Las Vegas Massacre

[baldgriff]

bg, your reliance on rate of fire arguments is odd. The more experienced shooters can put a lot of roundsdown range with most any type of weapon. It is just a lot easier with modern assault-style rifles, especially the AR platforms. That is the purpose for which they were built. Traditional hunting rifles, whether bolt action, pump or semi, often featured magazines of 4 or 5 rounds. Rate of fire wasn't an issue, though. Anyone who has hunted a day in their life knows that the point isn't how much lead you can throw in the air or in the direction of the target. Accuracy is the key, something you don't get when you are trying to fire three rounds a second from your AR-15 (which can be done, until you need a new magazine).

RedBird - I appreciate this response - and agree the pistol grip and telescoping stock make it easier to operate the weapon. You may see an increase in the accuracy of the weapon. You are likely correct that any normal hunter wants to do so accurately. This was a guy firing randomly into a crowd from the 32nd floor of a hotel - to obtain maximum damage he was laying down as much metal as he could. The point is he could have laid down as much metal with just about any semi-automatic rifle. As to the modification of the weapon - I would consider it illegal. To my other point - just because we make something illegal doesnt mean it wont happen. The law didnt proactively stop anything from happening - it just defines the penalty for breaking the rule.

[Gregg]

If the shooter had been captured alive, would those of you who are against the death penalty make an exception for him?

I was thinking about posting this question as well.

I have changed my stance over the years from pro to not so much.

I think there is a distinct moral difference between killing someone in the prevention of a crime than killing them because they committed the crime. I would like to think that if any of us had a chance to shoot and kill the gunman as he was sighting in on his intended victims I/we would do just that. On the other hand if we were first through the door during the shootings and he raised his hands...now what?

Would I blame someone for shooting the animal that just killed 59 people, I don't think I would. For my own self I do not think I could/would pull the trigger even if I really wanted to.

If I am not willing to kill someone myself, how much do I believe they need killing. I will go with life in prison no parole.

[dslaw]

If the shooter had been captured alive, would those of you who are against the death penalty make an exception for him?

I couldn't sit on a jury and give the death sentence. If I was put into a life or death situation I probably would be able to take a life to save mine or others but I couldn't condemn someone to death from the safety of my jury seat. Maybe this feeling would change if it was my wife who was shot and killed by someone but at least now I couldn't do it.

[gcstomp]

Death penalty is too good a fate. Why grant a mass killer such a merciful out? You his best friend? The reason shooter killed himself is because what awaited him was way worse than a nap nap go bye bye death. The reason they take belts from inmates is because they need to serve the time, not hit the easy button and go poof by hanging themselves.

[Redbirds Fan]

RedBird - I appreciate this response - and agree the pistol grip and telescoping stock make it easier to operate the weapon. You may see an increase in the accuracy of the weapon. You are likely correct that any normal hunter wants to do so accurately. This was a guy firing randomly into a crowd from the 32nd floor of a hotel - to obtain maximum damage he was laying down as much metal as he could. The point is he could have laid down as much metal with just about any semi-automatic rifle. As to the modification of the weapon - I would consider it illegal. To my other point - just because we make something illegal doesnt mean it wont happen. The law didnt proactively stop anything from happening - it just defines the penalty for breaking the rule.

Here's where we disagree. Had it been a traditional hunting rifle - four rounds in a magazine - it would have been harder to spray the crowd like this. You are correct that he could have reloaded quickly, over and over, but would he actually have done this? Would he have reloaded 40 or 50 times while firing that 200 rounds into the hall after being confronted by the security guard?

Psychologists tell us that when you make somebody wait or go through an extra step, they are less likely to carry through on whatever evil thing they are doing.

My experience is that most people who spend the money on these assault-style rifles and the accessories do it because it makes them feel badass. These ARs make them look like Rangers or SEALs, and they get off on that. If they could get full auto, they would.

I don't shoot the LA-style ranges. Outdoors and as natural as possible is what I look for in a place to shoot. But many times I have packed up and left when a group of these AR guys have arrived and started ripping off 30 rounds at a time, seeing what they could disintegrate.

My point with this, and I don't have any data or psychological studies, is that it might help our situation if we didn't market to guys who are already out there on the shoot-em-up edge.

Bear in mind, all that fixing this mass shooting problem will only go a very limited way toward the issue of gun deaths. Gun violence against women by their partners is huge. Even bigger, though, is suicide by gun. Something like 60% of gun deaths are believed to be suicides.

But we should not sacrifice the good while we wait for the perfect.

[Judge Jude]

holy crap

Tom WinterVerified account @Tom_Winter 26m
26 minutes ago

NBC News: Stephen Paddock searched for hotels near Fenway Park in Boston, senior official says. Few if any hotels have any view of stands.

[baldgriff]

Here's where we disagree. Had it been a traditional hunting rifle - four rounds in a magazine - it would have been harder to spray the crowd like this. You are correct that he could have reloaded quickly, over and over, but would he actually have done this? Would he have reloaded 40 or 50 times while firing that 200 rounds into the hall after being confronted by the security guard?

Sure with a traditional 4 round magazine - he would have had to do the reload over and over. However, we also know that most of these hunting rifles are capable of handling magazines with 20 rounds. They are semi-automatic guns. One trigger pull - one shot. Bigger magazine more shots immediately available. Without having stats here with me - I have to think that there are plenty of "hunting rifles" that can handle a 20 shot magazine.

I think this picture makes my case much more clearly:

Assault_Weapon-300x203.jpg


What frustrates me about this conversation is that in general - both guns are capable of the same amount of damage. However, lawmakers want us to believe that the bottom gun is way more destructive. The general lack of understanding is infuriating - assault weapon means absolutely nothing, other than a means to start taking away guns. It stars with getting rid of the scary guns - then it moves to - that gun has the same capability so its bad too and so on and so on. Both of those guns in the picture are capable of similar damage - why the F do we care if one is "assault" or not.

We have well over a centuries worth of semi-auto guns - getting rid of assault ones is absolutely irrelevant because the non-assault can still do similar damage.

I have no problem with magazine size limits - I can see 10 at the top side. You are correct a traditional 4 shot mag would have required much more reloading. In my estimation though - the genie is so way out of the bottle that I dont know how you put it back. Grandfathering all of the stuff made pre 2018 isnt going to stop any of this from happening.

Here is an interesting OpEd piece from someone that used to write for FiveThirtyEight from the October 3rd Washington Post - very interesting read:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.78d4c00cf735

[Gregg]

holy crap

Tom WinterVerified account @Tom_Winter 26m
26 minutes ago

NBC News: Stephen Paddock searched for hotels near Fenway Park in Boston, senior official says. Few if any hotels have any view of stands.

There are reports that he had booked a hotel during Lolapalooza in Grant Park (Chicago) but never showed up. There are about 100,000 people in attendance.

[heyelander]

If the shooter had been captured alive, would those of you who are against the death penalty make an exception for him?

In cases like this, where I personally would want someone put to death, I want a government who doesn't leave that emotional choice to me. As a society we should not be killing people.

[Sour Masher]

As a society we should not be killing people.

But we do it all the time, and in most cases for worse reasons and less cause. Not only our own citizens, but people all over the world--both enemy targets and innocent civilians we label as collateral damage--necessary sacrifices, it is claimed, in our various wars. We also kill people indirectly, through our refusal to provide people with basic necessities of life like health care, our inability to protect them from harm by negligent companies/governments via false advertising, faulty products, lethal polluting, etc. Hell, I personally have contributed to the deaths of others, I am sure, simply because I own a cell phone. The disease and death caused by unregulated and unsafe mining the rare earth metals needed to make cell phones and other products are well known, but little to nothing is done about it, and most don't really care, because it isn't happening to them, and what could most of us do, anyway?

I know you are against all of these things, so none of them are inconsistent with your desire for a society as a whole to not be given the role of collective executioner. But for me, it would be something I could believe is appropriate, in the fantastical hypothetical reality where death penalties were not doled out unfairly and in many cases with uncertain evidence of guilt. The state performing this function, at the very least, would be far more morally gray than many of the other ways our society kills and lets people die--much better people more deserving of life than this man.

[Sour Masher]

I don't want to start a conversation down the rabbit hole of conspiracy, but I am curious about whether anyone more familiar with how Vegas works has insights in how this guy set up shop undetected, and was able to operate for so long before being found and confronted. My limited experiences in Vegas suggest that the hotel is always watching you. There are cameras everywhere, security monitoring everyone--so how was he able to transport and set up all these weapons undetected? I'm amazed that this guy--a Vegas regular and known high end gambler, was not being monitored and that no flags were raised during his activities. And my understanding is that the windows he broke would have raised alarms as well. In hindsight, so many things could have tripped up his plans and ended up saving lots of people.

[Redbirds Fan]

Sure with a traditional 4 round magazine - he would have had to do the reload over and over. However, we also know that most of these hunting rifles are capable of handling magazines with 20 rounds. They are semi-automatic guns. One trigger pull - one shot. Bigger magazine more shots immediately available. Without having stats here with me - I have to think that there are plenty of "hunting rifles" that can handle a 20 shot magazine.

I think this picture makes my case much more clearly:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1012[/ATTACH]


What frustrates me about this conversation is that in general - both guns are capable of the same amount of damage. However, lawmakers want us to believe that the bottom gun is way more destructive. The general lack of understanding is infuriating - assault weapon means absolutely nothing, other than a means to start taking away guns. It stars with getting rid of the scary guns - then it moves to - that gun has the same capability so its bad too and so on and so on. Both of those guns in the picture are capable of similar damage - why the F do we care if one is "assault" or not.

We have well over a centuries worth of semi-auto guns - getting rid of assault ones is absolutely irrelevant because the non-assault can still do similar damage.

I have no problem with magazine size limits - I can see 10 at the top side. You are correct a traditional 4 shot mag would have required much more reloading. In my estimation though - the genie is so way out of the bottle that I dont know how you put it back. Grandfathering all of the stuff made pre 2018 isnt going to stop any of this from happening.

Here is an interesting OpEd piece from someone that used to write for FiveThirtyEight from the October 3rd Washington Post - very interesting read:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.78d4c00cf735

Okay. 1) Your picture doesn't make your case at all. Although you can technically hunt with a .22 (or a BB gun), a .22 is not a traditional hunting rifle, which is specifically what I referred to in my post. 2) What you said was that he could laid down as much metal with any semi-auto rifle. I countered with traditional hunting rifles, which have small magazines. Traditional hunting rifles don't take 20/30 round mags, so far as I know. If you know of some, please share. 3) I'm aware of the numbers mentioned in the article you cited, which was a good read. See the last couple of paragraphs of my post.

Please don't ignore the fact that the definition of "assault rifle" you posted from wiki the other day said the term was made up by various sources including the firearm industry. We can argue all day whether it is a technically accurate term, but it is the term which is generally accepted and it has more than a kernal of truth, sort of like "Obamacare". What frustrates gun nuts is that assault rifle is a term with high emotional impact. This is a propaganda strategy the right monopolized up until now in the gun control debate. See, inter alia, "cold dead fingers", "guns don't kill people", "jack-booted thugs", etc.

[Redbirds Fan]

I don't want to start a conversation down the rabbit hole of conspiracy, but I am curious about whether anyone more familiar with how Vegas works has insights in how this guy set up shop undetected, and was able to operate for so long before being found and confronted. My limited experiences in Vegas suggest that the hotel is always watching you. There are cameras everywhere, security monitoring everyone--so how was he able to transport and set up all these weapons undetected? I'm amazed that this guy--a Vegas regular and known high end gambler, was not being monitored and that no flags were raised during his activities. And my understanding is that the windows he broke would have raised alarms as well. In hindsight, so many things could have tripped up his plans and ended up saving lots of people.

I have no problem believing Paddock could have set up his sniper's nest as is being reported. These rifles are not heavy as compared to traditional sporting rifles, and they are easily broken down to fit in suitcases. Over three days it would have been no problem to make several trips to and from his car without arousing suspicion. Likewise, because of their size when broken down, keeping them hidden from housekeeping would have been no big trick.

As far as the hotel/casino watching people, they do. But they watch you in the casino while you are trying to win their money. The really couldn't give a tinker's damn what you do in the hotel unless someone complains. The Golden Rule in Las Vegas is very simple. If something encourages or facilitates gambling, then it is permitted. If something discourages or inhibits gambling, then it is not permitted. Everything else is irrelevant.

As far as setting up the weapons for the assault, that would take little time. And the last thing he would do would be to knock out the windows. It's a big hotel. Even then, it was only about 11 minutes until a security guard found him and, apparently, drew his attention away from the concert crowd. I say this because he quit shooting out the window and put approximately 200 rounds into the hallway.

So, not a hard thing to do. I've never smuggled guns into a hotel, but I have seen people smuggle a lot of contraband into a hotel without drawing attention to themselves. And this guy, a high roller in his 60s, wouldn't draw much attention unless he was dragging a piece of artillery behind him.

[Gregg]

Here's where we disagree. Had it been a traditional hunting rifle - four rounds in a magazine - it would have been harder to spray the crowd like this. You are correct that he could have reloaded quickly, over and over, but would he actually have done this? Would he have reloaded 40 or 50 times while firing that 200 rounds into the hall after being confronted by the security guard?

Psychologists tell us that when you make somebody wait or go through an extra step, they are less likely to carry through on whatever evil thing they are doing.

My experience is that most people who spend the money on these assault-style rifles and the accessories do it because it makes them feel badass. These ARs make them look like Rangers or SEALs, and they get off on that. If they could get full auto, they would.

I don't shoot the LA-style ranges. Outdoors and as natural as possible is what I look for in a place to shoot. But many times I have packed up and left when a group of these AR guys have arrived and started ripping off 30 rounds at a time, seeing what they could disintegrate.

My point with this, and I don't have any data or psychological studies, is that it might help our situation if we didn't market to guys who are already out there on the shoot-em-up edge.

Bear in mind, all that fixing this mass shooting problem will only go a very limited way toward the issue of gun deaths. Gun violence against women by their partners is huge. Even bigger, though, is suicide by gun. Something like 60% of gun deaths are believed to be suicides.

But we should not sacrifice the good while we wait for the perfect.

I know 4 guys who own AR's. They do not hunt with them. They own them because it makes them feel bad ass as you suggested. It also gives them a false sense of security. They think they can protect themselves from some imaginary siege. Now if they are right and we come under siege they will be more protected than me for a few minutes. I am of the belief that if true siege comes they do not stand a chance. I don't believe true siege will come.

These are not ignorant men. They are successful and from different walks of life. None of them would want their ARs taken from them under any circumstances.

I am not saying it is right or wrong. Just telling what I observe and hear.

I will confess that if you gave me a choice of .22's in the picture when I was 12, I would have taken the one that looks military because it is so cool. Today I take the hunting rifle looking .22.

[Sour Masher]

I've never smuggled guns into a hotel, but I have seen people smuggle a lot of contraband into a hotel without drawing attention to themselves. And this guy, a high roller in his 60s, wouldn't draw much attention unless he was dragging a piece of artillery behind him.

Thanks for the insights into the size and concealment possibilities for all the weapons he possessed. I hadn't realized they broke down that way. This last point rings very true. A lot of people do shady things in the hotels, and no one cares as long as it doesn't hinder people spending their money.