Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Las Vegas Oct 2017 mass shooting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    It's been done before and it has NOT stopped the spread of military style firearms. If there are people willing to pay for it, there will be sales. Also, there's nothing special about the AK action.
    There isn't anything special except the fact that they are semi auto designs. Some of them are already blocked for import. Trump has not lifted those bans

    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    EOs cannot violate the law and that includes the various trade treaties Ratified by the Senate. The President is not above the law.

    It is not illegal to disobey an illegal EO. Such an order would violate the 2A. You ban these ammo, then you effectively ban the 5.56/.223, 7.62/.308 firearms, perfectly legal calibres.
    Sure, they need to be crafted properly. The point is, can I find a way around them. I would bet that mere tax increases would not necessarily violate the 2A and would like to see what the courts say abut that.

    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    That is incorrect. Obama shared mental health records of convicted criminals, he is not allowed to share health records of those who broke no laws.
    Obama also shared data for those receiving federal benefits for mental issues. This was challenged not by the courts but by Trump himself, who did away with that and is now pointing fingers at mental illnesses..


    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    All budgets are done by the Houses. That is one of the Checks and Balances of British inherited systems. The Executive/King does not control the purse, Parliament/Congree/Senate does.

    The rest violates an individual's right to privacy. Just because you're on a watchlist does not mean you broken a law. You're not denied rights as defined by the US Constitution just because you are suspected of something. The state has the legal obligation to prove that you should be denied those rights. Until then, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Until Proven Guilty, you have all your rights. Otherwise, American citizens should be arming themselves real fast and I mean tanks and artillery.
    This was already brought in Congress. The reason it fell apart is because Democrats did not want to include a right to apeal. In other words, it can be brought again with those changes

    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Same rate of fire? No. Same firepower? Tell me an AK or an AR chamberred for a .50BMG. However, I'm speaking of lethality and if someone would mordernize the SMLE action, then yes, I would pit it against an AK or an AR, especially chambered for a .30-06
    By firepower I mean capacity and not caliber (I thought that was the common usage of that term). Bolt actions typically have 10 rounds. Semi-autos can have 30 or more (if using a drum)

    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The disease is the cry for help and no one listened. As I said, the AR was the cool factor. The kid could have done a lot more damage with a 12 guage pump with 00 buck. Again, Thank God, he didn't think of a suicide vest.
    This "disease" needs an afternoon in the prison yard, followed by a lethal injection. Sorry to say that, but American kids are not special. Bullying, divorces, death of parents and other issues exist throughout the world, but kids there do not start killing their fellow students like the American kids do. Why don't we see more troubled kids in Canada, UK, Germany and elsewhere blowing up schools with molotov cocktails?

    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Again, you have to fit it within existing legislation. After market barrels do exist for pistols.
    That framework is already there. Pistols and long guns are already differentiated.

    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    You're joking. Thompsons. MP5, Uzi
    Huh? They shoot 9mm and other pistol calibers, not intermediate rounds. And since they have a stock (the Thompsons) they can be regulated under the SBR definition and framework.

    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Gatling.
    First of all you know as well as I do that this is not a revolver action. Second, you mean that someone is going to bring this to school?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	xm556-01.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	110.1 KB
ID:	1476016
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

    Comment


    • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      Machine lathes and stamps?

      Rear locking action. It weakens accuracy over time as compared to front locking actions.
      Which telle me that there may not be enough demand for this type of action for manufacturers to invest in th first place

      Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      9 pellets have a better chance of hitting your target than a single round and the pump allows you to reacquire your target selection.
      What about lethality though? A 5.56 would tumble internally and cause much more damage than the pellet. BTW, firing 00 shots one after the other gets tiring real fast.

      Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      We're talking about a kid on adrendelin in close quarters. He was missing more than he hit with the AR. That would not be the same with the 12 gauge.

      We can say anything about a skilled shooter. Hell, if it was any military member here, the thinking would be grenades. However, the point remains that he could have done a hell of a lot more damage with other tools. The very fact that everyone is focusing on the ARs is missing the picture.

      He was intent on suicide by cop. He just chose an AR instead of a bomb vest and only because bomb vests ain't glorified - yet. It's the suicide by cop you should be focusing on.
      I don't know if you remember this, but many years back we had a drunken man trying to break into our house and I recounted that event on WAB. You told me to get a dog.

      It occurs to me that an armed security offer with a K9 unit for every school may be what we need, in addition to the protective bariers we talked about earlier.
      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

      Comment


      • Originally posted by antimony View Post
        There isn't anything special except the fact that they are semi auto designs. Some of them are already blocked for import. Trump has not lifted those bans
        Century Arms showed you how they got around it. The only thing about those AKs is that they're cheap, not good.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        Sure, they need to be crafted properly. The point is, can I find a way around them. I would bet that mere tax increases would not necessarily violate the 2A and would like to see what the courts say abut that.
        An EO cannot raise taxes. That is the Houses' job. All an EO can do is raise a whole bunch of paperwork and fees that does nothing to the resale market at gun shows, ie private sales.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        Obama also shared data for those receiving federal benefits for mental issues. This was challenged not by the courts but by Trump himself, who did away with that and is now pointing fingers at mental illnesses..
        Doctor-Patient privledge cannot be violated except in the case when the caretakers feel the patient is about do harm either to self or others. Until that line is crossed, no one is allowed to share anything. Your medical history cannot be opened without a court order.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        This was already brought in Congress. The reason it fell apart is because Democrats did not want to include a right to apeal. In other words, it can be brought again with those changes
        In other words, a glorified sales tax. That would not be a real obstacle to gun ownership and responsibility.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        By firepower I mean capacity and not caliber (I thought that was the common usage of that term). Bolt actions typically have 10 rounds. Semi-autos can have 30 or more (if using a drum)
        Military men think firepower in terms of fire delivered. A single 155mm howitzer can deliver more firepower in one salvo than 10 AR15s going through 30 mags. But to answer your point, it just means that the kid needs more 10 round clips. At best, an annoyance and I can't see this changing his fire any. It's not like he stopped firing after he ran out. He knew how to reload.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        This "disease" needs an afternoon in the prison yard, followed by a lethal injection. Sorry to say that, but American kids are not special. Bullying, divorces, death of parents and other issues exist throughout the world, but kids there do not start killing their fellow students like the American kids do. Why don't we see more troubled kids in Canada, UK, Germany and elsewhere blowing up schools with molotov cocktails?
        We do see them elsewhere. Suicide bombers. And troubled kids are in Canada, UK, and Germany, and the US as well. They just turned to drugs and alcohol as an escape.

        Speaking purely as a percentage, 50 kids doing a school shooting is insignifcant to the number of kids doing drugs and sleeping on the streets. The trajedy they caused maybe greater but the percentage is insignifcant.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        That framework is already there. Pistols and long guns are already differentiated.
        Which again you have to show why I cannot have a .308 semi atuo in polar bear country but I'm allowed a .45ACP. And rule of thumb with polar bears. You don't stop shooting until the bear stops moving.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        Huh? They shoot 9mm and other pistol calibers, not intermediate rounds. And since they have a stock (the Thompsons) they can be regulated under the SBR definition and framework.
        The point was that you allow semi autos in pistols which are mostly hobbiest while denying in the larger rounds where it is necessary for large game. Hunting javelinas is one place where you definetely need a semi auto, especially when they're charging you.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        First of all you know as well as I do that this is not a revolver action.
        The original gatling is based on the revolver. A shot is fired, casing is ejected, a new round is inserted and go through the cycle to be fired again. But again, the technology exists to go outside whatever legal definition you want to come up with.

