• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If the Las Vegas shooter just had handguns

vegas giants said:
I accept your insult as a concession of defeat. Lol
Click to expand...

Its not an insult, Im just stating the truth based on your posts. If you believe some of what you post than you've got your head in the clouds.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Its not an insult, Im just stating the truth based on your posts. If you believe some of what you post than you've got your head in the clouds.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion. LOL
 
vegas giants said:
Thank you for your opinion. LOL
Click to expand...

Its not an opinion its the truth. You've claimed that Trump doesn't believe in gun rights. He's made it obvious he does and you would have to have your head in the clouds to make such an absurd claim. If anything, the gun control crowd had their chance during the Obama administration but even then the tide was turning against you.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Its not an opinion its the truth. You've claimed that Trump doesn't believe in gun rights. He's made it obvious he does and you would have to have your head in the clouds to make such an absurd claim. If anything, the gun control crowd had their chance during the Obama administration but even then the tide was turning against you.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion
 
DebateChallenge said:
You just can't admit to the fact that you're losing. Keep on living in denial if that's what you want to do.
Click to expand...

You can continue to express your opinion if you wish.....but that is all it is. LOL
 
DebateChallenge said:
If the shooter only had handguns and if he used other strategies to maximize their effectiveness, if he were to get close enough for handguns to be effective he would've been much easier to stop, particularly if there was armed security at the concert which there should be. If handguns make up 70%+ of all homicides, they're at least used that many times in self defense. In many situations a handgun would be more practical for self defense than a rifle or shotgun, particularly if you're away from home and you're carrying. When somebody carries a gun for self defense the vast majority of the time its a handgun not a rifle or shotgun. So I would say handguns overall are more often used to save lives than to take lives (and this of course doesn't include the lives of the bad guys who get shot when they try to victimize innocent people).
Click to expand...

Since you like playing the "what if game" let me run another scenario by you. Steven Paddock had both the financial means and the clean criminal history to have purchased real transferable machine guns. A registered M16 with full auto capability could have been purchased for $16-20K, a Fight-lite MCR Belt fed upper receiver would have only set him back another $4K. Giving him a fully automatic, belt fed machine gun that has a rate of fire of 900 -1200 rounds per minute. With unlimited round capacity. Being a true machine gun he would have been able to aim easier and there would have been many more casualties.

Gun.jpg
 
JLee1977 said:
Since you like playing the "what if game" let me run another scenario by you. Steven Paddock had both the financial means and the clean criminal history to have purchased real transferable machine guns. A registered M16 with full auto capability could have been purchased for $16-20K, a Fight-lite MCR Belt fed upper receiver would have only set him back another $4K. Giving him a fully automatic, belt fed machine gun that has a rate of fire of 900 -1200 rounds per minute. With unlimited round capacity. Being a true machine gun he would have been able to aim easier and there would have been many more casualties.

View attachment 67227990
Click to expand...

Good point. Nice picture by the way. With such a weapon Paddock no doubt would've killed many more people. Now, lets say Paddock were to fly a fully fueled airplane into the crowd and do a 9/11 after all he did have a background as a pilot and he had airplanes. In that case he probably would've killed even more people than he would've with a machine gun. A fully fueled airplane is a big bomb as can be seen from 9/11. Lets say Paddock were to build a bomb and use it, bombs can be built from materials that are readily available at most general stores and you just need to look at all the bombings in Europe to see what I mean. Paddock could've driven a truck into the crowd and killed just as many people. Back in 1990 in New York there was an instance of somebody lighting up a dance club with gasoline that you get at a gas station and 87 people were killed, more people than in any mass shooting in the USA. Paddock might've not had a criminal record but he certainly wasn't a sane person. The problem was that there was something wrong with Paddock in the head and he should've been put away.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Good point. Nice picture by the way. With such a weapon Paddock no doubt would've killed many more people. Now, lets say Paddock were to fly a fully fueled airplane into the crowd and do a 9/11 after all he did have a background as a pilot and he had airplanes. In that case he probably would've killed even more people than he would've with a machine gun. A fully fueled airplane is a big bomb as can be seen from 9/11. Lets say Paddock were to build a bomb and use it, bombs can be built from materials that are readily available at most general stores and you just need to look at all the bombings in Europe to see what I mean. Paddock could've driven a truck into the crowd and killed just as many people. Back in 1990 in New York there was an instance of somebody lighting up a dance club with gasoline that you get at a gas station and 87 people were killed, more people than in any mass shooting in the USA. Paddock might've not had a criminal record but he certainly wasn't a sane person. The problem was that there was something wrong with Paddock in the head and he should've been put away.
Click to expand...

3500-8000 fatalities is what I heard from some "expert" if he had flown a fully laden plan at a speed of 150 MPH into that crowd at fairly flat angle
 
TurtleDude said:
3500-8000 fatalities is what I heard from some "expert" if he had flown a fully laden plan at a speed of 150 MPH into that crowd at fairly flat angle
Click to expand...

So that would be more than 9/11 by quite a bit.
 
DebateChallenge said:
So that would be more than 9/11 by quite a bit.
Click to expand...

yeah, now if the 9-11 mopes had hit WTC buildings lower they might have killed far more

of course they didn't have 25K people all massed together
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom