Vegas shooting

[timmytree]

This.

It doesn't seem to matter what type of gun is owned, to those who don't 'get' guns or shooting. Some just automatically think 'nutter' or 'walt'; whereas when they get to know me start to realise I'm a normal bloke leading a normal life

With normal kids and normal everyday cares who just sees guns as fabulous fun.

I would love to totally destroy a scrap car or truck with a .50 cal from long range! To me it's the equivalent of catapulting stones at all those scrap cars we would find on the local tip as kids!

 

Can I put my mother in law in the front seat?

[Scully]

 

Can I put my mother in law in the front seat?

😃 That's not for me to say.

[wymberley]

This.

It doesn't seem to matter what type of gun is owned, to those who don't 'get' guns or shooting. Some just automatically think 'nutter' or 'walt'; whereas when they get to know me start to realise I'm a normal bloke leading a normal life

With normal kids and normal everyday cares who just sees guns as fabulous fun.

I would love to totally destroy a scrap car or truck with a .50 cal from long range! To me it's the equivalent of catapulting stones at all those scrap cars we would find on the local tip as kids!

Shooting at a Lightning aircraft with a Brenneke through a 12 bore with the intention of doing as much damage as possible comes a close second.

[MrM]

Most gun owning Americans would oppose any form of gun control because it infringes their rights as stipulated in the 2nd Amendment.

Don't forget that many of those that were in the concert in Vegas are likely to be fully paid up members of the NRA.

 

Absolutely most gun owning Americans would oppose any form of control - my point is that If the US government did manage to bring in control of such weapons, I do not believe that the majority of these individuals would consciously want to become a criminal. Say for example you have a gun owning lawyer who's hobbies include going into the desert and firing off his semi automatic - would he risk his profession by refusing to hand it in if it became illegal?

 

Don't get me wrong - it will need a massive and maybe impossible sea change in the US and an appetite to face-off the NRA.

[timmytree]

That's not for me to say.

I'll pay for your ammo if I can watch?

[Scully]

Shooting at a Lightning aircraft with a Brenneke through a 12 bore with the intention of doing as much damage as possible comes a close second.

Sounds great! 👍

 

Absolutely most gun owning Americans would oppose any form of control - my point is that If the US government did manage to bring in control of such weapons, I do not believe that the majority of these individuals would consciously want to become a criminal. Say for example you have a gun owning lawyer who's hobbies include going into the desert and firing off his semi automatic - would he risk his profession by refusing to hand it in if it became illegal?

 

Don't get me wrong - it will need a massive and maybe impossible sea change in the US and an appetite to face-off the NRA.

Fair enough.

I'll pay for your ammo if I can watch?

Tempting, but.......🙂

[timmytree]

Sounds great!

Fair enough.

Tempting, but.......

No repercussions I promise, we can say you were big game hunting, she looks like a warthog anyway!

[wymberley]

Sounds great!

Fair enough.

Tempting, but.......

All legit'. A well placed shot, apart from the skin, can take out engine/flying controls, electrical cable looms, fuel pipes, etc, etc, ready for someone to come along and have to practice their battle damage repair techniques. Obviously on fatigue ex' aircraft.

[Scully]

No repercussions I promise, we can say you were big game hunting, she looks like a warthog anyway!

😂

All legit'. A well placed shot, apart from the skin, can take out engine/flying controls, electrical cable looms, fuel pipes, etc, etc, ready for someone to come along and have to practice their battle damage repair techniques. Obviously on fatigue ex' aircraft.

Brilliant!

[tetlee]

There are many obstacles in the way of gun control in America, even if the rights embodied within the Second Amendment are put aside for a moment. The arms industry is vast, employing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. Think of all the gun manufacturers and then add people like Hornady and all the other ammunition manufacturers. Then we can start on MagPul and other makers of add on kit, then optics...and so on.

 

Any control which affects the turnover, the numbers of weapons and kit available on the market, means big scale redundancies and that means Politicians losing votes and significantly the financial backing for the 'Party Funds' which the arms makers donate towards huge campaign expenses for those Politicians who are 'on side.'

