Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

Las Vegas Shooting and the Gun Debate

Discussion in 'Channel Zero' started by misteraven, Oct 2, 2017.

  1. One Man Banned

    One Man Banned Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Jan 9, 2013 Messages: 11,136 Likes Received: 1,897
    The media are quite unreliable and clutching at whatever they can to get the story first, why I don't follow these stories until some facts are collected.

    Not sure why being delusional = shakey hands. TYpically in these situations you hear the gunman described as calm, cold, methodical. I assume this guy was and agree with Hua, no one yet knows what was going on in the room.

    Two things make someone like this hard to stop. 1- everyone has secrets, and seeing a shrink doesn't mean you spill all of those to them or anyone. 2- the lone wolf type of person is typicaly isolated. If they set off any warning bells from someone it was probably at a previous time and people separated themselves from the person as being too odd/eccentric/extreme while also holding the belief that the person would never act on what they were saying. In any event, lot of missing info re: motive that will likely come up from searcing phone/e-mail/etc.,etc. very interested to see what drove this.
     
  2. One Man Banned

    One Man Banned Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Jan 9, 2013 Messages: 11,136 Likes Received: 1,897
    Also wondering where Raven went after defending the NRA, as reports now say that the NRA is supposedly on board with passing limitations on bump stocks ...? Still have faith in them? Lost some? Disgusted? Enquiring minds want to know...
     
  3. Brink

    Brink Junior Member

    Joined: Mar 28, 2012 Messages: 196 Likes Received: 58
    At this point its especially hard to determine motive, simply because the main source of that information is dead.

    Even so, im not sure how determining motive would help us progress further with preventing this sort of thing from happening again?
     
  4. misteraven

    misteraven Administrator

    Joined: May 7, 1999 Messages: 8,773 Likes Received: 312
    Seems a post of mine is missing so will try to get back to a few comments later.

    In regards to your comment above... That's not necessarily true as there's a difference between muzzle loaders, which is what anti-gun crowds usually claim is all that existed and muskets, which was a single loaded smooth bore gun. Reality is that the weapons of the era, particularly combined with the science and medicine of the era did catastrophic damage in almost every instance. But truth is that small arms technology and military tactics we're evolving at a far faster pace in that century than what we've seen in the last 100 years. Guerilla Warfare being amongst the most notable.

    However, this doesn't speak to the reason that they decided that citizens being armed was the second most important right for a free society. You have to remember that at the founding of this nation, the people of the day paid a very heavy price to earn their independence and freedom. They we're vehemently distrustful of government and fought amongst themselves for years before reaching the consensus that government was a necessary evil and how they can form a new one while protecting individual freedom from a government that knew was going to evolve and grow stronger and eventually begin infringing upon the freedom and rights of the people. These days, we seem to think the United States Constitution, and namely the Bill of Rights portion of it, spells out all the rules that we as a people must follow. The reality is that the document was created to constrain the government with the hopes that there would be enough checks and balances to ensure we'd never fall victim to the constraints on individual liberty that we had just fought so hard to win. This process began with the Articles of Confederation, which collapsed in on itself because it limited government to such a degree that it could not operate properly. This began the process of debating a new version, which became the United States Contrition. In order to ratify the constitution, however, they all had to agree on a Bill of Rights beforehand, which in turn was mostly an amalgam of the Bill of Rights that each of the initial states had already put into place.

    Keep in mind that each state was free to do its own thing at this time and we're very weary to enter into any type of agreement to give up that autonomy to anyone else, especially a centralized government that was seated far away enough (considering the transportation of the era) to might as well be England. Even though they were largely spawned from very similar ideologies and all had participated in the fighting and sacrifices that led to independence, you can imagine how jealous they were to preserve this new found freedom. They all knew that this new government would eventually grow and that all government power comes directly from the freedom of the people, so to help preserve their rights they created a Bill of Rights and Constitution over a span of about 3 years worth of debate and revision before finally getting ratified. The only way they could pull this off was to ensure that the Bill of Rights could never be rescinded and the only way to ensure that was to declare that those first 10 amendments we're in fact rights granted by God. These days we dismiss it as them being puritans or highly religious, but you can actually read the minutes to those hearings, as well as all the corresponding newspaper articles (often penned by the person actually proposing or advocating the issue), many notes of correspondence that were preserved, as well as plenty of auto biographies and biographies written at that time what . their intent was and why they framed things the way they did. They were wise enough to include a method to amend the Constitution further, but only the first 10 amendments, which collectively form the Bill of Rights, we're intended to be untouchable. This is why the United States is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy (crazy how many people don't know this). We have 10 unbreakable guiding principles and then everything else gets to be voted on beyond this.

    Anyhow, personally I believe the original intention for those first 10 amendments are as valid today (if not more so) than the day they were ratified and if you go through and read the manuscripts and debate that led to the legislation you'll likely be pretty blown away by how much of what they were concerned with has come to pass or is in the process of happening now. In any case, in order to remove any of the first amendments would literally require dissolving the United States and creating a new charter.

    This said, your comment also brings up another issue which is both that all the way through until the Korean War, conflicts created unimaginable death counts. Again, coupled with the science and medicine especially, any type of gunshot was almost always a death sentence. These days, no so much. In fact, all branches of the United States military is moving away from the 5.56 NATO round (slightly hotter charge) than the civilian version which is the .223 because its considered a puny round. Basically its the diameter of a .22 rifle (which I had when I was like 12), except its longer and has more powder packed into the cartridge. Though its legal to hunt with an AR-15, few people do so because its considered cruel to the animal due to how often it doesn't bring it down. Instead, hunters are using exponentially more capable calibers like 30-06, which ironically nobody ever talks about.

    Adding further context to this, gun control people have been going nuts over the AR platform for a couple decades now despite the fact that a small percentage of gun crimes are executed with long guns and only a fraction of those are carried out with an AR-15. Putting that further into perspective, you have about 11,000 firearms deaths in the USA (not counting suicide, which is rarely carried out with a rifle, let alone an AR-15) with about 70% of that being criminal on criminal violence. Included in that other 30% is justifiable homicides, whether carried out by police in the line of duty or legally permitted gun owners protecting themselves. I won't go into why nobody ever bothers to address gang violence in places like Chicago, Detroit and LA that actually make up most of that aforementioned 70%, but also that there's literally tens of millions of dollars being spent by guys like Michael Bloomberg on this and being sold to us as having reached epidemic levels, when its not in the top 10 reasons why people die in the USA. Call it crass, but compared to shit like heart disease which is preventable with diet and exercise yet claimed over 600,000 people in 2016, Cancer which killed 595,000+ people that same year, respiratory disease which killed another 147,000+ people that year, etc, etc... Much of it attributed to smoking and second hand smoke, yet cigarettes, shit diets and all the major catalysts for those illnesses aren't on the 24-7 news cycle. Think about that for a bit and question why that is.

    Also, not to ride off the reservation, but anyone take the time to read any of the data dumps that led Edward Snowden to fleeing the USA? Anyhow, getting pretty far off topic, but can't help but question everything I hear considering the depth of the deception put forth by those in office if you were to believe even a fraction of whats in those documents. And considering they never bothered to claim them as false and instead tried to say you'd be arrested if you went to the site or were in possession of copies of that data, kinda hard to dismiss it.
     
  5. misteraven

    misteraven Administrator

    Joined: May 7, 1999 Messages: 8,773 Likes Received: 312
    You know, sounds like a conspiracy in itself but the term 'conspiracy theory' was actually developed by government to try to dilute the effectiveness of having people question a particular narrative, namely the 'official' one. It was developed and really gained traction during the Warren Commission to try and derail all the dissent regarding the government's final report on the JFK assassination.

