Mass shooting at Mandala Bay (Vegas) 61 dead, 500 + injured, deadliest shooting in American history
- Thread starter tru_m.a.c
- Start date
joeychizzle
光復香港，時代革命
what is the actual need for a rifle that holds 18 to 60 rounds? If you were in something dangerous, like, at war, and went through training, then it would be justified, but you just let kids that can't even legally drink cop weapons that can cause dozens of deaths, all without reloadingMan look, at least in my state, at 18 years old with a driver's license you can buy any long gun (rifles, shotguns, anything bigger than a handgun). No permit or background check is needed. So AK-47s and AR-15s are rifles, meaning you can buy them at 18. Now, some states restrict magazine capacity, but I do believe most states would allow someone at 18 or maybe 21, tops, to purchase most types of rifles or shotguns.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, 47 percent of all murders in the U.S. are committed with handguns. Only 3 percent are committed with rifles (of any type). Twice as many murderers (6 percent) use nothing but their bare hands. Thirteen percent use knives.
I don't think it should be easy to access these kinds of weapons, but the scary thing to me is that the most dangerous types of weapons are handguns. The AR-15 has become the symbol of the gun control debate, and the typical AR-15 magazine will hold either 20 or 30 rounds. You can get 10, 40, and 60 round mags as well. But handgun magazine capacity is getting very large. Many non extended handgun magazines carry close to 20 rounds. Any size of 9mm Glock can fit a 32 round magazine, which is more than the standard 30 round magazine the U.S. military uses for their for various AR-15 platforms.
Handguns are easily concealable, high capacity, and modern handgun ammo is incredibly effective, and I don't know the solution to this problem. We can take away ARs and AKs tomorrow, and we probably should, but we still will have to deal with handguns, which are the main cause of gun deaths.
Yeah, our country is fukking crazy.
does it never occur to anyone that having stupidly efficient murder weapons so easily accessible is literally a recipe for disaster?
Yall seriously need to change your laws. I don't even know what I can say apart from compare gun ownership and gun deaths in developed nations.
You mfs are ten times more likely to get shot to death in America compared to other countries. ten times. how do you even walk the streets? how yall raise kids? go on dates? I couldn't even smoke blunts or fukk in peace knowing that literally anyone old enough to vote can mow down a roomful of people
stay safe folks.
TheDarceKnight
Veteran
I don't disagree.what is the actual need for a rifle that holds 18 to 60 rounds? If you were in something dangerous, like, at war, and went through training, then it would be justified, but you just let kids that can't even legally drink cop weapons that can cause dozens of deaths, all without reloading
does it never occur to anyone that having stupidly efficient murder weapons so easily accessible is literally a recipe for disaster?
Yall seriously need to change your laws. I don't even know what I can say apart from compare gun ownership and gun deaths in developed nations.
You mfs are ten times more likely to get shot to death in America compared to other countries. ten times. how do you even walk the streets? how yall raise kids? go on dates? I couldn't even smoke blunts or fukk in peace knowing that literally anyone old enough to vote can mow down a roomful of people
stay safe folks.
It's crazy man.
joeychizzle
光復香港，時代革命
If only everyone learned BJJ and maybe MMA, that would be the shyt :ineedmo:
1 percent of the deaths
1 trillion percent increase in combat knowledge
everyone loses weight
mutual respect is based on skill and not whose gun is bigger
:phewmayne:
First off, I want to clarify. I do NOT believe that gun control is the #1 thing we need to do to stop our toxic killing situation in America.
The #1 issue is the American culture of violence. And it's a huge problem in White American culture, in Black American culture, in Latino American culture, in Asian American culture. It's a huge problem among the pro-government people and among the anti-government people. It's a huge problem among the police and it's a problem in our communities that are getting harassed by the police.
The violence culture of America is everywhere, it has been pretty much since those first Jamestown a$$holes started holding up Native Americans and taking their shyt 400 years ago, and it has spread into every part of American society.
THAT is the main thing that needs to be fixed. A willingness to enact meaningful gun control is only a sign that we are actually willing to tackle our culture of violence, that we are not totally beholden to it. Gun control is not the main thing, the change in culture is.
But there is still workable gun control that could save numerous lives while still allowing all sane, law-abiding citizens to legally purchase guns.
