Las Vegas Shooting

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by brickmii82, Oct 2, 2017.

  1. Quantumcat

    Quantumcat Dead and alive

    Member
    12,850
    7,178
    Nov 23, 2014
    Australia
    Canberra, Australia
    Those are problems that took hundreds of years to develop and would likely take decades to solve. Meanwhile, as you said, there's a school shooting every week. Let's save some lives right now by reducing the number of guns in the country so it isn't so easy.
     
    TotalInsanity4 likes this.
  2. TotalInsanity4

    TotalInsanity4 GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

    Member
    9,566
    9,674
    Dec 1, 2014
    United States
    Under a rock
    This takes the cake for the grossest comment I've ever read regarding both gender roles and gun control
     
  3. Quantumcat

    Quantumcat Dead and alive

    Member
    12,850
    7,178
    Nov 23, 2014
    Australia
    Canberra, Australia
    I think it's fair enough but it's not something that can be fixed overnight. If someone has a bleeding slashed leg you don't squabble about whether the barbed wire should or shouldn't be there, you give them a bandage and worry about the wire later :-p
     
  4. TotalInsanity4

    TotalInsanity4 GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

    Member
    9,566
    9,674
    Dec 1, 2014
    United States
    Under a rock
    They probably had good points but I the only thing I got out of the underlying message was "men shoot people because women are taking their place in society and they can't control their own actions because of that"
     
    Quantumcat likes this.
  5. DarthDub

    DarthDub Amateur Hacker

    Member
    1,713
    1,579
    Jan 26, 2016
    United States
    Your mom's basement.
    How dare you assume their gender?! /jk
    Man, I wish that having stricter gun control laws would work, but the las vegas shooter was a multimillionaire. How do you stop a rich person?
     
  6. TotalInsanity4

    TotalInsanity4 GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

    Member
    9,566
    9,674
    Dec 1, 2014
    United States
    Under a rock
    Background checks and searchable registries

    I mean really after the first 10 guns or so weapons dealers should have started asking questions, let alone >40. But because of the good ol' NRA, it's illegal to digitize gun registries
     
  7. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    2,054
    875
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States
    You guys do realize that these "bumpfire" stocks the shooter had on his rifles were reviewed by the BATFE on multiple occasions during Obama's presidency and given the okay for unregulated sale, yes? Were those BATFE rulings wrong? Should they have declared bumpfire stocks a de facto machine gun back in 2010 when they had the chance, before they were even on sale to the public?

    If your answer is yes, then isn't BATFE and the Obama administration partly to blame? Everyone on TV seems to be onboard the 'ban it!' train, it's so obvious, right? All it would have taken was a letter from BATFE and bumpfire stocks wouldn't have been economically viable as a product (because of the high cost of obtaining a Class III permit just for a cheap piece of molded plastic).
     
  8. TotalInsanity4

    TotalInsanity4 GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

    Member
    9,566
    9,674
    Dec 1, 2014
    United States
    Under a rock
    Yes
     
    Hanafuda likes this.
  9. osirisjem

    osirisjem Wii U: Y U No Sell ?

    Member
    1,081
    359
    Jun 19, 2011
    Canada
    I think America needs moar guns.
    To make things safer.
    L
    O
    L
     
  10. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    2,054
    875
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    Yep. The media and all over the internet is pointing fingers at the NRA (more than the shooter, even), but those bumpfire stocks were on store shelves because of the government's fuckup. And many people died. There could have still been a shooting, with many deaths. Not anywhere near as many though, I think.
     
  11. Quantumcat

    Quantumcat Dead and alive

    Member
    12,850
    7,178
    Nov 23, 2014
    Australia
    Canberra, Australia
    Did pressure from the NRA have anything to do with them becoming legal?

    Anyway I thought of an interesting analogy. Are you in favour of all countries having nuclear warheads just in case the UN goes rogue and decides to persecute each country, so they have the ability to stand up for themselves? It is interesting that the US is against North Korea having nuclear weapons but is ok with its citizens having equivalent weapons (in a person to person context rather than country to country) to defend themselves.
     
