I am far from an expert, but I think that buckshot from 400 yards doesn't even pierce the skin. Am I wrong here?

On another note I don't know how anyone can watch this video and not be a strong supporter of banning all assault type rifles.

I am aware the majority of gun deaths come from hand guns and that is tragedy in and of it self, but when it comes to people who are not suicidal or have not put them self in a high risk situation these type of weapons are just plane wrong for the general public to own.

The video really gives you the feeling like you where there at the concert. There isn't any blood or gore just a good compilation of videos that are synced together to cover most of the 10 minutes of the shooting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2uE...has_verified=1

You guys are totally ****ed.

Im no expert either and it might be a bit different because he was shooting downward. But normally only 200 to 300 hundred yards depending on the shot max.

With you on banning those type of guns and im not sure how this can keep happening and not change minds.

After being brain-washed by the NRA early in my life, and gradually becoming more reasonable over the last ~20 years, this is where I currently sit:

Enough is enough. Any weapon similar to the ones in the las vegas shooting or other mass shootings like sandy hook should be banned, including accessories like large clips or bump stocks.

I think any type of handgun, other than 6 shot revolvers should be banned. Any type of hunting gun that can support more than 5 shots should be banned (I'm fine with semi-auto if it can be limited to 5 shots). I cannot imagine ever needing more firepower than that for a legitimate use.

ya sure but tyrannical governments ans you now brown and black people. At its heart the NRA has always been ad will always be a racist organization. Its just in the last 30 years the gun manufacturers have hijacked it to promote all kinds of gun sales.

Foe what it's worth i think this mass shooting might be different. The amount of video that is available and the network effect of the amount people involved might jut be the catalyst to give the NRA a defeat once and for all. The NRA knows they have an uphill battle here. They snap came out and said we would support the banning of bumpstocks and other devices used to convert semi automatic's into simulated fully automatics. All we need is for the dems to not back down and push this fight. I think for once this can actually be a positive voting issue for the democratic party.

This has always been a positive voting issue for the democratic party after mass shootings. Bump stocks are an easy win for the NRA, because they aren't that popular, have no purpose other than as a novelty or increasing rate of fire when firing into a large crowd, and can be regulated without congressional action. The GOP controls all 3 branches at the moment. If we couldn't get any gun control after Sandy Hook when the dems had more power, it's not going to happen now. If this had happened during a democratic controlled congress, we might have a puncher's chance.

It's going to take a mass shooting like this to happen in close proximity to an election where it's fresh in people's minds and dems can make it a campaign issue. Although the amount of time these shootings hold public attention is decreasing with each subsequent shooting, so it's getting tougher.

The best hope is that gun fetishism is a generational fad, and that as time goes on guns become less of a divisive issue. I don't know how to make that happen, but it's pretty much the only hope for meaningful gun control in this country.

Gun nuts like to imagine that they could kill fifty people individually in ten minutes just by aiming coolly. But darkness, distance and the fact that people were running around would make it difficult. And even then the number injured would be much lower.

The gunman could have bump-fired manually -- it's a way of holding the rifle so that the recoil automatically makes your finger trip the trigger again, much faster than you could do it deliberately -- but it's a trick that has to be learned and practised, taking some skill, and it's probably only viable for short bursts, not so much those insanely long streams of fire.

It's the layers of irony here. Not only does the US have more of a tendency to shoot down its citizens than other developed countries, but the excuse most often cited after gunning down a citizen is that the citizen could've been in possession of something that he has a legal right to have possession of in case the government go tyrannical and gun him down.

Meanwhile the part of America that won't even consider socialising cancer treatment harps on about the need to improve mental health care. At least if they put their diversionary tactics into place here a whole lot of good might come as a side effect. But I'm willing to take a punt we'll hear a whole lot more about mental health without any action in that department either.

no they didnt. bolded is false. the only statement they made explicitly in reference to bump stocks was that the ATF should revisit and investigate them.

much of the media incorrectly reported it, including here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/u...-shooting.html

heres a more accurate headline: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politi...cks/index.html

even npr got was misleading despite the article actually contradicting its headline.

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555894...-support-a-ban

(btw, nice shot at Obama there. lol at thinking the NRA isnt a wing of the republican party. and hell, it might be the other way around even, and the nra controls the repubs)

anyway, remember that after the Newtown massacre of friggin schoolkids, the NRA vowed it was"is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again".

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/politi...ing/index.html

since then, they have only made meaningful contributions to allowing more guns to be put in the hands of more ppl. they have succeeded in removing mental health requirements in some situations, and were just recently in the process of helping to pass a bill that would legalize silencers.

I know very little about guns but would imagine a semi auto rifle with a silencer (exists?) would wound far more people in scenarios like this than an M60 would. How long would it take for the crowd to realize people were getting shot, nevermind know where the danger was coming from?

And what's the specific policy or outcome GOP reps suggest as it relates to 'improved mental health'?

This is a scary scenario.

Not been round many guns, but I'm guessing Vegas is a noisy place and with a concert playing as well, would this have been easy to hear?

M60 is ironically the only gun I've ever shot. Was in Cambodia with my brother, asked a cabbie where we could go shoot (was a 20 yo stoner at the time). Drove us to sketchy place with a gun menu, picked the M60 for like $60 per clip.

RPG was an option for $200. Can't remember if brother and I joked about it being fired at cows or if that was really what they had tourists fire at. Will ask and see if he remembers.

Obligatory pic of me included.

You can't suppress the 'ballistic crack' of a supersonic round, which is the principal sound heard at distance when you are under fire from a rifle-calibre weapon.

I dunno. I said I didn't think they were really going to do anything about it.

Should gun control proponents start advocating for the repeal of the 2nd amendment as a tactic to help move the Overton window on the issue of gun control?

Right now the debate is between people who want few/no regulations at all and those who want some, lesser regulations. If people starting advocating for the complete repeal of the 2nd amendment it would probably help move the debate at least.

Think of what happened with healthcare. Bernie came out with the idea of a single-payer system and now that debate has moved quite a bit to the left in the last few years after decades of people saying "socialized medicine would never work in this country!"

Silencers aren't that good. The people in the hotel would still know what's going on.

Absolutely they should, and not just to move the window as it it's the genuine long term aim. Get the NRA/etc on the run and let them do the compromising as the pressure builds. There's quite likely a lot of shy support and loads of people who can easily be converted over a decade or so.

I always enjoy these BBC "For real, look how crazy Americans are" tweets.



In other news, I heard someone on the radio say there's been more movement now for guns control than there has been in the past 20 years. What's crazy is that this is true: Paul Ryan saying he's open to talking about maybe banning these obscure bump stocks is like the biggest step that's been taken in ages.

It's probably hard to get across how odd it seems to everyone else, but picture growing up where the only place you see these machines is in films..

Then trying to picture people from America being able to walk into shops as a civilian and buy them.

It's pretty much unthinkable to anyone from a 1st world country that isn't the USA

From the same person making fun of Trump with America First, Netherlands second. This time about the NRA.

.

It's not too hard to understand; a lot of Americans also think our easy gun availability is crazy as ****.

"abstinence only" advocacy itt


The prescriptive Overton approach is a draconian negotiation tactic that encourages conflict, damages relationships, and rewards asymmetry.


"They started it" is not a productive rejoinder.