Last Vegas strip shooting: More than 20 dead, 100 injured after gunman opens fire near Mandalay Bay

[JSt0rm]

Why six-shooters specifically? It's true though, as the graph makes clear, handguns are the bigger problem for overall homicides (mass killings might be different).

in the next year we will see another bumpstock attack. same numbers down. what will we do?

 

[pmv]

Wasn't abortion legalized in 1972? In 1992, the babies would have been 20. Pretty compelling evidence for legalized abortion IMHO.

Well 'legalised abortion' is _one_ posited explanation for the decline in violent crime (which seems to be part of what determines that graph). But there are lots of others (rise and fall of the crack epidemic, the phasing out of lead in petrol, the baby boom...). Is there any consensus about it? Given that the rise and decline in violent crime was by no means just a US phenomenon I'd have thought one could compare the slightly different timing of such things with the crime levels in different countries (I think it does actually match the timing of the phasing out of lead in petrol in different countries, and that stuff poisoned a whole generation, possibly causing subtle brain damage, so its not completely a weird idea. I tell ya, cars are as bad as guns.)

 

[Fanatical Meat]

naw. We must water the tree of liberty with innocent blood. The only way.

I think that any home that has someone living in it with a Moe Howard style hair cut should only be allowed to own plastic knives.

 

[Bird222]

Why six-shooters specifically? It's true though, as the graph makes clear, handguns are the bigger problem for overall homicides (mass killings might be different).

It was a joke.

 

[Victorian Gray]

in the next year we will see another bumpstock attack. same numbers down. what will we do?

Have the same debates again.

 

[pmv]

It was a joke.

Jokes are supposed to be funny.

 

[momeNt]

in the next year we will see another bumpstock attack. same numbers down. what will we do?

No, next year somebody will decide to put more training into their plans and learn how to bumpfire properly without a bump stock, and do it quicker, and with more effectiveness.

https://youtu.be/_9sNcq5jHFY?t=1m37s

Depending on the weapon, a rubberband may be required. Rubberbands though will be illegal if they are being used in trigger modification to simulate full auto firing according to the law though. I believe technically rubberbands will still be available for purchase for regular civilians at stores like Staples or Office Max, just not at your local gun store.

 

[JSt0rm]

No, next year somebody will decide to put more training into their plans and learn how to bumpfire properly without a bump stock, and do it quicker, and with more effectiveness.

https://youtu.be/_9sNcq5jHFY?t=1m37s

Depending on the weapon, a rubberband may be required. Rubberbands though will be illegal if they are being used in trigger modification to simulate full auto firing according to the law though. I believe technically rubberbands will still be available for purchase for regular civilians at stores like Staples or Office Max, just not at your local gun store.

What is the failure rate of a rubber band vs a machined bump stock?

 

[brycejones]

Have the same debates again.

A debate occurred? All we talked about was smoking and there was nothing to be done.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Yet still doesn't care enough to start a thread about it. Troll on.

I wouldn't say I don't care, I do. But, I am also smart enough to understand that with freedom there is responsibility and the possibility of self harm or harm to others. This is true with most personal freedoms. And when looking at guns they harm us comparatively less than other things YOU guys aren't starting threads on, the anti-2A politicians don't care about. This is what freedom is. What have you done to limit alcohol deaths? Nothing? Tobacco? Knives? But guns... watch out, full on SJW mode, then its all about saving lives. The reason the anti-2A side loses over and over again is because it is a see through fake cause. It is a partisan agenda and not at all about saving lives.

 

[fskimospy]

I wouldn't say I don't care, I do. But, I am also smart enough to understand that with freedom there is responsibility and the possibility of self harm or harm to others. This is true with most personal freedoms. And when looking at guns they harm us comparatively less than other things YOU guys aren't starting threads on, the anti-2A politicians don't care about. This is what freedom is. What have you done to limit alcohol deaths? Nothing? Tobacco? Knives? But guns... watch out, full on SJW mode, then its all about saving lives. The reason the anti-2A side loses over and over again is because it is a see through fake cause. It is a partisan agenda and not at all about saving lives.

Tobacco and alcohol are both heavily regulated (and heavily taxed). Knives not only have far greater utility than guns, they do not cause even remotely close to the number of deaths in the US every year that guns do. This means your prior claim that guns harm us comparatively less than knives is objectively false on the merits.

This is why pro-2A people can never win these arguments. You are arguing emotionally instead of logically and with facts.

 

[woolfe9998]

For crissakes, smoking is a risk people voluntarily expose themselves to. Bein

I wouldn't say I don't care, I do. But, I am also smart enough to understand that with freedom there is responsibility and the possibility of self harm or harm to others. This is true with most personal freedoms. And when looking at guns they harm us comparatively less than other things YOU guys aren't starting threads on, the anti-2A politicians don't care about. This is what freedom is. What have you done to limit alcohol deaths? Nothing? Tobacco? Knives? But guns... watch out, full on SJW mode, then its all about saving lives. The reason the anti-2A side loses over and over again is because it is a see through fake cause. It is a partisan agenda and not at all about saving lives.

You want us to start threads on alcohol and tobacco? What are we supposed to say in those threads? Call for banning of both? Alcohol and tobacco dangers are in the main dangers to the people who voluntarily use them. Second hand smoke has been addressed through a massive number of state laws and local ordinances which go WAY beyond the magnitude of the risk actually posed. Statistics which suggest high numbers of deaths are generally not based on valid methodology. Yet we regulate tobacco as if all these claims are true. Congress also passed the Tobacco Control Act in 2009 which gave the FDA full powers to regulate the industry, which it has been doing ever since.

Alcohol is mainly a risk to others by way of drunk driving, which itself is a crime for which penalties have generally increased over the past several decades.

Otherwise, these things are a health risk to the users, a risk which we have addressed by going full blown nanny state.

Neither of these things equates to murder, which is a moral issue of an entirely different dimension. I'm not sure what more you want in regard to these issues. Do you really think there's going to be lots of threads on what are basically public health issues which have been addressed as much as anyone could reasonably ask as opposed to the issue of mass murders like the one which occurred in LV?

I'm not such a big supporter of gun control as Eski is, but I'm a very big supporter of not using bad analogies like what you're repeatedly trying to employ here.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, next year somebody will decide to put more training into their plans and learn how to bumpfire properly without a bump stock, and do it quicker, and with more effectiveness.

https://youtu.be/_9sNcq5jHFY?t=1m37s

Depending on the weapon, a rubberband may be required. Rubberbands though will be illegal if they are being used in trigger modification to simulate full auto firing according to the law though. I believe technically rubberbands will still be available for purchase for regular civilians at stores like Staples or Office Max, just not at your local gun store.

Your video mowron obviously can't sustain the rate of fire exhibited in LV. How can I tell he's a mowron? When the cameraman asks "what's that?" about a beaver swimming by the guy shoots at it...

 

[bshole]

Well 'legalised abortion' is _one_ posited explanation for the decline in violent crime (which seems to be part of what determines that graph). But there are lots of others (rise and fall of the crack epidemic, the phasing out of lead in petrol, the baby boom...). Is there any consensus about it? Given that the rise and decline in violent crime was by no means just a US phenomenon I'd have thought one could compare the slightly different timing of such things with the crime levels in different countries (I think it does actually match the timing of the phasing out of lead in petrol in different countries, and that stuff poisoned a whole generation, possibly causing subtle brain damage, so its not completely a weird idea. I tell ya, cars are as bad as guns.)

Could it be the rise of the internet? I remember using chat in the last 80s and the internet in 95. It had exploded by the late 90s and early 00s. Perhaps increased ease of communication lessened violence....

 

[SlowSpyder]

Tobacco and alcohol are both heavily regulated (and heavily taxed). Knives not only have far greater utility than guns, they do not cause even remotely close to the number of deaths in the US every year that guns do. This means your prior claim that guns harm us comparatively less than knives is objectively false on the merits.

This is why pro-2A people can never win these arguments. You are arguing emotionally instead of logically and with facts.

The regulations on tobacco, be 18, taxed a few bucks per pack, can't smoke in some areas.

Knives take many more lives than long guns in this country, but yet so much discussion about long gun limitations here. Why not arguments for blade length limits, sharpness limits, carry limits, material limits, rounded tips, etc. You don't care about limiting those things, but bump stocks, "assault rifles" (stupid term) and AR15's, you're in full social justice warrior mode.

 

[SlowSpyder]

For crissakes, smoking is a risk people voluntarily expose themselves to. Bein


You want us to start threads on alcohol and tobacco? What are we supposed to say in those threads? Call for banning of both? Alcohol and tobacco dangers are in the main dangers to the people who voluntarily use them. Second hand smoke has been addressed through a massive number of state laws and local ordinances which go WAY beyond the magnitude of the risk actually posed. Statistics which suggest high numbers of deaths are generally not based on valid methodology. Yet we regulate tobacco as if all these claims are true. Congress also passed the Tobacco Control Act in 2009 which gave the FDA full powers to regulate the industry, which it has been doing ever since.

Alcohol is mainly a risk to others by way of drunk driving, which itself is a crime for which penalties have generally increased over the past several decades.

Otherwise, these things are a health risk to the users, a risk which we have addressed by going full blown nanny state.

Neither of these things equates to murder, which is a moral issue of an entirely different dimension. I'm not sure what more you want in regard to these issues. Do you really think there's going to be lots of threads on what are basically public health issues which have been addressed as much as anyone could reasonably ask as opposed to the issue of mass murders like the one which occurred in LV?

I'm not such a big supporter of gun control as Eski is, but I'm a very big supporter of not using bad analogies like what you're repeatedly trying to employ here.

So your stance is that second hand smoke is already regulated to the point it needs to be, but it kills nearly 4x as many innocent people as all gun homicides, police shootings, and accidents combined. So then if you're willing to accept that, then I can't find good reason to argue for every more restrictions on guns. You brush off alcohol, but drunk driving deaths are a very real killer, quite literally thousands of people. Guns are already more than reasonably regulated when weighed against other freedoms and rights and their cost to society.

 

[fskimospy]

The regulations on tobacco, be 18, taxed a few bucks per pack, can't smoke in some areas.

Uhmmm, no. Are you joking? The contents of tobacco products are regulated, they are about the most heavily taxed item you can buy anywhere, you have to register them with the FDA to advertise them and even then you can only advertise them in very specific places. You aren't allowed to give out free samples, every pack is required to have basically a 'this will kill you' notice on it in large letters. You aren't allowed to smoke in virtually any publicly owned space and lots of private ones. You aren't allowed to smoke at work in most states, etc, etc.

I have no idea where you got such a silly idea in your head.

Knives take many more lives than long guns in this country, but yet so much discussion about long gun limitations here. Why not arguments for blade length limits, sharpness limits, carry limits, material limits, rounded tips, etc. You don't care about limiting those things, but bump stocks, "assault rifles" (stupid term) and AR15's, you're in full social justice warrior mode.

Notice how you just moved the goalposts and had to intentionally limit it to a small subsection of guns to get the outcome you wanted. This is a sign that you're arguing emotionally instead of logically. Same with the 'social justice warrior' nonsense. First, my stance on guns has nothing to do with social justice and second, you clearly feel the need to label me in a way that allows you to dismiss my arguments because you can't confront them logically.

As for bump stocks or whatever, I don't particularly care about that. My stance is that guns should be regulated much more heavily across the board. Guns are by far the most frequent tool of murder and suicide in the country, far more than knives. Therefore, they should be regulated more heavily. Try and argue against that point instead of ones you made up.

 

[Jhhnn]

Try and argue against that point instead of ones you made up.

Well, yeh, but then he'd have no argument at all... other than lawn furniture-

 

[SlowSpyder]

Uhmmm, no. Are you joking? The contents of tobacco products are regulated, they are about the most heavily taxed item you can buy anywhere, you have to register them with the FDA to advertise them and even then you can only advertise them in very specific places. You aren't allowed to give out free samples, every pack is required to have basically a 'this will kill you' notice on it in large letters. You aren't allowed to smoke in virtually any publicly owned space and lots of private ones. You aren't allowed to smoke at work in most states, etc, etc.

Lol.. the surgeon general's warning. Useless. These are mostly little and weak regulations. You can go get smokes on every street corner practically. I see people bum smokes all the time. Gun manufacturers generally only advertise in targeted areas. It isn't like they're advertising in between cartoons for kids. You are not allowed to carry guns legally in many publicly owed spaces and lots of private ones. Private entities (like employers) have the right to restrict firearms on their premises if that is their prerogative.

And the end result of this? Tobacco: ~480,000 deaths a year total, tens of thousands of innocent victims in that number. Guns: ~36,000 deaths a year, roughly ~11000 innocent victims.

Notice how you just moved the goalposts and had to intentionally limit it to a small subsection of guns to get the outcome you wanted. This is a sign that you're arguing emotionally instead of logically. Same with the 'social justice warrior' nonsense. First, my stance on guns has nothing to do with social justice and second, you clearly feel the need to label me in a way that allows you to dismiss my arguments because you can't confront them logically.

As for bump stocks or whatever, I don't particularly care about that. My stance is that guns should be regulated much more heavily across the board. Guns are by far the most frequent tool of murder and suicide in the country, far more than knives. Therefore, they should be regulated more heavily. Try and argue against that point instead of ones you made up.

Whoa... if anything the anti-2A'ers moved the goalposts. This thread was about a mad man with long guns and bumpstocks. Naturally the anti-2A'ers talk about handguns. So I'm the one still talking within the range of the original goalposts, so please apply your emotional arguments to the anti-2A'ers that talk about handguns and suicides, because if they had to talk about long guns alone it'd be clear they kill several times LESS than knives and wouldn't warrant any real regulation. To put the long gun death count in perspective, they kill a few times more than pencaps do per year in this country.

 

[fskimospy]

Lol.. the surgeon general's warning. Useless. These are mostly little and weak regulations. You can go get smokes on every street corner practically. I see people bum smokes all the time. Gun manufacturers generally only advertise in targeted areas. It isn't like they're advertising in between cartoons for kids. You are not allowed to carry guns legally in many publicly owed spaces and lots of private ones. Private entities (like employers) have the right to restrict firearms on their premises if that is their prerogative.

And the end result of this? Tobacco: ~480,000 deaths a year total, tens of thousands of innocent victims in that number. Guns: ~36,000 deaths a year, roughly ~11000 innocent victims.

I have no idea what you're arguing about here. What you said about tobacco regulation was clearly false.

As woolfe told you this attempt to equate tobacco and guns is laughably dumb. Not only has basically everything you've said about alcohol and tobacco regulation been easily proven false, your fundamental premise is unsound as your 'tens of thousands of innocent victims' number is likely wrong. If you'd like to read more about it here's a good article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html

Will you now admit that this comparison is silly? My strong suspicion is no.

Whoa... if anything the anti-2A'ers moved the goalposts. This thread was about a mad man with long guns and bumpstocks. Naturally the anti-2A'ers talk about handguns. So I'm the one still talking within the range of the original goalposts, so please apply your emotional arguments to the anti-2A'ers that talk about handguns and suicides, because if they had to talk about long guns alone it'd be clear they kill several times LESS than knives and wouldn't warrant any real regulation. To put the long gun death count in perspective, they kill a few times more than pencaps do per year in this country.

Stop trying to move the goalposts. The topic is about a madman with a gun, period. Thank you for at least implicitly admitting that we should be regulating handguns more strongly though, that's a start.

 

[pmv]

Could it be the rise of the internet? I remember using chat in the last 80s and the internet in 95. It had exploded by the late 90s and early 00s. Perhaps increased ease of communication lessened violence....

I don't think it's anything to do with increased ease of communication making everyone more understanding and nicer, but I do suspect it might have something to do with the move from physical to virtual worlds, and the increasing importance of virtual rather than physical forms of value.

I.e. why shoot a security guard to steal a van full of banknotes when you could hack a computer to electronically transfer funds?

Why go to the effort of mugging someone when you could steal from them via a phishing scam?

Why go out and steal a car for a joy ride when you could stay on the sofa and illegally torrent Grand Theft Auto?

This is why both criminals and police officers are getting fatter.

I don't think I agree with Stephen Pinker's optimistic thesis that the world is getting less violent (he's talking about a much longer-term trend than the violent crime 'wave' represented in that graph, but it's a related issue). It's getting more static and organised, and the 'violence' is consequently more institutionalised and implicit, rather than what is traditionally counted as such.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I have no idea what you're arguing about here. What you said about tobacco regulation was clearly false.

