October 2017 Las Vegas Shooting - 50 Dead

[RubiconDecision]

The only weapon that was a ranged weapon in my post was the bow and arrow. Up close and personal, those other weapons could kill untold numbers of standard civilians...and you know this.

The first takashima muskets were not very effective. I don't know what your point is. Their main role was to incite fear, which they did, stopping the banzai charges of the day during the late medieval period. They were wildly inaccurate since the loads varried or the shot was not uniform, nor the strength of the gunpowder, and had no rifling(the spiral inside that spins the bullet or shot) and each was made and not precisely uniform as they had no proper lathes and machining tools.

A katana was not a battlefield sword, but a personal sidearm. But the events here were not a battlefield were they? A nagamaki was held in the armory in medieval Japan because of their durability and usefulness, but obviously a katana in the same period could easily kill unarmored foes and civilians.

Hunting is very sporting as you may harvest no animal based upon your ability at stalking and weather and luck and skill at ranged weapons. There are more sporting weapons like black powder rifles and some of these cannot properly be called rifles as no rifling might be inside the barrel. So yeah, those have one shot and you then have no chance of firing another. Of course a reflex bow is a very sporting method versus a compound bow which reduces the tension when pulled back. A crossbow is not very sporting as it can be nocked and constantly held under tension mechanically, but then, it takes a lonnnnnnnng time to reload.

I see no issues with hunting. Rather I think it is grotesque to buy meat at the store because most of the meat comes from corporate farms that treat the animals in totally inhumane ways. In fact, if most were to hunt for their meat, then most would probably be vegetarian or even become vegan.

If you watch this documentary, them you may never eat meat again due to seeing how cruel the livestock industry is in corporate farms and subsequent butchering.

Our ancestors did NOT eat that much meat because it was harvested based upon local maturity of the livestock and home canned not bought at a grocery store. Even if they hunted, then that was subject to many rules which made acquisition of wild game to be a rare occurence. Rather what typically happened was taking a somewhat routine rabbit by trapping through snares and then based upon maturity by season.

[Love Mountain]

Ah yes, iron age weapons are "just as deadly" as guns.

[Vanoi]

I have to say hunting with non-hunting weapons is disgusting to my mind: there is a difference, don't tell me you'd kill rabbits with a katana. I know hunting is considered bad in some quarters, I think its an ancient art and we honour our ancestors when we do it right. However in Australia and the US we no longer need to hunt for our food, that's in the supermarket. If people want to hunt then simple weapons (bows or simple long arms) that honour the tradition. Emptying a mag into a beast seems morally void to me. Hunting with handguns is a silly variant, what's next, hunting with building machinery? Fishing with office equipment?

Its a bizarre situation where people try to justify weapon ownership because you can use them to hunt. The gun debate in the US is in a very sick place right now.

Hunting in the US is much more than just food. A lot of hunting centers around population control. Controlling animal populations so they don't reproduce so much that they end up destroying their own ecosystems.

[RubiconDecision]

The fact that some of you do not know the difference in medieval weapons versus Iron age (1200 through 550 BC) weapons is amusing given the site's focus on warfare though the ages.

When a deer herd is not hunted but left to natural forces, then horrifying starvation thins the herd. It is very ugly and cruel. It is capricious which animal dies by luck, thus weaker animals can survive and stronger ones die. It is not an ideal method for managing them.

[Love Mountain]

The fact that some of you do not know the difference in medieval weapons versus Iron age (1200 through 550 BC) weapons is amusing given the site's focus on warfare though the ages.

Ah yes, the most relevant part of this discussion. I'm amused at your amusement.

[RubiconDecision]

Ah yes, the most relevant part of this discussion. I'm amused at your amusement.

Well, that post was a serious gaffe, was it not? 500 BC versus weapons of the 1500 AD period!


Never stop another when they are debating with egregious errors.

Just a minor error....ahahahahahahaahahaha.

Wait, now wasn't someone having no issue with personal ownership of a TANK? My post by comparison of owning a katana or even an AR-15 rather pales by comparison.

[irontaino]

Yeap, sounds like you haven't read about the case at all. But sue, shooting in CoD is exactly like shooting IRL - thats pretty much the only kind of people who bought the official story.

That's fine and dandy, now answer the question. How much training does walking into a hotel with luggage, breaking windows, firing into a crowd of 22,000 people and hitting at least one person and setting off a smoke alarm each take?

[Love Mountain]

Well, that post was a serious gaffe, was it not? 500 BC versus weapons of the 1500 AD period!


Never stop another when they are debating with egregious errors.

Just a minor error....ahahahahahahaahahaha.

I think it's funny that you think you found some sort of "gotcha!" moment when the gargantuan point remains unaddressed. A firearm is far deadlier than any sword and has a potential for much greater destruction.

Wait, now wasn't someone having no issue with personal ownership of a TANK? My post by comparison of owning a katana or even an AR-15 rather pales by comparison.

Only under extreme licensing and vetting. You can already legally own a fully automatic rifle, a grenade launcher, and even a flamethrower. So sure, if we were to institute an extremely over-the-top licensing system, institute annual fees, require annual check-ups, and have state based registries for all deadly weapons, I'd be on board with it. Tanks are cool. I've always had an SHTF dream of owning a LAV-25.

[Magnum_Opus]

Are you suggesting Paddock could have killed 50 people from his hotel room with a sword?

Historically Japan had difficulty forming a stable nation until they imported Portuguese muskets. They made almost no international impression militarily (aside from a little piracy) until they adopted European warmaking culture. I seem to recall you telling me the katana is a non-military weapon, suited to duelling or assisting ritual suicide, that's right isn't it?

The US has sloppy gun laws. There's so much hype from gun porn addicts and dealers, not to mention the NRA that the laws that do exists don't seem to be effectively policed. If bump stocks make a weapon act like its full auto then surely they are illegal? If the opposition to gun porn was serious they'd have jumped on this, rather than prattling about silencers (also a ridiculous argument, silencers are for assassination, not civilians). I guess the debate on guns is less about seriously resolving issues and more about minor points of difference in a two party system.

I have to say hunting with non-hunting weapons is disgusting to my mind: there is a difference, don't tell me you'd kill rabbits with a katana. I know hunting is considered bad in some quarters, I think its an ancient art and we honour our ancestors when we do it right. However in Australia and the US we no longer need to hunt for our food, that's in the supermarket. If people want to hunt then simple weapons (bows or simple long arms) that honour the tradition. Emptying a mag into a beast seems morally void to me. Hunting with handguns is a silly variant, what's next, hunting with building machinery? Fishing with office equipment?

Its a bizarre situation where people try to justify weapon ownership because you can use them to hunt. The gun debate in the US is in a very sick place right now.

Why do you trivialise the other side by calling them "gun porn addicts"

And as far as I know no one ever tried to justify the ownership of AR-15s solely as a hunting weapon. They are designed to kill humans in defence of life and liberty. That's not trivial and it's a serious responsibility. But AR-15s are perfectly functional hunting weapons. There is no difference to the deer if you shoot it with an M16 or a .223 single shot hunting rifle.

And saying the suppressors are "for assassinations" is ridiculous. It's indicates someone who's only experience with such devices is through mass-media. In reality, they are quite useful for shooting guns without having to wear obtrusive hearing protection or incurring hearing loss. They don't make supersonic rounds silent, it's still very loud and noticeable - you can only get really quit guns shooting subsonic rounds like .22 or .45 ACP with specially modified guns, and with that you're sacrificing a massive amount of ballistic performance to get a quieter weapon.

The people who wrote that piece of legislation in 1700's where living in a very different time, in 2017 it's the duty of modern politicians to make sure that old laws are up to date and make sense in a modern society making the necessary changes.

That's not true. There is nothing in our modern situation that is fundamentally different now from the situation in the founding fathers' time, or what they could have anticipated. In fact the constitution was written exactly for situations like this - to stop the erratic and capricious nature of the democratic system from infringing upon people's natural rights. Even though it has slowly been eroded over the decades.

[Condottiere 40K]

Flame throwers are useful agricultural tool, and dynamite serves an equally useful function in construction.