        The reason bump stock is still legal is because no one can get around the current legislation to ban it. I mean, how do you ban a rubber band?
        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Feb 18,, 04:13.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by antimony View Post
          Which telle me that there may not be enough demand for this type of action for manufacturers to invest in th first place
          I've only fired old military .303s. They're nowhere as smoothe as the Remingtons but then the Remingtons were not meant for abuse and bayonet charges. Also, RSA wasn't as industrious pushing hunting rifles as their American and German counterparts. I don't ever recall RSA making a serious dent in the hunting community.

          Still, I won't mind seeing new innovations with new metallurgy and computer aided designs.

          Originally posted by antimony View Post
          What about lethality though? A 5.56 would tumble internally and cause much more damage than the pellet.
          His victim would be bleeding out. We drop bears and moose with 00 shots. Lethality would not be a concern.

          Originally posted by antimony View Post
          BTW, firing 00 shots one after the other gets tiring real fast.
          Maybe I'm an old gruff with leathered shoulders but I ran through 3 boxes of clay pigeons once getting ready for duck season.

          Originally posted by antimony View Post
          I don't know if you remember this, but many years back we had a drunken man trying to break into our house and I recounted that event on WAB. You told me to get a dog.

          It occurs to me that an armed security offer with a K9 unit for every school may be what we need, in addition to the protective bariers we talked about earlier.
          I thought I had an answer to this but I really don't. This kid was intent on suicide by cop. He wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, otherwise, he would have a getaway car ready or at least somewhere to hide. Like most suicide attempts, he changed his mind once faced with that reality. He didn't wait for the cops to blast his way out. He ran. But he done his damage.

          My answer was very specific to an assault threat, an engineer's perspective to persuay the shooter to seek out other softer targets, ie shopping mall, and let someone else take care of the problem. But how do you stop someone walking in with a suicide vest under a jacket?

          BTW, you a cat person?
          Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Feb 18,, 04:34.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
            Then Thank God that suicide vests don't have a cool factor. At least, not yet.
            I think for the active shooters, the psychological empowerment they experience through the act of killing, from their perspective in which they see themselves as aggrieved persons, is a determining factor in the type of weapon they choose. Even though the typical active shooter does not intend to survive, neither do they intend to die immediately. A suicide vest would immediately kill them, denying them the experience of their actions and the visceral feelings of gratification and empowerment they seek.
            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              I think for the active shooters, the psychological empowerment they experience through the act of killing, from their perspective in which they see themselves as aggrieved persons, is a determining factor in the type of weapon they choose. Even though the typical active shooter does not intend to survive, neither do they intend to die immediately. A suicide vest would immediately kill them, denying them the experience of their actions and the visceral feelings of gratification and empowerment they seek.
              I can see that point but the counter is to walk in, start shooting, while wearing a suicide vest with a dead man switch.

              There are so many ways to think about this and none of this addressed the real problem. Suicide by cop.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • Suicide by cop is easy enough. Just pull the orange tip out of a toy gun and act threateningly before a cop. Some guy who lived a few miles north of where I lived when I was a teenager did that shooting off a cap gun. Cops shot him dead. Suicide in and of itself is not the sole motivation, or even the primary motivating factor the active shooter has in committing his acts though.

                Regardless of other things they could possibly think of to do in addition to just shooting, it doesn't take away from the fact that actually experiencing feelings of empowerment and gratification from their acts is the primary motivator, and being in control. Even in death, they seek to go out on their own terms, whether it's from their own hand or in a shootout - which again brings us back to control.
                Last edited by Ironduke; 18 Feb 18,, 05:53.
                "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                  I think for the active shooters, the psychological empowerment they experience through the act of killing, from their perspective in which they see themselves as aggrieved persons, is a determining factor in the type of weapon they choose. Even though the typical active shooter does not intend to survive, neither do they intend to die immediately.
                  This also explains why the 'substitution' argument falls flat more generally. Guns seem to provide a particular psychological 'hit' that bombs & other methods of mass killing don't. If substitution was a genuine phenomenon there would be a lot more mass killings in Australia, Western Europe & Canada.
                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • Sorry, the substitution arguement does work. It's called arson

                    https://www.google.ca/search?q=arson+deaths
                    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Feb 18,, 06:22.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                      No it doesn't.

                      But lead author and QUT forensic criminologist Dr Claire Ferguson told the ABC with so few cases - 123 between 1989 to 2010 - it was hard to talk about trends

                      .........

                      The majority of arson-homicides involved one victim (83.2 per cent) and one case involved 15 victims the Childers Backpackers Hostel fire in 2000.
                      So, a crime with an average of 6 victims per year, which means that one or two big incidents can completely skew a data set. If you add the 15 dead at Childers & the 10 at Churchill the 11 killed at Quakers Hill you come very close to accounting for that rise in deaths.

                      According to this article one of the big arson-homicides was a bushfire at Churchill. The people who died in that fire would have been many hundreds or thousands of meters from the arsonist & possibly hours after it was set. It is also worth pointing out that 163 other Victorians died in nearby fires on that same day. We actually have a thread on it somewhere on WAB.

                      The link between action & consequence here is not remotely comparable to setting a bomb or firing a gun. Neither was the Quakers Hill nursing home fire, where an employee who had been stealing drugs set a fire to hide the crime. The decision to charge an arson as homicide even without clear intent to kill can create a false comparison to a mass shooting.

                      One last thing - very few mass killings. Only three I can think of since 1996 and only one with clear intent to kill. In an even shorter period prior to 1996 there were over a dozen mass shootings.
                      sigpic

                      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                      Comment


                      • Sorry, if the military is responsible for collateral damage, so is any perpetrator of arson. The intent to kill concrete does not mean we don't kill people. The intent to burn trees does not mean the man is not responsible for deaths.

                        The man set fire to a forest knowing that people might be in that forest. The man setting fire to the nursing home knows that there are people in that nursing home. The fact that they don't care does not mean they avoided killing people. It just means that killing people was not an obstacle to their goals.
                        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Feb 18,, 07:22.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                          Sorry, if the military is responsible for collateral damage, so is any perpetrator of arson. The intent to kill concrete does not mean we don't kill people. The intent to burn trees does not mean the man is not responsible for deaths.

                          The man set fire to a forest knowing that people might be in that forest. The man setting fire to the nursing home knows that there are people in that nursing home. The fact that they don't care does not mean they avoided killing people. It just means that killing people was not an obstacle to their goals.
                          Which is precisely my point. When someone picks up a gun & starts shooting people they intend to shoot them. That is the key point of comparison for 'substitution' - there has to be an intent to replicate what would have been possible with a gun. If that intent is absent then the comparison falls at the first hurdle. That doesn't mean those people are not criminally responsible for those deaths, but that is a different issue to what we are discussing.

                          To take up your first example, that would mean that a drone operator who unintentionally kills a civilian while attempting to kill a terrorist is exactly the same as a soldier at My Lai or a Concentration Camp. That is essentially the difference here - between killing people incidentally to the purpose of the action and taking an action with the specific intent of killing.
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • Actually, I was thinking of Hamburg firebombing. The intent was to deny Germany a factory city. The fact that we knew that we were going to kill 10s of 1000s of civilians didn't stop us.

                            Within context, the person setting fire to the forest and nursing home knew people might die but they went ahead and did it anyway.
                            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Feb 18,, 07:53.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              Century Arms showed you how they got around it. The only thing about those AKs is that they're cheap, not good.

                              An EO cannot raise taxes. That is the Houses' job. All an EO can do is raise a whole bunch of paperwork and fees that does nothing to the resale market at gun shows, ie private sales.
                              WA state has brought in additional paperwork for gun shows too. It has yet to be challenged.

