Las Vegas

[LisztesFerenc]

But Valerian (great name BTW I love Kushiel's Dart) and LisztesFernec here is the thing for me. If the system worked as it is supposed to what you say would be totally true. If more laws that I oppose were proposed in the democratic process I could take a stance, make a difference. Thing is in reality the system does not work that way. I have been a government investigator for 30 years and by all accounts I am very good at what I do. But I am daily saddled with doing things I simply do not agree with. The system is horribly broken. I think if any of us look at the political process we see the same thing, a broken system that no one has any faith in. Hell, what I propose probably could not be pulled off the government fucks up everything it touches.

  The system is far from perfect yes, but do you really think anti-gun legislation could be snuck through? Dodgy tax sure, but restricting fun access/expanding the database requirements on the slyI just don't see happening. And even if it were possible, would a legitimate gun control bill help behind the scenes corruption? Seems like you could do the latter just as well without the former.

[Retribution]

I do not disagree with you, but what I see happening is it ends up that way on accident. Then our inept system fails to repair the damage.

And honestly, I truly believe that guns are just a symptom of something that has gone horribly wrong. Look when North America was "discovered" guns came with those from Europe.  Less technical guns, but guns all the same. We did not have mass shootings then. But in recent years we do. What I really want to know is why does this happen now?

And while we are having a discussion that is civil let me point out something that has always struck me as so silly it makes my head hurt. During the assault weapon ban I had a firearm I still own. It was grandfathered in, but it was considered an "assault weapon" because it is fitted with a bayonet. During the ban one could purchase the same firearm. Just minus bayonet, but color me skeptical because I do not think said more or less knife strapped to the muzzle made said firearm more deadly.

I see stuff like that and wonder WTF it proves other than people feel better about themselves because they backed something in light of a shooting. The news makes things sensational, but the substance is lacking. For example the now DOA suppressor legislation. What it is supposed to be about is to keep guys like me from getting more deaf. I shoot around 2000 rounds a year and my lack of hearing shows it. I know hearing protection...not practicle in hunting situations in many cases. I read a study years ago about Inuits who hunt seals in the arctic going deaf because of standing so long in utter silence waiting for a seal to appear and then when it does BANG.

Now I doubt a suppressor would work for me. I could not handle the weight on my muzzle, but my point is there is what I consider a legitimate reason for seeking such a thing. I am literally half deaf in my left ear (classic to a right handed long gun shooter) and have lost about 25% in my right. A suppressor while not silencing could save some of that damage. Not to mention nuisance animal control work in an urban setting could greatly be aided.

But does one ever hear about these points when they read/watch the news? It all adds to why I am so rigid and skeptical.

[Oniya]

Being honest here - I can't say I'd consider a bayonet rifle to be an 'assault weapon' either.  (If anything, I'd consider it an antique at this point.  When were those last issued?)  The bayonet knife was basically something to use when either a) you ran out of bullets or b) the enemy was too close for aiming, and it was a close combat weapon.  It was like dropping the gun and pulling a sword, only with one less step (assuming it's a side-mounted bayonet knife, and not a barrel-plug type).

[LisztesFerenc]

Being honest here - I can't say I'd consider a bayonet rifle to be an 'assault weapon' either.  (If anything, I'd consider it an antique at this point.  When were those last issued?)  The bayonet knife was basically something to use when either a) you ran out of bullets or b) the enemy was too close for aiming, and it was a close combat weapon.  It was like dropping the gun and pulling a sword, only with one less step (assuming it's a side-mounted bayonet knife, and not a barrel-plug type).

  I can only speculate, but I imagine that was the point. If the assault weapon banned was made in response to spree shooters, perhaps there was a fear that someone shooting up a building could use a bayonet to stab someone who would otherwise disarm them. Unnecessary, can I see a glimmer of what they were aiming for there, if my reasoning is right.

