Donald Trump running for president

thebigt said:
how in the world did he get all of those weapons AND ammo up into that room?

I've heard that the room on the 32nd floor would have to of been booked at least 3 weeks in advance. when means he had premeditation-duh.

most of the experts say those weapons were either 1. manufactured to be automatics[which is illegal to own] and I assume very difficult to purchase, or 2. have been modified to automatic which is also illegal.

if the fbi is as good as I think they are it should only be a matter of days to track down who he was in contact with to either purchase the manufactured guns, or the person who modified them....I've heard differing viewpoints on how easy it is to modify from semi to fully automatic, but either way there has to be a trail....

the number one reason why criminals get caught is because people talk, with something of this magnitude I am sure that eventually people will be talking.
Click to expand...

So, are you also jumping in on the multiple shooter theory bandwagon?
 
thebigt said:
how in the world did he get all of those weapons AND ammo up into that room?

I've heard that the room on the 32nd floor would have to of been booked at least 3 weeks in advance. when means he had premeditation-duh.

most of the experts say those weapons were either 1. manufactured to be automatics[which is illegal to own] and I assume very difficult to purchase, or 2. have been modified to automatic which is also illegal.

if the fbi is as good as I think they are it should only be a matter of days to track down who he was in contact with to either purchase the manufactured guns, or the person who modified them....I've heard differing viewpoints on how easy it is to modify from semi to fully automatic, but either way there has to be a trail....

the number one reason why criminals get caught is because people talk, with something of this magnitude I am sure that eventually people will be talking.
Click to expand...

He was a high roller in the casinos. Those rifles break down, so he could have done so and packed them neatly into suitcases. He could have said **** it, and had them all packed in rolling pelican cases. He could have probably done anything g there and wouldn't have batted much of an eye. Also the are saying he had a bump fire stock, which is legal to own and use.
 
Misfit28 said:
So, are you also jumping in on the multiple shooter theory bandwagon?
Click to expand...

reread my post...how did you come to that conclusion? everything I posted has been confirmed by the sheriff at his briefings to be facts.
 
youngandfree said:
He was a high roller in the casinos. Those rifles break down, so he could have done so and packed them neatly into suitcases. He could have said **** it, and had them all packed in rolling pelican cases. He could have probably done anything g there and wouldn't have batted much of an eye. Also the are saying he had a bump fire stock, which is legal to own and use.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
Misfit28 said:
Never said I was super experienced. I said I've fired handguns, shotguns and rifles.

So, why would there not be a muzzle flash every time you fire a round?

I'm honestly curious, as that doesn't really make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

Here's a little info. Plus if he is shooting AR15's, they typically come with a flash hider, designed to limit the amount of muzzle flash. I've shot plenty of guns, and during the same magazine filled with the same ammo, sometimes you get the flash, sometimes you don't.
 
Misfit28 said:
I was just asking :) The first sentence could have been taken as that.
Click to expand...


I thought that vegas hotels would be more suspicious with the amount of luggage and weight of weapons and ammo....but a suite at mandalay bay is not somewhere I stay often, so I have no knowledge of security there.

I was truly making an attempt to stay with the facts
 
Misfit28 said:
Never said I was super experienced. I said I've fired handguns, shotguns and rifles.

So, why would there not be a muzzle flash every time you fire a round?

I'm honestly curious, as that doesn't really make sense to me.
Click to expand...
It's called a flash suppressor that you can buy for any Tactical rifle legal to buy online.

thebigt said:
how in the world did he get all of those weapons AND ammo up into that room?

I've heard that the room on the 32nd floor would have to of been booked at least 3 weeks in advance. when means he had premeditation-duh.

most of the experts say those weapons were either 1. manufactured to be automatics[which is illegal to own] and I assume very difficult to purchase, or 2. have been modified to automatic which is also illegal.

if the fbi is as good as I think they are it should only be a matter of days to track down who he was in contact with to either purchase the manufactured guns, or the person who modified them....I've heard differing viewpoints on how easy it is to modify from semi to fully automatic, but either way there has to be a trail....

the number one reason why criminals get caught is because people talk, with something of this magnitude I am sure that eventually people will be talking.
Click to expand...

