2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: GlockNewb on July 28, 2019, 06:02:04 PM
-
In California no less...
https://www.apnews.com/35e45f6d09e347c4a1c51c52cf77725c
-
The only info on the shooter was from Trump (at least in that article linked). Shooter was apprehended.
Also. ...
Reyes said that she didn’t run at first because the gunshots sounded like fireworks.
That totally destroys the gun control argument against suppressors. If the average person thinks "Fireworks!" before "Gunfire!!", a suppressor will have no impact on people reacting and running.
-
The only info on the shooter was from Trump (at least in that article linked). Shooter was apprehended.
Also. ...
That totally destroys the gun control argument against suppressors. If the average person thinks "Fireworks!" before "Gunfire!!", a suppressor will have no impact on people reacting and running.
A suppressor would make it even less significant though. I wouldn't use this example as an argument for suppressors as it is kind of self defeating.
-
That really sucks. Why do they always seem to target people who are just trying to have fun? If someone is going to go crazy and kill a bunch of people why not run into a crack house and shoot a bunch of drug dealers or find some human traffickers making kiddie porn and do us all a favor?
-
That really sucks. Why do they always seem to target people who are just trying to have fun? If someone is going to go crazy and kill a bunch of people why not run into a crack house and shoot a bunch of drug dealers or find some human traffickers making kiddie porn and do us all a favor?
I think answering that question might be the first step in really understanding this phenomenon. The left doesn't seem that concerned with why this all happens and just focuses on how to stop it. Need to find the cause first.
-
A suppressor would make it even less significant though. I wouldn't use this example as an argument for suppressors as it is kind of self defeating.
Pay attention.
Nobody has to use this as an argument FOR suppressors.
The antis use "quicker warning for taking cover or escaping" as an argument. This example shoots that argument down.
Case #1: No suppressor. People hear fireworks and fail to run immediately.
Case #2" With suppressor. People hear something that doesn't sound like fireworks and fail to run immediately.
Same outcome. Banning suppressors to give people time to run during a mass shooting is no different than allowing suppressors. That assumes a murderer cares about suppressor laws and didn't make, steal or otherwise illegally acquire one.
Dense.
-
That really sucks. Why do they always seem to target people who are just trying to have fun? If someone is going to go crazy and kill a bunch of people why not run into a crack house and shoot a bunch of drug dealers or find some human traffickers making kiddie porn and do us all a favor?
Because those kinds of places probably have someone who has a gun. Safer for the shooter to go to a gun free zone, as evidenced by the history of so called mass shootings.
-
Because those kinds of places probably have someone who has a gun. Safer for the shooter to go to a gun free zone, as evidenced by the history of so called mass shootings.
And no one gives a shit about crackheads or dealers/gangs. Look at Chiraq, most gun violence is gang related. We all know those people will obey any law a law maker makes.
So instead law makers target the law abiding citizen who allows their rights to be taken away so they don't break the law. It makes them feel good that their laws are taking guns away.
News this morning said shooter is 19 and used an AK. He cut thru the fence to avoid security at the main entrance.
So under 21, no scary black AR15 used, 1st name is Santonio (Spanish, not white), happened again in Kommifornia which has strict gun laws. This will be gone by Wednesday.
FF crew would say the shooter messed up. He was supposed to use a suppressor, but I guess he didn't have one to fit to Ivan's AK.
*Edit-Guy is Italian and Iranian.
-
*Edit-Guy is Italian and Iranian.
What I read elsewhere.
Also, the usual social media hate crap.
-
Pay attention.
Nobody has to use this as an argument FOR suppressors.
The antis use "quicker warning for taking cover or escaping" as an argument. This example shoots that argument down.
Case #1: No suppressor. People hear fireworks and fail to run immediately.
Case #2" With suppressor. People hear something that doesn't sound like fireworks and fail to run immediately.
Same outcome. Banning suppressors to give people time to run during a mass shooting is no different than allowing suppressors. That assumes a murderer cares about suppressor laws and didn't make, steal or otherwise illegally acquire one.
Dense.
Your argument makes too many assumptions. You assume that this one persons statement represents everyone there. All things equal a suppressor is going to give an active shooter another advantage. This statement does not disprove the argument that an unsurpassed firearm offers quicker warning. You are making a non sequitur.
You are right, a criminal don't care about the law but that is irrelevant to whether a supressor would make a difference.
-
Your argument makes too many assumptions. You assume that this one persons statement represents everyone there. All things equal a suppressor is going to give an active shooter another advantage. This statement does not disprove the argument that an unsurpassed firearm offers quicker warning. You are making a non sequitur.
You are right, a criminal don't care about the law but that is irrelevant to whether a supressor would make a difference.
ever shot a suppressed firearm?
-
ever shot a suppressed firearm?
Nope but I am aware on that it can do to decibel levels.
-
Your argument makes too many assumptions. You assume that this one persons statement represents everyone there. All things equal a suppressor is going to give an active shooter another advantage. This statement does not disprove the argument that an unsurpassed firearm offers quicker warning. You are making a non sequitur.
You are right, a criminal don't care about the law but that is irrelevant to whether a supressor would make a difference.
