Jump to content
slacker

WTF? (**NSFW**)

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, ChkHandleDn said:

Had to be multiple shooters. I just watched this video over and over. There is clearly a second muzzle flash above the automatic fire at the :31 mark.  Maybe it's the conspiracy theory in me but I don't know what else it could  be  

https://mobile.twitter.com/TIME/status/914847463424507904/video/1

Another hotel guest hiding out in their room (lights off) taking a photo of the madness maybe? The iPhone camera has a light sensor and the automatic mode will enable the flash if it's dark enough -- maybe the person didn't realize they hadn't disabled the flash/auto mode (since that would make for useless photo with the flash reflecting off the window). That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mb1685 said:

Another hotel guest hiding out in their room (lights off) taking a photo of the madness maybe? The iPhone camera has a light sensor and the automatic mode will enable the flash if it's dark enough -- maybe the person didn't realize they hadn't disabled the flash/auto mode (since that would make for useless photo with the flash reflecting off the window). That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Yes, but the flash in the video looks strikingly similar to the muzzle flash below and orangeish. Not white like cameras. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gearpig said:

No bump fire stocks. How's that for a law? But it is the position of many here that laws don't impede law breakers and this guy could have whittled one out of table leg, it wouldn't have changed the outcome at all, right? Absurd.

Good discussion gents.  Too much for me to unpack on a normal work day, so here's just a few responses over lunch.  Gearpig I wouldn't bother fighting a law to restrict or ban bump fire stocks.  However, would such a law have prevented this event?  As mentioned below, bump fire is not a difficult effect to replicate even without a specialized stock.  The shooter doesn't have to "whittle one out of a table leg" and even if he did, apparently he was fastidious enough in planning that he might have done so.  So ok, we ban bump fire stocks.  Since this was the first high profile shooting to utilize one, do you expect said law to diminish the chances of another mass shooting? 

I just don't see banning stuff as a way to prevent a determined mass killer.  But I don't care enough about bump-fire to object their banning.  Let's just all acknowledge that we're doing it just to do it.  But I do award you 1 fake internet point as promised, for your well thought out reply!

35 minutes ago, GDAL said:

As a side note... I've found it's pretty easy to bump fire most AR/AK/SKS type rifles by hooking your trigger finger through your belt loop. 

Concur.  And a psycho who wants to make their own facsimile of a bump fire stock could do so without much effort.  A big problem gun owners face in these discussions is how many folks have opinions without knowledge.

35 minutes ago, FighterHopeful12345 said:

Sport shooters who enjoy the act of shooting guns. They utilize weapons for the enjoyment of the act of shooting them. They likely own a variety of types weapons.

What benefit does a bump-fire/high capacity magazine give this user? Enjoyment from the physical act of firing a fully automatic weapon. A feeling of power from the knowledge that they have that capability.

Hunters/Sportsmen: They utilize weapons as a means to harvest game. 

Survivalists: I would argue that a reliable semi-auto shotgun is far more effective and practically lethal in a home invasion scenario.....

my suggestion is to restrict the sale of bump-fires and limit magazine capacity to 10. Make future production and sale illegal but do not implement a confiscation. Allow all previously produced products to be “grandfathered” in. The previously manufactured magazines will continue to be in the market for a time but it will make it harder for those who wish to do harm to get their hands on them. 

"propose a law change that could prevent a wealthy and thoughtful person from committing a mass casualty event."

There will never be an all-encompassing law that would forever prevent something like this. What makes America great is that a determined, thoughtful person has the capability to do anything: good or, unfortunately, evil. This man was clearly intelligent, had resources, and had the determination to do what he set out to do. Unfortunately, for the 59 that were killed and the thousands directly and indirectly affected by this, he set out to do something truly evil.

Interesting reply, thanks.  I have more spears to throw than time to throw them, but a couple things stand out: 

First, I reject your 4 categories.  Not only are there more than 4 types of people who own guns, but many folks fit more than one profile yet want one gun that works for multiple scenarios.  Here's another category you entirely forgot- good guys who require weapons proficiency for their job and buy a gun to practice on their own.  There's a lot of mil & LE folks who fit that description.  I've shot many times with small town SWAT who don't have an official budget for the quantity of ammo required to actually be good.  Lot's of LE are optioned to purchase their own weapons, and funny enough many of them were directly affected by the AWB we previously discussed.  Wrap your mind around the reality that many firearm restrictions affect police.  And a lot of military folks buy ARs because shooting for qual every other year just isn't enough to make them comfortable walking around with one on a FOB.  No gun laws that I know of make accommodations for these people; it's not a trivial point.

