hikenbike
New member
How about hundreds of bullets traveling at 1000 fps coming rapid fire from an unknown direction every few minutes?
I'll take the truck all day every day.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Vegas Shooting
- Thread starter CXS
- Start date
How about hundreds of bullets traveling at 1000 fps coming rapid fire from an unknown direction every few minutes?
I'll take the truck all day every day.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Gunslinger-13
New member
I meant the occurance of mass shooting being on the rise- e.g. The number of mass shooting per year in America.
And that's where it gets really hard to track such stats, because there are several definitions! Which is exactly the point aim trying to make here.
But let's take the definition of public mass shooting- being any shooting in public where four or more people were shot in one 24 hour period by a person or group of people.
Mass shootings are flat. No noticeable increase or decrease over a 50 year period.
What has changed is the way they are sensationalized by the media and the "demon" people attribute blame to.
During different times different things were the "reason". Take the '70's it was all pornography's fault! Then in the '90's it was all those Satan cults fault.
Fast forward to today and it's all the Guns fault...
We have out of control sensationalization by the media and especially given social medias prevelance in this day and age.
The Vegas shooting is NOT the worst mass shooting in Us History. I can cite several that are far worse in terms of body count- but will just cite one- wounded knee. Up to 300 Lakota were shot and killed after being disarmed by their government- the US government. Men, women and children alike.
I have shot them all. A full auto M4 shoots approximately 960 rounds per minute, a semi auto M4 can shoot approximately 450 rounds per minute and a semi auto with bump fire at approximately 500 rounds per minute.
Let me also note that these stocks decrease accuracy by a LARGE margin. Even by those that are proficient with them. The mechanics of the system just don't lend anything to accurate marksmanship. Just slightly increases the rate of fire.
Gunslinger-13
New member
How about a molotav cocktail. Easiest thing in the world to make. Very transportable and quite lethal.
Throw a few in a crowd of people and hundreds would be dead.
The point isn't what you would rather face, it is that anything can be used to kill, and if someone is motivated to kill they will not be swayed by laws or banning of items.
Guns are actually not the most efficient tools at mass murder anyways, all these tragedies suck balls, but I'm glad these folks aren't smarter and better organized. Bombs- of any sort, large fires in crowds of people- those are things that carry high death tolls and you can set them off from a great distance.
Those items can be made from common household items and I'm glad we don't see more of it here in the states.
It makes no difference your preference on how someone might try and end your life, the fact is banning something will not stop a motivated person from trying and/or being successful.
I'd rather not have anyone ever try and take my life or anyone else's- but that's not reality. So I'd rather have access to the tools that best prepare me to take on those that seek to do me harm.
Take away the access of firearms to the law abiding and only those that break the law have them- and will have greater parity at harming people.
I'll tell you what- how about all the anti gun folks stop relying on people with guns to protect them- like all the armed security of these politicians and rich a holes like Michael Bloomberg who preach gun control, all the LEO's who patrol your communities, the military, etc and see where that gets you...
All the actors who are Anti gun should never act again in a movie where they make millions playing a character that uses guns! Talk about hipocrisy...
I don't believe in different classes of citizens- be it caste, color, or rights. I believe only in equality of rights and liberty for all. All rights, not just the ones you cherry pick and agree with. ALL OF THEM!
I refuse to allow the actions of madmen to dictate my being or my freedom.
Freedom isn't safe, safety doesn't exist and anyone preaching or selling it in trade for your liberty is a fool, a tyrant or both.
Last edited:
The bump stock actually mimics the experienced shooter with a good AR, not the other way round. Neither will match a real auto in the AR variety.
"Mass" = 4 or more per FBI.
Hepar
New member
Which is where a lot of data can be misleading. Under those guidelines, yes the numbers are largely stable. However spree shootings (like Sandy Hook, Aurora and Columbine) are most definitely on the rise.
Ray Dunakin
Senior Member
This guy had plenty of resources, including owning at least two planes. If he couldn't get guns, he could have killed as many, and possibly more, just by loading up one of his planes with as much fuel (or other harmful material) as it would lift, and then crash it into the crowd at high speed.
That's a bit misleading. Your 50 year 'line' may be flat... but your 10 year, 5 year, 3 year, etc., will show an increase. IOW the longer you reach back the better your stats look. Most of us kinda live in the current years with regard to our life decisions. The 60's through 80's are not going to look like recent years.
2014 -- 273
2015 -- 333
2016 -- 383
2017 thus far 276 -- current rate will be in line with 2015/16
From 2014:
"The number of sudden mass shootings in the United States has nearly tripled in recent years, the FBI said Wednesday, prompting the bureau to expand its work with state and local officials to identify potential gunmen before they attack."
Not to mention, everyone seems to have a different manner in which they measure. So everyone has different numbers.
I'm not necessarily agreeing that 50 years is flat lining but yes, you are correct, terror mass shootings do cause an uptick and that there are many was to report the data.
SwayzeExpress
New member
Podesta responded: “Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk [sic] was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.” - about 12/2015
hikenbike
New member
How do you factually know that banning something (or somehow limiting, or regulating something) didn't stop someone from bringing great harm to others?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Gunslinger-13
New member
Because we have tons of data points that show bans do nothing to stop crime or criminals from doing criminal acts.
And tons of data points showing that those same bans are a detriment to only the folks who follow the letter of the law.
I've posted them on this site ad naseum.
The proliferation of arms to citizens as a whole decreases crime as a whole and increases favorable outcomes for potential victims who can arm themselves and defend themselves.
The media fails to report positive moments when Guns save lives with the tenacity they report negative moments involving guns. It's as if the have an agenda or something- go figure!
We have basically every other country on the face of this planet that regulates the hell out of its citizens ability to defend themselves and their access to firearms and still evil men acquire whatever weapons they choose and do evil things with them.
Look at all the places with the highest rates of crime, especially crimes involving guns and most of them are in places with TONS of gun control regulations and laws on the books.
If you look at the areas with the highest concentration of Gun deaths it's a hand full of zip codes that makes up the vast majority of the problem.
Your question is a total logical fallacy. A non starter. I have not the ability, nor does anyone else- to know every outcome of every moment as it may or may not have occurred given a set of values and circumstances that may have slightly changed.
It doesn't change the reality of this debate though. Laws only limit those who follow them. If you're not going to follow the law against killing people the laws about firearms mean nothing.
And if you have zero access to firearms, and desire to murder people, you have endless options to do so, many of them are more lethal and easier than using firearms as well.
Your last two sentences sum it up. It's hard to use logic with folks that can't comprehend it though...
hikenbike
New member
You have no data points on violence that never happened because something was regulated, limited, or banned. There may be hundreds or thousands or more occasions where violence was not perpetrated as a result of a law or regulation. You think laws don't work because occasionally a nut gets through. But we keep trying, improving, advancing. Doing nothing is what we've unfortunately become great at.
Should they not ban firearms or maybe the transport of lethal virus on commercial airliners?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Gunslinger-13
New member
Um, yeah. Data points on things that never happened... right.
Let's keep the discussion to reality and things that have a viable metric.
Your position is nonsense. I could literally articulate anything backed with nothing. It has no merit.
You Have no data points for how many people wouldn't die or wouldn't get raped or wouldn't get robbed or assualted because of laws proliferating firearms being passed. No data points... Oh wait, yes those data points actually do exist to a measureable extent and it's pretty incredible. But let's not let facts get in the way when we can play make believe with what may or may not be!
Let's focus and debate what can be measured. Otherwise it's just conjecture, emotions/feels and fantasy land my friend.
What does banning transport of lethal viruses on commercial air liners have to do with this discussion? It's a straw man argument...
We can keep trying the same stuff Even though it has done virtually nothing in reality- but it won't change a thing. That's not advancement- that's insanity.
Gun control and regulation has occurred in incremental steps throughout the history of this country. Each time a new thing was demonized a new law passed and... it hasn't stopped evil people from doing evil things.
In the ways we can measure and justify things Gun control has had a net negative effect.
This position anti gunners come from- we failed with the last bit of legislation, and and regulations, so we just need to double down and do more is a circle jerk of insanity. It's a non stop loop of ignoring logic and reality and instead marching along to the beat of feel goodery, emotional knee jerk reaction and "doing something" even though that something hasn't worked in the past and continues to not work- we just need more...
It's ludicrous.
Here in the USA we have the greatest number of firearms and the easiest access to them- if Guns and access to them were the problem- we'd see millions of deaths a year. We don't. We mostly see a lot of suicides and a lot of gang related murder.
BrianSD_42
New member
Just checking in to see how this thread is going. Seems about as expected.
Your points seem pretty spot on to me.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-think-about-guns-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
I've posted this before and I'll repost it because it's important. What happens when two liberal npr mathematicians decide to deep dive into the truth about guns? Might be surprising to some but after running all the numbers it turns out most of the traditional liberal arguments against guns are flat wrong. This is a good podcast episode to listen to. Audio available on the website linked.
:bat:
Your points seem pretty spot on to me.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-to-think-about-guns-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
I've posted this before and I'll repost it because it's important. What happens when two liberal npr mathematicians decide to deep dive into the truth about guns? Might be surprising to some but after running all the numbers it turns out most of the traditional liberal arguments against guns are flat wrong. This is a good podcast episode to listen to. Audio available on the website linked.
:bat:
Last edited:
Hepar
New member
I tried!
Through independent studies based on many laws to include a 10 year ban on certain weapons and components that were classified as the most dangerous.
Off-choader
New member
someone doesn't want us discussing vegas anymore guys, time to get distracted on harvey weinstein and forget about all this stephen paddock stuff
HOJeepster
New member
I always chuckle how gun owners justify their cause.
nevada
Senior Member
there is no justification required.
