Gun Law Views Inlight of Las Vegas Shooting

Did you miss the past years of the government and local police forces going to war with its people in the streets? BLM and standing rock are at the forefront of my mind. (Not to mention the years that led to BLM needing to exist.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve been to war, and that’s not it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hate that this is used a reason to have semi-automatic weapons. When the Constitution was written it took 90 seconds at least to load a gun and most of the time it was a so how bullet. They had no concept that the law would encompass something that could fire mutliple bullets a second. I tho k they would be appalled. And that's all I have to say because Texas isn't going to say anything I haven't already heard or seen and he doesn't see any validity in what we have to say either. It's always a stalemate.

Actually 20 seconds. 3 shots a minute was the standard.

They also issued those militia units with cannons with grape & canister shells that could easily kill a hundred or more with a single shot.

The founders very intentionally meant for the people to have this power as a counter to govt overreach. By design it is the very last option to come out & would result in break up of the country, and so should almost never be contemplated as something anyone intends to do. But, having the capability makes govt behave differently than if that capability did not exist. Which is exactly what they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually 20 seconds. 3 shots a minute was the standard.

They also issued those militia units with cannons with grape & canister shells that could easily kill a hundred or more with a single shot.

The founders very intentionally meant for the people to have this power as a counter to govt overreach. By design it is the very last option to come out & would result in break up of the country, and so should almost never be contemplated as something anyone intends to do. But, having the capability makes govt behave differently than if that capability did not exist. Which is exactly what they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"A well-trained soldier could load and fire a smoothbore musket two or three times a minute. The elaborate step-by-step infantry drill of the eighteenth century armies was designed to make this possible. The rate of fire fell, however, as the musket became fouled with powder residue and it became harder to ram home the ball and powder charge. Also there was a high misfire rate. Flintlock pistols were functionally identical to the muskets and were loaded in the same manner. They were used mainly by cavalry and were secondary in importance to the trooper's sword, saber or lance."

"A well-trained soldier could load and fire a smoothbore musket two or three times a minute. The elaborate step-by-step infantry drill of the eighteenth century armies was designed to make this possible. The rate of fire fell, however, as the musket became fouled with powder residue and it became harder to ram home the ball and powder charge. Also there was a high misfire rate. Flintlock pistols were functionally identical to the muskets and were loaded in the same manner. They were used mainly by cavalry and were secondary in importance to the trooper's sword, saber or lance."

That’s what I said. 20secs.

Modern weapons become fouled and less functional as they heat up as well. You start to get malfunctions and become less accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually 20 seconds. 3 shots a minute was the standard.

They also issued those militia units with cannons with grape & canister shells that could easily kill a hundred or more with a single shot.

The founders very intentionally meant for the people to have this power as a counter to govt overreach. By design it is the very last option to come out & would result in break up of the country, and so should almost never be contemplated as something anyone intends to do. But, having the capability makes govt behave differently than if that capability did not exist. Which is exactly what they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Canons are a completely different thing and have no bearing on this. Normal American citizens weren't allowed cannons, to that's moot.

No one wants to take away your guns! We just don't want access to weapons of mass murder available to the general public. Australia changed, the UK changed, every other first world country changed after a mass killing by guns but not the US.

That’s what I said. 20secs.

Modern weapons become fouled and less functional as they heat up as well. You start to get malfunctions and become less accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. 2-3 a minute is not a concise/specified 20 seconds. Yes, my 90 seconds was wrong, but so is your 20. And the people who shot 2-3 a minute were extremely well trained soldiers, which isn't your "average American" at the time.

Canons are a completely different thing and have no bearing on this. Normal American citizens weren't allowed cannons, to that's moot.

No one wants to take away your guns! We just don't want access to weapons of mass murder available to the general public. Australia changed, the UK changed, every other first world country changed after a mass killing by guns but not the US.

They certainly were allowed to own cannons (though not real practical), and the govt also issued them at govt expense to local militias who may or may not respond if called up, but had access to them if they decided to rebel. That was the fight at Lexington & concord in the revolution, at gonzales in the Texas Revolution, and how the confederacy suddenly had the means to create a compete army from scratch in a couple months.

I understand your concern, but here’s the problem...

Mass murder is exceptionally rare. Even with the broadest definition that includes a lot of incidents it should not, you’re talking about almost twice as many Americans dying per day from opioids as die in a year from mass attacks.

Of those attacks less than one every two years kills more people than a low capacity pistol magazine.

Also of those attacks, very rarely are the weapons you’re talking about used.

The position you’re taking is the equivalent of there are serious problems in the world, but let’s ignore those and spend trillions to hunt down and kill all sharks in the world cause they’re responsible for a tiny number of deaths a year and you saw a tragic report on tv about an attack.

Handguns, not assault rifles, are the primary gun involved most gun deaths. In most of those cases it’s the 1-6 rounds fired that you could get from a revolver.

I understand your concern, but you’re aiming at the wrong target. The sorts of restrictions you imply that you support have no logical connection to the actual deaths occurring.

The US is by choice fundamentally constitutionally different than other countries. On this point, it cannot both change and survive as a country. Which makes it an impossibility to change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. 2-3 a minute is not a concise/specified 20 seconds. Yes, my 90 seconds was wrong, but so is your 20. And the people who shot 2-3 a minute were extremely well trained soldiers, which isn't your "average American" at the time.

3 shots a minute was the standard sought for a well drilled unit. That’s a couple months of practice before going into combat. Untrained militia could shoot about twice a minute. Some exceptional individuals could do 5. 3 is a good number though as it gives you enough time between loading to take well aimed shots (not that smooth bore muskets were all that accurate). So, on average, it should be about 15-20 seconds to run through a loading cycle.

What’s the point of this though? I can do mag changes in about half a second. I can put an aimed shot through a single shot bolt action rifle every 3 seconds till I physically exhaust myself. An average sport shooter wouldn’t be that far behind me.

Point being, you could restrict to 10 round mags and it’d add 1-2 seconds to the process of firing 30 well aimed shots. You could ban all semiautomatic weapons and an avg to decent shooter could with a single shot bolt action rifle kill well over 200 people in the time the Vegas shooter had. With a couple pistols someone could be even more deadly.

Basically, there is no reasonable gun restriction you could put in place that would matter.

If a person wants to do something like this, it’s not particularly relevant what tool they use. If you take away semiautomatic weapons then they can be just as deadly or more so with other guns. If you could somehow ban all guns, then they’d turn to bombs or whatever other easily accessible tool.

Maybe what we need to be doing is dealing with why people do these insane things in the first place and getting them help before they have the psychological break that pushes them over the edge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you could somehow ban all guns, then they’d turn to bombs or whatever other easily accessible tool.

Wow!  Let's never travel to Australia, then!  I wouldn't want to be blown up.

If the constitution was legally changed then certainly everyone in the military would uphold their oath.

Well you had me worried.

Listen, this is just advice from an old southerner, that secession thing sometimes doesn't go to plan.

If you could somehow ban all guns, then they’d turn to bombs or whatever other easily accessible tool.

The funny thing about having a discussion with you is that it all sounds plausible until the reader reaches the one thing that they personally know about, and realises that what they are reading just doesn't make any sense. 

Here in the UK, they pretty much did ban all guns and we can see in our everyday lives that this makes a massive difference to how many people can be killed at one time by a nutter.  Bombs are not easily accessible as the Parsons Green Tube bomber demonstrated last week.  One person burned and a handful injured is nothing compared to what happened in Vegas.  Most of the Bombs we get in London are duds and making a bomb requires a lot of actions that attract the police.  Barcelona is another example of this. 

Without guns, the terrorists are left with increasingly ineffectual means that are easily countered.  Somebody drives a van into people on a bridge?  Add some concrete barriers and that doesn't work any more. 

So, your argument that without gun control the bad guys would just switch weapons so we shouldn't have it doesn't make much sense to those of us who have real life experience.

I've never had much faith in the argument that the people should have guns to protect us from some tyrannical government.  From gun owner's overwhelming support for Trump and his blatantly unconstitutional Muslim ban, I can only assume the only thing that makes a government tyrannical is taking guns and everything else is just fine.  They seem to enthusiastically support ending the role of the free press as well.  It seems that they are arguing that they must have guns to protect their right to have guns. 

The second argument is that they must have guns to protect themselves.  Statistically, gun owners absolutely suck at that as they mostly use their guns to shoot themselves, or their wives.  Or give them to their kids to shoot themselves.  In return for allowing them to live their Rambo fantasies, society suffers the consequences. 

The third argument seems to be that there's no reason to limit the kinds of guns we can have because I can reload my pistol very fast and that's just as bad as a guy with 27 assault rifles.  What happened in Vegas makes a mockery of that silliness.  For the same reasons we don't allow civilians to have surface to air missiles, we can also limit what kinds of guns they have to a sane level.  I'm not interested in arguing about how difficult that is to define, we've defined it before and we can define it again to a stricter level. 

Contrary to what Margo says, I would like to meet Mr Texas one day for a beer.  We need to have a long talk about choosing your sources for information.  Even People Magazine has some relationship to reality, but Breitbart?  Really?

Contrary to what Margo says, I would like to meet Mr Texas one day for a beer.  We need to have a long talk about choosing your sources for information.  Even People Magazine has some relationship to reality, but Breitbart?  Really?

Yeah, I just end up flustered and upset after encounters with people like Mr Texas. I've had enough of them to want to protect my mental health



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just don't feel like talking to him because he may dredge up statistics, but statistics can be made to say just aboit anything, so you really need to see the actual source. And you can find "facts" from written sources that aren't terribly legit. And then the it's the unwavering inability to see someone else's point of view due to your own cultural bias and privilge. I saw enough of that in college and I hated it.

He brought himself up by his bootstraps and thinks that every single other person could do it his way and there is no excuse not to. Staunch in his beliefs and totally unwilling to see it any other way.

Changing his information as soon as you question/find information that contradicts or disproves what he's saying.
Example: First it was 20 seconds, now it's 12 with no source mentioned. 

His arguments are logical, but it doesn't make them true or right. And which is more important? Logic? Or being true?

Personally, a logical argument that's true is ideal, but I go with truth any day. Simply logical arguments can be completely full of sh*t.

27