How many mass shootings in the US involved the shooter using a suppressor? Any? Any at all?
I find it hard to believe if there was that much of an "advantage" that not one single shooter managed to get his hands on one.
There's a "fear factor" involved in discharging a weapon in close quarters. My theory is mass shooters are not merely trying to kill. He/she is making a statement and WANTS TO SEE people fleeing in terror.
Not all shooters have that motivation, but given the rarity of suppressors being used, I have to call BS on the "advantage" argument.
-
How many mass shootings in the US involved the shooter using a suppressor? Any? Any at all?
focus
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-05-31/police-gunman-in-virginia-beach-mass-shooting-used-45-caliber-handgun-with-suppressor
-
Nope but I am aware on that it can do to decibel levels.
I can't find the decibel comparison. Does anyone have it? The one with the airplane, rock concert, stereo, lawn mower
-
focus
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-05-31/police-gunman-in-virginia-beach-mass-shooting-used-45-caliber-handgun-with-suppressor
Suppressors are ILLEGAL in Va Beach. A 100% ban on suppressors won't (1) eliminate all suppressors already in people's hands, (2) prevent someone from making their own (YT videos are pretty detailed), and (3) stop production of suppressors for military, law enforcement, etc.
-
Found it(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190730/b63f4b2f3abf56bb82f393eeaf41b53d.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Suppressors are ILLEGAL in Va Beach. A 100% ban on suppressors won't (1) eliminate all suppressors already in people's hands, (2) prevent someone from making their own (YT videos are pretty detailed), and (3) stop production of suppressors for military, law enforcement, etc.
you didn't specify legal or illegal...
-
you didn't specify legal or illegal...
It was implied, as we all know things that are illegal can't exist. :thumbsup:
-
It was implied, as we all know things that are illegal can't exist. :thumbsup:
Yeah, like a 19-year-old in California possessing an "assault style rifle" with a 30 round detachable magazine in a gun free zone shooting people. That's at least 5 illegal things that can't exist in California...
-
How many mass shootings in the US involved the shooter using a suppressor? Any? Any at all?
No idea but I know if I went on a shooting spree and I had access to one I would use it. It provides an advantage plain and simple.
Please note that I am not against suppressors.
-
No idea but I know if I went on a shooting spree and I had access to one I would use it. It provides an advantage plain and simple.
Please note that I am not against suppressors.
But if given an order to consfiscate one and arrest posessor, would u? Just trolling.
I was wrong, story dissapeared from main news feed by today. Not wednesday.
Guy was half iranian
Ak used and not AR (prob brown)
Under 21
Had post hinting hes a liberal/democrat
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
But if given an order to consfiscate one and arrest posessor, would u? Just trolling.
I was wrong, story dissapeared from main news feed by today. Not wednesday.
Guy was half iranian
Ak used and not AR (prob brown)
Under 21
Had post hinting hes a liberal/democrat
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Haven't dove into this story yet to see what his motives were.
Thankfully the body count was fairly low.
-
Haven't dove into this story yet to see what his motives were.
Thankfully the body count was fairly low.
No official motive released. But his social media did say he was upset at "overpriced garlic venue" and he's against capitalism. He referred to the festival a few hours before he shot it up.
Good luck finding info, doesn't fit the fake news narrative so it's gone already.
-
No official motive released. But his social media did say he was upset at "overpriced garlic venue" and he's against capitalism. He referred to the festival a few hours before he shot it up.
Good luck finding info, doesn't fit the fake news narrative so it's gone already.
Maybe he was a vampire and thought they were conspiring to kill him.
-
Maybe he was a vampire and thought they were conspiring to kill him.
Could be and that's why he also died because he was surrounded by garlic. He went aloha snackbar for the betterment of all vampires.
-
No official motive released. But his social media did say he was upset at "overpriced garlic venue" and he's against capitalism. He referred to the festival a few hours before he shot it up.
Good luck finding info, doesn't fit the fake news narrative so it's gone already.
and he did use a Commie SKS
-
and he did use a Commie SKS
Wasn't it an AK? Either way, still commie.
-
and he did use a Commie SKS
Poor choice on his part.
SKS is 10 round internal magazine, Stripper clip loaded.
slow to load. I like the rifle. It even has a cleaning kit in the butt.
I've owned a few.
An AK clone would be a better choice, as it is a much simpler rifle
and external magazine, faster reload.
They maybe "commie" rifles, but they are very robust designs
and they have a big advantage, ammo is made in virtually
every third word nation in the world.
Green tip AR ammo is not made in many places IIRC there
have been attempts by anti gunners to curtail civilian ownership
of "green tip" ammo that nearly succeeded.
I will ALWAYS be able to get 7.62X39.
The same cannot be said for 5.56X45 NATO.
Another difference is in most places you can't hunt deer
and other large game with 5.56 but you can with 7.62.
Regardless of who made or designed it, if a tool works
for me I'll use it. For example all my hand saws are Japanese
design, I rejected the European saw design. I'm not Japanese.
I was introduced to Japanese wood tools by Chinese Shipwrights.
I'm not Chinese.
