What's new
By:

Las Vegas: Worst Mass Shooting in US History

Stoked said:
You realize that silencers do not completely muffle the sound of the shot right? They only lessen it somewhat. An AR 15 with a silencer is still pretty damn loud. Not to mention using them in rapid succession wears them out very quickly. In this case it would have done next to nothing and might have even saved lives. The silencer would have warped and then it would explode in his face within the first few minutes.
Click to expand...

More misinformation. Sniper nest 1200 yards away at a concert with loud music, the sound would be altered a great deal. As it was, some people did not believe it was gun shots, which is why it went on for 10 minutes.

Multiple weapons easily get around the overheating issues. I've seen different numbers, but the suspect was reported to have a **** load of guns with him.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind suppressors being more accessible, but they're not hard to get. Just expensive and a lengthy process.
Click to expand...

It's a lengthy process because they want to make sure they don't sell them to anyone who is likely to abuse them in criminal applications, which is the way it should be. They don't need to make it so that pretty much anyone can get them.
 
Also, for those people making comments about suppressors in this thread, I encourage you to watch this video. Some suppressors are much more effective than others. There obviously can be a big difference depending on the gun used as well as the suppressor, but I think this video demonstrates that there could be a huge difference in sound, especially at a distance. Some of the generalized comments in this thread may be somewhat true under certain circumstances, but are surely not true in general.

[video=youtube_share;LqUcB1xX-Dw]https://youtu.be/LqUcB1xX-Dw
 
Last edited:
Cappy_Smurf said:
More misinformation. Sniper nest 1200 yards away at a concert with loud music, the sound would be altered a great deal. As it was, some people did not believe it was gun shots, which is why it went on for 10 minutes.

Multiple weapons easily get around the overheating issues. I've seen different numbers, but the suspect was reported to have a **** load of guns with him.
Click to expand...

Thought he was 600 yards away? Which is a difficult shot.

1200 yards is damn hard. I know I couldn't do it. You put a suppressor on a .223, you aren't shooting 1200 yards away with anything available to citizens.
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with the current laws. Don't think we need to change it.

It's also a fact that we don't have any problems with suppressors, despite them being around for decades.

I don't think the overall damage would've changed if he had. Suppressor or not. You're at a concert and somebody is shooting 600 yards away, your first clue will be the damage, not the sound.
 
JustTheTip said:
I'm fine with the current laws. Don't think we need to change it.

It's also a fact that we don't have any problems with suppressors, despite them being around for decades.

I don't think the overall damage would've changed if he had. Suppressor or not. You're at a concert and somebody is shooting 600 yards away, your first clue will be the damage, not the sound.
Click to expand...
If the damage was within a few feet of you. It was a large area with 22,000 people in attendance.

Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app
 
JustTheTip said:
Thought he was 600 yards away? Which is a difficult shot.

1200 yards is damn hard. I know I couldn't do it. You put a suppressor on a .223, you aren't shooting 1200 yards away with anything available to citizens.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to a concert? I know you've at least seen pictures. Dude wasn't trying to hit individual targets, he was shooting into a big crowd. And no, crowds are not hard to hit, even at distance.

I don't know if it was 600/1200 yards or somewhere in between, but it doesn't change anything. When shooting at a crowd of people at distance, it's just a matter of aiming high until you figure out how far your bullet drops.

Also, I'd be willing to bet you know someone who has killed an Elk at close to 1000 yards. Lots of deer rifles will shoot that far. A crowd of people is a much bigger target and you don't have to aim, just shoot high enough until you figure out the drop.

You're probably right that it wasn't 1200 yards. However far it was, it was still distance shooting at people who were listening to loud music. A suppressor could have made a significant difference.
 
Last edited:
JustTheTip said:
You're at a concert and somebody is shooting 600 yards away, your first clue will be the damage, not the sound.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you haven't watched any of the videos of the incident. Even when the cops were telling people to get down and go the other way, people were arguing and saying it was just fireworks. You should watch some videos before making comments that are pure speculation. No doubt in my mind that suppressors could have made the incident last twice as long or even longer.
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
I'm guessing you haven't watched any of the videos of the incident. Even when the cops were telling people to get down and go the other way, people were arguing and saying it was just fireworks. You should watch some videos before making comments that are pure speculation. No doubt in my mind that suppressors could have made the incident last twice as long or even longer.
Click to expand...

Iawtp.
 
Now a story is developing. Huge development if true...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/investigat...s-shooting-chilling-details/story?id=50273390

Speaking this evening, Lombardo said that there is evidence that indicates Paddock, a 64-year-old resident of Mesquite, Nevada, planned to escape.

However, Lombardo did not provide any details on what the evidence was or why he believes that.

Lombardo added that there are indications Paddock had some kind of help.

More:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-las-vegas-shooting-20171004-story.html
 
So I don't get it.

Why have any traffic signs or seat belts if we still have car accidents?
Why have any airport security if mean bad guys will ignore the laws and regulations?
Why have any law if 100 percent of the population doesn't obey them?

I'm just following gun addicts to the natural conclusion of their arguments.

If safety procedures don't prevent bad guys from doing bad things, if regulation doesn't work, and if laws are ineffective, why have any regulations, regulations, or laws in the first place?

If gun regulation is unconstitutional and more guns make us all safer, why can't I stock up on machine guns, bazookas, nerve gas, and nuclear weapons? After all, any regulation is an infringement on my freedom, right?

And the more weapons the safer we will all be? Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top