we KNOW, doesn't.

. The only other option is to go through the criminal elements arsenal in society, and to strip that element of it's weapons, but good luck with that one in this dysfunctional screwed up country now. The left wants the good citizens to go first, but do they have their fingers crossed behind their back ? I think they do.

Jeez. let's look at other country's that have tried that. Hmm. Mexico for instance. It is illegal for anyone to have a military weapon of any sort. In fact they will shoot you on sight if you have one. Care to guess what the murder rate is in Mexico?

Are you really that incapable of thinking about a problem? We already have country's that have all the laws you want and guess what they don't fucking work. Try something different instead of the same tired old stupid responses that we already know don't work.

. What kind of government does those other countries have ???? I thought so......... So you are suspect of government, law enforcement, and our republic because the liberals are mixed into it so much now, (and their power is so strong now), that you and others who think like you feel that you must continue to have equalizers in case the crap hits the fan??? Now I can't blame you for feeling this way, becauseI I am the same, so what to do then ? Are we to just let the nation continue to be attacked over and over again, while we sit there clinging to our guns and Bible as Barack Obama once said ?? Was Obama talking like we are a bunch of fools trying to hold on in a world that him and his ilk was attempting to change into a world unrecognizable by most in the country ??

Yes. I am suspicious of any government that abuses the People as ours has done. You seem to forget that in the early 20th century there were three great socialist experiments that went on and ALL of them resorted to concentration camps. Germany famously murdered at least 3 million Jews with theirs, Stalin of course made hitler look like a piker by murdering at least 60 million of his own people, and roosevelt felt the need to deny the civil rights of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans and send then to camps in the desert where a few thousand of them died.

Let's add the Tuskeegee atrocities, and the intentional poisoning of the "Downwinders" and the biological attacks on San Francisco Bay and we already have a list of US government abuses that have led to the deaths and illness of more than ten thousand people.

We already have evidence of government abuse of power here.

. So no matter the Changing of the gaurd, the U.S. Government is never to be trusted right ???

 

[2aguy]

His initial burst of fire was the most destructive. This is well known. After the people began running he didn't hit very many. That too is known. He was doing the typical spray and pray style of shooting which results in lots of noise, but very little damage. It is a good thing he was not an experienced shooter. Just like the asshole lefty who tried to murder the Congressman, he too believed that merely shooting lots of bullets equals mass casualties. They are both wrong. The sad fact was he made it absolutely certain that his first attack would be effective. But that was due to the confined nature of his targets (it's real easy to shoot fish in a barrel) rather than his effectiveness with the guns.

I agree that it is sad that venues like this are an easy target. How about coming up with something that will actually save lives? Banning guns we KNOW, doesn't.

. The only other option is to go through the criminal elements arsenal in society, and to strip that element of it's weapons, but good luck with that one in this dysfunctional screwed up country now. The left wants the good citizens to go first, but do they have their fingers crossed behind their back ? I think they do.

Jeez. let's look at other country's that have tried that. Hmm. Mexico for instance. It is illegal for anyone to have a military weapon of any sort. In fact they will shoot you on sight if you have one. Care to guess what the murder rate is in Mexico?

Are you really that incapable of thinking about a problem? We already have country's that have all the laws you want and guess what they don't fucking work. Try something different instead of the same tired old stupid responses that we already know don't work.

. What kind of government does those other countries have ???? I thought so......... So you are suspect of government, law enforcement, and our republic because the liberals are mixed into it so much now, (and their power is so strong now), that you and others who think like you feel that you must continue to have equalizers in case the crap hits the fan??? Now I can't blame you for feeling this way, becauseI I am the same, so what to do then ? Are we to just let the nation continue to be attacked over and over again, while we sit there clinging to our guns and Bible as Barack Obama once said ?? Was Obama talking like we are a bunch of fools trying to hold on in a world that him and his ilk was attempting to change into a world unrecognizable by most in the country ??

Yes. I am suspicious of any government that abuses the People as ours has done. You seem to forget that in the early 20th century there were three great socialist experiments that went on and ALL of them resorted to concentration camps. Germany famously murdered at least 3 million Jews with theirs, Stalin of course made hitler look like a piker by murdering at least 60 million of his own people, and roosevelt felt the need to deny the civil rights of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans and send then to camps in the desert where a few thousand of them died.

Let's add the Tuskeegee atrocities, and the intentional poisoning of the "Downwinders" and the biological attacks on San Francisco Bay and we already have a list of US government abuses that have led to the deaths and illness of more than ten thousand people.

We already have evidence of government abuse of power here.

. So no matter the Changing of the gaurd, the U.S. Government is never to be trusted right ???

The German people trusted their government in the 1920s...and happily surrendered their guns and registered the left overs......10 years later the nazis used the records to confiscate the rest.......so no....changing the guard does not increase the trust of any government....things can go from normal to death camps in about 20 years....