HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Is this enough? 50+ dead,...

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 07:34 AM

Is this enough? 50+ dead, 200+ wounded.

Is this enough, or do you need more blood? before you give up your fantasy that these weapons have a place in our society

57 replies, 18093 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is this enough? 50+ dead, 200+ wounded. (Original post)
lastlib Oct 2017 OP
Name removed Oct 2017 #1
sinkingfeeling Oct 2017 #2
DURHAM D Oct 2017 #4
AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #15
hack89 Oct 2017 #3
ThoughtCriminal Oct 2017 #17
hack89 Oct 2017 #18
ThoughtCriminal Oct 2017 #19
hack89 Oct 2017 #20
get the red out Oct 2017 #5
Throck Oct 2017 #6
sarisataka Oct 2017 #7
mackdaddy Oct 2017 #8
mackdaddy Oct 2017 #16
Eliot Rosewater Oct 2017 #26
guillaumeb Oct 2017 #53
krispos42 Oct 2017 #9
flamin lib Oct 2017 #21
krispos42 Oct 2017 #22
flamin lib Oct 2017 #23
Alea Oct 2017 #24
flamin lib Oct 2017 #27
Lokilooney Oct 2017 #33
krispos42 Oct 2017 #34
tortoise1956 Oct 2017 #36
yagotme Oct 2017 #25
krispos42 Oct 2017 #28
flamin lib Oct 2017 #32
krispos42 Oct 2017 #35
jimmy the one Oct 2017 #41
yagotme Oct 2017 #43
krispos42 Oct 2017 #44
jimmy the one Oct 2017 #47
yagotme Oct 2017 #49
SCantiGOP Oct 2017 #10
hack89 Oct 2017 #11
SCantiGOP Oct 2017 #12
friendly_iconoclast Oct 2017 #13
AtheistCrusader Oct 2017 #14
ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #29
friendly_iconoclast Oct 2017 #30
ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #31
Post removed Oct 2017 #37
cmhfnd Oct 2017 #38
fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #39
cmhfnd Oct 2017 #40
jimmy the one Oct 2017 #42
cmhfnd Oct 2017 #45
jimmy the one Oct 2017 #46
cmhfnd Oct 2017 #51
jimmy the one Oct 2017 #54
The Polack MSgt Oct 2017 #48
cmhfnd Oct 2017 #50
The Polack MSgt Oct 2017 #52
spin Oct 2017 #55
discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #56
spin Nov 2017 #57

Response to lastlib (Original post)


Response to lastlib (Original post)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 07:42 AM

2. Now the saying will be, "If only more people had been armed with automatic weapons,

this could have been stopped".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 07:47 AM

4. Oh...the good guys with guns were missing in action? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 04:13 PM

15. Dunno about the state of Nevada, but here in WA, you can't carry into a sports, music or other venue

whether you have a permit or not.

So, it's doubtful the place was lousy with firearms, good or bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Original post)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 07:45 AM

3. Make sure to clean your shoes when you go. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 09:36 PM

17. I think you are missing the irony of that comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #17)

Tue Oct 3, 2017, 06:43 AM

18. I am not the one that is dancing

or waving the bloody shirt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Tue Oct 3, 2017, 08:38 AM

19. Yep. You missed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 3, 2017, 08:39 AM

20. ok. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Original post)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 08:01 AM

5. No

I don't think there is anything that could happen that would make any kind of rational gun legislation passible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Original post)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 08:12 AM

6. No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

The world has a number of sociopathic people, some of them get elected and have the ability to make these numbers look pale by comparison. If it's not politics, it's death by religion. The world has changed.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Original post)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 08:15 AM

7. Well,

That didn't take long

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Original post)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 09:04 AM

8. This killer had fully automatic, machine gun military level weapons.

You can listen to any of the videos to hear the continuous stream of shots.

These are already against the law to have by the general public, although it is possible to get a special license with extensive background checks.

I don't think that someone who is going to commit mass murder cares too much about gun legislation though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 08:45 PM

16. Looked up "Bump fire" stock on youtube. These are a big problem.

Basically it makes it so the trigger on a semi-auto one pull one shot rifle is virtually being pulled at hundreds of times per second. Essentially causing the semi-auto rifle to function like a full auto machine gun. And these things were "approved" by the ATF under the Obama administration. Great.

So these with 100 round "drum" magazines you have a hail of bullets. But the gun gets hot fast and will need to cool down. No problem when you have 20 guns like the LV shooter.

All this can be bought legally, without a waiting period if you pass a background check.



I believe in RKBA but this is crazy shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mackdaddy (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 4, 2017, 08:46 AM

26. Agree, exactly why we need to enforce the 2nd and allow states to restrict guns to

well regulated militias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 20, 2017, 01:19 PM

53. Oh yes, the "well regulated militia" part of the Amendment.

The part that Scalia dismissed as merely prefatory in arriving at his Heller v DC decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Original post)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 11:02 AM

9. Do we know enough to address anything?

Nope.

