You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
In excess of 400 wounded.
Really not sure where to go with that.
Sometimes I wish I could believe in a hell and that there was a special part of it for people like this. But I can;t so I'm just left baffled that someone would do that and perplexed that American society so vigorously defends the laws that enable it to happen.
The comments on that linked YT video pretty much sums up the problem.
Here's one of the gentler examples:
[i]"they can have my guns when they take it from my cold dead hands but watch the barrel will still be hot?"[/i]
It's simply an obsession for many. Note how many posters on that link refer to their "guns" plural, or boast about about what special model they have. For every 'normal' gun-owning American there's another who thinks he's John Rambo. You can no more get guns out America than you could ban, oh I don't know, Christianity.
if the murder of 20 six- and seven-year-olds is just something to be shrugged off as part of the price of the 2nd amendment?They will never do it. If Sandy Hook wasn't the tipping point, it will never happen.
Totally agree. I just don't get Americans. Yes, events like today's are tragic but have they not just brought it on themselves with such pitiful gun control. It keeps happening time and time again and they do nothing. There cant be many other reasons for loss of life when nothing is done to improve the situation.
apparently 8 guns and 10 rifles in the guys hotel room
mindboggling(from a UK perspective) to think that you could get access to that amount of weapons
Many Americans have unusual (for us) attitudes to guns. It seems nonsensical to us (or even most Americans?), but when they hear about people getting shot many feel inclined to do something "to protect themselves".
At one level they might actually have a point. Even if guns were banned tomorrow for the law abiding how long would it be before "bad guys" ran out of bullets?
They also fear a "slippery slope". In many European countries they banned automatic weapons, then semi automatic, then a few years later pretty much all guns (as in the UK). Therefore they will defend AR-15s now, despite the cost, to avoid having to defend pistols in a few years.
For whoever said that it sounded like a heavy machine gun, that seems unlikely. It sounded like an ak47 or similar firing a 100 round magazine (first bursts seemed to last about 10 seconds).
I recall in the US they tried to ban large capacity magazines after some of the shootings a few years ago, but that fell through because it "wouldn't make any difference".
They say you live and learn, but many people don't. So sad.
You can no more get guns out America than you could ban, oh I don't know, Christianity.
+1.
Not only that but they;re relaxing the laws they already have.
Senators recently repealed legislation stopping those registered as mentally ill getting guns. They relaxed rules on silencers despite law enforcement saying it would make source fo guinfire more difficult to determine.
Panorama did a show about James Holmes - the Dark Knight killer. Strong evidence, or at least a very serious implication that an anti-depressant he was on completely changed his behaviour. It has been linked to a number of murders and mass killers and apparently it's commonly prescribed over there.
Panorama did a show about James Holmes - the Dark Knight killer. Strong evidence, or at least a very serious implication that an anti-depressant he was on completely changed his behaviour. It has been linked to a number of murders and mass killers and apparently it's commonly prescribed over there.
I saw that.
Very compelling.
The gun lobby are already saying that the lorry attack in Nice killed and injured more people, so guns aren't to blame................
The whole banning guns thing comes up every time something like this happens. We all agree it's sensible, half of america doesn't. Hoo hum, their choice. Never the twain shall meet.
The gun lobby are already saying that the lorry attack in Nice killed and injured more people, so guns aren't to blame.........
Yup. they would wouldn’t they 🙄
It’s what makes them such a special bunch of bellends.
The ability to make shite arguments to justify something so reduculous.
Imagine someone here being that stupid ?!
Would've been difficult to spray a crowd with a rented truck from the 32nd floor of a hotel across the (very wide) road though 🙄 (directed at the gun lobby, not the poster)
The only saving grace about this thread is that ninfan isn't here to get all moist over guns.
So on that basis:
[b]we're all in agreement that private ownership of auto/semi auto guns is unnecessary and should be banned yeah?
[/b](note: I'm all in favour of banning all guns as I hate the flippin things)
Sandy Hook so abhorrent thats its easier for some to make out its a conspiracy theory
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/09/sandy-hook-conspiracy-theorist-death-threats-prison
trump fanboy alex jones still pushing these lies too
[img] 
[/img]
Act of pure evil rather than terrorism according to the orange trumpster. That's a relief.
