• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Slaughter in vegas

If we ban guns, people will just start throwing knives out of hotel towers. Morality is a bitch.
 
Ph, I will not intentionally run you over.

Ph, I'd really love to meet you. Is there any chance you're going to be jaywalking on my street in the near future ?
 
The more I think about the more I realize Elkman is right. Why do we bother with any laws at all really?
 
When people talk about reforming gun laws, I'm pretty sure they mean that changes would be made to existing laws. It's not like it's never been done before. We could even repeal and replace them.
 
BiffTannen said:
When people talk about reforming gun laws, I'm pretty sure they mean that changes would be made to existing laws. It's not like it's never been done before. We could even repeal and replace them.
Click to expand...

If recent history is any indication, repealing and replacing is next to impossible.
 
It's a valid point that plenty of people who want more stringent gun control laws don't always know the exact laws already on the books. I don't believe his undermines their entire argument that there should be more stringent gun control laws because they don't know every single detail of the current laws.

There's also a distinction between "I know the laws currently on the books" and "it would an unconstitutional infringement on my second amendment rights to pass X or Y law." Courts aren't going to look solely to the National Firearms Control Act of 1822 and its interpretation in deciding whether a new law or regulation unconstitutionally curbs an individual's second amendment rights.
 
I mean laws for the most part are completely fluid and decided by societal morality. Most large society impacting laws at one point were the exact opposite until a large enough swell occurred to change them. Think woman's right to vote, civil rights laws, slavery laws as the most extreme example. Right now the country does not have the will to do it so there are no means to gun control. If enough people did then we would move towards the path of gun buy backs and more illegal weapons. Like when gun nuts like Elkman say you can pry my guns from my dead cold fingers, I'm all for it, enjoy dying for a hobby you made that choice. The tens of thousands that have died as the result of guns didn't get a choice.
 
Dumb blonde unintelligent female gets listened to because well, rubes!!!
 
"They'll find another way to do it, so it's pointless to restrict their options!"
 
i feel pretty confident that a ban on semi-automatic rifles implemented in the 80s or 90s would've prevented this massacre
 
elkman92 said:
Someone posted this earlier...

Both the AR and AK families are traditionally chambered for rounds that have little purpose outside of combat. The NATO 5.56x45mm used by the AR family and the 7.62x39mm used by the AK family are both designed for combat situations and ranges against human targets. They are relatively under performing as hunting rounds and aren't optimized for sports either. The 5.56x45mm in particular lacks punch against anything larger than a human, and is a round that was designed to be as small as possible while still being lethal to humans (so soldiers could carry as much ammunition as possible and to limit recoil allowing for more extended periods of accurate fire).

The 5.56x45 was based off the the Remington .222/.223 cartridges, which were designed for shooting small game and varmints. The 7.62x39 cartridge was designed by the Soviets, and not for a hunting purpose. However, the terminal ballistics of the bullet a cartridge sends downrange determines whether or not said cartridge is useful for hunting. The .222 and .223 Remington cartridges are perfectly legal for hunting small game and varmints. The 7.62x39 cartridge, if loaded with a soft nosed bullet, is a fine round for deer hunting in the woods, regardless of action type. Semi auto rifles have been used by hunters since the first decade of the last century. Dont believe me? Check out a guy named John Browning...
Click to expand...

Stop being a bitch and use a bow and arrow.
 
elkman92 said:
Name me an adjustment to those laws that would have prevented the Las Vegas carnage...
Click to expand...

Why limit proposals to things that would have prevented the carnage? Don't you think reducing the casualties would be a worthwhile goal?

Why in your mind, does it have to be all or nothing?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i feel pretty confident that a ban on semi-automatic rifles implemented in the 80s or 90s would've prevented this massacre
Click to expand...

It likely would've prevented the large amount of injuries. Taking one's time to snipe and shoot into a sea of people with a collection of locked and loaded bolt action rifles would also mean more time to notice people were getting shot and that shots were going off. It would also mean more shots placed specifically to kill, rather than just shots sprayed indiscriminately into a crowd. Several people would still be killed and injured.

This dude was firing into jet fuel tanks too and even punctured one. Crazy to think what could've happened if he had set one off, but I'm not sure that really works like it does in the movies and video games.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
It likely would've prevented the large amount of injuries. Taking one's time to snipe and shoot into a sea of people with a collection of locked and loaded bolt action rifles would also mean more time to notice people were getting shot and that shots were going off. It would also mean more shots placed specifically to kill, rather than just shots sprayed indiscriminately into a crowd. Several people would still be killed and injured.

This dude was firing into jet fuel tanks too and even punctured one. Crazy to think what could've happened if he had set one off, but I'm not sure that really works like it does in the movies and video games.
Click to expand...

this fucker wasn’t a sniper who could aim specifically to kill.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
It likely would've prevented the large amount of injuries. Taking one's time to snipe and shoot into a sea of people with a collection of locked and loaded bolt action rifles would also mean more time to notice people were getting shot and that shots were going off. It would also mean more shots placed specifically to kill, rather than just shots sprayed indiscriminately into a crowd. Several people would still be killed and injured.

This dude was firing into jet fuel tanks too and even punctured one. Crazy to think what could've happened if he had set one off, but I'm not sure that really works like it does in the movies and video games.
Click to expand...

Not if you use a silencer !!!!!!
 
elkman, the NRA and those who so stridently defended the sale, possession and availability of expanded clip/magazines/drums (or whatever you want to call them), all have blood on their hands and souls once again after Las Vegas. If he didn't have these devices, he couldn't have fired in 30 round bursts. He would have had to reload at least twice as often. Fewer people would have died and been injured.

Your irrational defense of the indefensible and support of people manufacturing products to create death and injury for blood money is ugly and needs to stop.

People will continue to die and be injured because of you. There is no way around this fact and it cannot be conflated with the right to keep and bear arms. For once, think about innocent people who will die and be grievously injured due to your blind support of the profit structure of your masters in this industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top