Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

CasualBystander

CasualBystander

Celestial
Dundee said:
So hypothetically a visitor, or visitors kids, or one of your kids friends, who perhaps has no interest or background or training in guns could pick it up. You don't think unsecured weapons are a risk obviously. But why is this any different for example for me not securing say an huge excavation for a building site that may have a big hole. This puts others at risk and is my responsibility to secure. You say you are a responsible gun owner, I find it hard to understand how unsecured loaded weopans are not a danger.


Wow, I don't even know how to respond to that one.
So...
You can't see any argument that says if you were to remove (As Australia did) all the semi Automatics, all the handguns, and really tighten up your gun laws. With no semi automatic weapons available, mass shootings would be lessened.


Yes but that is unrelated to the fact that we have not had a mass shooting since 1996, because it is very very difficult in Australia for the average non gun licensed person to even gain access to a gun, let alone something capable of killings of the nature we see in the US. Of course criminals will always have access to guns, I agree. But a lot of your mass killings are from just normal folks who lose the plot and have an environment like it appears your house is where they can just go grab an unsecured gun and boom.

Here in Australia, someone who is say not part of the criminal element, just your average person next door, would be far far more likely to be nailed by the police if they went hunting for an unlicensed gun just by asking around, long before they found one. And with our laws about securing weapons in locked cabinets, there is no way if say one of my sons went crazy could come home and gain access to my guns. I have them locked in a cabinet like below. the ammunition is in the locked upper section, which has separate keys to the main door.I don't store the keys for each section in the same location and no one knows where I put them anyway. When I was married, not even my wife knew. One son did as he was a licensed gun owner and shared the gun cabinet space.
The cabinet is Dyna bolted to the concrete through the bottom, and coach bolted to the wall through the back.

How is this small compromise that keeps your weapons safe and secure an infringement on your rights.
To most people I imagine it makes a lot of sense to secure guns.

This is a bit of an uneducated statement, but viewing from afar, it seems to me that your trained military personnel have stricter control, tighter regulations and more respect for guns than the average American. And your military folks do guns for a living and receive more training in there safe use than anyone.
Doesn't this hint at something in the back of your mind about your gun laws.

View attachment 787
Click to expand...
More confusion.

The US has 333+ million people. Australia has about 24 million. The US has 13+ (13.8) times the population. US has several states with larger populations than Australia.

Australia is Florida and a little bit of Georgia.

There should be 1/13 or less incidents in Australia.

Eliminating weapons won't stop it.

There are alternative ways to kill people. Europe is having fun with trucks.

Australia just doesn't have a large enough population to have enough people in one spot to be worth killing.

The US is as big as Europe. Europe as a whole seems to have more attacks than we do.

Further, in Australia they try to burn people to death.

The US has had about 93 "mass killing" incidents since 2000. Australia according to wiki has 11. That would be the equivalent of about 153 in the US.
 
D

Dundee

Fading day by day.
CasualBystander said:
More confusion.

The US has 333+ million people. Australia has about 24 million. The US has 13+ (13.8) times the population. US has several states with larger populations than Australia.

Australia is Florida and a little bit of Georgia.

There should be 1/13 or less incidents in Australia.

Eliminating weapons won't stop it.

There are alternative ways to kill people. Europe is having fun with trucks.

Australia just doesn't have a large enough population to have enough people in one spot to be worth killing.

The US is as big as Europe. Europe as a whole seems to have more attacks than we do.

Further, in Australia they try to burn people to death.

The US has had about 93 "mass killing" incidents since 2000. Australia according to wiki has 11. That would be the equivalent of about 153 in the US.
Click to expand...
No, I think you are the one confused here.
A huge percentage of your own countrymen disagree with you, if the figures below are correct, that figure would be 89%, It is simply that the NRA is so powerful it is able to influence the outcomes of such attempts at tighter control.


A strong majority of gun owners and non gun owners support stronger restrictions on firearms, according to a national survey conducted by Johns Hopkins University.
[WALSH: Obama Talks Guns, Football Violence]
A sizable 89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales. Similar surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup have also found background checks to be by far the most popular gun control proposal in the aftermath the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ity-of-americans-nra-members-back-gun-control

In this article the gun shops themselves say that they get critisized by the NRA members and labeled if they support tighter gun laws.

Nearly 1 in 3 Americans own a gun. But only 5 million belong to the NRA, which is often portrayed as the voice of hunters, skeet shooters and other gun owners.
Most gun owners support restrictions. Why aren’t their voices heard?

89% majority would win most elections, but not when the NRA has so much power.

In any case I can see I am flogging a dead horse. Clearly your part of the powerful group of people who think differently to not only most of your countrymen, but most of the world.

I am proud that my guns are safe, and my country does not have mass killings like yours.
Yet I still enjoy my guns. odd isn't it.
 
D

Dundee

Fading day by day.
CasualBystander said:
Ping ping ping ping.
Click to expand...
I should wake you up you mad gun toting bastard, you kept me up half my bloody night last night :) your turn to miss sleep I reckon.
Anyway, in true Aussie hang shit on people we like tradition. From this day forth I shall refer to you as Whyat Earp.
upload_2017-10-20_20-14-23.png
That is one impressive Moe my friend :)
 
CasualBystander

CasualBystander

Celestial
Diva said:
Play? How? Like this ?...

View attachment 793

How old is your daughter btw?
Click to expand...

She is 26.

Dundee said:
No, I think you are the one confused here.
A huge percentage of your own countrymen disagree with you, if the figures below are correct, that figure would be 89%, It is simply that the NRA is so powerful it is able to influence the outcomes of such attempts at tighter control.


A strong majority of gun owners and non gun owners support stronger restrictions on firearms, according to a national survey conducted by Johns Hopkins University.
[WALSH: Obama Talks Guns, Football Violence]
A sizable 89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales. Similar surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup have also found background checks to be by far the most popular gun control proposal in the aftermath the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ity-of-americans-nra-members-back-gun-control

In this article the gun shops themselves say that they get critisized by the NRA members and labeled if they support tighter gun laws.

Nearly 1 in 3 Americans own a gun. But only 5 million belong to the NRA, which is often portrayed as the voice of hunters, skeet shooters and other gun owners.
Most gun owners support restrictions. Why aren’t their voices heard?

89% majority would win most elections, but not when the NRA has so much power.

In any case I can see I am flogging a dead horse. Clearly your part of the powerful group of people who think differently to not only most of your countrymen, but most of the world.

I am proud that my guns are safe, and my country does not have mass killings like yours.
Yet I still enjoy my guns. odd isn't it.
Click to expand...
A huge percentage of your own countrymen disagree with you,
Click to expand...

Ah, had to let that one stop steaming. There are no conservative psychiatrists/psychologists in US. There are few conservative news staff in the MSM - usually only as a token. Further, there is a similar pattern in academia. The kind of bias, discrimination, and dishonesty that systematically excludes 40% of the population, from the group that does the studies or reports on them, means that you will have lots of bullshit to support your view.

Reports from dishonest people aren't reliable, after all, according to pre-election polls, Hillary won. RCP showed Hillary with 204 to Trumps 164 with 179 as toss ups. And Hillary winning with no tossups. Instead Hillary only won 1 or 2 states that she wasn't certain to win (18 electoral votes).

I'm an American. I'm not an NRA member. Do I support gun control??? (Hint: they will pry them out of my cold dead hands).

As far as rampage killings... Well... it is interesting.

What Wiki defines as "Europe" (Europe definitions seem to vary a lot, as though people didn't know where it was) didn't have a rampage killing issue until 1988. 2016 was a banner year. They must have sold a lot of guns in Europe last year. And as I mentioned earlier, Europe holds the rampage killer record with 77.

Further, Paddock is the worst possible example. He is the oldest rampage killer in the US going back 20+ years (the other guy was actually a serial killer). He planned for years to kill an arbitrary large group of people. He had millions at his disposal and spent $30,000 - $100,000 on his effort. With that criteria several hundred should have been killed. If he had driven a semi into the venue he could have easily killed several hundred, there were 22,000 in a confined area.
 
Last edited:
CasualBystander

CasualBystander

Celestial
Diva said:
relieved to hear that. Thought she was underage. :Thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Huh??? Not sure where you are going with this. She was underage for quite a while.

She only lives a couple of miles from me so we keep in touch.

You do realize that is a toy gun in your "like this" picture?
 
Last edited:
Caeldeth

Caeldeth

Noble
You could have said she was 26. I said "small child" and you seemed to agree that your daughter was a "small child" hence why I asked why the fuck you had loaded guns lying around where a small child could get at them. Seems she isn't so small. My child is 3 and I won't be teaching him how to use a firearm until about the age of 8 like my father did with me. Probably will put him in hunters safety class and have him hunt with me. Speaking of hunting, I'm going out now and see it I can bag a buck. Just got a new bow I want to try out.
 
CasualBystander

CasualBystander

Celestial
Caeldeth said:
You could have said she was 26. I said "small child" and you seemed to agree that your daughter was a "small child" hence why I asked why the fuck you had loaded guns lying around where a small child could get at them. Seems she isn't so small. My child is 3 and I won't be teaching him how to use a firearm until about the age of 8 like my father did with me. Probably will put him in hunters safety class and have him hunt with me. Speaking of hunting, I'm going out now and see it I can bag a buck. Just got a new bow I want to try out.
Click to expand...

I occasionally call her "small child" since she is a lot shorter than I am, either that or "Precious Treasure". I literally didn't see where you were going with that.
 
Ras

Ras

Honorable
CasualBystander said:
Huh??? Not sure where you are going with this. She was underage for quite a while.

She only lives a couple of miles from me so we keep in touch.

You do realize that is a toy gun in your "like this" picture?
Click to expand...

Oh, here u will need to be 15 years and above to use a firearm in the shooting range, i think..

Yes it do look like a toy gun.. Had some cases here where kids shot themselves in that way when got their hands on a real gun..
 
D

Dundee

Fading day by day.
CasualBystander said:
She is 26.




Ah, had to let that one stop steaming. There are no conservative psychiatrists/psychologists in US. There are few conservative news staff in the MSM - usually only as a token. Further, there is a similar pattern in academia. The kind of bias, discrimination, and dishonesty that systematically excludes 40% of the population, from the group that does the studies or reports on them, means that you will have lots of bullshit to support your view.

Reports from dishonest people aren't reliable, after all, according to pre-election polls, Hillary won. RCP showed Hillary with 204 to Trumps 164 with 179 as toss ups. And Hillary winning with no tossups. Instead Hillary only won 1 or 2 states that she wasn't certain to win (18 electoral votes).

I'm an American. I'm not an NRA member. Do I support gun control??? (Hint: they will pry them out of my cold dead hands).

As far as rampage killings... Well... it is interesting.

What Wiki defines as "Europe" (Europe definitions seem to vary a lot, as though people didn't know where it was) didn't have a rampage killing issue until 1988. 2016 was a banner year. They must have sold a lot of guns in Europe last year. And as I mentioned earlier, Europe holds the rampage killer record with 77.

Further, Paddock is the worst possible example. He is the oldest rampage killer in the US going back 20+ years (the other guy was actually a serial killer). He planned for years to kill an arbitrary large group of people. He had millions at his disposal and spent $30,000 - $100,000 on his effort. With that criteria several hundred should have been killed. If he had driven a semi into the venue he could have easily killed several hundred, there were 22,000 in a confined area.
Click to expand...
I guess we just have too agree to disagree. I see reason is pointless here.
cheers
 
D

Dundee

Fading day by day.
CasualBystander said:
I'm sorry, but I can't resist:

Vacationing in the United States? Be Warned, Some Countries Say
Countries warn about vacationing in the US.

London now more dangerous than New York City, crime stats suggest
London more dangerous than New York.
Click to expand...
Sigh....This is why reason is pointless here. You are obviously incapable of understanding simple cause and effect.
What has those figures got to do with the merits of automatic/semi automatic weapons in the US.
I am more likely to be killed by an Avalanche in the Himalayas than in central park too, but....so what!.

Cause and Effect CB, simple concept.

Cause = Madman with Automatic weapons goes Nuts,
Effect = More bullets per unit time so more people die.

Cause = Madman with 6 shot magazine bolt action weapons goes Nuts,
Effect = Less bullets per unit time so less people die.

Conclusion (for most reasonable people) Automatic weapons can do more damage than a bolt action in a short space of time, Take them away, mad man does less damage.

It is all no more complicated than that, it is not about murder rates in Canada v US, or where is the most dangerous place to live. Those points are all relevant to different arguments and worth debating, but have nothing to do with should these weapons be available to US citizens or not.
 
CasualBystander

CasualBystander

Celestial
Dundee said:
Sigh....This is why reason is pointless here. You are obviously incapable of understanding simple cause and effect.
What has those figures got to do with the merits of automatic/semi automatic weapons in the US.
I am more likely to be killed by an Avalanche in the Himalayas than in central park too, but....so what!.

Cause and Effect CB, simple concept.

Cause = Madman with Automatic weapons goes Nuts,
Effect = More bullets per unit time so more people die.

Cause = Madman with 6 shot magazine bolt action weapons goes Nuts,
Effect = Less bullets per unit time so less people die.

Conclusion (for most reasonable people) Automatic weapons can do more damage than a bolt action in a short space of time, Take them away, mad man does less damage.

It is all no more complicated than that, it is not about murder rates in Canada v US, or where is the most dangerous place to live. Those points are all relevant to different arguments and worth debating, but have nothing to do with should these weapons be available to US citizens or not.
Click to expand...

1. An automatic weapon wasn't used here.
2. This is the only incident I'm aware of where a bump stock or similar mechanism was used. And he needed a lot of weapons because of thermal problems.

You are drawing a "we need a law" from a single incident. Why are you not advocating a ban on vehicles in England?

Again, this incident is so unique (at this point 3 weeks later we STILL don't know why he did it - which has never happened) it is too early to draw any conclusions. In fact you are starting to see articles about Paddock and the nature of evil. You can't stop a relatively rich man who decides one day he want to kill a lot of people and doesn't care who.

Reducing clip sizes will inconvenience a lot of Americans. An AR15 is varmint rifle. I've hunted varmint, a lot. You like to use a single large clip because dragging a bunch of hardware out into the field is an issue and is impractical.

And it wouldn't stop anyone who wants them and is well financed from getting them. Paddock had enough money that you couldn't stop him from getting high capacity clips if you tried.
 
Last edited:
D

Dundee

Fading day by day.
CasualBystander said:
1. An automatic weapon wasn't used here.
2. This is the only incident I'm aware of where a bump stock or similar mechanism was used. And he needed a lot of weapons because of thermal problems.

You are drawing a "we need a law" from a single incident.
Click to expand...
Good grief, what single incident, we have mass shooting in the US almost monthly.

Cause: Guns are prolific, Laws are Lax in the US
Effect: Lots of mass shootings.

Cause: Guns are well Policed and laws are tight in Australia
Effect: Less mas shootings

Why are you not advocating a ban on vehicles in England?
Click to expand...
What??? are you even on about here? US, Australia, England all have fairly strict laws on vehicles, speed limits, age limits to drive, road laws, roadworthyness, etc etc. Most deaths are as a result of accidents,drunk drivers etc, but overall vehicles in all our countries are reasonably well policed. Yes we have seen an increase in recent times as vehicles used as weapons which is very disturbing. I am not sure there is a solution for that. But as per most of what you say, it has no relevance to this argument.

Again, this incident is so unique (at this point 3 weeks later we STILL don't know why he did it - which has never happened) it is too early to draw any conclusions. In fact you are starting to see articles about Paddock and the nature of evil. You can't stop a relatively rich man who decides one day he want to kill a lot of people and doesn't care who.
Click to expand...
Again, utterly unrelated to the proliferation and ease of access to weapons in the US.

Reducing clip sizes will inconvenience a lot of Americans. An AR15 is varmint rifle. I've hunted varmint, a lot. You like to use a single large clip because dragging a bunch of hardware out into the field is an issue and is impractical.
Click to expand...
Oh boo hoo, really!! I am sure the victims and families of victims of your constant mass shootings have a lot of sympathy for your varmint shooting inconvenience. And BTW, stop talking utter shit. Your not the only one who has grown up as a hunter, we both know unless you parachute into the middle of a heard off buffalo with a mini gun, 99% of the rest of your targets have hightailed it out of there after the first shot.

And it wouldn't stop anyone who wants them and is well financed from getting them. Paddock had enough money that you couldn't stop him from getting high capacity clips if you tried.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with you here on this point, but that is because you have so many and comes back to almost having gone past the point of no return. However in a well policed country and enough years retrieving illegal weapons the benefits would be seen. Australia is the evidence of this.
If you banned these weapons in the US tomorrow, I agree you would likely see little or no effect immediately. However 30 years of strict policing, your grand kids would likely be less likely to be shot. It takes time, especially with attitudes to guns like you have.
 
nivek

nivek

As Above So Below
Dundee said:
we have mass shooting in the US almost monthly.
Click to expand...

I live in the US and don't hear about this happening monthly, who's hat did you pull this from?....:huh8:
 
D

Dundee

Fading day by day.
nivek said:
I live in the US and don't hear about this happening monthly, who's hat did you pull this from?....:huh8:
Click to expand...
Good grief not you too nivek, surely your not in the same boat as CB, it was a throw away comment, to illustrate a point. However if you insist I justify it...

Mass shootings in America are a serious problem -- and these charts show just why - CNN

If you go with the raw numbers ...
According to the Gun Violence Archive, which compiles data from shooting incidents, a "mass shooting" is any incident in which a gunman ...
  • shoots or kills four or more people
  • in the same general time and location
By that definition, according to the Gun Violence Archive, we have seen 273 mass shootings from January 1 to October 3.
That averages to 7.5 mass shootings a week.



Under the narrowest definition ...
The government has never defined "mass shooting" as a standalone category. Let's go with the most commonly accepted definition, from the Congressional Research Service: a shooting in which a gunman ...
  • kills four or more people
  • selects victims randomly (ruling out gang killings or the killing of multiple family members)
  • attacks in a public place
That definition rules out the Congressional baseball practice shooting in June, because the gunman didn't kill four people. In September, a man shot and killed eight people in Plano, Texas -- but that attack doesn't count either because police say the gunman had a "connection to the house."
Using that narrow definition to the Gun Violence Archive numbers, we have seen nine deadly mass shootings from January 1 to October 3.
That averages to one a month.
 
OLP

OLP

Adept
CasualBystander said:
....
London now more dangerous than New York City, crime stats suggest
London more dangerous than New York.
Click to expand...

I´d rather get robbed by a youth gang than shot tbh.

Also should continue a Chicago vs. Berlin, Philly vs. Rome etc. ..

My hometown is considered to be among the most criminal of the country. Turns out we have the harshest controls in the public transport and most "crime" here comes from people using public transportation without ticket. Still listed in the statistics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top