Just think about what percentage of the people you've ever met you would trust to be able to walk into a shop and buy an assault rifle? Then think of the absolute nutters you've met who couldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors
If we had gun laws like America every provincial town centre in the country at pub kicking out time would look like the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan
Actually, I think we're possibly more violent at a lower level than the Americans because we don't have guns. Most yanks avoid fisticuffs in case it turns into people unloading their magazines on each other, Brits on the other hand have a relatively consequence free attitude towards beating each other senseless during closing time on a Friday.
There'd be a spike of ww2 type carnage that would make American mass shootings look quaint - and then we'd end up avoiding each other like the Americans do.
Possibly. But I’d rather get punched on a semi regular basis For the next 40 years, than shot with an AK47 just the once.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence ]Gun violence graphic[/url]This is quite a depressing article - scroll down and realise its only over 3 years
Well, yes - that's a given Neal.
Bunch of idiots, their response will be to arm all country musicians and then they'll make it legal for dogs to buy guns.
This from the Gun Violence Archive shows that whatever it is they are doing isn't working
[img] 
:large[/img]
Actually, I think we're possibly more violent at a lower level than the Americans because we don't have guns. Most yanks avoid fisticuffs in case it turns into people unloading their magazines on each other,
Are you sure?
Firearms were used in 71.5 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.8 percent of robberies, and 24.2 percent of aggravated assaults.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-crime-statistics-released
jwyeti - MemberHow on earth can anyone think there could ever be a need for citizens to protect themselves from the government and police?
Dunno, are they catalonian?
What's a "murder-suicide"?
You kill a person or persons before killing yourself.
Planning to kill yourself after killing another/others.
Actually, I think we're possibly more violent at a lower level than the Americans because we don't have guns. Most yanks avoid fisticuffs in case it turns into people unloading their magazines on each other, Brits on the other hand have a relatively consequence free attitude towards beating each other senseless during closing time on a Friday.
Possibly, whilst binge drinking yourself into a blubbering mess and then unleashing a haymaker on stranger isn't a completely uniquely British thing, but I'm proud to say we lead the world in Pisshead pugilism.
The problem with that sort of sudden mindless violence is it's, well mindless - it's not that long ago handguns were legal in the UK and many people owned them. Thankfully few of them decided they needed to be tooled up to go to the pub.
In the US, I'd bet a lot of the person on person murders committed with firearms started off as an argument, which turned into a fight, one side started to lose and pulled a gun.
Thank you, three people.
(-:
The whole banning guns thing comes up every time something like this happens. We all agree it's sensible, half of america doesn't. Hoo hum, their choice
I can only assume that they see the mass murder of innocents as acceptable collateral damage, which is outweighed by the need to keep the second amendment.
According to the BBC apparently IS have claimed responsibility? yeah right...
The NRA attitude is endemic and will take generations to undo.
Whoever posted the 'rich people making money' post has it nailed. It's like the tobacco industry but a whole lot quicker and a whole lot noisier.
The real sad thing about those gun stats is the number of '0-11' year olds killed every year.
Panorama did a show about James Holmes - the Dark Knight killer.
That was a worrying programme from start to finish.
The emphasis was on the behavioural changes caused by the drug but the easy access to guns enabled the escalation. Sad stuff.
I can only assume that they see the mass murder of innocents as acceptable collateral damage, which is outweighed by the need to keep the second amendment.
Privately they might, publicly they will usually just trott out the usual “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” like they’re living in some kind of western movie.
One argument that holds some water is that if they did do the unthinkable as license and control firearms the same way we do, it’s only the law abiding people who would comply with it.
The real gun nuts have little time for existing gun laws and have no problem ignoring them.
The hardened criminals aren’t allowed them anyway, but still do.
In many ways changing the law would be an awful lot easier than getting rid of the guns and it would be a massive job to maintain the law - from that point onward every subsequent murder would come with calls from the gun nuts “if only he’d been armed this would never have happened!”.
The emphasis was on the behavioural changes caused by the drug but the easy access to guns enabled the escalation. Sad stuff.
It was a terrible program and incredibly unscientific IMO. It's a bold claim to say his behaviour was *caused* by the drug, and they should have backed up the claim with much more rigorous evidence before broadcasting it.
According to the BBC apparently IS have claimed responsibility? yeah right...
I thought you were joking. 😯
According to the BBC apparently IS have claimed responsibility? yeah right...
They might well have done. But there's a gulf between claiming something and that something actually being true (as demonstrated repeatedly on STW).
There's a mass shooting in the US, it's not a great leap for them to go, "yeah, that was us" - free terror with one fewer exploding terrorists required.
Privately they might, publicly they will usually just trott out the usual “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” like they’re living in some kind of western movie.
Yeah, how come nobody in the crowd returned fire?
Another point amongst the calls for greater gun control:
Apparently toddlers shoot someone every week in the US!
Couple of the most recent ones:
[url= http://news.sky.com/story/toddler-shoots-two-three-year-olds-at-us-home-daycare-facility-11057689 ]Two three year olds shot by a toddler at a childminders house in Michigan (29 Sep)[/url]
[url= http://time.com/4964274/parma-boy-shot-himself-dads-gun/ ]3 year old fatally shoots himself with his dad's gun in Ohio (30 Sep)[/url]
😐
Yeah, how come nobody in the crowd returned fire?
Tricky when they’re 32 floors up in a hotel but I doubt they would do anyway.
tpbiker - MemberAccording to the BBC apparently IS have claimed responsibility? yeah right...
IS claimed responsibility when the eiffel tower caught fire during a fireworks display.
Just seen someone from the pro gun lobby in US speak on C4 news. Unbelievable.
As the presenter said at the end, it was enlightening to see his mindset. How Krishnan Guru-Murthy kept his cool I don't know
HoratioHufnagel - MemberIt was a terrible program and incredibly unscientific IMO. It's a bold claim to say his behaviour was *caused* by the drug, and they should have backed up the claim with much more rigorous evidence before broadcasting it.
The programme wasn't deeply scientific because the science is already well established. The link between ssri's and violent disassociative behaviour is a fact acknowledged by the manufactures themselves - they just claim that it is so small it's a risk worth taking. The programme was asking why ssri's weren't entertained as a possible contributing factor to his mental decline when they are known to do exactly that in some people and his down spiral accelerated with his use of prescription anti depressants.
Even the warning labels on the drugs reflect the fact that they may cause violent or suicidal thoughts and they have been removed from some countries. America has a a private health care system where drug companies actively court doctors to flog their products, and the doctors can get very wealthy doing so. Google SSRI anti depressant + mass shooting.
So you've got a giant continent (basically) with 330 million people, 58 million of whom claim to have depression or depression and anxiety and the whole place is awash with guns and pharmaceuticals ....what could possibly go wrong.
forzafkawi - MemberPrivately they might, publicly they will usually just trott out the usual “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” like they’re living in some kind of western movie.
Yeah, how come nobody in the crowd returned fire?
You're not allowed to carry handguns into concerts and even if you were they'd be useless against someone 300 metres away.
They might well have done. But there's a gulf between claiming something and that something actually being true (as demonstrated repeatedly on STW).There's a mass shooting in the US, it's not a great leap for them to go, "yeah, that was us" - free terror with one fewer exploding terrorists required.
Plus, it suits Trumps agenda for the blame to be pointed at IS.
Edit.
Man this incident is shocking. What I don't get, and probably should after reading some of the above, is that he was on the 32nd floor and about 200-300m away, would he basically have used military style guns?
Sorry if that is a stupid question but in my head I can't understand how one man can have killed and injured so many people from so far away. (It is just too insane in my head to understand)
How long before someone asks himself "58, eh? I could do better than that..."
Horrific for all involved and my sympathies are with family and friends of the dead and wounded. I am not in the least bit shocked though. The lack of proper mental health care and the overall attitude to firearms is sad. The worst thing is does anybody actually think changes will be made? There will be outrage and around the clock coverage for a few week and then things will just carry on as usual in the US of A.
