[Closed] Mandalay Bay - Las Vegas

Ah, but then they're 'madmen' so it's apparently ok to go on an AR15 rampage

Unless you hunt (20 million Americans do apparently), in which case you might well want rifles considerably more powerful than the Las Vegas shooter.

WTF are people hunting that would require that kind of weaponry?

You don't go hunting with an assault weapon, any more than most people that go on a killing spree use a hunting rifle. Power isn't the issue, even a relatively low power gun will poke a hole right through a person at a fair distance. If he'd had hunting rifles he'd have fired a much smaller number of very accurate, very powerful shots and hurt many less people.

The thing is, there is no legitimate civilian use for an assault weapon, other than collecting or blazing away at the range for fun. They're useless for hunting and they're totally wrong for home defence. So they're either legit toys, or murder tools.

votchy - Member

How did he manage to break those 2 reinforced glass windows without anyone hearing and reporting it?

Cutting glass quietly is really easy, you can get the tools from B&Q. But he probably didn't bother, because he had a load of guns. And why would he worry about the noise of broken glass when he was about to fill the air with shots and screams?

Spot on NW. Chris Rock also had a good point:

😆

funkmasterp - Member

Unless you hunt (20 million Americans do apparently), in which case you might well want rifles considerably more powerful than the Las Vegas shooter.

WTF are people hunting that would require that kind of weaponry?

Elk, moose, deer etc. I better not google it incase it looks like I am presenting it as offhand knowledge I had in my brain but I believe there are minimum legal calibers for big game. There are numerous reasons why a hunter might want a caliber bigger than .556 for hunting.

Again, I don't want to appear to be presenting something I googled as offhand knowledge I had in my brain but I did hear it suggested somehwere that the Nato 556 round was chosen over larger caliber rounds because it would injure or slowly kill as opposed to kill outright therefore tying up more of an opposing country's resources in terms of evacuation, medical care etc ect.

You don't need semi-automatics or automatics for hunting, though.

Who said you did?

No one. I was making a general point, alongside your comment about caliber.

You can own one of these providing it's made before 1986 and you can afford it.

Elk, moose, deer etc

Which don't require the kind of weaponry that was being discussed.

funkmasterp - Member

Which don't require the kind of weaponry that was being discussed.

Read the previous page and you'll see that I was replying to mikewsmith's comment that "no one could ever justify owning more than a handgun or a shotgun". Do keep up.

chip - Member

You can own one of these

Not without an FBI background check, interviews with ATF, fingerprinting, references from employees or being in a relevant field, mulitple forms in duplicate, annual fee etc etc etc. Probably the way they should control access to "normal" guns.

If they were readily available millionaire with no criminal record Stephen Paddock would have just used one of those.

I think it's fairly safe to say that no one can justify owning an assault rifle, for that is what they are.

Hunting rifle - hunting
Shotgun - hunting
Pistol - defending yourself from an assailant/intruder/mountain lion/bear
AR15 - murdering cinema goers/concert goers/school kids/exercising your right to own excessive firearms, as far as I can tell.

the Nato 556 round was chosen over larger caliber rounds because it would injure or slowly kill as opposed to kill outright

But it doesn't have the same pentrating power.
However, it's possible for an infantryman to carry many more rounds of the smaller calibre (x2 ?) - that was the reason for the choice.

Probably the way they should control access to "normal" guns.

You would think so.

That too, I was informed by an ex soldier that the other reason for the 5.56 being chosen was that it was more likely to maim than kill.

The reasoning behind that is that a maimed enemy is just as removed from combat as a dead one, but he needs someone to treat his wounds, and someone to protect the person treating his wounds, so you've removed three opponents from the battle rather than one.

I tbought the reduction in penetration was also a factor, as you get more energy transfer? A .556 that stops in the shoulder transfers more energy and causes more damage than a .762 round that goes straight through?

Moses - Member

But it doesn't have the same pentrating power.
However, it's possible for an infantryman to carry many more rounds of the smaller calibre (x2 ?) - that was the reason for the choice.

sobriety - Member

That too, I was informed by an ex soldier that the other reason for the 5.56 being chosen was that it was more likely to maim than kill.

No doubt it was a combination of factors but I always thought that was interesting. There seems to a kernal of truth in it too since they have continued to increase the potency of that round in response to complaints about its lack of killing power from soldiers.

I posted a video earlier of a man going on an open carry walk through Walmart with what looks like semi auto rifles who gets asked to leave due to the store worker saying becease they sell alcohol.

And while being walked out the store they can clearly be seen walking past a locked container of guns for sale in amongst the normal stuff you might find in Walmart.

Unless you hunt (20 million Americans do apparently), in which case you might well want rifles considerably more powerful than the Las Vegas shooter.

I did

Read the previous page and you'll see that I was replying to mikewsmith's comment that "no one could ever justify owning more than a handgun or a shotgun". Do keep up

You don't need anything approaching the power of what he had to hunt with. That's my point.

Edit - Well shit, qouting went a bit wrong there 😕

Actually you do a 223/5.56 is not legal for deer in the uk you need a 243 minimum as it has more energy. Oe there's a minimum energy requirement and a 223/5.56 doesn't have enough

Power was the wrong word then. Rate of fire? I know sweet FA about guns other than the fact that Americans appear to need them for defense, sport or hunting and we’ve seen (about once per month) how that works out.

You’re right, rate of fire is the thing. Irrelevant for hunting big game, which will promptly do one if you miss with the first shot, but ideal for killing lots of people as quick as possible. I can’t think of a reason for a civilian to own one except as a range toy, but even then you tend to hit bugger all on automatic. I don’t get it.
A larger calibre will have much more energy per round, which is what you need to kill Big game.

You don't go hunting with an assault weapon, any more than most people that go on a killing spree use a hunting rifle.

That's not hunting.

Read the previous page and you'll see that I was replying to mikewsmith's comment that "no one could ever justify owning more than a handgun or a shotgun". Do keep up.

As said way back up the thread if you really want home defense then a small hand gun and a big shotgun do that, the rest is just compensating for something.

As we've had just ably demonstrated, part of the issue is that people use absolutes and outliers in the data to derail proposals for common-sense measures to protect the population.

We've had an argument that having ready access to firearms doesn't influence the rate of suicides..... why? Because there are no guns in Japan, but a high suicide rate. 🙄

Can we agree that people with a history of suicide attempts, or suicidal ideation shouldn't be sold a gun? SURELY even STW can come to agreement on that? How many lives would it have to save before you could get behind it? 10? 50? 10,000?

FYI - the rationale for bump-fire stocks being introduced, was so that people with limited hand function could still shoot a semi-automatic rifle. How many people do you think that has benefited? We now know the other side of that equation.

Now ask yourself the same question about owning a 50 round drum magazine? or armour piercing rounds? What about incendiary rounds? Silencers? How many lives is being free to "enjoy those freedoms" worth?

The problem is that the gun lobby is blocking even the most sensible updates to legislation - by using ridiculous whataboutery and derailing the debate.

if you must have guns:
handguns for defense
Bolt action rifles for hunting
Shotguns for "sport"

All with sensible restrictions around size, capacity and calbre.

Everything else is just bullsh*t fetishism.

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
From here
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/us-gun-violence-charts-data#img-1
Watching people try and justify having a home arsenal is depressing, as I said before if you live in fear for your life then perhaps you need to take a hard look at how your contry got to that situation.

Twelve pages and not only do we have two sensible posts, but we also have graphs. The thread is nearing its end

So it would seem that the standard approach is working over the the US. Ride the storm for a week or so then everyone stops talking about it.

Until the next time.

you mean today?
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/ph-ag-edgewood-shooting-20171018-story.html

It's OK, though. Every gift shop in Las Vegas is clearly doing great trade in #VegasStrong t-shirts. Oh, and the billboard truck advertising "Battlefield Las Vegas. SHOOT GUNS NOW!" is still rolling up and down the strip.

It hasn't changed. Can't wait to leave.