Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival

[Andbreathe]

Can anybody explain to me why any ordinary person (ie. not in the military, the police, or employed in criminal activity,) would need an automatic weapon?

 

Very small dick. Poor or non existent sex life.

[alchemist]

It certainly is. The scale of the Somme munitions is hard to grasp.

 

One thing just struck me about the Las Vegas shootings - how did he get all that gear up to his hotel room without anyone noticing? 23 firearms some of which were semi auto rifles, add ons like bipods and scopes, hundreds of rounds of ammunition - that stuff won't have been light to carry, you'd think someone might have suspected.

 

He had 4 DDM M4 carbines. Each weighs 6.7lbs so nearly 29lbs (13 kg) just for a small part of his luggage. Three FN AR15's, each weighing 7.7lbs and so on.

 

Plus wasn't his room cleaned? How did nobody spot all this stuff?

 

Your forgetting that it was in america, he probably got the porter to help him up and the maid would not have thought anything was wrong with having a small arsenal in the room

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2017 at 08:13 ----------

 

That would just discourage poor people from owning multiply guns. I believe this country has the correct gun laws, but if I lived in America, I would probably want to own a gun.

 

Would you?

 

Actually? No, why would I? I dont have a pathological urge to want to kill things, but still, if you do....

 

Anyway, why would banning the ammo stop poor people from owning lots of guns?

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2017 at 08:17 ----------

 

No i think it is your thinking thats idiotic! any nutter that wants to do this type of horrific crime would do it no matter what law was invoked as we have seen with the car and lorry attacks on innocent people by islamic terrorists. have we banned cars? lorries? No!

if a madman wants to get a gun he or she will! law or no law:roll:

 

OK, so why IS the death count per year in the US so high? Explain please

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2017 at 08:21 ----------

 

Australia had its worse mass shooting april 28 1996.

 

12 days later Australia announced a bipartisan deal on sweeping gun measures.

 

The government bought back and destroyed 1million guns.

 

Australia has"nt had a mass shooting since.

 

Now dont start bringing sense into the thread, we are talking yanks n guns, all ideas of sense went out of the window ages back

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2017 at 08:24 ----------

 

To defend their family and or property from attackers with guns. And the government. For realsies.

 

Thats the NRA BS line, now whats the REAL reason?

Edited October 4, 2017 by alchemist

[Harrystottle]

And why is that?

 

Because guns are much harder to obtain in the UK.

 

Re the weight and bulk of the weapons that had to be toted up to his suite. that's the thing. He was a big gambler and rich enough to hire a suite. They weren't about to give him the third degree about his luggage, most likely.

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2017 at 09:06 ----------

 

Can anybody explain to me why any ordinary person (ie. not in the military, the police, or employed in criminal activity,) would need an automatic weapon?

 

I'd be a bit cautious about letting the government decide what people "need".

 

That said, you are right. I'll declare an interest, I own a gun. For target shooting. The only two legitimate reasons I can think of for having a gun is for shooting things like foxes and other farm pests, or target shooting. An automatic weapon is no real use for either. Which is why they aren't legal here or most other places.

[L00b]

That said, you are right. I'll declare an interest, I own a gun. For target shooting. The only two legitimate reasons I can think of for having a gun is for shooting things like foxes and other farm pests, or target shooting. An automatic weapon is no real use for either. Which is why they aren't legal here or most other places.

You forgot bigger game, but that's a can of worms best left shut

 

The principle remains true of course: no civilian with a (legal) firearms-related hobby (sports or hunting) needs a firearm with more than 2 shots...

 

...if they would do, then it's because they're not a good shot and so unsafe in the first place

 

I can't see any legislative incompatibility in the US, between the 2nd Amendment and restricting both the supply of semi-automatic and automatic firearms and the range of (civilian-) legal calibres. Empirically, it's the way it's done most elsewhere around the globe (and I'm not talking about the UK's more extreme version of firearms ownership restriction), and seems to work just fine. It would go a long way towards mitigating the number of victims in shooting sprees (abstracting the non-trivial problem of retiring the stock of auto and semi-auto firearms already in ownership).

 

In France, you can buy 4.5mm and 22LR ammo without a license, 8 to 12 bore (but no brennekes anymore) and civilian Mauser ammo with a hunting license...and that's your lot: no 9mm, 5.56, 7.92, etc. <law enforcement/military -grade ammo> legally available or circumstances under which they could be legally held (for 9mm, other than safely secured at a shooting club, but that's the only exception AFAIK and conditions for it are UK-like strict; all other 'exotic' calibres are legally defined and classed as "war calibre" and prohibited outright <anywhere>).

