All-Out War Against The NRA Begins After Las Vegas Massacre

[mystery-ak]

All-Out War Against The NRA Begins After Las Vegas Massacre

Peter Hasson
Associate Editor
10:53 PM 10/02/2017


Left-wing politicians, activists and journalists are using the worst mass shooting in modern American history to attack one of the nation’s oldest civil rights organizations.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) became a convenient scapegoat following the Las Vegas mass shooting that left at least 58 people dead and more than 500 injured.

Left-wing activist group Democracy for America wasted no time fundraising off of the attack while demonizing the NRA and linking them to the violence in Las Vegas.

more
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/02/the-left-is-using-the-las-vegas-massacre-to-wage-all-out-war-against-the-nra/

[txradioguy]

Haven't had one Liberal I know give me a logical reason yet as to how the NRA has blood on it's hands after one of these massacre's.

It's like blaming the MLB for someone killed by a baseball bat.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Haven't had one Liberal I know give me a logical reason yet as to how the NRA has blood on it's hands after one of these massacre's.

It's like blaming the MLB for someone killed by a baseball bat.

I haven't even had time to go through the extent coverage/details of this story yet, but 1 question leapt immediately to mind as both of my U.S. Senators started screeching for more gun control.

"Why didn't/Couldn't an armed citizen Stop this?"

The guy fired HOW many rounds, . . . and nobody noticed anything wrong?

Do you think MAYBE it's because nobody close enough to stop it with their own gun WASN'T allowed - by gun control laws - to Be carrying?

[Suppressed]

Do you think MAYBE it's because nobody close enough to stop it with their own gun WASN'T allowed - by gun control laws - to Be carrying?

Nope.  I don't think that anyone would have been carrying a scoped rifle to pick him off, nor carrying a handgun and try to make their way through a locked hotel door and shoot it out with a guy who is heavily harmed, using just their handgun that they packed with them on vacation (few people would be toting around anything heavier, gun control or not).

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Nope.  I don't think that anyone would have been carrying a scoped rifle to pick him off, nor carrying a handgun and try to make their way through a locked hotel door and shoot it out with a guy who is heavily harmed, using just their handgun that they packed with them on vacation (few people would be toting around anything heavier, gun control or not).

1st thing Jeff Cooper did when he contracted out to improve the security forces of South American leaders, was take their machine pistols away and get them handguns. Why? Because 1 aimed hit is better than 30 misses.

I choose to believe the Citizens would have stopped it.

[roamer_1]

I choose to believe the Citizens would have stopped it.

Nope. @Suppressed is right.

A sniper in a nest is pretty impossible to take out by the sort of thing you can normally carry.
20k ppl in a confined arena is fish in a barrel.

Probably there were guys there with the know-how, maybe even with a piece of big iron back in the truck. But getting to the truck and getting it done, while under fire from an unknown position... inside of the ten minutes of live fire is almost every bit a fairy tale as anything.

Such large venues should have guards ready and capable of returning sniper fire, but even at that, that's a hard target to take out, even when located.

[DiogenesLamp]

I haven't even had time to go through the extent coverage/details of this story yet, but 1 question leapt immediately to mind as both of my U.S. Senators started screeching for more gun control.

"Why didn't/Couldn't an armed citizen Stop this?"

The guy fired HOW many rounds, . . . and nobody noticed anything wrong?

Do you think MAYBE it's because nobody close enough to stop it with their own gun WASN'T allowed - by gun control laws - to Be carrying?

Someone pointed out the other day that when Charles Whitman started shooting at people from a Clock tower in Austin Texas (1966),  the police urged civilians to grab their hunting rifles and keep him pinned down,  which they did.   

[Suppressed]

1st thing Jeff Cooper did when he contracted out to improve the security forces of South American leaders, was take their machine pistols away and get them handguns. Why? Because 1 aimed hit is better than 30 misses.

I choose to believe the Citizens would have stopped it.

The guy who did stop him was the security guard who was shot through the door.  Even if the guard was armed, it wasn't likely he would have blind-shot through the door and gotten the guy.

[Suppressed]

Someone pointed out the other day that when Charles Whitman started shooting at people from a Clock tower in Austin Texas (1966),  the police urged civilians to grab their hunting rifles and keep him pinned down,  which they did.

Charles Whitman was firing for 96 minutes.  There was time to get rifles.

This shooter was 10 minutes.  Nobody going to the concert would have been carrying a rifle -- or had one within that amount of time, under fire -- if not for gun restrictions.

We have to be realistic about things.  Guns are not a panacea.

[DiogenesLamp]

Whitman fired for 96 minutes.

Had that much ammo did he?  Didn't even melt the barrel!   They just made guns better back in those days!

The rampage lasted less than two hours, with most of the deaths and injuries occurring in the first 15 to 20 minutes.

https://www.biography.com/people/charles-whitman-11495598

But then he realized that “as the ground fire increased, the shots from the tower came less often.” The return fire was limiting the amount of damage Whitman was able to do by keeping him pinned down and robbing him of the time he wanted to pick his targets. This realization was widely shared.