You can modify any rifle to make it an automatic by shortening of the trigger spring with any nail file you can buy at your local CVS
 
DemntedCowboy said:
It's called a flash suppressor that you can buy for any Tactical rifle legal to buy online.



You can modify any rifle to make it an automatic by shortening of the trigger spring with any nail file you can buy at your local CVS
Click to expand...

I suppose you can find a video on how to do this on youtube?

that's too damned easy...I might have to rethink some things.
 
CJNator said:
You can't assume that laws from another country will work the same in another. The culture is different, violent crimes will always exist whether is from guns, cars, knives, or anything.

Conspiracy or not, the shooting was a horrible tragedy.

Also IMO If it is a conspiracy it probably was the CIA. We'll never know though, all we know is this current government at hand is full of agencies and individuals with private interests. Including the corporations that have politicians in their pockets.
Click to expand...
While true, restricted gun laws work. And are proven to work in countries that enforce them.

Not that I care what the US does or who owns a gun as I dont live there, but you all have to accept that mass shootings are a part of your culture.

Those are the facts
 
Jiigzz said:
While true, restricted gun laws work. And are proven to work in countries that enforce them.

Not that I care what the US does or who owns a gun as I dont live there, but you all have to accept that mass shootings are a part of your culture.

Those are the facts
Click to expand...
I think it is a bit more nuanced than either side makes it out to be. These laws do well at decreasing crime/deaths/etc involving guns, but it isn't always quite so cut and dry in regards to overall crime rates, etc. Also, it may not even be possible to have an "effective" gun ban or confiscation in the US like it was in, say, Australia. Guns are so omnipresent in America, and such a big part of the culture and society, that it would be a Herculean task to try to take them all off the streets. Australia never had nearly the same amount of guns, even per capita, as the US, which likely made collecting them a much more feasible task. There are so many guns in the US, many of them unregistered and/or already in the hands of criminals, that attempting to collect/confiscate/etc them all may only serve to disarm the law abiding citizens while doing little to take/keep them out of the hands of criminals that already own them. If we could magically just make every gun disappear, then you may have a more compelling hypothetical scenario, but I don't think that's how it would pan out in the US. I'm not saying that the answer is to do absolutely nothing, but I also don't think a nationwide ban on all semi-automatic guns would be an effective solution either. As for automatic weapons, they are already Class 3, and have further restrictions, background checks, taxes, waiting periods, etc. then "normal" or semi-automatic weapons. I do not know how this shooter obtained his. Did he go through the legal steps, did he convert it himself (illegally), did he illegally buy them, etc. I think we honestly need to wait for all the info on this shooting to come in before we start trying to draw any meaningful conclusions in regards to potential future legislation.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I think it is a bit more nuanced than either side makes it out to be. These laws do well at decreasing crime/deaths/etc involving guns, but it isn't always quite so cut and dry in regards to overall crime rates, etc. Also, it may not even be possible to have an "effective" gun ban or confiscation in the US like it was in, say, Australia. Guns are so omnipresent in America, and such a big part of the culture and society, that it would be a Herculean task to try to take them all off the streets. Australia never had nearly the same amount of guns, even per capita, as the US, which likely made collecting them a much more feasible task. There are so many guns in the US, many of them unregistered and/or already in the hands of criminals, that attempting to collect/confiscate/etc them all may only serve to disarm the law abiding citizens while doing little to take/keep them out of the hands of criminals that already own them. If we could magically just make every gun disappear, then you may have a more compelling hypothetical scenario, but I don't think that's how it would pan out in the US. I'm not saying that the answer is to do absolutely nothing, but I also don't think a nationwide ban on all semi-automatic guns would be an effective solution either. As for automatic weapons, they are already Class 3, and have further restrictions, background checks, taxes, waiting periods, etc. then "normal" or semi-automatic weapons. I do not know how this shooter obtained his. Did he go through the legal steps, did he convert it himself (illegally), did he illegally buy them, etc. I think we honestly need to wait for all the info on this shooting to come in before we start trying to draw any meaningful conclusions in regards to potential future legislation.
Click to expand...
Dont get me wrong, im not really saying that it is the answer, but standing by gun use means that you have to accept the consequences of that. Guns can cause a great deal of harm to a lot of people, by one person, in a short space of time. No other weapon is capable of that kind of impact, barring explosives.