[Retribution]

Being honest here - I can't say I'd consider a bayonet rifle to be an 'assault weapon' either.  (If anything, I'd consider it an antique at this point.  When were those last issued?)  The bayonet knife was basically something to use when either a) you ran out of bullets or b) the enemy was too close for aiming, and it was a close combat weapon.  It was like dropping the gun and pulling a sword, only with one less step (assuming it's a side-mounted bayonet knife, and not a barrel-plug type).

The one I have is on a more modern rifle to be precise a 7.62x39 as in AK and SKS fame or infamy. But the fact remains during the "assault weapon" ban said rifle was not allowed only because of said bayonet. And I could still legally have it because I had purchased it pre ban. So when I hear things along the lines of if we just had that ban back all would be better I am incredulous.

Speaking of that rifle. I used to use it deer hunting though I have not in some time. I would not fully extend the bayonet, but leave it pointing down. Then plant it in the ground and it offered a wonderful, steady base for shooting.

But that is neither here nor there. The point I was trying to make is for those on the other side of the debate. When you hear someone like me griping about it all being cosmetic. This is what we are talking about. Speaking for myself I just shake my head and wonder what the point is other than to irritate me.

[Doomblade403xxx]

I don't question people dying as a hoax. It happened. I question the method, the tools and the number of people involved. Rambo on adderol would have had a hard time stacking such a high amount of casualties. So we are led to believe that this guy, an untrained senior citizen, could do this so easily? Not buying it at all. He had help. Why the hell else would he be bringing all those guns if he didn't?

[Sara Nilsson]

Speaking as a dirty lefty gun owner and as someone who has been firing weapons in one form or another since my late teens.

Rets list would be a wonderful thing, what irks me about this country is that here in NJ it is hard to get a gun (as it should be) but many other states are well.. less strict. I took one of the NRA safety courses here as you have to to get a license in NJ and it was.. pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. A little very very generic talk, got to fire a handgun, a longrifle and a shotgun a few rounds. Class dismissed, thanks for the 200 dollars. Seemed more designed to make money for the NRA than anything else. I had the same reaction to that as when I went to the DMW to get the instruction manual for the drivers license. Was handed the pamplet and i was.. "No I wanted the book" and was told that is it. In sweden that book was some 150 pages thick.

Perhaps it is because I am not born American, so I don't have the same attachment to the right to bear arms. I find plinking at a target fun, and yes it is handy to have a weapon at home. Considering we have two known rapists living a block away and one is considered high risk. Why is he even out? Nevermind.. and as a survivor I do not want to be a victim again. But honestly I have my one gun for plinking at the targets at the local range. I have clocked many many hours in my life at the range and I can safely say I am NOT qualified to carry my weapon around all the time. So when I see shows like the daily show show how easy it is to get a concealed carry license in some states I just am shocked. When we see police officers panic and shoot unarmed people all the time, and they have way more training than the average Joe/Jane.

And lastly, the NRA can go to hell. I am so sick of that organization. I get their shit all the time and most of the time I just toss it in the shredder. They peddle so much lies it isn't funny, how Obama was going to come for our guns, slippery slopes left and right. Bah...

I want things to change, but America is so set in their ways and the NRA has such a powerful membership base. Not because they are many, but because they are so incredibly motivated. They call in, and call in again, and again. While the calls for control will come in after a shooting they trickle off quickly as people stop being so worked up. But the NRA keep calling, day in, day out. That makes them powerful.

As for Vegas, I am not surprised he could rack up that body count. Just needed to spray into the mass of people, sure he probably couldn't aim for shit with the bumper stock. But when you have that big of a target you don't have to. He wasn't after specific people, just people. The fact that he had that many guns to me shows he wasn't an experienced shooter, reloading doesn't take long once you done it a few hundred times. Reaching down for a new gun would take longer. It is just so unbelievably sad, I would gladly give up my gun for it to never happen again. And the people calling it a hoax can go to Hell.. eh no not Hell, I dont want to be around them when I croak. They can go to some other terrible place.. like an afterlife version of NJ.

[Lustful Bride]

Speaking as a dirty lefty gun owner and as someone who has been firing weapons in one form or another since my late teens.

Rets list would be a wonderful thing, what irks me about this country is that here in NJ it is hard to get a gun (as it should be) but many other states are well.. less strict. I took one of the NRA safety courses here as you have to to get a license in NJ and it was.. pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. A little very very generic talk, got to fire a handgun, a longrifle and a shotgun a few rounds. Class dismissed, thanks for the 200 dollars. Seemed more designed to make money for the NRA than anything else. I had the same reaction to that as when I went to the DMW to get the instruction manual for the drivers license. Was handed the pamplet and i was.. "No I wanted the book" and was told that is it. In sweden that book was some 150 pages thick.

Perhaps it is because I am not born American, so I don't have the same attachment to the right to bear arms. I find plinking at a target fun, and yes it is handy to have a weapon at home. Considering we have two known rapists living a block away and one is considered high risk. Why is he even out? Nevermind.. and as a survivor I do not want to be a victim again. But honestly I have my one gun for plinking at the targets at the local range. I have clocked many many hours in my life at the range and I can safely say I am NOT qualified to carry my weapon around all the time. So when I see shows like the daily show show how easy it is to get a concealed carry license in some states I just am shocked. When we see police officers panic and shoot unarmed people all the time, and they have way more training than the average Joe/Jane.

And lastly, the NRA can go to hell. I am so sick of that organization. I get their shit all the time and most of the time I just toss it in the shredder. They peddle so much lies it isn't funny, how Obama was going to come for our guns, slippery slopes left and right. Bah...

I want things to change, but America is so set in their ways and the NRA has such a powerful membership base. Not because they are many, but because they are so incredibly motivated. They call in, and call in again, and again. While the calls for control will come in after a shooting they trickle off quickly as people stop being so worked up. But the NRA keep calling, day in, day out. That makes them powerful.

As for Vegas, I am not surprised he could rack up that body count. Just needed to spray into the mass of people, sure he probably couldn't aim for shit with the bumper stock. But when you have that big of a target you don't have to. He wasn't after specific people, just people. The fact that he had that many guns to me shows he wasn't an experienced shooter, reloading doesn't take long once you done it a few hundred times. Reaching down for a new gun would take longer. It is just so unbelievably sad, I would gladly give up my gun for it to never happen again. And the people calling it a hoax can go to Hell.. eh no not Hell, I dont want to be around them when I croak. They can go to some other terrible place.. like an afterlife version of NJ.

*embraces you* it was very brave of you to share.

I find myself agreeing more and more with just about everyone here. The calm and intellectual debate here is so rare in the internet. I tried having a discussion for intelligent gun control on another site (while starting off by saying I am pro gun and what my favorites are) and ended up getting chewed out to the point I had to leave.

I agree about the NRA, they used to be a good measure but now they are just too busy sucking off gun companies and trying to get as much money as possible.

[Retribution]

Of course what is really disturbing here. Is that unless somethinh comes out is that this guy would trigger virtually none of it. No criminal record, no history of mental issues. Nothing that has come out so far. Think about that. Average guy does this. It is mind boggling.

[Lustful Bride]

Of course what is really disturbing here. Is that unless somethinh comes out is that this guy would trigger virtually none of it. No criminal record, no history of mental issues. Nothing that has come out so far. Think about that. Average guy does this. It is mind boggling.

Well apparently according to his girlfriend he at times at night would suddenly begin talking or screaming.

[Oniya]

There might have been a family history of mental illness (his father was described as psychopathic while on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted), and I saw at least one article that suggested that he had shown some signs of 'significant weight loss, an increasingly slovenly physical appearance and an obsession with his girlfriend’s ex-husband.'    Add that to LB's info about what the girlfriend said, and he might have been approaching a psychotic break.  That sort of thing ties in with your 'point three' - we need to invest in mental health care and treat it the way we do other medical conditions.

