quote:

ORIGINAL: GabrielLogos
From listening to the many cell videos recorded, the fire rate sure sounds like an AK-47. It has a slower fire rate than most other fully-automatic weapons.
The world market is absolutely flooded with those that are fully automatic and obtainable in most countries pretty cheap.
In the US many gun owners have semi-automatic versions that are quite legal.
It's possible to purchase fully-automatic versions if you get the Federal permit.
It's also possible to purchase parts for a semi-automatic AK-47 to convert it back to fully-automatic.
Most gun shops will not do the mod for you, but if you are the slightest bit mechanically handy it's a pretty simple parts swap.
I'd guess that at least 70% of US gun owners could do the mod at home in less than an hour.
The mod is illegal if you don't have the permits for fully-automatic, but I that's not much of an issue for those planning mass murder.

The news reported that the shooter was using 30 round magazines, and that the fire lasted 4-1/2 minutes total.
They also reported that the shooter had multiple weapons.

Not familiar with the AK-47? Look at photos of Charlottesville, they were the rifles being carried by many Antifa.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

I've just picked this up. I have, of course, no idea how accurate it is. Maybe one or more of the gunsters here might have an opinion?

"The narrative has been that fully automatic guns have been illegal since 1986 and so gun law changes wouldn't have changed this (I've heard this 20 times today already). If these turn out to be illegal modifications, fine, I get the point. However, if these are Bump Stock or Side Fire or Trigger Crank modifications - all of which are perfectly legal because you still have to pull the trigger (but can pull it 300-700 times a minute because the modification helps you pull the trigger)... I hope we can stop calling these automatic weapons, and stop pretending these have been illegal since 1986. It is legal today to buy a AR style .223 or .308 (confirmed as used in this tragedy) and it is legal to attach a bump stock shown in the video below. Legally, an AR style .223 or .308 with a bump stock is considered a semi automatic rifle. So let's quit acting like this wacko had to be using an illegal automatic weapon. He was more likely using the weapons shown and described below. We are stupid to allow these devices (bump stocks, side fire and trigger cranks). "

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

So I guess the fact that some have guns to actually hunt, deal with various predators and pest species that inhabit the rural region they live in, OR have an interest in their historic value never crossed your fucking mind?

Seriously, wild hog eradication is a booming business around here.

Yes, I do own two weapons that require special permits from the ATF, but my primary interest is their historic significance (that and they never caught the giant Armadillo that was attacking lone star beer trucks, distributors back in the seventies, and I figure the critter will eventually develop a taste for better alcoholic refreshments.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

Why again are people allowed to own guns like this?

Or any guns at all?

This shooter was not in the military, if only the well regulated militia clause was enforced, this horrible shooting would not have occurred.

There are a few reasons.

1. An armed populace is a last resort against tyranny.

2. Police have no obligation to protect the individual unless a "special relationship" exists.

3. The U.S. is so huge that a police response can be hours away in case of trouble.

4. The Constitution of the U.S. was written by people that not only allowed citizens to keep arms but in that day even required it.

Assault rifles are not completely banned but required to be licensed and permitted. The background check for an automatic firearm is as extensive as one for getting a Secret clearance. And a $1200 fee for each and every transfer combined with a 4-10 month wait for permission to transfer makes Class III firearm ownership something only serious collectors do.

But, there is a black market for illegal firearms and you can get an illegal machine gun (according to my policeman neighbor) cheaper than you can legally get one.

In the big picture, U.S. Citizens who have not had rights curtailed by conviction of a Felony nor been adjudicated by a court as mentally unfit, have a right to keep and bear arms.
Note the "citizens", "conviction" and "adjudicated by a court". This is an issue of "due process" and certain states confiscating private arms based on someone swearing out a bond (accusation but no conviction of domestic abuse, etc.) is being tested in courts.
The type of arms a private citizen may keep have some limitations and you have to get specific permission and pay a tax for the permit to keep a "NFA Firearm". If it isn't a single shot weapon, auto-loading is fine, of the appropriate barrel length and configuration, it is an NFA firearm and requires specific permission and permitting. Furthermore, no permission or permitting will be forthcoming if there are state or local laws prohibiting the person applying from owning the firearm.
On the "bear" portion of the second amendment. There are local laws that specify, for the public safety, where the right to bear arms may be safely invoked. Schools, courts, government buildings are usual places where individual arms are forbidden. In my local jurisdiction, if a business posts a sign at the entrance saying "no firearms" or an ideograph to that effect (circle slash over a handgun is common) it is now a crime to carry a firearm on their premises.