Second, your idea that "a reliable semi-auto shotgun is far more effective and practically lethal in a home invasion scenario" I have to ask, no disrespect intended, what exactly is your background?  Are you making this argument because it seems logical, or are you an actual firearms expert?  Because that is the opposite advice I would give, and the opposite I've received from any class (I've attended several) or any expert.  Do you think my wife is comfortable using an 18" barrel shotgun inside a home?  What about old people, think they'll stay on target after more than 1 shot?  Think they'll hit the target with the first shot?  Think it's easy to maneuver in a house with a giant ass shotgun?  I frankly think a short barreled pistol caliber carbine is the best tool for most users in that scenario, but prior to this new brace fad a short barreled anything was NFA.

Third, it's noteworthy you admit there is no law to prevent a diabolical, committed and well funded dude from perpetrating a mass casualty attack.... right after you call for restricting magazine capacity to 10.  So, to be clear, mag restrictions wouldn't stop this but we should do it anyway?  Did those restrictions (in place at the time) prevent the Columbine massacre?   Are those restrictions (in place currently) preventing regular mass shootings in Chicago?  So if that proposed law hasn't worked in the past, isn't working currently, and wouldn't stop a similar psycho in the future..... why should we do it?  Where did you get the number 10?  Where's your proof it'll make a difference?

I care because mil/LE all do not accept those magazine restrictions.  No one I know who has been in a gunfight ever wanted smaller mags.  Your arbitrary numerical restriction without any evidence of achieving desired effects is exactly the kind of knee-jerk nonsense that erodes freedom without increasing security.  Finally, as for your comment about Robert O'Niell not using FA..... think through that one a bit.  Those guys definitely use FA if the situation warrants: break contact, cover, etc.  Sneaking into someones house, with all your heavily armed friends, with a massive support package overhead, and targeting a small number of enemy.... yea, I get it, he didn't use FA.  I'm not sure his niche experience is directly relevant to this discussion except for one part: he used "high" capacity mags on every mission.  

24 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And most importantly, it's going to take a better message than "price of freedom" when someone loses their loved ones in a mass shooting..... These people are looking for answers, and the gun-control side has them. 

I agree we need better answers (I don't have them), and I agree that seemingly quick-fix bans by the gun control crowd are enticing to the uninformed. 

10 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I don't know yet. I've been a bit too distracted with admin stuff to sit down and really think about it. But my first thought was, why do we allow removable magazines? Lets say we didn't even change capacity. Why can't I take the time to load 30 rounds into my fixed-magazine AR-15 at the range? What enjoyment do I lose? Does it make the AR-15 less fun? Yeah, a bit. How much? Does it make it less lethal? You bet. How much?

I would vote to make bump stocks and any other loophole modifications illegal. I agree with auto being (mostly) outlawed. I'm also a big fan of cooling off periods. I have never met someone who needed a gun in the next hour. Wanted, preferred, desired, sure. But needed?  

Look, like I said, I don't know yet. But if I can't explain it to a non-gun-owner, then why do I believe it myself?

Einstein said "if you can't explain it to a 6 year old you don't understand it yourself."  So I applaud your questioning mind and your self-awareness.  However, other than bump-fire, which of your suggested law changes would have prevented this massacre?  Fixed magazines?  The guys had 40 guns in his room, and was rotating them for cooling.   Pre-purchase cooling off periods?  Reports are that he began purchasing weapons months in advance.   As I said earlier, looking for the right thing to ban is not, in my opinion, the right approach to prevent a future recurrence of something so anomalous.  What would?  Well I can't say until the investigation ascertains his motive.  But I'm comfortable saying we should seek legislative mechanisms to address mental health problems.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with so many people willing to give something -- anything -- up?

This is the strongest legislative position the 2A has been in for decades. 

I'm not voting to give *anything* up.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the discussion about "answers", remember to play chess and not checkers.

The RKBA is a philosophical argument, not a policy argument.  Gun control folks want to argue policy, and want to do it with absolutely no proof of efficacy of any of it.

