
Nine Rounds a Second: Why the Las Vegas Shooting Was Different - 1wheel
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/02/us/vegas-guns.html
======
rabboRubble
We cling to the "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed" portion of the 2nd amendment, but forget the preceding piece of the
same amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free State".

What we have now is the absence of domestic security and no evidence of a well
regulated militia. We kowtow to the ever expanding security theater
encompassing the small activities in our lives, and our day to day freedom
decreases with each pat down and purse search.

The people at this show were screened, patted down, searched and then fenced
in. They were the proverbial fish in a barrel and they were being shot at.

Where is the well-ordered militia that has lists of citizens who have arms
stock piles like Paddock? When are citizens with militia level armaments
trained in an ordered and effective fashion so that we may call upon them in
times of crisis? When are arms-bearing citizens evaluated for their mental
stability to ensure they exercise their rights in a fashion that promotes the
security of a free state? We do none of these things because we are a failing
state. By failing state, I specifically mean that we are failing to fully
implement laws and regulations that enact the full meaning and intent of the
2nd amendment.

~~~
reitanqild
As someone who defends the right to own guns this still resonates with me.

Somewhere in between "doing nothing" and trying to "ban all guns" there is a
good solution waiting to be found.

Meanwhile the discussion seems deadlocked and I guess many of us can
understand both sides.

~~~
cwkoss
Unconventional gun law idea:

To get a license to own a gun, you need to take a marksmanship test. You get
36 shots, and have to fire at a 12" circular target 25' away. Your personal
maximum magazine size is the number of shots that hit the target minus 24
(36-24= max 12). If you have less than 66% accuracy (<24 hits), no license. If
you only hit 25, your max size is 1. Must have gun license on you any time
you're in possession of a gun outside your house (for verification of magazine
limit). Shooting ranges can let you rent a gun for practice without a license,
but must stay on premises.

If you're going to own a gun for the purposes of protection, you should be
able to fire it accurately, or you are a danger to yourself and others.
Driving a car requires proof of competence, don't see any reason why guns
shouldn't be the same: especially if its an objective test.

Would be relatively politically defensible, because opposition would have to
argue that people who cannot fire accurately should still be able to own
higher-capacity magazines, which is pretty hard position to argue.

The biggest counterpoint I can think of is that it might make it harder for
victims of domestic violence to obtain weapons to protect themselves, but I
think most of those situations are close enough range that there are other non
lethal alternatives (taser, mace) that could be safer/more effective for
someone without shooting experience.

~~~
dragonwriter
> If you're going to own a gun for the purposes of protection, you should be
> able to fire it accurately, or you are a danger to yourself and others.

But, conversely, the number of bullets you need for protection in any specific
situation goes _down_ with accuracy, so inaccurate shooters legitimately
_need_ more bullets.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
For themselves, yes. But bystanders need the inaccurate shooters to have fewer
bullets.

------
ThrustVectoring
Mainstream journalism being fast-and-loose with weapon definitions again. I'm
not sure if the NY times can't get it right, or they don't want to.

"Assault-style rifle" has no definition from what I can tell, other than
getting used repeatedly by the news when "assault rifle" is technically
incorrect but it looks like an assault rifle and they want to use the word
"assault" near the word "rifle".

And "semiautomatic AR-15-style assault rifle" is just wrong. Semiautomatic-
only rifles are not considered assault rifles.

~~~
RealGeek
I always see gun promoters trying to divert the discussion from the real issue
(read: mass shootings and terrorism) towards the technicality of the term
"assault weapon". Would calling these guns "weapons of mass murder" be more
accurate? Does that distinction really makes a difference? Why does a law
abiding citizen of America needs mass murdering guns with thousands of rounds?

~~~
ThrustVectoring
The technical details here _matter_. What features do we want the firearms
owned by law-abiding citizens to have? The use of the term "assault weapon" is
a tragedy of discourse norms that conflates in the minds of many the
incidental features of military assault rifles with the necessary features for
weapons to be used for mass murder.

And for what it's worth, if you can make an intensional definition for
"weapons of mass murder" that includes the most dangerous weapons for mass-
murder purposes without unnecessarily curtailing the design space for the
socially acceptable uses for weapons, please go for it.

~~~
paxunix
If you are going to argue about terminology, argue first about how can there
be a "design space for the socially acceptable uses of weapons". The phrase is
laughable. Weapons are for killing--that's why they're called weapons. Arguing
about what to actually call the physical thing that does the damage is missing
the point and is trying to draw attention away from the real purpose of the
thing.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Yes, these weapons are for killing. Using a firearm for home defense is
socially accepted. This is exactly what makes it tricky to ban "mass murder"
weapons while keeping "justified homicide" weapons legal.

~~~
paxunix
"Mass murder weapon" versus "justified homicide weapon" is just a situational
distinction that does nothing to address the fact that the physical thing is
identical and inextricably tied to horrible, irrevocable actions. Your gun
doesn't become a "justified homicide weapon" until after the fact. Up until
then, it's always just a weapon because you can't prevent or enforce its use
for a particular, sanctioned purpose.

~~~
maxerickson
They don't have to be identical physical things. That's what they mean by
design space. What features (that affect things like range and rate of fire
and accuracy and so on) should be legal on civilian weapons?

For the US even something like limited internal magazines isn't politically
tenable (a 5 shot internal magazine and manual action would still be useful
for hunting but could not be used to shoot hundreds of rounds per minute into
a crowd of people).

Hell, I won't be real shocked if nothing gets done about bump stocks (which
don't really have any purpose beyond shooting for fun).

------
minkzilla
I'd like to preface this by saying that yes those modifications should be
illegal. However, would that have made difference? I am not that knowledgeable
on the subject of gun modification, but aren't those things that would be
added after purchase? And things someone could create themselves? They seems
like fairly simple mechanics from short descriptions of them. So sure, outlaw
them because they certainly aren't something any gun owner needs. But I don't
think that would have made a difference in this situation. I doubt he had all
those guns in the hotel legally. It is not like he waltzed in with his guns
out in the open, he was hiding them already.

~~~
ardit33
The problem of the right to bear arms is that it was done during a time when
weapons were single shot, and hard to reload. There were limits to what you
could do.

Now you can classify many of these weapon as having the potential for mass
killings (not very different than explosives).

Should shotguns, and single shot rifles be allowed to be bought and sold
freely? Sure, as they seem to fit the idea of what an weapon during the time
was, and the right is in the constitution.

Should rapid fire machine guns be allowed? Probably not. The battle is where
do you draw the line of what is allowed and what is not.

~~~
Bromskloss
Historical reasons aside, what is the difference between slow and fast weapons
that would make one want to allow the one but not the other? As a first
approximation, it would seem that any argument that could be given for
allowing or disallowing either of the types would be applicable also to the
other type.

~~~
Nition
There are some actual productive uses for "slow" weapons. Farmers who might
want to shoot predators, rabbits etc. Hunting animals for food as well if you
support that.

------
chrissnell
I'm a gun owner and own a lot of firearms, including a number of semi-
automatic rifles. I have never liked the bump stocks, crank triggers, and
binary triggers. These "almost NFA" items are just so incredibly degenerate.
You never see quality people firing these things at the gun range--it's always
a scumbag. I will not cry if a bipartisan group of legislators bans the sale
of these items.

~~~
tomschlick
As a fellow gun enthusiast, I agree. I have shot _real_ NFA select fire
weapons (full/burst) and while they are a fun day at the range, there is
little legitimate purpose for them outside of laying down cover fire.

These modifications that make something "almost NFA" have always rubbed me the
wrong way. I wouldn't be surprised if the ATF issues a new opinion letter
regulating their manufacture / sale.

------
jxm262
I'm sorry but I'm still a bit confused. Read through the article and others
online, but I don't actually see it mentioned exactly what weapon was used. Is
it literally an AR-15 that had some sort of change done to it? They mention 2
guns were used, but only talk about the one and don't offer much details.
Asking out of curiousity, since everything I've read online doesn't really
seem to just get to the point.

~~~
1wheel
Right now it isn't clear, exactly, what weapon and modifications where used.
This piece is being updated as we find out more
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-mass-
shootin...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-mass-shooting-
weapons.html)

------
minkzilla
I am curious, why is HN keeping articles about the shooting off the front
page?

~~~
toomanybeersies
I gather it's because they generally fall into general news, rather than
things that would be specifically interesting to HN, and also because stories
about mass shootings always tend to degenerate into people just insulting each
other.

------
troisx
I'm a firearms enthusiast and was shocked to read that the rotating trigger
mechanism wasn't outlawed. It almost definitely will be after this massacre.

I also think that this is a strong case of genetics at play considering that
the shooter didn't even spend time with his bank robber father. The psychopath
apple didn't fall far from the psychopath tree.

~~~
ultimoo
I understand everyone is upset about what this terrorist did, so am I.

However, we should be cautious about making statements about genetics. Apart
from there not being any major scientific research behind it, it also leads to
disturbing effects like the state detaining blood relatives of someone that
commits crime because they will be more at risk of committing crimes in the
future, thought-crimes, etc.

~~~
Bromskloss
> this terrorist

Do we know this? Do we know what his motivation was?

~~~
RealGeek
Does his motivations make it any less terrorizing for the victims?

~~~
Bromskloss
It strikes terror (in the sense of _fear_) into the victims there and then all
the same, sure. I was talking about whether or not it constitutes _terrorism_,
though. I mean, it's terrorism if the purpose is to spread fear in a way that
will further some cause, but not every killing is terrorism, right?

------
jc-arp
Most people drive assault weapons too

------
RandVal30142
Selling my Romanian AK-47 and other firearms obtained through purchase or
inheritance felt great.

Since then there has been several mass casualty shootings in the states.

Wish I burned them now.

edit:

I didn't get rid of my collection over any huge reason, just didn't want the
liability sitting around home when I haven't gone shooting in years. That said
I feel like I've made a critical mistake in yielding my arms to people who
would likely be less responsible than I during my ownership.

For anyone in the same position remember you can disable most firearms pretty
easily by kludging a part or two. Hopefully will save someone that nagging
feeling I have.

~~~
xutopia
You aren't responsible for other people's heinous acts.

~~~
RandVal30142
I know, but I don't know.

It is obviously my duty to deescalate & inhibit violence in my community when
possible, while restricting people's avenues to tools that multiply the
potential damage they can inflict.

This is why we have mental health care and regulations for buying explosives.

The best I could figure with my firearms at the time was selling them to the
most responsible party possible, in my case it was gunsmiths. Recently some
criminals attempted to break into their shop. Didn't get away with anything.
So my choice already yielded measurable results in a way.

I'm not responsible people's heinous acts, but I am responsible for the
environment people choose to act in.

~~~
yongjik
Thank you for taking your responsibility seriously.

(I first wrote "...for being responsible", but then it has two opposite
possible readings. Yikes.)

