Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
songfourone

POLITICS LAS VEGAS SHOOTING OCT 2 2017, 5:39 PM ET Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Roll Back Gun Laws

99 posts in this topic

by ALEX SEITZ-WALD

WASHINGTON — The day House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was shot in June during a congressional baseball practice, his colleagues were supposed to hold a hearing on a bill to make it easier for Americans to buy gun silencers. 

That hearing was postponed because of the shooting, and now Congress may push that legislation back yet again after another shooting. This time, it's the attack in Las Vegas, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, which critics say would have been even worse if the gunman had been equipped with a silencer. 

Meanwhile, Congress may soon take up another bill that has long topped the wish-list of pro-gun groups, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), which would force states to recognize other states' permits allowing residents to carry concealed weapons.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/silencers-armor-piercing-bullets-congress-looks-rollback-gun-laws-n806881

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr Johnny Fever said:

Silencers are legal in most states.

 

Think about that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It Took Police 72 Minutes From First 911 Call to Locate Shooter

It took 72 minutes from the first 911 call for law enforcement to breach the shooter’s hotel room, NBC News reports. 

Police received the first call reporting shots on the country music festival at 10:08 p.m. local time. They then began searching for the source of the shooting, which was eventually determined to be coming from the Mandalay Bay hotel. Police initially began searching for the shooter on the 29th floor, working their way up to the 32nd floor where authorities say they immediately realized they were in the right place. It’s unclear how they knew, but at 11:20 p.m., police were heard blasting the door off the room where gunman Stephen Paddock was found dead, according to Las Vegas law enforcement. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/card/it-took-police-72-minutes-first-911-call-breach-paddock-n806836

 

Wonder how long it could have gone on if he had used silences?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are called silencers, but they are really suppressors. Unlike what you see and hear in spy films, you cannot "silence" a gun firing a supersonic bullet. 

They do benefit a shooter in reducing decibels enough to limit damage to hearing, but they do not make an AR-15 go "pfft".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, songfourone said:

It Took Police 72 Minutes From First 911 Call to Locate Shooter

It took 72 minutes from the first 911 call for law enforcement to breach the shooter’s hotel room, NBC News reports. 

Police received the first call reporting shots on the country music festival at 10:08 p.m. local time. They then began searching for the source of the shooting, which was eventually determined to be coming from the Mandalay Bay hotel. Police initially began searching for the shooter on the 29th floor, working their way up to the 32nd floor where authorities say they immediately realized they were in the right place. It’s unclear how they knew, but at 11:20 p.m., police were heard blasting the door off the room where gunman Stephen Paddock was found dead, according to Las Vegas law enforcement. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/card/it-took-police-72-minutes-first-911-call-breach-paddock-n806836

 

Wonder how long it could have gone on if he had used silences?

 

 

34 minutes ago, mlatoman said:

They are called silencers, but they are really suppressors. Unlike what you see and hear in spy films, you cannot "silence" a gun firing a supersonic bullet. 

They do benefit a shooter in reducing decibels enough to limit damage to hearing, but they do not make an AR-15 go "pfft".  

Semantics aside, Songfourone's point is valid.

A shooter with a suppressed rifle would be harder to locate from hundreds of yards away.  The people in the hotel suite next to the shoot may not have even known he was shoot if he had a suppressed rifle.  And i doubt the original intent of suppressors were to protect the shooter's hearing.

I have an AR, and I enjoy shooting and going to the range.  But I'd rather call things as they are, and not what we want to spin them to be.  A rifle in the wrong hands is already dangerous. A rifle with a suppressor in the wrong hands is even more dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, songfourone said:

by ALEX SEITZ-WALD

WASHINGTON — The day House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was shot in June during a congressional baseball practice, his colleagues were supposed to hold a hearing on a bill to make it easier for Americans to buy gun silencers. 

That hearing was postponed because of the shooting, and now Congress may push that legislation back yet again after another shooting. This time, it's the attack in Las Vegas, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, which critics say would have been even worse if the gunman had been equipped with a silencer. 

