Jump to content
Kerplop

Shooter in Las Vegas

Recommended Posts

I acknowledge your response and retort by calling you a poopy dooodooface booger eater.

I acknowledge your response by accusing you of being an avid presser of flowers and creator of fancy brooches.

 

Now back to demented fucktard in vegas.

What do we know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I acknowledge your response by accusing you of being an avid presser of flowers and creator of fancy brooches.

 

Now back to demented fucktard in vegas.

What do we know?

 

 

I'm a firm believer that Cappy was the one to dress like Monopoly man and fly to DC just to troll the Equifax folks, hahaha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firearm transfer laws are a Fereral matter hence the goverenence by a FFL(Federal Firearms License). Christ sakes this place is erroding into a.....nevermind.

 

 

I'll come back when educated people are here with meaningful content. Until then I'll be elsewhere.

 

Later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firearm transfer laws are a Fereral matter hence the goverenence by a FFL(Federal Firearms License). Christ sakes this place is erroding into a.....nevermind.

 

 

I'll come back when educated people are here with meaningful content. Until then I'll be elsewhere.

 

Later

 

We aren't talking about FFL's. We're talking about casual sales between private parties, which are not subject to any federal requirements. You were correct earlier when you said that a simple Google search would answer this question, but for whatever reason you apparently haven't performed one. Perhaps Roman might care to clear this up. Or you can check out this state by state list of laws on private sales (which would be unnecessary if the feds required all sales to go through FFL's): Private Gun Sale Laws by State

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private party sales are NOT regulated by federal law.

 

Sales by registered FFLs must go through an FBI background check nation wide.

 

 

Sales by private parties are a state by state issue. Many states in the West especially (California, Nevada etc) require that ALL sales go through an ffl. But that is a matter of state law. Here in Indiana and Kentucky private party sakes are not regulated. I can sell all of my guns to anybody I want withou an ffl or a background check. All I’m supposed to do is check a drivers license to insure they are residents of my state (buying a firearm across state lines is illegal).

 

 

You’re not going to find anybody more educated in the gun laws in this country than me. After all. If nationwide CCW is ever recognized by the Supreme Court it will be because of an argument I formulated.

 

 

 

The following states do NOT require background checks on private sales:

 

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Missippippi

Missouri

Montana

New Hampshire

New Mexico

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firearm transfer laws are a Fereral matter hence the goverenence by a FFL(Federal Firearms License). Christ sakes this place is erroding into a.....nevermind.

 

 

I'll come back when educated people are here with meaningful content. Until then I'll be elsewhere.

 

Later

 

If you're elsewhere, then how will you know? Seems silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republicans wearing their ball gags finally get to pass limited legislation on bump stops. Great job NRA.

 

 

So. A modification allowed by Obama’s atf. That’s never been used in a crime before. Gets used to aid in the commission of a horrible crime. The nra and gop both instantly move to regulate the item. And you’re upset with them???

 

 

Your bias is showing.

 

 

But then again. Democrats want the issue. Not real solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So. A modification allowed by Obama’s atf. That’s never been used in a crime before. Gets used to aid in the commission of a horrible crime. The nra and gop both instantly move to regulate the item. And you’re upset with them???

 

 

Your bias is showing.

 

 

But then again. Democrats want the issue. Not real solutions.

 

Gun control is a losing issue for dems. Horrible mistake on ATF watch that wasn't corrected by the NRA. NRA wasn't aware of this tech. Please. My bias is I would like my kids to be able to go university or see a concert and not have to worry about being shot to pieces. It wasn't an issue when you or I went to university.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gun control is a losing issue for dems. Horrible mistake on ATF watch that wasn't corrected by the NRA. NRA wasn't aware of this tech. Please. My bias is I would like my kids to be able to go college or see concert and not have to worry about being shot to pieces. It wasn't an issue when you or I went to university. 9.12.69

 

 

The NRA is a legislative body now???

 

It’s not the NRAs job to “correct” regulations by the ATF.

