| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Scott Adams: How Many Lives Did Gun Control Laws Save in Las Vegas? (Answer: Probably Lots) |
| 2017-10-12 |
| Posted by:newc |
| #10 How many magazines did the sh1tbird have loaded up and ready to go. I've read that he used up half of what he had prepared, rjschwarz. It could have been much worse, especially had he successfully set off the airplane fuel tanks. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2017-10-12 20:31 |
| #9 My comment above of course only opinion. |
| Posted by: Threatch Jeamp8135 2017-10-12 19:07 |
| #8 Gun control enacted by Mandalay prevented the security guard who was shot by Paddock from having a weapon. If armed and trained in gun use he could have engaged Paddock long enough for more armed security and then police to prevent any where near the fatalities incured at the festival below. This was the firefight he expected but never materialized due to extreme gun control imposed on hotel premises including security personel. Therefore he turned on the festival before taking his own life instead of suicide by cop. |
| Posted by: Threatch Jeamp8135 2017-10-12 18:44 |
| #7 The rate of fire in the videos is not indicative of Automatic weapon firing consistency. Rate of fire slows and speeds depending on the shooters ability to hold it in place in the shoulder. |
| Posted by: newc 2017-10-12 17:13 |
| #6 How many magazines did the sh1tbird have loaded up and ready to go. My thumbs ache thinking about it. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2017-10-12 16:06 |
| #5 I haven't seen or heard any convincing evidence that a bump fire stock was used. The video of the event has the shots going off far to regularly. Only a full auto could achieve that regular firing rate. Bump stocks are a fun way to empty a mag, and that's about it. In a better world, the discussion we'd be having is whether or not Congress even has the authority to ban bump stocks -- with the obvious answer being 'no.' |
| Posted by: Iblis 2017-10-12 15:08 |
| #4 With all Paddock's money and planning combined with his criminal nature, it seems to me he could easily have secured several illegal automatic weapons had he been a little more patient. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2017-10-12 14:46 |
| #3 Paddock used a "pray and spray approach." The technique is inaccurate. Moreover, from my understanding, the "bump stock" add-on makes the firearm more prone to jamming. I'd think that a skilled and practiced shooter with a semi-automatic rifle could do a great deal of damage to the crowd below the Mandalay--maybe more so than with bump stock weapons. I doubt that more gun control laws would have helped or prevented such an incident. Gun-control politicians tend to have knee-jerk reactions to such shootings and want to immediately enact more gun-control laws while knowing little about firearms or the impact of their legislation as it opens the door to confiscation; that is the ultimate aim of the gun-grabbers. I tend to oppose such legislation because it is like allowing the nose of the camel under the tent. Once these feckless laws are enacted, it opens the door to enacting more feckless laws. These laws prevent little crime and just tend to tick off law-abiding citizens. The people who engage in such mass shootings are criminals and they have little regard for gun laws; they would obtain guns in an illegal manner. Look at Chicago, for example. How many guns used in shootings and homicides are legally obtained? Annually, one third of all U.S. gun-related homicides are committed in Obama's hometown of Chicago. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2017-10-12 11:56 |
| #2 His logic is that Paddock chose to comply with the law and it's challenging path to full-auto ownership and go with the quasi-auto bump stock route, which may well have restricted is effectiveness at killing, due to the propensity for such arrangements to jam. It would be interesting to know how many of the guns he had in the room were jammed and difficult to clear quickly - perhaps he had so many because he knew that would be a problem for him. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2017-10-12 09:36 |
| #1 The author's logic escapes me. The shooter's firearms purchases appear to be in full compliance with existing gun laws. For his purposes and time available, the completely legal "bump stock" worked perfectly and saved the shooter a great deal of urgently needed travel money. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2017-10-12 05:57 |