So, first, make sure you understand the philosophical foundation of why the right to keep and bear arms exists, and why it is protected in the Bill of Rights.  Understand that it is rooted in the right to life, and the logical derivation of the right to self defense to protect life and property under assault.

Understand further what the philosophical purpose of government is.  Philosophy determines the purpose of government, and in a free liberal democracy the purpose of government is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property.  Remember that people have rights and governments have powers that are granted to them by the people.  It isn't the government's purpose to take care of people like a parent.

Remember that living in a free society means that individuals are free to think, do, say, and possess whatever they please so long as it does not infringe on the natural, constitutional, or derived civil rights of other humans.  Again, it isn't the purpose of government to tell us what we can and cannot do outside their basic charter.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But my, we’ve certainly strayed far from that initial construct and philosophical intent, haven’t we. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hacker said:

So, first, make sure you understand the philosophical foundation of why the right to keep and bear arms exists, and why it is protected in the Bill of Rights.  Understand that it is rooted in the right to life, and the logical derivation of the right to self defense to protect life and property under assault.

I'll ask again.

Is there any circumstance in which our society, through it's elected representatives and their laws, should deny the right of anyone to purchase or possess any type of firearm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

But my, we’ve certainly strayed far from that initial construct and philosophical intent, haven’t we. 

So has our capacity for violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gearpig said:

Is there any circumstance in which our society, through it's elected representatives and their laws, should deny the right of anyone to purchase or possess any type of firearm?

There's a large body of clear philosophy and federal caselaw that covers this, if you care to study it.

The discussion on the RKBA in the Federalist Papers (and SCOTUS case law in Miller, Heller, and McDonald) does limit the scope of its protection to essentially arms that can be borne and used by a single individual (vs a team or crew).  US v Miller states that the 2A only protects arms that have reasonable relation to use in a militia.  DC v Heller stipulates that "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" are within the scope of government power.

That being said, can you show me that part in the Constitution where it says the conditions under which the government is allowed to deny people their natural, enumerated, and civil rights?

Maybe you can show me that part in any of the Federalist Papers where the founders discuss that?  Or any of the philosophical works that the Founders were influenced by?

So, I don't personally see the philosophical or legal backstop to the restrictions that are given a pass in Heller.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gearpig said:

 No bump fire stocks. How's that for a law?

Absurd, to use your words.

A completely arbitrary restriction on a core Constitutionally-protected right because you *think* it should be...not because of any philosophical or legal underpinning of why, and proposed without a shred of evidence as to efficacy or specific purpose.

The entire point of Constitutional protection is to put the burden of proof on the proposer of new restrictions to show specifically why those restrictions should be allowed, including proving that philosophical and legal validation and  as well as efficacy of the proposal...because you don't just curb rights "to see if it works".  The status quo doesn't have to defend itself.

So, for anyone making these proposals, start off your discussion by making these points, rather than making the statement and demanding that others prove "why not".

Edited by Hacker
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, gearpig said:

I'll ask again.

Is there any circumstance in which our society, through it's elected representatives and their laws, should deny the right of anyone to purchase or possess any type of firearm?

So convicted violent felons should also retain this right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GDAL said:

So convicted violent felons should also retain this right?

There's a big movement to restore felons' constitutional rights, at least as far as it relates to voting. And both voting and firearms are guaranteed by an amendment, but the voting one is a lot more strictly limited. The Second just says that the right "shall not be infringed."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, GDAL said:

So convicted violent felons should also retain this right?

One of the philosophical underpinnings of the justice system is that convicted criminals serve their debt to society by “doing time”.

Thus, they should be entitled to all the rights of a citizen once they have completed that debt to society.

We only have one class of citizens in the United States: there are no “super citizens” who are entitled to special rights, nor are there “sub citizens” who aren’t entitled to all of the rights of a citizen.

Let’s remember that the Constitution affirms that rights aren’t granted by the government, they exist outside the existence of government.  Protections in the Bill of Rights don’t grant anything to citizens, the Amendments are restrictions on government violation of existing individual rights.

Edited by Hacker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GDAL said:

So convicted violent felons should also retain this right?

Close - I'd substitute the word restored for retained. If they're too dangerous to own guns then they're too dangerous to be on the street.  Conversely, if they've paid their debt to society/been rehabilitated then their rights should be restored. 