 

Listen. I know more about guns. Own more guns. Have shot more guns than you’ve had hot lunches. And these bump stock things were largely below MY radar.

 

Until I watched a video of one about ten minutes ago I was pretty unaware of how effectively they mimic automatic fire. It’s pretty amazing to me actually. And I still have a ton of questions (like did his finger fall off admirer the first three minutes) but I’d be willing to REGULATE them.

 

And how was this “not an issue” in the past? Machine guns have been around since the 1910s. And we’re much more available than they are now until 1986. And yet they just don’t get used in crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NRA is a legislative body now???

 

It’s not the NRAs job to “correct” regulations by the ATF.

 

Listen. I know more about guns. Own more guns. Have shot more guns than you’ve had hot lunches. And these bump stock things were largely below MY radar.

 

Until I watched a video of one about ten minutes ago I was pretty unaware of how effectively they mimic automatic fire. It’s pretty amazing to me actually. And I still have a ton of questions (like did his finger fall off admirer the first three minutes) but I’d be willing to REGULATE them.

 

And how was this “not an issue” in the past? Machine guns have been around since the 1910s. And we’re much more available than they are now until 1986. And yet they just don’t get used in crime.

 

Those of us who religiously watch gun YouTuber personalities have known about bump stocks for years. Not the most popular since it's a huge waste if ammo and accuracy, but sure, perfect I guess aiming center mass of the crowd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69’? It wasn’t? Remember in 66’ when the Texas belltower shooter used a bump fire stock semi automatic rifle to murder 18 people including an unborn child and injure 30 more? Wait. It was just a Democrat with the bolt action rifle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_..._tower_shooting

 

How many do you think he would have killed with the setup that this coward used? My biggest concern now is times square with all those people at the ball drop and one of these nuts going full auto there. That's a security nightmare.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many do you think he would have killed with the setup that this coward used? My biggest concern now is times square with all those people at the ball drop and one of these nuts going full auto there. That's a security nightmare.

My honest answer about this specific question is probably less. Hear me out. The reason the Texas bell tower gunman was successful in his rampage is he was an excellent marksman with a scoped bolt action rifle. One of his victims was hit in the chest hiding behind a brick wall through a 6 inch gap in the brick. Amazing shot. Lee Harvey Oswald accuracy of a shot.

The reason paddock was successful is because he was shooting at a 22,000 person MASS of people. Not individuals.

I’ve fired the bump stock many times and there’s no such thing as accuracy with one. It’s all over the place even with me focusing on control the recoil with all my strength and I’m a large build guy.

The only way one is effective is a spray scenario like you mentioned possibly in Times Square

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another take on this, for those who don't believe this specific event warrants any change in gun laws, is there any number of fatalities / injuries where you would consider changing your mind?

 

If he had killed 100 or 200 people by fortifying his position, would you think that perhaps something needs to change?

 

As a Canadian, I'm genuinely curious to hear if people believe that there is no correlation of mass shooting events to gun legislation. I love the engineering, design and history behind firearms and would own a 1911 in a heartbeat if it wasn't a complete pain in the ass here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another take on this, for those who don't believe this specific event warrants any change in gun laws, is there any number of fatalities / injuries where you would consider changing your mind?

 

If he had killed 100 or 200 people by fortifying his position, would you think that perhaps something needs to change?

 

As a Canadian, I'm genuinely curious to hear if people believe that there is no correlation of mass shooting events to gun legislation. I love the engineering, design and history behind firearms and would own a 1911 in a heartbeat if it wasn't a complete pain in the ass here.

 

No, because you don't infringe on rights in the name of security from terrorism. To me, it would no longer be a truly free society anymore if the State gains a monopoly on arms. It becomes a form of soft tyranny (and yes I would argue that almost all the liberal democracies in the world are forms of soft tyranny in this sense because they ban arms). The people are the sovereign. The government the servant. Right to privacy can inhibit solving terrorism too, but we don't just throw that out the window either.