The thing about flame throwers is that they are a double edged sword, just as dangerous to the operator as well as those he operated on, one reason they aren't issued to infantry anymore.

No one wants to take away Americans right to keep and bear arms, except harmed bears, just limit their potential lethality is mass shootings.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

That's not true. There is nothing in our modern situation that is fundamentally different now from the situation in the founding fathers' time, or what they could have anticipated. In fact the constitution was written exactly for situations like this - to stop the erratic and capricious nature of the democratic system from infringing upon people's natural rights. Even though it has slowly been eroded over the decades.

You don't trust the government but you trust every random Bob to have a stockpile of assault rifles that his kid can take one day and go to a school and kill the rest of the kids, Ok.

Maybe that NRA guy was right, teachers and students should go to school with guns, so that they can defend themselves against the other guns, what a lovely environment for learning calculus.

[Love Mountain]

And as far as I know no one ever tried to justify the ownership of AR-15s solely as a hunting weapon. They are designed to kill humans in defence of life and liberty. That's not trivial and it's a serious responsibility. But AR-15s are perfectly functional hunting weapons. There is no difference to the deer if you shoot it with an M16 or a .223 single shot hunting rifle.

Not everyone is responsible enough to be trusted with a firearm.

And saying the suppressors are "for assassinations" is ridiculous. It's indicates someone who's only experience with such devices is through mass-media. In reality, they are quite useful for shooting guns without having to wear obtrusive hearing protection or incurring hearing loss. They don't make supersonic rounds silent, it's still very loud and noticeable - you can only get really quit guns shooting subsonic rounds like .22 or .45 ACP with specially modified guns, and with that you're sacrificing a massive amount of ballistic performance to get a quieter weapon.

False dilemma fallacy. They are used for both. Civilians use them because they offer a number of benefits over shooting a non-suppressed gun. A firearm instructor in my area gives lessons with suppressors to both, safeguard people from hearing damage, and to make shooting easier for beginners. Which is irrelevant to the fact that suppressors are mainly assassination/stealth tools for military applications. They significantly reduce noise, especially at longer ranges.

That's not true. There is nothing in our modern situation that is fundamentally different now from the situation in the founding fathers' time, or what they could have anticipated. In fact the constitution was written exactly for situations like this - to stop the erratic and capricious nature of the democratic system from infringing upon people's natural rights. Even though it has slowly been eroded over the decades.

There are massive political differences between now and 18th century. This is yet another example of Constitution worship.

[Copperknickers II]

Hunting in the US is much more than just food. A lot of hunting centers around population control. Controlling animal populations so they don't reproduce so much that they end up destroying their own ecosystems.

They wouldn't be destroying their eco-systems if humans hadn't killed all their natural predators. But until we can get our governments to achieve some kind of knowledge of basic ecology, we're going to have get men to do the job that wolves should be doing for us. Ecosystems have a way of sorting themselves out, what they need is as little human intereference as possible, not human controls which just end up making things worse. The main reason deer are culled is not for humane reasons but for economic reasons, as they harm forestry and pose a risk to livestock through spread of disease, or sometimes just as a way of increasing the size of deer for hunting trophies by targeting small deer to cancel out the selective pressure against large deer put in place by trophy hunters. There's nothing humane about it. I've encountered professional deer cullers and they seem to mainly have selected the job because hunting animals as a hobby wasn't enough to satisfy their bloodlust. It's not exactly a well-paid profession. That being said if I lived in the USA or parts of England where cattle are farmed in industrial sheds like chickens, then I'd probably pay the premium for venison. As it is however the cows that make their way to my local butcher's live just outside my house, and they are very friendly. To be honest, I wish my life were as carefree and pleasant as theirs, the most revered holy cows in India are worse off than my bovine Highlander neighbours.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Magnum_Opus]

You don't trust the government but you trust every random Bob to have a stockpile of assault rifles that his kid can take one day and go to a school and kill the rest of the kids, Ok.

Maybe that NRA guy was right, teachers and students should go to school with guns, so that they can defend themselves against the other guns, what a lovely environment for learning calculus.

The difference is that Bob can't kill millions of people.