    TotalInsanity4 likes this.
  12. TotalInsanity4

    TotalInsanity4 GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

    Member
    9,566
    9,674
    Dec 1, 2014
    United States
    Under a rock
    That said

    42 guns (last I checked), which was made possible by the NRA backing laws preventing databases

    Don't make the NRA out to be the good guys
     
  13. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    2,054
    875
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    All I'm saying is why isn't that angle of the government's contribution to the tragedy getting airtime? Contributory negligence. If BATFE reverses itself and declares bumpstocks illegal now, that's practically an admission of error before. This should be part of what they're talking about.

    As for the shooter's guns, he didn't need and probably didn't use that many guns for Las Vegas. How many he owned, how many even that were there in the room, pretty much irrelevant. All that matters is how many he actually used to shoot people. I don't know what the number is, but I would be really surprised to learn he used more than 4-5 of them. Ironically, if he used more than that it was probably because those bumpfire things caused jams. They're impractical junk.
     
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Oct 7, 2017
  14. VartioArtel

    VartioArtel Member

    Newcomer
    49
    49
    Oct 3, 2012
    United States
    I'm going to post an opinion here. I know some will disagree.

    I think that one Congressman's opinion that Congress lead to this happening is indirectly true. Before you rage, at least hear me out:

    The right to bear arms is, to quote rulings: for 'self defense'. Of all the types of guns out there, the only gun you should need for self defense should be a handgun. Shotguns and Rifles are not tools of self defense, but of murder. The sheer difference in destructive power even between a normal handgun and a relatively modern rifle is leagues apart. Even comparing the old flintlock 'handguns' to a rifle from say the American Revolution is a league apart.
    Simply put: the point of the amendment is not so you can kill. And it's not for the purpose of maintaining a hobby either.

    This comes back to the beginning: it's congress' fault, namely the republicans and the NRA filling their pockets (let's be real people, before anyone argues otherwise, there's a clear and confirmed moneytrail there, and no, I am not a democrat, I am a neutral voter who will vote republican or democrat depending on the needs of this country at the time of an election), for letting these weapons into the wild.

    To disable an opponent with a handgun is possible enough. To defend yourself against anything short of certain wild beasts is possible with one. So then, what's the point of having anything more? Well, there isn't. That's my view on this. While I can't fully argue against shotguns as an ideal means of defense against say bears, there is absolutely no modern need for any form of rifle in civilian hands.

    The modern rifle tend to be mid-long range weapons with far more accuracy, and also on average more destructive force than a handgun due to their larger rounds (see: https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-mor...shotgun-and-why/answer/Ben-Skirvin?srid=u7M6e ). Why would such a weapon need to be in civilian hands, when it's clearly meant for more disruptive, destructive use than a handgun, which is the ideal tool for self defense? To carry a rifle anywhere in public is an intended show of hostility and force, hence why they are not usually covered by law to be carried about (kinda like how they banned katanas in Japan, but nobody really is THAT off their rocker about a knife for self defense).

    Why am I writing the above? The easy answer is, were there better restrictions and regulations in place, preventing the obtainment of rifles, then the ability to have launched an attack from 30 odd stories high and hit such a large number with not only such relative accuracy from such a distance, but with such a high casualty rate, would have dropped considerably.

    I already said this but rifles should not have been in any civilian's hands. I barely appreciate the thought of Shotguns being in civilian hands. Because a rifle was in this man's hand, not only could he kill about 50, and injure about 500+, but he did so from a place nobody could quickly respond.

    Were he instead forced to a handgun, or even a shotgun, the damage from his 'sniper's nest' would have been vastly inferior. I would estimate not even 10% of the damage would have occurred. This isn't about the morality of whether or not having guns is legal, this is a question of the morality of having certain guns and the damage those guns can cause. Afterall, this same sort of question came up after a certain school shooting.