-
Or you be prepared and buy both AK and AR. Hell add a Mauser while we're at it. Good reason to have various guns that all shoot different ammo.
-
Finally!
Latest news is the cops did not kill the shooter.
He committed suicide according to the coroner.
Death certificates are legal documents.
I always figured the Cops saving everyone story was BS.
Cops are good for giving tickets and the occasional
arrest after the crime has been committed.
But getting into harm's way to stop a fire fight is really
not their job. They are not soldiers, nor should they be.
Cops are merely revenue gathering agents that clean up
society's messes.
-
Finally!
Latest news is the cops did not kill the shooter.
He committed suicide according to the coroner.
Death certificates are legal documents.
I always figured the Cops saving everyone story was BS.
Cops are good for giving tickets and the occasional
arrest after the crime has been committed.
But getting into harm's way to stop a fire fight is really
not their job. They are not soldiers, nor should they be.
Cops are merely revenue gathering agents that clean up
society's messes.
Regardless of whether the Cops shot & killed the shooter, it's a fact that shooters who commit suicide commonly do so as soon as they are confronted with similar or greater firepower.
So, you could say the mere presence of the police (with firearms) caused the shooter to stop his spree and off himself. Had the Cops arrived 10 minutes later, and no other armed resistance was present, more innocents would have been killed or wounded.
Just an opinion based on past cases. it's a pattern that repeats. Many mass shooters have attempted suicide, and the crime is intended to place themselves in a situation that forces them to die -- if not by their own hand, by the Cops'.
The Newtown School massacre ended in suicide as soon as the cops arrived. It's been speculated that video games drove him to kill himself. If an "opponent" (Cop) kills you, you lose all your power, money and equipment to them. But, if you kill yourself, your stuff will still be yours if you return. It's crazy, but it doesn't have to make sense to us. It's a motivator for committing suicide vs. getting caught or killed.
Another example, analyzed by a Princeton professor:
But suicidality is very common among school shooters and they often put themselves in positions
where they expect to be killed, what we call "suicide by cop." And that's what I think happened in this case.
I think this boy expected to be assaulted by law enforcement. He got to himself first, but not until after law
enforcement people had been shooting at him.
I don't think he expected to survive this incident. And many school shooters don't expect to survive. They
are putting themselves in the a situation where somebody else will basically commit suicide on them, if
you like.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7288381/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/school-shooter-followed-video-game-like-script/
-
Regardless of whether the Cops shot & killed the shooter, it's a fact that shooters who commit suicide commonly do so as soon as they are confronted with similar or greater firepower.
So, you could say the mere presence of the police (with firearms) caused the shooter to stop his spree and off himself. Had the Cops arrived 10 minutes later, and no other armed resistance was present, more innocents would have been killed or wounded.
Just an opinion based on past cases. it's a pattern that repeats. Many mass shooters have attempted suicide, and the crime is intended to place themselves in a situation that forces them to die -- if not by their own hand, by the Cops'.
The Newtown School massacre ended in suicide as soon as the cops arrived. It's been speculated that video games drove him to kill himself. If an "opponent" (Cop) kills you, you lose all your power, money and equipment to them. But, if you kill yourself, your stuff will still be yours if you return. It's crazy, but it doesn't have to make sense to us. It's a motivator for committing suicide vs. getting caught or killed.
Another example, analyzed by a Princeton professor:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7288381/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/school-shooter-followed-video-game-like-script/
Agreed suicide by cop exists.
Suicide when confronted by cops exists.
You are dealing with nut cases to begin with
so no telling what will happen. I don't believe cops
are the solution, they don't prevent crime,
they clean up the mess.
As I have said before I don't like cops, but they
are a necessary evil.
The fact that Hawaiian cops deny me the right to protect
myself, is the reason for my disgust and distrust of cops.
The point of my comment was to point out cops did not protect,
they merely interrupted.
When I was a kid the cop cars had "to protect and serve" painted on them.
I'd modify it to "interrupt crimes and serve the government"
-
Agreed suicide by cop exists.
Suicide when confronted by cops exists.
You are dealing with nut cases to begin with
so no telling what will happen. I don't believe cops
are the solution, they don't prevent crime,
they clean up the mess.
As I have said before I don't like cops, but they
are a necessary evil.
The fact that Hawaiian cops deny me the right to protect
myself, is the reason for my disgust and distrust of cops.
The point of my comment was to point out cops did not protect,
they merely interrupted.
When I was a kid the cop cars had "to protect and serve" painted on them.
I'd modify it to "interrupt crimes and serve the government"
So, you're now amending your earlier statement, from:
"I always figured the Cops saving everyone story was BS."
to:
"The point of my comment was to point out cops did not protect,
they merely interrupted."
???
It's obvious that interrupting the killer is no different than stopping him from continuing his assault.
Whether it was by violent intervention or just showing up to present a threat of violent intervention, it had the same result.
Toe-may-toe / Toe-mah-toe.
-
I don't believe cops
are the solution, they don't prevent crime,
they clean up the mess.
They are not "the" solution but they are part of the solution.
And yes cops do prevent crime to a considerable extent.