Sure. Let teachers and students have guns. Why not? The school is such an infantilised environment these days. Schools are preparation for the real world, they are not safe spaces. Teachers and students of college age are responsible enough to be able to handle guns, they can be trusted to do calculus without shooting anybody up. It makes no sense to think that disarming everyone while anyone is free to bring a gun would make the school a safer environment. As I've said, the vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. These people want to go out tripping on power and getting their revenge on society, they don't want their arse handed to them and their last moments to be humiliation as they get shot to death by a gun owner who practices regularly and knows how to defend himself. Most mass shooters aren't millionaires with unlimited funds and years of preparation. Gun ownership deters crime, that's just a fact, ask any criminal of any kind, they don't want to deal with armed citizens, whether the criminals are armed or not. If you frequent liveleak, there are LOTS of videos from Brazil of criminals getting their arse handed to them by off-duty cops with firearms. It's sad that the people of Brazil don't have the same right to defend themselves against the prolific culture of criminality over there. The necessities of self defence might seem trivial to people privileged enough to live in safe European nations, but it's utter hubris to assume that we should throw our rights away because we don't need them at the specific moment.

And no I don't think every random person should be armed. Carry a firearm is a responsibility and a commitment, not everyone is cut out for that. I think there could be a lot of improvements in America regarding a lot of things, responsible use of firearms is always something that could use improvement. However, gun grabbing is not tackling the root of any of the problems.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

The difference is that Bob can't kill millions of people.

Sure. Let teachers and students have guns. Why not? The school is such an infantilised environment these days. Schools are preparation for the real world, they are not safe spaces. Teachers and students of college age are responsible enough to be able to handle guns, they can be trusted to do calculus without shooting anybody up. It makes no sense to think that disarming everyone while anyone is free to bring a gun would make the school a safer environment. As I've said, the vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones. These people want to go out tripping on power and getting their revenge on society, they don't want their arse handed to them and their last moments to be humiliation as they get shot to death by a gun owner who practices regularly and knows how to defend himself. Most mass shooters aren't millionaires with unlimited funds and years of preparation. Gun ownership deters crime, that's just a fact, ask any criminal of any kind, they don't want to deal with armed citizens, whether the criminals are armed or not. If you frequent liveleak, there are LOTS of videos from Brazil of criminals getting their arse handed to them by off-duty cops with firearms. It's sad that the people of Brazil don't have the same right to defend themselves against the prolific culture of criminality over there. The necessities of self defence might seem trivial to people privileged enough to live in safe European nations, but it's utter hubris to assume that we should throw our rights away because we don't need them at the specific moment.

And no I don't think every random person should be armed. Carry a firearm is a responsibility and a commitment, not everyone is cut out for that. I think there could be a lot of improvements in America regarding a lot of things, responsible use of firearms is always something that could use improvement. However, gun grabbing is not tackling the root of any of the problems.

There is a reason why most sensible nations are supporting the gradual decrease of nuclear stockpiles and weapons of mass destruction in general. That's on a state to state level.

On a citizen to citizen level it makes the same sense to de-escalate the amount of destruction one citizen can hold against his peers.

[RubiconDecision]

I am amused that anyone gets fixated on what I write.

A sword can do more damage than a rifle based upon how good a marksmen the person is.

In the American Civil War, it was noted that many soldiers were missing on purpose because it is so awful to kill another. It creates a major psychic scar. In fact the most natural response is to freeze and not shoot at all. And some would shoot and fire so ineffectively as to not do significant damage even to another enemy close to the other.

So basic training is about stripping away the pre-military response so there is no hesitation. Soldiers are not standing perfectly still on stable ground, with no wind, and fully rested and with full bellies, but performing under little sleep, exhausted, staggering, uncertain due to lighting, bad weather, don't have a clear shot, the enemy is moving, are they actually an enemy, etc..

A TANK, wow. That is quite extreme and while I might post some messed up stuff, that rather takes the cake.

[Magnum_Opus]

There is a reason why most sensible nations are supporting the gradual decrease of nuclear stockpiles and weapons of mass destruction in general. That's on a state to state level.