As woolfe told you this attempt to equate tobacco and guns is laughably dumb. Not only has basically everything you've said about alcohol and tobacco regulation been easily proven false, your fundamental premise is unsound as your 'tens of thousands of innocent victims' number is likely wrong. If you'd like to read more about it here's a good article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html

Will you now admit that this comparison is silly? My strong suspicion is no.

Ah, the CDC is wrong because an article that happens to fall on the side of your opinion says so. Must be the case then. Deny, deflect, don't listen if you don't like the official numbers, eh?

Here are some stats too:
An analysis of five years’ worth of statistic collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number of citizens who prevent crimes by using guns much lower than 2.5 million -- about 67,740 times a year, according to a Los Angeles Times report.


According to Department of Justice’s Bureau of Statistics, as gun ownership has increased, gun-related homicides have dropped.

U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased 69 percent, the DOJ found.

http://www.wyff4.com/article/how-often-are-guns-used-to-stop-crimes/10033021

When weighed against other rights, guns already do less harm and far more good for soceity than other things you simply don't care about limiting that kill us. Your agenda is see through and based on propaganda, not about saving lives.

Stop trying to move the goalposts. The topic is about a madman with a gun, period. Thank you for at least implicitly admitting that we should be regulating handguns more strongly though, that's a start.

Handguns are involved in more deaths than long guns, by far (as I pointed out long guns aren't far off from pen caps). That doesn't mean they need more regulation, though, I never said that, you are being outright dishonest.

 

[pmv]

Ah, the CDC is wrong because an article that happens to fall on the side of your opinion says so. Must be the case then. Deny, deflect, don't listen if you don't like the official numbers, eh?

Here are some stats too:
An analysis of five years’ worth of statistic collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number of citizens who prevent crimes by using guns much lower than 2.5 million -- about 67,740 times a year, according to a Los Angeles Times report.


According to Department of Justice’s Bureau of Statistics, as gun ownership has increased, gun-related homicides have dropped.

U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased 69 percent, the DOJ found.

http://www.wyff4.com/article/how-often-are-guns-used-to-stop-crimes/10033021

When weighed against other rights, guns already do less harm and far more good for soceity than other things you simply don't care about limiting that kill us. Your agenda is see through and based on propaganda, not about saving lives.





Handguns are involved in more deaths than long guns, by far (as I pointed out long guns aren't far off from pen caps). That doesn't mean they need more regulation, though, I never said that, you are being outright dishonest.

Where is your evidence that 'gun ownership has increased' from 1993 to 2011? I haven't seen such figures, please post them.

That crime dropped over that period is irrelevant - that's part of a near-global trend, so it obviously relates to issues other than guns. As I was just discussing with bshole, there are many theories about that. However, the fact remains that while the US has the same rise-and-fall trend as much of Europe over that time, the absolute level of gun deaths remains vastly higher.

As for 'preventing crimes' - that's a whole other, and very tricky, arugment to make. If you are going that route, you can talk about all sorts of unfalsifiable counterfactuals that might lower crime. That's not statistics, that's political debate. And it has nothing to do with your original, wrong, claim about smoking being a more important public health issue.

 

[brycejones]

I have no idea what you're arguing about here. What you said about tobacco regulation was clearly false.

As woolfe told you this attempt to equate tobacco and guns is laughably dumb. Not only has basically everything you've said about alcohol and tobacco regulation been easily proven false, your fundamental premise is unsound as your 'tens of thousands of innocent victims' number is likely wrong. If you'd like to read more about it here's a good article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html

Will you now admit that this comparison is silly? My strong suspicion is no.



Stop trying to move the goalposts. The topic is about a madman with a gun, period. Thank you for at least implicitly admitting that we should be regulating handguns more strongly though, that's a start.

You are trying to have a debate with a poster who already admitted he didn't really care about smoking and is just trolling because he loves to sleep with his guns.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You are trying to have a debate with a poster who already admitted he didn't really care about smoking and is just trolling because he loves to sleep with his guns.

Lame. I barely own any guns, they're tucked away nicely in my basement gun safe. I don't own any handguns. I'm just logical, not an emotional scared type.