Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Donward

Terror Attacks and Active Shooter Events Thread

Recommended Posts

TBH it makes a lot of sense to me, how can you claim to be a serious shooter and then fuck your weapon up by fitting one of those things.....I'm pretty impressed with the NRA on this one TBH. 

 

Surely this legislation will push the value of the serious shooters' pre-86 gear up a little further.....Can't be all bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

TBH it makes a lot of sense to me, how can you claim to be a serious shooter and then fuck your weapon up by fitting one of those things.....I'm pretty impressed with the NRA on this one TBH. 

 

Surely this legislation will push the value of the serious shooters' pre-86 gear up a little further.....Can't be all bad?

 

 

That's all irrelevant compared to the real problem with gun control in the US (besides the fact that it doesn't reduce crime): Each side in the debate is engaged in a culture war with the other, and the NRA just gave ground to people who take a mile when you give an inch.

Bad move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a feeling that might be an issue.....Really don't know enough to have an opinion, just hope you guys can get it sorted.  Intriguing as these threads are, they are also kind of depressing.

 

1 hour ago, Collimatrix said:

The article also notes that five people were arrested in an unrelated bombing plot.

 

It was one weird bombing plot IIRC, the bombs were apparently as much dumped as placed outside the building.....Another one for the 'odd file'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I had a feeling that might be an issue.....Really don't know enough to have an opinion, just hope you guys can get it sorted.  Intriguing as these threads are, they are also kind of depressing.

 

This comic accurately conveys gun owners' feelings on the matter:

 

Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png

 

And this article illustrates some of the issues with "compromise".

 

Basically, the gun control movement in the US has behaved like a giant hungry slime mold, and gun owners are generally no longer willing to compromise with them at all. What is interesting is that they are still interested in compromise, but not when it's a one-sided deal proposed by an anti-gun or left-wing person:

 

xvjmptY.png

bScBlCb.png

 

The differences here is that what I proposed is a TRUE compromise where each side gives and takes, rather than just a "plz gib cake" proposal, and that I am well known as a gun person (and therefore assumed to be pro-gun, although I don't think I'd characterize myself like that). So it's partially the "only Nixon could go to China" effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it goes @Ulric talked me through more or less the same proposal you made and it seemed a bloody sensible idea to me, especially if some degree of on-going scrutiny of the weapon owners is accepted as part of the deal (IMHO of course). 

 

PS - That open letter might be better without the constant repetition of the word 'silencer', it conjures up too many images of black clad assassins IMHO.  The rest seems pretty sensible, but I'd agree that the chances of that sort of compromise under the present circumstances are slim to none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That open letter might be better without the constant repetition of the word 'silencer',

 

I use "silencer" from habit of trying to troll autistic gun people all the time (AKSCHUALLY IT'S CALLED A SUPPRESSOR *snort*)

 

Also, "silencer" is what its inventor called it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I had a feeling that might be an issue.....Really don't know enough to have an opinion, just hope you guys can get it sorted.  Intriguing as these threads are, they are also kind of depressing.

 

 

It was one weird bombing plot IIRC, the bombs were apparently as much dumped as placed outside the building.....Another one for the 'odd file'.

 

Here is more on that bombing plot.

 

The plot was strange in that it was wildly amateurish and incompetently executed, but it makes more sense when you consider how Al Qaeda operates now.  They don't work the same way they did sixteen years ago.

This article, which I linked before, gives a lot more insight.  Islamic terrorism of yesteryear was more of a top-down, cellular operation.  There was a loose chain of command, and there were cells.  Information was shared on a limited basis to prevent the collapse of the entire organization if one portion were compromised.  Attacks would be carried out by teams from within the organization, and usually planned by someone with expertise.

The plans were pretty elaborate too.  As you may recall, synchronized, multiple bombings were a calling card for Al Qaeda in the 1990s and early 2000s.  To say nothing of 9/11.  The attacks were tightly controlled and choreographed, showy and ambitious.

Nowadays, they've moved more towards what you might call a "franchise" model.  There are a lot of dumb, hopeless young men out there who have absolutely no life prospects.  The Y chromosome is just that way.  We're an overwhelming percentage of the leaders, physicists and poets, and also an overwhelming percentage of the useless scumbags.

Dumb, hopeless young men will latch on to anything that gives them an identity, no matter how stupid it is.  Some become hippies, some become flat earthers, some ironically worship Trumpsatan and accuse people who cut grapefruits the wrong way of being heretics*, and some percentage of dumb, hopeless young men become Islamists.  Like the rest of the dumb, hopeless young men who get involved with stupid causes, they talk about it a lot on the internet.

Once they're on the internet, extremist groups try to encourage them into actually planning and committing an attack.  Not only that, they can connect them with a network of support assets like weapons suppliers.  Unlike the old model, nobody needs to meet each other IRL.  They can coordinate their plans entirely online.  The handoff of weapons and cash can be done through dead drops (the article above gives examples of this).  None of the foot soldiers know each other, and thanks to the wonders of modern asymmetric key encryption, the electronic communication is hard for counter-terror organizations to penetrate.

 

The advantage for the terror organization is that they're a lot more distributed and a lot harder to break.  The disadvantage for the terror organization is that they don't get to pick and train their candidates for the attack teams.  They're stuck with pretty much whomever wanders into their tentacles and becomes their drones, and as I've said, the people who do are overwhelmingly idiots.  So, they've evolved.  They're harder to wipe out, and they can potentially stage a lot of attacks for relatively little effort, but each attack is likely to be less effective.



*I am making this joke or else @Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I feel like this entire gun control thing has went off the rails. People have no idea what they want. They want it black and white. 

So why don't we try and map out what people want and how this can be accomplished with gun control. 

 

First off, gun control activist want to reduce the deaths and damage caused by guns every year I presume. 

 

Let's take take the 11 000 figure rounded down because I am lazy. This is the biggest and easiest problem to fix, as the others are user faults and requires prohibitively expensive and complex solutions. Suicides are irrelevant since the reason of suicide is not the gun, take the Netherlands where 40% are done with death by tram, are trams the issue here? No.

 

Ok, now, what type of guns kill people the most? According to you guys, 90% deaths are caused by handguns. This equates to 9 900 deaths, the only way to reduce this by removing guns is the ban all gun sales, which is not doable, since I am pretty sure no country has ever done this, and since we are talking about Murica, the land of guns, this is in practice impossible. 

 

What about banning all other guns? Machineguns, ARs, shotguns, etc. You would then reduce deaths by 10%, or 1100 deaths. Honestly, not really a impressive figure, and lets think about this realistically, how did actually a more powerful firearm aid the killer in these 10%? Not much, and the actual reduction would be much lower.

 

What other solutions do we have? Licence regulations. Most mass shootings are caused by unstable or mentally ill individuals, scrubbing them out of the system would make a impact, banning semi-automatic guns, not sure how.  A license regulation if properly done should be happily accepted by gun rights activist, since it still allows legal gun owners to own almost anything they want, if they qualify for it.  Yes, licenses could be regulated like cars. A hunting licence for a proper rifle, either semi or bolt action depending on hunting regulations, and regulations regarding magazine size, since you do not need a 100 rounds drum mag to shot that one bullet through the dear's heart and lungs. Sub classes would exist, like small game and large game.  
A self defense carry license, for handguns only. Why? Because out of practicality, you want something small with enough power to scare away the attacker, a  semi 9mm pistol (or 45. ACP  and similar) should do, having a MG3 on your back that you want to deploy and cock before use is not. For target shooting, shotguns, rifles and pistols manufactured for this purpose would be allowed in a target shooting licence, with sub classes for each type of weapon. For joy shooters, basically the people that buy a MG with a ammunition back pack just for the joy of shooting it downrange, you could have a collectors licence. It would again come in sub classes depending on the type of weaponry. 

Licences would be renewed every so often, require membership in a club, allow random check ups, regular use and to be revoked by the club or government if the individual is not deemed fit to operate the firearm. 

 

In a very pro gun activist version of this, we could reduce gun related deaths, and allow gun owners to own machine guns, rifles, shotguns, ect. 

 

If we legalize many banned guns, we could effectively kill the black market. Though, some guns should be soft banned, no using a 14,5mm HMG to hunt, or a anti-material rifle for self-defense, or a automatic AR as something you can carry around on your back anywhere.  This is honestly up to you guys, since you know what type of guns people want. 

 

Lastly, i have to say this biometric safety thing sounds like bullshit. How is the sensor supposed to stop the owner from firing the gun? With a small lock or restricting the firing pin? This can easily be bypassed by removing the lock. The only reason this works in cars is because they have a computer inside that requires a specific code, or else they won't unlock the steering wheel, spray fuel into the engine, open the throttle body, and such.  I have maintained a few rifles and they are simply too simple to have such a system, it could work on a railgun or a coilgun, but not on a chemically operated gun. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Xoon said:

What other solutions do we have? Licence regulations. Most mass shootings are caused by unstable or mentally ill individuals, scrubbing them out of the system would make a impact, banning semi-automatic guns, not sure how.  A license regulation if properly done should be happily accepted by gun rights activist, since it still allows legal gun owners to own almost anything they want, if they qualify for it.  Yes, licenses could be regulated like cars. A hunting licence for a proper rifle, either semi or bolt action depending on hunting regulations, and regulations regarding magazine size, since you do not need a 100 rounds drum mag to shot that one bullet through the dear's heart and lungs. Sub classes would exist, like small game and large game.  
A self defense carry license, for handguns only. Why? Because out of practicality, you want something small with enough power to scare away the attacker, a  semi 9mm pistol (or 45. ACP  and similar) should do, having a MG3 on your back that you want to deploy and cock before use is not. For target shooting, shotguns, rifles and pistols manufactured for this purpose would be allowed in a target shooting licence, with sub classes for each type of weapon. For joy shooters, basically the people that buy a MG with a ammunition back pack just for the joy of shooting it downrange, you could have a collectors licence. It would again come in sub classes depending on the type of weaponry. 