 

edit: Hacker said pretty much the same thing.  So I'll also add that there should be enhanced sentencing guidelines for crimes committed with firearms if "we have to do something!" That serves the purpose of keeping those convicted off the streets.  It shouldn't be a crime to merely possess a gun with a barrel shorter than an arbitrary 16" *rifle* or 18" *shotgun*. 

 

Edited by Warrior
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hacker said:

 

We only have one class of citizens in the United States: there are no “super citizens” who are entitled to special rights, nor are there “sub citizens” who aren’t entitled to all of the rights of a citizen.

 

I agree with everything but this, if you or I stored classified information on a server in the basement, we would be in jail.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gearpig said:

So has our capacity for violence.

I disagree. 

On the long look of human history, violence, war, and untimely death is WAY DOWN.  We’re living in a golden age of peace and prosperity. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so it begins...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/daniel-zimmerman/diane-feinstein-introduces-bill-to-ban-bump-fire-stocks/

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a longtime advocate of stricter gun control measures, introduced a bill Wednesday that would ban the sale and possession of bump-stock equipment and other devices that essentially turn a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Darth said:

And so it begins...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/daniel-zimmerman/diane-feinstein-introduces-bill-to-ban-bump-fire-stocks/

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a longtime advocate of stricter gun control measures, introduced a bill Wednesday that would ban the sale and possession of bump-stock equipment and other devices that essentially turn a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic one."

She wants to ban Jerry!

miculek-shooting.jpeg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Darth said:

And so it begins...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/daniel-zimmerman/diane-feinstein-introduces-bill-to-ban-bump-fire-stocks/

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a longtime advocate of stricter gun control measures, introduced a bill Wednesday that would ban the sale and possession of bump-stock equipment and other devices that essentially turn a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic one."

Hasn't she been trying to get rid of bump stocks for years? She's just using this tragedy as an excuse to continue her agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to try to "match wits" with the 40lb brain stems on here discussing Constitutional law, all I can share is that 1) I can kill someone with a rock, so does that mean we have to outlaw rocks?  2) we not only didn't lose rights during the eight years of the Obama administration, but actually gained them; so my prediction is that absolutely nothing in terms of firearms restrictions will come from this Vegas tragedy and rightfully so, 3) it is not surprising that the kooks are coming out of the woodwork anytime an incident involving a firearm occurs, it is what their idiotic contingents expand and actually demand, and lastly, 4) good luck trying to pull an Australia in Texas...this is our governor!
abbott.jpg

We don't fuck around when it comes to our firearms, BBQ, religion or football!
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why an innocent person should lose Liberty because some people will abuse is it is beyond me...

If we called for banning alcohol because people kill others via drunk driving, the progressives would lose their minds.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Why an innocent person should lose Liberty because some people will abuse is it is beyond me...

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.  (paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin)

Unfortunately, modern America has a very short memory.  Historically, when suppressions of vices and liberties are emplaced in the name of social responsibility, dictators rise to take the reigns of the socialist movement, and tragedy ensues. 

On the flip side, you never hear about these mass attacks occurring in places like Switzerland, where virtually the whole population is part of the militia and owns an automatic rifle.

American society doesn't need more fences to keep the wolves away, it needs more people with a sheepdog mentality, along with the abolishment of entitlement, such as "it's the federal government's responsibility to protect me from everything".

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.  (paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin)

Unfortunately, modern America has a very short memory.  Historically, when suppressions of vices and liberties are emplaced in the name of social responsibility, dictators rise to take the reigns of the socialist movement, and tragedy ensues. 

On the flip side, you never hear about these mass attacks occurring in places like Switzerland, where virtually the whole population is part of the militia and owns an automatic rifle.

American society doesn't need more fences to keep the wolves away, it needs more people with a sheepdog mentality, along with the abolishment of entitlement, such as "it's the federal government's responsibility to protect me from everything".

 

 

Question:  should we not regulate the purchase of weapons at all?  Should Joe citizen have access to, say, a TOW missile launcher?  For that matter, should we regulate anything?  I guess in the ultimate manifestation of liberty everything would be legal.  Hard drugs? Crack? Have at it. Meth? Knock yourself out.  Reality dictates that in any civilized society, there is some trade off between liberty and security.  Putting weapons meant for the battlefield in the hands of civilian citizens crosses that line for many. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×