Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[rogue06]

Not sure I really understand this argument. If he bought the guns legally (which he did), then restricting his right to buy the guns in the first place would have gone a long way in preventing him from shooting people (or at least, make it more difficult to do so). So it doesn't seem correct to say that there are zero gun restriction laws that would have stopped this guy. Yes, he illegally modified the guns after the fact, but then, he also illegally shot people. The point of gun control, as I see it, is not simply to make laws you expect good people to obey, but to restrict those bad people who would break laws in the first place from having opportunity.

Last night I watched several shows that covered the shooting on various networks. The few times when someone who claimed that tougher gun control was the answer was specifically asked what piece of gun control legislation would have prevented this they either went silent or changed the subject.

[RumTumTugger]

seems to me that ISIS jumps in and claims responsibility all the time. They seem pretty desperate to look more powerful and widespread than they actually are. It could turn out that this guy did join them for some reason, but I doubt it. Something definitely set this guy off. It was not a spur of the moment thing either. He had at least 23 weapons that he brought in to the hotel over a few days and he was in the room for I believe they said 4 days. He even built platforms to stand on to get better angles, and he modified the guns for full auto. This was premeditated. It wasn't a guy snapping. I think Trump had it right, this was pure evil. Not insanity.

bold emphsis mine.
not to mention that he would have had to book the suite a few months in advance.

[Sparko]

Not sure I really understand this argument. If he bought the guns legally (which he did), then restricting his right to buy the guns in the first place would have gone a long way in preventing him from shooting people (or at least, make it more difficult to do so). So it doesn't seem correct to say that there are zero gun restriction laws that would have stopped this guy. Yes, he illegally modified the guns after the fact, but then, he also illegally shot people. The point of gun control, as I see it, is not simply to make laws you expect good people to obey, but to restrict those bad people who would break laws in the first place from having opportunity.

I meant that if he was willing to meticulously plan this mass-murder and illegally modify weapons to make them fully automatic, then he would have found a way to get the guns even if he had to steal them or buy them overseas (He was a rich man with a pilot's license who traveled a lot) - nothing was going to stop this guy. He didn't care about the law, obviously.

[Sparko]

Last night I watched several shows that covered the shooting on various networks. The few times when someone who claimed that tougher gun control was the answer was specifically asked what piece of gun control legislation would have prevented this they either went silent or changed the subject.

I saw the same thing. Watter's world with a democratic congressman who kept trying to argue about the silencer thing, even though a silencer would have made no difference, because suppressors don't really work like in the movies. The congressman could not come up with any regulation that would have stopped this guy.

[Adrift]

I meant that if he was willing to meticulously plan this mass-murder and illegally modify weapons to make them fully automatic, then he would have found a way to get the guns even if he had to steal them or buy them overseas (He was a rich man with a pilot's license who traveled a lot) - nothing was going to stop this guy. He didn't care about the law, obviously.

But aren't there more risks in stealing guns, or smuggling them overseas? First of all, if guns were banned, who would he steal from? But assuming he could steal the guns, what if he got caught? That would have prevented him right there. Smuggling guns comes with its own risks. Neither of those options are nearly as easy as going into your local Walmart or sporting store, which is practically on every corner of every block, buying an AR-15, and modifying it.

[Adrift]

I saw the same thing. Watter's world with a democratic congressman who kept trying to argue about the silencer thing, even though a silencer would have made no difference, because suppressors don't really work like in the movies. The congressman could not come up with any regulation that would have stopped this guy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't suppressors typically used to hide muzzle flash? I mean, yeah, it wouldn't have been much quieter, but a case could be made that not being able to see the muzzle flash would have bought the shooter more time.

[Sparko]

But aren't there more risks in stealing guns, or smuggling them overseas? First of all, if guns were banned, who would he steal from? But assuming he could steal the guns, what if he got caught? That would have prevented him right there. Smuggling guns comes with its own risks. Neither of those options are nearly as easy as going into your local Walmart or sporting store, which is practically on every corner of every block, buying an AR-15, and modifying it.

