Vegas shooting incident

I think around 35% is right. The mojority of gun owners have more than one gun as well. There should obviously be limits on how many guns one person can own, but I don't think there is? The guy who did this had enough guns and ammo to invade a small country ffs. That was partly the reason he was able to kill so many people, he didn't have to reload, he just picked up another rifle. Imagine if he had even one other shooter helping him?

It is possible we may never know the motive.

BillyBobBS wrote: »

The ISIS thing is still weird imo. Their media wing doesn't just claim everything as people seem to think and it just doesn't make sense they'd claim this was carried out by "one of their soldiers" without some type of connection.

They are very desperate. Their caliphate is almost totally gone and they are on the back foot. All they can really do these days is the odd knife attack. Plus this guy doesn't fit the bill at all. He was a rich old white christian guy from a deeply conservative area, from a seemingly fairly normal family (apart from his dad) I know the American right wing would be delighted if this guy was a muslim as it would help advance their agenda but that angle just makes no sense at this point. If he had been recruited by ISIS there would be evidence online and it would have surfaced by now, just like in all the other ISIS attacks.

It's funny reading the trumpers on reddit. They are frothing at the mouth over liberals using this as a political football to advance gun control and yet if this guy was a muslim they'd be doing the exact same thing calling for muslims to be banned etc. Even they realise this guy wasn't a muslim so they're going with the lefty conspiracy theory instead, it's really pathetic.

If this guy was muslim Trump would be writing executive orders right now but because it's an old white guy literally nothing will happen and in two or three years time we'll all be having this conversation again only this time the death toll will be in the 70s or 80s.

Danzy wrote: »

There is something deeply messed up in the American attitude to guns. (Just to clarify, I own guns, have target shot them since 9 and owned my first Shotgun at 13).

It is a cultural thing, there are places that have as many similar weapons where the use of them is not replicated and mass murder is not a daily occurrence.

Is it the Wild West legacy of the movies and culture, rugged individualism where a man fights back, who knows?

Add in it, the mental health issues and ready access to weapons most armies would envy and it leads to problems.

A case in point regarding culture, Serbia does not have these mass shootings and they are awash with assault rifles and even up to anti tank grenades etc, left over from the Yugoslav army, the civil war etc etc.

I think it is important to remember the size if the USA and how each state has different laws when it comes to gun control.

Massachusetts for example has stricter gun laws than say Alaska. And gun related deaths are nearly 10 times higher in Alaska 20 per 100,000.

In fact the state of Massachusetts has on average 3 deaths per 100,000 which is pretty close the Canada 2 per 100,000 and far smaller than the American average for 10 per 100,000.

riffmongous wrote: »

Yeah and that's the problem, there should be a register so when someone is stockpiling it can be spotted.

America is a different society thought.
Because we are so familiar with it, both as visitors to it and receiving much of our cultural input from it (be that film, music, food or language, etc. ) we think we are the "same".
But in America the individual is considered to be responsible for their own safety to a much greater extent than we as Europeans are.
Here in Ireland we depend on the Gardai to be our main line of defence, having surrendered most of our rights to self defence to them.
For a long time, if someone broke into hour home you were advised to ring the Gardai and lock yourself into the furthest room and wait, letting the burgler "work away".
This may be good practical advise, as most civilians sould come off worst against a determined home invader, but the very premise of the argument is utterly alien to the average Americian householder.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Again with this nonsense. Long before I got to the thread users were discussing that guy in great detail (given his close ties with Marilou). I merely said that going by the FB Pages he 'liked', he was a leftist and anti-Trump. Big fcuking deal.

The truth is that you (and your buddies) couldn't give a fcuk what I called some guy that was rumoured to have been behind the shooting. You all just got your panties in a bunch cause I used the word 'leftist'.



Ah yeah, butter wouldn't melt. Sure the stories you're linking to show that you ain't shy of the odd label yourself.

You can keep trying to imply that i have an agenda but i don't. I don't make assumptions about someone unless there's a hell of a lot of evidence. You had no problem throwing an innocent man under the bus for your own silly political aims.