Seems like he had fully-automatic guns, which are functionally illegal in this country. We have an age, a race, and a sex. And that's about it.

Be kind of hard to discuss what's wrong when we only know three things. But, since an awful lot of people here think that "civilian ownership of guns is what's wrong", then really the only thing they feel like discussing when when outlawing and confiscation can begin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #9)

Tue Oct 3, 2017, 02:06 PM

21. OK it's been a day and we know a bit more.

Care to expand on the first non comment?

Maybe just send thoughts and prayers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #21)

Tue Oct 3, 2017, 08:08 PM

22. Seems we know quite a bit more.

Motive, sadly, doesn't seem to be one of those things.


But we do know the following:

This was a planned event. This was a planned attack by a person with a burning desire to kill a lot of people, and the intelligence, diligence, and patience to plan and execute it over the course of days or weeks.

And when he executed it, he kept going. There was no loss of nerve, no surge of conscious, no regrets, no second-guessing, NOTHING. Not only that, but he planned on not being taken alive at the end of it. When the cops showed up, he offed himself. He wasn't going to ask for forgiveness, or play with the justice system, or try to explain himself. He ate a pistol so he could die free.

This was not a snap decision.

This was not a bad day at work, or a breakup, or a bad loss in the stock market. This was somebody that decided that raining bullets down on a crowd of 22,000 innocent people at a concert was a good idea.

Maybe he picked a giant crowd of people hundreds of yards away because he wanted the time and distance to do as much damage as possible. Maybe he picked it to insulate himself from the humanity he was destroying. Maybe both.

Regardless, he spend untold hours and money to plan this and put it into effect. He either already had the guns, or bought them. Probably already had them; the total amount he had would cost tens of thousands of dollars, and it's likely he accumulated them over the course of a decade or two. He was in his mid-sixties, after all.

He got the room, made sure it faced the venue, and proceeded to transport his arsenal to the room. They are reporting he had about 20 guns in the room, most of them rifles. Figure 9 pounds per gun, that's nearly 200 pounds of metal and wood and plastic to drag upstairs. Not including all the ammo and magazines and tripods and optics and cameras, plus his actual luggage. So he made several trips, transporting his arsenal upstairs.

At some point, he probably loaded up his rifles and laid them out on a bed, then knocked out the windows, positioned himself deep inside the room, and opened fired. At that distance, a hundred yards up and hundreds of yards downrange, the crowd was just a seething, dancing mass. It's too dark to make out individual features, and even through a scope the images of people are fleeting. Shooting an individual person at 500 or more yards takes a pretty good shot, but he's not trying to shoot *A* person, he's shooting a crowd. He has acres of packed humanity in front of him! He can't miss!

So he begins shooting. Aiming doesn't matter, so he can just shoot as fast as he can. Get bullets into the air. Yeah, the rapid fire and minimal aiming will jerk the muzzle around but the target is so huge it doesn't matter. The bullets zip through the air at over twice the speed of sound and blast into flesh and bone and brains. People all over the multi-acre area fall, dying or wounded, but there's a period of time where the crowd doesn't realize it's under attack. The noise of the gun is relatively faint, against the background of a concert, the hum of the Strip, and the roar of the jetliners from the nearby airport. Groups of people near the impacts are aware of something happening, but lost in fun and music, others are slow to realize that the people falling down are not just drunk or high or stoned, or just got shoved or tripped, but are actually BEING SHOT.

They begin to scream, but it's a concert! Everybody's screaming! Maybe they call 911, but now they have to make themselves heard and understood during a concert. It will take time to relay the message to the concert's authorities, to get the music to stop and to announce over the speakers "We're under attack! Terrorists are shooting people! Everybody get down and evacuate the area!" Police, fire, and EMTs will respond immediately, but it will take time to get there, time to figure out what the hell is going on, and even more time to organize a response. They have to both grasp the situation of the injured on the ground AND the cause of the injuries and deal with both at the same time. And when they do, the man is hundreds of yards away in a hotel room, visible only by the muzzle flashes of his guns. And he's far beyond the reach of beat cops with handguns. Maybe cops from a patrol car have AR-15s, but that guy is a LONG way away, and in a hotel full of innocent people. Missed shots mean more dead innocents.

In the meantime, our psychopath has been methodically reloading and spraying bullets. Maybe he's quiet, maybe he ranting to himself. Maybe he's amazed at how long it takes for the crowd to realize he's shooting at them. Regardless, if a gun jams, he just puts it aside and grabs a fresh one. If it gets too hot, he puts it aside and picks up a cool one. He's got dozens of magazines handy, each one stuffed with dozens of rounds.