I'm probably wasting my efforts illustrating how the U.S. is not the unregulated wild west that totalitarian touting media wants you to believe. But those in foreign countries, California, Chicago, and New York haven't been exposed to the reality of private firearm ownership that the bulk of the U.S. has been.

Not entirely, at this point, I'm a bit curious about the 2nd Amendment supporter mindset. Clearly, banning all guns would prevent at least some innocent people from dying, but I do think the framers of the Constitution did put a lot of thought into it, though I don't understand why the well regulated militia part of the 2nd Amendment is totally ignored by the right. It seems like his number of guns would have set off some red flags his CO might have had to address. Why does anyone need more than two? I can get needing a backup in case of jam or something, or even preferring a few different types, but this was not this guys situation. Someone that owns guns needs to have a CO, that can refer them to a psych hospital, if necessary, period. Why is it they don't allow me to drive without proper training, and licensing, insurance, and registration? I tend to think if cars had been invented in the 1700's, driving would have been a constitutional "right" instead of the "privilege" it is now, but most people want to restrict this to people that are responsible. Why is it that restricting gun ownership to those that are responsible is such more of an issue?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

NRA just needs to come out with a brand new policy of how do they make sure guns don't get into the hands of killers like this Las Vegas Dude.

They seriously need a solution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

So I guess the fact that some have guns to actually hunt, deal with various predators and pest species that inhabit the rural region they live in, OR have an interest in their historic value never crossed your fucking mind?

Seriously, wild hog eradication is a booming business around here.

Yes, I do own two weapons that require special permits from the ATF, but my primary interest is their historic significance (that and they never caught the giant Armadillo that was attacking lone star beer trucks, distributors back in the seventies, and I figure the critter will eventually develop a taste for better alcoholic refreshments.)

Of course there are plenty of perfectly reasonable legitimate reasons why someone might own firearms. For instance, farmers need firearms to control various pests, collecting weapons is a perfectly respectable hobby, hunting is a popular pastime. As far as I know, no one advocates a blanket ban on all weapons for all people.

According to The Guardian:
"3%: Proportion of people who own half of the country’s guns, according to an unpublished Harvard/Northeastern University survey result summary. Anchoring this group are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/us-gun-control-ownership-violence-statistics

Collectors aside ( and please remember that collectors don't need their collections to be in full working order, it might be an idea to consider having the firing pins removed from most of the collection), I cannot think of a single reason why a person needs to own up to 140 fully functional firearms.

News reports indicate that the Las Vegas murderer is part of this demographic. It seems to me that an awful lot of people are dying to protect and preserve the rights of that 3%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Why? The ACLU is an organization the protects 1st Amendment Rights. The NRA is an organization that protects 2nd Amendment rights. Do you think the ACLU should police what people are going to say?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Why? The ACLU is an organization the protects 1st Amendment Rights. The NRA is an organization that protects 2nd Amendment rights. Do you think the ACLU should police what people are going to say?

Because the second amendment that they are protecting is the cause of this massacre. So they should take some responsibility on making some recommendations on how such things can be prevented since their job is to make sure everyone coexist with guns happily.

And also, how is US suppose to protect themselves from Islamic Lone Wolves who is gonna stock pile weapons and plot to kill alot of people when more and more Lone Wolves like this dude is gonna have clean records and be very good at covering their tracks?

"The Right to Bear Arms" doesn't specifically say "The Right to Bear any kind or any amount of Arms" right? There could be more control.

Maybe even semi-automatic should be ban.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
that Britain is going to start to ban the selling of acid because of all of the acid attacks there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

So I guess the fact that some have guns to actually hunt, deal with various predators and pest species that inhabit the rural region they live in, OR have an interest in their historic value never crossed your fucking mind?