Meanwhile, Congress may soon take up another bill that has long topped the wish-list of pro-gun groups, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), which would force states to recognize other states' permits allowing residents to carry concealed weapons.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/silencers-armor-piercing-bullets-congress-looks-rollback-gun-laws-n806881

Duh!!!!!! Liberals have been saying this.

However, I guess it takes an incident of whites getting killed for the Republican Congress to get off their arses on gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, FormerlySouthSide said:

 

 

Semantics aside, Songfourone's point is valid.

A shooter with a suppressed rifle would be harder to locate from hundreds of yards away.  The people in the hotel suite next to the shoot may not have even known he was shoot if he had a suppressed rifle.  And i doubt the original intent of suppressors were to protect the shooter's hearing.

I have an AR, and I enjoy shooting and going to the range.  But I'd rather call things as they are, and not what we want to spin them to be.  A rifle in the wrong hands is already dangerous. A rifle with a suppressor in the wrong hands is even more dangerous.

I am, as you say, "calling things as they are".  Maybe you will believe it if you read it from another source. In this instance, WaPo:

As Satterly pointed out, then, allowing the use of suppressors more widely probably wouldn’t have made the tragedy in Las Vegas much worse.

“I can definitely say it wouldn’t have changed anything,” he said. “It wouldn’t have hidden the sound enough. Again: That’s just Hollywood.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/politics/wp/2017/10/02/why-the-debate-over-gun-suppressors-isnt-really-relevant-to-what-happened-in-las-vegas/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, songfourone said:
Wonder how long it could have gone on if he had used silences?

Probably about the same length of time, if the reports that they finally found him because the smoke from his weapon set off the room's smoke detectors are accurate. In other words, hearing the shots is not how they found him.

Don't misunderstand me. I see no legitimate need for civilians to possess suppressor technology, nor do I see it as protected by the Second Amendment, which I do support. I just don't think suppressors would have made a material difference here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mlatoman said:

They are called silencers, but they are really suppressors. Unlike what you see and hear in spy films, you cannot "silence" a gun firing a supersonic bullet. 

They do benefit a shooter in reducing decibels enough to limit damage to hearing, but they do not make an AR-15 go "pfft".  

And shooting the gun out of the hand of a perp only happens on TV and movies 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mlatoman said:

I am, as you say, "calling things as they are".  Maybe you will believe it if you read it from another source. In this instance, WaPo:

 

 

From the link you provided:

"A suppressor, he explained, is used to try to hide the location of a shooter by both lowering the sound of the shot and hiding the flash while firing a round [which helps hide location and preserve the shooter’s night vision]. You can still hear the shots, as above, but by making it quieter, locating the shooter becomes more difficult. (In Vegas, he noted, the echoes of the gunshots would have done a much more effective job of masking the point of origin.)"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FormerlySouthSide said:

From the link you provided:

"A suppressor, he explained, is used to try to hide the location of a shooter by both lowering the sound of the shot and hiding the flash while firing a round [which helps hide location and preserve the shooter’s night vision]. You can still hear the shots, as above, but by making it quieter, locating the shooter becomes more difficult. (In Vegas, he noted, the echoes of the gunshots would have done a much more effective job of masking the point of origin.)"

 

Also note from the link I provided that any suppresion would have been negated almost immediately firing full auto. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More dummies trying to ban things they know nothing about.

 

Shameful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes civilians need suppressed firearms.

Hearing safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason no one trusts liberals when it comes to gun laws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, songfourone said:

It Took Police 72 Minutes From First 911 Call to Locate Shooter

It took 72 minutes from the first 911 call for law enforcement to breach the shooter’s hotel room, NBC News reports. 