Crum is unambiguous on the role that armed civilians played in the shooting at this point. “The ground fire was really a Godsend to us,” he wrote, “as it got Whitman pinned down in one spot … We had no means of communication to stop it, but I don’t think that we would have stopped it.”5

http://behindthetower.org/armed-civilians-and-the-ut-tower-tragedy

[DiogenesLamp]

Charles Whitman was firing for 96 minutes.  There was time to get rifles.

This shooter was 10 minutes.  Nobody going to the concert would have been carrying a rifle -- or had one within that amount of time, under fire -- if not for gun restrictions.

We have to be realistic about things.  Guns are not a panacea.

They may not be a panacea,  but they are the only reasonable thing that can stop a guy with a gun. 

I suspect that some future concerts will feature snipers with electronic gear to quickly locate any attacking sniper.   


We have the technology to quickly locate a sniper now.  I expect it's going to go mainstream for just this purpose. 

[roamer_1]

We have to be realistic about things.  Guns are not a panacea.

Not quite.
YES a rifle in the hands of another ready sniper would have ended this, or stood the best chance to do so.
It is inexcusable that local LEO or the venue itself does not provide that simple protection.

[Fishrrman]

To Whose asked:
"Do you think MAYBE it's because nobody close enough to stop it with their own gun WASN'T allowed - by gun control laws - to Be carrying?"

Actually, somebody DID "bring it to a halt".
You can read that story here:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,284414.msg1472889.html#msg1472889

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Nope.  I don't think that anyone would have been carrying a scoped rifle to pick him off, nor carrying a handgun and try to make their way through a locked hotel door and shoot it out with a guy who is heavily harmed, using just their handgun that they packed with them on vacation (few people would be toting around anything heavier, gun control or not).

At room clearing distance, a scoped rifle is the weapon at the disadvantage.

The magnification of the scope makes even finding your target in it, at 10 yards or less, a very dangerous proposition.

[roamer_1]

At room clearing distance, a scoped rifle is the weapon at the disadvantage.

The magnification of the scope makes even finding your target in it, at 10 yards or less, a very dangerous proposition.

Yeah... even at moderate distances - I borrowed a buddy's brush gun while mine was down, hunting brushy land... 50 yard shot, nothing but hair. Open sights out to 75 yards.

[DB]

A robot with a teargas (or worse) launcher that could penetrate the door might have been pretty effective - but that would have taken a lot longer than 10 minutes to deploy.

[Smokin Joe]

Charles Whitman was firing for 96 minutes.  There was time to get rifles.

This shooter was 10 minutes.  Nobody going to the concert would have been carrying a rifle -- or had one within that amount of time, under fire -- if not for gun restrictions.

We have to be realistic about things.  Guns are not a panacea.

Neither a counter-sniper nor someone with a pistol nor any law passed could have stopped this guy. Sad to say, but he was a man with means and determination, and for whatever reason, the resolve to do this crime. All the "What if?" in the world would not have stopped him. On the day of the shootimg, however, all the rest of the bump stocks, semiautomatic rifles and large magazines out there engaged in no criminal activity, along with millions of other firearms.

Coming from a different direction, though, I seriously question the NRA's stance taken on bump stocks.

The second anyone starts blaming the firearm--or any feature thereof--instead of the criminal, is the moment precedent is set that all devices can be declared summarily "guilty" if the crime could not have been perpetrated without them. From the smallest screw to the longest barrel, anything critical to the functioning of the firearm can be blamed, along with ammunition, magazines, sights, and shooting rests.

As the NRA was once so fond of saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", so infringing further on the Rights of 80,000,000 people who committed no crime because of one maniac is wrong.

[DB]

There are many ways for a highly determined single person of means to kill thousands.

There's only three things off hand I can think of to reduce their chances of doing so.

Raise our children so they don't have the mindset to mass murder.

Don't import people with that mindset. A large number of the followers of Islam clearly have that mindset.

Catch them before they do it.

[Smokin Joe]

There are many ways for a highly determined single person of means to kill thousands.

There's only three things off hand I can think of to reduce their chances of doing so.

Raise our children so they don't have the mindset to mass murder.

Don't import people with that mindset. A large number of the followers of Islam clearly have that mindset.

Catch them before they do it.

Ultimately, the first two are the effective ones in a Free society. The third gets problematical.

[DB]

Ultimately, the first two are the effective ones in a Free society. The third gets problematical.

Yep. I think the third does have an area where it could be applied that would make a difference. It can be abused but needs to be addressed. Mental health. There are too many people that are clearly not sane that cannot take care of themselves and endanger others.

[Smokin Joe]

Yep. I think the third does have an area where it could be applied that would make a difference. It can be abused but needs to be addressed. Mental health. There are too many people that are clearly not sane that cannot take care of themselves and endanger others.