    The question of the 'right to bare arms' can be turned around for those who think it means 'the right to bare any arms'. Under such an interpretation, I could bare a nuclear warhead, for an extreme example, and it would be under my '2nd amendment right', but that would be folly. It is an "arm" (Yes, I'm being semantical, as the writers of the preamble believed more in semantics than the current day American). To quote: "A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems." But a nuclear weapon is clearly not an arm we are permitted to bare, so let's not even debate the legality of banning certain weapon types.

    So the question is: should the common civilian be able to bare any sort of gun they so please in the name of self defense? My belief is a flat and resounding NO. This Las Vegas nightmare is a resounding reason why there needs to be gun restrictions. I personally would love to see a complete ban on all forms of rifles - automatic and semi and the like; along with again a ban on all automatic weapons (it seems the 1994 ban ended 13 years ago...). Neither are the sort of tools a man needs for self defense. They are tools to inflict as much harm to as many as possible before being able to be reacted to for as long as possible.

    And any mods that could create similar results should be similarly banned.

    As I said above: were this man unable to, or less likely to have obtained rifles and/or their ammo, or any form of mod that made them automatic, this whole tragedy would have been a lot less tragic. But the fact remains that, even were he unable to get bumpstocks, the damage would have still existed. Not as bad, but the damage still would have been worse than had he been restricted to handguns. Those on the scene may have been baring guns and able to disable him had he been forced to closer range himself.

    I do not support banning all firearms - I do support the right to every man to be able to defend himself. To that end, I do not support extreme gun laws banning all firearms. I only support the idea that the age of needing more than relatively close-range weaponry for self-defense is long past.

    PS: Personally I'd love to see shotguns gone too as they are basically guaranteed kills at their range, which goes against the concept of 'defense' as in deterrence, but you'd need to rework the hunting associations and make them a singular group rather than 20+ different associations throughout the states, and manage their membership and the management of rifles and shotguns for hunting purposes so that mishandling of the weapons becomes a federal offense. It would require a lot of work from the federal government they just wouldn't support. Either way, just restricting rifles and automatics, and mods to emulate them, would do more than enough to heavily prevent another massacre like this.

    Edit: I want people to realize one thing: yes, it was the man who did the damage, but the gun enabled him to inflict the volume of damage he did without retaliation. And that is the problem: the lack of defense and retaliation these people had. No different than if a sniper rifle were involved, or on a national scale - a nuke. The gun didn't do the action, but the man did. But the man could only inflict this much damage with a rifle. In fact rifles, automatic or not, are probably the #1 weapon in such massacres.

    If you can't stop people from going insane, you can lessen the damage, and limit the means at which they can inflict damage with minor retaliation from the victims.

    Edit 2: yes, I fully recognize that the black market and other illegal/under the table methods of obtaining these weapons will exist. But by limiting/removing legal venues, it would still make it harder for such events to occur.
     
    Last edited by VartioArtel, Oct 7, 2017
    TotalInsanity4 and rileysrjay like this.
  15. rileysrjay

    rileysrjay GBAtemp's official vinsclone speedster!

    Member
    1,089
    2,029
    Apr 2, 2016
    United States
    Central City
    Eh, I guess I'll jump into these debates and see how long I want to stay. I enjoyed reading your take on this, however I do see a reason outside of self defense for certain rifles and shotguns, and that would be for hunting. It still is a necessity for some to survive, say in Alaska, by hunting. Probably the best way to do that in the manner you described where rifles and shotguns would be "illegal" would be to have a special license and have each person go through hunting and safety courses, background checks, etc. I'm not 100% for outlawing rifles and shotguns in the first place anyways, as I think regulations would probably stop a lot of the shootings that have happened as you stated at the end of your post. Anyways interesting read.

    EDIT: just saw your part on hunting, whoops! I really need to stop speed reading these...
     
