Las Vegas/Mandalay Bay mass shooting

honest question: for those of you who support automatic weapons being legal/accessible or who think that worrying about banning any guns is futile, do you also feel the same way about grenades or mortars or tanks being illegal/inaccessible to civilians?

They are already illegal. Unless they were made before 1986, and you have a specific license that is heavily regulated and costs over $10,000.
 
Less than 24 hours old

1506910550960.jpg


Texas neighborhood tense over World War II tank parked outside multimillion-dollar home | Fox News

If Shia LeBouf pops out of that, I would argue it should be banned. :)
 
Um, for the record, the gun he was using in the attack was already banned in 1986, just for possession of the gun he was firing at those people carries a federal 10 year mandatory prison sentence.

If you're going to roll with the "IF ONLY MORE GUN LAWS!" moral highground argument, at least know what the fuck you're talking about.

i don't think there should be more gun laws, necessarily

i think there should be an across-the-board ban on automatic weapons for civilians (idc what year they're from, historic or not)

as well, parts that can be used to convert semi-autos to autos which have no other purposes should be illegal to manufacture for and sell to civilians

if that's already the case, then great
 
apparentlystephen paddock didn't even openly own firearms nor did he have a criminal record in texas or las vegas...

me thinks that this is just the beggining of a killing spree of the ghost.

yes the "ghost." the ex cia hitman from a secretly funded branch.


this is his style. hes always taken up to using old folks identities and using their names to obtain legal firearms. he probably held the guy hostage in his home for several days obtaining equipment then used his identity to check into the hotel while concealing his own identity.

he would never leave a trace it would just look like someone else did it. someone else with a clean record who isn't known for collecting weaponry.
 
i don't think there should be more gun laws, necessarily

i think there should be an across-the-board ban on automatic weapons for civilians (idc what year they're from, historic or not)

as well, parts that can be used to convert semi-autos to autos which have no other purposes should be illegal to manufacture for and sell to civilians

if that's already the case, then great

"I want laws that already exist to prevent tragedies that said laws are already ineffective at preventing"
 
Um, for the record, the gun he was using in the attack was already banned in 1986, just for possession of the gun he was firing at those people carries a federal 10 year mandatory prison sentence.

If you're going to roll with the "IF ONLY MORE GUN LAWS!" moral highground argument, at least know what the fuck you're talking about.

Secondly, the bodies aren't even cold man, can we stop attributing narratives, motives, etc, to a situation we don't even have all the facts about yet?

What was he using?
 
I thought it was a pretty good on point reply :shrug:

Care to elaborate on why you thought it was stupid?

I would be happy to help you.......

You keep saying we need to ban "semi automatic" guns.....like this means something specifically to you that it doesn't mean to the rest of us.

you then keep pointing to AR rifles as if those are the only semi-automatics you see and then say to others you can still enjoy your "glock"

SuperTrap said:
FAS0615_GUN04.jpg


Im thinking you did this in an organized fashion on a professionally set up course not in your back yard? I believe thats basically what i suggested. You can switch out the ar with a bolt action rifle. And its basically the same deal.

Im sorry you cant look like john wick but have to settle for american sniper with that setup though!



So it is very clear, abundantly clear, over several different posts now, that you don't actually know WTF "semi automatic" even means or implies.

serveimage


it is the term used for the firing mechanism and gas cycle reloading technique that most guns implement.

Yes......even glocks

If it isn't a bolt action rifle, a revolver, or a single load rifle the odds are good that it is a "semi-automatic"

serveimage


So, no, you can't enjoy your glocks..........for they too can be turned full auto and converted just as easily given a little manipulation.

The overwhelming majority of guns in our country are semi-automatic, not just scary "assault weapons", not just big mean guns........but also every handgun that auto reloads between shots (that isn't revolver).

So, in other words, in shorter words, since I doubt someone who knows this little about guns has the interest (other than emotional self interest) to even make it this far............you just want say 80-90% of guns on the market and that people own banned.

GOOD FUCKING LUCK WITH THAT!!!!
 
Last edited:
not all full auto weapons are illegal

also, the parts to turn semi-autos into autos are legal (at least in some places)


fool, i think that you and osiris are discussing different issues (or i may be wrong)... it appears he is more concerned with stopping "mass" killings, and you are focusing on an aggregation of individual incidents

unless you feel both result from the same problem, with which i would disagree

1. Modern full auto weapons are illegal. Unless it was built before 1986, and you have an expensive license to possess one, they are illegal. Nobody is using registered antiques to commit a mass shooting.

2. The parts might be legal, but making the modifications to a weapon makes it illegal to possess.

3. I think mass shooters are disturbed people who will find ways to commit mass murder regardless of the means available to them. If they can't use guns, they will use explosives. If they can't use explosives, they will use vehicles. Banning those, or making them heavily regulated and a pain to obtain does not curtail the mass murderer's desire to commit murder or prevent them from doing so. It merely inconveniences the 99.999% of law abiding citizens.
 
"I want laws that already exist to prevent tragedies that said laws are already ineffective at preventing"

except they don't, do they? or is jomo incorrect?


my opinion on automatic weapons didn't come about today--i've felt this way since i developed an opinion on gun control



i also understand and agree that laws, alone, will never prevent crime... but i think at least some of them help

i know this is not the right place to have a discussion about anything because everyone jumps to conclusions about what everyone else's beliefs are about everything
 
1. Modern full auto weapons are illegal. Unless it was built before 1986, and you have an expensive license to possess one, they are illegal. Nobody is using registered antiques to commit a mass shooting.

2. The parts might be legal, but making the modifications to a weapon makes it illegal to possess.

3. I think mass shooters are disturbed people who will find ways to commit mass murder regardless of the means available to them. If they can't use guns, they will use explosives. If they can't use explosives, they will use vehicles. Banning those, or making them heavily regulated and a pain to obtain does not curtail the mass murderer's desire to commit murder or prevent them from doing so. It merely inconveniences the 99.999% of law abiding citizens.

i mostly agree with you btw

but it's annoying that you keep saying autos are illegal, when you know that some aren't
 
Here's my question regarding emotionally disturbed people:

why are there so many more of them here?

on the other hand, some japanese porn is pretty fucking odd, right? are they not emotionally disturbed? so where are all their mass killings?
 
I am not against firearms in the USA because the reality is I'd rather be armed personally than not if I had the choice(cuz everyone else in America could be armed)

However I do find it really funny that the idea of less guns = less gun crime seems to be an alien concept to u guys

Now I 100% realize you are never going to be able to get rid of all of the guns, or any of them, but you guys act like if there was a way to snap your fingers and make all of the guns go away the you would still see significant firearm crime or something. Like it honestly boggles my mind u can look at countries who have banned them or strictly controlled them's death rates and say anything other than less guns = less gun violence. I can't imagine anyone with a working brain disputing that
 
Um, for the record, the gun he was using in the attack was already banned in 1986, just for possession of the gun he was firing at those people carries a federal 10 year mandatory prison sentence.

If you're going to roll with the "IF ONLY MORE GUN LAWS!" moral highground argument, at least know what the fuck you're talking about.

Secondly, the bodies aren't even cold man, can we stop attributing narratives, motives, etc, to a situation we don't even have all the facts about yet?


I'm sorry nash but i have to correct you on this. Bodies are never cold they are almost always room temperature. since it was outdoors in las vegas i would assume the bodies stayed warm. Now that they're in the fridge at the mortitian its safe to assume the bodies are actually cold. either way what do you expect a well thought out concise letter of condolences to the victims of a country music festival? *scoff*

as if...
 
Here's my question regarding emotionally disturbed people:

why are there so many more of them here?

on the other hand, some japanese porn is pretty fucking odd, right? are they not emotionally disturbed? so where are all their mass killings?

We have a people problem in the U.S. Who is denying that?
 
Back
Top