But being they are readily available, in wide distribution AND fully supported by a lot of the population, you have to accept that mass shootings are going to occur.
 
how many gun bills did the democrats pass when they controlled congress and presidency.....about the same amount of health care bills the republicans have passed????
 
Jiigzz said:
Dont get me wrong, im not really saying that it is the answer, but standing by gun use means that you have to accept the consequences of that. Guns can cause a great deal of harm to a lot of people, by one person, in a short space of time. No other weapon is capable of that kind of impact, barring explosives.

But being they are readily available, in wide distribution AND fully supported by a lot of the population, you have to accept that mass shootings are going to occur.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But it may also be worth noting that there have been acts of terror, mass killings, etc. in other countries committed with other "weapons" than guns, so to say that eliminating guns would eliminate mass killings isn't completely accurate, only that it would (ideally) drastically cut down on mass shootings. Explosives, which can be homemade or improvised, as you mentioned, can also cause devastation, as can even vehicles driving through large crowds. There is a lot of philosophy at play here, and I don't know if there is any one answer that will be the "best" or most ideal in all respects. That said, one only needs to look at some things the founding fathers said to see what sort of mindset went into the establishment and founding of the country, and seems to still be a common underlying belief among many Americans:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." -Thomas Jefferson

Either way, I do appreciate us being able to have a civil, reasonable debate/conversation about this here. I don't even discuss politics on FB because it always blows up into insults and shouting.
 
thebigt said:
I thought that vegas hotels would be more suspicious with the amount of luggage and weight of weapons and ammo....but a suite at mandalay bay is not somewhere I stay often, so I have no knowledge of security there.

I was truly making an attempt to stay with the facts
Click to expand...

When was the last time you had a hotel weigh your luggage? I travel for work a lot. My normal loadout, which wouldn't have carried that many guns, is a large suitcase, a large plastic tote for groceries, toiletries, etc, and a large cooler. When I'm in a group of coworkers, I carry in twice as much stuff. No one cares.
 
Jiigzz said:
Dont get me wrong, im not really saying that it is the answer, but standing by gun use means that you have to accept the consequences of that. Guns can cause a great deal of harm to a lot of people, by one person, in a short space of time. No other weapon is capable of that kind of impact, barring explosives.

But being they are readily available, in wide distribution AND fully supported by a lot of the population, you have to accept that mass shootings are going to occur.
Click to expand...

Really huh, how about the numerous mass stabbings in China?

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Never heard of this one, 50 stabbed to death.
Invalid Link Removed

18 injured here..
Invalid Link Removed
 
Jiigzz said:
It was only a matter of time until a conspiracy was thrown about. The dust hasn't even settled.

Who is your source? Were you there?
Click to expand...

I know who your source was and we all know they have been lying pieces of crap for decades. From the government to mainstream media. Then when we question the official story and people like you come along and it becomes about space martians and Bigfoot to man never landing on the moon.

Gun laws in America are not “lax” it’s quite the opposite and no way would I strip away our rights due to the act of what looks to be a military industrial complex patsy.
 
ax1 said:
I know who your source was and we all know they have been lying pieces of crap for decades. From the government to mainstream media. Then when we question the official story and people like you come along and it becomes about space martians and Bigfoot to man never landing on the moon.

