We know people are evil enough to want to do it, but do you think it's possible for someone to manage 100+ deaths before they are killed by civilians shooting back? Right now the record is 60 and I feel someone is going to be stupid enough to attempt to break the record.
shareYes and frankly I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet. It will be some kook shooting down onto a crowd from an elevated position, like the Vegas shooter, or even the Texas shooter from back in the day. I can’t remember their names.
Edit:
Texas Shooter - Charles Whitman
I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet either. It's going to take someone with a death wish to enter a sports stadium or some outdoor music event like Woodstock where there are a lot of people confined to one area. I think it's going to take 100+ deaths before the US takes any form of stricter gun laws.
shareStephen Craig Paddock was the Vegas shooter.
You can see a pattern with most of these mass shootings. They tend to be WASP men who lean to the right of the political spectrum.
As I've said yesterday in this thread,
the official perpetrator (Stephen Paddock) didn't do it.
He was the first victim of the shooters.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/653afdfa7c4d2854e1133263/Do-you-think-the-USA-will-ever-see-a-mass-shooting-of-100-deaths?reply=653b0f677c4d2854e113331d
Paddock was a leftie.
sharePaddock was elderly, white, wealthy and owned dozens of firearms. Yep! Sounds like a lefty to me.🤣
shareAnd you believe that makes him a right-winger? hahaha, he was 100-percent a leftist just like you.
shareDid I say that Paddock was a right winger? I only claimed that he's not a lefty. You continue to show your stupidity everytime you post here.
shareNevertheless; he was a leftist like you.
shareShow me where in this article that proves Paddock was a leftist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock
I get it though. Anyone that you don't like or who confuses you is a leftist.
How was he a leftist?
shareMost guns would start to missfire and the shells jam before that much firring. It would take a chain gun which is too heavy for most people to carry.Like in the Predator movie.
shareI'm not a gun person at all, but I assume it can be done with a series of pre-loaded AR-15's that they switch to when one runs out of ammo.
shareTry carrying 5 or 6 guns. Thats is why the minigun with 6 barrels. It is likely less of a chance of getting hot and the bullet getting stuck.
https://youtu.be/drk_yDIyxhY
The M134 minigun from Predator is normally a mounted weapon and it does get hot as shit. Regardless, no one in real life carries around an M134.
Not that I want to give people ideas, but carrying an AR-15/M4 with extra magazines along with a two 9mm/M9's, or other similar firearm, is not difficult to do at all.
More importantly, when the 100+ victims shooting does happen it will most likely be done from a position where the shooter will be able to have several firearms at his disposal from a locked down position, like the Vegas shooter.
I hope I'm wrong about this, but I think it's only a matter of time before it happens.
I'm not sure of the weight, but maybe carry one with hands, and one strapped to the back.
shareWhen a shooter is firing an AR15 it takes about one second to eject and insert a full magazine. There is no need for multiple rifles.
shareelcamino mentioned that an AR-15 could get hot and get stuck.
shareI am a US Army veteran and I was issued an M16 rifle which is the military version of the AR15 and I fired hundreds of rounds with that rifle. My rifle never jammed and neither did anyone elses. Apparently elcamino has never fired an AR15.
shareSounds like it could be possible for 100+ deaths. There's going to be someone crazy enough to attempt it.
shareThe DS is not too concerned with the amount of casualties from a single shooter, they use airplanes and controlled demolitions for that.
They prefer more mass shootings to convince the brainwashed idiots to ban guns.
Not a gun ban, but stricter gun laws. Here in Canada, you can buy a gun, but you need a license and not many stores sell them. I live in a province with 12 million people and I've heard only two stores sell hem.
shareStricter gun laws only affect the law abiding citizens, it does nothing for career criminals and mentally ill that would acquire them by any means necessary.
shareI guess that's why the UK has almost no gun crime. And most of Europe.
shareKnives, blunt objects, hands, feet, etc.
shareUSA has those things too. My point is and was that limiting access to weapons can reduce, overall, the levels of gun crime.
shareAnd my point is that banning guns will not prevent criminals and the mentally ill from hurting and/or murdering people using whatever means necessary by obtaining guns or other weapons to commit those crimes.
Limiting access will only affect the law abiding citizens. Try using common sense for once.
Your original claim that "stricter gun laws" only affect the law abiding citizens, and that "career criminals and mentally ill" would acquire them "by any means necessary"
If that were so, UK would have comparatively similar rates of gun crime. And when we clamped down on it, it would have made no difference.
They compensate by using sharp objects, blunt objects, hands, feet, etc.
shareRight, and now compare the murder rates in the UK vs. USA
shareDid banning guns prevent people from murdering and killing in the UK? Yes or No?
shareIt prevented would-be killers from having easy access to a dangerous weapon to do it. It has almost wiped out all gun rampages.
shareOnce again:
Did banning guns prevent people from murdering and killing in the UK? Yes or No?
Obviously it didn't literally prevent all murder, no. What's your point?
shareYou would have to be a ninja or something to kill 60 people with unarmed attacks and bladed weapons.
shareAnother NPC that missed the obvious point.
shareThat's you, dumbass... reducing deaths IS THE POINT. Fucking retards, damn.
shareFrom the criminals and the mentally ill? Only an imbecile would believe that.
shareWhy can't you just say your actual opinion? "Muh freedom is more important than excess deaths." Simple. You don't have to act like being disconnected from reality is proving your point.
shareI was making a point and hoping against all odds that a fraction of common sense would be applied in understanding it....apparently, that is asking too much.
shareSure, buddy. Criminals can just bludgeon people to death with a shoe. Why didn't I think of that? Lol, what a joke.
shareThe criminals and the mentally ill would still get their hands on guns by whatever means necessary.
Yeap, no common sense.
I have no street connections, no money either. Not sure what means would be necessary to get an illegal gun. Maybe sneak into someone's house with a bladed weapon like a ninja! Take their family hostage... as long as they don't shoot me first.
shareFentanyl is illegal and banned in every state, yet, they still get their hands on it and thousands die from it every year.
Why does a picture or diagram have to be drawn to get a point across to you libs about everything?...no need to answer that......I already know.
Ehh, fentanyl is probably easier, but it's probably gonna be mixed with zombie drugs. How do I get an AR without getting ripped off? You said I can get one "by any means necessary" but you can't name the means.
shareBut then why doesn't this happen in the UK? They're much harder to get here, but we don't see criminals managing it all the time.
share"Limiting access will only affect the law abiding citizens."
Agreed.
In recent years our gun laws became increasingly strict.
As a result special people walk around like Rambo.
While I can only hope that if something happens, the special people will laugh their heads off when they see my silly crossbow. 😳
Discussion 'ammunition' for you:
Switzerland has the lowest rate of gun crime and every Swiss has a gun in the closet. 🇨🇭
While technically true, the feasibility of that in the U.S. is impossible. That cat is far too out of the bag in the U.S. However, that's ultimately irrelevant. The violence issue isn't about guns, although guns do enhance the outcome and render inflicting violence easier. I fully support firearm licensing and mandatory training with periodic testing of weapon handling for other reasons, but the only thing that would help these incidents is keeping guns out of the hands of people prone to committing these types of crimes. In nearly every case like this one there's always obvious signs, blatant red flags, that people knew about but did nothing about. That problem lies at the heart of very preventable events, with a lone gunman, usually “white”, firing into crowds. Of course, that's only half of the mass shooting problem. The other half is that literally 50% of all gun-related homicides are committed by black men, comprising merely 6% of the population, usually against each other. Both of these phenomena feed into firearm-related homicide statistics in a big way, and they’re both very different in nature and most likely require very different solutions. In both cases, however, the problem isn’t the guns themselves, but the behavior that’s leading to the violent acts.
Even if an Infinity Gauntlet were used to magically vanish all guns on the planet, the same ratio of violent crime between countries would remain. Why? Because the problem isn't caused by guns (it's just made slightly worse). Regarding the lone perpetrator mass shootings, ponder this: there is the same ratio of guns-to-people today in the U.S. as there's been for many decades (and probably since the inception of the country). It’s barely even fluctuated over the years, staying right at the same level. So why did this problem only start about 25 years ago? Why weren't these events happening for decades prior to the grandaddy of mass shootings, Columbine? In the 80s we had kids driving trucks to school with gun racks in the back, much more so in prior decades. No mass shootings. This statistic can't be explained away with guns being the problem. The tool used clearly isn't the issue. It's the people wielding the tools. They'd be committing the same number of violent crimes with or without firearms. The real problem is behavioral. Some on the Right like to always link it to mental illness, and that is a factor, but it doesn't explain everything. There's a deep-seated cultural component that's escalated into the mess we have today, and its root is very complex.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
I mean, yeah, there's a cultural problem here - but it's much easier to commit a massacre with guns than a pipe or a knife. At the minimum, somehow magicking all guns away would mitigate the scale of rampages.
shareYeah it would reduce scale of impact, but only on these occasional lone gunmen events, and would do little to the majority of gun crimes committed with illegally acquired or even personally manufactured weapons. Statistically, overall homicide victim reduction would be barely a blip when considering all gun-related homicides. If there was some way to do it without affecting stable, law-abiding gun owners it'd be done by now. For different reasons I would like to see firearm owners educated to respect the weapon much more than many do.
But even if doing that, it doesn't actually solve the problem, even if it shaved a few victims off the top statistically. It may even make it worse because without access to firearms they may resort to even more destructive measures, although that's speculative. So again, as an ex-Marine I'm all for stricter gun laws, mandatory training, certification and licensing. But we have a behavioral violence problem that such measures would do little to prevent, and I suspect would only marginally mitigate. So what's the solution?
There's no quick fix. Perhaps if a massive societal implosion happened to reset things. But it all boils down to how we treat each other, how we respect each other, how we value, or don't value, human life in general.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Law abiding just means that someone hasn't been caught. Ariel Castro was a legal gun owner but had 3 women captive in his house for a decade.
shareNevertheless; those laws only affect the law abiding.
shareHave you ever shot a firearm? Since you are cowardly I doubt it.
https://i.postimg.cc/vZ4DfS4W/loser.gif
I figured that you're so stupid because you think that 9/11 was an inside job. Of course you have proof of your claim. Let's see it!
shareProbaby, if we don't do something about the extreme rightwing gerrymandering which keeps the lunatics in congress and prevents passing of sensible gun laws a large majority of Americans want.
shareWhen you have politicians taking family Christmas photos where they're holding guns, we're a long way from sensible guns laws.
shareLike Democrats dont gerrymander, lmao....delusional.
shareIs it important to distinguish between guns and bombs? ☻
As well as I know the shooting with the most victims counted 61.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
And the official perpetrator didn't do it.
The perpetrator is included. It says there on the right side.
shareYes, Wikipedia says so...you're welcome for the link. ☻
And I count the "perpetrator" because (as already said), he didn't do it.
What do you mean "he didn't do it"?
shareCoincidentally, I was online on Youtube when it happened.
There were also many uploads/vids of the hotel from where the shots came.
There was more than one shooter.
All uploads got deleted.
Most of them didn't show anything against the rules.
Means, these vids didn't show people dying or the like.
As far as we know, he was involved. If there was more than one shooter, then he is still a perpetrator and wouldn't count as a death.
shareDig deeper into it.
The official perpetrator was the first victim.
Everything about Las Vegas stinks to high hell... why do you think its been thrown down Mel's Hole?
shareAhaaaa!...now I know what legendary "Mel's Hole" is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel%27s_Hole
Every day I learn something new on MovieChat. ♥
It's definitely worth re-reading the thread as a whole (pun intended).
For this I need another vanilla coffee with much milk and honey.
Never liked coffee until a US-American convinced me to try it with vanilla.
"You imperialist bastards must pollute the whole world!"
Just kidding, I like most Americans and Cola too. 🫂
Do you think banning guns from people who obey the law will have an impact on criminals using them illegally?
Murder is already banned and people still do it.
Drugs are illegal, people still do it.
The left constantly tells us banning abortion won’t prevent it from happening.
Big medicine kills 500,000 people a year “accidentally”, why not ban that too?
What’s the difference with guns? Aside from they save lives and provide people with the ability to defend themselves against criminals and a tyrannical govt.
That’s probably why the founding fathers felt this right was so important it needed to be protected right behind free speech. The other thing the ignorant left hates.
Excellent common sense points.
shareDo you think banning guns from people who obey the law will have an impact on criminals using them illegally?
Murder is already banned and people still do it.
Drugs are illegal, people still do it.
Big medicine kills 500,000 people a year “accidentally”, why not ban that too?
What’s the difference with guns? Aside from they save lives and provide people with the ability to defend themselves against criminals and a tyrannical govt.
The criminal elite can’t have the population armed because unlike the rest of the world, the American people actually have a fighting chance to stand up for themselves and their freedom.
Gun control has never been about protecting the citizens. Gun control is about protecting the powers of the Government, the powers of the big corporations, and the powers of the criminal elite.
When you support more restrictions on guns, you are supporting more restrictions on you.
Free people have access to guns, slaves don’t.
The class of people who would benefit the most from banning guns are criminals.
The only people who would turn in their legally owned guns are the exact people society doesn’t need to worry about.
Increase the welfare state, thus increasing violent criminals; increasing violent crime increases the opportunity to remove guns from the citizens.
Guns are simply inanimate objects used to project society’s failure.
Most guns are not used as a weapon; they are used as a shield to protect the citizens from a government overreaching its power.
The Government says that they want to save the people by removing assault rifles because of mass shootings despite the fact that in the first six months of 2021 more people (10,000+) have died from the covid-vaccine that the government is pushing than from all the mass shootings over the last six decades combined (1,204)…up to July-2021.
the American people actually have a fighting chance to stand up for themselves and their freedom.
Free people have access to guns, slaves don’t.
in the first six months of 2021 more people (10,000+) have died from the covid-vaccine that the government is pushing than from all the mass shootings over the last six decades combined (1,204)
I was referring to freedom against an overreaching government. Other countries are already under an authoritarian/dictatorship and are already slaves because they gave up their guns.
Your 30K figure is for individuals not for mass shootings, which means that criminals and the mentally ill would still kill with illegally obtained guns, sharp objects, blunt objects, hands, feet, etc....research the numbers on those and you will see higher numbers than your figures.
Yes, there is plenty of evidence that the vax has injured and killed thousands, which you are not going to hear from MSM and leftist platforms that censor that information.
I was referring to freedom against an overreaching government.
Your 30K figure is for individuals not for mass shootings,
Yes, there is plenty of evidence that the vax has injured and killed thousands
"The American citizens are overreaching themselves."
If you are referring to the leftist mob that has been indoctrinated and brainwashed, than yes, they have overreached.
"It's a never ending cycle."
Exactly, and it would exist without guns as it has been since the beginning of civilization.
"but there's no evidence to the extent you're claiming."
It is actually much more than what I'm claiming.......search for it and you will find dozens of sources, information, and over a thousands peer-reviewed papers proving the injuries and deaths that the vax has caused including hundreds of articles of those that have died suddenly from it. Even Trudeau had to lie about never mandating it.
SAFE AND EFFECTIVE LIES: 17,000 Scientists and Physicians confirm that Governments around the world along with Corporations willfully and deliberately lied to humanity about the Covid vaccines. They must be charged with fraud, wrongful advertising and mass negligent homicide.share
The data now shows that the Covid vaccinated are more likely to become infected or have disease or even death if they have been Vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated people. The Covid Vaccines damage your heart, brain, reproductive tissue, lungs, increase cancer and permanently damage your immune system.
If you are referring to the leftist mob that has been indoctrinated and brainwashed, than yes, they have overreached.
Exactly, and it would exist without guns as it has been since the beginning of civilization.
Protection from armed criminals that would never turn in their guns even if they were banned.
'All civilizations' kill and murder whether by guns, objects, hands, feet, etc.
How many mass murders have happened with hands, feet, knives and baseball bats compared to guns?
share100+ million deaths in the past 100+ years by socialism that took away guns from the citizens.
shareThat's called "whataboutism".
shareBanning guns is one of the attributes of Socialism.
We live in a Constitutional Republic that gives us inherent natural rights to owning guns for self-defense against others and an overreaching government like those from 'socialism' that is responsible for 100+ million deaths after disarming their citizens.
Socialism is the polar opposite to our CR and 2nd-A rights.
Fantastic Gd5150! Now how about you try to answer the question instead of going on about "Waa!! Left banning guns, Waa!!" The OP never said anything about gun control or anything. Your mind and the minds of so many others like you just can't seem to separate the ideas of gun control and mass shootings. They are so intertwined for you it's ridiculous. As soon as anyone just mentions the words "mass shooting" your mind immediately just runs to gun control like a magnet so much so that you couldn't possibly have a conversation about mass shootings that has nothing to do with gun control.
share