Some of the guns have "bump-fire" stocks which allow him to shoot pretty rapidly. I mean, a person can shoot a semi-auto rifle pretty fast if he's not worrying about aiming too much, but the bump-fire stock will let him shoot a lot without getting a cramp in his trigger finger. Because, you know, that hurts.

At some point the crowd becomes a terrorized crowd and stampedes in every direction. It disperses, which means that now he's spraying bullets into a largely-empty space. Maybe at this point he stop spraying and starts actually trying to shoot individual people, aiming and firing with deliberation. Or maybe he's just done and sits back, handgun ready, for the cops.

We know how it ends. He blows out his brains as the Las Vegas SWAT team moves in to breach his hotel-room door. Maybe he thought about trying to take down a couple of cops as his grand finale, but it's likely he didn't want to chance being wounded in a firefight and unable to avoid arrest. So instead, suicide.


That is what we know. Mixed with a bit of storytelling, I guess.


We also know that whether or not the guns used were, legally, "assault weapons" doesn't matter a bit, unless you're going to argue there that the body count would have been lower if his guns didn't have flash-limiters or bayonet mounts or protruding pistol grips. And I don't think anybody is going to argue that.

Waiting periods? Seems he was a long-term shooter and had the guns for a while. 3-day, 7-day, 10-day, 14-day waiting periods? Irrelevant when years have gone by since buying the guns.

Ditto for one-gun-a-month gun-sale restrictions.

Magazine-capacity limits? 10-round magazines instead of 30? Might have helped. Impossible to say how much; this bastard just kept reloading, but assuming that larger magazines were not available (big assumption but let's run with it) the time losses in reloading three times as often would have made a noticeable difference in the amount of shots fired during the long and drawn-out event. Maybe... 30%? 40%? Something like that seems reasonable.

What else, what else... oh, how about ammunition registration and recording the purchases with the government? I fail to see how this would help. Yay, the cops can tell the press all times he bought ammo before he went on the rampage. I'm sure that's useful.

Micro-stamping on spent cartridges? Yeah, not going to help track down the shooter in this case. It's probably the dead guy in the locked hotel room with the smoking rifles and the sea of spent brass on the floor.

Smart-gun technology? He already owned the guns; they were his.

Banning bump-fire stocks? Probably could do that, might have helped in this case. Again, impossible to say how much, probably not as much as the magazine-capacity limit. You'd have to define "bump-fire stock", I guess, then outlaw them. This is the first time it's been used in an attack like this, although the idea has been around for decades. A person can do it simply by sticking their thumb through the trigger guard of a semi-automatic rifle and then hooking it into their pants pocket, or their belt. Harder to aim that way, though.

I have no solutions. Not really. Sigh.

There are bunch of ways people kill others. "Gun violence" is not a simple problem with simple solutions. Laws that address "heat of anger" violence (such as waiting periods) don't work against stuff like this. Background checks don't work if the person's first major felony is mass slaughter. Laws to disarm domestic abusers don't work against non-domestic abusers. And so on.

I have a headache now. I think I'm done for the night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #22)

Tue Oct 3, 2017, 11:16 PM

23. Nice narration.

Still your response boils down to the tired old gungeoneer "nothing would have prevented . . . " so we should nothing.

I don't buy that because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that things CAN be done.

In this particular case ban all devices intended to enhance the rate of fire above factory standards. Limit magazine capacity to ten rounds or less. Pass California standards for interchangeable magazine guns.

To prevent the majority of the other almost daily mass shootings institute permit to purchase with background checks at LEO level. Confiscate guns from domestic abusers and from people under protective orders.

Really want to get serious? Ban the manufacture, import, sale or transfer of any semi automatic firearm with interchangeable magazines. Institute a searchable electronic registration of every gun and its owner.

There's more, like Australia style classifications and bans and a one time buy back offer.

None of this would violate the second under the Heller decision.

Its a matter of will. And public outrage. You can only poke the bear so many times before he wakes up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #23)

Tue Oct 3, 2017, 11:46 PM

24. Why didn't we do that during Obamas first 2 years?

We had the White House and both houses of congress and didn't even try. Probably because we didn't want to lose the next elections. Now the Reps have it all and we expect them to enact gun control so they'll lose in 2018 and 2020 lol.

I bet a dollar that (D)Senators running in 2018 in red or swing states won't run on a gun control platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alea (Reply #24)

Wed Oct 4, 2017, 10:28 AM

27. The gun vote just ain't that damn big an issue.

Gur rights voters are a minority. A tiny sliver of the vote.

The gun industry lobby isn't. The NRA spent $6.6 million trying to defeat NVs background check law and when they failed pressured the Governor into not enforcing it.

