When you're right, you're right.

The first time I saw a Vegas video, I said it out loud:

"Holy Shit!   That's Full Auto!"

Well, yes and no.  It was a conversion (bump fire; never heard of it).   But it was still full auto.

Later, I grew angry with the NRA because it wouldn't make a statement about bump fire.   I was torn for two reasons:

• I never fully agreed with the severe restrictions on private ownership of Full-Auto weapons because I think that any weapon available to the average infantryman should be available the the law-abiding citizen.  Because Second Amendment.
• I also realize that is unrealistic, because this world is full of crazy people ... and yes, the rest of us ARE penalized unfairly.   Because crazy people are all over and we know we can't predict who is going to do a crazy thing. *(apologies to Minority Report; it just ain't happening)*

Then I got mad at the NRA because they were silent.   But I decided to give the NRA time to decide what they were going to say.   That was a good choice, because ...

Today the NRA's Past President Marion Hammer made a statement:

An open letter to NRA board of directors from past-president Marion Hammer - The Gun Writer:

If you listened to an audio recording of the shooting during that horrific massacre, you must have concluded that it was full-auto fire. You were not alone, many firearms experts and law enforcement professionals came to the same conclusion. It was not until later that information was released disclosing that bump-stocks had been used to convert semi-automatic firearms to perform like full-auto firearms.

and:

Do you have any idea how many people were shocked out of their minds when ATF decided bump-stocks were not subject to regulation and APPROVED them for sale and use? That was under the Obama administration for crying out loud. Your mind is forced to run wild wondering why.
Once the ruling was made, what would you expect NRA to do? Do you think NRA should have said, Oh! No, ATF is wrong, ATF made a mistake?
It doesn’t matter what laws the NRA doesn’t agree with or doesn’t like, the NRA must abide by the law. For decades, over and over again when the enemies of the Second Amendment have tried to capitalize on tragedies by calling for more gun control, NRA has called for enforcing existing law. That is exactly what we are doing now.

On the other hand, there's this:

NRA Opposes New Bump Fire Stock Ban Bill

Bill's language may reach far beyond bump fire stocks

A woman's work is never done.

Chipping Away at the Second Amendment

The anti-Second Amendment folks have a script that they all read from, and the line at the top is:

"Nobody is trying to take your guns away"

There's this thing about undermining the constitution; it's hard to do when you openly state "We Don't Think You Deserve These Rights Because We Don't Trust You", so these folks say other things, like :

"Gee, I know YOU wouldn't abuse this gun, but obviously other people will, so let's just agree that it's A Good Idea to make it illegal for anybody to own it".

Here is a prime example:

The Cancer in the Constitution - The New York Times:

All of his weapons were legal but should not be by any rational reading of the Second Amendment.

What Constitutional Scholar made that decision? The NYT writer didn't say.

UPDATE: 3 hours later ... I've been usurped ... someone else is already writing my article!

Bump-Stock?  WTF is that?

Like most people, I didn't know what a Bump Stock was until the Vegas shooting.  If I had heard of it, I would have shrugged my shoulder and thought "what a dorky idea".

Here's what it looks like:



Now we have politicians lining up to claim that they're against it ... whatever it is.   Well, maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.  But a gun stock is not a firearm, and it is not protected by the Constitution.   So they can make a lot of noise and a lot of headlines and won't have to worry about the Constitutional Rights of their constituents.   What a great day to be a Politician in front of a microphone!   Hell, if they had scruples, they would have retired from Congress.

I think that the immediate reactions to Vegas are beginning to get a bit too strident.    And I wonder whether, in all the confusion, the anti-gun folks are going to take the ball and run with it until they make it illegal to own anything that isn't "specifically permitted" by currently existing law.

Here's a currently existing law:   "Shall Not Be Infringed"


The Celebrity Class is all over this tragedy like Stink on Shit.   I read an article today where somebody whose name isn't in the papers often enough to suit her career said "the murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad".  If she had the integrity of her father, she wouldn't be so eager to lump ordinary, law-abiding citizens into the same class with a man who had  too much money, too much time on his hands, and no morals. (I'm referring here to the mass murderer, not the singer.)

UNDER THE FOLD: "Any Sporting Purpose"

Machine Gun Vegas Calls For More Gun Control? Dialogue!

Surfing through Gun Blogs, I found this interesting dialogue:

Machine Gun Vegas Calls For More Gun Control . . . Then Doesn't? - The Truth About Guns:

A says:

 After this mass murder, the NFA will never be repealed. Zero chance today or ever. 50 years from now, the politicians will use this event as an example of why it should not be repealed. At this point the NRA will be fighting to keep what few rights we still have. There will be no repeals of existing restrictions and the NRA will be in a huge battle with the next President which will be a Democrat. This was event was really bad for 2nd Amendment supporters.

B says:

 If they make a peaceful return of our rights impossible they will make a violent return inevitable. I’m waiting for this clown’s connection to the alt-left to get released. 

