More mass shootings

[RiggerLee 61]

Real or not it certainly made for a good movie.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[Bob_Church 7]

Quote

Basically they have forgotten why the second amendment exist. It's actually there for a rather politically incorrect reason. The purpose of the second amendment is so the government can be over thrown. Sounds weird but it's true. The story of Paul Revere is the story of a gun grab by the government. The idea was to arrest a few head trouble makers and squash this little rebellion before it got off the ground. They had written orders to grab any gun or cannon they could find. With out them the uprising was over. And the revolutionaries were well aware of this. Years later they wrote the second amendment to insure that their decedents would never be caught off guard again. In principle it could be argued that the second amendment protects your right to own machine guns, hand guns, grenades, and tanks. It was never intended to protect hunting rifles, or sporting guns. And it was intended that these arms remain with the citizenry not under the control of the government. It was the government that they were intended to be used against

It wasn't all that long ago that this actually happened. When coal miners in Wv and Kentucky tried to organize for a decent living government backed, armed union busters were sent in. If the population there hadn't been armed there never would have been a UMWA.

[nolhtairt 0]

Lawndarter

***I will ask you this same question since no one else will answer

Provide one of two new laws that would have prevented this shooting?

Mandatory licensing with psychological screening as a component, as is common in many countries.

You finished yet?

I don't think that would have stopped Paddock. He was about as vanilla as they come, no police record, nothing.

[ryoder 1,391]

nolhtairt

******I will ask you this same question since no one else will answer

Provide one of two new laws that would have prevented this shooting?

Mandatory licensing with psychological screening as a component, as is common in many countries.

You finished yet?

I don't think that would have stopped Paddock. He was about as vanilla as they come, no police record, nothing.

Agreed.
And from what I've read, the very first presentation of a mental illness symptom was the time he shot ~600 people.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[jakee 1,257]

ryoder

*********I will ask you this same question since no one else will answer

Provide one of two new laws that would have prevented this shooting?

Mandatory licensing with psychological screening as a component, as is common in many countries.

You finished yet?

I don't think that would have stopped Paddock. He was about as vanilla as they come, no police record, nothing.

Agreed.
And from what I've read, the very first presentation of a mental illness symptom was the time he shot ~600 people.
Seems so. Of course there's a fallacy in the question of which laws would have stopped this shooting, in that it assumes laws must be 100% effective to be worthwhile. Well, if laws were 100% effective at crime prevention we wouldn't need prisons. But we still have laws and we still spend money on prisons even though we all know that some crime will continue anyway.

So at the extreme you could say ban all semi-automatic rifles. Then they say "but he could still have bought them illegally and done the same thing!" but it misses the point. The question is how much more difficult would it have been for a vanilla middle class suburbanite to buy that many guns and that much ammo on the black market, and how much less likely would it have been for him to do what he did, as destructively as he did it. How much more difficult and less likely would it make it for the next guy to go through with it, and the next, and the next?

Everyone's going to have their own cost/benefit analysis on that, or any other proposal, but benefit has to be looked at in terms of probabilities, not absolutes.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RiggerLee 61]

I am curious. Has any one seen a breakdown on the injuries? Last I heard 59 people died. Did they all die from bullet wounds? I would expect there to be deaths from trampling injuries in a large crowd like that. Of the 500+ injuries treated, How many of them were GSW? I was talking to a friend the other night and he was arguing that the bump stock(s) saved lives. That if he had fired a normal rifle with a scope and just did aimed fire that he would have killed more people. I was arguing that it was a tight packed crowd and aiming was irrelevant. Apparently the army has done studies and has found that their is a remarkable amount of empty space in a crowd or group of men. These are question that were addressed when they first started studying machine gun fire from WWI onward. Their's actually math for area weapons like machine guns and rounds per kill. The numbers are way higher then you would think, number of rounds per each kill.

To be clear. Regardless of how exactly they died I do still attribute their deaths to him. Firing into a crowd is a terror technique just like yelling "FIRE!" in a theater. I'm just curious what the break down was.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[normiss 622]

The local sheriff reported this information would not be released, at least not yet.
He said the victim's families did not deserve to and would not hear this information from the media, stating they deserved to hear it from the authorities in person.
I think he is correct.

[nolhtairt 0]

RiggerLee

I am curious. Has any one seen a breakdown on the injuries? Last I heard 59 people died. Did they all die from bullet wounds? I would expect there to be deaths from trampling injuries in a large crowd like that. Of the 500+ injuries treated, How many of them were GSW? I was talking to a friend the other night and he was arguing that the bump stock(s) saved lives. That if he had fired a normal rifle with a scope and just did aimed fire that he would have killed more people. I was arguing that it was a tight packed crowd and aiming was irrelevant. Apparently the army has done studies and has found that their is a remarkable amount of empty space in a crowd or group of men. These are question that were addressed when they first started studying machine gun fire from WWI onward. Their's actually math for area weapons like machine guns and rounds per kill. The numbers are way higher then you would think, number of rounds per each kill.

To be clear. Regardless of how exactly they died I do still attribute their deaths to him. Firing into a crowd is a terror technique just like yelling "FIRE!" in a theater. I'm just curious what the break down was.

Lee

I could hazard a guess and say about 250-300 wounded by gunfire, and the rest injured from being trampled on trying to flee. But I'll defer to the sheriff to make the final tally.

[JerryBaumchen 1,050]

Hi Lee,

Quote

I was talking to a friend the other night and he was arguing that the bump stock(s) saved lives.

Quite simply, your friend is full of sh**.

Quote

Apparently the army has done studies and has found that their is a remarkable amount of empty space in a crowd or group of men.

Good grief, one situation is combat & the other is a packed crowd at a music concert; very packed crowd.

In combat you want people spread out to minimize the losses.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Apparently the army has done studies and has found that their is a remarkable amount of empty space in a crowd or group of men. These are question that were addressed when they first started studying machine gun fire from WWI onward. Their's actually math for area weapons like machine guns and rounds per kill. The numbers are way higher then you would think, number of rounds per each kill.

I cannot imagine any military situation where there are remotely as many people packed into as small a space as at a big concert. Not even an infantry charge at the Somme would come close.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RiggerLee 61]

That was what I thought but then he started pulling out all this math on hit probability with area effect weapons and round count per kill, etc. He was making a pretty good argument based on rate of fire vs. hit probability for aimed vs unaimed fire. He was basically saying that even though his rate of fire was, I'll just make up numbers, 6 times higher, that the hit probability is so much lower that the over all number of casualties was lower. And that's with a proper gun. The groupings, control ability, with a bump stocks is so bad that at 300+ yards their really is no aiming, even less then with a normal full auto weapon. By the way we were just doing some test on control ability with some comp/flash suppressors that we are working on. So this morning we were doing slow motion filming of muzzle deflection firing our class 3 AR full auto. Set up right it really can be very control able. In comparison a bump stock, I owned two and sold them at a gun show last weekend, is not very control able. You can not hold a group tight firing a bump stock.

So I maintained that with such a tightly packed target aiming was less relevant but he made a good argument based on real numbers for aimed fire and that he was an idiot for using a bump stock.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[billvon 2,407]

>The groupings, control ability, with a bump stocks is so bad that at 300+ yards their really is
>no aiming, even less then with a normal full auto weapon.

It doesn't matter.

There was a crowd of 22,000. They were packed into an area of 400 by 500 feet. The shooter was about 1200 feet away. All he had to do was get a round into that 400 by 500 foot area and he was guaranteed to hit someone. Might not be fatal - might be a backpack if the person was very lucky - but he was going to hit someone.

Consider it this way. Look at any aerial shot of a packed concert. Look to see how much floor you can see. If you can't see any floor - there won't be anything but targets to stop incoming rounds.

[Bob_Church 7]

lawrocket

Quote

I think I'd be more fearful of an "insanity database" than the current possibility of a chance encounter with a crazy with a gun.

I am quoting this. Because I agree

This is a letter to the editor (athensnews.com) which I thought would be at least good for a laugh.

"j45780 Oct 9, 2017 9:53am
I suppose it would be too extreme to require vetting and periodic mental health evaluations of gun owners. Are gun shop owners qualified to do this? Surely they have played a positive part in this process in the past, but is it enough? "

[JerryBaumchen 1,050]

Hi Lee,

Quote

he started pulling out all this math . . . rate of fire vs. hit probability

There is mathmatics and there are statistics. They are not the same.

Probability is statistics and nothing else.

Your friend is still full of sh**.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,257]

RiggerLee

That was what I thought but then he started pulling out all this math on hit probability with area effect weapons and round count per kill, etc. He was making a pretty good argument based on rate of fire vs. hit probability for aimed vs unaimed fire.

But how was he figuring 'hit probability'? Again, if it's based on military studies, I cannot imagine any military scenario that comes remotely close to having people as tightly packed together as they are in the middle of a big concert crowd. In that situation the more inaccurate the automatic weapon the better, because each bullet is damn near guaranteed to hit someone, and if each bullet is going somewhere new then each one will hit a different person.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DJL 232]

gowlerk

Quote

The left wants to get rid of private gun ownership in this country.

This is false. It is fear mongering.

***The purpose of the second amendment is so the government can be over thrown. Sounds weird but it's true.

This is true. And the moment that the establishment feels threatened by it will be the moment the 2nd is either repealed, or the SC takes a very different view of what it means.

Left and right is far too simple of a way to look at the competing viewpoints involved in gun control. And why stop at cannon and tanks? Why can't the people develop nukes to keep the government in line?

This pretty much summarizes the issue facing any real resolution, intelligent adults believe that there's a mono-culture of thought who all want the same thing, to take away guns. That's just ridiculous.

As for the 2nd Amendment, there are MANY more ways of the populace influencing government in this country. These are OUR elected officials and WE run the businesses within it. So far the best argument for unrestricted gun ownership is the nearly unrestricted gun sales that result in guns frickin everywhere.

I'm about to walk 40 feet to my car at work and I have to give the street a good look because there are so many gun related robberies and murders in my immediate area. THAT is a weak argument for owning a gun that maybe I can get the drop on someone who already has the drop on me. It is TOO DAMNED EASY for guns to get into the wrong hands because of lax strawbuyer and FFL rules but because there is an absolutist pushback every time a gun law comes up we're getting nothing done.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[yoink 321]

nolhtairt

******I will ask you this same question since no one else will answer

Provide one of two new laws that would have prevented this shooting?

Mandatory licensing with psychological screening as a component, as is common in many countries.

You finished yet?

I don't think that would have stopped Paddock. He was about as vanilla as they come, no police record, nothing.

This is part of the problem - people are obsessed with finding the one answer that will solve every single issue on one go, and there just isn't one. It's too complex a problem for that and the gun rights side know it. There will always be an argument to be made of 'well that solution isn't going to work in this specific situation, so obviously we shouldn't do it.'

They miss the fact that maybe we can find something that reduces the liklihood by 50%. Or 30%. Or 20%, and that's a good start - it's not the pperfect 100%, but it's better than 0%. Pick off the low hanging fruit first.
The pareto principle applies, I suspect.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

billvon

>The groupings, control ability, with a bump stocks is so bad that at 300+ yards their really is
>no aiming, even less then with a normal full auto weapon.

It doesn't matter.

There was a crowd of 22,000. They were packed into an area of 400 by 500 feet. The shooter was about 1200 feet away. All he had to do was get a round into that 400 by 500 foot area and he was guaranteed to hit someone. Might not be fatal - might be a backpack if the person was very lucky - but he was going to hit someone.

Consider it this way. Look at any aerial shot of a packed concert. Look to see how much floor you can see. If you can't see any floor - there won't be anything but targets to stop incoming rounds.

Unlikely a backpack would stop a 223 slug, even at long range.

From the angle he was shooting, many of the hits would be head wounds. Most of the rest would be upper body (chest, upper arm and shoulder).

Once the crowd realized what was going on, started to duck down and scatter, the "shot to hit" ratio would go down.
But for the first minute or so (plus or minus), the crowd didn't know what was going on, stood pretty much still and it was the proverbial "shooting fish in a barrel."

Staying on target, with that sort of rifle, would not be terribly difficult. Pinpoint aim on full auto (or simulated) isn't possible.
But that situation didn't require pinpoint aim.

And, I was of the opinion that the "bump fire" type stock wouldn't have produced the type of shooting that took place. It appears I was wrong on that.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[normiss 622]

Time to change the channel folks, NEW SHOOTIN'

[yoink 321]

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun" - NRA President Wayne LaPierre.



If only there had been good people carrying guns around in this one - That would have stopped this! Oh... wait.

Well. Not just people carrying a gun, obviously. But people who practiced with them regularly - That would have stopped this! Oh... wait.

[Blacksmith311 0]

9,000 is a tragedy but an INSIGNIFICANT fraction of preventable deaths. I know you are smart enough to know that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/03/researchers-medical-errors-now-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-united-states/?utm_term=.d5c1aaa2c45d

Not saying its right, not saying we can't do two things at once, but lets not sit here like its such a killer compared to the other preventable deaths.

[kallend 1,635]

Blacksmith311

9,000 is a tragedy but an INSIGNIFICANT fraction of preventable deaths. I know you are smart enough to know that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/03/researchers-medical-errors-now-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-united-states/?utm_term=.d5c1aaa2c45d

Not saying its right, not saying we can't do two things at once, but lets not sit here like its such a killer compared to the other preventable deaths.

BIG differences:

1) no powerful organization is blocking research into the other causes of preventable death.

2) no powerful organization blocks every effort to remediate the other causes of preventable death.

3) people dying from medical error are not usually in peak health. They are already sick and maybe dying anyway.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Blacksmith311 0]

Quote

BIG differences:

1) no powerful organization is blocking research into the other causes of preventable death.

2) no powerful organization blocks every effort to remediate the other causes of preventable death.

3) people dying from medical error are not usually in peak health. They are already sick and maybe dying anyway.

You mean Powerful organization set in place as a buffer to prevent over reaction by left leaning politicians.

I would love to see your data on number 3 as to the reason for the surgery, and the MALPRACTICE that killed them. Malpractice here, not a body that was too sick to survive the surgery.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/09/health/medical-mistakes/index.html None of this mentions Old sick people who were about to die..

[Blacksmith311 0]

Even so how many of you have turned a blind eye to someone who you know had too many to drive and allowed them to leave in their own car? DWI killed more people in the US than Guns.

[billvon 2,407]

>9,000 is a tragedy but an INSIGNIFICANT fraction of preventable deaths.

Wow. Only 1/3 of that number died on 9/11, but the right wing went batshit crazy over it - and any suggestion that it was insignificant would have resulted in violence toward the person claiming it.

But this is guns, so three times that is insignificant.