Well, that's most of the Democrats, all of the Socialists, and a growing number of the GOP as well. At least the rest of us could have full employment, even if it is just distributing the Depends...

More seriously, this guy appeared outwardly sane as most from accounts of his behaviour that have been published. He had eccentricities which were attributed to gambling and having ample money to do so, a lifestyle many actually envy. There is only one account of him waking up screaming in the night, and virtually everyone has had a nightmare.

While there are those who are clearly non compos mentis, and those who are quite obviously dangerously demented, many of these criminals spring from the woodwork without warning, and even those who give definite signs may be covered for (Jared Loughner comes to mind, who had a relative working for Law Enforcement). Medication may mimic the presence of mental issues as well, or even cause them, often as a side effect. One comes to mind (Bextra) which I was given by a doctor for arthritis, but instead had me wanting to 'end it all'. Only the fact that everything was going better than ever gave me the presence of mind to realize it was a side effect of the drug and quit taking it. Had I had serious life issues and less mental awareness, I might not be here. To this day, I very rarely take anything stronger than aspirin, and even that (aspirin) not often.

So, the essential questions arise of who draws the line on sanity, and where? There are those who assert you'd have to be crazy to even want a firearm, much less to have several. OTOH, there are those who would assert you'd have to be crazy not to.

Currently, the US spends more money on "Mental Health" than any other category of health care. More than on Heart Disease, more than on cancer and treatments, more than on pulmonary disorders--or any other class of medical expenses. Over $200 Billion a year, and yet, this man showed no outward sign of the transition from a 'fun guy' to a mass murderer.

I think we are left with the fact that some things cannot be prevented, nor even mitigated, not and retain any of our Liberty. Liberty does not come without risk. I caution, as has been done in the past

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Benjamin Franklin

and what's more, will caution that they will have neither.

If we cross that Rubicon, beyond the current proscriptions on those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or insane, it would be difficult to overstate the peril to Liberty that would entail.

[dfwgator]

We have to be realistic about things.  Guns are not a panacea.

Neither is getting rid of them.

[DB]

Well, that's most of the Democrats, all of the Socialists, and a growing number of the GOP as well. At least the rest of us could have full employment, even if it is just distributing the Depends...

More seriously, this guy appeared outwardly sane as most from accounts of his behaviour that have been published. He had eccentricities which were attributed to gambling and having ample money to do so, a lifestyle many actually envy. There is only one account of him waking up screaming in the night, and virtually everyone has had a nightmare.

While there are those who are clearly non compos mentis, and those who are quite obviously dangerously demented, many of these criminals spring from the woodwork without warning, and even those who give definite signs may be covered for (Jared Loughner comes to mind, who had a relative working for Law Enforcement). Medication may mimic the presence of mental issues as well, or even cause them, often as a side effect. One comes to mind (Bextra) which I was given by a doctor for arthritis, but instead had me wanting to 'end it all'. Only the fact that everything was going better than ever gave me the presence of mind to realize it was a side effect of the drug and quit taking it. Had I had serious life issues and less mental awareness, I might not be here. To this day, I very rarely take anything stronger than aspirin, and even that (aspirin) not often.

So, the essential questions arise of who draws the line on sanity, and where? There are those who assert you'd have to be crazy to even want a firearm, much less to have several. OTOH, there are those who would assert you'd have to be crazy not to.

Currently, the US spends more money on "Mental Health" than any other category of health care. More than on Heart Disease, more than on cancer and treatments, more than on pulmonary disorders--or any other class of medical expenses. Over $200 Billion a year, and yet, this man showed no outward sign of the transition from a 'fun guy' to a mass murderer.

I think we are left with the fact that some things cannot be prevented, nor even mitigated, not and retain any of our Liberty. Liberty does not come without risk. I caution, as has been done in the past  and what's more, will caution that they will have neither.

If we cross that Rubicon, beyond the current proscriptions on those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or insane, it would be difficult to overstate the peril to Liberty that would entail.

I'm talking about insane asylums and the clinically insane. We closed them and put those people on the streets. That had consequences.

[Smokin Joe]

I'm talking about insane asylums and the clinically insane. We closed them and put those people on the streets. That had consequences.

Yep. I remember when that happened. Then we started calling them "homeless" although they were only part of that group, and not all ended up that way. Currently, though, if you respond to the form 4473 correctly and you have ever been adjudged to be mentally incompetent, you cannot purchase a firearm. (There is a law against that, whether it can be enforced or not).

It is a criterion we need to carefully and explicitly define, if we are going to use it, simply because currently more money is spent on mental health than any other major segment of health care. (Aprox. 200 Billion/year, more than heart disease or cancer diagnosis and treatment). Does anyone who has seen a therapist or counselor  qualify, or does/will it require a specific diagnosis?  Would that have prevented this incident? Will that be used to deny any soldier (or other person, including first responders) who has had even mild PTSD the RKBA?