C says:

 Oh cut em some slack. Vegas is in shock. Let them make some mistakes, Their contributions to the gun cause is exceptional. i’ve used their services. And after a few rounds with all the major full autos, I’ve decided that what happens in Vegas….probably shouldn’t. 

D says:

 the next president will be trump, stop buying the media garbage democrats have no teeth anymore

I'm not familiar with the general tone of comments on this gun blog;  I'm not a full-auto enthusiast, so my priorities probably don't mesh comfortably with the Usual Suspects here.

But I find their comments (anonymous) to be an interesting cross-section of Second Amendment concerns as a consequence of the Vegas shooting.

My analysis:

A:  Negative expectations
B:  Reactionary, combative
C: Ameliorative, neutral
D: Positive expectations/Political

I think this defines the range of reactions which is to be expected from Second Amendment supporters in America. 

Generally speaking; some of us expect that The Feds will come down critically on our rights ... hard! 
Others of us expect that our government will consider the Vegas tragedy to be the work of an anomalous actor, and ignore the "act-which-could-not-have-been-foreseen".

And some of us have no confidence in our government, and are inclined to react quite negatively to what we  the consider an abridgement of our inalienable rights.

We have he CONSTITUTION on our side!

Blomberg Lies To Make A Political Point

A Bump in the Debate Over Gun Violence - Bloomberg:

Using both a bump stock and large ammunition magazines, Paddock fired roughly 90 shots in 10 seconds -- approaching the volume of a fully automatic machine gun. Automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since the 1930s, and manufacture of new machine guns has been illegal since 1986.

Well, I can see the point that Blomberg is trying to make, but I call them liars or else poor writers when they descent to inaccuracy to make a (political?) point.

Paddock fired roughly 90 shots in 10 seconds

I doubt that.

Even if he was using 30 round magazines ("banana clips" which he probably had but which are notoriously poor at feeding reliably in Rifle calibers) that would require him to fire 30 rounds in 3 seconds, make a magazine change, and do the reload at least one more time to empty 3 magazines.

If he was using 20 round magazines (which are a 'straight-line design', as apposed to "banana clips' which are curved and much more difficult to insert into a rifle), that would require:
 (20 + 20 = 40; reload + 20 = 60;  reload  plus  20 = 80,  reload  + 20 to acquire 90 rounds to the gun) 3 reloads in 10 seconds.  Plus the amount of time to actually empty the magazines.

If he was using 30 round magazines, that would require only 2 reloads, which would  be even more difficult to reload quickly given the curved design of the magazines.  Plus they are less reliable.  The available photos show straight (not curved) magazines as his reserve, which an experienced shooter would prefer.

I have been competing in IPSC matches for 30 years, and even with the best equipment and magazines immediately available on my belt pouches, I find it difficult (if not impossible) to reliably reload a pistol magazine in three seconds.

Pistol magazines are a straight stack design, which means it's more easy to align the magazine with the gun. 

I've use an M16 in combat and in training, and even the (shorter, easier) 20-round magazine is difficult to reload quickly.  And in fact, we consistently loaded only 18 rounds into the magazines which were designed to accommodate 20 rounds, for reliability. 

(Magazines with 20 rounds in them tended to be more difficult to feed into the gun, because of excessive spring tension; and they were less reliable when feeding because the rounds tended to 'jam' when feeding into the gun.)

If we posit that the Idiot In Question had magazines immediately at hand, the scenario posited would give him 3 seconds for each reload (unrealistic ... rifle magazines are more difficult to seat than are pistol magazines) and four seconds to empty the two magazines, calling for a reload.

I know how fast an AR-type rifle cycles, and seems unrealistic that he loaded "90 rounds in 10 seconds" and  expended all the rounds in that period of time.  OR that he ran through two 30-round magazines, and reloaded, in that period.

Plus I've seen the videos .. the rate of fire seemed approximately 100 rounds a minute, at best.
x
x

VEGAS! (The Conspiracy!)

The imaginative Conspiracy Theory about the Vegas shootings.

This is the first theory I've found:

(Natural News) It’s all hogwash. The “official” narrative of how things went down in the Las Vegas massacre is so full of holes that it begs the question of just how deep the truth about this attack really goes.

Details and quotes:

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Official story of Las Vegas shooting unravels; physical impossibility of lone gunman senior citizen makes narrative ludicrous – NaturalNews.com:

People who aren’t familiar with firearms have no idea how difficult it is to conduct sustained fire with an automatic weapon. It requires tremendous strength, endurance and training — something that Stephen Paddock had none of. Military special forces operatives train for years to be able to manage such weapons and handle all the problems they pose (barrel overheating, ammo jams, double feeds, recoil management, etc.). The idea that some senior citizen accountant can just pick up a machine gun and lay down thousands of rounds of effective fire in a sustained, 10-minute assault even though he had no experience with such weapons is completely ludicrous.

Apparently the author of this article takes exception to the reportage.  I have no reason to suspect that there was a conspiracy among two or more murderers.   Still, the article was written within hours (not days) after the shooting, and before more detailed reports were available.   I have no idea how the author knew whether the shooter had formal weapons training.