                              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              Doctor-Patient privledge cannot be violated except in the case when the caretakers feel the patient is about do harm either to self or others. Until that line is crossed, no one is allowed to share anything. Your medical history cannot be opened without a court order.
                              This was not about Doctor Patient privilege. It was about data regarding federal benefits. the regulation was already on the books but Trump canceled. Here is the link for reference

                              https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/polit...ner/index.html

                              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              In other words, a glorified sales tax. That would not be a real obstacle to gun ownership and responsibility.
                              Not sure which tax you are referring to. I was referring to stopping people, who are on watchlists, from buying guns. The REpublicans wanted to include an appeals process which the Dems objected to

                              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              Military men think firepower in terms of fire delivered. A single 155mm howitzer can deliver more firepower in one salvo than 10 AR15s going through 30 mags. But to answer your point, it just means that the kid needs more 10 round clips. At best, an annoyance and I can't see this changing his fire any. It's not like he stopped firing after he ran out. He knew how to reload.

                              We do see them elsewhere. Suicide bombers. And troubled kids are in Canada, UK, and Germany, and the US as well. They just turned to drugs and alcohol as an escape.

                              Speaking purely as a percentage, 50 kids doing a school shooting is insignifcant to the number of kids doing drugs and sleeping on the streets. The trajedy they caused maybe greater but the percentage is insignifcant.
                              Do you realize that Trump is cutting that budget? Do you not see the hypocrisy?

                              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              Which again you have to show why I cannot have a .308 semi atuo in polar bear country but I'm allowed a .45ACP. And rule of thumb with polar bears. You don't stop shooting until the bear stops moving.

                              The point was that you allow semi autos in pistols which are mostly hobbiest while denying in the larger rounds where it is necessary for large game. Hunting javelinas is one place where you definetely need a semi auto, especially when they're charging you.
                              From a practical point I accept that but my point is that you cannot necessarily give the 2A as a reason to handle any gun you like. Look at the Heller decision. Even Scalia concedes, while confirming the right to bear arms, that some weapons are unusual outside the military.

                              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              The original gatling is based on the revolver. A shot is fired, casing is ejected, a new round is inserted and go through the cycle to be fired again. But again, the technology exists to go outside whatever legal definition you want to come up with.

                              The reason bump stock is still legal is because no one can get around the current legislation to ban it. I mean, how do you ban a rubber band?
                              WA state is banning them right now. The bill passed state Senate and is probably going to pass the house.
                              "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                                I've only fired old military .303s. They're nowhere as smoothe as the Remingtons but then the Remingtons were not meant for abuse and bayonet charges. Also, RSA wasn't as industrious pushing hunting rifles as their American and German counterparts. I don't ever recall RSA making a serious dent in the hunting community.

                                Still, I won't mind seeing new innovations with new metallurgy and computer aided designs.

                                His victim would be bleeding out. We drop bears and moose with 00 shots. Lethality would not be a concern.

                                Maybe I'm an old gruff with leathered shoulders but I ran through 3 boxes of clay pigeons once getting ready for duck season.

                                I thought I had an answer to this but I really don't. This kid was intent on suicide by cop. He wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, otherwise, he would have a getaway car ready or at least somewhere to hide. Like most suicide attempts, he changed his mind once faced with that reality. He didn't wait for the cops to blast his way out. He ran. But he done his damage.
                                You have had combat training, I have not. Regardless of adrenaline, I think a big Alsatian bounding towards me would make me re-assess my life's choices pretty quick

                                Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                                My answer was very specific to an assault threat, an engineer's perspective to persuay the shooter to seek out other softer targets, ie shopping mall, and let someone else take care of the problem. But how do you stop someone walking in with a suicide vest under a jacket?

                                BTW, you a cat person?
                                Nope, I would be a dog person, if I had someone to take care of my dog. Remember our old friend Brig. RayC? If I had been in a position like that I might have had orderlies (sahayaks) taking care of my dogs. There was a hilarious anecdote about this in his collection of stories.
                                "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X