Orlando mass shooting

[revmic]

That is demonstrably not a fact, the Orlando shooter could have inflicted carnage in an incalculable number of ways. He chose the easiest, but McVeigh showed pretty clearly that there are other ways to wreak havoc.

Not so fast. McVeigh and his buddy Nichols had to invest a lot of time and effort. They first had to learn how such large bombs are made. Then they had to obtain and store the necessary materials, which was much more than just a lot of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Rather than mix the AN with the usual diesel oil, they used nitromethane, purchased over time through racing suppliers.

Then they needed a way to detonate it. ANFO is so insensitive that you need a "booster" explosive; a mere blasting cap won't set it off. (ANNM is more sensitive but I still think it needs a booster.) So they arranged to burgle large amounts of booster explosive, detonation cords, fuses and blasting caps from a mining operation. That was a major operation in itself that obviously carried a major risk of compromising the whole operation. So was their robbery of a nearby gun owner to fund the operation.

IIRC, they conducted some small-scale test explosions, which obviously also carried considerable risk.

Finally they had to rent the truck, mix and assemble the bomb (when they were almost detected) and drive it to Oklahoma City.

All this was far more difficult than merely buying an AR-15 and a lot of ammo and driving to a nightclub. Fortunately.

As Peter B courteously noted, I think this was directed to me. Thanks, ka9q, for an informative post, I knew generally about nitrates but not about the need for a boosting agent and the other details. However, I didn't mean to suggest that it was simple, fast or easy to make an improvised explosive of that magnitude, I was responding to Obviousman's 'simple fact' that the Orlando shooter could not inflict carnage without that weapon. I entirely agree that restrictions will slow down some would-be shooters, maybe even stop the really dimwitted ones, and I'm on board with reasonable measures to curb their corner-store access by almost anyone at anytime. But I was by no means suggesting that they were comparable in logistics or execution.

[Ranb]

Thanks, but I did mean laws in the USA.  I am already familiar with the effects of gun control laws in Australia.

[revmic]

This is why I don't get why this Mickey Mouse level of regulation we are talking about in this thread is such an issue in other states. You really think the piddly measures we are talking about here are so draconian? If a few nuisance regulations can prevent a lot of body bags and grieving families, I think it's something we can all live with.

Can you identify any gun control measures that have led to less body bags?  Other than laws that prohibit gun possession by criminals, most gun control laws are directly aimed at law abiding persons.  In San Francisco they tried to prohibit handgun possession; criminals were among those who were exempt from the proposed ordinance.  http://mccullagh.org/sf/handgun-ban/

The latest ideas consist of using lists of persons who will not be allowed to buy guns.  The due process is minimal (mickey mouse?) as far as I know and some people who are guilty of nothing other than their name being known to the US government are going to find their civil rights curtailed.

1. Yes, I know, and yes, that is what I am proposing. Semis are the weapon of choice for mass shooters, and I think extra measures to keep them in the hands of responsible users are entirely reasonable steps, posing minimal burden on responsible users.

I wasn't speaking of only semi-auto firearms, but anything with a detachable magazine including bolt action guns.  I have a Savage 10 FCM chambered in 338 whisper with a 20 round magazine.  A hacksaw and duck tape was all that was required to assemble it from the original mag and an aftermarket M-14 mag.  When it worked I welded the two pieces of sheet metal together.  http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/338whisper.jpg

Ranb

gwiz and Zakalwe beat me to the punch on your first question, but trying to outright ban ownership of guns in the States would certainly lead to a state of less than civil disobedience. The US hasn't laid down much by way of serious laws for comparison, that's kind of the problem. BTW, in my fair State, ownership of your guns and silencers in the pics would fall under 'defacing a firearm' and earn you a lengthy stay in one of our lovely correctional facilities. I forget sometimes how much variation exists between jurisdictions.

Your point that laws only affect the law abiding is well taken, but can we assume for the moment that ease of access is the issue? You pretty clearly are into the design and performance of firearms and take them seriously. A potential mass shooter just wants something that throws a lot of rounds as fast as possible, that he can acquire fast and easy. Would throwing up some speed bumps to keep modified military weapons away from his easy access really be such a crippling blow to you? How would you present that argument to the grieving families in Orlando?

Bolt-action rifles are I believe less common for mass shooters, a couple of snipers come to mind but by and large it is the rounds per minute delivery that is the big issue. Yes, you can kill with a single-shot weapon, but not spray a crowd as a gas semi can do in seconds.

As a sidebar, nice pics, are those home built silencers? (3-5 years for possession here, never used one except the 2-liter bottle improv) Do they affect your spread much?

[revmic]

Do you think that mass murder is an option for a mentally healthy person?

If studies of the psychology of mass murderers shows anything, yes, it is.  The average mass shooter does not show any signs of mental illness; the only way you can make them do so is to assume that willingness to kill lots of people is in and of itself a mental illness that shares no symptom profile with any other condition.

Meant to follow up on this, got derailed. Mass shooters tend to either shoot themselves (suicide), or can reasonably expect to be shot by responding law enforcement (suicide by cop). Since one of our most basic needs is survival, should mass murderers be considered to be making a rational choice?

[gillianren]

Meant to follow up on this, got derailed. Mass shooters tend to either shoot themselves (suicide), or can reasonably expect to be shot by responding law enforcement (suicide by cop). Since one of our most basic needs is survival, should mass murderers be considered to be making a rational choice?

Are soldiers?  They go in knowing they might be killed.  Volunteer soldiers enlist knowing they might be killed; come to that, so do cops, firefighters, and all nature of other professions.

[revmic]

Meant to follow up on this, got derailed. Mass shooters tend to either shoot themselves (suicide), or can reasonably expect to be shot by responding law enforcement (suicide by cop). Since one of our most basic needs is survival, should mass murderers be considered to be making a rational choice?

Are soldiers?  They go in knowing they might be killed.  Volunteer soldiers enlist knowing they might be killed; come to that, so do cops, firefighters, and all nature of other professions.

I know I might be killed when crossing the street. Cops, soldiers, firefighters, etc accept risks but try not to, for instance, blow their own heads off. They also have long-term benefits in their jobs that at least assume they will continue to live after working, which statistically they do. Not comparable to the suicide mission that the mass murderer 'rationally' chooses

[gillianren]

I know I might be killed when crossing the street. Cops, soldiers, firefighters, etc accept risks but try not to, for instance, blow their own heads off. They also have long-term benefits in their jobs that at least assume they will continue to live after working, which statistically they do. Not comparable to the suicide mission that the mass murderer 'rationally' chooses

All right, then, limit it to soldiers asked to volunteer for extremely dangerous missions; it happens, after all.  Are they rational?

[Ranb]

Would throwing up some speed bumps to keep modified military weapons away from his easy access really be such a crippling blow to you? How would you present that argument to the grieving families in Orlando?

What kind of speed bumps do you suggest that would have kept Marteen from getting a semi-auto rifle?  He was a licensed security guard if I remember correctly.  I would suggest that we need to concentrate on preventing access by violent people until all guns can be eliminated from society (which would be never).

As a sidebar, nice pics, are those home built silencers? (3-5 years for possession here, never used one except the 2-liter bottle improv) Do they affect your spread much?

All home built as I can't afford to buy them.  They're $40 to $250 in material plus the ATF's $200 tax on each.  Since the bullet never touches the baffles, accuracy and velocity is unaffected.  The addition weight on the barrel requires scope or sight adjustment at anything but short range.

New Jersey is falling behind the times.  The general trend is for states to ease restrictions on guns especially silencers as they are the most effective means of reducing gun noise. 

But in NJ they think they can limit the amount of guns sold by requiring that only smart guns be sold; no one voting for the smart gun bill was actually stupid enough to believe it was going to make anyone safer. 

When the prime sponsor of the smart gun law realized she wasn't fooling anyone she pushed another bill through which would actually encourage the use of smart guns by requiring that dealers stock them along side traditional guns; but dumb-ass Christie vetoed it.  NJ is the laughing stock of the gun community as a result.

Ranb

[revmic]

I know I might be killed when crossing the street. Cops, soldiers, firefighters, etc accept risks but try not to, for instance, blow their own heads off. They also have long-term benefits in their jobs that at least assume they will continue to live after working, which statistically they do. Not comparable to the suicide mission that the mass murderer 'rationally' chooses

All right, then, limit it to soldiers asked to volunteer for extremely dangerous missions; it happens, after all.  Are they rational?

Even a soldier volunteering for an extremely dangerous mission will have the best extraction plan feasible in place, I think that is not comparable to the 40% of mass shooters who commit suicide (statistics vary a lot on this, including whether the shooter would have killed himself if the cops had not got him first). A mass shooter's suicide or 'shoot until shot' choice offers no plan for survival, which I do not see as a rational option for a 'healthy' mind.

[revmic]

What kind of speed bumps do you suggest that would have kept Marteen from getting a semi-auto rifle?  He was a licensed security guard if I remember correctly.  I would suggest that we need to concentrate on preventing access by violent people until all guns can be eliminated from society (which would be never).

I think VQ had a similar observation, that having a concealed carry permit and being a security guard implies he was more responsible, I think those things work against him. Concealed carry is actually preparing for a shootout on the street, and IMHO security guards , armed neighborhood watchers, and other wannabe cops are the loosest of cannons.

Yes, keeping arms out of the hands of violent people is the ideal. No, we don't always know who they are. Since you seem opposed to licensing, are you proposing some kind of psychological testing at point of sale? Do tell.

NJ is the laughing stock of the gun community as a result.

Settle down.

[Ranb]

Concealed carry is actually preparing for a shootout on the street, and IMHO security guards , armed neighborhood watchers, and other wannabe cops are the loosest of cannons.

Data to back this up?

