Mandalay Bay Shooting

[LJ]

It that a typo or does it really say 800 rounds per minute? Is that possible? that's 13 rounds a second.

 

A full auto M16 is 700 RPM, bumpfire is typically slower at like 350

[jerrodh]

Anyone know where slide-fires might be still available? lol... (not kidding)

[ODoyle]

Anyone know where slide-fires might be still available? lol... (not kidding)

 

I have heard the sales skyrocketed since the shooting. Slide Fire was supposedly going to stop taking orders for them until they could fill all of them in a timely fashion.

[oh8sti]

Shop here in Nashville has a shelf full of them. A reporter came in from the local news came in ans started asking about slidefires while I was there. The owner of the shop told him “we don’t sell those types of things”. All the reporter had to do was walk around the store and he would have seen the entire shelf haha

 

Slide fires and gat cranks are stupid unless you are 10 years old.

 

Ammo is too expensive.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Panduh

[Geeesammy]

Fishy as fuck

 

[STEVE-O]

That video is the first thing I have seen that does not have a reasonable explanation to back up why the echo or any reflecting noise doesn't match the close range.

[Jewtoys]

You guys are nut cases.

[zeitgeist57]

You guys are nut cases.

 

Welcome to CR. :gabe:

[Diamonds]

A full auto M16 is 700 RPM, bumpfire is typically slower at like 350

 

My pistol length 7.5 upper is more like 900!

[Miller]

Cell phones are not reliable sound recording devices. Their db range is all over the place. I wouldn't count on any of it to help you understand more than we are told.

[LJ]

The windows he was shooting from were facing 2 different directions

 

[Bigbird]

The windows he was shooting from were facing 2 different directions

 

 

If I had to guess, this explains the difference in sound in the video. I'd say he had two "perches" setup and just went back and forth shooting already loaded weapons.

[Red Beard]

Supposedly It was to gain better angles to hit more people as they ran.

[Geeto67]

I don't want to add to the conspiracy-paloza that is going on here....so.....

 

if we are going to talk about the now fired insensitive NBC lawyer for her remarks can we at least throw some stones at Bill O'Reilly for saying that mass shootings are gun an inevitable byproduct of freedom and we should accept this tragedy as "the price of freedom" and move on?

 

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/bill-oreilly-las-vegas-shooting-1202578290/

 

I mean, I can't be the only one that thinks that's an asshole thing to say, right?

[RedRocket1647545505]

Am I the only one who thinks this selfie-taking, look-at-me, attention whore society we've created has a large part to do with these shootings these days? The rise in social media seems to have correlated (maybe causation) with the rise in shootings. This guy clearly didn't have enough talent to become famous through acceptable means, so he chose to become infamous instead. I feel like a lot of these shootings are about who can 1-up the one before it. All it takes is a small bit of internet research, and a severe lack of a moral compass or conscience, and you have what we have today.

 

 

I feel like if we are going to talk about the 2nd Amendment being part of the problem, then the 1st Amendment is equally as valid. If we're going to go after guns, then social media should be on the chopping block as well. No more Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat, etc. You can no longer become instantly infamous because no one will have the means to instantly hear about it. That should put a pretty good dent in part of the problem. And, unlike firearms, which would still be easily obtainable even if they were outright banned, its not like social media would be. You delete the program and it's gone for everyone. Unless you're some genius underground programmer, it ain't coming back.

[BStowers023]

Am I the only one who thinks this selfie-taking, look-at-me, attention whore society we've created has a large part to do with these shootings these days? The rise in social media seems to have correlated (maybe causation) with the rise in shootings. This guy clearly didn't have enough talent to become famous through acceptable means, so he chose to become infamous instead. I feel like a lot of these shootings are about who can 1-up the one before it. All it takes is a small bit of internet research, and a severe lack of a moral compass or conscience, and you have what we have today.

 

 

I feel like if we are going to talk about the 2nd Amendment being part of the problem, then the 1st Amendment is equally as valid. If we're going to go after guns, then social media should be on the chopping block as well. No more Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat, etc. You can no longer become instantly infamous because no one will have the means to instantly hear about it. That should put a pretty good dent in part of the problem. And, unlike firearms, which would still be easily obtainable even if they were outright banned, its not like social media would be. You delete the program and it's gone for everyone. Unless you're some genius underground programmer, it ain't coming back.

 

 

Sounds like the country I wanna live in! I know you're making a point here and I'm assuming mostly sarcastically. A lot of people don't understand that once you start 'banning' things that were once a part of your constitutional rights, you start to go down a very slippery slope.

[Geeesammy]

I don't want to add to the conspiracy-paloza that is going on here....so.....

 

if we are going to talk about the now fired insensitive NBC lawyer for her remarks can we at least throw some stones at Bill O'Reilly for saying that mass shootings are gun an inevitable byproduct of freedom and we should accept this tragedy as "the price of freedom" and move on?

 

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/bill-oreilly-las-vegas-shooting-1202578290/

 

I mean, I can't be the only one that thinks that's an asshole thing to say, right?

 

You are such a douche lol

 

"Muh liberalz got fired but bill oreally said sumfin bad too!!! He is way worse guiths I promise!!

[Red Beard]

Am I the only one who thinks this selfie-taking, look-at-me, attention whore society we've created has a large part to do with these shootings these days? The rise in social media seems to have correlated (maybe causation) with the rise in shootings. This guy clearly didn't have enough talent to become famous through acceptable means, so he chose to become infamous instead. I feel like a lot of these shootings are about who can 1-up the one before it. All it takes is a small bit of internet research, and a severe lack of a moral compass or conscience, and you have what we have today.

 

 

I feel like if we are going to talk about the 2nd Amendment being part of the problem, then the 1st Amendment is equally as valid. If we're going to go after guns, then social media should be on the chopping block as well. No more Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat, etc. You can no longer become instantly infamous because no one will have the means to instantly hear about it. That should put a pretty good dent in part of the problem. And, unlike firearms, which would still be easily obtainable even if they were outright banned, its not like social media would be. You delete the program and it's gone for everyone. Unless you're some genius underground programmer, it ain't coming back.

 

 

Not to mention to extend on that point, social media is extremely bias from the beginning. Praise is given for being social, taking pictures and positive vibes, bla bla bla. But in all reality, the same people posing for the camera can even carry on a conversation face to face. Adding to all the 'millennials' who have anxiety of judgment because they aren't keeping up with their peers. Creating a sociopathic 'Jackle & Hyde' mentality. Overly worried about being the person everyone should be envious of, but when behind closed doors are a depressed individual that can't even think about talking to someone about it for fear of judgement. Heaven forbid they try to vent to social media as the ones who finally do, get bashed for airing their dirty laundry to the world. Labelled as attention seekers. But I digress...

[Geeto67]

You are such a douche lol

 

"Muh liberalz got fired but bill oreally said sumfin bad too!!! He is way worse guiths I promise!!

 

Just so I am clear on your double standard: It's perfectly ok for Conservative fanboi to post something shitty a liberal asshole said (which I 100% agree was an asshole thing to say and she should have and did get fired over it) but the moment I point out that a political pundit, whose literal job it is to say shitty things to get you worked up, says a shitty thing - it's not ok by your standard?

 

I'd has you to pull your head out of your ass grant but I think all the heavy excavators you would need to do the job are in use at the moment.

 

you know what... I am going to assume you just agree with him, seems to fit your character as an overall shitty person.

[TTQ B4U]

throw some stones at Bill O'Reilly for saying that mass shootings are gun an inevitable byproduct of freedom and we should accept this tragedy as "the price of freedom" and move on?

 

He's right though. The only way our culture and society is going to be free from gun violence is to eliminate them. Otherwise, the cost of bad instances like this are indeed the price of our freedoms.

 

Interestingly a guy they had on the other night lost his wife and still stood firm in his support for 2A. A gun didn't kill his wife, a man did. None of these people volunteered to die that day for our rights but I bet at some point some of them did and every single day millions more do.

 

The price of one life sucks let alone the roughly 5,500 good guys per year that are murdered by thugs with guns and overall that number is but a fraction of a percent of our entire population.