Edited October 4, 2017 by L00b

[Jonny5]

Can anybody explain to me why any ordinary person (ie. not in the military, the police, or employed in criminal activity,) would need an automatic weapon?

There is no rational explanation.

 

Basically there are enough Americans that are very badly educated and are consequently very naive. These people genuinely think that there is a reasonable chance that the government at either local or national level could turn on them, and that in such an event having a gun would be a great help.

 

The other reason that now seems to have faded somewhat is for protection from invading forces, ie Russia. So that what happened to France does not happen to them.

Americans contrary to popular opinion due take an interest in global events. They just happen to interpret such events incredibly badly.

[alchemist]

There is no rational explanation.

 

Basically there are enough Americans that are very badly educated and are consequently very naive. These people genuinely think that there is a reasonable chance that the government at either local or national level could turn on them, and that in such an event having a gun would be a great help.

 

The other reason that now seems to have faded somewhat is for protection from invading forces, ie Russia. So that what happened to France does not happen to them.

Americans contrary to popular opinion due take an interest in global events. They just happen to interpret such events incredibly badly.

 

Just in case you needed an example

 

https://twitter.com/man_in_radiator/status/915038849281220608

[tinfoilhat]

Your forgetting that it was in america, he probably got the porter to help him up and the maid would not have thought anything was wrong with having a small arsenal in the room

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2017 at 08:13 ----------

 

 

Actually? No, why would I? I dont have a pathological urge to want to kill things, but still, if you do....

 

Anyway, why would banning the ammo stop poor people from owning lots of guns?

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2017 at 08:17 ----------

 

 

OK, so why IS the death count per year in the US so high? Explain please

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2017 at 08:21 ----------

 

 

Now dont start bringing sense into the thread, we are talking yanks n guns, all ideas of sense went out of the window ages back

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2017 at 08:24 ----------

 

 

Thats the NRA BS line, now whats the REAL reason?

 

Having spoken to gun owning Americans of different backgrounds and ages, that is their real reason. Now some might be reading off a pamphlet but others it's a genuinely held belief. They'll then point to Chicago who have strict gun laws but very high murder rates (ignoring the fact I could cross state lines and buy a gun quite easily).

 

Now you and I might think they're barking. But I think lots of people are barking (overly religious people, England supporters who pay money to go and watch England play a friendly abroad) but they feel very strongly about it.

 

---------- Post added 04-10-2017 at 13:49 ----------

 

There is no rational explanation.

 

Basically there are enough Americans that are very badly educated and are consequently very naive. These people genuinely think that there is a reasonable chance that the government at either local or national level could turn on them, and that in such an event having a gun would be a great help.

 

The other reason that now seems to have faded somewhat is for protection from invading forces, ie Russia. So that what happened to France does not happen to them.

Americans contrary to popular opinion due take an interest in global events. They just happen to interpret such events incredibly badly.

 

I'm not sure badly educated covers all of them, but it covers a lot. I watched a series on nat geo or discovery a few years back about preppers. Nutters in the main but one young woman was concerned that the oil would run out because of all the trouble in the Middle East and American society would crumble. She then did what preppers do. Nothing new here. She was oblivious that America doesn't get much oil from the Middle East. But she was from Houston. Home of the Houston oilers!!!

[hackey lad]

Is it natural or do you work at being dense?

 

im fine thanks . care to answer my question?

[L00b]

And, according to Wikipedia, the rate of firearm-related homicide is 3.5 times higher in France than in the UK, and the rate of firearm-related suicide 14 times higher.

The standard equipping of every French police officer with a personal firearm (of lethal calibre), distorts that particular statistic a lot, particularly over the past decade approx (a few seconds' worth of Googling "France suicide rate police" should easily confirm this beyond any doubt whatsoever, if need be).

 

Very regrettably of course, but the point stands. And is worth bearing in mind in any debate about arming British police officers likewise as standard.

 

I haven't checked about farmers (2nd highest rate in France for suicide by firearm, police officers are 1st) but it would not surprise me to learn that suicide rates (by firearm) for those is comparable between the UK and France: most British farmers have shotguns, just like in France.

 

Not disputing your point, just adding context and information. Because it's self-evident that statistics for suicide by firearm in countries with 60+m inhabitants are going to reflect higher vs lower accessibility to firearms at a national scale.

Edited October 4, 2017 by L00b

[melthebell]

im fine thanks . care to answer my question?

 

No cos it's complete nonsense