    Last edited by rileysrjay, Oct 7, 2017
    VartioArtel likes this.
  16. VartioArtel

    VartioArtel Member

    Newcomer
    49
    49
    Oct 3, 2012
    United States
    I did attend to the issue of hunting. A shotgun is all we would reasonably need to commit to hunting. It would increase the risk to the hunters, but in most cases once the prey is in range they'd have an easier kill than packing a rifle to begin with, especially with higher caliber rounds, or even slugs, due to the sheer force.

    I don't know if you saw my edit, but personally if it were me, I'd decommission all the hunting associations on a federal level and establish a single one under Federal control. Make it akin to a mailman position in a way in terms of relative job terms of normal people doing important duties for the country. Increase the strictness with the weapons, and restrict shotguns/rifles to require you turn them back into the hunting shop every night (or morning, if needs be to hunt at night). Make it a federal level offense akin to stealing mail (if not worse) for not returning the weapon, and that would heavily reduce the number of rifles getting into the wild. Won't stop some branch office higher-ups from sneaking some into the black market, but would help reduce the offenses.

    Regulations can only go so far without restricting the means of obtaining these weapons to nigh impossible. Anyone can break though and pass tests. The criminal this time was seemingly a normal man most of the time, which set off no flags that worried anyone. Not his family, not his wife, seemingly not his previous wives (most we can tell they dropped him cause he got drunk). Restricting the timeframe people can have guns of more severe lethality would go further than complete and utter removal of these weapons. Yea, you might stop some, but let's not forget the current leader of the NRA was dropped from the military because they considered him a hazard with guns. What might be considered 'alright' to these gunshop tests, might just not be enough.

    Offer say a $1,000 tax exemption for turning in rifles/shotguns (per gun). Put these rifles in with a Federal Hunting organization. The organization then can manage the hunting of animals better, possibly reduce the odds of people killing endangered animals by keeping a more up-to-date and managed database of brought in hunts. Not only that but you'd also have a tighter grasp on the movement of these weapons and tighter punishments.

    You also can't expect security to improve. This guy snuck in what, 40 rifles into his room and had 23 if I remember bumpstocks equipped? The fact the hotel didn't catch this was atrocious, and years from now you know hotels will slack in security again because it would be counterproductive to profits to invest so much time into security. Security regulations won't help.

    So this again cycles back to the fact that we need measures against obtaining rifles, to drastically reduce the distance at which one can inflict damage at long distance. Imagine if this was a normal neighborhood, and imagine he just wanted to snipe one person through a window with these rifles. It would have been nigh impossible to confirm he did it. We only caught this guy cause he kept firing from his room (and the fact he had that room...) and other such details. He could have probably kept firing another 10 minutes if he wasn't stopped. And let's not talk about the fact he had a bomb made of that substance used for target practice - and enough of it to blow out easily 3 floors of that hotel.
     
    Last edited by VartioArtel, Oct 7, 2017
    TotalInsanity4 and rileysrjay like this.
  17. brickmii82
    OP

    brickmii82 GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    632
    727
    Feb 21, 2015
    United States
    It just occurred to me that Mandalay Bay will probably fix the room up and rent it out again....
     
  18. rileysrjay

    rileysrjay GBAtemp's official vinsclone speedster!

    Member
    1,089
    2,029
    Apr 2, 2016
    United States
    Central City
    Another interesting read. Anyways I don't want to get too much in a debate here since I'm pretty tired and morning me will regret getting into a debate, so I will touch lightly on a couple of things. I didn't mean regulations on hotel security in my post, even though I didn't state it. The only way to 100% prevent guns or bombs from getting in a hotel like that would be tsa like checks for everyone, and even that isn't guaranteed plus that kind of check in every hotel would be ridiculous. As far as regulations I was thinking more along the lines of acquiring shotguns and rifles as you said. Also I have a feeling there would still be some shootings (but not many) if there was a hunting program for people to acquire shotguns and rifles. There's no way to fully know someone's intentions with a gun and stop them from shooting someone, even if they seem sane and passed all the checks (such as the Vegas shooter seemed to be normal). I also think there would still be shootings if all guns/ a ban on rifles and shotguns took place, due to a rise of a black market because there would already be a large amount of guns in the us plus it would be pretty easy to smuggle stuff in from South of the border, but that's a whole nother can of worms I just opened and I don't fully want to get into.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    Also forgot to mention the very likely possibility of an uprising and revolution if guns or even shotguns and rifles got banned in the US, but once again that's another can of worms.
     