[Geeesammy]

Just so I am clear on your double standard: It's perfectly ok for Conservative fanboi to post something shitty a liberal asshole said (which I 100% agree was an asshole thing to say and she should have and did get fired over it) but the moment I point out that a political pundit, whose literal job it is to say shitty things to get you worked up, says a shitty thing - it's not ok by your standard?

 

I'd has you to pull your head out of your ass grant but I think all the heavy excavators you would need to do the job are in use at the moment.

 

you know what... I am going to assume you just agree with him, seems to fit your character as an overall shitty person.

 

He's right though. The only way our culture and society is going to be free from gun violence is to eliminate them. Otherwise, the cost of bad instances like this are indeed the price of our freedoms.

 

Interestingly a guy they had on the other night lost his wife and still stood firm in his support for 2A. A gun didn't kill his wife, a man did. None of these people volunteered to die that day for our rights but I bet at some point some of them did and every single day millions more do.

 

The price of one life sucks let alone the roughly 5,500 good guys per year that are murdered by thugs with guns and overall that number is but a fraction of a percent of our entire population.

 

 

Said before I could say it

 

You are a douche because you instantly divert from anything that takes credibility away from your platform in an attempt to take more credibility away from the other guys. You have a complex that causes you to refuse that you might actually be wrong once in a blue moon.

 

The worst part is people like you are the reason why the political divide in this country deepens. You have a condescending tone to anyone who has a differing view of you and you're just a douche relating to political stuff, no two ways about it.

 

You've literally come onto a local car forum, set off a bomb of political shit, told everyone they were wrong and shown your ass then wonder why people don't really care for you anymore....

[Geeesammy]

Tell me which is worse Kerry, hell even tell me which is more truthful without interjecting with some other "right wing extremist" quote from years past.

 

1."If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing, I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are Republican gun toters."

 

2."But having covered scores of gun-related crimes over the years," he writes, "I can tell you that government restrictions will not stop psychopaths from harming people. This is the price of freedom. Violent nuts are allowed to roam free until they do damage, no matter how threatening they are."

 

 

You are a LOT older than me. You should know that there are more ways to kill or injure people/property than guns.

 

Oklahoma City used literally zero rounds of ammunition.

[dsm_sleeper]

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0041/8822/products/Guns_Don_t_Kill_People_grande.jpg?v=1480788111

 

'nuff said

[Geeto67]

He's right though. The only way our culture and society is going to be free from gun violence is to eliminate them. Otherwise, the cost of bad instances like this are indeed the price of our freedoms.

 

Is it though? I don't believe that a total ban in necessary to improve the system and continue down the path to safety. I think that most people don't believe it. The only ones who do are extremist nut jobs on both sides. I think that the above statement is a red herring that is specifically designed to shut down the conversation. I don't that that is what this situation calls for. People want to talk about this, and they want recognition of a middle ground.

 

Interestingly a guy they had on the other night lost his wife and still stood firm in his support for 2A. A gun didn't kill his wife, a man did.

 

yep, and the majority of gun control legislation is about vetting people to grant access. That sounds more like restrictions on people than the weapons themselves. It also sounds like it might address some of the nations concern. We don't make progress on any of it, anyway, and when these things come up the politicizing of the issue tends to focus on outright hardware restriction bills (like the suppressor bill) because they are polarizing.

 

you can bitch and moan about vetting people as part of a travel ban (where the existing process was already very effective) and have no problem being flippant about their constitutionally protected basic human rights, but a vetting process to a piece of equipment (where the existing vetting process has more holes than swiss cheese) you are going to rail against? I don't get the logic (because it's stupid).

 

The price of one life sucks let alone the roughly 5,500 good guys per year that are murdered by thugs with guns and overall that number is but a fraction of a percent of our entire population.

 

If you really believe that the price of one life has any value, then I don't think you would take the position that nothing can be done, or that it is a necessary cost.

[Geeto67]

I'm still butt hurt that nobody on CR wanted to recognize my mad supra building skillz so I am going to throw a grantrum and whine because this no longer feels like a safe space for my shitty conservative opinions

 

fixed it for you sweetums. :thumbup: