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

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.   

It was implied, as we all know things that are illegal can't exist.   

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...