 

When firearms restrictions came into force in the UK some companies suffered, others simply closed down (Three gun shops that I can think of in my area alone) Gun ownership or gun characteristics/design restrictions in the US have far reaching effects. The manual trigger lock and keyhole on Smith&Wesson revolvers (and others) required under Californian Law ( amusingly it's commonly referred to as Hillary's hole) resulted in some manufacturers simply refusing to supply their weapons to California with the resulting uproar from dealers within California. The 10 round maximum magazine capacity rule in some States produced even more fireworks politically especially at State levels

 

Like many things, at the bottom of arguments about US gun control, under common sense, morals and revised Constitution guarantees, lies money...millions of Dollars..and that may rule the day...Now there's a surprise...

[Scully]

There are many obstacles in the way of gun control in America, even if the rights embodied within the Second Amendment are put aside for a moment. The arms industry is vast, employing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. Think of all the gun manufacturers and then add people like Hornady and all the other ammunition manufacturers. Then we can start on MagPul and other makers of add on kit, then optics...and so on.

 

Any control which affects the turnover, the numbers of weapons and kit available on the market, means big scale redundancies and that means Politicians losing votes and significantly the financial backing for the 'Party Funds' which the arms makers donate towards huge campaign expenses for those Politicians who are 'on side.'

 

When firearms restrictions came into force in the UK some companies suffered, others simply closed down (Three gun shops that I can think of in my area alone) Gun ownership or gun characteristics/design restrictions in the US have far reaching effects. The manual trigger lock and keyhole on Smith&Wesson revolvers (and others) required under Californian Law ( amusingly it's commonly referred to as Hillary's hole) resulted in some manufacturers simply refusing to supply their weapons to California with the resulting uproar from dealers within California. The 10 round maximum magazine capacity rule in some States produced even more fireworks politically especially at State levels

 

Like many things, at the bottom of arguments about US gun control, under common sense, morals and revised Constitution guarantees, lies money...millions of Dollars..and that may rule the day...Now there's a surprise...

Good points and relevant points.

[Rewulf]

 

Absolutely most gun owning Americans would oppose any form of control - my point is that If the US government did manage to bring in control of such weapons, I do not believe that the majority of these individuals would consciously want to become a criminal. Say for example you have a gun owning lawyer who's hobbies include going into the desert and firing off his semi automatic - would he risk his profession by refusing to hand it in if it became illegal?

 

Don't get me wrong - it will need a massive and maybe impossible sea change in the US and an appetite to face-off the NRA.

 

Around one third of US household have a gun, dress it up however you like, thats a lot of votes.

[Paul1440]

Why does anyone want more than 10 rounds in a Magazine??

Any legal quarry that a rifle is used for if not hit has pretty well got the message and bguuered off after the noise of the first shot. Deff gone after a second.

Paper targets are a bit more stubborn but are patient enough to let you reload at leasure.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Paul1440

[Rewulf]

Why does anyone want more than 10 rounds in a Magazine??

Any legal quarry that a rifle is used for if not hit has pretty well got the message and bguuered off after the noise of the first shot. Deff gone after a second.

Paper targets are a bit more stubborn but are patient enough to let you reload at leasure.

 

Why would you want 10 , surely 5 is enough ?

No, actually 1 is plenty, you can always put another one in cant you ?

And why do people want these 'black rifles' who needs a gun that looks like an assault rifle ?

***, words fail me, all shooters together ? You might as well give them up now.

[Scully]

Why does anyone want more than 10 rounds in a Magazine??

Any legal quarry that a rifle is used for if not hit has pretty well got the message and bguuered off after the noise of the first shot. Deff gone after a second.

Paper targets are a bit more stubborn but are patient enough to let you reload at leasure.

Knowingly or not, you've just presented a logical and rational case for the abolition of all magazine fed firearms, both in the US and UK.

That said; you're not looking at it from the perspective of a NRA member.

[Whitebridges]

The world doesn't seem to bother putting political pressure on the yanks to change their constitution.

 

On the other hand America puts political pressure on other parts of the world regarding human rights etc.etc. They can't lead this way they are so unbending when it comes to real change. They think the world should change and yet consistently permit murder on an increasing scale in their own back yard.

 

I had the misfortune to see some of the carnage on the TV and thought. Do you know what? Some #### **** little poxy dive hole countries wouldn't let behaviour like that continue. And the might of America did. ******* well shape up.

 

Pull your finger out of your ******** Mr Trump because we are more than fed up listening to the old fashioned ******** regarding dumb citizens bearing arms and killing one another.