And do you think that would stop a rich guy who has a private plane and can travel all over the world? And you can't ban all guns because of the constitution. Proposed gun restrictions would not have stopped him.

[Adrift]

And do you think that would stop a rich guy who has a private plane and can travel all over the world?

Possibly. The point is, it'd be more complicated. Who knows, maybe halfway to some third world toilet, he'd reconsider his actions and rethink the whole shooting thing. Or maybe he'd get caught at customs or by the ATF. It's a layer of complication that could have saved lives.

And you can't ban all guns because of the constitution. Proposed gun restrictions would not have stopped him.

You don't have to ban all guns. A pistol, or a shotgun, or single bolt rifle wouldn't have done the widespread damage the shooter did in the time he did it. But perhaps it's time for the Constitution to be amended. Afterall, the Constitution was made for the people, not the people for the Constitution.

[seer]

Possibly. The point is, it'd be more complicated. Who knows, maybe halfway to some third world toilet, he'd reconsider his actions and rethink the whole shooting thing. Or maybe he'd get caught at customs or by the ATF. It's a layer of complication that could have saved lives.

Or he just could have rented a large truck and killed 84 people like in Nice France.

[Bill the Cat]

Or he just could have rented a large truck and killed 84 people like in Nice France.

Or had some form of explosive that he could have dropped on the crowd.

[rogue06]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't suppressors typically used to hide muzzle flash? I mean, yeah, it wouldn't have been much quieter, but a case could be made that not being able to see the muzzle flash would have bought the shooter more time.

Those are flash suppressors although a noise suppressor does conceal the flash as well. The problem was, at least with the interviews I saw, was that many people thought it was fireworks until people started getting hit around them.

[seer]

Or had some form of explosive that he could have dropped on the crowd.

Since he had a pilot's licence he could have simply filled the plane with fuel and crashed it into the center of the crowd. There would have been countless deaths.

[rogue06]

Or had some form of explosive that he could have dropped on the crowd.

IIRC police reported that explosives were found in his home

[rogue06]

Possibly. The point is, it'd be more complicated. Who knows, maybe halfway to some third world toilet, he'd reconsider his actions and rethink the whole shooting thing. Or maybe he'd get caught at customs or by the ATF. It's a layer of complication that could have saved lives.

Building raised platforms in his room could also be a layer of complication since a maid could have seen it or people could have complained about the noise.

You don't have to ban all guns. A pistol, or a shotgun, or single bolt rifle wouldn't have done the widespread damage the shooter did in the time he did it. But perhaps it's time for the Constitution to be amended. Afterall, the Constitution was made for the people, not the people for the Constitution.

As I noted previously even bolt action rifles or revolvers can be easily converted to full automatic if you know how. In the latter case there is even a patent from the 19th cent. on the process.

[Sparko]

Possibly. The point is, it'd be more complicated. Who knows, maybe halfway to some third world toilet, he'd reconsider his actions and rethink the whole shooting thing. Or maybe he'd get caught at customs or by the ATF. It's a layer of complication that could have saved lives.



You don't have to ban all guns. A pistol, or a shotgun, or single bolt rifle wouldn't have done the widespread damage the shooter did in the time he did it. But perhaps it's time for the Constitution to be amended. Afterall, the Constitution was made for the people, not the people for the Constitution.

Sorry Adrift, but this guy was determined. My point was that nothing was going to stop him and I stand by it. He planned it for at least days on end. And he had to prepare even further back to have modified the guns to be fully auto. Laws are not going to stop someone like that. Perhaps if they had metal detectors in the hotel that might have got him caught, but if he knew of them he would just have gone to another building. You can't stop people like this with mere gun restrictions or laws.

And no, I don't think we should change the constitution. With freedom comes the possibility of people abusing it. First you try to take away their guns, then their free speech, then their freedom of movement or gathering, then privacy, and pretty soon you have a totalitarian government like in 1984. The reason we have the bill of rights is because we need to restrict government, not the other way around.