[mrsmudpie]

Originally Posted by trollbridge ↗

Is there any chance there was a second (or more) person in the room ? I mean, it sounds like at least two guns firing at the same time in some of the vids based on the acoustic properties of the firearms. I wonder if there is any way that another person could have been helping him all along....? Thoughts?

He was in an area surrounded by high rise buildings, someone feel free to correct me but I’m pretty sure what you are referring to could have been the simple echo of the gunshots.

[-me-]

Originally Posted by 5150 ↗

Idiots who want more gun control laws in the USA are clueless. If gun control laws worked, we should then pass 1 single law in the country that says "All crime in the USA is now illegal" so that all crime would stop. Why not, don't criminals obey all laws including gun control laws?

This would seem to advocate for no laws at all.
Laws exist to protect the lives/rights of people, even though occasionally that means others will be deprived of a toy - it's a balance. Laws exist despite the fact that a minority will likely abuse them. That does not mean we should abandon laws.

Would we advocate for our neighbour having a stockpile of bombs, missiles, atomic weapons??? No. It would encroach on our own rights to expect a life of peace.
For the same reason, I wouldn't want my neighbour stockpiling guns. People who crave to own guns for reasons of paranoia (22% of adult Americans, 3% owning FIFTY percent of all US guns) are the least suited.

We have a lot of violent thugs in this country. The more we take away the rights of law abiding citizens to have access guns, the more the advantage shifts to the thugs.

Citizens with guns hardly ever deter or stop events such as this latest tragedy. Generally surprise and a gun is all an assailant requires - there is no victim response to that, because the victim is incapacitated.

With events like this latest tragedy, where multiple victims are involved, it's the authorities who deal with it (of course). If not directly, the imminent threat of capture often causes the assailant to end their spree themselves.

Statement from the guitarist playing during the event: "I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd Amendment my whole life," Caleb Keeter wrote on Twitter today, "until the events of last night. I can’t express how wrong I was."
"We actually have members of our crew with [concealed handgun licenses], and legal firearms on the bus. They were useless," he wrote. "We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group [or one man] laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of firepower."

Getting rid of the guns will not necessarily produce immediate benefits, but over years it will bring about a more peaceful society and the death rates will fall. The 78% of non-gun owners need to stand up as one and demand this.

[AlphaX]

I understand there are now pictures from the actual hotel room, but the one German news site that has it only offers it to subscription members. I'm sure they will leak through soon..

[Meridian]

Pics of two of the guns in his room plus smashed windows and illustration showing line of sight
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dai...ck-s-room.html

[ferris209]

Originally Posted by -me- ↗

Would we advocate for our neighbour having a stockpile of bombs, missiles, atomic weapons??? No. It would encroach on our own rights to expect a life of peace.

From zero to false equivalence in less than a day.

Originally Posted by -me- ↗

Citizens with guns hardly ever deter or stop events such as this latest tragedy. Generally surprise and a gun is all an assailant requires - there is no victim response to that, because the victim is incapacitated.

Oh really? Where do you get your numbers? What's your sources? What's your experience? Because in my experience as a police officer for fifteen years compels me to support the 2nd amendment because I've personally seen dozens of people deter crime and/or save themselves or others from harm by effectively using a gun.

[Oswald2001]

Originally Posted by DCnative ↗

Thanks for the insight Jedi. I am an exotic car mechanic by trade, but own a number of guns and work with a bunch of guys who like guns. At work we were watching the video shot from very far away that shows the beginning of the attack. We thought that he was using a bump-fire stock - with the first gun being an AR type gun and the second one being either an AK type gun or perhaps he was shooting from the other window, thus changing the pitch. Did you notice that during the second gun/burst of fire the gun seems to jam a couple of times?

-Will

I agree.

The rate of fire was too fast to be simple semi-auto.

And it seemed to me to be a bit inconsistent to be simple full auto fire.

I am guessing it was a bump fire or similar jerry rigged situation.

I have fired SIMULATED full auto fire before with a semi-auto rifle without the use of any 'contraption'.

It's an easy trick.

[-me-]

Originally Posted by ferris209 ↗

Where do you get your numbers? What's your sources? What's your experience? Because in my experience as a police officer for fifteen years compels me to support the 2nd amendment because I've personally seen dozens of people deter crime and/or save themselves or others from harm by effectively using a gun.

Experiences are, of course, anecdotal...but feel free to provide links to actual information and, more importantly statistics. It's a compelling topic for discourse, if you are a police officer your perspective is very welcome too. Many officers will naturally be wary of gun ownership because they have to face these guns, and the results of their usage on a daily basis - it's interesting that you seem less concerned.

As you requested - some actual stats:
The National Crime Victimization Survey - Some 90,000 households, comprising about 160,000 individuals, are surveyed twice a year.

"looking at more than 14,000 crimes in which there was some degree of personal contact between the victim and perpetrator — incidents in which a self-protective action by the victim was theoretically possible (for example, assaults and robberies).

More than 42% of the time, the victim took some action — maced the offender, yelled at the offender, struggled, ran away, or called the police. Victims used a gun in less than 1% of the incidents (127/14,145). In other words, actual self-defense gun use, even in our gun-rich country, is rare.

It is sometimes claimed that guns are particularly beneficial to potentially weaker victims, such as women. Yet of the more than 300 sexual assaults reported in the surveys, the number of times women were able to use a gun to protect themselves was zero.

Indeed, a study of 10 previous years of crime survey data found that of more than 1,100 sexual assaults, in only one did the victim use a gun in self-defense.

The data, moreover, do not provide support for the notion that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. Slightly more than 4% of victims were injured during or after a self-defense gun use — the same percentage as were injured during or after taking other protective actions. Some other forms of protective actions were associated with higher rates of injury (for example, struggling) and some with lower (for example, running away).

Guns did seem beneficial in one category: protecting against loss of property. Looking only at crimes in which the intent was to steal , the victim lost property in only 38% of the incidents when using a gun, compared with 56% of the incidents when taking other actions. But using some other weapon — Mace, for instance — appeared equally effective as using a gun."

High gun ownership linked to high rate of police officer deaths, study shows

Comparison of gun related death by country:


For balance: Some Instances where civilian gun ownership actually helped.

The UK don't permit civilians to have guns (exceptions being farmers and some very restrictive gun clubs) - so the UK has incredibly low gun murder, accident, injury and suicide rates. The US is extremely high because...it permits guns!!!
- it's quite simple.

[Coreym07]

Originally Posted by Oswald2001 ↗

I agree.

The rate of fire was too fast to be simple semi-auto.

And it seemed to me to be a bit inconsistent to be simple full auto fire.

I am guessing it was a bump fire or similar jerry rigged situation.

I have fired SIMULATED full auto fire before with a semi-auto rifle without the use of any 'contraption'.

It's an easy trick.

Look at photos of fun. It is a bump fire stock.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by -me- ↗

Experiences are, of course, anecdotal...but feel free to provide links to actual information and, more importantly statistics. It's a compelling topic for discourse, if you are a police officer your perspective is very welcome too. Many officers will naturally be wary of gun ownership because they have to face these guns, and the results of their usage on a daily basis - it's interesting that you seem less concerned.

As you requested - some actual stats:
The National Crime Victimization Survey - Some 90,000 households, comprising about 160,000 individuals, are surveyed twice a year.

"looking at more than 14,000 crimes in which there was some degree of personal contact between the victim and perpetrator — incidents in which a self-protective action by the victim was theoretically possible (for example, assaults and robberies).

More than 42% of the time, the victim took some action — maced the offender, yelled at the offender, struggled, ran away, or called the police. Victims used a gun in less than 1% of the incidents (127/14,145). In other words, actual self-defense gun use, even in our gun-rich country, is rare.

It is sometimes claimed that guns are particularly beneficial to potentially weaker victims, such as women. Yet of the more than 300 sexual assaults reported in the surveys, the number of times women were able to use a gun to protect themselves was zero.

Indeed, a study of 10 previous years of crime survey data found that of more than 1,100 sexual assaults, in only one did the victim use a gun in self-defense.

The data, moreover, do not provide support for the notion that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. Slightly more than 4% of victims were injured during or after a self-defense gun use — the same percentage as were injured during or after taking other protective actions. Some other forms of protective actions were associated with higher rates of injury (for example, struggling) and some with lower (for example, running away).

Guns did seem beneficial in one category: protecting against loss of property. Looking only at crimes in which the intent was to steal , the victim lost property in only 38% of the incidents when using a gun, compared with 56% of the incidents when taking other actions. But using some other weapon — Mace, for instance — appeared equally effective as using a gun."

High gun ownership linked to high rate of police officer deaths, study shows

Comparison of gun related death by country:


For balance: Some Instances where civilian gun ownership actually helped.

The UK don't permit civilians to have guns (exceptions being farmers and some very restrictive gun clubs) - so the UK has incredibly low gun murder, accident, injury and suicide rates. The US is extremely high because...it permits guns!!!
- it's quite simple.

Ah! But it isn't that simple.

Over 60% of gun related homicides are self inflicted. Give suicidal people a gun in the UK, their statistics would grow similar.

The rest being inner city issues, namely in predominately black neighborhoods. Removing that element and America would have a per capita closer to Holland.

The US, being as large is it is, has a bit more complex of measure when comparing to smaller countries the size of some of our major cities. If you went more along state by state basis (which in theory is little countries in a union) to compare to the UK, then you'd find some are better, or worse, but not all the same. It boils down to demographics, cultures, environments, etc. Which obviously America is very diverse on those terms.

To lump the entire US together to compare to small, still somewhat monolithic society isn't a balanced measure.

The big argument on gun laws is allowing a few people in a very large society, fuck it up for everyone else. Using skewed statistics to push agendas, that has entirely nothing to do with public safety. We have other public safety concerns that dwarfs Anual gun related deaths ten folds that goes totally ignored.


33 thousand gun related deaths per year average. 60% or more are suicide related. In a population 323 million people, isn't even an epidemic. Suicide is the epidemic, mostly due to constant wars and a cycle of youth being rotated in/out of military.

The rest is a mix of gang violence, a nice chunk of it thanks to illegals, cartels, etc, and inner city crimes predominately in black communities.

Then the small end is justifiable homicide and accidental, which combined with suicide, exceed the amount of gun violence in statistics.

[hambone]

I found his death photo