 

I think your gasket will blow and you'll start lobbing missiles at N Korea because it's easier to do this rather than bin your ridiculous gun laws.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Whitebridges

[SpringDon]

Absolutely most gun owning Americans would oppose any form of control - my point is that If the US government did manage to bring in control of such weapons, I do not believe that the majority of these individuals would consciously want to become a criminal. Say for example you have a gun owning lawyer who's hobbies include going into the desert and firing off his semi automatic - would he risk his profession by refusing to hand it in if it became illegal?

 

Don't get me wrong - it will need a massive and maybe impossible sea change in the US and an appetite to face-off the NRA.

I sort of agree but also agree with freedom of choice. What if gun owning lawyer did nothing else but fire on the range, was a pillar of the community and had no record whatsoever; why should he be turned into a criminal over night?

Should society move inexorably to rules framed for the slowest and most stupid? (No , I my opinion)

[ordnance]

Why does anyone want more than 10 rounds in a Magazine??

Any legal quarry that a rifle is used for if not hit has pretty well got the message and bguuered off after the noise of the first shot. Deff gone after a second.

Paper targets are a bit more stubborn but are patient enough to let you reload at leasure.

 

Shooting competitions IPSC practical rifle pistol etc.

[Breastman]

Why does anyone want more than 10 rounds in a Magazine??

Any legal quarry that a rifle is used for if not hit has pretty well got the message and bguuered off after the noise of the first shot. Deff gone after a second.

Paper targets are a bit more stubborn but are patient enough to let you reload at leasure.

Sorry but when shooters come out with things like this you sound as (polite mode engaged) ill-informed as a full-on anti-gun mumsnetter. Magazine capacity is next to irrelevant if the murderer is even half way competent at reloading the gun anyway, and in the vast majority of cases are shooting up somewhere defenceless so the time between changing magazines is even more irrelevant.

[bostonmick]

There was a news report on tv last night where a gunshop owner was asked why do you need military weapons.the reply was well our government has got them so I want them.the American government also has nuclear weapons are we going to see the ordinary American installing these for self defense using that rationale.

[Scully]

There was a news report on tv last night where a gunshop owner was asked why do you need military weapons.the reply was well our government has got them so I want them.the American government also has nuclear weapons are we going to see the ordinary American installing these for self defense using that rationale.

The thinking behind that statement is based on American citizens being able to make a stand against a hostile government, a theory I can understand.

There are many examples throughout history and the world over of armed government led troops and enforcement bodies riding roughshod over unarmed civilians, including ethnic cleansing.

I'm not aware of any country which has deliberately detonated a nuclear device in its own country to control its own citizens.

It's an American thing.

[wymberley]

The thinking behind that statement is based on American citizens being able to make a stand against a hostile government, a theory I can understand.

There are many examples throughout history and the world over of armed government led troops and enforcement bodies riding roughshod over unarmed civilians, including ethnic cleansing.

I'm not aware of any country which has deliberately detonated a nuclear device in its own country to control its own citizens.

It's an American thing.

Nah, they're too smart for that. It would register on the Richter scale anywhere someone is monitoring earthquake activity. They just gas 'em instead.

[Scully]

Nah, they're too smart for that. It would register on the Richter scale anywhere someone is monitoring earthquake activity. They just gas 'em instead.

Yes. After first rounding them up; because they have guns, whereas the ones being rounded up don't.

[ordnance]

I see this on the news.

 

 

The National Rifle Association has called for "additional regulations" on bump-stocks, a rapid fire device used by the Las Vegas massacre gunman.

[bostonmick]

The thinking behind that statement is based on American citizens being able to make a stand against a hostile government, a theory I can understand.

There are many examples throughout history and the world over of armed government led troops and enforcement bodies riding roughshod over unarmed civilians, including ethnic cleansing.

I'm not aware of any country which has deliberately detonated a nuclear device in its own country to control its own citizens.

It's an American thing.

The constitution in as far as the right to bear arms is no longer fit for purpose in this day and age.the right to hold a musket and pistol was never intended for today's society or weapons.also what part of the American constitution was this lunatic upholding when he decided to destroy so many innocent lives.its also a great shame that while the USA will likely do nothing as a result of this latest incident. We will have the law makers looking to tighten further our rules so as to prevent this type of thing happening here.strange old world really.