Awful.

Man firing, presumably an assault rifle, from a high floor window of the Mandalay Bay hotel, towards a concert taking place across the street

 

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Guns exist, they're not going away.  You can't put Pandora back in the box.  You can outlaw, regulate, or whatever.  But if an evil person wants to get his hands on an assault rifle, he will be able to do so.  Legally or otherwise.

I disagree.  Just because deranged people can break laws to get weapons doesnt mean we should make it easy for them.  Really determined people can sneak weapons on planes too but we still try to stop them...we still ban those weapons on planes.

These kinds of assault weapons being legal is the difference between a guy with a smaller weapon killing 5 people and someone killing 50.  You might not stop the intent or the act, but you sure can mitigate it.

If there is any sensible reason to legally own an assault rifle, I'd love to hear it.

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I disagree.  Just because deranged people can break laws to get weapons doesnt mean we should make it easy for them.  Really determined people can sneak weapons on planes too but we still try to stop them...we still ban those weapons on planes.

These kinds of assault weapons being legal is the difference between a guy with a smaller weapon killing 5 people and someone killing 50.  You might not stop the intent or the act, but you sure can mitigate it.

If there is any sensible reason to legally own an assault rifle, I'd love to hear it.

This......I'm really tired of the whole "Guns are never going away so don't bother trying" argument....

2 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Yes, I believe they could insist that all bags brought in go through an x-ray scanner.  I'm just referring to how motivated hotel owner's will deal with this issue rapidly, not trying to solve America's gun problem.  Vegas Hotels will take action, America won't.

That's good for checking in.  What about every other time I, as a hotel patron, come and go?  Or walk through the casino?

Generally, only hotel guests are allowed to access the hotel room area.  In one hotel I stayed at, you had to swipe your room key card to go up.  In another, you didnt, you just went up the elevator.

Im definitely interested in how this guy assembled his arsenel in his room, what video cameras caught (because there is amazing security in Vegas hotels/casinos.  Did they miss a guy with 10 gun bags?  Did it matter?  Did he have them all broken down so they fit in normal suit cases?  Did he bring them in in multiple trips?

Just now, Noeller said:

This......I'm really tired of the whole "Guns are never going away so don't bother trying" argument....

It sort of dovetails to the Constitutional argument.  It means accepting that the founding fathers really intended for guns, in any form, to be a right of the people.  And I think that's rather silly.  But I know others think the constitution is sacrosanct even though the fact there are numerous amendments would tell us its not.

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I disagree.  Just because deranged people can break laws to get weapons doesnt mean we should make it easy for them.  Really determined people can sneak weapons on planes too but we still try to stop them...we still ban those weapons on planes.

These kinds of assault weapons being legal is the difference between a guy with a smaller weapon killing 5 people and someone killing 50.  You might not stop the intent or the act, but you sure can mitigate it.

If there is any sensible reason to legally own an assault rifle, I'd love to hear it.

But just because they are illegal doesn't mean you can't get them... that's my point... you can ban assault rifles but if someone really wants one, he will get it.

I'm not against banning them, for the record.  I just have my doubts about how effective it would be.

The AK-47 is banned in Canada but I've held and fired one so...?

Just now, Atomic said:

But just because they are illegal doesn't mean you can't get them... that's my point... you can ban assault rifles but if someone really wants one, he will get it.

I'm not against banning them, for the record.  I just have my doubts about how effective it would be.

The AK-47 is banned in Canada but I've held and fired one so...?

How did you hold and fire one? 

It would be very effective.  Because it would mean any one with one suddenly becomes very conspicuous. 

You could be right.  I'd like to see stats on gun attacks and how many were done using registered and legal weapons vs ones that were stolen or acquired illegally. 

6 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I disagree.  Just because deranged people can break laws to get weapons doesnt mean we should make it easy for them.  Really determined people can sneak weapons on planes too but we still try to stop them...we still ban those weapons on planes.

These kinds of assault weapons being legal is the difference between a guy with a smaller weapon killing 5 people and someone killing 50.  You might not stop the intent or the act, but you sure can mitigate it.

If there is any sensible reason to legally own an assault rifle, I'd love to hear it.

At some point they're going to need a Natl. referendum to institute controls over assault weapons but what the breaking point is, I don't know.  If this ever came to a vote I believe less than 20% of Americans would vote for access to these weapons, they are a strong lobby but relatively small in number, most Americans are actually rational people.

Just now, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

At some point they're going to need a Natl. referendum to institute controls over assault weapons but what the breaking point is, I don't know.  If this ever came to a vote I believe less than 20% of Americans would vote for access to these weapons, they are a strong lobby but relatively small in number, most Americans are actually rational people.

They prey upon people's fears.  First they come for your guns, then they come for ...insert whatever is important to those people.  Its utterly ridiculous.

If Trump's being President actually resulted in such a backlash to the GOP (which I tend to doubt) that the Dems won majority control of everything...and then rammed through a strict gun control law, it will have been worth it.

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

They prey upon people's fears.  First they come for your guns, then they come for ...insert whatever is important to those people.  Its utterly ridiculous.

If Trump's being President actually resulted in such a backlash to the GOP (which I tend to doubt) that the Dems won majority control of everything...and then rammed through a strict gun control law, it will have been worth it.

They could try the CDN. method, tax the **** out of them.

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

How did you hold and fire one? 

It would be very effective.  Because it would mean any one with one suddenly becomes very conspicuous. 

You could be right.  I'd like to see stats on gun attacks and how many were done using registered and legal weapons vs ones that were stolen or acquired illegally. 

Over time, it would likely reduce gun crimes.  But IMO it is a cultural issue as much as a legal one.  Guns and violence are part of the national identity of the USA.  And you don't change that by changing a law.  However it could be the first step.

As far as the gun I fired, it was one of many... there is no shortage of "gun collectors" in Canada, especially in Alberta.

Just now, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

They could try the CDN. method, tax the **** out of them.

Thats a great idea! lol  massive taxes for registering your guns and massive fines for not.

9 minutes ago, Atomic said:

The AK-47 is banned in Canada but I've held and fired one so...?

When was that? Was it the fully automatic version or a semi-auto variant?

Just now, Atomic said:

Over time, it would likely reduce gun crimes.  But IMO it is a cultural issue as much as a legal one.  Guns and violence are part of the national identity of the USA.  And you don't change that by changing a law.  However it could be the first step.

As far as the gun I fired, it was one of many... there is no shortage of "gun collectors" in Canada, especially in Alberta.

How many of these gun attacks trace their weapons to collectors?  One of the coolest things to do in Vegas is fire assault weapons.  But Im not sure anyone is concerned about the people who own the gun range are going to go rogue.  Thats a very specific thing.  Same with gun collecting really.  Its only been recently that they made it so you couldnt just buy and sell guns at conventions or whatever without registrations and licenses. 

Having a "collectors" license...thats one thing. 

It should be considered the moral responsibility of leadership to remove these weapons from general population.

As others have said, the gun culture is one thing but surely a minority of people in the US.

At the end of the day, you can get rid of guns entirely and there will still be attacks with massive casualties due to truck/plane attacks, bombings, knife attacks, etc.  Not saying we shouldn't pursue gun control... but I believe that guns are being painted as the sole issue when it's really just one part of a much larger problem.

7 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

When was that? Was it the fully automatic version or a semi-auto variant?

Must have been 2012 when I was living in Calgary.  I don't know enough about guns to answer the second part.

4 minutes ago, Atomic said:

At the end of the day, you can get rid of guns entirely and there will still be attacks with massive casualties due to truck/plane attacks, bombings, knife attacks, etc.  Not saying we shouldn't pursue gun control... but I believe that guns are being painted as the sole issue when it's really just one part of a much larger problem.

Planes is a good example.  We did not ban planed after 9/11.  But we banned weapons that the terrorists used.  We changed the culture of how one is to act in a hijacking.  We made it very difficult to access a cockpit.   We reduced the ease at which one might weaponize an airplane. 

In the same way, we should reduce the ease in which one might commit mass murder using guns.

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Planes is a good example.  We did not ban planed after 9/11.  But we banned weapons that the terrorists used.  We changed the culture of how one is to act in a hijacking.  We made it very difficult to access a cockpit.   We reduced the ease at which one might weaponize an airplane. 

In the same way, we should reduce the ease in which one might commit mass murder using guns.

True but the environment was already there for locking down planes.  Airports are highly securable.  But you're not putting everyone through TSA-style patdowns to go to the club or a concert, or to stay at a hotel like this villain was.

It should be more difficult to get an assault weapon in your hands, I agree.  But this problem is not going away soon.  Possibly not ever.

My question is... let's say you ban guns... and non-gun-related mass murders continue to occur... then where do you go from there?  It's sad and scary to think that this is now just the reality we live in.

15 minutes ago, Atomic said:

At the end of the day, you can get rid of guns entirely and there will still be attacks with massive casualties due to truck/plane attacks, bombings, knife attacks, etc.  Not saying we shouldn't pursue gun control... but I believe that guns are being painted as the sole issue when it's really just one part of a much larger problem.

You have a point but think how easy it is currently for an American to collect guns, buy massive quantities of ammunition and secure a perch to carry out his "celebration" of anger, it's all pretty straight forward.   Attacking a plane, a building or making a bomb requires a whole other level of motivation and organization that most nut-bars would be incapable of carrying out without being detected.  Restrictions would go a long way to reducing the odds but you're right, they will probably never be eliminated.

In retrospect I realize when I attended College in the US in the late 80's there was a fellow student a few doors down from me in the dorm that had a small arsenal which included a 45 magnum for which he was physically assembling bullets in his room with a manual bullet press.  Being a naive Canadian, I had no idea what this was about but was careful never to disagree with him about....anything.

I am going to guess that this wasn't done with an assault rifle, rather, a machine gun.

Read a few seemingly educated comments here and there, where that's what they thought.

assault rifle (I think) can't kill that many people, that fast, from that far.

apparently you can legally own a fully functional machine gun in the many states in the US including nevada, as long as it was built prior to 1986. cost 20,000.00 or so.

You can see videos of these on youtube.

 

 

Edited October 2, 20178 yr by Mark F

52 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Must have been 2012 when I was living in Calgary.  I don't know enough about guns to answer the second part.

did it go pew. pew. pew.  or did it go pewpewpewpewpewpewpew click click click

 

?

 

basically did it fire a single round per trigger pull or all the bullets on one trigger pull.  semi-auto versus full-auto.

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

True but the environment was already there for locking down planes.  Airports are highly securable.  But you're not putting everyone through TSA-style patdowns to go to the club or a concert, or to stay at a hotel like this villain was.

It should be more difficult to get an assault weapon in your hands, I agree.  But this problem is not going away soon.  Possibly not ever.

My question is... let's say you ban guns... and non-gun-related mass murders continue to occur... then where do you go from there?  It's sad and scary to think that this is now just the reality we live in.

In what way?  People commit mass murder with knives?  People will always kill.  The point is to make it harder to kill in masses.  Charles Witman killed 17 people in a similar action using rifles (he was a sharpshooter).  Had he had assault rifles, it would have been much worse.  It also took much longer for police at that time to respond appropriately.

1 hour ago, Mark F said:

I am going to guess that this wasn't done with an assault rifle, rather, a machine gun.

Read a few seemingly educated comments here and there, where that's what they thought.

assault rifle (I think) can't kill that many people, that fast, from that far.

apparently you can legally own a fully functional machine gun in the many states in the US including nevada, as long as it was built prior to 1986. cost 20,000.00 or so.

You can see videos of these on youtube.

 

 

Very true.  Just guessing.  Maybe using "assault rifle" as a catch call for deadly machine gun style weapon that average people do not need.  Witnesses make it seem like he paused to reload/change mags.

1 hour ago, SPuDS said:

did it go pew. pew. pew.  or did it go pewpewpewpewpewpewpew click click click

 

when I read madmoiselle marie, and blackhawk comics, the sound of a tommie gun was "budda budda budda"

I should say, I'm just guessing  what he used, I know nothing about guns.