    Not that it really matters, as evidenced by the Edward Snowden whistle blowing where nobody went to jail, no meaningful changes were made and the only person looking bad was the guy that reported it, but conspiracy 'theory' doesn't seem to have any impact even when it becomes conspiracy 'fact'.
     
  6. misteraven

    misteraven Administrator

    Joined: May 7, 1999 Messages: 8,773 Likes Received: 312
    I wasn't defending the NRA and not that its really anyone's business but I'm actually not a member despite my strong advocacy for the second amendment (and the other 9 that make up our Bill of Rights). In regards to bump stocks, to my knowledge I'm unaware when the NRA has previously mentioned anything about them. That issue should be addressed by the BATF, which is one of the reasons they exist. Previous to this incident, they'd issued a decision that said they weren't to be regulated as a class 3 item like a machine again. I have no dount they'll revise their decision on that, in which case they'll be a regulated item or outright banned under existing firearm's law. That's how that is supposed to work, not that you'd know it watching the bullshit on the news.

    My personal opinion on them is that they're dangerous. If you know how they work, you know they basically force a mechanical malfunction of a firearm that turns it from semi-auto to full auto. I've been present several times when a fun has had a malfunction like this, which usually leads to a 2 - 3 rounds firing on a single trigger pull before the person freaks out and lets go of the trigger. I believe Sig recalled the early MPX's because they were prone to this malfunction. Problem I see with them is that most firearms are built to be full auto, so there's a lot of other parts that can fail as a result leading to injury and death.

    This being said, I am not against actual full auto weapons. Reason is that under the second amendment, and later the militia act of 1792 (and plenty of contextual documents relating to both) that we're supposed to have the right to the same weaponry carried by the average soldier. (No the average soldier does now carry a rocket launcher, know how to fire SKUD missiles or have access to the nuclear arsenal). An assault weapon is obviously a weapon used for assaults by military personnel. There is no standing army on earth that issues an AR-15 and to my knowledge none that limits access to select fire weapons. In any case, having a full auto weapon illegally is dumb easy and if you google how to convert (probably get you flagged in some mainframe in the desert) you'll see a ton of info and realize it takes a couple minutes and less than a $1 worth of materials to accomplish. On the other hand, owning one legally requires an extensive process to get a class 3 license and then about $20,000 minimum to buy a registered pre ban (older than 1986) machine gun. I know a lot of dudes that are super into guns, but have only known two people that have owned machine guns. One was the son of the founder of Arizona Ice Tea, which is sort of the tax bracket you probably need to be in to buy one and still own anything else like a car, house and more than one change of clothes.
     
  7. misteraven

    misteraven Administrator

    Joined: May 7, 1999 Messages: 8,773 Likes Received: 312
    Fact is there wasn't shit anyone could have done here. Gun control people would like to think if we could somehow actually ban guns it wouldn't have happened but truth is that this guy was methodical and took his time to figure out how to inflict a lot of damage for as long as possible. If anyone has ever shot a pistol they know that the shit you see on TV where two dudes are in a firefight from a block away and still manage to kill, that its pretty much straight fiction. I've been ranges countless times and the average person can hardly hit black at 7 yards on a static paper target. Imagine pushing out to even 50 yards when you're running, breathing hard, your heart is hammering out of your chest and your hands are shaking from adrenalin dump. As much as I advocate for legal / responsible gun ownership, nobody armed on the ground would have done much, with the possibility of laying suppressive fire down to slow shit down a bit for more people to get away. Willing to bet this guy was set back deep into the room so maybe you get a little strobe from muzzle flash, likely hidden by the fact that were actually lights strobing as part of the building / concert. Seeing as how they were surrounded by buildings, I have no doubt that the sound was bouncing all over the place making it near impossible to triangulate its origin and then there's the actual trigonometry issues of a taking a precision shit at an upward angle with a pistol round that doesn't have the ballistics to be in any way effective for a shot like that. I've heard none of this on the news, even though it would probably help support the gun control argument, but point I'm making is that evil fucking exists people. When it shows up, you hope to be able to put up a fight and I'd assume everyone would appreciate a method to equalize the situation if able. In this particular case it simply would not have been possible and no matter what a lot of people were going to die. Hopefully the next time, and there will be a next time for sure, the dynamics will be different and hopefully someone will be able to put a bullet in the fuckin guys brain pan before he does much damage.
     
  8. leftwinghack

    leftwinghack Member

    Joined: Oct 25, 2006 Messages: 822 Likes Received: 6
    Less pharmaceuticals would help. Antidepressants make people rampage.
    More laws is not the answer. I could take out a bunch of people with a hammer. i throw rocks pretty good too ...... it a difficult scenario. Bless the people
     
  9. theprotester

    theprotester Moderator Crew

    Joined: Dec 8, 2006 Messages: 10,835 Likes Received: 828
    You could not kill 59 people with a hammer and a rock.
     
  10. leftwinghack

    leftwinghack Member

    Joined: Oct 25, 2006 Messages: 822 Likes Received: 6
    true.. tho a gun is an intimate object until a madman starts firing. a hammer is the same thing. i bet in a concert of 22,000 with a hammer in both hands i could get a few dozen heads cracked.. im a pretty big dude..
     
  11. Hua Guofang

    Hua Guofang Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Oct 29, 2013 Messages: 1,759 Likes Received: 368
    Seriously, not to be a prick to you dude but if you think a hammer and a fully automatic rifle at 200 yards are comparable then you've got hammers in your head.
     
  12. theprotester

    theprotester Moderator Crew

    Joined: Dec 8, 2006 Messages: 10,835 Likes Received: 828
  13. Hua Guofang

    Hua Guofang Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Oct 29, 2013 Messages: 1,759 Likes Received: 368
    That is just not true (not counting extreme positions and shallow media).

    It's about decreasing the ease and the likelihood of it occuring. As you said in the other thread, you can't stop everything and trying to do so is rarely the position for any reasonable argument either side of the debate. It's about reducing risk, increasing the difficulty and putting procedures in place that can indicate when risk is increasing past tolerable levels.

    There is always a level of tolerable risk, as we know cars and trucks can do equivalent amounts of damage but cars provide a massive benefit to society and we find ways to manage the risk to tolerable levels. Gun control is the same. Sucks that we can't all have 50 cals to blast on our farms but it's an acceptable loss in order to manage intolerable risk. The risk is the likelihood and the consequences of events like Vegas occurring. Nope, can't stop them altogether but you can at least do your best to manage that risk.

    Cue liberty discussions.....
     
  14. One Man Banned

    One Man Banned Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Jan 9, 2013 Messages: 11,136 Likes Received: 1,897

    Was more interested in your previously stated position that any control is a movement toward complete removal of your rights, so would have expected disapproval by you toward the NRA supporting tighter controls or a possible ban. Glad you're into responsible ownership but again, seems to conflict a little with the idea that people have the right to arms and that shouldn't be infringed upon. I doubt the NRA has had anything to say about bump stocks in the past other than fire off another few rounds, although I know there are members who are very safety oriented and would not like something like a bump stock for the reasons you mentioned. Anyhow the NRA may have conceded so quickly because the issue with the bump stock is that it's classified as a part, not a firearm, so it can be banned far more easily, probably not a fight they could win. Know full well about the full auto conversion, someone will do that next down the line and then people will be up in arms about that, pun intended.
     
  15. One Man Banned

    One Man Banned Dirty Dozen Crew

    Joined: Jan 9, 2013 Messages: 11,136 Likes Received: 1,897
    Think the real argument would be that handguns are for close up, rifles are for distance. Would be an extremely difficult and likely pointless (other than suppression) shot with a pistol, and at night, but for what it's worth, I know several guys who regularly ring the steel target at 50+ yards with a .45, I'm impressed by it every time.
     
Top