# Stopping an active shooter



## PhotonGuy (Oct 3, 2017)

How to stop an active shooter. Having a gun of your own and the proper training to be able to effectively use it and a CCW can help in some situations but when the shooter is some 30 plus stories up in a building and using automatic rifles and you're on the ground its not going to help. As it is the USA is in mourning right now. An active shooter in Las Vegas just killed 59 people at least and injured over 500 from up in a building. If I was on the ground below what I would do would be to try to find cover as quickly as possible and to stay low. However, Im thinking is there any way to stop this before it happens? If you're at the hotel and you notice a suspicious individual can any actions be taken? Is there any way to know if a person is suspicious and if they might commit such a crime beforehand?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 3, 2017)

Typically no, unless the shooter is very careless and sloppy and is discovered before he takes action.

It would not be difficult to get this equipment into a hotel room and into position.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 3, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> is there any way to stop this before it happens? If you're at the hotel and you notice a suspicious individual can any actions be taken? Is there any way to know if a person is suspicious and if they might commit such a crime beforehand?



simple answer ....No


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 3, 2017)

on a larger scale the US needs to really address mental health issues.  we no longer have services for those in need. at present the jails and correctional facilities are our only way to deal with people with mental health issues.  the mother of the sandy hook killer said she knew her son had problems and even alerted the local police but was told there is nothing they can do until he actually harms someone.  as a society we have decided that it is not humane to put people in an institution and we are paying the cost for that decision.

that being said in this instance there was no history of any mental health issue so it would not have prevented the tragedy.


----------



## jobo (Oct 3, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> How to stop an active shooter. Having a gun of your own and the proper training to be able to effectively use it and a CCW can help in some situations but when the shooter is some 30 plus stories up in a building and using automatic rifles and you're on the ground its not going to help. As it is the USA is in mourning right now. An active shooter in Las Vegas just killed 59 people at least and injured over 500 from up in a building. If I was on the ground below what I would do would be to try to find cover as quickly as possible and to stay low. However, Im thinking is there any way to stop this before it happens? If you're at the hotel and you notice a suspicious individual can any actions be taken? Is there any way to know if a person is suspicious and if they might commit such a crime beforehand?


 i think seeing someone struggle in to the lift with 40 guns is a good clue that all is not well


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 3, 2017)

jobo said:


> i think seeing someone struggle in to the lift with 40 guns is a good clue that all is not well


He had 23 guns and they can be disassembled and put in suitcases, and he no doubt made multiple trips to transport them all into his room.


----------



## geezer (Oct 3, 2017)

jobo said:


> i think seeing someone struggle in to the lift with 40 guns is a good clue that all is not well



If they are packed in bags and you use one of those big brass carts you see in hotels, it wouldn't be a struggle. Heck, you might just get the bell hop to take them to your room. Unless in addition to being a psychopath, you are _too cheap to tip_.

...like Mr. Pink.

Steve Buscemi GIFs - Find & Share on GIPHY


----------



## jobo (Oct 3, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> He had 23 guns and they can be disassembled and put in suitcases, and he no doubt made multiple trips to transport them all into his room.


well someone who is booked in for one night with that much luggage is a bit suspicious,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

jobo said:


> i think seeing someone struggle in to the lift with 40 guns is a good clue that all is not well


From what we've been told so far, he simply carried suitcases up. A total of 10, but not all at once. If someone saw him carrying many times, they might have had questions, but any one trip with one or two suitcases wouldn't have raised anyone's suspicion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

Yeah, so far, this one is tough to try to work with. His family didn't even mention any odd behavior, even with hindsight. His brother didn't think he was any kind of "gun nut", and had no idea he had so many guns - I'm not clear whether he even knew his brother owned guns, at all.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 3, 2017)

jobo said:


> well someone who is booked in for one night with that much luggage is a bit suspicious,


I believe he had booked for multiple nights. He had stayed at the hotel before.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 3, 2017)

So there has been talk here about how somebody bringing as much luggage up to their room as he did would arouse suspicion. The way I see it somebody might have lots of luggage for any variety of reasons many which might not be crime related. Just seeing somebody with lots of luggage I don't think would be grounds to stop and search them.

But aside from all that, to commit such carnage somebody doesn't need 10 plus guns. All they need is one gun and ammunition. A single rifle can be disassembled and placed in a single suitcase along with ammunition and brought up to a hotel room without arousing suspicion.


----------



## jobo (Oct 3, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I believe he had booked for multiple nights. He had stayed at the hotel before.


really, i wouldn't do that if i knew id be dead in the morning,

in answer to your question, no,there nothing ou can do, all it need is a mad man, an automatic weapon enough armo and some victims to all be at the same place at the same time, 

after that its in the hands of the gods if you live or die


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 3, 2017)

So...you already know the answer to your question, yes?


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 3, 2017)

jobo said:


> really, i wouldn't do that if i knew id be dead in the morning,
> 
> in answer to your question, no,there nothing ou can do, all it need is a mad man, an automatic weapon enough armo and some victims to all be at the same place at the same time,
> 
> after that its in the hands of the gods if you live or die



He had been there for a week waiting for the concert.  Plenty time to sneak the guns up a couple at a time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> So there has been talk here about how somebody bringing as much luggage up to their room as he did would arouse suspicion. The way I see it somebody might have lots of luggage for any variety of reasons many which might not be crime related. Just seeing somebody with lots of luggage I don't think would be grounds to stop and search them.
> 
> But aside from all that, to commit such carnage somebody doesn't need 10 plus guns. All they need is one gun and ammunition. A single rifle can be disassembled and placed in a single suitcase along with ammunition and brought up to a hotel room without arousing suspicion.


Yeah, there will be some armchair quarterbacking about the amount of luggage, but you're right. I've stayed a single night in a hotel with 5 items. I was delivering training seminars, and traveling among several cities by car, so had brought many "luxuries". So I had:

Suitcase
Duffle bag of workout clothes
My guitar case (with a guitar in it)
A cooler full of food I like
A box of training materials
A case full of training equipment (projector, etc.)
That's a full luggage cart for a single night at a hotel. Excessive? Absolutely and without a doubt. Unusual? Not terribly, from what I've seen, observing people checking in (both when I worked at a hotel, and as a traveler).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 3, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> He had been there for a week waiting for the concert.  Plenty time to sneak the guns up a couple at a time.


That's news to me. A suitcase a day would draw absolutely no suspicion in most cases.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's news to me. A suitcase a day would draw absolutely no suspicion in most cases.



News report stated he had to book the room earlier in the week to guarantee getting rooms facing the concert.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 3, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> on a larger scale the US needs to really address mental health issues.  we no longer have services for those in need.


We don't?  Dang.  And here I thought my wife was actually seeing clients, mostly on the taxpayer's dime, as a Board Certified, State Licensed, Counselor.

I'll have to be sure to tell her that she doesn't actually have a job.


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 3, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> How to stop an active shooter. Having a gun of your own and the proper training to be able to effectively use it and a CCW can help in some situations but when the shooter is some 30 plus stories up in a building and using automatic rifles and you're on the ground its not going to help. As it is the USA is in mourning right now. An active shooter in Las Vegas just killed 59 people at least and injured over 500 from up in a building. If I was on the ground below what I would do would be to try to find cover as quickly as possible and to stay low. However, Im thinking is there any way to stop this before it happens? If you're at the hotel and you notice a suspicious individual can any actions be taken? Is there any way to know if a person is suspicious and if they might commit such a crime beforehand?


Sure you could try if you want to end up dead. You suspect something call the police simple as that no point being a dead hero


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 3, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Sure you could try if you want to end up dead. You suspect something call the police simple as that no point being a dead hero


When seconds count the police are minutes away.

In this recent tragedy had I been on the ground I would've ran for cover and called the police. No way of engaging a bad guy who is 32 stories up and who has automatic rifles. However there are cases where an active shooter is stopped by a CCW holder.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 3, 2017)

jobo said:


> in answer to your question, no,there nothing ou can do, all it need is a mad man, an automatic weapon enough armo and some victims to all be at the same place at the same time,


Well yes, or a madman and a truck and some victims or a madman and a bomb and some victims or a madman and some gasoline and matches and some victims, ect.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 3, 2017)

Currently, it's not looking like he used FA weapons.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

jobo said:


> i think seeing someone struggle in to the lift with 40 guns is a good clue that all is not well



Not in Texas.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well yes, or a madman and a truck and some victims or a madman and a bomb and some victims or a madman and some gasoline and matches and some victims, ect.



Guns are just easier to use and more effective at the end point.

Boston bombing took a heap of set up. The drive though crowd attacks don't get a hell of a lot of people. And can be countered by bollards.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

This to a certain degree was an awareness issue. People did not recognize that the sound was gunfire and then did not act quickly enough.

I have mentioned this with awareness you don't know what you don't know. And the sound of automatic gunfire from 40 stories up as opposed to fire crackers or just something silly is something I would not have known until I saw people dropping.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Guns are just easier to use and more effective at the end point.
> 
> Boston bombing took a heap of set up. The drive though crowd attacks don't get a hell of a lot of people. And can be countered by bollards.


Not necessarily. Its possible to build a bomb that can blow up a building with materials that can be bought at a hardware store. Automatic rifles and to some extent semi automatic rifles might be effective at killing lots of people but not handguns. Back in 1990 in NY there was a case where somebody lit up a dance club with gasoline. Killed more people than in any modern mass shooting in the USA.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Not necessarily. Its possible to build a bomb that can blow up a building with materials that can be bought at a hardware store. Automatic rifles and to some extent semi automatic rifles might be effective at killing lots of people but not handguns. Back in 1990 in NY there was a case where somebody lit up a dance club with gasoline. Killed more people than in any modern mass shooting in the USA.



Your source?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Your source?


Fire kills 87 people at the Happy Land Social Club in 1990


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> This to a certain degree was an awareness issue. People did not recognize that the sound was gunfire and then did not act quickly enough.
> 
> I have mentioned this with awareness you don't know what you don't know. And the sound of automatic gunfire from 40 stories up as opposed to fire crackers or just something silly is something I would not have known until I saw people dropping.



Compound that with the echos of the gunshots making it impossible to know where the shots are coming from and which way to flee.

When it was going on, they thought there were multiple shooters in every building due to the echoes.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 3, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> How to stop an active shooter. Having a gun of your own and the proper training to be able to effectively use it and a CCW can help in some situations but when the shooter is some 30 plus stories up in a building and using automatic rifles and you're on the ground its not going to help. As it is the USA is in mourning right now. An active shooter in Las Vegas just killed 59 people at least and injured over 500 from up in a building. If I was on the ground below what I would do would be to try to find cover as quickly as possible and to stay low. However, Im thinking is there any way to stop this before it happens? If you're at the hotel and you notice a suspicious individual can any actions be taken? Is there any way to know if a person is suspicious and if they might commit such a crime beforehand?



What you suggest about finding cover is a good idea, but there's no sure way to prevent tragedies like this. It's difficult to accept, but in life there are things outside of our control. There are too many people and so many ways to harm one another it can't always be prevented. We can't predict the unpredictably of people, nor can we hope to always find a answer in why people commit such acts. The only thing we can do is respond to the situation the best way we can, SWAT, EMTs, Nurses, Triage, etc. I hope all the injured recover


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 3, 2017)

geezer said:


> If they are packed in bags and you use one of those big brass carts you see in hotels, it wouldn't be a struggle. Heck, you might just get the bell hop to take them to your room. Unless in addition to being a psychopath, you are _too cheap to tip_.
> 
> ...like Mr. Pink.
> 
> Steve Buscemi GIFs - Find & Share on GIPHY



To be fair, Mr. Pink wasn't too cheap to tip. He chose not to tip on principle.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 3, 2017)

lklawson said:


> We don't?  Dang.  And here I thought my wife was actually seeing clients, mostly on the taxpayer's dime, as a Board Certified, State Licensed, Counselor.
> 
> I'll have to be sure to tell her that she doesn't actually have a job.



I can appreciate the sarcasm. Yes we have counseling and I'm sure they work hard but I was referring to institutions that keep people long term when they are a danger to themselves or to others. The psychiatric asylum.
My mom worked in one of these facilities back in the day.  she said it was really sad. It effected her a lot and she had to quit nursing.  She said there were so many people there that were just dumped there by the family because they couldn't be bothered.  
Since the 1960 and 1970 most have been shutdown but the amount of people who need long term care has not gone away.
The responsibility has shifted to prisons


----------



## geezer (Oct 3, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> ...The psychiatric asylum  ...Since the 1960 and 1970 most have been shutdown but the amount of people who need long term care has not gone away. The responsibility has shifted to prisons



I'm assuming the resources allotted for indigent psychiatric care varies from state to state. We have a lot of psychologically messed up people on the streets where I live. It's a shame. But that's another issue. So far we still do not know much about the Las Vegas shooter, his motivations or exactly what demons he carried inside. We may never know. My sympathies go out to the victims, their families and friends.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Fire kills 87 people at the Happy Land Social Club in 1990



No. fair enough. that was a ton of people.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 3, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> To be fair, Mr. Pink wasn't too cheap to tip. He chose not to tip on principle.