I have a few rejoinders to offer (you may have your own):

• It's not difficult to conduct sustained fire with a fully automatic weapon.  It's just difficult to HIT anything when you go "full-auto", except when your target is massed shoulder-to-shoulder, filling a city block.
• Barrel overheating: while it is/can be an issue, one way to avoid that is to have SEVERAL rifles (he had 23?) so one rifle can cool off while he used the next one.  (Note that news reports mention an AR15 with a reddish-tinged barrel, indicating that it had overheated; perhaps had even begun to cook off.)
• Ammo jams, double feeds: see above.   That is probably why he had so many rifles.
• "Effective fire": when you are shooting at thousands of people, packed into a city block, at distances of a few hundred yards, you're not aiming.  You're "Flock Shooting".
• "Special Training": the guy had ... what, 23 rifles with him?  Lived alone on a ranch?  He didn't need Special Training, just practice.  He had solitude to practice and time to plan; all news reports indicate that he had the opportunity to acquire "experience" with every weapon, in both calibers.
• "Recoil Management":  he was shooting at a compacted mass of people, and had the advantage of height.   He didn't even have to aim.  He could have shot from the hip (and probably did, toward the end).  Besides, the .223/5.56  cartridge is low recoil.   Physical endurance was probably not an issue.  No special expertise was required.
• "Senior Citizen Accountant":   What, do men automatically become physically infirm when they hit 65 years of age?   Senile, perhaps.   "Physical impossibility"? 
• Conspiracy Theory:  There's no reason to assume that there was more than one shooter; remember the JFK Assassination, and the Texas Tower Sniper.   Both men deliberately sought the high-ground, although those murders were shooting at individuals.   
• This one obviously planned his attack, deliberately chose a venue with many "targets" in a large area which could be engaged without a special set of skills by using fully automatic rifles to murder the most people in the shortest time.   He used the lessons provided by his hideous predecessors.

OTHER ERRORS IN REPORTING: The Author's Full Report

Diane Feinstein feels a little tingle running up her leg

The Vulpine character of American Liberal Politicians has once again revealed their disdain for the freedoms acknowledged by the Constitution of America.

Most particularly, the Second Amendment.

As the Democratic U.S. Senator for California said in this 1995 interview:
"Mister and Mrs. America ... turn them in!



Now?

Diane Feinstein may have just got her wish:

In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, Diane may be feeling as excited as the Democratic politician who learned that Barack Obama was nominated for President.

She's not the only Liberal politician who has spotted her "Window of Opportunity": House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi shares her views:

Pelosi calls on Ryan to form select committee to curb gun violence - POLITICO:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Monday urged Speaker Paul Ryan to create a Select Committee on Gun Violence that would craft "common sense legislation" in the wake of a Las Vegas shooting that has left at least 59 people dead and injured more than 500. Pelosi wrote to Ryan as Democrats began edging back toward calls for gun control measures that they had largely avoided after the June shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). Following the mass fatalities in Las Vegas, however, Pelosi called for "a day for action" as well as remembrance of those lost.

The "day of action" is, presumably,  a drive to castrate the American Constitution by enacting "local laws" (at a state level?) which obviate the Second Amendment.

It may be appropriate to notice that the drive for "common sense legislation" is trotted out by Liberals every time some whack-job opts for "Suicide By Cop" and performs the obligatory happy-dance with a rifle.   Fortunately for the Liberals, who love to portray those suicidal efforts as typical of 2nd Amendment supporters, there is no limit to the number of Insane Clowns who volunteer for the job.

Still, one wonders what legislation the Dems can envision, which would provide a means of making Insanity Illegal.  God knows that universal confiscation of firearms ... which is Number One With A Bullet on the Liberal agenda ... might lead to.

It would be as reasonable, and as effective, to make Insanity illegal.

Dems on Vegas: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste"

Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock Had Recent Large Gambling Transactions - NBC News:

Hillary Clinton also expressed her grief in a tweet: "The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get." She added: "Our grief isn't enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again."

This is what Hillary says in expression of her grief: a political statement saying "we must put politics aside" ... and then using a massacre to make a political point.

Expect more quotes from Democrats, saying (in effect) "... this would never have happened on OUR watch..."   and blaming President Trump for a situation which nobody could have foreseen nor prevented.

Mass Murderers are cowards; they're not afraid to die, they're just afraid to live out their angst without making a public statement.  Everyone else has to pay for their misery.

Hillary is making her own public statement, and considering the political flack which is sure to follow this tragedy, it's difficult to find the fine line between this particular mass murderer and her own willingness to throw half a nation under the bus (by imposing draconian "gun safety" rules) which would infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of law-abiding citizens.

And she didn't even have to pay this madman to provide the crisis which she is so eager to exploit.

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. Rahm Emanuel

UPDATE:  10/02/2017 ! 1900 PST

As of this moment, this is the most comprehensive reporting I've found on the internet about the Vegas Massacre.