Jump to content
bsjkki

Las Vegas shooting

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is that this is a device that serves no function except to turn a weapon into a mass-people killing thing. It has no reasonable use in hunting or self-defense. Your same argument about innocent objects would apply equally to anthrax or privately owned hydrogen bombs. Yeah, it is the person using them that is the problem but we can make that person less of a problem by making it harder or impossible for them to get these items.

There is also the issue that these incidents appear to be building on previous ones...they are becoming more deadly.  It may have been the first time such an item was used, but now it has been used, there is a good chance it will be used by the next guy who wants to make his mark in this vile way.

I am not saying law should be made on might bes, just that it should be taken into consideration among the costs and benefits analysis.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is that this is a device that serves no function except to turn a weapon into a mass-people killing thing. It has no reasonable use in hunting or self-defense. Your same argument about innocent objects would apply equally to anthrax or privately owned hydrogen bombs. Yeah, it is the person using them that is the problem but we can make that person less of a problem by making it harder or impossible for them to get these items.

I agree that this device is a gimmick. But outlawing it (which wouldn't bother me) is eyewash -- looks good, but would accomplish nothing in reality. In light of the Boston Marathon bombing we should likewise have outlawed pressure cookers, too. When does it stop?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I agree that this device is a gimmick. But outlawing it (which wouldn't bother me) is eyewash -- looks good, but would accomplish nothing in reality. In light of the Boston Marathon bombing we should likewise have outlawed pressure cookers, too. When does it stop?

These are created for only one purpose.  Pressure cookers have another primary purpose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I agree that this device is a gimmick. But outlawing it (which wouldn't bother me) is eyewash -- looks good, but would accomplish nothing in reality. In light of the Boston Marathon bombing we should likewise have outlawed pressure cookers, too. When does it stop?

Pressure cookers have a productive use.

Yes, if you are really dedicated you can build the device yourself but this argument does not hold out. People throw around the argument that if we limit firearms only the bad guys will have guns. Why? Because they can get them on the black market or, if really dedicated, create one. Their logic seems to be that everyone has that level of dedication and knowledge. Most people do not. Most gun criminals are not masterminds off of a police procedural show with a hotline to people smuggling weapons from Libya.

It stops when the prohibition becomes unreasonable. Banning pressure cookers which are mostly used for cooking is unreasonable. Banning a device that has no real purpose other then a mass shooting is reasonable.

If you want it to be absolute we should go ahead and sell nuclear warheads because if a nation is really dedicated they will get them anyways so refusing to export them is eyewash. Or do you admit that with simple sanity a reasonable line can be drawn?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Calm said:

These are created for only one purpose.  Pressure cookers have another primary purpose.

So what? Gasoline has a primary purpose. So do glass bottles. Combine them and suddenly you're throwing Molotov cocktails at tanks.  You can make explosives out of the materials found in a hardware store. You can grow poppies in your back yard and turn them into opium, heroin and morphine. In the hands of a skilled person, a leather thong and a rock can kill from quite a distance. Far from having only one purpose, guns can be used in civilian life for self-defense, hunting for food, and for sport -- it's fun learning to hit targets at long distance. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Pressure cookers have a productive use.

Yes, if you are really dedicated you can build the device yourself but this argument does not hold out. People throw around the argument that if we limit firearms only the bad guys will have guns. Why? Because they can get them on the black market or, if really dedicated, create one. Their logic seems to be that everyone has that level of dedication and knowledge. Most people do not. Most gun criminals are not masterminds off of a police procedural show with a hotline to people smuggling weapons from Libya.

It stops when the prohibition becomes unreasonable. Banning pressure cookers which are mostly used for cooking is unreasonable. Banning a device that has no real purpose other then a mass shooting is reasonable.

If you want it to be absolute we should go ahead and sell nuclear warheads because if a nation is really dedicated they will get them anyways so refusing to export them is eyewash. Or do you admit that with simple sanity a reasonable line can be drawn?

One person's reasonable is another's unreasonable. Which person's reasonable is the "true" reasonable? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So what? Gasoline has a primary purpose. So do glass bottles. Combine them and suddenly you're throwing Molotov cocktails at tanks.  You can make explosives out of the materials found in a hardware store. You can grow poppies in your back yard and turn them into opium, heroin and morphine. In the hands of a skilled person, a leather thong and a rock can kill from quite a distance. Far from having only one purpose, guns can be used in civilian life for self-defense, hunting for food, and for sport -- it's fun learning to hit targets at long distance. 

 

I am not suggesting banning all guns, but I don't think fun justifies the kinds of guns that would leave a deer shredded if used for hunting.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

One person's reasonable is another's unreasonable. Which person's reasonable is the "true" reasonable? 

Mine.

Okay, seriously? This is a specious argument. It can be done with anything. To some rape is reaonable. To others it is unreasonable. Obviously we should avoid making judgements until there is an absolute consensus on the issue. Until then we just cannot know who is right with any certainty.

In this specific instance even the NRA seems to think it is reasonable. When the NRA thinks banning a firearms product is reasonable you can bet just about everyone does.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So what? Gasoline has a primary purpose. So do glass bottles. Combine them and suddenly you're throwing Molotov cocktails at tanks.  You can make explosives out of the materials found in a hardware store. You can grow poppies in your back yard and turn them into opium, heroin and morphine. In the hands of a skilled person, a leather thong and a rock can kill from quite a distance. Far from having only one purpose, guns can be used in civilian life for self-defense, hunting for food, and for sport -- it's fun learning to hit targets at long distance. 

When did we start talking about guns in general and not this specific device? Anyone who wants a device to create quasi-fully automatic weapon for self-defense, hunting, or for target shooting is doing any of those three things wrong.

I am not for banning guns.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not suggesting banning all guns, but I don't think fun justifies the kinds of guns that would leave a deer shredded if used for hunting.

I didn't think you suggested a blanket ban.

But I think I can safely say that you've never hunted before.  Neither have I, but trust me, nobody shoots at deer on automatic, even assuming he or she has such a weapon.  Not because of worry about shredding a deer, but because after the first shot, all the following shots will be wildly off target.  And the deer will have fled out of sight, if the first shot missed. 

I had more to write about this, but I think I will let it go for the moment. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Mine.

Okay, seriously? This is a specious argument. It can be done with anything. To some rape is reaonable. To others it is unreasonable. Obviously we should avoid making judgements until there is an absolute consensus on the issue. Until then we just cannot know who is right with any certainty.

In this specific instance even the NRA seems to think it is reasonable. When the NRA thinks banning a firearms product is reasonable you can bet just about everyone does.

Now it's you who is getting unreasonable. Rape, for crying out loud. My eyes are rolling. A better example of what I mean follows.

Devices for simulating full-auto fire have been available for decades. But I had actually never heard of this "bump-stock" device before. The device I was familiar with was a detachable item that got mounted to the trigger guard behind the trigger and had to be adjusted with a set screw to just precisely the right position to get the weapon to empty the mag. And it was darned ticklish. Just for the fun of it I got ahold of one many years ago and tried to make it work on my SKS. Couldn't get it quite right.  But I've been in the Army and have fired the M-16A1 at full auto, and they made the correct decision to create a three-shot sear and stop the troops from emptying their mags in two seconds. Spray and pray; no thank you. I wouldn't have any problem with it if these kind of devices were to be regulated under the NFA. That's one of the reasonable arguments, by the way, and the other reasonable argument is to ban them entirely. I don't think the latter is reasonable -- but you may differ. And there we have one man's reasonable versus another's reasonable.  Not whether bloody rape is to be made legal or not.

At first I thought this jerk in Las Vegas had been using a device like the one I had tried to use, but tonight I checked YouTube for the "bump stock" thing. Found a video demonstrating two versions, one for AR the other for AK, in a discussion of the Las Vegas event.  This device is clearly able to produce credible automatic fire. I think it requires some practice to get the effect right, however. Theoretically one can get this effect simply by holding down the trigger "just right" -- but practically it is nearly impossible to carry out. The bump stock simply makes it possible by providing a firm anchor for the trigger finger. As for the NRA, they may not be quite as reasonable as you think.  

For your delectation, some links:

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

When did we start talking about guns in general and not this specific device? Anyone who wants a device to create quasi-fully automatic weapon for self-defense, hunting, or for target shooting is doing any of those three things wrong.

I am not for banning guns.

Well, I agree with you. Except that it might be considered to be extreme target shooting to try to get as many rounds on target as possible while firing full auto. I've seen guys get three rounds on target rocking and rolling a 30 round mag -- it would be quite a feat to get as many as ten!  Maybe this could be a new Olympic sport!

But I wasn't responding to you in the post you quoted, that was for Calm. Who was talking about guns in general, and their "primary purpose".

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I didn't think you suggested a blanket ban.

But I think I can safely say that you've never hunted before.  Neither have I, but trust me, nobody shoots at deer on automatic, even assuming he or she has such a weapon.  Not because of worry about shredding a deer, but because after the first shot, all the following shots will be wildly off target.  And the deer will have fled out of sight, if the first shot missed. 

I had more to write about this, but I think I will let it go for the moment. 

 

Exactly...so there is no actual use for the device.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

But I wasn't responding to you in the post you quoted, that was for Calm. Who was talking about guns in general, and their "primary purpose".

No, I wasn't.  I have only been talking about the device except when you went to weird analogies.  When I said "the kinds of guns", I meant ones with this device.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Calm said:

Exactly...so there is no actual use for the device.

Of course there's a use.  It's just a question of whether the use should be regulated.

Ever drive in a car that could accelerate 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds? Or one whose top speed is 217 mph?  The Porsche Spyder!  I want one.  But I could never legally drive it to its top specifications on public roads.  So, in a sense you could say it has no actual use, but you'd be wrong.  I could still use it.  I'd love one!  If I ever get one, you want a ride?  I promise not to exceed 100 mph!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

No, I wasn't.  I have only been talking about the device except when you went to weird analogies.  When I said "the kinds of guns", I meant ones with this device.