I don't tip. It is an Australian thing.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Currently, it's not looking like he used FA weapons.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Is that true?  Not according to the reports I've red9


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> Is that true?  Not according to the reports I've red9



Believe he was using bump stocks on sem-auto weapons


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Believe he was using bump stocks on sem-auto weapons


It's a valid distinction, legally, in the US. From a functional standpoint (for others reading - I presume you're aware of this), the difference is not consequential.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Currently, it's not looking like he used FA weapons.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


What is “FA” weapon?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> What is “FA” weapon?


fully automatic


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> fully automatic


Gotcha.  Thx.

Saw some video on the news last night from the police cams, it sure as hell sounded like fully automatic.  

I understand there is a difference between a bump stock and fully auto, in terms of the functional mechanics, but the results are the same.

He was firing weapons that were functionally fully automatic, regardless of the mechanics of the weapon.
.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> What is “FA” weapon?


"Full Auto"

Fully Automatic or Select Fire.  A legal definition for you and I here in the U.S.  The ATF (BATFE - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives), generally gets to decide what is and is not FA.  The legal definition, as passed by congress in the National Firearm Act of 1934 (as a "machine gun" ims), is any gun which fires more than one cartridge with each pull of the trigger, inclusive of guns that *MAY BE READILY CONVERTED* to full automatic fire.  This is usually applied to semi-automatic gun of "open bolt" designs but can (and has) been applied to any number of oddball things inclusive of yard, rubber bands, and even a glove worn by the user with a motorized finger.  It has not been applied, thus far, to crank-style attachments (looks like a fishing pole crank), "bump fire" stocks, and double-barred shotguns.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

Apropos to the original subject:

Ben Branam, Marine & Professional Security (retired) and podcaster offers his professional advice on Surviving a Terrorist Machine Gun Attack.

Podcast 207 Surviving a Terrorist Machine Gun Attack | Modern Self Protection

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> In this recent tragedy had I been on the ground I would've ran for cover and called the police.


while this idea seems logical and a response many people might believe,  the reality is that this was a crowd watching a show.  everyone is packed together pretty tightly.    the first problem as was mentioned is that most people have no idea what gun shots actually sound like. so while you may hear the ratta tat tat sound you will most likely just be looking around like everyone else.  everyone else will just be looking around asking "what was that"  you will have no visual context that triggers your brain into flight mode.  you will be more inclined to be in freeze mode since your brain has not been able to asses the threat. once you see bodies dropping,,guess what so does every one else and the chaos begins.  you will be trampled and pushed ,,pulled away from friends and loved ones, your emotional first response will be to get back to your loved ones.  people will be running in EVERY direction.  you will be like a fish trying to get up stream.  you will have to navigate the crowd.  it is a pure fantasy that some how you will make your way to cover as if no one else was there.  so your going for cover?,, so are hundreds of other people.
'It was hysteria. People were trampled': panic as Las Vegas gunman opened fire


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Gotcha.  Thx.
> 
> Saw some video on the news last night from the police cams, it sure as hell sounded like fully automatic.
> 
> ...


It is confirmed that he was using a "bump fire" stock.

While bump fire stocks do allow for what appears to be FA-like rates of fire, the way they work means that they are much harder to aim effectively.  They require a certain "looseness" to shoot.

People who are trained on FA are repeatedly saying that this *giant sucking douchebag* sucked at FA technique.  The reason that he has as many murders and injuries as he has is because he was shooting into a crowd of more than 20,000 (twenty thousand) people packed together like sardines.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CDR_Glock (Oct 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> How to stop an active shooter. Having a gun of your own and the proper training to be able to effectively use it and a CCW can help in some situations but when the shooter is some 30 plus stories up in a building and using automatic rifles and you're on the ground its not going to help. As it is the USA is in mourning right now. An active shooter in Las Vegas just killed 59 people at least and injured over 500 from up in a building. If I was on the ground below what I would do would be to try to find cover as quickly as possible and to stay low. However, Im thinking is there any way to stop this before it happens? If you're at the hotel and you notice a suspicious individual can any actions be taken? Is there any way to know if a person is suspicious and if they might commit such a crime beforehand?



Problem was that he had cameras along his perimeter.  He would have killed you before you realized it. Unless you had a ballistic/riot shield against a rifle, you would have been killed.  He had a lot of things planned out.  If you were next door to him, it would have been dangerous, also.  He would be taking on fire and you could become collateral damage. 

There was nothing other than SWAT/Special Forces/Special Warfare who could have taken him out.  

I hope that we find out his motives soon to determine if things were preventable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2017)

lklawson said:


> It is confirmed that he was using a "bump fire" stock.
> 
> While bump fire stocks do allow for what appears to be FA-like rates of fire, the way they work means that they are much harder to aim effectively.  They require a certain "looseness" to shoot.
> 
> ...


Sure, and I understand there are differences in the accuracy and in the definitions.

In this case, the bump stock gave him a method that was very effective for the circumstances in raising his rate of fire to that which rivals a true automatic weapon by definition.  It was a device that allowed him to do this, not simply an ability to pull the trigger over and over, very quickly. Accuracy deficiencies be damned, he was firing into a crowded stadium and it didn’t matter. 

In effect, he used a fully automatic weapon, regardless of definitions.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> In effect, he used a fully automatic weapon, regardless of definitions.



In effect he didn't.  He used a semi auto weapon equipped with a bump stock or rapid firing device.

To say it was full auto is inaccurate and leads anyone who is familiar with guns to get an inaccurate picture of what went happened.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> In effect he didn't.  He used a semi auto weapon equipped with a bump stock or rapid firing device.
> 
> To say it was full auto is inaccurate and leads anyone who is familiar with guns to get an inaccurate picture of what went happened.


"In effect" is used to designate that something is operationally so (has the effect of), even though not officially recognized as such. The weapons didn't meet the legal (official) definition of "fully automatic", but the effect is identical. So, _in effect_, he did.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 4, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> "In effect" is used to designate that something is operationally so (has the effect of), even though not officially recognized as such. The weapons didn't meet the legal (official) definition of "fully automatic", but the effect is identical. So, _in effect_, he did.



Still to refer to it as fully automatic is inaccurate.

If you were to tell me he used a fully auto weapon then it makes me wonder was he licensed, if not how did he purchase full auto, was it a straw purchase from a licensed individual, etc...

Where as if you refer to it accurately as a semi-auto with a bump stock then those questions do not come up.


So when Kirk stated there were no FA weapons used....he was correct.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Still to refer to it as fully automatic is inaccurate.
> 
> If you were to tell me he used a fully auto weapon then it makes me wonder was he licensed, if not how did he purchase full auto, was it a straw purchase from a licensed individual, etc...
> 
> ...


Again, that ignores the phrase "in effect", which has the purpose of making it clear the reference is not to an actual (formally recognized) fully automatic weapon. That's the whole point of using that phrase.

And, yes, Kirk was correct. As was FC.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Again, that ignores the phrase "in effect", which has the purpose of making it clear the reference is not to an actual (formally recognized) fully automatic weapon. That's the whole point of using that phrase.
> 
> And, yes, Kirk was correct. As was FC.


To use that definition of "in effect" then we could say, "in effect it really wasn't particularly different from using a semi-auto shotgun with buckshot" because every pull of the trigger sent a bunch of projectiles downrange.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just saying that, particularly in this case, terminology is very important.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 4, 2017)

At the risk of getting too political, I am a libertarian who mostly hangs out with republicans, I don't know a ton about guns but overhear my friends talking about them. I'm also generally against gun control.

With that said, I see this conversation, and to me it sounds like FA and SA with bump stoke have basically the same level of danger, and if gun-control was an issue I cared about, I would want them legislated in the same way.

Now imagine how someone who is a anti-gun liberal that has never even held a rifle would read this conversation and interpret it. Technicalities/loopholes may be legally important, but to the general public they don't matter all that much.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Believe he was using bump stocks on sem-auto weapons


Right.   That's what I heard too.  Net effect is same.  Right?


gpseymour said:


> It's a valid distinction, legally, in the US. From a functional standpoint (for others reading - I presume you're aware of this), the difference is not consequential.


Exactly true.  When folks refer to gun "loopholes", this is an example of what they mean, where someone can achieve something that is illegal by combining two things that are individually legal. 

The net effect is that this guy had FA weapons.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> In effect he didn't.  He used a semi auto weapon equipped with a bump stock or rapid firing device.
> 
> To say it was full auto is inaccurate and leads anyone who is familiar with guns to get an inaccurate picture of what went happened.


Sure, and we can take refuge behind convenient definitions, or we can recognize reality for what it is.

If he had used a semi-auto weapon and had simply pulled the trigger over and over, very quickly, and without some kind of mechanical aid, then I would agree with you.

But he did not do that.  He used a mechanical aid that enabled him to fire at a much higher rate than he would have been able to maintain on his own, without that mechanical aid.

He used a fully automatic weapon.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

lklawson said:


> To use that definition of "in effect" then we could say, "in effect it really wasn't particularly different from using a semi-auto shotgun with buckshot" because every pull of the trigger sent a bunch of projectiles downrange.
> 
> I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just saying that, particularly in this case, terminology is very important.
> 
> ...


I am usually right there with you, Kirk, but I couldn't disagree more on this one.  The net effect is really what needs to be considered here, as in this case we can see that this is a combination of actions that are legal individually, but when combined result in actions that undermine the intent of the law.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Still to refer to it as fully automatic is inaccurate.
> 
> If you were to tell me he used a fully auto weapon then it makes me wonder was he licensed, if not how did he purchase full auto, was it a straw purchase from a licensed individual, etc...
> 
> ...


He used a “work-around” to devise a fully automatic weapon, hidden behind a convenient definition.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> At the risk of getting too political, I am a libertarian who mostly hangs out with republicans, I don't know a ton about guns but overhear my friends talking about them. I'm also generally against gun control.
> 
> With that said, I see this conversation, and to me it sounds like FA and SA with bump stoke have basically the same level of danger, and if gun-control was an issue I cared about, I would want them legislated in the same way.
> 
> Now imagine how someone who is a anti-gun liberal that has never even held a rifle would read this conversation and interpret it. Technicalities/loopholes may be legally important, but to the general public they don't matter all that much.


Just a point of clarification.  There are liberal gun owners and conservatives who are not pro-NRA.  And for the record, I am not anti-gun, and my liberal friends think I'm a conservative and my conservative friends think I'm a liberal, when I'm really just on Team Common Sense.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> Just a point of clarification.  There are liberal gun owners and conservatives who are not pro-NRA.  And for the record, I am not anti-gun, and my liberal friends think I'm a conservative and my conservative friends think I'm a liberal, when I'm really just on Team Common Sense.


That's fair. Was just making the generality, for the most part liberals are for gun control and conservatives are against it. Definitely not a hard rule.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

And just to avoid any misunderstanding, we should all acknowledge that in some states, FA weapons are not illegal.  However, even in these states, the regulatory restrictions and oversight is much more severe.  So, I'm using "illegal" as a shorthand for circumventing the law, whether it's the outright ban of these weapons in some states or to avoid the regulatory scrutiny and attention in other states.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> That's fair. Was just making the generality, for the most part liberals are for gun control and conservatives are against it. Definitely not a hard rule.


I get it, but I think you're conflating Republican with Conservative, and Democrat with Liberal.  Republicans tend to be pro gun control.  Conservatives run the gamut.


----------



## Buka (Oct 4, 2017)

Fifty nine dead. Hundreds injured. Could have been any of us or ours.

I don't care what he used.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> I get it, but I think you're conflating Republican with Conservative, and Democrat with Liberal.  Republicans tend to be pro gun control.  Conservatives run the gamut.


Yup I'm conflating them. From my own experience, 95% of the time liberals are democrats and conservatives are Republican, so I use the terms interchangeably. The exception I see is people like myself who are part of a third party.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> But he did not do that.  He used a mechanical aid that enabled him to fire at a much higher rate than he would have been able to maintain on his own, without that mechanical aid.
> 
> He used a fully automatic weapon.


Actually no.  On both counts.  He could have, literally, achieved the same effect by pulling the trigger really fast, repeatedly.  In fact, that is exactly how "bump-fire" stocks work. 

No, I'm not joking or exaggerating.

That's why most "serious gun guys" think that bump-fire stocks are a range toy.

Bump fires are lazy, inaccurate, and require the user to learn a kind of "technique" in order to get the to properly reciprocate.  

I hate to be the guy who's argumentative but equating a bump-fire to FA is physically, definiotially, legally, and mechanically wrong.

Equating them is conceptually the same as saying that an Edsel Teletouch transmission is the same thing as an automatic transmission because you don't have to mess around with a stick-shifter.

Bump-fires are just not FA and the exact same effect can be achieved by by hooking one hand in your belt and holding the gun right (it's where the term "bump fire" actually comes from).

An even better "effect" that gets a very high cyclic rate and much better accuracy is just not having a woosy trigger finger.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> I am usually right there with you, Kirk, but I couldn't disagree more on this one.  The net effect is really what needs to be considered here, as in this case we can see that this is a combination of actions that are legal individually, but when combined result in actions that undermine the intent of the law.


We do disagree.  

I'm going to write something which will seem insensitive.  It is not intended that way.  Track with me for a few.

The shooter (may his name be forgotten and may he be forever cursed) could have racked up a higher murder count if he *hadn't* used a bump-fire stock.  Accuracy and better trigger discipline would have allowed many more hits.  He was using and area effect strategy.  He was depending greatly on luck to hit people.  