 

Americans have a great attachment to freedom in all respects. For example, in France after that terror attack, the whole country was put under martial law with certain civil rights suspended. Here in the United States, after 9/11 in which far more people were killed, about 3,000, where the military's central headquarters was hit (Pentagon), main center of economic power hit and destroyed (World Trade Center), and an attempt to hit either the White House or the Capitol Building, the response was nothing involving mass martial law or suspension of civil liberties. And to the extent anything was done, for example the Patriot Act and Guantanomo Bay for terrorists, there was an UPROAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why private party sales of guns are unregulated at the federal level and mostly at the state level, and unenforceable in some of the states that do have the requirement, is because the only way to enforce such a provision is to require universal registration of firearms. The government otherwise has no way to know who owns what guns. For example, here in New York State, they have a requirement for universal background checks. But, only hand guns are required to be registered. Long guns, such as shotguns and rifles, are not. So technically I could sell my shotgun to another guy without the state government knowing anything about it. The only way they'd find out is if I sold it unknowingly to an undercover police officer.

 

The reason why registration is resisted is because it almost always leads to gun confiscation. We have seen this in other countries and also within the U.S. itself, California and New York City being two good examples. Plus the opinion of many, including myself, that it is none of the government's business what firearms I own, no more than it is any of their business what books I own.

 

First you say there is no loophole. Then you describe what a loophole is. Lastly you describe the laws, which fits your loophole explanation perfectly. :eusa_think:

 

No, it's not a loophole. Again, to be a loophole, there has to be a law against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Americans have a great attachment to freedom in all respects. For example, in France after that terror attack, the whole country was put under martial law with certain civil rights suspended. Here in the United States, after 9/11 in which far more people were killed, about 3,000, where the military's central headquarters was hit (Pentagon), main center of economic power hit and destroyed (World Trade Center), and an attempt to hit either the White House or the Capitol Building, the response was nothing involving mass martial law or suspension of civil liberties. And to the extent anything was done, for example the Patriot Act and Guantanomo Bay for terrorists, there was an UPROAR.

 

 

You guys... so attached to this word "freedom".

 

The right to have guns to protect yourself was implemented during a very different time, you don't need to protect yourself from an invading nation, or even from your government, there won't be any civil war.

So yes having a handgun, a shotgun it can be argued, for protection, a hunting riffle to hunt yes sure. But a semi automatic riffle? let's be honest that is not for protection, that is for fun.

 

And yes in France when we suffered those terror attack we were put under martial law, I actually think we still are but it changed absolutely nothing for us in regards to our freedom, And I don't really care as long as I know that I can go in a bar or outside or in a crowded place without fearing for an "event"

 

 

Now that being said I truly think that this whole subject is the mirror of our cultural differences, we as "foreigners" don't really understand that high attachment to what is here called "freedom" and that right you have and don't want to be taken away. Just as the same as we don't have that same pride and respect for our country that you have.

 

So that debate between pro and con gun is actually more than that and nobody will probably "convince" the other party

 

Internally we all agree that there is an issue and that some sort of gun control, or a least something must be done as things cannot clearly continue like this. But what and how? you have a high gun culture and "freedom" culture and lots of guns are already out there so honestly... I don't know

 

Either way I think that is a hot but interesting debate unfortunately following a very sad, crazy and unbelievable tragedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys... so attached to this word "freedom".

 

The right to have guns to protect yourself was implemented during a very different time, you don't need to protect yourself from an invading nation, or even from your government, there won't be any civil war.

So yes having a handgun, a shotgun it can be argued, for protection, a hunting riffle to hunt yes sure. But a semi automatic riffle? let's be honest that is not for protection, that is for fun.

 

IMO, no one can predict the future regarding what the government might turn into. A semi-automatic rifle such as an AR-15 though can be useful for physically weaker people, physically disabled people, elderly people, etc...due to its excellent stopping power, accuracy, and lower amount of recoil.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure but that can be copy pasted into a lot of thing, might as well have a 200000LBS tank of gas in the basement just in case...

A nuclear shelter, etc etc I would have understood during the cold war era but now? Also knowing that the whole army strong force is outdated since today it is not a country vs another country or a government against another one but rather a war of idea/religion (more idea than religion come to think about it)

well scratch that outdated quote looking at north korea which is stuck in the past but other than that the future will be quick precise chirurgical strike and that will pretty much be it

 

And not sure i'd like to see an old grandpa in his wheelchair with a semi automatic riffle, that seems like a recipe for disaster!

 

But once again I understand the point and the logic behind it all, I don't agree but I get it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO, no one can predict the future regarding what the government might turn into. A semi-automatic rifle such as an AR-15 though can be useful for physically weaker people, physically disabled people, elderly people, etc...due to its excellent stopping power, accuracy, and lower amount of recoil.

 

Unbelievable LOL your government has atomic bombs, war planes, helicopters, etc. etc. you want to fight them with rifles? :lol2:

 

They can do one better, just switch your electricity and water off, cut fuel supply etc. they will bring most of the country to its knees without firing a single bullet, if they switch the internet off heads will explode better give those pensioners AR-15s.

 

Enough with the nonsense BS excuses you make yourself look foolish (arming disable people with AR-15s SMH ‍♂️ LOL) it’s your right to have your weapons, it says so in your constitution, no need to come up with nonsense to justify it, end of story.

 

If that ever changes you will have to comply with the new rules and if the government decides to change it you won’t be able to do a God damn thing about it irrespective of how many guns you have, you think you live in a free world? Think again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another take on this, for those who don't believe this specific event warrants any change in gun laws, is there any number of fatalities / injuries where you would consider changing your mind?

 

If he had killed 100 or 200 people by fortifying his position, would you think that perhaps something needs to change?

 

As a Canadian, I'm genuinely curious to hear if people believe that there is no correlation of mass shooting events to gun legislation. I love the engineering, design and history behind firearms and would own a 1911 in a heartbeat if it wasn't a complete pain in the ass here.

 

 

No.

 

You don’t take rights away from hundreds of millions of law abiding people because of one lunatic.

 

 

 

To those who have the knee jerk “do something” response I would ask “ok. What LAW would have prevented THIS particular incident?(and then we can add the “constitutional” qualifier to that analysis)

 

So. In this case I’d concede the “bump stock” may have acted as a force multiplier (but as others have noted, full auto fire or “pray and spray” is highly over rated. I suspect given the weapon platforms he had at his disposal, I could be just if not more effective on semi auto- But. I’m a damned good shot and routinely shoot 500 yard targets). And both the NRA and GOP are looking at regulating their sake.

 

 

Beyond that- what?

 

Background checks? He passed them already.

Hi cap mags? He had 23 guns in the fcuking room. And had plenty of time to do mag dumps.

Gun ban - unconstitutional. And will lead to a civil war that will make 59 dead look like a good day.

 

 

Listen. The only thing that would have prevented this is a fcuking force field around the venue. And it doesn’t exist.

 

As somebody who has spent a lot of time at the Mandalay Bay recently and who missed being in the middle of this fcuking thing by a few days, it’s time to be realistic. Bad fcuking things sometimes just happen. And there’s nothing we can do about it.

 

Planes crash and kill hundreds. And the next day we all hop on planes. And we hope it’s not ours that goes down.

 

Fires break out in hotels and kill people. And we still go to hotels.

 

Planes get hijacked and fly into buildings. And we still go up in high rises.

 

And we know, it’s still more likely we’ll be killed by a drunk driver than having any of these abarent things happen to us.

 

I’ve got a kid who doesn’t want me to go back to work now. And I have to explain to him that even if I was there in Vegas. At the time of the incident the odds of me getting hurt are slim. And there weee 20,000 people at this event and only 3% of THEM were hurt. And even my scared kid gets that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planes crash and the NTSB crawls all around that shit, determines what went wrong, and forces manufacturers to make changes to improve safety if possible. People fly planes into building and regulations are implemented to significantly increase cockpit security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...