Gunners aren't all powerful. They're just scared, insecure and easily manipulated by the gun lobby into thinking they're more than that when they have a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #27)

Wed Oct 4, 2017, 07:25 PM

33. It can make a difference

Bill Clinton credits the House and Senate flip to Republicans in 94 to gun control passed earlier that year.

Currently it would seem like a no brainer for Republicans to support any proposed ban on "bump stocks" that were used in the attack and they just recently shelved the "Hearing protection act".

As far as further gun control legislation goes, consider that 23 Democrats and 8 republican senators are up for reelection in the upcoming mid terms, is it worth it? Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy won't be around much longer and the nuclear option seems like it's becoming the norm....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #27)

Wed Oct 4, 2017, 08:19 PM

34. Yeah, tens of millions of voters are a "tiny sliver".

128 million people voted for president last time around. Didn't know that double-digit percentages were "a tiny sliver".

*shakes head*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #27)

Thu Oct 5, 2017, 12:22 AM

36. That's not what happened in Nevada

I've lived in Las Vegas for more than 30 years, and I can tell you exactly what happened.

The anti-check side spent ~$6.6 million - most of it by the NRA. They were outspent 3 to 1 - the pro-check people spent ~$19.8 million:

https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Purchases,_Question_1_(2016)

The pro-check people were running almost continuous adds in the last few weeks of the campaign, including ones that were inaccurate. Hell, the Clark County DA (Steve Wolfson) admitted at a town meeting that the law criminalized a friend loaning a friend a gun, then said it didn't matter because he would never prosecute someone for that:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/uncategorized/gun-background-check-measure-reveals-passionate-arguments-at-town-hall/

And after all the money, ads, and inaccurate and misleading information, they won by about 0.5%...

As for the governor not enforcing it, that is because the law was poorly written. The language clearly specified that background checks HAD to be done through the federal system instead of the local Nevada system, because otherwise it would have required them to commit state money to fund it and they didn't think it would pass if it cost the state money. The FBI refused to carry out checks because federal law requires that background checks be either an all-federal or all-state system, and Nevada already had a state system in place that was capable of doing it. So, if they can't be done through the federal system, and the law prevents using the state system, it's unenforceable, and thus null and void. The truly ironic part is that it CAN'T be modified for 3 years, according to the state constitution, so they're stuck with a useless bill until at least 2020.

You got any other inaccurate information?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 4, 2017, 08:42 AM

25. I agree with your first line, a nice narration, but

nothing in the rest of your post would have stopped this individual from committing the crime he did. Some things may have slowed him down somewhat, but he still would have been able to do nearly the same damage that he did. He wasn't on the police radar for anything, passed all background checks done, had ample time to build his arsenal and ammo supply. It is hard to legislate against what the next criminal will do, and to pass legislation, just to pass legislation, is tilting at windmills if it doesn't actually address the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 4, 2017, 11:26 AM

28. It was a dark place to go into.

It emphisizes the fact that just about all of us spend nearly all of our lives a) hideously vulnerable and b) blissfully unaware of this fact. And we're blissfully unaware of this fact because the odds of anybody's vulerability being violated on any given day is very low. Not as low as some countries, but our nation has a large number of people (adults) that are extremely vulnerable to physical assault AND have never had to withstand one. And they probably will not do so in their lifetimes.

My particular point in this case was that different measures address different issues. Your point of view on this seems to be that if we restrict the hardware enough, a high-casualty mass-shooting will not be possible for technical reasons. And "enough" in this case would be 1830's levels of technology. Before revolvers and repeating firearms.

California's magazine laws are a joke; the "bullet button" makes a mockery of their attempts to draw an arbitrary line between "allowed" and "not allowed". And again, if a person decides to commit a premeditated crime, they will, in the privacy of their own home, break numerous laws (like replacing their tool-activated magazine release with a finger-activated one), and we'll only know about after the shooting.

Banning bump-fire stocks or the "gatling crank" (a lever with a cam that attaches to the side of a semiautomatic rifle; each time you turn the crank it pushes the trigger) will also not stop premeditated crime; they are aids to a psycho committing a mass shooting, not a requirement. Also, you can make them yourself. Bump firing can be done simply by hooking your thumb through your triggerguard and onto your jeans pocket, and you can make a gatling crank out of wood or plastic, or 3D-print one.

If you're serious, then don't try to allow "some" semiautomatic rifles and shotguns based on whether, or how, the magazines are replaced. Ban them all. All semiautomatic longs guns. Be honest and simple and straightforward. Your side bitches and moans every time the gun industry and gun owners adapt to changing laws (e.g., grinding off the bayonet mounting lug of an AK-47 so it's not an "assault weapon" so don't try to make complicated failures.

People are already making pump-action AR-15 rifles, though, so don't be surprised when you keep seeing them. They look virtually identical to semiautomatic ones, but no gas system.

