Taking guns away helps reduce damage, but those intent on doing harm will still find ways to take at least one life (or at least attempt to). One too many for my taste.
I really wish we could get people help before we have to worry about them picking up weapons of any kind. Probably wishful thinking.
That's absurd. Why does it always have to be a dichotomy? Surely a nation of 300 million people can address multiple issues at once? All we've got going on is people doing this tribal bullshit while we kill each other.
Which means? Too many bullets? Wrong color? Too accurate? Too easy to use? It's a meaningless term unless you interpret as a positive attribute.
What's important is he had 24* weapons, 14 of which were AR-15s with bump stocks which allowed them to fire at 9 rounds per sec (easily Googleable).
So not technically assault rifles but practically he had 14 assault rifles. Which is crazy. How can you even purchase that many?
Do those who resist gun control believe arsenals like that are reasonable? This question is in good faith. I just don't understand it.
If it's not obvious, officially what happened in Vegas is a coverup.
The most hilarious scenario is the suggestion that he was actually doing an arms deal with bad guys who were planning on assassinating some Saudi nearby. The arms deal went wrong so they murdered him and to cover that up they shot up a crowd. Which you know, makes more sense than walking away or buying your guns in the desert anywhere within 100 miles around there.
The easier thing to believe is the guy loved guns and decided to kill people. You can't keep up that rate of fire no matter how many mags you've got, that's why he had multiple weapons.
I'd love to hear an explanation that isn't crazy and actually has some evidence behind it, but otherwise Hanlon's Razor and all...
"You can't keep up that rate of fire no matter how many mags you've got"
Citation needed. You could make shot timeline with the audio. It's 101 that changing mags is faster than switching guns. I have most if not all of the footage, there is nothing there that makes me suspect he needs more than one gun, I have extensive experience shooting similar weapons.
Did anything remotely interesting happen in SA soon after?
If you've got a non-crazy story (didn't call you crazy, you didn't provide anything but a vague suggestion), have at it.
Did anything remotely interesting happen in SA soon after?
Can't we all agree to get the extreme videos off youtube, before we worry about some corner cases with niche communities? Because if some random guy's fascination with 100yo rifles means kids in my son's classmates are more likely to shoot the place up, then screw that.
I was trying to specifically call out the parent's reaction. Not "youtube is part of the problem and yes we should do something about and yes banning most of this stuff is reasonable but but maybe youtube could carve out some careful exemptions for my harmless hobby". It seemed dismayed at even the concept of any limitations whatsoever.
We can't. Because some guy posting videos about historical weapons doesn't mean that has anything to do with your kid being safe.
Do you support banning violent movies and video games?
I mean I love gta but I couldn't in good faith make the argument that it's less harmful than videos on making ammo for 100 year old rifles.
> and yes banning most of this stuff is reasonable
Why is it reasonable? Show me the clear evidence that banning this kind of content leads to less violence.
It's not like this stuff is new. These same attacks have been going on for decades, only now does Google decide they've had enough. It's the reversal of position which is strange. Reddit's had videos of people getting chopped up and flayed for years now, it's only now they're cutting down on it. That seems strangely connected to them getting $200 million in funding and chasing after Facebook's tail. Maybe that's not strange, just obvious.
I'm ranting a bit, but the problem is how top down these decisions are. These companies build up communities then pull the rug out from under them. Either support that stuff or don't, but this wishy washy nonsense where they only react is lame. What do these companies really beleive in? $.
That you can't ask "why does someone need to own 3 semi auto rifles?" without the NRA freaking out or unwilling to even discuss it over some absurd slippery slope like "if the government tries to attack its own people and they are dying in the streets, we need our weapons" is absurd. That doesn't give me any comfort. How about you not let your country turn into a hellhole and then you don't need that. But right now people are dying, why do people need those guns again?
Anyway, while I'm inclined to agree with what you are saying, you also gotta be realistic in that nobody is shooting up schools with 100 year old weapons and people discussing that isn't the same thing. That's an extreme position. Practice what you preach.
I can't tell who I pissed off, but based on you getting downvoted as well, I'm guessing it's the pro gun people. You're right, you can't discuss this reasonably... It's behavior like that which makes it hard to give the pro gun people the benefit of the doubt. People are more important than guns, that should be obvious.
My family is a victim of gun violence. You never get the victims back.