Active shooter at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas...

[Cameramonkey]

And with a full load of fuel, at a high angle of attack, Im sure you could do MUCH more devastation at this type of outdoor venue. The only problem would be identifying everything in the dark. 2500lbs of aluminum would make a mess out of a crowd like that.

(had to delete my description because it made me sick to my stomach)

(also a former pilot)

 

[indiucky]

Without getting defensive, is there a way to communicate to them why restricting firearms isn't the right course of action?

Bring back Shane......

[video=youtube;xgW-gxJmKEM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgW-gxJmKEM[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

Without getting defensive, is there a way to communicate to them why restricting firearms isn't the right course of action? Without playing politics, without name-calling, without broad answers ("FREEDOM!")... how do you explain to these Americans that otherwise don't care about guns... why the guns aren't the problem?

I think this is a fair framework for discussion.

One point I've made in the past is that these things have happened without guns. The worst school killing in American history was a vengeful school board member who blew up the school along with about 50 kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Modern history reveals tragedies with vehicles and just plain crime. Frankly, the comparison to a week/month in Chicago, I think, is pretty compelling.

To make sense of this, there are 2 groups doing these things (with some possible overlap): mentally disturbed and terrorists. The former, we are working towards better ways to prevent them from purchasing a firearm from an FFL, but if they are otherwise a "proper person" then there's nothing we can do. The latter, well, the best defense there is more armed defense to the attacks IMHO.

This particular incident in LV was more rare than a lightning strike. While not particularly comforting, we are more likely to be killed in car accident with a semi truck than be a victim of another bumpfire attack.

Moreover, I think most Americans intuitively know this, even if they don't like it right now. This is part of the reason these things - now - don't result in more gun control. Usually.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Looks like he "ate" the gun.

After looking at the death picture, I have to disagree. I think he shot himself in the sternum. Look at his shirt in the center below the buttons...there is what appears to be a bullet sized hole, with burn marks, and a relatively small blood stain. Then look at the blood coming from his mouth and nose. The bullet probably took out part of the lungs, esophagus, and aortic bundle. A lot of blood gets pumped out his mouth and nose as a result.

 

[T.Lex]

After looking at the death picture, I have to disagree. I think he shot himself in the sternum. Look at his shirt in the center below the buttons...there is what appears to be a bullet sized hole, with burn marks, and a relatively small blood stain. Then look at the blood coming from his mouth and nose. The bullet probably took out part of the lungs, esophagus, and aortic bundle. A lot of blood gets pumped out his mouth and nose as a result.

Oooh... had not considered that.

 

[chezuki]

After looking at the death picture, I have to disagree. I think he shot himself in the sternum. Look at his shirt in the center below the buttons...there is what appears to be a bullet sized hole, with burn marks, and a relatively small blood stain. Then look at the blood coming from his mouth and nose. The bullet probably took out part of the lungs, esophagus, and aortic bundle. A lot of blood gets pumped out his mouth and nose as a result.

What about the puddle of thick brain blood his head is resting in?

 

[T.Lex]

What about the puddle of thick brain blood his head is resting in?

I looked back at it, and that could be regular aortic blood. It might also explain the trail of small blood drops to the gun.

It also makes me think he might not have died quickly, or at least as quickly. That makes me smile a little.

 

[ghitch75]

What about the puddle of thick brain blood his head is resting in?

looks like foamy lung blood to me same as when you lung shoot a deer.....

 

[Cameramonkey]

Damn. Knew I shouldnt have come in here on my lunch. Anyone want the rest of my Spaghetti-os? I'm done.

 

[ghitch75]

Damn. Knew I shouldnt have come in here on my lunch. Anyone want the rest of my Spaghetti-os? I'm done.

i like Spaghetti-O'S....

 

[Alpo]

Damn. Knew I shouldnt have come in here on my lunch. Anyone want the rest of my Spaghetti-os? I'm done.

Yeah. I decided my life would be just as fulfilling without looking at death porn.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Yeah. I decided my life would be just as fulfilling without looking at death porn.

I didnt look. I dont need to see it. Its the descriptions that got me.

 

[jamil]

Judging by the author, I'm going to assume she suggests eating all the guns.

I see this as a good thing. So maybe we can iterate through the list of gun control talking points one by one to arrive at the conclusion, if 'x' can't stop this we need something else, until we get the focus off guns and onto people.

 

[Vigilant]

What's in the bo...Note?(Whiny Brad Pitt voice). I'm interested in the video and note supposedly left behind?

 

[HoughMade]

I see this as a good thing. So maybe we can iterate through the list of gun control talking points one by one to arrive at the conclusion, if 'x' can't stop this we need something else, until we get the focus off guns and onto people.

I like your optimism.

I read it as registration followed by confiscation....because background checks aren't enough.

 

[Alpo]

I didnt look. I dont need to see it. Its the descriptions that got me.

Understood. Porn is the wrong word anyway. Certainly a number of professionals can take an objective view of such fotos.

 

[PaulF]

So let's take a step back and look at the reaction to this on all sides. Let me remove a few groups:

Angry ideologues that see this as an opportunity.
Angry ideologues that don't care, just like name-calling and insulting on the internets.
Angry gun owners that don't care, just like repeating "FREEDOM".

Let's just look at the people that don't understand. Your fellow Americans that don't necessarily subscribe to either team's newsletter... your neighbors and peers.

They see ~60 people killed in a single act, and they're sad... frustrated... disappointed... and sometimes angry. They want to know how and why. They don't understand why people should be allowed to buy so many guns, or so much ammo, or modifications that make them faster, etc... They don't get it, but they might start thinking something should be done about it.

Without getting defensive, is there a way to communicate to them why restricting firearms isn't the right course of action? Without playing politics, without name-calling, without broad answers ("FREEDOM!")... how do you explain to these Americans that otherwise don't care about guns... why the guns aren't the problem?

Curious if any of you have had to tone down, or phrase differently, your defense of firearms when it comes to the people you're talking to.

This being the internet, we mostly just see the angry ideologues screaming irrational things at gun owners, laying all the blame on them, the NRA, etc... But if we look past those people, there are others that just don't get it.

My first point would be that making something illegal doesn't make it unavailable.

These technologies already exist. A clever person can easily replicate a bumpfire stock, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. The same is true for a trigger crank. A more motivated criminal can build a genuine full-auto from sheet metal, surplus parts, and specific instructions found easily enough on the internet.

My second point would be to point out that an Australian-style gun grab would require the cooperation of the VAST MAJORITY of the gun-owning population of America. Considering there are those who claim they would revolt violently in the face of such a scheme, I can hardly imagine wide-spreread compliance...and that is among the normally law-abiding crowd. Does anyone expect actual criminals to cooperate?

My final point would to legality: gun ownership is a constitutionally-protected right of all Americans, removing that protection is necessarily difficult, requiring the cooperation of 2/3rd of the states. A constitutional amendment cannot simply be declared unconstitutional, and the political capital to accomplish this simply doesn't exist in this environment. Guns are a fact of American life, wishing them away is little more than foolish delusion.

With or without guns, violence in a choice. I think solving this problem will require more attention toward figuring out how to influence people to choose a peaceful and cooperative path, and I don't think that is the job (or within the ability) of government.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What's in the bo...Note?(Whiny Brad Pitt voice). I'm interested in the video and note supposedly left behind?

The real shooter planted it there. It has all the confessions necessary to rile up the right politicians to ban the right things and demonize the right people.

So I'm told.

oooooOOOOOOOOoooooo

 

[HoughMade]

Hero Marine stole truck, drove Vegas shooting victims to hospital - Story | WFLD

 

[phylodog]

Let's just look at the people that don't understand. Your fellow Americans that don't necessarily subscribe to either team's newsletter... your neighbors and peers.

They see ~60 people killed in a single act, and they're sad... frustrated... disappointed... and sometimes angry. They want to know how and why. They don't understand why people should be allowed to buy so many guns, or so much ammo, or modifications that make them faster, etc... They don't get it, but they might start thinking something should be done about it.

Without getting defensive, is there a way to communicate to them why restricting firearms isn't the right course of action? Without playing politics, without name-calling, without broad answers ("FREEDOM!")... how do you explain to these Americans that otherwise don't care about guns... why the guns aren't the problem?

Curious if any of you have had to tone down, or phrase differently, your defense of firearms when it comes to the people you're talking to.

This being the internet, we mostly just see the angry ideologues screaming irrational things at gun owners, laying all the blame on them, the NRA, etc... But if we look past those people, there are others that just don't get it.

I've posted the message below on FB three times now over the past few years when something like this occurs. All you really need to do is walk them through the logical conclusion of their goals and sprinkle in some undeniable truths. Don't be surprised if no one wants to engage you in civil discourse, no one ever has with me.

I typically try to avoid political discussions here as they rarely end without someone getting their feelings hurt. The gun control topic is my personal “hot button” because I cannot understand the logic from the other side unless I want to simply ignore some very basic, very simple facts. Whenever we have a lunatic cut loose like we did in San Bernardino we get to hear the talking heads spouting their side of the argument. I’m opening this up for anyone who wishes to have honest, respectful discourse on the issue. I will do my very best not to be condescending or rude and hope anyone who chooses to comment will do the same. I would also like to preface this by stating that I am not advocating for less controls than we currently have in place. I do not feel that the current precautions are unreasonable regardless of how the 2nd Amendment is worded. Unfortunately the nature of our society and the world has changed significantly since it was written. All that said, here are the facts as I see them.

1. Laws do not prevent crime.
What happened in Paris and in San Bernardino was illegal with or without the use of firearms. Murder is illegal as is attempted murder and that fact does not deter someone who has decided to go down that path. The status of the murder weapon does not influence the murderer one way or the other.


2. Prohibition does not eradicate that which is prohibited.
The prohibition on alcohol was a massive failure in this country. The prohibition of cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and marijuana has been even more so. You can find all sorts of numbers on it but its safe to say this country has spent well in excess of a trillion dollars attempting to prevent its citizens from consuming these substances. These illegal substances are more prevalent today than they were when the were deemed unlawful to possess. A prohibition on handguns in Chicago, Washington DC and New York City have not resulted in the disappearance of handguns.
Prohibiting semi automatic rifles, handguns or shotguns will not make them disappear. They are here and they are here to stay. Millions and millions of these firearms have been in the possession of law abiding citizens for decades with no negative effect on society. Would we have fewer gun related deaths if they did not exist? Quite possibly but that is never going to happen. Chasing that dream is a complete and total waste of time as proven by our experiences with alcohol and illegal narcotics.


3. Obtaining firearms through lawful means is not “easy”.
Buying a gallon of milk is easy. Legally purchasing a gun from a licensed dealer whether at a gun store or at a gun show requires the purchaser to show state issued identification, fill out a form and have a criminal background check conducted on that person before they can walk out with that firearm. Is this going to stop gun crime? Not by a long shot but I don’t believe it is unreasonable to take this basic precaution.
The private sale of firearms (in Indiana) is lawful provided the seller is not knowingly selling to someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm. This can occur at a gun show (and undoubtedly does) but it can also occur in a Walmart parking lot. There is no requirement for a bill of sale, receipt or any other record of the transaction to be completed or maintained by either party.


4. Making guns illegal will not solve any problems.
The prohibition of illegal narcotics has our prisons packed with drug offenders. So much so that years ago we began releasing them well before they had served out their sentence. It is now widely understood that a convict can expect to serve half of their sentence.
The problem of prison overcrowding has gotten to the point now where we no longer even bother with appropriate sentencing. I have personally had contact with well over two dozen criminals with murder convictions who were back on the streets of Indianapolis and still young enough to run from the police. Our current legal system is not a deterrent to criminals largely due to the failures of prohibition attempts and their ability to overload the system.


5. Guns are inanimate objects, they cannot act autonomously.
Guns are man made objects, formed of plastic and metal. They do not have feelings. They are incapable of influencing human intention. They are tools, plain and simple. They are designed to inflict damage but are easily capable of preventing it.


6. The only reasonably successful means of defending against an armed criminal is to provide them with armed resistance.
Firearms are hugely effective in their intended purpose. The primary reason for owning firearms for millions and millions of Americans is for self defense.

If you accept the facts that I presented above and you still advocate for a prohibition on firearms (of any type currently legal) then you must also accept the fact that you do not believe people in this country should have the right or the means to defend themselves against a criminal attack. That is the only result which comes from banning firearms.

These are the facts as I understand them and provides an explanation on my stance. I’m open to discussion if anyone can provide a logical argument to the contrary. I’m not interested in statistics, they are as easily corrupted as most politicians.