You and The Nehor are getting mixed up. He's responding to what I say to you and you're responding to what I say to him.

And it was HIS weird analogies, not mine. :-)  I think. 

Well, anyway, going back to your original "primary purpose" post, I see you were talking about the primary purpose of the device, not guns in general, as you say. The primary purpose of the device is to simulate full auto fire. Hundreds if not thousands of the device (and others like it) have been sold and are being used. For recreation. That's their purpose.

And like any recreational device they can be misused. I freely concede this device needs to be regulated, like any dangerous device. Until now there has been no applicable law covering it. I expect that they will soon make one.  

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It is specious, and I'm not making it. At least, not that particular one.

But if we were to outlaw the possession of all implements with which one could use to commit murder, well then we'd all have to go about stark naked. Even then it wouldn't be enough. I'm cool with outlawing private ownership of nuclear weapons, poison gas, hand grenades, fully automatic firearms, and so on. But when you start going down the road Scotland has been traveling, requiring registration of air guns, that's when I have an issue. You might as well start registering kitchen knives.  In fact, registering kitchen knives might make more sense than air guns -- more people have been murdered with kitchen knives than air guns, I'm pretty sure.

Virtually every other country has some form of gun control laws. The question for me isn't if some thing can be used for murder. Cain slew Able with a rock. It is the relative ease by which firearms can/are being used to commit murder. We require the registration, training, and periodic licensing of drivers on the public roads. No one thinks twice about it. I am suggest such be required for firearms.

SEE

 

Edited by thesometimesaint
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not suggesting banning all guns, but I don't think fun justifies the kinds of guns that would leave a deer shredded if used for hunting.

:good:

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Of course there's a use.  It's just a question of whether the use should be regulated.

Ever drive in a car that could accelerate 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds? Or one whose top speed is 217 mph?  The Porsche Spyder!  I want one.  But I could never legally drive it to its top specifications on public roads.  So, in a sense you could say it has no actual use, but you'd be wrong.  I could still use it.  I'd love one!  If I ever get one, you want a ride?  I promise not to exceed 100 mph!

I meant no actual use in hunting.

PS:  I am out of the conversation as I think the point has been made by multiple people and it is too much work to be understood apparently.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

For a bit of insight into the quagmire of gun registry , I give this link. All the fuss was over about 6 million long guns in Canada. Imagine the problems and cost of registering what , 300 million guns?  in the US. The initial cost was estimated to be about $ 2 million but ballooned to $  2 BILLION . The Gov't does nothing in a small way ! :wacko:

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/the-rise-and-fall-of-canada-s-long-gun-registry-1.2862001

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Calm said:

I meant no actual use in hunting.

PS:  I am out of the conversation as I think the point has been made by multiple people and it is too much work to be understood apparently.

I am sorry, Calm. If you had added "in hunting" to your post, you would have had no argument from me. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I am sorry, Calm. If you had added "in hunting" to your post, you would have had no argument from me. 

No problem, just high stress time for me so I am avoiding even minor frustrations where possible (we are attempting to arrange a three week stay in Salt Lake so my daughter can undergo ECT for her severe depression, between getting in shape myself so I can drive and care for her in an alien environment, getting my mom and the dog covered when my husband is not available, and dealing with her---my daughter, not the dog----increased anxiety because uncertainty has been added to her life, my usual relaxed attitude has taken a long walkabout).

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

For a bit of insight into the quagmire of gun registry , I give this link. All the fuss was over about 6 million long guns in Canada. Imagine the problems and cost of registering what , 300 million guns?  in the US. The initial cost was estimated to be about $ 2 million but ballooned to $  2 BILLION . The Gov't does nothing in a small way ! :wacko:

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/the-rise-and-fall-of-canada-s-long-gun-registry-1.2862001

Think of the money that  is spent on registration of automobiles in the US. No one gives a rats behind about  it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

For a bit of insight into the quagmire of gun registry , I give this link. All the fuss was over about 6 million long guns in Canada. Imagine the problems and cost of registering what , 300 million guns?  in the US. The initial cost was estimated to be about $ 2 million but ballooned to $  2 BILLION . The Gov't does nothing in a small way ! :wacko:

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/the-rise-and-fall-of-canada-s-long-gun-registry-1.2862001

I remember that, these two gun nutjobs in our ward at the time were having this petition going around, and the the hue and cry about registering your long guns, you'd think Satan came to Church. The other guys in the ward who had long guns didn't seem to care,like so what if your gun is on some list in Ottawa? anyways the two of the most deranged are what you would call paranoid delusional, they are brothers and it's a long story but one is I think a sociopathic person. When we were teens my friends were hatching this plan to write small note and mail it out to their farm and just to screw with the main lunatic. We never did it we didn't want someone to get hurt! I could go on!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Think of the money that  is spent on registration of automobiles in the US. No one gives a rats behind about  it.

The DMV is cruel and unusual punishment.  Most everyone would testify to that!

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...