Las Vegas: Worst Mass Shooting in US History

[Red]

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...

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

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.

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.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

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.

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.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

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

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.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

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.

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.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

I wouldn't mind suppressors being more accessible, but they're not hard to get. Just expensive and a lengthy process.

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.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

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

 

[RandyForRubio]

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.

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.

 

[RandyForRubio]

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.

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.

 

[Gameface]

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.

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

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

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.

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.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

You're at a concert and somebody is shooting 600 yards away, your first clue will be the damage, not the sound.

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.

 

[Miggs]

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.

Iawtp.

 

[Red]

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

 

[Red]

Targeted aviation fuel tanks from one of the two broken windows...

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local...ter-targeted-aviation-fuel-tanks-source-says/

 

[The Thriller]

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?

 

[Ron Mexico]

I think I agree with [MENTION=3073]JustTheTip[/MENTION] on the silencer thing. From what research I can see very few crimes are committed with Silencers. The laws and regulations we have seem to be fairly effective.

Having a mandatory 30 year sentence for possession of a silencer during crime of violence or drug trafficking along with the background check it takes to get one legally has fairly effectively curbed the use of silencers in crime.

I guess maybe this is a good example of how harsh penalties and detailed background checks are effective and could be broadened to help with other gun violence.

 

[fishonjazz]

Looks like some people are making some of the same points I made. Glad to see that I wasn't totally up in the night with my way of thinking.

 

[Rubashov]

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.

Whats the waiting period on a grenade launcher? I want one of them for you know home defence and stuff.

 

[The Thriller]

I think I agree with [MENTION=3073]JustTheTip[/MENTION] on the silencer thing. From what research I can see very few crimes are committed with Silencers. The laws and regulations we have seem to be fairly effective.

Having a mandatory 30 year sentence for possession of a silencer during crime of violence or drug trafficking along with the background check it takes to get one legally has fairly effectively curbed the use of silencers in crime.

I guess maybe this is a good example of how harsh penalties and detailed background checks are effective and could be broadened to help with other gun violence.

Why have any regulation on silencers if regulation doesn't work and bad mean people will just find a way to break the law anyway? Wouldn't it be better to get rid of all background checks and mandatory waiting periods? Don't these only hurt good law abiding citizens since regulation doesn't work?