I'm talking about domestically trafficked guns, which comprise the vast majority of trafficking in America. Due to their size/cost ratios it is far tougher to traffic guns into the country than it is drugs, and they end up much more expensive than domestic guns, and most people not have a foreign connect, so I am not nearly as concerned about foreign-sourced trafficking as I am domestic trafficking.
Every gun that is sold by a dealer requires a registration, and in nearly every (or every?) case requires a clean record to get it from the dealer. The only issue is that the initial buyer can immediately flip the gun to someone else without a check on their record, whether it be a private sale or a gun show or whatever. And even though that's illegal, it is basically impossible to enforce, and everyone knows it. If you required every change of ownership to be recorded and the check to be done, then suddenly all those people with clean records who are flipping guns would know that they were in jeopardy, and the number wiling to risk their record and perhaps even be implicated in a major crime, for the minor reward of flipping just 12 guns a year, would dry up quick.
I think the reference can be anyone else without a record who is willing to testify that they know you and know of no planned bad intentions that you have with a gun. It's a legal, binding affidavit, so if the person does something with the gun, and it is proven that you lied about what you knew or the actual nature of your relationship with them, you're in deep shyt. I haven't done the research in a while so I'd need to check again who the references are.
The stuff that turned me on to this showed that references were actually the #1 part of a background check that stopped crime, by far. Nothing else predicts future behavior as well as actual human intelligence, and people who want to do something bad with a gun are often poor judges of what other people realize about them. Chances are that the people in their life know they are depressed, or unstable, or whatever, even if they don't know that those people know it. And if you're a lone wolf and no one knows you that well to know what's going on inside you, then there's a good chance no one knows you well enough to sign off on saying you're okay to get a gun.
This isn't a foolproof thing at all. Nothing is. It's just that a stronger background check at each gun transaction would stop X.00% of gun crimes and murders and suicides, almost certainly a large enough percent to be worth it.
It depends what "something like this" is. The most important factor of the waiting period is to give enough time to give a full background check (10-day waiting periods have proven to be inadequate for that) as well as to reduce the crimes of passion, suicides, etc. If the person is going to make due with 1 gun, it gives an extra month for them to rethink their plan and back down, for someone in their life to notice something wrong, for law enforcement to catch up with what they're planning, etc. If they want 2-3-4 guns, then it gives extra months for that shyt to happen. Again, won't stop every crime, but there are a certain % that it will stop.
The #1 issue is the American culture of violence. And it's a huge problem in White American culture, in Black American culture, in Latino American culture, in Asian American culture. It's a huge problem among the pro-government people and among the anti-government people. It's a huge problem among the police and it's a problem in our communities that are getting harassed by the police.
The violence culture of America is everywhere, it has been pretty much since those first Jamestown a$$holes started holding up Native Americans and taking their shyt 400 years ago, and it has spread into every part of American society.
THAT is the main thing that needs to be fixed. A willingness to enact meaningful gun control is only a sign that we are actually willing to tackle our culture of violence, that we are not totally beholden to it. Gun control is not the main thing, the change in culture is.
But there is still workable gun control that could save numerous lives while still allowing all sane, law-abiding citizens to legally purchase guns.
I'm talking about domestically trafficked guns, which comprise the vast majority of trafficking in America. Due to their size/cost ratios it is far tougher to traffic guns into the country than it is drugs, and they end up much more expensive than domestic guns, and most people not have a foreign connect, so I am not nearly as concerned about foreign-sourced trafficking as I am domestic trafficking.
Every gun that is sold by a dealer requires a registration, and in nearly every (or every?) case requires a clean record to get it from the dealer. The only issue is that the initial buyer can immediately flip the gun to someone else without a check on their record, whether it be a private sale or a gun show or whatever. And even though that's illegal, it is basically impossible to enforce, and everyone knows it. If you required every change of ownership to be recorded and the check to be done, then suddenly all those people with clean records who are flipping guns would know that they were in jeopardy, and the number wiling to risk their record and perhaps even be implicated in a major crime, for the minor reward of flipping just 12 guns a year, would dry up quick.
I think the reference can be anyone else without a record who is willing to testify that they know you and know of no planned bad intentions that you have with a gun. It's a legal, binding affidavit, so if the person does something with the gun, and it is proven that you lied about what you knew or the actual nature of your relationship with them, you're in deep shyt. I haven't done the research in a while so I'd need to check again who the references are.
The stuff that turned me on to this showed that references were actually the #1 part of a background check that stopped crime, by far. Nothing else predicts future behavior as well as actual human intelligence, and people who want to do something bad with a gun are often poor judges of what other people realize about them. Chances are that the people in their life know they are depressed, or unstable, or whatever, even if they don't know that those people know it. And if you're a lone wolf and no one knows you that well to know what's going on inside you, then there's a good chance no one knows you well enough to sign off on saying you're okay to get a gun.
This isn't a foolproof thing at all. Nothing is. It's just that a stronger background check at each gun transaction would stop X.00% of gun crimes and murders and suicides, almost certainly a large enough percent to be worth it.
It depends what "something like this" is. The most important factor of the waiting period is to give enough time to give a full background check (10-day waiting periods have proven to be inadequate for that) as well as to reduce the crimes of passion, suicides, etc. If the person is going to make due with 1 gun, it gives an extra month for them to rethink their plan and back down, for someone in their life to notice something wrong, for law enforcement to catch up with what they're planning, etc. If they want 2-3-4 guns, then it gives extra months for that shyt to happen. Again, won't stop every crime, but there are a certain % that it will stop.
GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
Yes, but that's because in some places it's easier to buy a gun than Sudafed. If guns started to be outlawed/severely curtailed, you will absolutely start to see guns being smuggled into the U.S. The cartels already have the logistical capabilities. They have supply lines, tunnels, they probably own border patrol agents etc. If all of a sudden a gun on the street costs a couple thousand dollars because they're essentially outlawed, they would start importing it the next day. Again the concept is no different than drugs.
I think you're slightly overestimating what the cartels can do. Tunnels are really tough, and with a bit more cooperation on the Mexican side will become almost impossible. Owning border patrol agents is tough because it's an enormous risk for the agent and nearly everything is done in teams nowadays. And the total supply of guns in Mexico isn't great, which is why guns are usually trafficked in THAT direction. It will take a massive price incentive for cartels to begin giving up guns in quantity to get them into America, and the volume will never be that high.
IF a gun costs $2000 on the street, then you're going to see a massive reduction in gun crime.
It'll be like LA gangs in the 1970s and early 1980s. Before crack hit, there were gangs that had like one shooter and no one else even owned a gun. It was just too much money to spend on that shyt, until people started making that drug money. If gun control causes the price to go up, yeah, there will be some trafficking, but will still lead to a reduction in guns available.
GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
You sound mad inexperienced in the ways of the world. Aside from the fact that our southern border is basically a sieve, we only inspect less than 4% of the more than 11 MILLION shipping containers that arrive at U.S. ports every year.
If guns were outlawed and the price on the black market skyrocketed, you will see a drop initially but just like every other product, the market will be flooded and prices will fall.
You should know all of this.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
ThinkProgress posted 2 updates.
Trump says Las Vegas mass shooting was ‘in many ways a miracle’
THINKPROGRESS.ORG|BY AARON RUPAR
Trump says Las Vegas mass shooting was ‘in many ways a miracle’
THINKPROGRESS.ORG|BY AARON RUPAR
At some point you gotta react to gun shots!!!!!
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that high prices are what would make gun imports viable AND simultaneously claim that prices would fall. Either gun control would inflate street prices, therefore cutting down gun access, or it wouldn't.
If it were so easy to bring in illegal gun shipments via shipping containers, then there wouldn't be so much drug smuggling in pockets and stomachs and backpacks. Drugs are FAR more valuable than guns and much easier to hide, yet how often does someone import their drugs via shipping containers? There are a number of enormous risks that you're exposing yourself to when you do that, and guns are too large for their value to be easily worth it.
This
Speaking as a gun owner/burgeoning gun enthusiast, the gun lobby has used this talking point for years, and fails to produce significant examples of this actually occurring
Same here! and I agree with you here! My concern with that argument in this instance would also be, could you imagine concert gowers with guns shooting up into mandalay bay blindly!!!?? That shyt would have hit mufacas on honeymoons or dudes who just busted a nut from a backpage hoe!
MVike28
right around the ACC
newworldafro
DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Nevermind.