Gun laws in America are not “lax” it’s quite the opposite and no way would I strip away our rights due to the act of what looks to be a military industrial complex patsy.
Click to expand...
It's not a conspiracy until ax1 chimes in ;)
 
thebigt said:
you have to get your head around the fact that America isn't 'other places'!!!
Click to expand...

We aren’t the most powerful government and society by miles for no reason and our power of the barrel is one small reason we are so great and SAFE!
 
Misfit28 said:
When did the Democrats have full control of both Houses of Congress under Obama?
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure a lot (or at least some) of big-name democrats actually voted against increasing the penalties for gun-related crimes. That seems like an easy "common sense" law to try to cut down on gun-related crimes while not hurting law-adding citizens right to bear arms. Granted, that would help more with "normal" gun crimes like robberies, assault, gang violence, etc, and do little to stop mass shootings like this one in Vegas, it seems like a no-brainer start. Perhaps it was voted against because the democrats thought it'd hurt their chances of being re-elected? What good are more restrictive gun laws if they don't have sufficient "teeth" to actually prevent/reduce crimes? Granted, that may not be relevant to these mass shootings, but likely would be to the rampant gang violence and "normal" crimes committed with guns every day in America, and that's not nothing.
 
Misfit28 said:
It's not a conspiracy until ax1 chimes in ;)
Click to expand...

Lol....sorry for the late entry today on vacation in the countryside in China on my cellphone on my hotel bed early in the morning.

DEAD serious.....I’m hanging out with a group of native Chinese middle aged professionals and older seniors and most of them yesterday were already telling me it was the CIA and there were other shooters at the seen before I ever was able to say a word. They don’t even go to Infowars lol no Chinese version.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I'm fairly sure a lot (or at least some) of big-name democrats actually voted against increasing the penalties for gun-related crimes. That seems like an easy "common sense" law to try to cut down on gun-related crimes while not hurting law-adding citizens right to bear arms. Granted, that would help more with "normal" gun crimes like robberies, assault, gang violence, etc, and do little to stop mass shootings like this one in Vegas, it seems like a no-brainer start. Perhaps it was voted against because the democrats thought it'd hurt their chances of being re-elected? What good are more restrictive gun laws if they don't have sufficient "teeth" to actually prevent/reduce crimes? Granted, that may not be relevant to these mass shootings, but likely would be to the rampant gang violence and "normal" crimes committed with guns every day in America, and that's not nothing.
Click to expand...
Agreed. thebigt's question was pretty specific and was predicated upon"full control" of the White House and both Houses of Congress.
 
Misfit28 said:
I'll answer for you: For 4 full months both Houses were under Democratic control.

We're almost into the ninth month of full GOP control.....
Click to expand...

it was long enough to pass Obamacare...when they had the chance they passed on gun control---same as the damned republicans and healthcare.

it's all talk!!
 
Misfit28 said:
Agreed. thebigt's question was pretty specific and was predicated upon"full control" of the White House and both Houses of Congress.
Click to expand...
Ok. Honestly, I really think the two parties are honestly just two sides of the same coin, using different justifications for similar actions, and having enough small differences to present the illusion of being polar opposites or significantly different from each other. Either way, it seems silly that people don't realize that even if they decide to give more power to the government when their preferred party is in power, that same increase in power will also be given to the other party if/when they come to power. Both parties want more power, more control.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Ok. Honestly, I really think the two parties are honestly just two sides of the same coin, using different justifications for similar actions, and having enough small differences to present the illusion of being polar opposites or significantly different from each other. Either way, it seems silly that people don't realize that even if they decide to give more power to the government when their preferred party is in power, that same increase in power will also be given to the other party if/when they come to power. Both parties want more power, more control.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I don't consider myself a Democrat any more. I'm frustrated and annoyed with both parties.
 
Misfit28 said:
I'll answer for you: For 4 full months both Houses were under Democratic control.

We're almost into the ninth month of full GOP control.....
Click to expand...

Come on now, stop spreading fake news. Democrats controlled House and Senate during first 2 years of Obama's first term. Dems lost the House in the 2010 midterms.
 
Misfit28 said:
I'm not. Look it up.
Click to expand...

You're killing me smalls.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_control_of_Congress

You made the claim of democrats only controlling for 4 months. Since the rules are apparently that you make the claim, you back it up.
 
youngandfree said:
You're killing me smalls.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_control_of_Congress

You made the claim of democrats only controlling for 4 months. Since the rules are apparently that you make the claim, you back it up.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed
 
Aleksandar37 said:
And you know this how?
Click to expand...

I know that wasn’t for me but I’m my world since government already treats Americans with illegal all are guilty until proven innocent policies my own policy is to treat them with the same respect lol!
 
Jiigzz said:
Dont get me wrong, im not really saying that it is the answer, but standing by gun use means that you have to accept the consequences of that. Guns can cause a great deal of harm to a lot of people, by one person, in a short space of time. No other weapon is capable of that kind of impact, barring explosives.

But being they are readily available, in wide distribution AND fully supported by a lot of the population, you have to accept that mass shootings are going to occur.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of consequenses of having a unbalanced weak society when you both have a government violating our Bill of Rights from top to bottom, killing innocent civilians around the globe by millions and in a age of terrorism where people want to kill us in mass.

All you do is focus on negatives on gun ownership, that’s not your fault. All the media covers are bad stories and not the massively more where guns save people and protect us so that’s what the average person may go by.
 
ax1 said:
We aren’t the most powerful government and society by miles for no reason and our power of the barrel is one small reason we are so great and SAFE!
Click to expand...

I have something fun for you.

The top 25 safest countries in the world (NZ is #4 on this list). The US isn't on it: Invalid Link Removed

The top 12 safest countries: Nope, no US here either. Invalid Link Removed (NZ is #2)

Top 23: Nope, no US: Invalid Link Removed

Another top 20, again, no US Invalid Link Removed

Another top 10, again nope: Invalid Link Removed

Wikipedia on Global Safety Index: According to this list, you are #114th out of #163.

Rwanda, Brazil, and Honduras beat you guys out. You guys must feel real safe right about now, lol.
 
youngandfree said:
Really huh, how about the numerous mass stabbings in China?

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Never heard of this one, 50 stabbed to death.
Invalid Link Removed

18 injured here..
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

This year here in Beijing for the first time every single public bus now has a security guard. They are deploying facial recognition tech ASAP. There are certain places such as the Capital if Xinxang where you go through checkpoints at everything and even full pat downs just to walk into a grocery store it’s crazy.

They don’t sell most knives in stores off the shelf either but that started a couple years ago.
 
Jiigzz said:
I have something fun for you.

The top 25 safest countries in the world (NZ is #4 on this list). The US isn't on it: Invalid Link Removed

The top 12 safest countries: Nope, no US here either. Invalid Link Removed (NZ is #2)

Top 23: Nope, no US: Invalid Link Removed

Another top 20, again, no US Invalid Link Removed

Another top 10, again nope: Invalid Link Removed

Wikipedia on Global Safety Index: According to this list, you are #114th out of #163.

Rwanda, Brazil, and Honduras beat you guys out. You guys must feel real safe right about now, lol.
Click to expand...

As I’ve said this in the past, gun control laws in the USA are too strict....I can’t even get a carry on license here in NY and I’m a clean citizen.

Do those countries listed have Al-ciaeda and ISIS terrorists out to kill them?

Usually people in some of those countries in that list do whatever it takes to come over here than the other way around. Brazil is a ****hole I can’t take that list seriously (I’d research it more but I’m on the road on my phone) but like I said Government makes it hard for many of us to own guns and if you take out the high crime areas that already have to worse gun crime where simultaneously having the most strict gun laws we easily would get better numbers.

I’d still rather live in Chicago than Brazil or Rhwanda.
 
In addition, guns per 100 people: Invalid Link Removed

US at 90 per 100 residents.

According to the global peace list, the one closest to #1 and higher up on the firearm guns per 100 people is Finland. Finland placed #17 in Global Peace, #6 in firearms per 10 people with 34 guns per 100 people. The main difference? You cannot carry your firearm unless hunting or at a range, and you must have a valid reason for firearm use, i.e. hobby or sport.

This tends to reign true for other countries who sit higher up both lists. One common theme, you cannot carry in public. Even NZ sits up at 22 guns per 100 people but yet we have laws that prohibit carry outside of home AND tough requirements for licencing (like other countries, including Switzerland).

Switzerland is bound by the European Firearms Directive

Interesting themes coming across, right?
 
There are a million other choices of “safe” countries for people to choose...just let to people have the one option to have the USA and let’s see what happens. If they don’t like it they are free to walk away to sooooo many others and this isn’t a don’t like it get away comment.
 
ax1 said:
As I’ve said this in the past, gun control laws in the USA are too strict....I can’t even get a carry on license here in NY and I’m a clean citizen.

Do those countries listed have Al-ciaeda and ISIS terrorists out to kill them?

Usually people in some of those countries in that list do whatever it takes to come over here than the other way around. Brazil is a ****hole I can’t take that list seriously (I’d research it more but I’m on the road on my phone) but like I said Government makes it hard for many of us to own guns and if you take out the high crime areas that already have to worse gun crime where simultaneously having the most strict gun laws we easily would get better numbers.

I’d still rather live in Chicago than Brazil or Rhwanda.
Click to expand...

FWIW that list is safety across a lot of metrics, not just gun laws. The US ranks 11th in the world for firearm related deaths, and sits among very third world countries, however this also includes suicides.

The point is though, that guns are not making your country safe. That is a fallacy, and you use further fallacies to defend it. You can like guns. You can want guns. You can pretend owning guns is making you safer, but we all know it isn't.
 
Jiigzz said:
In addition, guns per 100 people: Invalid Link Removed

US at 90 per 100 residents.

According to the global peace list, the one closest to #1 and higher up on the firearm guns per 100 people is Finland. Finland placed #17 in Global Peace, #6 in firearms per 10 people with 34 guns per 100 people. The main difference? You cannot carry your firearm unless hunting or at a range, and you must have a valid reason for firearm use, i.e. hobby or sport.

This tends to reign true for other countries who sit higher up both lists. One common theme, you cannot carry in public. Even NZ sits up at 22 guns per 100 people but yet we have laws that prohibit carry outside of home AND tough requirements for licencing (like other countries, including Switzerland).

Switzerland is bound by the European Firearms Directive

Interesting themes coming across, right?
Click to expand...

How about finding a list of most medicated countries and maybe that can point the direction of why some of these issues come about here?
 
ax1 said:
I know who your source was and we all know they have been lying pieces of crap for decades. From the government to mainstream media. Then when we question the official story and people like you come along and it becomes about space martians and Bigfoot to man never landing on the moon.

Gun laws in America are not “lax” it’s quite the opposite and no way would I strip away our rights due to the act of what looks to be a military industrial complex patsy.
Click to expand...
Yes, a man walking around with an aR on his back is proof of your restrictive gun laws ;)
 
Jiigzz said:
FWIW that list is safety across a lot of metrics, not just gun laws. The US ranks 11th in the world for firearm related deaths, and sits among very third world countries, however this also includes suicides.

The point is though, that guns are not making your country safe. That is a fallacy, and you use further fallacies to defend it. You can like guns. You can want guns. You can pretend owning guns is making you safer, but we all know it isn't.
Click to expand...

You have no conceptual understanding of the 2nd amendment and why the founding fathers put it there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top