Yes, your point is well taken. Crime is down in the US, which is why gun violence is down. Yet gun ownership is up. But also, the US has far more gun violence than any other country. I did not intend to imply that more guns=less violence. The only conclusion I drew from that statistic was that it’s more about who has the guns than how many guns there are. Which is an argument I think all agree with, since pretty much everyone wants some people to be armed. I’m just not sure that in the US, arming the cops but not the civilians is a good policy.
Ok, so then the only way to have stopped him is banning guns…presumably using a time machine so that they were banned or outlawed or removed from sale or whatever sometime several months or years ago so this guy couldn’t legally buy one. Yet that hasn’t always worked in other countries that have much stricter gun control. It’s also not something that is going to be easy (hell, I don’t think it’s possible in the US at this time) to actually do. I suppose what I’m asking is, outside of wishful thinking and dragon dreams, what realistically could be done, and I suppose going from there, how would that have impacted what happened in Vegas. To me, a lot of this is using 20/20 hindsight, unless something about this guy comes up that should have rung alarm bells.
As for rubber bands, the guy also had a car bomb, so I think that, too, is wishful thinking. Assuming he didn’t have the guns, he could have just driven the car close to the crowd and BOOM! Or, he could have driven it into the crowd, unless they had concrete barricades all around (no idea if they did or didn’t). Basically, if you really want to kill a bunch of people and are willing to die doing it, you are going to accomplish that whatever tools you have. Guns just make it easier.
Pretty much this, which is why I was trying to focus the thread on gun controls for the everyday violence and shootings, not for one-off events like this. People, however, seem to want to discuss Vegas and think that gun control measures would have helped, so I’m curious for someone to walk me through some. All I’ve seen so far is banning all guns, which I’m unsure would have worked and in any case seem unrealistic to me at this time.
Making bump stocks illegal would be a start, yes? Not 100% confirmed that he was using them, but posters here have said that that is what it looked like in the pics that were released.
Would you get behind at least that, as a start?
If we go down the road a bit, we could start making things like ar-15’s and the like less legal than they are now. Requires more than just a background check, but an actual license to get. That would have put at least a barrier in front of him. If he had to explain why he needed all these guns, rather than just selling them unless you can prove he shouldn’t, then he would have had a lot less lethality to play with.
If we had registrations, then the ATF or whoever could have noticed his recent large purchases of guns, and go to ask him a couple questions.
If it weren’t for the normalization of open carry, someone may have noticed that this guy was bringing in guns and reported it. Many have wondered how he got the guns to his room. It’s easy, he strapped them to his back and carried them up. I have seen numerous times on this board admonishments that if you see someone carrying a gun, you should mind your own business. You shouldn’t call the cops or authorities. I was even told that if I saw men carrying guns into an elementary school. So, I do wonder how many people could have reported him and stopped him, if guns were not so open to carry around.
There are plenty of steps in the chain that could have made this event less likely or prevented it altogether. The second amendment folk fight tooth and nail against every single step in that chain.
The Vegas shooting already happened so I’d have to use a time machine to effect it anyway, so what’s the problem?
I believe I’ve mentioned that any gun control tactic short of highly aggressive martial law is going to take a long while, years, to spread its effects through the entire populace. So with regard to preventing future shootings (which I believe is the goal), no reasonable tactic will prevent shootings starting tomorrow. But I think something that will severely curtail shooting in twenty years is still worth doing, on the off-chance that humanity isn’t wiped out before then.
And it being easier is bad, and results in higher kill counts. That’s what guns do - they result in higher kill counts. That’s their whole point.
As a person who isn’t interested in killing people, I am not in favor of higher kill counts.
Ok, let’s talk about that. Let’s say they were illegal. What would have actually changed wrt what happened in Vegas? The man shot for over 9 minutes into a crowd of 22,000. I think he could have used a bolt action rifle almost as effectively. Full auto would have made him less effective in this case.
I honestly don’t know that much about them. What I’ve read is they are pretty much a novelty, but maybe I’m missing something. The conversion to full auto, assuming he did that is already illegal. If bump stocks make that conversion easier then, sure, I’d be behind banning them. If they just make the weapon look scarier though, no, I don’t think that would do much. I also don’t think this would have done anything wrt this shooting.
Would they have, though? Also, he didn’t actually need all those guns…gods know what he was thinking. We will probably never know. I did mention registration in my OP, and I actually am in favor, but I don’t think it would have done anything to prevent this.
True, good point. But still unrealistic. Today, after this tragedy, you wouldn’t be able to find the political support to actually get any sort of ban even on some of the cosmetic add-ons, let alone on a whole class of firearm like semi-automatic rifles.