And no, I'm not perfect. However that doesn't mean that I turn every event into a way to grind my own personal axe. And I'm not dumb enough to get the profile of a guy who lives thousands of mile from where the shooting happened, post details of it online and talk about his political leanings.
There have been people in this thread using this tragedy as a way to tar people who are left leaning. From an innocent man, to people who said something stupid, to Hillary Clinton to the fecking holocaust.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're totally missing the reason I brought her into this thread. It wasn't even supposed to be a major talking point.. I was just bemoaning the fact that my friend is away with the fairies when it comes to this stuff.

You were away with the fairies yesterday. Maybe you're a good match?

c_man wrote: »

And to allege that only "right wingers" were making this political in the thread. Don't be bashful, you got your digs in with some good ol' false allegations.

false allegations? I haven't alleged anything right or left wing about anyone involved in the shooting. I haven't posted any false information about the people involved. I haven't used this tragedy in anyway to advance my one beliefs.

the extent of my political contribution was to say that the guy was probably a trump supporter because he came from a Trump supporting area, however I also stated that i had no reason to believe that this was political at all.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Why would anyone need to own more than 10 guns?

Thanks to the NRA, people can own as many guns as they want, as powerful as they want, can transport them where they want and set them up where they want.

In America you don't need a reason to own as many guns as you want.

Believe it or not but there's no restriction here in Ireland on how many guns that you are legally allowed to own. All you need to do is convince the Gardaí that you have a reasonable explanation for needing that many guns.

All guns aren't the same. They come in different types and calibres all specific for the job that they are required to do.

For example: This mightn't be a typical example but you could get a farmer who does a bit of vermin control, hunting and target shooting.

For vermin control he would probably need a .22lr to shoot rabbits. He would need a larger calibre to shoot foxes, maybe a .17 or a .223. You aren't supposed to shoot birds with a rifle so he'd also need a shotgun.

That's three guns for vermin control.

Now lets take hunting. If he was doing deer hunting, he might also need a .308 as it's illegal to shoot deer with a small calibre rifle.

Now we are at four.

Maybe he has rats in a shed, can't use a .22lr in there. Now he needs an air gun. That's 5.

Now lets get onto target shooting. The hunting shotgun is unlikely to be suitable for clay pigeon so he'd need a second shotgun for that. Then there are different types of clay pigeon such as trap or skeet, so then that's another shotgun.

Then lets say he wants to do Gallery Rifle. He'd need a .22lr for that. But it would need to be a semi-auto so the vermin control .22lr wouldn't be suitable. He'd need another.

And then there is benchrest shooting. There's at least 4 categories in that so you'd need 4 more guns if you wanted to shoot all 4 categories.

Then there is centrefire gallery rifle. You'd need a centrefire lever action rifle to shoot that.

There are also gallery pistol competitions. Can't shoot those with a rifle so there's another gun you might need.

And your gallery pistol probably won't be good enough for ISSF Olympic style shooting so there's another handgun that you might need.

And then there is long range shooting. Can't do that with a small calibre. F Class, F Open etc. etc. There's 2 more guns.

Then there are vintage gun comps, guns manufactured pre 1955. There's more guns.

I could go on and on, but can you see why you might need more than 10 guns?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Some photos from inside the room released.


https://twitter.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/915182518587891712

Thats not a normal Armalite magazine, more like a 45 or 50rnd? He really was trying his best to get as many rounds fired as possible.

riffmongous wrote: »

But how many weapons and rounds of ammo are you going to need for home defense? Two handguns, a shotgun and a limited amount of ammunition? Anymore would probably be counterproductive. That's reasonable, a large number of high caliber semiauto rifles/handguns should be setting off alarm bells.

For home defence, sure two shotguns and two hand guns would suffice, but when you aren't limited to what you can own, why not get whatever you like to take part I various competitions etc, or just to own for ownership sake?
Again I stress, its a different society and culture.
There is a fierce pride in their armed forces and all the technology involved.
There is fierce pride in their country, and it's founding principles, and both these "prides" cross over into everyday culture and life.
Take a look on YouTube for a song called "Pass me the ammo" by a band called The Moonshine Bandits, that's how a majority of people feel.
The genie is out of the bottle as far as banning most kinds of guns is concerned, but that's the way they want it. So our trans-Atlantic viewpoint won't change anything.
In fact, if we had a bit more pride in our own defence forces, it would be a better situation than the current default position so many adopt " the army is a joke", "handy in a bin strike" etc. etc.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

In Ireland you need to apply for a specific certificate for a single specified firearm which will also allow for a specific amount of ammunition.

So if you want to own two that will be a second certificate and so on an so fourth. So you still need to request it.

In terms of having good reason this really falls into two categories.
Gun club - You would need to show you are a member of a gun club.
Hunting / Pest Control - They usually only give these out if you own land or are in the employment of someone who owns land.

Getting the certificate:

Minimum qualifications for character referees are set out in the Garda Commissioner's Guidelines as to the Practical Application and Operation of the Firearms Acts, 1925-2009

Applicants must give consent for Gardi to give written permission to consult a doctor, psychiatrist or psychologist to confirm the applicant’s good physical and mental health.

Certificates should not be issued to an applicant who: is known to be of ‘intemperate habits’ or of ‘unsound mind’; has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for certain firearm-related or terrorist offenses.

I think hand guns are restricted to .22 cal anything over that I thin is illegal in Ireland.

You must also give consent for the Gardai to enter your home at any time, without a warrant, to check your guns and their storage.
The very people who decry gun ownership would have an apolexy at signing away that right, I think!

Surely the following makes sense:

Guns are our legal right, as per the consitution laid out by our founding fathers. We have a right to own guns.

*Gun crime increase*

It's fine, these crimes are carried out by illegal firearms, and limiting the legality of firearms won't stop this.

*Mass shootings happen with legal firearms*

"Limiting these firearms won't change anything."

Yes it ****ing will. It's not by sheer cooincidence that the country with a known gun culture and relatively easy access to pretty serious firearms, has the highest number of gun deaths per capita in the world. No coincidence at all. Anyone who thinks otherwise should reevaluate their opinion.
It's not a political thing. This didnt seem politically charged. However once it happens it becomes political.

For me, a single incident carried out that ends the life of even a few people with a legally purchased firearm, is enough to start banning them. The mentalilty in the states is usually, "I don't care about them, I want to look after me and mine". It's not a selfish thing, just the mentality, thats why the healthcare is how it is. The US should take the loss of life so much more seriously. Gun crime is usually done with illegal weapons. Mass shootings are done with legal firearms. the background checks are good, but often enough aren't enough to prevent someone going rogue. How do we prevent mass shootings? Ban firearms. Totally. the gun culture in the US makes illegal firearms easier to come by, even the type of weapons that are found illegally are far more lethal than anything found over here. Also the ammunition in the US is far more common. The ammo used in a single mass shooting, using a legal firearm, likely outnumbers the illegal ammunition used in Ireland per year.

I love guns. I spent time shooting rifles, shotguns and handguns with my own friends and family through safe and secure military grade safety organised events. I respect gun safety and I beleive if everyone respects firearms they can be a very enjoyable hobby. However, the scenario in this case exists that a few bad eggs can ruin it for everyone. It's different when it's a matter of life and death. Banning firearms is the only way to actually stop these mass shootings.

What's the point of banning automatic weapons if for $99 anyone can legally buy a bump stock that turns a semi automatic rifle into a fully automatic one? Combine that with a 100 round drum magazine and a bipod, both of which are legal and relatively cheap, and you have what is basically a machine gun.

The US government apparently banned machine guns in 1986 yet the above is still legal..... go figure.

OSI wrote: »

Want does not equal need.

You must be joking. I am an archer and have multiple bows. Not because I need them, but because by law I can and I want them.

I also like guns, but the military type, not the kind we are allowed here in Ireland. So if Ireland had the same gun laws as the US and a place to shoot off m16s, m4s, AKs, m249s, Barrat 50 cals etc I would have a shed load of them also if I could afford them. This stems back to my time in the FCA and shooting the Gustav SM

Watching folks on youtube shoot these guns on full auto looks like fun to me and I wouldn't mind having a go.