Sorry if that is a stupid question but in my head I can't understand how one man can have killed and injured so many people from so far away.
I'm no expert but I imagine a bullet falling from 32 floors let alone fired as a projectile could do quite a lot of damage.
would he basically have used military style guns?
[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15 ]Whammo[/url]
Sorry if that is a stupid question but in my head I can't understand how one man can have killed and injured so many people from so far away.
It isnt that far especially when you consider they were firing into a crowd. Even most low powered rifles would be lethal over that distance and accuracy is unlikely to have come into it.
I'm no expert but I imagine a bullet falling from 32 floors let alone fired as a projectile could do quite a lot of damage.
I don’t think they’ve said what type of gun he had, but these nutters seem to like AR-15 which is a supposedly semi-auto version of the M16 (US Army rifle) but this one was full auto, anyway it’s “effective range” is 400-1500m depending on ammo used. Doesn’t mean he could hit a target at that range - but he was basically firing into a sea of people, he really couldn’t miss.
That really is another thing, these weapons are horrifically powerful.
But of course you need a full auto assualt rifle with an effective range of 400-1500m to defend yourself yeah?
Good grief.
the hard flooring wouldn't of helped either, the most "effective" way of using automatic weapons in the military is at ground level if you miss the bullet keeps on traveling and might find another target. Firing from a high position means if the round misses it goes into the ground but that floor looked pretty solid so the rounds would be ricocheting every where. 🙁
Seems like, if you are an American. It's safer to go to war!
Number of Americans killed on battlefields in all wars in history:
1,396,733
Killed by firearms in the US since 1968:
1,516,863
(NYT)
I'm sorry America but I think you reap what you sow, it is utterly insane that general members of the public can own military spec firearms and equipment that are so easily available.
seosamh77 - MemberSeems like, if you are an American. It's safer to go to war!
Only if you ignore common sense and contort statistics.
How long before someone asks himself "58, eh? I could do better than that..."
I wouldn't have quite put it like that but considering the arsenal and ammo the gunman is supposed to have had, the high vantage point and relatively close range and the sheer size of the crowd he was firing into and the number of rounds fired, it's bloody amazing it was "only" 58 people killed.
jimjam - Member
seosamh77 - Member
Seems like, if you are an American. It's safer to go to war!Only if you ignore common sense and contort statistics.
Ignoring my tongue in cheek comment, what's contorted about those stats?
First off the number of suicides by gun is about twice that of homicides by gun. So probably knock two 3rds off that number. Then work out percentage of soldiers at war vs killed at war. Then work out percentage of of civilians killed (not suicides) as percentage of total population.
[url= https://www.google.es/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-34996604 ]Stats.[/url]
What I don't get, and probably should after reading some of the above, is that he was on the 32nd floor and about 200-300m away, would he basically have used military style guns?
Yup. More than likely some sort of long-ish barrelled weapon (carbine) which would push out high velocity bullets. there is shed-loads of science to ballistics, but its reasonable to suppose that the faster the bullet, the straighter and further it'll go, and that the longer the barrel, the more accurately straighter that bullet is guided as it leaves the gun.
As already said, 300m range is well within the reach of carbines.
With reasonable training / experience you can comfortably hit an A3 piece of paper at 50metres when your standing holding a carbine. Extending that to 300metres expands that area to may the size of goal net. Considering the size of the concert area, its going to be hard to not place bullets into the crowd.
The gun(s) were firing in full-auto mode too .. which is more a military setup for a gun too.
Not a nice thing to have happened.
Anyone listen to PM on R4 this evening? 10mins of narrative of all the recent shootings in the US since about 99’, then 7mins of actual recorded footage of the guy shooting into the crowd..
Bloody BBC sensationalists..
You’ve gotta feel desperation for those folks caught up in this massacre, and there’s no need for the BBC to sensationalise it ...
Grrr.
The gun(s) were firing in full-auto mode too .. which is more a military setup for a gun too.
There's some speculation online that they may have been semi automatic rifles modded to fire in a fully automatic fashion. Gat / slidefire / bump fire are the names of the mods. From the videos I've seen it does sound like he may have been using something like that.
2nd battle of Fallujah - U.S. forces had 54 killed and 425 wounded in the initial attack in November.
58 dead, 515 injured so far in the Las Vegas shooting.
jimjam, quite possibly. there has been comment on the cadence of the firing being not as rapid as some full-auto, indicating a slidefire or larger calibre
jimjam - Member
First off the number of suicides by gun is about twice that of homicides by gun. So probably knock two 3rds off that number. Then work out percentage of soldiers at war vs killed at war. Then work out percentage of of civilians killed (not suicides) as percentage of total population.
It's all gun deaths. homicides and unintentional..
it's works out on average about 33,000 per year, which is fair enough when you consider for example
2014
33,636(12,571 homicides) deaths due to "injury by firearms"
1993 was the peak year for gun deaths.
can't find the exact total again, but it was somewhere about 50/55,000 deaths if i remember right, 18,253 of which were homicides
Dunno why the numbers should just be limited to homicides considering unintentional deaths are higher.
These events are tragic, but simple fact is guns kill about 100 people per day in america.
As for quantifying my tongue in cheek statement, well you'd need alot more parameters than that, i'll let that to you, i'm no particularly attached to the comment...
johnners - Member
2nd battle of Fallujah - U.S. forces had 54 killed and 425 wounded in the initial attack in November.58 dead, 515 injured so far in the Las Vegas shooting.
just to humour the point...
iraq war, 2003–2011 american deaths 4,497
2003-2011 gun death in usa - i'll guesstimate this, homicides (8 x 12000) + unintentional (8 x 20000) - about 256,000. ( numbers there obvious need verified, but ye get the point.)
There were around 22000 at that music festival. The odds are that 3.66 of them would have been accidentally shot anyway.
seosamh77 - Memberjust to humour the point...
An American soldier in Iraq had roughly a 0.5% chance of death during the most murderous year of their war. An American civilian has roughly a 0.003% chance of being murdered with a gun.
It's pointless enough debating American gun control on a uk based forum, without confusing the matter.
Your numbers, like mine, are far too simplistic.
Anyhow, I can't say I really care about gun control in america tbh, as I say, if they choose not to control, batter in, their choice. I'm just giving myself an idea of the baffling scale of the absolute numbers that are actually killed. It's astounding that they don't react to it more strongly tbh. There was a big drop from 93 to 2000, but from then on it's stabilised and is actually increasing again in recent years.
There's no real debate to be had, they're aff their friggin nut. But like I say their choice, if they can accept another 100 deaths the morra, then another 100 the next day, etc etc etc then they live on a different planet from me.
seosamh77 - Member[s]Your numbers, like[/s] mine are far too simplistic.
seosamh77Anyhow, I can't say I really care about gun control in america tbh, as I say, if they choose not to control, batter in, their choice.
There's no real debate to be had, they're aff their friggin nut. But like I say their choice, if they can accept another 100 deaths the morra, then another 100 the next day, etc etc etc then [b]they live on a different planet from me[/b].
Well they really are on a different planet. To them gun control laws like those in most of Europe are as insane to Americans as their gun laws are to us. There's no way to span that gap.
Trust me your numbers are ridiculously simplistic.
No way to span the gap, agreed. But the (absolute) numbers can't be argued with, they are wrong.
seosamh77 - MemberTrust me your numbers are ridiculously simplistic.
And yours were pointless. Are you done with numbers yet?
how is the number of deaths pointless?
Because it includes suicides and semantics aside, you're not in danger of murdering yourself unless you decide to. The numbers (including suicides) are similar because one is a higher percentage of a small number and the other is a lower percentage of a big number. Seriously.
The suicide one is odd though. How many people wouldn't have gone through with it had they not had access to firearms? Can easy access make it simpler for somebody to take their own life? Is it one of the more common methods used in the states?
it's still gun deaths, you can't say whether they would have chosen another means or not.. and the numbers aren't percentages of anything, they are absolute totals.
Regardless even if you disregard them and accidental deaths and just focus on homicides. There is only one conclusion you can come to. They are wrong and the policies of liberal gun laws are utterly mental.