And I agree…thus the thread. I think we can do better. I just don’t think that we could prevent this sort of black swan event type thingy.
I know how you feel. Thanks for giving your thoughts in the thread. 
This is easy to demonstrate as false. Police carry handguns and have access to long guns in their kits. They’re not doing so for looks. It is true that anything that makes a firearm more effective for self defense will tend to make it more effective for offense.
It’s pretty clear the ultimate goal you are proposing is the outright banning of guns. This is one of the reasons that any effort that aids your cause should be opposed.
Usually proposals from folks who are anti are about a total ban on guns.
If it was the type of slide stock that doesn’t have an internal spring, then it would be legal per BATFE regulations. If it has a spring assisted slide stock then that would be an illegal machine gun.
Do you know open carry is how it happened? I hadn’t read this was the case. In any event, I pretty much always bring weapons to my hotel room when I travel, and that has nothing to do with open carry. Large Vegas hotels have many entrances and while there are cameras, bringing in luggage would not raise an eyebrow since it is a hotel. I’ve gone shooting in the desert in Nevada with probably a dozen rifles with me in the hotel room and over 5K rounds of ammo and nary a word was said, again nothing to do with open carry though the several ammo boxes may have been a clue.
Notice the theme? Only more restrictions, no compromises. That’d be a non-starter.
I’m really surprised that you’re saying that a fully automatic rifle that was firing at the rate we heard on the news clips, would not be more deadly that a bolt action. The shots were coming at two or three per second IME. He could have caused lots of death and mayhem with a bolt-action, but nothing like what he did.
The “bump stock” modification, as I learned yesterday, is something that simulates fully auto. The recoil of the gun off the shooter’s shoulder is what fires the next round. I guess it doesn’t fire quite as fast as fully auto, but obviously from the news clips, it’s way too fast for any civilian to need. The “bump stock” is not just a cosmetic thing, it’s an easy modification to an assault rifle that makes it near-fully auto.
At a minimum, we need to ban the high-capacity magazines and come down hard on anyone doing these conversions.
Unless you can demonstrate a lower incidence of mass killings (terrorist attacks, bombings, poisonings, vehicular slaughter, etc.) or reduced homicide rate in countries with tighter gun control laws, then all one accomplishes by reducing the gun ownership rate is migrating the tools that evil people use from one medium to another. Certainly I’ve heard of bombings and other sorts of mass killings in Europe.
I’ve never been able to demonstrate one way or the other on the former topic (mass killings) since no one keeps proper metrics on the topic that I can find. But general homicide rates are inversely correlated to gun ownership rates as best I can tell (from data mining across something like 100 countries). It varies a bit depending on some other variables. For certain nations, increasing the gun ownership rate would increase the homicide rate. For the US, it should decrease it.
Because with a bolt action rifle you could do almost as high a rate of fire, wouldn’t have to worry as much about jamming (especially with a modified semi-auto modified to fire full, which is usually not very reliable) and it would be aimed fire, especially if he was still using a box magazine. Have you ever fired an automatic weapon? Know why in longer range gun battles most professional armies use selective fire? The reason is that automatic fire is pretty random after the first shot or two, even to the trained professional types.
So, basically, it fires as fast as you could fire a semi-auto if you moved your finger fast? I honestly haven’t heard much about it so not sure my stance on it. It doesn’t sound cosmetic though, so I’d probably be fine with banning it. I don’t think it would have prevented Vegas though, which was the thrust of the discussion.
I certainly agree with the later. It’s illegal to modify a semi-automatic rifle to fire full automatic, and I’d be perfectly good with throwing the book at anyone who does that. I don’t think that high capacity mags would really be more than a cosmetic ban but I’d entertain limiting them to, say, 20 rounds.
I do not. The question wasn’t what I do. The question was what the uses were. Others do and value them for that purpose. And… while “piffle” may be to debating rebuttals as the one-legged crane style kick against which there is no defense is to karate in this case it is insufficient.
Not again! Show mercy! That’s twice you’ve dropped a nuclear bomb of a counter argument, smashing my my debating points to so much radioactive debris destined to float across Europe contaminating crops and producing atomic feral hogs in its half life of defeat. Only the most determined merciless debating opponent could do such a thing. Your news will be very surprising to all those who have defended their homes successfully with the aid of a handgun, and possibly the Secret Service should be informed that the handguns their agents carry to defend the homes of their assignees are for crap.
Anyway, you have stated your personal opinion, which I take as such. That is, others who have different opinions carry no more or no less weight than yours.
Umm no thanks? Again I was asked what the uses were for guns, not what I wanted to do with them. But thanks for the advice I guess.
That’s just not true at all. It’s pretty ridiculous. Are you suggesting that a high powered bolt action rifle that can take a moose or a pronghorn sheep at 600 yards or more is somehow innefective against humans?
The bottom line is that a high speed projectile is dangerous to all living creatures human or nonhuman in its path. They make no distinction. Because of this your way of thinking is a flawed and naive way to view this.
For example, if I take a big long rifle like you think I should buy and I cut down the stock and the barrel what would you call what I have left? A concealable handgun?
So, I think the smarter and more sensible way to look a these things is by killing power. Specifically, a handgun is relatively short range, requires a lot of expertise to wield properly, and just doesn’t put that many bullets down range. It’s difficult to imagine a spree shooter being able to kill more than a dozen people or so under ideal circumstances, before aiming and reloading, and people running away, or people attacking him thwarts him. That’s about what I think you get with a car under ideal circumstances. They are both dangerous but useful items, and while it’s debatable I would suggest that their destructive power is roughly equal.
A rifle is long range, but slow shooting. A shooter has the advantage that he can be at stand off distance but again, he is going to have trouble with the fact that people aren’t just going to stand around letting him shoot them. Again, its roughly equivalent to a car. A dozen people is the most under ideal circumstances.
Society accepts the risk of cars.
Assault rifles though allow you to walk into a crowded bar and basically kill everybody before they can react. Think of a hand grenade. Nobody outside of military or law enforcement needs access to that kind of killing power.
So I think the smart way to look at this in terms not of “is it a handgun, or a rifle, is it for hunting or target or killing” or any other similarly meaningless criteria. The spree killer is going to choose the most massively lethal weapon that he can. He is not going to care whether it is legally a hunting rifle, a handgun, or a flyswatter. He is going to choose the thing that is going to allow him to kill the most people the easiest. Therefore, it is logical that that is how we look to limit it.
I choose the lethality equivalent of an automobile, again, because that is something society has demonstrated it is comfortable with, and I think that this makes more sense than anything you or anyone else in this thread has proposed.
Seriously. The ability to kill people is inherent in the design of all firearms.
It fires much faster than a person could otherwise unassisted. I’m not aware of actual caselaw on the topic, but CA penal code 12020 makes illegal multiburst trigger activators:
The ATF however has examined bump fire stocks (pdf) and they do not meet the definition of machine guns for federal purposes.
“My God! Fred’s been shot in the head.”
“Oh don’t worry. I shot him with my 30-06 deer rifle. It wasn’t designed to kill humans.”
“Whew that’s a huge relief. You’re fine Fred you can get up now. Fred? Fred?”
You see the problem?
What are you saying? It’s really not clear.
Are you claiming more guns equals fewer gun deaths?
Sure, but have you ever tried to kill a deer from 600y with a Toyota Prius.
“My God! Fred’s been shot in the head.”
“Oh don’t worry. I shot him with my 30-06 deer rifle. It wasn’t designed to kill humans.”
“Whew that’s a huge relief. You’re fine Fred you can get up now. Fred? Fred?”
You see the problem?
I see the problem with your logic.
All guns have stopping power. However, the different guns have other attributes:
Handguns - Portability. Concealability. Small and versatile enough to shoot people in close quarters (including yourself in the head).
Rifles - Good for use outdoors. Long range. Not very concealable. Not versatile enough to readily use for suicide.
Automatic/semiautomatic rifles - Good for use outdoors. Long range. Not very concealable. Not versatile enough to readily use for suicide. Designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Also very noisy and good for laying down cover fire.
Priuses - Good for use outdoors (but not in forests). Long range. Projectile is not very fast; requires element of surprise. Broad front hits many targets. Decent gas mileage. Allegedly has alternate non-fatal uses.
When we assess whether or not we should try to restrict access to something, we should consider all of its relevant attributes, weighing the pluses and minuses. And if you’d care to do that, you’d note that we can reduce suicides, crime that relies on approaching an unaware target, and massive fatality rates by restricting handguns and rifles - while still leaving people hunting rifles to shoot deer and their Priuses with. Will some people use the hunting rifles to kill people with? Of course. Will it be fewer deaths anyway? Yes! Is a reduction in suicide, crime, and mass murder good? Well, I suppose that’s a matter of opinion.
More guns equals fewer homicides. Gun homicides might decrease, but last I heard people are more concerned about being murdered period than they are over which implement was used to murder them. Of the following, which would you choose, after all?
- Not murdered.
- Murdered by bludgeoning.
- Murdered by gun.
So what you’re saying is that if the dude in Vegas had had a blackjack instead of rifles, just as many people would have died.
Right.