Of course, the moral panic is about rifles. We live in a country where every 90 minutes a person is murdered with a handgun. By Thursday lunchtime we'll have had another Las Vegas body count with handguns, but because it's everywhere, in ones and occasionally 2s, it's not drawing the national attention. Many of the mass-shooting pinned at the top of this Group were done with handguns.

And I doubt it will stop mass shooting, regardless. It may change the tools used, but the sick, sick motive is still there.

And I have no goddamn clue how to fix THAT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 4, 2017, 03:46 PM

32. Okay.

"If you're serious, then don't try to allow "some" semiautomatic rifles and shotguns based on whether, or how, the magazines are replaced. Ban them all. All semiautomatic longs guns. Be honest and simple and straightforward. Your side bitches and moans every time the gun industry and gun owners adapt to changing laws (e.g., grinding off the bayonet mounting lug of an AK-47 so it's not an "assault weapon" so don't try to make complicated failures. "

Yeah, that's where I am. Since the jackasses in the gun nut world will find a way to "work around" any kind of regulation, set the regulation level at a place that there IS NO WORKAROUND. If that's 1860 technology fine with me.

You will immediately say that criminals will get them anyway. So what? They won't have 320,000,000 of them.

Finally you say, I assume with a straight face, that this shooter could have shot almost 600 people in 11 minutes using a California compliant gun. I don't even know how to respond to that. That kind of thinking is so fucking head in ass stupid it's beyond a response.

Other than that, you make an excellent point about handguns. Get rid of all of them, every one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #32)

Wed Oct 4, 2017, 08:34 PM

35. I actually said the opposite.

It's there for everybody to see.

Magazine-capacity limits? 10-round magazines instead of 30? Might have helped. Impossible to say how much; this bastard just kept reloading, but assuming that larger magazines were not available (big assumption but let's run with it) the time losses in reloading three times as often would have made a noticeable difference in the amount of shots fired during the long and drawn-out event. Maybe... 30%? 40%? Something like that seems reasonable.


Banning bump-fire stocks? Probably could do that, might have helped in this case. Again, impossible to say how much, probably not as much as the magazine-capacity limit.


My point was that whatever twisted thinking or mental illness makes people perform mass shootings, does not seem to be deterred by a lack of hardware. They seem to take what they can get within whatever preparation time they allow themselves and go for it. Virginia Tech was done by 2 handguns. Sandy Hook, a single rifle.

This asshole would have done the same thing if he had only one or two rifles. Yeah, the body count almost certainly would have been less but it still would have been ENOUGH. He would have killed and maimed and terrorized and that sick itch in his brain would have been satisfied. The shooting still would have happened, the NRA would still be blamed, Democrats would be demanding gun-control laws, and you and I would still be having a discussion similar to this.

If you think you have the votes for a semi-auto ban, and/or a handgun ban, then go for it. I have absolutely no idea how it will turn out, and I fear the god-damn Republicans winning the midterms based on whatever is going to be proposed, but that's just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #35)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 11:00 AM

41. what proportion rifle stock can be bump fired

krispos: Some of the guns have "bump-fire" stocks which allow him to shoot pretty rapidly. I mean, a person can shoot a semi-auto rifle pretty fast if he's not worrying about aiming too much, but the bump-fire stock will let him shoot a lot without getting a cramp in his trigger finger. Because, you know, that hurts.

I wrote on bump fire a few years back, as one way to determine whether a rifle could be classified as 'assault weapon/rifle', if it possessed bump fire capability.
But now I'm wondering which semi automatic rifles are able to be bump fired, or what (approximate) percentage of the total semi auto rifle stock is able to be bump fired, any idea?
Is there a qualification for a rifle to be bump fired? must it have a minimum recoil - related to muzzle velocity I would think.
I would think most all of the past classes of banned assault rifles in the several states would be able to be bump fired, including ar15 & ak47 & mk5, even with the ar15's relatively weak recoil.
But what about the standard hunting rifle? like any of these 10 most popular hunting rifles (seems #6 probable);
https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/hunting/10-best-deer-guns-hunting-today

krispos: This asshole would have done the same thing if he had only one or two rifles. Yeah, the body count almost certainly would have been less but it still would have been ENOUGH.

Serious gun control efforts never contended they could do away with all or even most all violent gun crime, or mass shootings or gun death, so 'almost certainly would have been less' as you put it, is too often the best to be hoped for - a reduction.
A marginal improvement is generally the best gun control efforts can expect. At least a marginal improvement is better than shoulder shrugging nra style, smirking inside, since they've already unleased their wolves & have little remorse for all the dead cattle the past 30 years. Is why background checks, high capacity magazine bans should be the least congress should stand for - republicans that is since most all dems do.
A bump stock ban should be a congressional knee jerk reaction 'yes'; I'm optimistic on this one - even the nra couldn't concoct a twisted reason for bump fire to proliferate unregulated. But banning bump stocks is such a drop in a big bucket, and it's so remote that any criminal would think one would be helpful in his crime, so as to want one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #41)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 05:16 PM

43. As far as the hunting rifle question,

#6 is the only one that can be bump fired. It is based on an AR-15 type system. The others are either bolt guns, or single shots, with a lever gun thrown in. These are impossible to bump fire, unless your name is John Moses Browning, in which he could make that lever gun "sing" with today's machining marvels.