Police received the first call reporting shots on the country music festival at 10:08 p.m. local time. They then began searching for the source of the shooting, which was eventually determined to be coming from the Mandalay Bay hotel. Police initially began searching for the shooter on the 29th floor, working their way up to the 32nd floor where authorities say they immediately realized they were in the right place. It’s unclear how they knew, but at 11:20 p.m., police were heard blasting the door off the room where gunman Stephen Paddock was found dead, according to Las Vegas law enforcement. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/card/it-took-police-72-minutes-first-911-call-breach-paddock-n806836

 

Wonder how long it could have gone on if he had used silences?

 

As I understand it the smoke detector went off in the shooter's room.  So they knew which room to go to.

I have yet to hear how it all went down.  Was it really the smoke detector?  Was the shooter still active as they prepared to breach?  Did he really have cameras in the hall to let him know when LEOs reached his hallway?  Etc.  

But mostly just knowing a motive would really help us eventually get past this.

Edited by jdsample

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mcorioles said:

Yes civilians need suppressed firearms.

Hearing safety.

I have ear protection for recreational shooting. I'll worry about the ear hit I'll take shooting an intruder when it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Evil Yoda said:

I have ear protection for recreational shooting. I'll worry about the ear hit I'll take shooting an intruder when it happens.

I had one ear uncovered to talk at a range and forgot to put it back over my ear.

It rang for a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, mcorioles said:

I had one ear uncovered to talk at a range and forgot to put it back over my ear.

It rang for a week.

You made a mistake. Why does that mean a dangerous modification should be legal? To protect you from your own carelessness? Where's that personal responsibility thing your side seems to espouse? ;)

Edited by Evil Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mcorioles said:

Yes civilians need suppressed firearms.

Hearing safety.

No, they don't.

Use ear plugs, ear defenders or just take up another hobby if shooting is too noisy for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

Probably about the same length of time, if the reports that they finally found him because the smoke from his weapon set off the room's smoke detectors are accurate. In other words, hearing the shots is not how they found him.

Don't misunderstand me. I see no legitimate need for civilians to possess suppressor technology, nor do I see it as protected by the Second Amendment, which I do support. I just don't think suppressors would have made a material difference here.

Appearing on MSNBC on Monday, Bill Bratton, the former New York City police commissioner, claimed that if the Las Vegas shooter had used a "silencer" on his firearms, "you would not have even known this was happening."

Right now before Congress — and I will make a prediction for you sitting here — there is a bill to allow silencers that would muffle the sound of a gunshot to be sold openly. Right now, they're very restricted.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/21842/former-nypd-commissioner-claims-if-las-vegas-frank-camp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mcorioles said:

I had one ear uncovered to talk at a range and forgot to put it back over my ear.

It rang for a week.

People shouldn't have to pay with their lives because of your carelessness.

NEXT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Evil Yoda said:

I have ear protection for recreational shooting. I'll worry about the ear hit I'll take shooting an intruder when it happens.

When I go to the range, I don't even get out of my car until I put my ear protection on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Allegedly "silenced" rifles are still louder than a jackhammer, an ambulance, or a thunderclap. So no, Mr. Bratton, a suppressor would not, by any means, have made the Las Vegas shooter’s guns silent."

From your link. People would have known it was happening. People who think a suppressor makes a firearm sound like it does in the movies have never heard suppressed fire. I don't know why Mr. Bratton believes otherwise; you would have to ask him that. In addition, the article does not address the issue of whether the police in LV found him by following the sound, or as seems to be going 'round, by the alert from the room's smoke detector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

"Allegedly "silenced" rifles are still louder than a jackhammer, an ambulance, or a thunderclap. So no, Mr. Bratton, a suppressor would not, by any means, have made the Las Vegas shooter’s guns silent."

From your link. People would have known it was happening. People who think a suppressor makes a firearm sound like it does in the movies have never heard suppressed fire. I don't know why Mr. Bratton believes otherwise; you would have to ask him that. In addition, the article does not address the issue of whether the police in LV found him by following the sound, or as seems to be going 'round, by the alert from the room's smoke detector.

Former police commissioner from a large liberal city. A political appointee. Go figure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0