    VartioArtel likes this.
  19. VartioArtel

    VartioArtel Member

    Newcomer
    49
    49
    Oct 3, 2012
    United States
    This reply can wait for you to return.

    Indeed my intent was mostly towards the rifles/shotguns, but yes there's never a guarantee of anything. And of course even with restrictions as I suggested there would be shootings. The only things we can do is create less and less opportunities for such accidents to ultimately occur. And as noted two of my replies ago: I fully acknowledge black markets exist, but the legal avenues - and hence the easily accessable avenues - will be heavily mitigated if not negated in general. That's more of a relief than anything. From there discerning intent will be far easier.

    As for uprising or revolution... well let's be real, we've had automatic weapons banned before (see the '94 ban on Assault weapons), and...
    [​IMG]
    As seen in this image, between 94 and '04 we saw a huge dip in the number of homicides based on firearms, most likely this is a direct correlation, although I cannot state so as fact but instead as an inference based on such info. (Edit/Note: In 93-94 there was a drop, but nowhere as sharp as 94 to roughly 96)
    (Although https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...yweapon.svg/325px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png - implies that handguns have a higher general rate of homicides, for some reason the ban seemed to have indeed had a role to play in the downfall in homicides as from '93 on there was a huge decline in gun based homicide in general).

    As seen above - we endured a 10 year ban of assault (including automatic) weapons without a revolution. I'm sure we can handle another ban of guns.

    If people seriously are going to revolt against a government for restricting access to lethal weapons to very precise requirements for not only their safety but others, and considering that these tools have no purpose in civilian hands except as 'a hobby', then well, those people are probably extremists to start and a threat to national security anyhow, although that's one point of view. That's the same as if they get angry for a ban on the civilian ownership of nuclear weapons, as I referenced in the first message.

    In the end, all we can do is our best to hinder and restrict the motions of homocidal individuals. While handguns will always remain the more accessible method of murder as seen in the charts, the fact remains that they are also comparatively less frightening weapons and also more fitting self defense than the rest. When someone can give a legitimate reason for owning these more dangerous guns other than hunting (government should manage or restrict these rifles to hunt clubs or the sort, and hold hunt clubs constantly responsible for their stocks) or war time (go join the army then...), then I'd support civilians holding these weapons.

    EDIT: to make something clear, I am not trying to use this as a springboard to say "BAN EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE A THREAT". I namely infer this as a means to mitigate threats that should never be in civilian hands. Here's a few examples of my opinion:
    The substance the killer used (Tannerite) for bombs? Should be banned. It has no household use beyond as an aide in gun fire accuracy tests, and hence has no place in civilian hands due to the potential it has as a bomb. If they want to test their accuracy, they can stare at the hole they make.
    Rifles - They are not for defense. For one when an enemy's on top of you, you aren't going to find it easy positioning a rifle and shooting your foe compared to a handgun. They're designed for mid-long range shootouts, as was their intent - for war.
     
    Last edited by VartioArtel, Oct 7, 2017
    TotalInsanity4 and rileysrjay like this.
  20. Flame

    Flame Me > You

    Member
    GBAtemp Patron
    Flame is a Patron of GBAtemp and is helping us stay independent!

    Our Patreon
    4,239
    5,871
    Jul 15, 2008
    like if a Russian puppet was in control and oppressing any one who isn't white rich man. how ironic.
     
    Last edited by Flame, Oct 7, 2017
    TotalInsanity4 likes this.
Loading...