Las Vegas shootings
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 npn  Crowborough 03 Oct 17 3.20pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
Depending on the barrel and ammunition, an AR-15 has an effective range of 500 yards. However, that's if you are shooting at a small target. I'd imagine that hosing down a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people can be done effectively from quite a way farther. As to the stampede, Congress still is planning to hold a vote this week on relaxing restrictions on silencers. Imagine if the shooter was firing into that crowd, but no one could hear the muzzle report? How many more people would've been hit/killed just because they were unaware that they were the fish in Paddock's giant barrel? Just don't understand why someone would want a silencer? Hunting - to get a second shot if you miss with the first? Strange
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Ray in Houston  Houston 03 Oct 17 3.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
Just don't understand why someone would want a silencer? Hunting - to get a second shot if you miss with the first? Strange You don't get a second shot when hunting which is why, when you do it right, you wait and wait and wait for your prey to be dead still so that you don't miss. Even a silencer (more accurately a "suppressor") doesn't mute the entire sound - it's not like in the movies - it still makes enough noise to spook anything you're shooting at (unless your prey is at a rock concert). Proponents of the bill claim that it is to protect people's hearing. Seriously. Edited by Ray in Houston (03 Oct 2017 3.27pm)
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 03 Oct 17 3.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
Just don't understand why someone would want a silencer? Hunting - to get a second shot if you miss with the first? Strange Actually that has been proven to be a urban myth mainly portrayed by Hollywood movies. Silencers or Suppressors as they are properly called in fact only drop the noise down from 175 Decibels to 145 decibels.
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 03 Oct 17 3.27pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Harry Beever
I'm not defending the Taliban but I gathered they wanted to see evidence of his involvement in 9/11 before they handed him over. Not unreasonable. It wasn't a flat refusal and it wasn't Afghanistan that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Why didn't they go for Saudi Arabia? Isn't that where the plan was ultimately conceived? 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Do we even know for sure they knew where he was? As you mention, he was found in pakistan. I'm sure the public are only aware of a very small fraction of what goes on in the decision making process. Qatar are vocal supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. Why not take action against them? All I'm saying is, "Bin Laden's in Afghanistan, they're not giving him to us without us answering questions, let's invade Afghanistan" is too simplistic for me. Why am I getting the feeling that you haven't really looked into this event. Even in the unlikely scenario where we judge that the Taliban were even handed about 9/11 in what universe do you think they were going to hand Bin Laden over to the US?....Anyone who knows anything about the Taliban would know that this would be impossible. They weren't interested in evidence. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the architect over the plan for 9/11. Bin Laden actioned and sanctioned the event allowing the resources to enable it. It's about the organisation. Saudi Arabia? Terrible country and worthy of a thread to itself over its horrible influences around the world. It does fund extremism but the reasons why the US and Saud are frenemies is complex. Qatar, is the same to a smaller extent....I'll say three words...Iran and oil. However, the house of Saud was not behind 9/11.....Bin Laden had been attacking the house of Saud for years.....I think you need to look into the actual realities.....There are many anti Saud extremists in Saudi Arabia....Bin Laden was one himself.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 03 Oct 17 3.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Fully Automatic Weapons - or machine guns/sub-machine guns have been virtually banned since the 30s across the country. You can't just walk into a gun shop and get one. Only very few people have legal access to one - don't know how this nut job got his. "Assault Weapons" as have been banned in the past and as currently banned/restricted in NY State are 'scary looking' black rifles with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine. You have to pull the trigger once for every shot. They're not fully automatic like this nut job had, and most are less powerful than a deer rifle. The guy obviouusly without stating the obvious had an Illegal weapon....