Licences would be renewed every so often, require membership in a club, allow random check ups, regular use and to be revoked by the club or government if the individual is not deemed fit to operate the firearm. 

 

In a very pro gun activist version of this, we could reduce gun related deaths, and allow gun owners to own machine guns, rifles, shotguns, ect. 

 

An overwhelming majority of the guns used in crimes are stolen.  And not necessarily "hurr durr, some idiot didn't lock up their shit in a safe and had a ROB ME FIRST! NRA sticker on their car."  No, stolen like, "a gang of foot soldiers for a Mexican drug empire boosted a truck, crashed it into a gun store, jackhammered the pistol display cases open, and within five days all the serial numbers had been etched off and they'd all been sold to crack dealers in the unsavory parts of various large cities."

 

The Vegas attack was exceptionally strange, which means that coming up with countermeasures for it won't do much to reduce normal crime.  New legislation will, at best, make it slightly harder to carry out exactly the same exceptionally strange attack again, and do absolutely nothing to prevent normal crime.  Exactly the same sort of shit happened after 9/11.  A bunch of new airport security measures were implemented, at astronomical expense and universal inconvenience, to make it harder to sneak box cutters onto a plane to hijack it and then fly it into a tall building full of people.  All of this phenomenal spending did exactly fuck-all to make it harder to drive a bus into a crowd of pedestrians or bomb churches or any of the other, less exotic attacks that terrorists normally use.  This is exactly the same sort of response as the British cavalry demanding a new kind of cavalry saber after the Boer War; it completely misses the bigger picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What defence options do we have?  I did propose consideration of this issue for a competition.....Clearly an over-arching solution to 'terrorism' is out of the question, so what systems might we reasonably develop that would be promptly & economically deployable and effective across the broad spectrum of these attacks?  Better casevac?  Electronic sniffers or more dogs?  Millimetric radar equipped drones?  Can we protect ourselves at all without turning into a police state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only gun control laws that work, are the ones that put people who use guns in crimes in Jail for longer periods. 

 

These laws do not punish the vast majority of gun owners, because they don't break the law anyway. 

 

Possess a gun while committing a crime, 5 years extra, above the penalty for the crime. Brandish one in said crime, 10 extra years, fire it, 15, kill someone 20 extra years.

 

I wonder why the left hates laws like this and would rather take the guns from people who don't cause crime?

 

All the rest of this talk about who can have what guns is just a waste of time and money on shit that does not work and punishes the wrong people. 

 

Gun crime is a political problem, not a real world one anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not having lived in a country with a strong firearms culture (except for Canada, I guess), I'm not going to pretend to understand the gun rights debate in the US, but my condolences to your country. I hope they figure out why the gunman did all this to hopefully prevent similar incidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SuperComrade said:

Not having lived in a country with a strong firearms culture (except for Canada, I guess), I'm not going to pretend to understand the gun rights debate in the US, but my condolences to your country. I hope they figure out why the gunman did all this to hopefully prevent similar incidents.

 

Thanks, Noodle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since people are dog-piling on bumpfire stocks while they are still available, what happens if/when legislation is passed?  Would they likely be banned from sale or made outright illegal?  Would mandatory returns and recollection be a thing, or would they be grandfathered in?  I suppose this would depend on the ruling, but I'm wondering about a most likely scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shooter apparently took some pot shots at a couple of AV gas tanks 2,000 feet away from the hotel, puncturing one.

 

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/las-vegas-strip-shooter-targeted-aviation-fuel-tanks-source-says/

 

 

A source knowledgeable about airport operations said jet fuel is hard to ignite and tanks like those across from Mandalay Bay have mechanisms in place to prevent fires.

Mike Boyd, a Colorado-based aviation consultant, echoed those words.

“A machine gun is not going to blow up a tank of fuel,” Boyd said. “Jet fuel itself sitting there in a big wet pile is very hard to ignite. You have to be a very amateur terrorist to think anything like that.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Belesarius said:

Someone posted that on my FB feed. It's an interesting take.

 

Agreed.   If he is missed a factor, it the lack of good male role models as well, my dad was no paragon of virtue but he gave me a set of ideals that have surved me pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

This article actually made me get a little emotional.

This is actually really good, and I REALLY hope feminists don't latch on to this and distorts this. And as mentioned by Jeep, a male role model is extremely important for a child's development, the higher risk of crime, drop out and poverty is extreme.  

This is what gangs thrive on, as they act as a "male role model" for the young men seeking a masculine role model. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×