As far as semi-auto's being bump fired, I'm fairly certain nearly all semi's can, but who would want to bump fire an M-1, or similar full house cartridge? I'd think the recoil would be unmanageable for most, and would definitely scatter bullets all over the place. I wouldn't want to attempt it, I'd like to keep my trigger finger where it is, not bent back double, or ripped off, laying on the ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #41)

Sun Oct 15, 2017, 10:40 PM

44. Sorry for the delay, but let's talk some more

This is a bit too involved for a phone-written reply, and it was a busy weekend (wedding to attend).

But now I'm wondering which semi automatic rifles are able to be bump fired, or what (approximate) percentage of the total semi auto rifle stock is able to be bump fired, any idea?

Pretty much all of them. Basically, you need something firm that the trigger can be pressed up against, then you steadily pull (or push, I guess) the gun up against this firm object until the trigger trips. If there's enough give in your grip, the gun will recoil backwards (away from the firm object) enough to reset the trigger. The steady pull (or push) will pull the gun forward, the trigger will hit the firm object, and the cycle repeats.

It can be done by sticking your thumb through a gun's triggerguard and hooking it into your belt, then pulling forward with your support hand.

Is there a qualification for a rifle to be bump fired? must it have a minimum recoil - related to muzzle velocity I would think.

It's some combination of recoil force, gun weight, and trigger pull. If the recoil is very light it might be very hard to pull on the gun with "just enough" force to make the cycle repeat. Pull too hard and the trigger won't reset; not hard enough and the trigger won't trip after resetting. The heaviness of the trigger affect that as well. For a low-recoil gun (like a .22 rimfire) I imagine it's a fairly narrow range.

I would think most all of the past classes of banned assault rifles in the several states would be able to be bump fired, including ar15 & ak47 & mk5, even with the ar15's relatively weak recoil.
But what about the standard hunting rifle? like any of these 10 most popular hunting rifles (seems #6 probable);
https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/hunting/10-best-deer-guns-hunting-today


Yes, all the semi-automatic rifles that were banned as "assault weapons", as well as the ones that are the same thing but minus the cosmetic features that make them "assault rifles" can be bump fired. This is also true of semiauto rifles that are not and never have been classified as "assault weapons" (such as the M1 Garand). Only semi-automatics can be bump-fired, but pretty much all semiautos can be bump-fired. Nothing on that list except #6 is semiautomatic, so only #6 can be bump fired.

A marginal improvement is generally the best gun control efforts can expect. At least a marginal improvement is better than shoulder shrugging nra style, smirking inside, since they've already unleased their wolves & have little remorse for all the dead cattle the past 30 years. Is why background checks, high capacity magazine bans should be the least congress should stand for - republicans that is since most all dems do.

Except that treating the issue as a hardware problem isn't going to get us anywhere, I don't think, except put Republicans in charge of things.

People that do this sick things don't have much in the way of goals except cause as much carnage as possible before they are caught, or kill themselves. These sick people aren't going to go "well, I want to go kill of bunch of innocent people but I only have 10-round magazines, so that's just not going to happen".

Hardware is of course a component of these kind of senseless events, but the major components are really target selection and planning. The Vegas shooter, planned this weeks or months in advance, in classic "lone wolf" style. Tens of thousands of people in a packed mass, loud music, and an unobstructed vantage point far above the crowd. Days to cart in a couple of dozen rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Hotel room rental. Getting his girlfriend out of the country and wiring money to her. All without the traditional warning signs... rants on social media or to friends and family, joining a militia or some other paramilitary group, appearing at gatherings of like-minded people, recruitment by some religious extremist group, etc.

The Miami shooter chose a packed nightclub for a 3-hour rampage.

The Aurora shooter chose a packed movie theater on opening weekend of a major action movie.

The Sandy Hook Elementary shooter picked a grade school full of gentle teachers and helpless kids in a brick box.

The Charleston Church shooter picked a bible-study class at a church.

The Virginia Tech shooter chained the doors shut at a college dorm.

And so on.


It's a depressing list. And yet, for every person killed with a rifle, 20 are killed with a handgun. Nearly all gun-related murders are single-victim homicides with only a few rounds fired. Focusing on the hardware doesn't change the overall numbers but it does get people like Trump, McConnell, Brownbeck, and hundreds more in office and in power.