Yes, keeping arms out of the hands of violent people is the ideal. No, we don't always know who they are. Since you seem opposed to licensing, are you proposing some kind of psychological testing at point of sale? Do tell.

No point of sale testing.  Just about any adult (non-felon) can get a license for anything.  Unless the license is used to actually deny possession to the great majority of people, it will not change anything.

Settle down.

I do not jest.  The NJ smart gun law exempted the police, a group of people who can obviously benefit from smart guns that actually work, not just ones that the AG thinks are acceptable.  Why would NJ exempt smart gun use by the police?  Probably because they're more interested in limiting civilian gun choices than safety.  I've yet to see any police agency that wants the current smart gun technology.  Why make others buy junk that the police are unwilling to risk their lives over?

I'd prefer a personalized gun if it worked and was not cumbersome.

Ranb

[revmic]

Concealed carry is actually preparing for a shootout on the street, and IMHO security guards , armed neighborhood watchers, and other wannabe cops are the loosest of cannons.

Data to back this up?

Data for what? The first part is a self-evident logical conclusion, the second is a humble opinion.
Concealed carry applies to public areas, or 'on the street'. Unless you claim that a concealed carrier wants to be prepared for an impromptu target shoot where he must conceal his weapon to be a surprise contender (slight strawman, but not by much), the intent of a concealed handgun is to publicly open fire on someone. Or just wave it around, actually worse. Judge, jury, and executioner on a split seconds notice. Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question

No point of sale testing.  Just about any adult (non-felon) can get a license for anything.  Unless the license is used to actually deny possession to the great majority of people, it will not change anything.

So when you say that we should focus on 'preventing access by violent people' you mean we should....do absolutely nothing? Another serious question

Probably because they're more interested in limiting civilian gun choices than safety.

I don't know how the smart gun issue was portrayed in the rest of the country, but your above quote was the prevailing local opinion. Final serious question: what spread and at what yardage can you hold with that Contender in your photobucket, assuming still wind?

[PetersCreek]

Data for what? The first part is a self-evident logical conclusion, the second is a humble opinion.
Concealed carry applies to public areas, or 'on the street'. Unless you claim that a concealed carrier wants to be prepared for an impromptu target shoot where he must conceal his weapon to be a surprise contender (slight strawman, but not by much), the intent of a concealed handgun is to publicly open fire on someone. Or just wave it around, actually worse. Judge, jury, and executioner on a split seconds notice. Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question

Have you undertaken any training or serious study of CCW?  It doesn't sound like your conclusions and your opinion aren't very well informed.  The goal of CCW is to survive a life threatening situation.  It isn't just a matter of strapping up like some Barney Badass.  Knowing the laws and other factors, such as situational awareness and threat avoidance are critical components.  For instance, just waving a concealed firearm around is itself a crime (Brandishing) in my locale and others and can be extended to a more serious offense such as Menacing, or Assault With a Deadly Weapon, depending on circumstances.

I'm a practitioner myself...although not daily, since I work in a Federal facility...and I will be quite content to never have a need to deploy my firearm.  Ever.  But my overriding goal is for myself and/or others to not be injured or killed if I can help it.

And yes, I also have AR-15s: one off-the-shelf model chambered in 5.56 mm and one I built, in .300 Blackout.  Their primary use is recreational shooting, with utility as home defense rifles...even if it's against a bear that doesn't mind his manners like most of our ursine visitors do.  Magazine capacity?  What one actually needs is always determined after the fact.  I want more left in the magazine after an encounter than I needed.  It beats the heck out of having one less. 

[VQ]

Data for what? The first part is a self-evident logical conclusion, the second is a humble opinion.
Concealed carry applies to public areas, or 'on the street'. Unless you claim that a concealed carrier wants to be prepared for an impromptu target shoot where he must conceal his weapon to be a surprise contender (slight strawman, but not by much), the intent of a concealed handgun is to publicly open fire on someone. Or just wave it around, actually worse. Judge, jury, and executioner on a split seconds notice. Is there another reason to carry a concealed firearm? Serious question

Actually, I know several people that only use their permit exclusively for transport of weapons to and from the range - the definition of "concealed" can be counterintuitive and it avoids risk of legal trouble. The intent of a concealed carry is to stop a felonious assault.

I think for most security guards their job is just a job, one in which a license to carry results in a slightly better pay rate.

[ka9q]

I've yet to see any police agency that wants the current smart gun technology.  Why make others buy junk that the police are unwilling to risk their lives over?

Why don't you ask the Las Vegas cop at the Donald Trump rally when Michael Sandford tried to steal his gun to shoot Trump?

The Boston Bombers murdered an MIT police officer in an unsuccessful attempt to steal his gun; apparently he had some sort of lock that kept them from pulling it out of its holster. Yes, the cop is still dead but that's only because the brothers didn't know about the holster lock. If it became generally known that cops had either holster locks or a "smart" gun that kept it from being fired by anybody else, the incentive to steal a cop's gun would go away.