Seriously, wild hog eradication is a booming business around here.

Yes, I do own two weapons that require special permits from the ATF, but my primary interest is their historic significance (that and they never caught the giant Armadillo that was attacking lone star beer trucks, distributors back in the seventies, and I figure the critter will eventually develop a taste for better alcoholic refreshments.)

Of course there are plenty of perfectly reasonable legitimate reasons why someone might own firearms. For instance, farmers need firearms to control various pests, collecting weapons is a perfectly respectable hobby, hunting is a popular pastime. As far as I know, no one advocates a blanket ban on all weapons for all people.

According to The Guardian:
"3%: Proportion of people who own half of the country’s guns, according to an unpublished Harvard/Northeastern University survey result summary. Anchoring this group are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/us-gun-control-ownership-violence-statistics

Collectors aside ( and please remember that collectors don't need their collections to be in full working order, it might be an idea to consider having the firing pins removed from most of the collection), I cannot think of a single reason why a person needs to own up to 140 fully functional firearms.

News reports indicate that the Las Vegas murderer is part of this demographic. It seems to me that an awful lot of people are dying to protect and preserve the rights of that 3%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Statements about his treatment of his girlfriend indicate a very controlling personality, if not outright emotionally and verbally abusive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Why? The ACLU is an organization the protects 1st Amendment Rights. The NRA is an organization that protects 2nd Amendment rights. Do you think the ACLU should police what people are going to say?

Because the second amendment that they are protecting is the cause of this massacre. So they should take some responsibility on making some recommendations on how such things can be prevented since their job is to make sure everyone coexist with guns happily.

And also, how is US suppose to protect themselves from Islamic Lone Wolves who is gonna stock pile weapons and plot to kill alot of people when more and more Lone Wolves like this dude is gonna have clean records and be very good at covering their tracks?

"The Right to Bear Arms" doesn't specifically say "The Right to Bear any kind or any amount of Arms" right? There could be more control.

Maybe even semi-automatic should be ban.

Well, start with the fact that a crazy evil person was the cause of the massacre and not the 2nd Amendment and your arguments fall apart from there.

I just saw an article, not going to go find it and link, that Britain is going to start to ban the selling of acid because of all of the acid attacks there. So, why don't we get the big government together and decide what we are entitled to own and let them just control us. Then we'd all be safe wouldn't we. There would never need to be another discussion of rights vs security. And Singapore could even include chewing gum in the list banned from us all. It would be a perfect world.

quote:


As far as one poster who made the statement he was a pussy to take his own life rather than face the music for his crime, considering the cost of keeping an inmate on death row, he saved the tax payers a shit load.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
that Britain is going to start to ban the selling of acid because of all of the acid attacks there.

This is a damn good idea!

quote:

I'm pleased that you believe how many guns I own is important to anyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

FR:
I think maybe, in some ways, this man is a physical manifestation of the intentions of the left for the right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Why? The ACLU is an organization the protects 1st Amendment Rights. The NRA is an organization that protects 2nd Amendment rights. Do you think the ACLU should police what people are going to say?

Because the second amendment that they are protecting is the cause of this massacre. So they should take some responsibility on making some recommendations on how such things can be prevented since their job is to make sure everyone coexist with guns happily.

And also, how is US suppose to protect themselves from Islamic Lone Wolves who is gonna stock pile weapons and plot to kill alot of people when more and more Lone Wolves like this dude is gonna have clean records and be very good at covering their tracks?

"The Right to Bear Arms" doesn't specifically say "The Right to Bear any kind or any amount of Arms" right? There could be more control.

Maybe even semi-automatic should be ban.

Well, start with the fact that a crazy evil person was the cause of the massacre and not the 2nd Amendment and your arguments fall apart from there.

I just saw an article, not going to go find it and link, that Britain is going to start to ban the selling of acid because of all of the acid attacks there. So, why don't we get the big government together and decide what we are entitled to own and let them just control us. Then we'd all be safe wouldn't we. There would never need to be another discussion of rights vs security. And Singapore could even include chewing gum in the list banned from us all. It would be a perfect world.

I only wish we could ban stupidity.
Then you wouldn't be able to post anymore.