Losing ObamaCare will kill thousands of Americans a year. War with North Korea and/or Iran will also kill thousands of Americans a year. Gutting the EPA will eventually kill thousands of Americans a year in very slow, gruesome, and family-crushing ways. Making abortions virtually illegal will kill hundreds or thousands of Americans a year. And for every American killed, dozens will be damaged and their lives reduced.

I don't have any answers to stopping random mass shootings. I don't think anybody does, short of complete confiscation of anything produced after 1840. And even then we'd have the occasional terrorist with a smuggled-in Kalashnikov shooting up a mall for one dumbass reason or another.

There is stuff we can do to reduce the many, many single-victim homicides that go largely under the radar, but it's not going to be addressed at all by assault-weapon bans and magazine limits.

I have no objection to limiting gun purchases to 12 per year; I feel if you're buying more than that, get some kind of permit. Either you're a collector or you're running an under-the-table gun shop. Note this is not quite the same as one-per-month, in that is allows people to pick up several guns at once. But each time you buy a gun you get a point that takes a year to go away, and you can't have more than 12 points.

I also don't really have a problem with having people get a permit to buy guns, presuming the issuing of such permits is done at reasonable cost and within a reasonable amount of time. I got my concealed-pistol permit a few months ago, and with it I can buy guns on the spot; the retailer just called a number to confirm my permit is still in good standing. I just doubt the good faith of New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and a few other states to do so. It took over six weeks to get my permit approved at the cost of several hundred dollars (plus the cost of the safety class), which seems a little over the top. I'm pretty sure that, nowadays they can know about me in six minutes, not six weeks.

This has the side-effect of making private gun sales go through a background check as well. When I bought a gun from a coworker we both had to fill out a transfer form, which included our personal information and permit numbers, and mail it in to the State Police.


But this is not what gets discussed; it's all about hardware bans!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #44)

Wed Oct 18, 2017, 11:47 AM

47. thanks for the insight on bump firing

Thanks Krispos, and yagotme as well, for the insight.
I'm surprised that rimfires can be bump fired, theoretically at least, I'd have thought surely not, not enough muzzle velocity. I'd also have thunk less than half SA's could be.
I'm at the end of my session here at the library and I've gotta run, been two hours & my dogs getting antsy in the Honda (don't worry, not hot out, they sleep thru it).
See you next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #47)

Thu Oct 19, 2017, 08:41 AM

49. A "match" Ruger 10-22,

will have a very light trigger, some I have seen weigh in ounces, not pounds for trigger pull. Won't take a lot of recoil energy to reset those light triggers, especially with a lighter weight rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Original post)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 11:10 AM

10. Thoughts and Prayers don't mean shit

Do something. 30,000 gun deaths a year; England has about 50. Every politician from Trump on down have blood on their hands. The NRA is a domestic terrorist organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 11:23 AM

11. Nice rant. Feel better?

20,000 of those gun deaths are suicides. How about a national anti-suicide campaign coupled with better mental healthcare? Something that would have wide public support and could actually be implemented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 12:00 PM

12. How about a national gun policy

that matches the rest of the world and isn't dictated by a national organization that attacks sensible politicians on behalf of the gun and ammo industry.

Don't bother answering; I am trashing this forum so I don't have to ever read crap like this again on this site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 12:55 PM

13. "I am trashing this forum" Attitudes like that ensure meaningful gun control won't happen

Heaven forfend that someone even imply that you're not in possession of the Truth, the light, and the way...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 02:22 PM

14. So, legalize Silencers like Norway and France?

Hillary specifically called that out as a bad idea. Both Norway and France have significantly more gun control than we do, and yet, not even a background check needed for a silencer there.



Also, this isn't an airport. You don't have to announce your departure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 4, 2017, 12:36 PM

29. I thought this opinion piece on WaPo

 

Should have started by stating that, in light of the many threads addressing gun control over the last few days, I found this opinion piece from a statistician and former writer at 538 interesting (hadn't seen this posted here yet), especially since people on DU seem to generally have a positive view of 538. Here's an excerpt:

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.


Full opinion piece is here - https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #30)

Wed Oct 4, 2017, 03:40 PM

31. Thanks

 

Operator error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Original post)


Response to lastlib (Original post)

Mon Oct 9, 2017, 02:43 PM

38. Gun Related Research Survey

Here's a comprehensive survey that may be of interest to members of this forum:

[link:https://missouri.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ewYYLFRM9OJF349|


It needs respondents from both gun-rights and gun-control advocates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cmhfnd (Reply #38)

Wed Oct 11, 2017, 12:02 AM

39. Tell us more about the entity conducting the survey noob. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #39)

Wed Oct 11, 2017, 09:47 AM

40. Survey

Thanks for asking Fleabiscuit. I am conducting the survey for dissertation work. It's through the University of Missouri.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cmhfnd (Reply #40)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 11:30 AM

42. I completed the missouri survey, interesting, probing

cmh: I am conducting the survey for dissertation work. It's through the University of Missouri

I took & completed the survey, twas interesting; & probing to cull out how much gun knowledge one has to speak on the gun issue, I suspect; I'm sure I answered correctly the 'quiz' questions per the upper 10% echelon of respondents - no horn toot but just factual.