I'm sorry but legally, definitionally, and mechanically, a bump-fire is simply not FA unless you want to claim that anything "shooting really fast (by my definition of fast)" is FA.   In that case I've got a lot of human fingers which are now illegal.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> He used a “work-around” to devise a fully automatic weapon, hidden behind a convenient definition.


No.  It's not a "work-around" or a loophole to circumvent a "convenient definition."  It is the actual definition of Full Auto.  

Otherwise, Jerry's finger is illegal and the ATF should confiscate it.






Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Actually no.  On both counts.  He could have, literally, achieved the same effect by pulling the trigger really fast, repeatedly.  In fact, that is exactly how "bump-fire" stocks work.
> 
> No, I'm not joking or exaggerating.
> 
> ...


That’s fair enough, and I absolutely disagree with you on it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2017)

lklawson said:


> No.  It's not a "work-around" or a loophole to circumvent a "convenient definition."  It is the actual definition of Full Auto.
> 
> Otherwise, Jerry's finger is illegal and the ATF should confiscate it.
> 
> ...


Again, I absolutely disagree with you.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Again, I absolutely disagree with you.


OK.  What's your definition of Full Auto?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Yup I'm conflating them. From my own experience, 95% of the time liberals are democrats and conservatives are Republican, so I use the terms interchangeably. The exception I see is people like myself who are part of a third party.


Right.  I think you have it backwards.  95% of the time democrats are liberal.  I think you're a great example of why the reverse is not true.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2017)

lklawson said:


> OK.  What's your definition of Full Auto?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Oh I understand, it is a convenient definition and the bump stock does not fit the definition as it has been defined by a government agency.

However, it is a device that enables a sustained higher rate of fire than the person would be able to sustain without it.  I inderstand that use of the device technically results in a separate pull of the trigger for each shot.  But it creates a momentum that results in the equivalent of shots being fired without the shooter deliberately pulling the trigger, i.e. the momentum created by the device makes it happen for him as long as he holds his finger in position.

The end result is equivalent to a fully automatic weapon.  It is accomplished through use of a device designed for that purpose.  It is much harder to reach and sustain that result without use of such a device.

Which is exactly what this fellow did, killing 58 people and directly wounding or causing a chaotic situation of panic that resulted in injury to over 500 more.  I’ve seen police video of the incident, I’ve heard the audio of some of the shots.  They are indistinguishable from a true automatic weapon.  These were not short bursts of 2-4 rounds, but rather sustained fire that probably emptied an entire magazine of 30 or more rounds at a time.

I saw reference to a statement by a manufacturer of the bump stock, stating that there is currently nothing illegal about the device, and going to pains to describe why it does not fit the governments definition of an automatic weapon.

This is true.

However, I see a company looking to distance themselves from responsibility through plausible deniability for the role that their device played in this incident.  I see a company with bankrupt morals and ethics and I feel it reflects the general morality and ethics of the industry as a whole.

I’ve rebuilt swords and have sold some of my finished items to some people.  If I ever found out someone used an item that I made to kill someone, much less 58, I would be horrified.  But that’s just me.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

lklawson said:


> It is confirmed that he was using a "bump fire" stock.
> 
> While bump fire stocks do allow for what appears to be FA-like rates of fire, the way they work means that they are much harder to aim effectively.  They require a certain "looseness" to shoot.
> 
> ...


When firing FA you fire in bursts unless the weapon is belt fed in which case you can fire continuously but when using a magazine fed FA weapon you fire in two or three round bursts. You don't need to be accurate when shooting at a large crowd of tightly packed people if you just want to kill people and you don't care who as in the case of this psychopath.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

CDR_Glock said:


> Problem was that he had cameras along his perimeter.  He would have killed you before you realized it. Unless you had a ballistic/riot shield against a rifle, you would have been killed.  He had a lot of things planned out.  If you were next door to him, it would have been dangerous, also.  He would be taking on fire and you could become collateral damage.
> 
> There was nothing other than SWAT/Special Forces/Special Warfare who could have taken him out.
> 
> ...


Yes there was a case of a hotel security guard being shot and injured in the hallway when he approached the door to the room. The shooter had put cameras outside the room so he would know if anybody was coming. Im thinking, perhaps hotel security should be armed and should wear bullet proof vests. Most of the time we don't even have ordinary police around the moment when something like this happens let alone SWAT teams.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> Right.   That's what I heard too.  Net effect is same.  Right?
> 
> Exactly true.  When folks refer to gun "loopholes", this is an example of what they mean, where someone can achieve something that is illegal by combining two things that are individually legal.
> 
> The net effect is that this guy had FA weapons.



I spent some time in the army. And we never went full auto. Guys came back from war and never went full auto.

Semi auto in the conventional manner has enough ability to effectively kill as any other method short of a belt fed machine gun.

So the bump stock aspect is kind of meh. It is mostly down to the amount of rounds you can hold, accuracy and portability. Which of course in your case is as much as the public want to pay for.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> Just a point of clarification.  There are liberal gun owners and conservatives who are not pro-NRA.  And for the record, I am not anti-gun, and my liberal friends think I'm a conservative and my conservative friends think I'm a liberal, when I'm really just on Team Common Sense.



Responsible gun use is the term I like to use.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> while this idea seems logical and a response many people might believe,  the reality is that this was a crowd watching a show.  everyone is packed together pretty tightly.    the first problem as was mentioned is that most people have no idea what gun shots actually sound like. so while you may hear the ratta tat tat sound you will most likely just be looking around like everyone else.  everyone else will just be looking around asking "what was that"  you will have no visual context that triggers your brain into flight mode.  you will be more inclined to be in freeze mode since your brain has not been able to asses the threat. once you see bodies dropping,,guess what so does every one else and the chaos begins.  you will be trampled and pushed ,,pulled away from friends and loved ones, your emotional first response will be to get back to your loved ones.  people will be running in EVERY direction.  you will be like a fish trying to get up stream.  you will have to navigate the crowd.  it is a pure fantasy that some how you will make your way to cover as if no one else was there.  so your going for cover?,, so are hundreds of other people.
> 'It was hysteria. People were trampled': panic as Las Vegas gunman opened fire


I see what you mean. The last time I remember being in such a tight packed area was in Manhattan back in 2008 when the Giants had just won the Super Bowl and it was so packed you could hardly move. It was crazy enough without any bombings or shootings or other such attacks which thankfully did not happen. So I should probably just accept that if I am going to go places where there's lots of packed people that Im taking a risk.

Anyway, there were so many people and they were so tightly packed that he didn't need to be accurate. He probably would've killed more people if he had driven a truck through the crowd which seems to be the trend in Europe although it did happen in Virginia.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2017)

Buka said:


> Fifty nine dead. Hundreds injured. Could have been any of us or ours.
> 
> I don't care what he used.



I think the discussion is on trying to prevent this happening again. Part of that would be restricting the ability to do this kind of thing.

As nothing will get done about it the conversation is kind of moot untill the next one I suppose.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Still to refer to it as fully automatic is inaccurate.
> 
> If you were to tell me he used a fully auto weapon then it makes me wonder was he licensed, if not how did he purchase full auto, was it a straw purchase from a licensed individual, etc...
> 
> ...


Had he used a FA he would've no doubt got it off the black market. At least some of his guns he must've got off the black market.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> And just to avoid any misunderstanding, we should all acknowledge that in some states, FA weapons are not illegal.  However, even in these states, the regulatory restrictions and oversight is much more severe.  So, I'm using "illegal" as a shorthand for circumventing the law, whether it's the outright ban of these weapons in some states or to avoid the regulatory scrutiny and attention in other states.


From what I know you can get FA weapons in some states but to do so requires licensing at the federal level and you have to pay an expensive fee and you get registered with the federal government as a Class III firearms holder and even then you can only get FA weapons that were manufactured prior to 1986.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Semi auto in the conventional manner has enough ability to effectively kill as any other method short of a belt fed machine gun.



When the SLR was first issued to the British military it was semi automatic, automatic and single. That was soon modified to take away automatic, ammunition was being used far too fast ( made the accountants unhappy) as semi was more than adequate. My other half loved his though he also had a GPMG as well as using other weapons ( such as a Bofors anti aircraft guns and Rapier missiles. His trade was gunner. Bofors to Rapier shows the beginning to the end of his service.)
He said the Aussies he'd worked with also used the SLR.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2017)

lklawson said:


> To use that definition of "in effect" then we could say, "in effect it really wasn't particularly different from using a semi-auto shotgun with buckshot" because every pull of the trigger sent a bunch of projectiles downrange.
> 
> I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just saying that, particularly in this case, terminology is very important.
> 
> ...


The distinction is different, Kirk. The definition of “fully automatic” is an official thing. That definition currently hinges on whether a single trigger pull fires one cartridge or many (excepting multi-barrel setups). Functionally, a bump stock produces an effect quite similar to what is officially “fully automatic”. That is the intent of the phrase - to indicate that the effect is similar.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> Just a point of clarification.  There are liberal gun owners and conservatives who are not pro-NRA.  And for the record, I am not anti-gun, and my liberal friends think I'm a conservative and my conservative friends think I'm a liberal, when I'm really just on Team Common Sense.


Sounds like we may have some common views.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know you can get FA weapons in some states but to do so requires licensing at the federal level and you have to pay an expensive fee and you get registered with the federal government as a Class III firearms holder and even then you can only get FA weapons that were manufactured prior to 1986.


The fee itself, IIRC, isn’t high (low hundreds of $). The guns often cost in the 5-figure range.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> I get it, but I think you're conflating Republican with Conservative, and Democrat with Liberal.  Republicans tend to be pro gun control.  Conservatives run the gamut.


I was going to reply that since most of americans view themselves as either democrat or republican, it doesn't really matter much either way, but decided to fact check myself before I did. Turns  out I was wrong! According to Gallup, 29% are republican, 30% are democrats, and 40% are independent. So that leaves a lot of people who may be either liberal or conservative, but not affiliated with either major party. Now I know...


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> When the SLR was first issued to the British military it was semi automatic, automatic and single. That was soon modified to take away automatic, ammunition was being used far too fast ( made the accountants unhappy) as semi was more than adequate. My other half loved his though he also had a GPMG as well as using other weapons ( such as a Bofors anti aircraft guns and Rapier missiles. His trade was gunner. Bofors to Rapier shows the beginning to the end of his service.)
> He said the Aussies he'd worked with also used the SLR.



I was told the SLR. would blow up if you used it full auto for too long. It can be modified back by using a matchstick aparently. (Not something I was ever allowed to try)

(For everyone else the slr is a semi auto rifle thats shoots M60 rounds. The idea being that you have one round for all the guns or something)

The Steyer, which they use now, has a little button on the trigger that does a 3 round burst. 

I have fired both.


----------



## CDR_Glock (Oct 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Yes there was a case of a hotel security guard being shot and injured in the hallway when he approached the door to the room. The shooter had put cameras outside the room so he would know if anybody was coming. Im thinking, perhaps hotel security should be armed and should wear bullet proof vests. Most of the time we don't even have ordinary police around the moment when something like this happens let alone SWAT teams.



Since he was using rifles, a person would need a class IV or Class III set of body armor.   It's pretty heavy stuff... I only have Class IIIA which stops 44 Magnum or a 357 Sig.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CDR_Glock (Oct 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know you can get FA weapons in some states but to do so requires licensing at the federal level and you have to pay an expensive fee and you get registered with the federal government as a Class III firearms holder and even then you can only get FA weapons that were manufactured prior to 1986.



One can set up a trust to acquire Class III weapons (Full auto, Short Barreled rifles and Suppressors).  It can be a 1 year wait, and it's a $200 tax stamp on top of the price of the item.  I just don't have that kind of patience to wait for that.  I set up my trust. But I haven't set up my patience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The fee itself, IIRC, isn’t high (low hundreds of $). The guns often cost in the 5-figure range.


Well yes, and considering the fact that you will be on the government's radar, and the cost of the guns, it makes more sense that somebody would get them off the black market if they intend to use them to commit crime.


----------



## CDR_Glock (Oct 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well yes, and considering the fact that you will be on the government's radar, and the cost of the guns, it makes more sense that somebody would get them off the black market if they intend to use them to commit crime.



Full auto cost $18k and up to $50k and above.

I believe the auto sear for an AR-15 is $25k. A small CNC miller piece of metal that costs $50 to make.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

CDR_Glock said:


> Since he was using rifles, a person would need a class IV or Class III set of body armor.   It's pretty heavy stuff... I only have Class IIIA which stops 44 Magnum or a 357 Sig.


Yes you're right. As far as I know no handguns were found in his hotel room and no handguns were used in the shooting although handguns often are used in the close quarters of a hotel room or hallway. I've seen plates that could stop a .30 06 rifle round but as you said, they're heavy. Perhaps they could have body armor that hotel security would only use in emergencies such as this.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Yes you're right. As far as I know no handguns were found in his hotel room and no handguns were used in the shooting although handguns often are used in the close quarters of a hotel room or hallway. I've seen plates that could stop a .30 06 rifle round but as you said, they're heavy. Perhaps they could have body armor that hotel security would only use in emergencies such as this.



Put it in the Windows.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

CDR_Glock said:


> One can set up a trust to acquire Class III weapons (Full auto, Short Barreled rifles and Suppressors).  It can be a 1 year wait, and it's a $200 tax stamp on top of the price of the item.  I just don't have that kind of patience to wait for that.  I set up my trust. But I haven't set up my patience.