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 03 Oct 17 3.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
Can I ask why we are debating the pro's and pitfalls of Neo Conservatism in the White house, and 9/11, when over 60 people where killed innocently because of a country's backward gun laws ? Because a poster on here is sceptical, already, that this even happened as he's not had graphic enough footage or pictures for his liking. Someone else then mentioned 9/11 and conspiracy theories, Kermit mention "neo cons" irrelevantly, and here we are.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 03 Oct 17 3.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Jimenez
Fully Automatic Weapons - or machine guns/sub-machine guns have been virtually banned since the 30s across the country. You can't just walk into a gun shop and get one. Only very few people have legal access to one - don't know how this nut job got his. "Assault Weapons" as have been banned in the past and as currently banned/restricted in NY State are 'scary looking' black rifles with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine. You have to pull the trigger once for every shot. They're not fully automatic like this nut job had, and most are less powerful than a deer rifle. The guy obviouusly without stating the obvious had an Illegal weapon.... If you have money and the inclination....in a country with that number of guns about....I'd imagine you could get hold of what you want. The reason people don't have private tanks is because they aren't available to buy.....or maybe I'm wrong about that.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ray in Houston Houston 03 Oct 17 3.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Jimenez
Fully Automatic Weapons - or machine guns/sub-machine guns have been virtually banned since the 30s across the country. You can't just walk into a gun shop and get one. Only very few people have legal access to one - don't know how this nut job got his. "Assault Weapons" as have been banned in the past and as currently banned/restricted in NY State are 'scary looking' black rifles with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine. You have to pull the trigger once for every shot. They're not fully automatic like this nut job had, and most are less powerful than a deer rifle. The guy obviouusly without stating the obvious had an Illegal weapon.... It is now being reported that he used a perfectly legal bump-stock, that uses the weapon's own recoil to "pull" the trigger. This results in a rate of fire that resembles a fully automatic weapon. Edited by Ray in Houston (03 Oct 2017 3.39pm)
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 03 Oct 17 3.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Yes, apologies....I won't mention that terrible event that happened 16 years ago on the thread again.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Oct 17 3.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Harry Beever
I'm not defending the Taliban but I gathered they wanted to see evidence of his involvement in 9/11 before they handed him over. Not unreasonable. It wasn't a flat refusal and it wasn't Afghanistan that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Why didn't they go for Saudi Arabia? Isn't that where the plan was ultimately conceived? 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Do we even know for sure they knew where he was? As you mention, he was found in pakistan. I'm sure the public are only aware of a very small fraction of what goes on in the decision making process. Qatar are vocal supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. Why not take action against them? All I'm saying is, "Bin Laden's in Afghanistan, they're not giving him to us without us answering questions, let's invade Afghanistan" is too simplistic for me. Al-Qaeda had by this point been involved in a number of attacks against US assets and facilities - such as in the case of the Kenya Embassy bombings and the bombing of USS Cole - and the US and a number of international agencies where actively monitoring and involved in surveillance of them and their activities. Hamas and Hezbollah tend to get a 'pass' because they're not attacking US assets, and mostly are localised. Al-Qaeda, through its affiliate networks, isn't. The US wasn't certain that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan - what they wanted was either for the Taliban to hand him over, or allow them to go in after him. What was certain is that Al-Qaeda had funded bases and training camps throughout the region, and had been involved with the regimes fight against the Northern Alliance. Whilst Bin Laden was the much talked up target - the actual targets were Omar Mullah and the entire Al-Qaeda leadership. Bin Laden was never actually in control of Al-Qaeda, he was more its 'poster boy' and second in command (mostly in charge of media and finance).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 03 Oct 17 3.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
Depending on the barrel and ammunition, an AR-15 has an effective range of 500 yards. However, that's if you are shooting at a small target. I'd imagine that hosing down a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people can be done effectively from quite a way farther. As to the stampede, Congress still is planning to hold a vote this week on relaxing restrictions on silencers. Imagine if the shooter was firing into that crowd, but no one could hear the muzzle report? How many more people would've been hit/killed just because they were unaware that they were the fish in Paddock's giant barrel? Further to that, the rounds are 5.56mm not designed to go through and out, unlike 7.62mm, you get hit in the arm with one of them and it's good bye arm. 5.56MM are made to puncture the body and bounce around off the bone and keep going, the exit wound from the smaller round from a shot to the shoulder could quite easily exit through the trunk or pelvis or even neck. Thus, whilst the actual damage on the outside may seem minimal the internal injuries could well be catastrophic, might explain why the death toll kept rising from two initially to 60 some hours later The death toll is of no surprise, fish in a barrel is a callous description, but none the less it is highly accurate, those weapons are effective up to 400 meters as a single point of fire, if used as a section weapon it's effectiveness is 600 meters. With a decent understanding of the marksmanship principles and a crowd packed that tightly, I doubt if he was even taking proper aim, just switched to Auto fire and pointed, thing is your talking about a weapon that with slick loading drills can deliver between 600 and 710 rounds per minute. So actually I'd say he was a sh1t shot, and that if he wasn't that figure could have been at least double that. At least he had the decency to kill himself the sack of sh1t. Edited by dannyh (03 Oct 2017 3.46pm)
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 03 Oct 17 3.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If you have money and the inclination....in a country with that number of guns about....I'd imagine you could get hold of what you want. The reason people don't have private tanks is because they aren't available to buy.....or maybe I'm wrong about that. Yeah they are. Ross Noble has one and so does Schwarzenegger.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.