On a citizen to citizen level it makes the same sense to de-escalate the amount of destruction one citizen can hold against his peers.

You might have noticed a distinct lack of world wars since the inception of nuclear weapons. They do their job.

Sure, countries have treaties, the negotiate, and generally try to prevent the world being lunged into a nuclear holocaust. That's a good thing, obviously. But nuclear weapons aren't disappearing any time soon. The technology exists, so the threat exists, so nuclear weapons must exist for the purpose of defence. Though not every country has nuclear weapons, because they don't need to. In the same way that people generally don't carry semi-automatic rifles to church. Not everyone needs to carry to big guns all the time. Then is this drawing a parallel between international politics and the hierarchy of power within a state, like the citizen, the law enforcement, the army, the government, et cetera? No. Diplomacy is voluntary, no country forfeits its sovereignty when it agrees to nuclear non-proliferation. They still have their defence force, which could be seen as the equivalent of a pistol. And they can still pursue nuclear-weapons programs, though this will undoubtedly been seen as aggressive posturing if unmerited, and be met by non-violent forms of resistance - so long as they don't go so far as to represent an imminent threat - like economic sanctions, and it's easy to draw parallels between the interaction of sovereign states and individuals in a society. You wouldn't ask a country to give up its defence force, or give up its right to pursue a nuclear weapons in the face of such threats being imposed against it. Neither should you ask citizens to give up their right to bear arms in the face of a the never-ending possibility of arms being used against them.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

You might have noticed a distinct lack of world wars since the inception of nuclear weapons. They do their job.

Sure, countries have treaties, the negotiate, and generally try to prevent the world being lunged into a nuclear holocaust. That's a good thing, obviously. But nuclear weapons aren't disappearing any time soon. The technology exists, so the threat exists, so nuclear weapons must exist for the purpose of defence. Though not every country has nuclear weapons, because they don't need to. In the same way that people generally don't carry semi-automatic rifles to church. Not everyone needs to carry to big guns all the time. Then is this drawing a parallel between international politics and the hierarchy of power within a state, like the citizen, the law enforcement, the army, the government, et cetera? No. Diplomacy is voluntary, no country forfeits its sovereignty when it agrees to nuclear non-proliferation. They still have their defence force, which could be seen as the equivalent of a pistol. And they can still pursue nuclear-weapons programs, though this will undoubtedly been seen as aggressive posturing if unmerited, and be met by non-violent forms of resistance - so long as they don't go so far as to represent an imminent threat - like economic sanctions, and it's easy to draw parallels between the interaction of sovereign states and individuals in a society. You wouldn't ask a country to give up its defence force, or give up its right to pursue a nuclear weapons in the face of such threats being imposed against it. Neither should you ask citizens to give up their right to bear arms in the face of a the never-ending possibility of arms being used against them.

The US population is in a mini cold war arms race against it self. Don't you see how ridiculous it is for a nation to arm itself so that it has the ability to kill it self?

[Magnum_Opus]

The US population is in a mini cold war arms race against it self. Don't you see how ridiculous it is for a nation to arm itself so that it has the ability to kill it self?

Your statement, frankly, is completely divorced from reality. The has been no arms race of citizens and criminals trying to one-up each other in firepower. Criminals, in general, do not want to get in to shootouts. Even if they completely outclass their victim in terms of firepower and numbers, almost over time they will flee in terror at the first gunshot. I have seen armed criminals fleeing from one guy carrying a machete. No. Your comment is just a completely derivative and bereft of logic. You should check your premises before you presume to make accurate analysis of American gun culture.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Your statement, frankly, is completely divorced from reality. The has been no arms race of citizens and criminals trying to one-up each other in firepower. Criminals, in general, do not want to get in to shootouts. Even if they completely outclass their victim in terms of firepower and numbers, almost over time they will flee in terror at the first gunshot. I have seen armed criminals fleeing from one guy carrying a machete. No. Your comment is just a completely derivative and bereft of logic. You should check your premises before you presume to make accurate analysis of American gun culture.

But you said you need to have assault rifles to deal with other people who have assault rifles and multiple assailants....

Sounds like you are trying to top off your compatriots firepower.