For me, I don't want to be on the government's radar. At least not any more than an ordinary citizen already is. Aside from that as its been mentioned here the guns themselves are very expensive, about as expensive as a new car. As it is I don't have any need for any Class III weapons. They're cool and all and sometimes I get to shoot them at this shooting school I go to but I just don't see a need for me to get a Class III weapon and its not worth it to me to be on the government's radar to get one. That and the expense.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Put it in the Windows.


Are you suggesting bullet proof glass?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Are you suggesting bullet proof glass?



Yes. Yes I am.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yes. Yes I am.


That might not be a bad idea but it would be expensive.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, and we can take refuge behind convenient definitions, or we can recognize reality for what it is.
> 
> If he had used a semi-auto weapon and had simply pulled the trigger over and over, very quickly, and without some kind of mechanical aid, then I would agree with you.
> 
> ...



No

Fully automatic does not mean the gun just fires at a high rate.

A fully automatic weapon fires repeatedly *without resetting the trigger*.  A semi automatic fires repeatedly but *requires* the trigger to be reset prior to each shot.

Bump firing is a *technique* that allows you to reset the trigger rapidly while firing a gun.  A bump-fire stock just does the technique for you.

You can Bump Fire most guns without mechanical aid.  You can bump fire a handgun using your support hand.  You can Bump fire rifles using your beltloop.  Theorectically, you can bump fire a bolt-action rifle if you have someone else work the action fast enough.

If you put a bump fire stock on a bolt action rifle.....it is still a bolt action rifle....no matter how fast you work the action.

*Every round he fired was proceeded with a reset of the trigger which means he was not firing a fully automatic weapon.*

So he did not use a fully automatic weapon......He Bump Fired a Semi-Automatic Weapon using a Bump-Fire Stock.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know you can get FA weapons in some states but to do so requires licensing at the federal level and you have to pay an expensive fee and you get registered with the federal government as a Class III firearms holder and even then you can only get FA weapons that were manufactured prior to 1986.


Exactly, or you can get a semi auto rifle and a bjmp stock.  end result is an jnnaccurate, high capacity rifle with a high rate of fire.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> No
> 
> Fully automatic does not mean the gun just fires at a high rate.
> 
> ...


The point being missed here is that some folks, myself included, understand the technical difference and believe it is a red herring to the actual discussion.  its a distraction to the fact that he fired a lot of bullets jnto a large crowd and did a tremendous amount of harm in something like 12 minutes.  5 people died in the boston massacre.  we are into another stratosphere of scale here.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> I was going to reply that since most of americans view themselves as either democrat or republican, it doesn't really matter much either way, but decided to fact check myself before I did. Turns  out I was wrong! According to Gallup, 29% are republican, 30% are democrats, and 40% are independent. So that leaves a lot of people who may be either liberal or conservative, but not affiliated with either major party. Now I know...


  exactly!!!


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> Exactly, or you can get a semi auto rifle and a bjmp stock.  end result is an jnnaccurate, high capacity rifle with a high rate of fire.



You don't even have to waste the money on the stock.  Some paracord will work as well.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> You don't even have to waste the money on the stock.  Some paracord will work as well.


Lol.  not better.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> The point being missed here is that some folks, myself included, understand the technical difference and believe it is a red herring to the actual discussion.  its a distraction to the fact that he fired a lot of bullets jnto a large crowd and did a tremendous amount of harm in something like 12 minutes.  5 people died in the boston massacre.  we are into another stratosphere of scale here.



I understand but is it that hard to just use the correct term....Bump Fired Weapon instead of the incorrect term Fully Automatic Weapon....the correct term even has fewer syllables and letters.

And when someone points out that the incorrect term is in incorrect...just accept it instead of claiming the incorrect term is in effect the correct term.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> Lol.  not better.



Pink Bungee Cord then?


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I understand but is it that hard to just use the correct term....Bump Fired Weapon instead of the incorrect term Fully Automatic Weapon....the correct term even has fewer syllables and letters.
> 
> And when someone points out that the incorrect term is in incorrect...just accept it instead of claiming the incorrect term is in effect the correct term.


Well, to be honest, i use the term incorrectly as a way emphasize that it is beside the point.   not to get on your nerves, but for exactly the same reason you Insist we should, i feel like we shouldn't.


----------



## Brian King (Oct 4, 2017)

If agreement on the terms cannot be reached when it is so easy...is there a use of discussing?
Brian King


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> How to stop an active shooter. Having a gun of your own and the proper training to be able to effectively use it and a CCW can help in some situations but when the shooter is some 30 plus stories up in a building and using automatic rifles and you're on the ground its not going to help. As it is the USA is in mourning right now. An active shooter in Las Vegas just killed 59 people at least and injured over 500 from up in a building. If I was on the ground below what I would do would be to try to find cover as quickly as possible and to stay low. However, Im thinking is there any way to stop this before it happens? If you're at the hotel and you notice a suspicious individual can any actions be taken? Is there any way to know if a person is suspicious and if they might commit such a crime beforehand?



The sad truth is that some situations are simply impossible to prevent or defend against. A guy shooting from a distance is one example.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

The shooter might've used a bump fire stock but with bump fire stocks I believe it messes up your accuracy. The shooter did not need to be accurate to hit people in the crowd but the point is that a bump fire stock does not make a semi automatic function just like a full automatic. For one thing a semi auto with a bump fire will be less accurate than a full automatic. Also, not quite as high a rate of fire. 

A hellfire trigger would make a semi auto function much like a full auto, without a loss of accuracy, although it would still be a semi auto.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> No
> 
> Fully automatic does not mean the gun just fires at a high rate.
> 
> ...


You can feel free to read my other posts.  And I don’t mind if you disagree.  You are free to do that.  Just in case you were not sure about that.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 4, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> The sad truth is that some situations are simply impossible to prevent or defend against. A guy shooting from a distance is one example.


Yes, another example is a bomb going off right next to you. Suicide bombing is another trend. For that I keep a lookout as best as I can but if somebody sets off a bomb right next to me Im gone, Im finished.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

Brian King said:


> If agreement on the terms cannot be reached when it is so easy...is there a use of discussing?
> Brian King


The trouble here isnt mutual understanding.  everyone knows what the other means.  the issue is something else.  for me, its always worth discussing important issues like this.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I understand but is it that hard to just use the correct term....Bump Fired Weapon instead of the incorrect term Fully Automatic Weapon....the correct term even has fewer syllables and letters.
> 
> And when someone points out that the incorrect term is in incorrect...just accept it instead of claiming the incorrect term is in effect the correct term.


Some people are hung up on a definition.  

Other people are more concerned with the reality of what is actually happening.

Definitions can be used as a smokescreen.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Some people are hung up on a definition.
> 
> Other people are more concerned with the reality of what is actually happening.
> 
> Definitions can be used as a smokescreen.



There was no smokescreen in pointing out that the weapons used were not full auto but merely bump fired semi-autos.  It was simply clarifying the facts.

It was kinda like my wife coming in saying that something is wrong with her car's carburetor and after pointing out that the car is fuel injected and doesn't have a carburetor she continues to refer to it as the carburetor instead of the fuel injection for the rest of the night.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> There was no smokescreen in pointing out that the weapons used were not full auto but merely bump fired semi-autos.  It was simply clarifying the facts.
> 
> It was kinda like my wife coming in saying that something is wrong with her car's carburetor and after pointing out that the car is fuel injected and doesn't have a carburetor she continues to refer to it as the carburetor instead of the fuel injection for the rest of the night.


Two different priorities.  Neither perspective is more "correct" than the other.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> Two different priorities.  Neither perspective is more "correct" than the other.



Disagree....it is a fact Fuel injected cars do not have carburetors.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Disagree....it is a fact Fuel injected cars do not have carburetors.


Totally agree.  But whether that fact contributes to or distracts from what is important is a matter of opinion.  I hope this makes sense.   I'm not trying to be pedantic.  What we are discussing is a huge source of conflict around d here.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I understand but is it that hard to just use the correct term....Bump Fired Weapon instead of the incorrect term Fully Automatic Weapon....the correct term even has fewer syllables and letters.
> 
> And when someone points out that the incorrect term is in incorrect...just accept it instead of claiming the incorrect term is in effect the correct term.



There is a war for the terminology to gain control over the spin those terms create.

This is a deliberate attempt to protect an ideal at all costs despite the damage it might cause real people. From both sides.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 4, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> The shooter might've used a bump fire stock but with bump fire stocks I believe it messes up your accuracy. The shooter did not need to be accurate to hit people in the crowd but the point is that a bump fire stock does not make a semi automatic function just like a full automatic. For one thing a semi auto with a bump fire will be less accurate than a full automatic. Also, not quite as high a rate of fire.
> 
> A hellfire trigger would make a semi auto function much like a full auto, without a loss of accuracy, although it would still be a semi auto.



Fully auto isn't really accurate either.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There is a war for the terminology to gain control over the spin those terms create.
> 
> This is a deliberate attempt to protect an ideal at all costs despite the damage it might cause real people. From both sides.



Fully automatic, Semi-automatic, and Bump Firing are technical terms with finite definitions.

How does the term Bump Fired Semi-Auto Weapon vs Fully Automatic Weapon create any spin?  Both terms cause problems for Gun Advocates.

I understand the argument over the definition of an assault rifle but this one escapes me.


----------



## Steve (Oct 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Fully automatic, Semi-automatic, and Bump Firing are technical terms with finite definitions.
> 
> How does the term Bump Fired Semi-Auto Weapon vs Fully Automatic Weapon create any spin?  Both terms cause problems for Gun Advocates.
> 
> I understand the argument over the definition of an assault rifle but this one escapes me.


Well, I've tried to explain it, but you're still caught up on the technical terms.  It's a forest for the trees situation.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve said:


> Well, I've tried to explain it, but you're still caught up on the technical terms.  It's a forest for the trees situation.



Well I will admit, I'm a very rational thinker and will at times get caught up of the technical details and facts. 

To me, I just want to find common ground and agree to the technical details and facts....then discuss the other aspects surrounding the issue.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 5, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I was told the SLR. would blow up if you used it full auto for too lo



OH says no, it just used to much ammunition for it to be 'cost effective'. After all money is so much more important than troops lives.



Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> A guy shooting from a distance is one example.


Depends on the circumstances, in a military one you just call in airstrikes.



PhotonGuy said:


> Suicide bombing is another trend


It's not a 'trend', these have been happening for a very long time, from at least the 11th century. You may have just become aware.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Fully automatic, Semi-automatic, and Bump Firing are technical terms with finite definitions.
> 
> How does the term Bump Fired Semi-Auto Weapon vs Fully Automatic Weapon create any spin?  Both terms cause problems for Gun Advocates.
> 
> I understand the argument over the definition of an assault rifle but this one escapes me.



Well I bet the people who make the bump thingies are pretty mad keen not to be considered full auto at the.moment


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 5, 2017)

definition is a separate issue from intent.  the intent of a bump stock is to circumvent the restrictions on full auto firing.  full auto firing being the ability to fire more than one projectile with a single pull of a firing mechanism.  one trigger pull, one projectile.  a bump stock allows a somewhat continuous flow of projectiles with a single trigger pull through a mechanical means that does not require modification of the firing mechanism.

bottom line,, the bump stock is an attempt to get around the law.

range test starts at 1:33


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Oh I understand, it is a convenient definition and the bump stock does not fit the definition as it has been defined by a government agency.


It's not a "convenient" definition.  It is *THE* definition.  So what is your definition of FA?



> However, it is a device that enables a sustained higher rate of fire than the person would be able to sustain without it.  I inderstand that use of the device technically results in a separate pull of the trigger for each shot.  But it creates a momentum that results in the equivalent of shots being fired without the shooter deliberately pulling the trigger, i.e. the momentum created by the device makes it happen for him as long as he holds his finger in position.
> 
> The end result is equivalent to a fully automatic weapon.  It is accomplished through use of a device designed for that purpose.  It is much harder to reach and sustain that result without use of such a device.


So your definition is "shooting faster than I feel like a person should be able to?"



> I saw reference to a statement by a manufacturer of the bump stock, stating that there is currently nothing illegal about the device, and going to pains to describe why it does not fit the governments definition of an automatic weapon.
> 
> This is true.


Not just "the government definition," any definition.



> However, I see a company looking to distance themselves from responsibility through plausible deniability for the role that their device played in this incident.  I see a company with bankrupt morals and ethics and I feel it reflects the general morality and ethics of the industry as a whole.
> 
> I’ve rebuilt swords and have sold some of my finished items to some people.  If I ever found out someone used an item that I made to kill someone, much less 58, I would be horrified.  But that’s just me.


That's nice.  But it should not be about how you "feel."  This should be about facts.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 5, 2017)

Congress may take up a bill introduced to ban bump fire stocks.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> When firing FA you fire in bursts unless the weapon is belt fed in which case you can fire continuously but when using a magazine fed FA weapon you fire in two or three round bursts. You don't need to be accurate when shooting at a large crowd of tightly packed people if you just want to kill people and you don't care who as in the case of this psychopath.


The testimony so far is that he fired in long strings.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Yes there was a case of a hotel security guard being shot and injured in the hallway when he approached the door to the room. The shooter had put cameras outside the room so he would know if anybody was coming. Im thinking, perhaps hotel security should be armed and should wear bullet proof vests. Most of the time we don't even have ordinary police around the moment when something like this happens let alone SWAT teams.


The Press Conferences from LV LEO to date have set the timeline that the thrice cursed donkey anus stopped shooting after he shot through the door at the guard.

What it looks like is, true to usual sequence of events, the very second it looks like one of these douche-nozles is going to encounter what might be "armed" resistance, they're done.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Anyway, there were so many people and they were so tightly packed that he didn't need to be accurate. He probably would've killed more people if he had driven a truck through the crowd which seems to be the trend in Europe although it did happen in Virginia.


Yes.  He had a pilot license and could have had a much greater effect by smashing his plane into the crowd.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I spent some time in the army. And we never went full auto. Guys came back from war and never went full auto.
> 
> Semi auto in the conventional manner has enough ability to effectively kill as any other method short of a belt fed machine gun.
> 
> So the bump stock aspect is kind of meh. It is mostly down to the amount of rounds you can hold, accuracy and portability. Which of course in your case is as much as the public want to pay for.


To be bluntly honest, the inherent accuracy problems of FA fire itself, coupled with the additional accuracy problems required by "bump fire," frankly we're LUCKY that this sub-human crap-stain chose to use a bump-fire stock.  He could have murdered more if he'd just used semi auto and accurate fire.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Fully automatic, Semi-automatic, and Bump Firing are technical terms with finite definitions.
> 
> How does the term Bump Fired Semi-Auto Weapon vs Fully Automatic Weapon create any spin?  Both terms cause problems for Gun Advocates.
> 
> I understand the argument over the definition of an assault rifle but this one escapes me.


I'll point back to my earlier post, where I tried to make it clear that FC didn't claim the shooter used a fully automatic weapon. He claimed he "in effect" used one. That phrase makes it clear that the weapon(s) in question were not technically fully automatic, but provide a similar effect.

You're arguing it doesn't meet the technical definition. And you're right. And he never said they did.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Had he used a FA he would've no doubt got it off the black market. At least some of his guns he must've got off the black market.


We do not know that yet.  That said, I'm betting the opposite.  I don't think it likely that any of his firearms were black market.  But, again, we won't know for some time.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know you can get FA weapons in some states but to do so requires licensing at the federal level and you have to pay an expensive fee and you get registered with the federal government as a Class III firearms holder and even then you can only get FA weapons that were manufactured prior to 1986.


Depends on what you think of as "expensive" for licensing.  The fee for a Class 3 is $200.  That might be cheap for you or a lot for me.  But the fact that civilian licensing for FA is restricted to only those manufactured AND REGISTERED prior to '86, enforces an economics Artificial Scarcity model which drive prices extremely high.  It's not uncommon for a Class 3 firearm to command 300-500% more than a semi-auto version would.  Roached out Class 3 firearms are usually over $5K as a starter and often go to more than you pay for a luxury car.

And that's only the ones which were registered.  For example, if you come across a WWII "bring back" that came home with your grandpa, but he stuck it in the back of his closet and didn't register... well, you're hosed.  Even though it was made before '86, it wasn't REGISTERED.  There is NO WAY to register it now.  It is illegal to posses.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 5, 2017)

lklawson said:


> We don't?  Dang.  And here I thought my wife was actually seeing clients, mostly on the taxpayer's dime, as a Board Certified, State Licensed, Counselor.
> 
> I'll have to be sure to tell her that she doesn't actually have a job.



What percentage of her patients do you estimate she commits for involuntary in-house treatment at mental health facilities?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The distinction is different, Kirk. The definition of “fully automatic” is an official thing. That definition currently hinges on whether a single trigger pull fires one cartridge or many (excepting multi-barrel setups). Functionally, a bump stock produces an effect quite similar to what is officially “fully automatic”. That is the intent of the phrase - to indicate that the effect is similar.


And what "effect" is that?  Be specific please.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I was told the SLR. would blow up if you used it full auto for too long. It can be modified back by using a matchstick aparently. (Not something I was ever allowed to try)


Most guns are damaged by sustained fire, usually by heat.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

CDR_Glock said:


> Since he was using rifles, a person would need a class IV or Class III set of body armor.   It's pretty heavy stuff...


Depends on how much energy is siphoned off of the bullet by penetrating the door first.  I know of at least one case where a LEO was saved by his class II vest from a .30 cal rifle round because the suspect shot him through a residential door.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2017)

lklawson said:


> And what "effect" is that?  Be specific please.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Rapid fire without having to (manually) pull the trigger over and over. The only reason we're having this argument is because the legal definition of "fully automatic" requires (in most cases, I think there have been exceptions to this) that the trigger only be pulled once. If the definition changed to "a single actuation of the external firing mechanism", then bump stocks and the sort of reverse-trigger device (I can't recall what it's called nor the manufacturer) would actually be classified within it. Both allow the user to make a single action and fire many times - the same effect as someone firing a fully automatic weapon.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 5, 2017)

drop bear said:


> This to a certain degree was an awareness issue. People did not recognize that the sound was gunfire and then did not act quickly enough.
> 
> I have mentioned this with awareness you don't know what you don't know. And the sound of automatic gunfire from 40 stories up as opposed to fire crackers or just something silly is something I would not have known until I saw people dropping.



Certainly, for whatever reasons, most people seem not to have realized it was gun fire.  But those who have been around automatic fire of different sorts, whether in combat or at ranges, probably would have.  When I first heard a clip on TV, and heard the gunfire, I could tell it was automatic fire of some sort, but was a little puzzled as to what kind of weapon it was.  I spoke to some where I work who are more recent veterans and/or still are involved with weapons.  Two correctly opined it might have been a bump stock.  I had never even heard of such a thing.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

Steve said:


> Well, I've tried to explain it, but you're still caught up on the technical terms.  It's a forest for the trees situation.


No, I don't think so.  From everything you have written, it really appears that your objections is "how fast can bullets come out of the end."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> da bump stock allows a somewhat continuous flow of projectiles *with a single trigger pull* through a mechanical means that does not require modification of the firing mechanism.


Nope.  That's the legal definition of "Full Auto."  Bump-fire *DOES NOT DO THIS*.  The BATFE is downright anal about this definition and even designs that "can be readily converted" (which usually means "open bolt" designs).

Even with a bump-fire *THE TRIGGER MUST BE PULLED FOR EVERY SHOT*.  There is, literally, no way around this legal restriction.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> What percentage of her patients do you estimate she commits for involuntary in-house treatment at mental health facilities?


No idea.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Rapid fire without having to (manually) pull the trigger over and over.


Bump-fire does not do this.  The trigger MUST be pulled.  If not the BATFE come in and makes life very uncomfortable.



> The only reason we're having this argument is because the legal definition of "fully automatic" requires (in most cases, I think there have been exceptions to this) that the trigger only be pulled once. If the definition changed to "a single actuation of the external firing mechanism", then bump stocks and the sort of reverse-trigger device (I can't recall what it's called nor the manufacturer) would actually be classified within it. Both allow the user to make a single action and fire many times - the same effect as someone firing a fully automatic weapon.


No.  The trigger still MUST be pulled for every shot.  No matter what device you use, if the trigger is not pulled for every shot you're probably going to jail.

So far, what everyone seems to be arguing is "I don't like how fast it can shoot."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Bump-fire does not do this.  The trigger MUST be pulled.  If not the BATFE come in and makes life very uncomfortable.


That's why I said "manually". The trigger is pulled by the finger staying in place (as is the case with the other device I was referring to). It's pulled for each shot, but not by the movement of the finger. It fits the legal distinction, but to the shooter isn't vastly different.



> So far, what everyone seems to be arguing is "I don't like how fast it can shoot."


It's not really a matter of like/dislike. It started as a comment about the effect of the bump stock, which allows a rate of fire (with a single action by the user) that is similar to (though likely not equal to) a fully automatic weapon.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 5, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's why I said "manually". The trigger is pulled by the finger staying in place (as is the case with the other device I was referring to). It's pulled for each shot, but not by the movement of the finger. It fits the legal distinction, but to the shooter isn't vastly different.
> 
> 
> It's not really a matter of like/dislike. It started as a comment about the effect of the bump stock, which allows a rate of fire (with a single action by the user) that is similar to (though likely not equal to) a fully automatic weapon.



You seem to be forgetting (or unaware) that bump stocks aren't needed. Any competent shooter can bump fire without one. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 5, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Yes.  He had a pilot license and could have had a much greater effect by smashing his plane into the crowd.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


True, especially if the plane was packed with explosives.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 5, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> You seem to be forgetting (or unaware) that bump stocks aren't needed. Any competent shooter can bump fire without one.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm not forgetting it. That's something different - let's call it a special skill, and is outside the area of discussion. Someone doing that is getting an effect similar to a fully automatic weapon.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 5, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Nope.  That's the legal definition of "Full Auto."  Bump-fire *DOES NOT DO THIS*.  The BATFE is downright anal about this definition and even designs that "can be readily converted" (which usually means "open bolt" designs).
> 
> Even with a bump-fire *THE TRIGGER MUST BE PULLED FOR EVERY SHOT*.  There is, literally, no way around this legal restriction.
> 
> ...



as i was saying its a technical or definition difference.  i am just being honest,, the only purpose of a bump stock is to simulate FA, thus circumventing the restriction and the law.



lklawson said:


> So far, what everyone seems to be arguing is "I don't like how fast it can shoot."


to be clear for myself,, i have no problem with people owning anything, be it a bump stock, full auto or a flame thrower. i am not against anything here, im just calling it as i see it.  heck i would like to own all that myself.


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2017)

lklawson said:


> No, I don't think so.  From everything you have written, it really appears that your objections is "how fast can bullets come out of the end."
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Exactly.  You guys seem to think I'm trying to explain why a bump stock is equal to fully automatic fire.   I'm not.  I think you have done a great job of defining the terms.   That's the disconnect.   You're arguing about vocabulary.  I think getting caught up in the vocabulary is missing the forest for the trees.


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Nope.  That's the legal definition of "Full Auto."  Bump-fire *DOES NOT DO THIS*.  The BATFE is downright anal about this definition and even designs that "can be readily converted" (which usually means "open bolt" designs).
> 
> Even with a bump-fire *THE TRIGGER MUST BE PULLED FOR EVERY SHOT*.  There is, literally, no way around this legal restriction.
> 
> ...


We could all support changing the law so that this loophole is closed.   That's one way around this.  Isn't it?


----------



## lklawson (Oct 5, 2017)

Steve said:


> Exactly.  You guys seem to think I'm trying to explain why a bump stock is equal to fully automatic fire.    I'm not.  I think you have done a great job of defining the terms.    That's the disconnect.   You're arguing about vocabulary.  I think getting caught up in the vocabulary is missing the forest for the trees.


I understand why you think that, but no.  The "vocabulary," really the legal terminology, is hyper important here because (below)



Steve said:


> We could all support changing the law so that this loophole is closed.   That's one way around this.  Isn't it?


That's why I'm "arguing" about "vocabulary."  Because it simply is *NOT* a "loophole."  It's the law.  To follow this hypothetical, in order to "close" this "loophole" exactly what verbiage would you use?  How do you define a "full auto" or "machine gun" so as to "close" this "loophole?"

There's a good reason so many of our Congress Critters are lawyers.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka (Oct 5, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think getting caught up in the vocabulary is missing the forest for the trees.



Missing the forest for the trees? Not me, no sir, I have a scope and laser, I ain't missing nothing, I'm pumping my second amendment muscles! I'm a true American!

I'm so sick of guns, so sick of gun nuts, so sick of the NRA. Everybody go F themselves.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 5, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> There was no smokescreen in pointing out that the weapons used were not full auto but merely bump fired semi-autos.  It was simply clarifying the facts.
> 
> It was kinda like my wife coming in saying that something is wrong with her car's carburetor and after pointing out that the car is fuel injected and doesn't have a carburetor she continues to refer to it as the carburetor instead of the fuel injection for the rest of the night.


But at that point, I would just call it a carburetor when talking to my fiancee. She knows what I mean, I know what I mean, we can communicate, so who cares if the word was correct or not. Until someone else comes along and is confused, but even then I just explain to them my fiancee doesn't get cars so we're calling it x but it's really y, and then all 3 of us can continue with our day.


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I understand why you think that, but no.  The "vocabulary," really the legal terminology, is hyper important here because (below)
> 
> That's why I'm "arguing" about "vocabulary."  Because it simply is *NOT* a "loophole."  It's the law.  To follow this hypothetical, in order to "close" this "loophole" exactly what verbiage would you use?  How do you define a "full auto" or "machine gun" so as to "close" this "loophole?"
> 
> ...


What do you think a loophole is?  I looked it up to see how the term is defined on the interweb and it's precisely what I thought it was:  "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules."  That is exactly how I view this situation.  A is illegal, but I can circumvent the intent of the law by combining B and C, which are both legal and get me to an A equivalent.

I'm not disputing your position.  I'm adding to it.  I'm saying, "Everything Kirk says, AND...."  Of course, defining things will be integral to closing the loophole.  At that point, it will be very important to think about how things are defined.  However, at this point, when we are still discussing whether a loophole even exists, these things are a distraction from the real question.  You're looking for agreement on vocabulary.  I'm looking for agreement that we have a problem, and if so, what that problem is.

Simply put, you're stuck on arguing the rule.  I'm actually past that and am much more concerned with what the rule might look like to address the loophole.  Call it a bump stock or automatic or Jennifer and it makes no nevermind to me.


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> There was no smokescreen in pointing out that the weapons used were not full auto but merely bump fired semi-autos.  It was simply clarifying the facts.
> 
> It was kinda like my wife coming in saying that something is wrong with her car's carburetor and after pointing out that the car is fuel injected and doesn't have a carburetor she continues to refer to it as the carburetor instead of the fuel injection for the rest of the night.


For what it's worth, I totally understand that the vocabulary is important to you and why.  I know you're not trying to smokescreen anything and are simply clarifying facts. 

I think you and Kirk have done a really good job of explaining the technical and legal terms in lay English so that everyone understands what we're discussing.


----------



## Steve (Oct 5, 2017)

So, getting things back to the subject of the thread, an "expert" was on the local news yesterday morning discussing tactics that can help you in a situation like the one in Vegas.  Some things he recommended were below.  Disclaimer, I am not an expert.  This is my recollection of what the "expert" on the radio said that I'm sharing for discussion:

1:  Try to identify where the bullets are coming from and either run sideways to it or, in some cases, toward it.  The idea being that if you run directly away from it, the shooter can simply follow you with his fire.  If you run to the side it's harder to chase you with any accuracy.  And in some cases, if you run toward the shooter, you can actually make it harder for him to track you (think if you're up against the building and he's trying to shot straight down.)

2:  Avoid lights and try to find shadows and dark spaces.

3:  Keep your phone lights off to avoid drawing attention to yourself.

4:  Find cover (duh).

5:  First choice is to run and flee the scene.  If you can't run, hide.  If you can't hide, confront the shooter only if you have no other choice.  

6:  Focus on surviving the first 10 minutes.  Statistically I guess these guys tend to shoot themselves after about 10 minutes.  No idea if this is true or not.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 5, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Yes.  He had a pilot license and could have had a much greater effect by smashing his plane into the crowd.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



But he didn't.

Considering the amount of time spent on whether he was using full auto or not. Inventing a plane packed full of explosives seems a stretch.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 6, 2017)

Steve said:


> Simply put, you're stuck on arguing the rule.  I'm actually past that and am much more concerned with what the rule might look like to address the loophole.  Call it a bump stock or automatic or Jennifer and it makes no nevermind to me.


I know it's frustrating to you but that's just not how laws work.

"Loophole" is what people call it when the law doesn't cover what they want it to cover, either ex post facto, or because they didn't write the law to cover what they thought they were.

There is a reason why laws are so detailed and specific.  Lack of specificity means that whoever is interpreting the law can shift it one direction or another.  That's why Maryland's Attorney General Maura Healey was able to interpret Maryland's "Assault Weapon" ban's language of “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon to ban rifles which were apparently not intended using the reasoning that, "_If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a 'copy' or 'duplicate,' and it is illegal._"  Because the law lacked sufficient specificity, she suddenly decided to ban a bunch of guns, previously ruled as legal under the exact same law (it's important to remember this), that they were "copies" or "duplicates" because they shared a common operating system or could swap a component.  So any gas-operated or recoil operated semi automatic rifle is a copy or duplicate.  Any rifle which can share a barrel or a trigger with a named banned rifle is therefore a copy or duplicate.

It's not a loophole.  That's just what people say.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> But he didn't.
> 
> Considering the amount of time spent on whether he was using full auto or not. Inventing a plane packed full of explosives seems a stretch.


Not really.  Particularly given that planes have been used as weapons in high profile attacks before.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 6, 2017)

Steve said:


> So, getting things back to the subject of the thread, an "expert" was on the local news yesterday morning discussing tactics that can help you in a situation like the one in Vegas.  Some things he recommended were below.  Disclaimer, I am not an expert.  This is my recollection of what the "expert" on the radio said that I'm sharing for discussion:
> 
> 1:  Try to identify where the bullets are coming from and either run sideways to it or, in some cases, toward it.  The idea being that if you run directly away from it, the shooter can simply follow you with his fire.  If you run to the side it's harder to chase you with any accuracy.  And in some cases, if you run toward the shooter, you can actually make it harder for him to track you (think if you're up against the building and he's trying to shot straight down.)
> 
> ...


Somewhat sorta, kinda.

The first rule of a gunfight (even if you don't have a gun) is *MOVE*!  Moving targets are an order of magnitude harder to hit and this guy wasn't using aimed fire apparently.  Don't stand around and try to determine where the bullets are coming from.  Move.

The second rule is move to cover.  This is harder because cover is loosely defined as a barrier which stops the bullets.  What is cover from a 9mm pistol is not always cover against a .308 rifle, for instance.  The corollary is that if cover isn't available, move to concealment.  Concealment is a visual barrier which hides you and therefore makes it harder to be deliberately targeted.

The third rule is to return fire as quickly as possible, preferably while moving to cover or concealment.  As a general rule no one wants to be shot and having your target shoot back creates a non-zero chance of you being shot, even if he's moving (to cover) while shooting at you.  Most people understand that when your target is shooting back that they should hunker down.  This usually means ceasing fire, reduced fire, and/or less accurate fire.  

The fourth rule is to be the first to put accurate shots on target.  This is hard to do but if you can put shots on the target, your chances of winning go way up.  The more accurate the shots (to vital areas) the more your chances go up.  The more quickly you put shots on target, the more your odds go up.  While an attacker might be able to continue to attack you after he's been injured, he also might not, however, not being injured ensures that he is still capable of continuing to attack you.  This rule is often (slightly erroneously) summarized as "The first person to put shots on target usually wins."

To be specific to this horrible event (may the murderer's soul be tortured for eternity), the recommendations are to MOVE to cover; walls, indoors, brick walls, hiding, etc.  I do not believe it very likely that it would have been a great benefit to stopping the shooting had anyone in the victim zone been armed, even with a rifle.  The murderer was active, according to official police timelines, for 11 minutes.  It is not easy for people trained to it to track down the source of fire at that distance, hight, and location, deploy their weapon, and return fire.  Particularly if it is not a two-person team with one acting as a "spotter."  A few minutes of confusion followed by the team trying to find a good place to setup for fire, then tracking down the exact location as well as the requirement for much better accuracy than the murderer.

What made this murderer stop was apparently his discovery by the hotel security guard.  Once he shot the guard, it appears that he stopped and likely committed suicide soon after.  LEO was on the floor and in position in 11-12 minutes.  I did not believe this at first.  Heck it takes 8 minutes to climb the stairs to get the right floor.  However, it has come out that a 8+ man police team was, by pure coincidence, right there on site and responded immediately (good training there!).  But it was still well over an hour before LEO breached the room.

That said, if you are armed and do have sufficient training and practice, making difficult shots at distance, even with a pistol, is not only possible but has been done, as shown when Airman Andy Brown (AF Security Police) stopped the mass murderer at Fairchild AFB Hospital with a shoulder shot and a head shot from *70 YARDS* using is issue Beretta M9 9mm pistol.

So would it have stopped sooner had any in the victim zone shot back?  Probably not, but there is evidence to support a solid "maybe."

My bet?  Move to cover.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 6, 2017)

Just like to say that not everyone does the 'sensible' thing and will actually run towards the danger in order to help. It's something veterans and serving military everywhere do.
British soldiers ran towards danger to help victims of Las Vegas shooting


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 6, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Somewhat sorta, kinda.
> 
> The first rule of a gunfight (even if you don't have a gun) is *MOVE*!  Moving targets are an order of magnitude harder to hit and this guy wasn't using aimed fire apparently.  Don't stand around and try to determine where the bullets are coming from.  Move.


Having a gun in a situation like this wouldn't help. Even if you had a rifle you would not want to return fire and shoot at the hotel as you could hit innocent people in other rooms.


----------



## Steve (Oct 6, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I know it's frustrating to you but that's just not how laws work.
> 
> "Loophole" is what people call it when the law doesn't cover what they want it to cover, either ex post facto, or because they didn't write the law to cover what they thought they were.
> 
> ...


Err..  couple of quick things.  I'm not frustrated at all.  well, I'm frustrated on a much higher level about things going on in our country, and this is a part of that.   I'm sorry if you're getting frustrated.  As I've said several times, there are some folks on this thread who understand what you're saying and just don't think it's the central issue.  You clearly believe it's the entire issue, and that's fine.  But that doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong.  It's like if you're on a car lot and you need a pickup truck that can pull a trailer, and the salesman is telling you how great the 4x4 works off road.  He's probably not wrong about the 4x4, but it just doesn't matter to you.  You aren't disagreeing with that; you're really just trying to discuss something else. 

When you say, ""Loophole" is what people call it when the law doesn't cover what they want it to cover, either ex post facto, or because they didn't write the law to cover what they thought they were." I think, "yeah.  Exactly.  That is literally the definition of a loophole."  well, maybe not exactly.  "Want it to cover" isn't quite right.  It's less personal than that, I think.  "Intended to cover" is more accurate.  But mostly, yeah.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 6, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Just like to say that not everyone does the 'sensible' thing and will actually run towards the danger in order to help. It's something veterans and serving military everywhere do.
> British soldiers ran towards danger to help victims of Las Vegas shooting



Absolutely agree.  Also quite often police.  Parts of from the article:


> "It was quite tough and I know it is a cliche but the training does kick in, it became second nature.
> 
> Trooper Zak Davidson, 21, from Hereford, said: "Training definitely kicks in and helps you keep a level head and the training we have done out here helps in stressful situations."
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link Tez3.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 6, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Having a gun in a situation like this wouldn't help. Even if you had a rifle you would not want to return fire and shoot at the hotel as you could hit innocent people in other rooms.


So you're agreeing with what I wrote.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Not really.  Particularly given that planes have been used as weapons in high profile attacks before.



So have automatic rifles.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 6, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Somewhat sorta, kinda.
> 
> The first rule of a gunfight (even if you don't have a gun) is *MOVE*!  Moving targets are an order of magnitude harder to hit and this guy wasn't using aimed fire apparently.  Don't stand around and try to determine where the bullets are coming from.  Move.
> 
> ...



Run,down,crawl,observe, aim,shoot.


----------



## Buka (Oct 7, 2017)




----------



## Paul_D (Oct 8, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> However, Im thinking is there any way to stop this before it happens?


How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime


----------



## DanT (Oct 8, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Having a gun in a situation like this wouldn't help. Even if you had a rifle you would not want to return fire and shoot at the hotel as you could hit innocent people in other rooms.


And also remember that he's in an elevated position and you have no idea where the shots are coming from. Returning fire even if you are sure of where he is will just get you pinned down behind some object and unable to return fire. You'll just make the people around you a target.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime



I'm not sure how someone can disagree with this. It's not false news or made up, you might not like the way it is but as it's not your country, it's not your problem either. Think the 'disagree' needs an explanation.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 8, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure how someone can disagree with this. It's not false news or made up, you might not like the way it is but as it's not your country, it's not your problem either. Think the 'disagree' needs an explanation.



Without getting too deep into politics....I disagree with taking away someone's ability to protect themselves or their families and for the most part disagree with it as a viable alternative in the US.

And "my country" was referenced in the article.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Without getting too deep into politics....I disagree with taking away someone's ability to protect themselves or their families and for the most part disagree with it as a viable alternative in the US.
> 
> And "my country" was referenced in the article.



Then you should say so rather than disagree with the article because it makes it look like you think it's fake or false information which is unfair on the person who posted it.

I have never made any political comments on gun control and I don't intend to but I will say that what works for other countries works for them and is therefore not wrong for them. What you do is up to you however you don't like having your country criticised in turn don't criticise other countries which don't have your problems or concerns. The USA is unique where gun ownership is concerned, no other country has the same outlook on weapons nor has the need to feel they have to defend themselves. Whatever solution you find to your gun problems will be unique to you because other countries that aren't in a war civil or otherwise don't have the same problems.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 8, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Then you should say so rather than disagree with the article because it makes it look like you think it's fake or false information which is unfair on the person who posted it.
> 
> I have never made any political comments on gun control and I don't intend to but I will say that what works for other countries works for them and is therefore not wrong for them. What you do is up to you however you don't like having your country criticised in turn don't criticise other countries which don't have your problems or concerns. The USA is unique where gun ownership is concerned, no other country has the same outlook on weapons nor has the need to feel they have to defend themselves. Whatever solution you find to your gun problems will be unique to you because other countries that aren't in a war civil or otherwise don't have the same problems.



I would have been more than happy to explain why I disagree with the article to Paul D if he had asked.

The main reason I did not explain was I didn't want to get into the politics.

And regardless to what your opinion is I am still entitled to my own.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2017)

DanT said:


> And also remember that he's in an elevated position and you have no idea where the shots are coming from. Returning fire even if you are sure of where he is will just get you pinned down behind some object and unable to return fire. You'll just make the people around you a target.



And I assume get shot at by whoever is responding.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I would have been more than happy to explain why I disagree with the article to Paul D if he had asked.



Why only him? All members see posts here and can ask.



CB Jones said:


> And regardless to what your opinion is I am still entitled to my own.



And when you criticise others for not doing as you do that becomes more than an 'opinion'. My opinion on the subject is to each their own and not to criticise other countries for what they do.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Without getting too deep into politics....I disagree with taking away someone's ability to protect themselves or their families and for the most part disagree with it as a viable alternative in the US.
> 
> And "my country" was referenced in the article.



And don't feel bad about giving someone else the ability to just mow down 50 dudes if he has a bad day?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure how someone can disagree with this. It's not false news or made up, you might not like the way it is but as it's not your country, it's not your problem either. Think the 'disagree' needs an explanation.


I think he was disagreeing to it as a response to the post it was responding to.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think he was disagreeing to it as a response to the post it was responding to.



That's my point, we don't actually know do we? Just disagreeing with the Beeb would be pointless.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And I assume get shot at by whoever is responding.


Probably.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 8, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure how someone can disagree with this. It's not false news or made up, you might not like the way it is but as it's not your country, it's not your problem either. Think the 'disagree' needs an explanation.



I would only disagree with that article from the point of view that it doesn't take into account, anything about the differences in culture.  I think the use of the gun appalled the samurai.  Their swords didn't count for much anymore.  They didn't want them around.  But hidden in that culture tidbit is the fact that the peasantry from that far back, weren't allowed to have weapons.  But certainly, as you and others have said, a country's culture is its own; to live with or change without outside interference.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 8, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Why only him? All members see posts here and can ask.



Because you said it was unfair to him.  Didn't realize pressing the disagree button was so hurtful.



Tez3 said:


> And when you criticise others for not doing as you do that becomes more than an 'opinion'.



How is pressing the disagree button criticizing?  So if I have a differing opinion then I'm criticizing someone or some country?



Tez3 said:


> That's my point, we don't actually know do we?



I disagreed with the article comparing Japan and the US in it.  Also from years as a homicide detective, I have a very strong opinion and advocate for people to be able to protect themselves.  I am a firm believer in gun rights and self defense.

I disagreed but did not reply because I was simply trying to avoid getting into the politics of it as is the rule on this site.

I did not realize my motive in pressing the disagree button would be so important to some.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 8, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime


I disagree with this and I will explain why. If the bad guy didn't have guns he would've just used some other means to commit mass murder. He could've made a bomb and used that or he could've driven a truck into the crowd or, as this other poster said, he could've crashed an airplane into the crowd as he had a pilot's license. Bombings and vehicular homicides are what's happening in countries where there aren't that many guns, such as in Europe. This has been discussed before in the thread.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 8, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure how someone can disagree with this. It's not false news or made up, you might not like the way it is but as it's not your country, it's not your problem either. Think the 'disagree' needs an explanation.


Well yes, as I posted in this other thread, its fine to disagree with somebody but if you do it warrants an explanation.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 8, 2017)

DanT said:


> And also remember that he's in an elevated position and you have no idea where the shots are coming from. Returning fire even if you are sure of where he is will just get you pinned down behind some object and unable to return fire. You'll just make the people around you a target.


However, another armed guest at the hotel might've been able to stop him, but they don't allow weapons in the hotel.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 8, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I disagree with this and I will explain why. If the bad guy didn't have guns he would've just used some other means to commit mass murder. He could've made a bomb and used that or he could've driven a truck into the crowd or, as this other poster said, he could've crashed an airplane into the crowd as he had a pilot's license. Bombings and vehicular homicides are what's happening in countries where there aren't that many guns, such as in Europe. This has been discussed before in the thread.



Ok but then guns don't work for self defence either because a bad guy will just have more guns or shoot you when you are not looking.

Or is there some sort of logical back flip that makes the argument ok in one instance but then completely false in the other.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 8, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well yes, as I posted in this other thread, its fine to disagree with somebody but if you do it warrants an explanation.



Ok but that is only your opinion....the site does not require it.

I look at it as the site notifies you when someone disagrees.....if you care about why they disagreed then ask them why and discuss it.....if you don't care then ignore it.

But by no means are we entitled to an explanation.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 8, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> But hidden in that culture tidbit is the fact that the peasantry from that far back, weren't allowed to have weapons.


But that didn't stop the peasantry from having weapons anyway. Where do you think the bo staff came from? Or the nunchaku? Or the tonfa? Or the sai? Or the kama?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok but then guns don't work for self defence either because a bad guy will just have more guns or shoot you when you are not looking.


If guns didn't work for self defense than police wouldn't carry them.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok but then guns don't work for self defence either because a bad guy will just have more guns or shoot you when you are not looking.
> 
> Or is there some sort of logical back flip that makes the argument ok in one instance but then completely false in the other.



Evil and insanity exists in the world and it will always find instruments (guns, blades, clubs, bare hands, etc...) to use to commit acts of violence.

I believe good people should be afforded the tools to defend themselves against these evil deeds.

I know of and have worked way too many homicides that the victim might have been able to defend themselves had they been armed.

On a personal note, 20+ years ago my cousin was home with her 3 month old baby when an escaped convict broke into her home and was between her and her baby asleep in its crib.

She had 3 options:

A) surrender to the escaped con and be at his mercy

B) flee the home and leave her child and seek help at her neighbors 3 miles away

C) use force and protect herself and her child.

Luckily she was able to grab a gun from the gun cabinet shoot the intruder, get to her baby (wounded bad guy fled to the bathroom) and flee with her baby out of the house.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 8, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> But that didn't stop the peasantry from having weapons anyway. Where do you think the bo staff came from? Or the nunchaku? Or the tonfa? Or the sai? Or the kama?



Is there a reason you think talking down to me will convince me of your stance?  I know as well as most of the oral history of weapons conversion of every day implements. 



PhotonGuy said:


> If guns didn't work for self defense than police wouldn't carry them.



That seems to me a poor argument.  What police in what country?  Many country's police don't carry guns, or only on a limited basis.  In the US, most police and a lot of security, do in fact do carry guns.  It has been a part of our culture since before we had a national culture.  But not all, so in a lot of cultures they appear not to be needed to make things "work."


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 8, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Is there a reason you think talking down to me will convince me of your stance?  I know as well as most of the oral history of weapons conversion of every day implements.


Im not talking down to you, just pointing out facts, you're taking it the wrong way.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 9, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Ok but that is only your opinion....the site does not require it.
> 
> I look at it as the site notifies you when someone disagrees.....if you care about why they disagreed then ask them why and discuss it.....if you don't care then ignore it.
> 
> But by no means are we entitled to an explanation.



If you click on something to signify your like/dislike of something people are entitled to wonder what the hell you were thinking though.  A long time ago I posted up about the death of someone and another poster clicked 'funny', another time I posted that I liked doing a particular technique someone clicked 'disagree', both posters were thought ignorant and stupid by everyone else.



CB Jones said:


> I know of and have worked way too many homicides that the victim might have been able to defend themselves had they been armed.



This is your experience, in your country but it's not the experience of others in other countries. The homicides we've had in our area (2 in 40 years) wouldn't have been prevented by victims having a gun. One was when a husband stabbed his wife after finding her in bed with another man, he also stabbed the lover but he survived. The other was a couple of drunks fighting, one said dare you to kill me to the other so he did. Most murders are domestic ie people known to each other, the rest are gang related/terrorism/paedophiles and sex offenders.
We typically have less than 600 homicides a year,
_"The Home Office Homicide Index showed there were 518 homicides (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) in the year ending March 2015 in England and Wales. This represents a decrease of 5 offences (1%) from the 523 recorded for the previous year._


_Over recent years, the number of currently recorded homicides has shown a general downward trend and the number for the year ending March 2015 (518) was the lowest since 1983 (482)."_

In the UK however the homicide figures also include manslaughter and unlawful killings ( military killed by insurgents/terrorists such as in Afghanistan) and infanticide which actually is the most disturbing figures as you can see if you read this. Other disturbing information is this _"(the peak in the year ending March 2003 includes 172 homicides committed by Dr Harold Shipman)." _later in the report. Shipman was a general practitioner who liked to kill his patients, that's the total of known victims, there is likely to have been more.

Homicide - Office for National Statistics


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 9, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> That seems to me a poor argument.  What police in what country?  Many country's police don't carry guns, or only on a limited basis.  In the US, most police and a lot of security, do in fact do carry guns.  It has been a part of our culture since before we had a national culture.  But not all, so in a lot of cultures they appear not to be needed to make things "work."



It's worth pointing out here that even in those countries where not all police are armed, there are, without exception, armed units. So clearly they are needed to make things "work."


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 9, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> This is your experience, in your country but it's not the experience of others in other countries. The homicides we've had in our area (2 in 40 years) wouldn't have been prevented by victims having a gun. One was when a husband stabbed his wife after finding her in bed with another man, he also stabbed the lover but he survived.



Which supports the argument that banning guns doesn't stop the event. It just requires the bad guy to use a different weapon. Like a knife. Or a car. Or a bomb. Or...

And of course, your statement that the victim being armed wouldn't have stopped the murder is unsupported. Had either the woman or her lover been armed, there is every reason to think that they could have defended themselves against someone armed with a knife.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 9, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Which supports the argument that banning guns doesn't stop the event. It just requires the bad guy to use a different weapon. Like a knife. Or a car. Or a bomb. Or...
> 
> And of course, your statement that the victim being armed wouldn't have stopped the murder is unsupported. Had either the woman or her lover been armed, there is every reason to think that they could have defended themselves against someone armed with a knife.



Unlikely as the woman was stabbed in the back, she was on top of her lover. Neither of the lovers saw or heard the husband. In was also in married quarters so there was a distinct lack of sympathy for her and the lover, most for the husband who'd come back off exercise unexpectedly to find that. In France he was have got away with it because it was unpremeditated and therefore a crime of passion, temporary insanity. the second murder was this one.  Veteran admits killing 'gentle giant' at home for ex-soldiers

The murders here actually have little to do with guns and the banning or not of them. The figures aren't an argument either way just an illustration of the type of murders here. When you read the statistics you think well that could have been prevented by the victim having a gun but once you've read the details it's hard to see where it would have actually helped. We've had a few so called honour killings here, girls murdered by their parents, we had a few people killed by their mentally ill children ( adult), many women killed by their partners, ( one could argue that these would a good case for carrying a gun but sadly the psychological abuse that usually comes with this means they wouldn't have defended themselves by using a gun). The infanticide figures I find very disturbing. 
the thing to remember is that we are a different country, different culture and look at things differently here. I have no ideas or suggestions or even thoughts on American gun control/violence or whatever because it's not within my area of understanding, what I'm saying is cannot say that people here wouldn't have been killed if they'd had a gun. The reasons people kill are the problem, not the means. We don't ban guns to stop people killing others with them, we ban guns because time and time again the people say they don't want armed civilians. The culture in our country is such that civilians without guns suits it..... it suits us. You may think it's wrong but everything points to us being right... *right for us. *For you, a different culture, a different country there are different ideas and solutions, if you consider there's a problem, looking to other countries won't solve it. If you consider there's no problem then looking at us doesn't mean a thing.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 9, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Im not talking down to you, just pointing out facts, you're taking it the wrong way.



I didn't feel so, since you asked a question as if I didn't know or believe something that is commonly accepted as fact.  If you didn't mean it that way, OK.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 9, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> It's worth pointing out here that even in those countries where not all police are armed, there are, without exception, armed units. So clearly they are needed to make things "work."



Well, I did point out some did on a limited basis.  Did you check to see how many of those countries'
 policing is done by the military?

It's funny in a way.  I support citizens in the US being able to own guns in their homes, or CC for some people.  But I think we sometimes try to overlay other countries with our beliefs and laws, when they may not want that.  If we believe we want to do that, we should.  If others question that we can point out it is part of our culture and supported by our constitution.  If they think we are unwashed barbarians, they probably shouldn't come visit us, but respect our culture as they would want us to respect theirs.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 9, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> If guns didn't work for self defense than police wouldn't carry them.



Police still get shot.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 9, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I did point out some did on a limited basis.  Did you check to see how many of those countries'
> policing is done by the military?



Nope. I don't see it as relevant. The point (and the only point I was making) is that there really isn't any such thing as a country that doesn't arm its Law Enforcement people. They may not arm them all, but there are ALWAYS armed LEOs.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Police still get shot.



Strawman argument. Nobody ever said carrying a gun was a 100% effective defense.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 9, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Nope. I don't see it as relevant. The point (and the only point I was making) is that there really isn't any such thing as a country that doesn't arm its Law Enforcement people. They may not arm them all, but there are ALWAYS armed LEOs.



Well, I would just point out that I wasn't arguing that point.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 9, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime


that opinion piece seem to have a little bias to it.  Japan has always had a much lower crime rate than most places in the world.
Japan vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats



oftheherd1 said:


> . I think the use of the gun appalled the samurai.


the reason has little to do with samurai and swords VS guns.  the samurai used guns all the time.  they just had trouble manufacturing them.
low crime rates in Japan is more about their culture of "obligation and duty"   they would never want to put shame on their family for a crime they did. we are talking about a society where a little old lady will berate a stranger on a bicycle who goes thru a stop light at 4 am in the morning when no one is around but her as she sweeps the side walk.  then turn him in to his employer who will again reprimand him because he represents his company and cannot behave that way.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 9, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> that opinion piece seem to have a little bias to it.  Japan has always had a much lower crime rate than most places in the world.
> Japan vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
> 
> 
> ...



The difference in cultures seems to be ignored when people compare countries and gun crime/control.


----------



## Steve (Oct 9, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Ok but that is only your opinion....the site does not require it.
> 
> I look at it as the site notifies you when someone disagrees.....if you care about why they disagreed then ask them why and discuss it.....if you don't care then ignore it.
> 
> But by no means are we entitled to an explanation.