Are you pro gun or not? I detected no strong bias in the survey, but it seems a couple questions I deemed to be pro gun slanted, while I detected none to be pro gun control.
I am a decades long gun control advocate, chose 'may issue'. Confiteor I was semi stumped on the answer comparing britain gun laws, I chose only #1 'higher than britain homicide rate', while britain's violent crime rate has been known to be higher some years than US. The other two answers did not seem right to make the answer 'all of the above'.
Missouri of course is progun, and st louis shall issue including iirc st louis city, and has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country, higher than chicago last I checked.

You might want to start a new thread citing your survey, I'm sure you would get more input. If you haven't already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #42)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 01:23 PM

45. Thank you

Thanks, jimmy, for taking the survey and for your thoughtful comment. As best as I could, I tried to incorporate questions and answers that would highlight the knowledge on both sides. I would like to start my own thread, but as a newly registered member I cannot do so yet. And I didn't want to write meaningless comments or violate DU forum etiquette just to meet a quota.

Chris

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cmhfnd (Reply #45)

Wed Oct 18, 2017, 11:40 AM

46. favor offered

I would like to start my own thread, but as a newly registered member I cannot do so yet. And I didn't want to write meaningless comments or violate DU forum etiquette just to meet a quota.

You want me to start a thread for you? I think this would be OK, I would just list the link & explain briefly what is going on.
I just post once a week from library, so it won't be till next week at soonest. Unless you reply within next 10 minutes, gotta run, been here two hours & dogs getting antsy in the Honda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #46)

Fri Oct 20, 2017, 12:50 PM

51. Greatly Appreciated!

Yes, please do so. I can't thank you enough. Wow

Chris

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cmhfnd (Reply #51)

Tue Oct 24, 2017, 12:55 PM

54. Done deal with the survey

Yes, please do so. I can't thank you enough. Wow

Done. Gotta run again, dang can't get enough time at the library what with my dogs & the warm temps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cmhfnd (Reply #38)

Wed Oct 18, 2017, 01:12 PM

48. Did the survey. One concern though

Are you accounting for the skew from the mean that recruiting liberals - both pro and anti gun rights liberals - may have on your results?

The RKBA forum has a lot of folks that don't fit the expected gun owners mold.

Also, DU in general seems more pro-confiscation than an average group of Democrats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Polack MSgt (Reply #48)

Fri Oct 20, 2017, 12:45 PM

50. Thank you

Thank you for taking the survey and your thoughtful concern MSgt. Yes, I am looking for responses from the more vocal among gun-rights and gun-control advocates, regardless of ideological preference. My research interest is in group membership decision-making. That is, I am looking for differences between those who do and those who do not join/donate to membership groups like the Brady Campaign or the NRA. In my search for respondents, DU is a goldmine - a very appreciated participation level.

Thanks again,

Chris

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cmhfnd (Reply #50)

Fri Oct 20, 2017, 01:02 PM

52. Ok, your reply actually...

clicked with me.
I was curious about the wording on a couple questions - and the focus of your study cleared it up in my mind.

I used to belong to a different pro 2nd amendment group but switched to the Liberal Gun Club when the other group became heavily Right Wing/borderline white supremacist.

Have a good day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Original post)

Tue Oct 31, 2017, 07:28 PM

55. Firearms obviously can be misused for mass murder. ...

However that is just one side of the picture. Firearms can also be used for legitimate self defense and consequently often saves the lives or health of victims.

Of course there is large disagreement on how often this happens. In my family my mother successfully stopped a rapist who attacked her on a street with a handgun and my daughter deterred an intruder entering our home while a burglar alarm was sounding. In both cases no one was shot or injured. Such uses of firearms is rarely reported and consequently never shows up in statistics.

Fortunately I have never had to use a firearm for self defense and I hope I never do. Chances are I never will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #55)

Tue Oct 31, 2017, 09:25 PM

56. Amen to that and from the rules for gun fighting/USMC...

#26: Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 1, 2017, 01:40 AM

57. Excellent advise. Also learn to practice situational awareness. ...

Basically don't walk down lonely streets with a cell phone glued to your ear. Be alert to your surroundings. Don't ignore your sixth sense. If something makes you uncomfortable about the area you are entering and the hair stands up on the back of your neck, turn around and leave.

In most cases you can avoid violent encounters. Even if you know how to fight or if you carry a weapon that is always a damn good idea.

Don't go looking for trouble. If you do, trouble will find you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread