What's new
By:

Las Vegas: Worst Mass Shooting in US History

JustTheTip said:
I ain't wearin muffs when I'm hunting bruh. Then I can't be super sneaky and hear the animals. I do wear muffs when I target shoot, but honestly, they're a pain in the ***. And suppressors are cool.

You're still not addressing the main question though.

What's wrong with the current law, and have we had any issues with suppressors to date?
Click to expand...
Should we make all laws after the fact or be preemptive?

Gun shot sounds should not be made any less loud or obvious.



Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
JustTheTip said:
Suppressors have been around for decades. Never had a problem with them.

They take a 9 month federal background check to get one.

But yeah, let's get rid of them. Logic.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is logical. Right now the NRA is trying to remove that 9 month check. The American people have sat by for too long and let the NRA control legislation. Its time people stand up for major reform.

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
We spend so much money hunting terrorist in foreign countries who kill a fraction of what guns do in America but we freak out about gun control?

We made marijuana illegal but guns are legal?

Que?

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
DutchJazzer said:
Link: http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/03/democrats-have-no-idea-how-to-prevent-mass-shootings/
Click to expand...

1. Private gun sales are what he was discussing with his original point which is not addressed. But I agree current laws should be worked with and better enforced. So I agree with his final point but he missed a lot
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting
Guess he didnt research that one much. I am guessing there are more since he missed a big recent one. His logic in general is just poor on this as well. H is using individual cases and not statistics to make his point seem stronger.
3. I agree with his critic of this point. We cant preemptively take away peoples guns if they have not been convicted of something. This would be abused. But it is a good example of the dangers of guns and why deaths decrease with less guns around. People generally act rashly and will reconsider later.
4. Again very poor logic and preying on recency bias to make his point seem stronger. Also building a silly straw mans argument with soda. Studies pretty convincing show that the more planning it takes the less likely it is to happen. This seems like a good suggestion and compromise from the original author. Who needs to buy more guns at once and isnt willing to wait?
5. Who did it might have been solved but not where the guns came from. That is part of solving the crime. Although I would not trust someone just basing it on his memory with no evidence to back it up. (like all of his points)
6.They do work. Politicians are opposed to them as are gun companies and lobbyist. Again he makes claims with no evidence. They could work and they would help in mass shootings and more importantly they would help a lot in gun deaths such as suicide and homicide. If police could turn off bad guys guns that would be effective. Even if the owner was the only one with control it would help and it would make it easier to track guns. There has been data on smart guns that is very promising. I would like to see his evidence of it not working.
7. He is focusing on mass shootings again even though that is a small part of gun deaths. This would have prevented at least 1 mass shooting I can think of off the top of my head so probably more. This would greatly reduce other gun deaths. He makes another claim with no evidence which is not true. There has been a lot of links to gun ownership and suicide. There is also evidence of more suicides in states with more guns, Australia suicide levels decreased by 70% with the ban of guns and lots and lots of more data. Its people like this spewing out garbage claims that make this debate more difficult because people believe him, and its harder to prove wrong later once people have been show false evidence.
8. He focuses on one part of the argument and runs with it making another crappy straw mans argument. But again he makes a claim with no proof that is unlikely to be true. Researching would be helpful. It makes him sound very ignorant to claim otherwise.

Overall a garbage piece presented here. Despite agreeing with a couple of his points he makes no attempt to actually argue with good points and just throws out crap and claims it as true. He mostly just creates strawman arguments and provides 0 data. This is the type of article and information going around that is very hurtful to everyone that reads it. This guy should be ashamed of this piece. There was plenty to critic with the original article but he did nothing to argue against it.
 
JustTheTip said:
In general, a suppressor used by a common person will not help you kill more, or less, people. There is no factual backing to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is what I consider intellectual dishonesty. People taking this line are just defending their party's stance without putting any actual thought into it, or they just want suppressors to be legal so they can have one. The potential for abuse with suppressors far outweighs any benefits. My hell, the actual excuse the right is using here is that gun ranges need them in order not to disturb their neighbors. Quite honestly, **** anybody who is trying to sell that incredible load of BS. Gun ranges have gotten along just fine in this country, and the ones that are located in crowded neighborhoods have no ****ing business being there in the first place.

The push to make suppressors legal makes me embarrassed to be a gun enthusiast, and I can certainly understand why the left thinks we are all a bunch of nut jobs with this kind of rationalization to legalize anything and everything that we ourselves would like to get our hands on.
 
JustTheTip said:
Why get rid of something that hasn't caused an issue?

Guns are still loud with a suppressor. This isn't a movie.
Click to expand...

If you are standing next to one, yes you can hear it, but no it isn't nearly as loud. If that's going to be your argument, then why in the hell are they needed?

From a sniper point like in Vegas, your claim is straight BS. From that distance, absolutely ****ing nobody would associate that noise with a gun, if they were able to hear it at all over the music.
 
Last edited:
Still searching for motives, naturally, it's been learned that the killer was given a prescription for Valium, beginning in June. I'm aware of so-called paradoxical reactions to drugs, and apparently while Valium is a tranquilizer, it can cause aggression. At first I was inclined to blow that off, assuming the aggression would be in the moment, and not reflected in the meticulous degree of planning evidenced in this incident. Complete with a camera in the peephole of his hotel door and in a utility cart in the hallway. But, then I read this:

http://www.benzo.org.uk/violence.htm

Well, I'm no doctor and really have no idea. I thought this was reaching for straws, but I really don't know...
 
JustTheTip said:
Just to clarify here, you would certainly hear a .223 (I'm assuming that's what he used) with a suppressor on. It doesn't make a gun silent, it just muffles it. Now if you put it on a .22, it's pretty close to silent.

I wouldn't mind suppressors being more accessible, but they're not hard to get. Just expensive and a lengthy process. If I really wanted to, I could go to a machinist friend and make one myself, but I don't want to go around the law. But as someone who shoots high powered rifles, it sure would be handy. And wearing ear protection while hunting isn't that realistic.

This whole issue is dramatized by people who watch too many movies where guns are silent.
Click to expand...

I have plenty of experience being around suppressors. If you think that from a snipers nest at a concert, it would make no difference, you're absolutely nuts.

You're arguing both sides of the fence. If you really believe they make no difference and give no advantage, then I guess there's no reason why anybody needs one.
 
JustTheTip said:
And just so are aware and educated, this guy was shooting at what, 600 yards?

You're going to see people getting shot and blood flowing before you hear the shot, no matter how loud the rifle. General rule, higher powered rifle will probably (not always) have a higher muzzle velocity. That bullet is gonna hit before you hear it. Even if suppressors did completely silence a rifle (they don't, at least not ones any civilian could buy) you wouldn't need to hear it to know what's going on. Between people getting shot and muzzle flashes, you have a good idea of what's going on.
Click to expand...

More BS. The shooting lasted for 10 minutes because a lot of people thought it was fireworks. In a huge crowd like that, you'd have to be right next to someone to know they'd been shot, and if you didn't hear any kind of noise, your brain wouldn't put it together right away. Once you did realize what was going on, you would have no way of knowing which direction to go to try and escape.
 
JustTheTip said:
This whole issue is dramatized by people who watch too many movies where guns are silent.
Click to expand...

I've grown up around guns and have plenty of experience with things such as suppressors. My 80 father has built 3 ghost guns out of 80% receivers.

I'm not someone who thinks a suppressor is a silencer. Not my first rodeo, and I think all your arguments have been flat wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top