I'm still waiting for someone to demand an explanation of why someone liked or agreed with their post.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 9, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Strawman argument. Nobody ever said carrying a gun was a 100% effective defense.



No kidding. So exactly like a criminal could use a plane or a bomb or something.

Which is the point. Except we just go with one but argue the other.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 9, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I look at it as the site notifies you when someone disagrees.....if you care about why they disagreed then ask them why and discuss it


And what if they wont discuss it?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 9, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> We don't ban guns to stop people killing others with them, we ban guns because time and time again the people say they don't want armed civilians.


Saying the people don't want armed civilians is relative and can mean many different things. For instance, I understand that in your country when they don't want armed civilians that means specifically that they don't want civilians armed with handguns, but they're OK with long guns. (Although I do believe in northern Ireland you can get handguns). Not wanting armed civilians can also include a ban on long guns, a ban on other weapons such as swords and knives and sticks, it could even mean a ban on martial arts. So its meaning can vary quite a bit.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 9, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> And what if they wont discuss it?



Then I guess you would have to let it go or call them out some way.  I would be careful about the latter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 9, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> And what if they wont discuss it?


Then they don't have much to say. At that point I figure I have to assume what part they disagreed with.


----------



## Steve (Oct 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Then they don't have much to say. At that point I figure I have to assume what part they disagreed with.


Dangerous.   I’d recommend just noting they disagree with something, and leave it at that.   Too much assuming goes on around here.   Tez3’s on again/off again love affair with me is largely off again because she incorrectly assumes things. I’m 100% sure if she lived in our neighborhood she’d love me, because she’d form her opinion based on more than gossip and the occasional post where I call her on some wackiness.  

And for the record, I am never guilty of this myself.   I am immune.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 9, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> And what if they wont discuss it?



Then don't worry about it.  Plain and simple.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> And what if they wont discuss it?



I'd they won't discuss it they won't and it leaves people to draw their own conclusions as to their silliness.



PhotonGuy said:


> Saying the people don't want armed civilians is relative and can mean many different things. For instance, I understand that in your country when they don't want armed civilians that means specifically that they don't want civilians armed with handguns, but they're OK with long guns. (Although I do believe in northern Ireland you can get handguns). Not wanting armed civilians can also include a ban on long guns, a ban on other weapons such as swords and knives and sticks, it could even mean a ban on martial arts. So its meaning can vary quite a bit.



Your information seems quite odd. The people of the UK don't want people walking around armed with any gun, they aren't 'ok with long guns' as you put it. People can keep shotguns if they get a licence and keep them appropriately which doesn't include walking around with them. 
You absolutely not have handguns in Northern Ireland. I have no idea why you'd think that. There is a horror of guns there that unless you've lived there during the Troubles you likely wouldn't understand. For this reason the police force there are armed all the time and are allowed to take their guns with them when off duty. The police are targets of the terrorists so it makes sense. *340* officers have been killed and almost 9,000 injured in paramilitary assassinations or attacks. 

I was talking specifically of the UK and specifically of guns. I wasn't and am not widening the subject any wider.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Saying the people don't want armed civilians is relative and can mean many different things. For instance, I understand that in your country when they don't want armed civilians that means specifically that they don't want civilians armed with handguns, but they're OK with long guns. (Although I do believe in northern Ireland you can get handguns). Not wanting armed civilians can also include a ban on long guns, a ban on other weapons such as swords and knives and sticks, it could even mean a ban on martial arts. So its meaning can vary quite a bit.



Accountability. Pretty much the idea is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dumbasses and in the control of people who are going to use them properly.

So it is gun as a privilage that you earn rather than a right.

So the idea is if you have a reason for carrying a gun. Hunting shooting whatever you can have a gun. If the reason is becasue you just want to walk aroung with a gun you cant.

Now we could argue the semantics. Whether gun control goes too far. but I like the basic premis of that.

As I said earlier in this thread responsible gun use.

See I cant support peoples right to do this.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 10, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> _Over recent years, the number of currently recorded homicides has shown a general downward trend and the number for the year ending March 2015 (518) was the lowest since 1983 (482)."_


This might surprise you but the U.S. has also seen a dramatic downward trend in violent crime spanning about the same time period, in spite of the fact that the number of guns in the U.S. per capita has continuously grown and the fact that many of the restrictions on gun use in the U.S. have relaxed.

What you have just demonstrated is that gun laws do not have a strong correlation to violence in society.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Oct 10, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> But that didn't stop the peasantry from having weapons anyway. Where do you think the bo staff came from? Or the nunchaku? Or the tonfa? Or the sai? Or the kama?


They are weapons and everyone knew that.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2017)

lklawson said:


> This might surprise you but the U.S. has also seen a dramatic downward trend in violent crime spanning about the same time period, in spite of the fact that the number of guns in the U.S. per capita has continuously grown and the fact that many of the restrictions on gun use in the U.S. have relaxed.
> 
> What you have just demonstrated is that gun laws do not have a strong correlation to violence in society.
> 
> ...



 I haven't demonstrated anything other than ability to post data from the Home Office. 
I don't have an opinion on gun crime or gun control in the US, my answers were in response to comments made about the UK. My comments are only about the UK. There's enough people arguing the toss about the US without me adding anything, I don't live there and domestic policies don't affect me. People who want to drag other countries into their arguments for or against gun control are mistaken, as I've said many times, different countries, different people, different cultures.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 10, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I haven't demonstrated anything other than ability to post data from the Home Office.


That may not have been your intention but it was one of the results, even if unintentionally.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 10, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Your information seems quite odd. The people of the UK don't want people walking around armed with any gun, they aren't 'ok with long guns' as you put it. People can keep shotguns if they get a licence and keep them appropriately which doesn't include walking around with them.


What I meant was, people could own long guns. I don't know of any developed country where you can walk around with a long gun and that includes most places in the USA. Even a CCW will not allow you to carry around a long gun openly in most places in the USA.



Tez3 said:


> You absolutely not have handguns in Northern Ireland. I have no idea why you'd think that. There is a horror of guns there that unless you've lived there during the Troubles you likely wouldn't understand. For this reason the police force there are armed all the time and are allowed to take their guns with them when off duty. The police are targets of the terrorists so it makes sense. *340* officers have been killed and almost 9,000 injured in paramilitary assassinations or attacks.


Than I suppose Wikipedia was wrong. Wikipedia can be a good source of info but it isn't always reliable.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Accountability. Pretty much the idea is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dumbasses and in the control of people who are going to use them properly.
> 
> So it is gun as a privilage that you earn rather than a right.
> 
> ...


Gun ownership might be a privilege in your country, I believe you're from Australia, but in the USA it is a right as defined by the constitution. I also don't support what the drunk guy did in the video just like I don't support drunk people driving which you will find way too much of in the USA.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 10, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> I meant was, people could own long guns. I don't know of any developed country where you can walk around with a long gun and that includes most places in the USA.



Actually 45 states in the US allow open carry


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> What I meant was, people could own long guns.



You call them long guns but that term isn't used here. We like to be specific.



PhotonGuy said:


> Than I suppose Wikipedia was wrong. Wikipedia can be a good source of info but it isn't always reliable.



It's misleading and probably rightly so for security reasons. Certain people are allowed to own handguns in Northern Ireland for protection as they are known targets for para militaries. Court officials, judges, prison officers, police officers, civil servants, probation officers community workers, some church leaders etc. while the situation there is better there is still paramilitary activity. Paramilitary-style shootings double
Man And Woman Shot In Coleraine | Northern Ireland News, 20/02/2017
Belfast police officer injured in drive-by shooting

Hand gun ownership isn't for the general public.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Gun ownership might be a privilege in your country, I believe you're from Australia, but in the USA it is a right as defined by the constitution. I also don't support what the drunk guy did in the video just like I don't support drunk people driving which you will find way too much of in the USA.



Well do you support drunk guys right to own that gun?

If you support his right to be doing what he does there. You are supporting his behavior.

If we catch people drunk driving we take their licence off them. That would be not supporting drunk driving.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Well do you support drunk guys right to own that gun?



Yes



drop bear said:


> If you support his right to be doing what he does there. You are supporting his behavior.



No, he is still responsible for his actions and if he commits a crime then he should be  punished.

Although he is a complete moron.....he did not break a law and therefore his constitutional rights are just that..... his rights.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Well do you support drunk guys right to own that gun?


Sure I do, as long as they don't use it while they're drunk.



drop bear said:


> If you support his right to be doing what he does there. You are supporting his behavior.


I never said I supported what he's doing.



drop bear said:


> If we catch people drunk driving we take their licence off them. That would be not supporting drunk driving.


I agree with taking licenses from people who drink and drive. However, I am not against drunk people owning cars as long as they don't drive them while they're drunk.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Put it in the Windows.





PhotonGuy said:


> That might not be a bad idea but it would be expensive.


It’s a great idea... until there’s a fire and fire fighters have to break a window to get people who are trapped out.  Then it’s a catastrophic mistake.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And that is the difference. I dont support his actions. I wont fight to support his actions.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And that is the difference. I dont support his actions. I wont fight to support his actions.



Has anybody stated yet that they support his actions?  Or would fight to support his actions?  I missed it if so.  I don't think anyone with any common sense would support his actions, much less fight to support his actions.  His actions are foolishly dangerous.

But in the USA a person's right to keep and bear arms has recently been reaffirmed.  There are people who don't agree with that, but it is constitutional law.  Takes a lot to change it.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Well do you support drunk guys right to own that gun?
> 
> If you support his right to be doing what he does there. You are supporting his behavior.
> 
> If we catch people drunk driving we take their licence off them. That would be not supporting drunk driving.


So you support the right of drunk guys to own cars but *not use them while drunk*?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 11, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Has anybody stated yet that they support his actions?  Or would fight to support his actions?  I missed it if so.  I don't think anyone with any common sense would support his actions, much less fight to support his actions.  His actions are foolishly dangerous.
> 
> But in the USA a person's right to keep and bear arms has recently been reaffirmed.  There are people who don't agree with that, but it is constitutional law.  Takes a lot to change it.


Lets stay off the politics, I don't want this thread locked down.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 11, 2017)

lklawson said:


> So you support the right of drunk guys to own cars but *not use them while drunk*?


Well depends what you mean by using them. Im against people driving cars while drunk but if an intoxicated person wants to use the car to listen to the radio or run the air conditioner Im fine with that as long as the car stays in park.


----------



## lklawson (Oct 11, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well depends what you mean by using them. Im against people driving cars while drunk but if an intoxicated person wants to use the car to listen to the radio or run the air conditioner Im fine with that as long as the car stays in park.


If a cop finds a person who is intoxicated behind the wheel, whether or not the car is in drive, he still gets a DUI.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2017)

lklawson said:


> If a cop finds a person who is intoxicated behind the wheel, whether or not the car is in drive, he still gets a DUI.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Same in the UK and most European countries, just being behind the wheel will get you charged with _'being in charge of a vehicle while above the legal limit or unfit through drink'_ not necessarily driving it. If you are actually driving you will be charged with _'Driving or attempting to drive while above the legal limit or unfit through drink'._ The first carries a potential 3 months custodial sentence, up to £2500 in fines and a driving ban, you can double the custodial sentence, there's an unlimited amount you can be fined and a driving ban for at least a year for the latter charge. Other penalties will include your car insurance costs going up and as you have a criminal record so probably can forget about visiting the USA, as they  don't often give visas to people with them.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 11, 2017)

lklawson said:


> If a cop finds a person who is intoxicated behind the wheel, whether or not the car is in drive, he still gets a DUI.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


How about if the car is off?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> How about if the car is off?



You are in charge of the car whether the engine is on or no. *Drunk in charge of a vehicle.*


----------



## lklawson (Oct 11, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> How about if the car is off?


Yup.  Even if the keys are not in the ignition.

Being behind the wheel is, apparently, seen as _prima facie_ of intent to operate.

I disagree with it (in fact, it pisses me off) but that's the way it is.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Yup.  Even if the keys are not in the ignition.
> 
> Being behind the wheel is, apparently, seen as _prima facie_ of intent to operate.
> 
> ...



In reality here it happens very rarely that someone is charged with being drunk in charge of a vehicle and hasn't actually driven in it. What usually happens is that the driver stops and switches off the engine before the police actually reach him. The driver says he's 'resting' or hasn't been driving ( even though the engine is warm) so the police charge him after breathalysing him, with drunk in charge. They aren't charging an innocent person, just someone who was lucky not to have caused an accident and killed someone.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 11, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> In reality here it happens very rarely that someone is charged with being drunk in charge of a vehicle and hasn't actually driven in it. What usually happens is that the driver stops and switches off the engine before the police actually reach him. The driver says he's 'resting' or hasn't been driving ( even though the engine is warm) so the police charge him after breathalysing him, with drunk in charge. They aren't charging an innocent person, just someone who was lucky not to have caused an accident and killed someone.



During my time on patrol I arrested 2 people passed out behind the steering wheel.

One was so adamant that I couldn't arrest him for DUI that he actually decided to try and fight me when I told him he was under arrest.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2017)

lklawson said:


> So you support the right of drunk guys to own cars but *not use them while drunk*?



 It isn't a right. It is a completely different game. I support a drunk guy to have a lawyer or health care. But driving you earn.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2017)

lklawson said:


> So you support the right of drunk guys to own cars but *not use them while drunk*?



And of course no I don't.

Police seizing vehicles - Legal Aid Queensland


----------