[Doomblade403xxx]

His father was a felon on the FBI most wanted lists. There has been posted some unsubstantiated evidence including a post from Antifa Melbourne that he was a member of their ranks.

[Oniya]

Gonna stick with the substantiated stuff.

[Doomblade403xxx]

Antifa Melbourne calling him a martyr is pretty substantial.

[Lustful Bride]

Antifa Melbourne calling him a martyr is pretty substantial.

Yeah but I could claim he was the father of my dog, that doesn't make it true. :/  Even isis claimed that he was part of their group, so I am with Oni on this, lets just stick to what there is real evidence for.

[Oniya]

Yeah but I could claim he was the father of my dog, that doesn't make it true. :/  Even isis claimed that he was part of their group, so I am with Oni on this, lets just stick to what there is real evidence for.

Precisely.  Every time that there is an incident of this magnitude, you get some people who want to claim to be part of it, just to make themselves look 'bigger'.  'Substantial' isn't the same as 'substantiated'.

[Sara Nilsson]

on top of that as we saw in Charlottsville some are willing to claim a deed in the name of the other side with some doing their best to make the driver seem like he was ANTIFA

[Oniya]

There was actually a study done at Princeton about - essentially - why do groups claim responsibility for acts of violence.  Skimming through the paper, it looks like the predominant reason is to show how strong they are, especially when the act involves significant damage to life and property, and/or involves a suicide by the perpetrator.  This is whether or not the group is actually responsible.  In fact, the paper makes mention that some groups in other countries will make false claims just so the actual group responsible doesn't 'get the credit'.

[Sara Nilsson]

Al-Qaeda, isis, both done it tons. Hezbollah did it, the various factions in Norther Ireland for those of us that remember that.

Groups that do not have traditional or complete militaries or weapons must resort to other means in order to ensure an impact against a more capable adversary. Claiming—or not claiming—attacks can deliver that impact. Claimed attacks can bestow a disproportionate sense of power and reach of the group itself, while anonymous attacks can sow fear and instability among the group’s target population. Any tool of warfare deserves proper consideration in order to determine how to most effectively render it useless.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-terrorists-do%E2%80%94-dont%E2%80%94take-credit-attacks-17984

[Retribution]

While the point you guys make about investing in mental health care is valid and ties in with what I suggested. I am still looking at this and cringing. The police as they should are clearly keeping some information to themselves, there are hints he was approaching a mental break down, all things thin and unsubstantiated. So I still look and wonder where this guy triggers a hypothetical system that is better than the current one.

For example it was pointed out his dad one of the ten most wanted back in the day may have had mental health problems. Are we really ready to turn into a society that penalizes for in this case sins of the father? I know I am not. Lets say  it is found from say his computer browsing history that he had ties to or interest one extreme group or another. Personally I am fine with the government monitoring such things and when such persons are identified giving them increased scrutiny. That might help a little, but I doubt many are all in on arresting someone for their web habits.

I hope I am articulating this well, but this is what has really bothered me about this one. Let me give you an example, Sandyhook. In that case we had a mother who had a mentally handicapped child. That child got his hands on her firearms. I can look at that and think you know while I am not in on penalizing mom because she had a child with problems, but some better firearm safety like gun safes so on with that kid in the house would go a long way. But this case I look at it and I do not see it. That -really- has bothered me and is something I am still struggling with.

[HairyHeretic]

on top of that as we saw in Charlottsville some are willing to claim a deed in the name of the other side with some doing their best to make the driver seem like he was ANTIFA

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59dwed/a-fake-antifa-account-was-busted-for-tweeting-from-russia-vgtrn

A recent case in point.

[Regina Minx]

I don't question people dying as a hoax. It happened. I question the method, the tools and the number of people involved. Rambo on adderol would have had a hard time stacking such a high amount of casualties. So we are led to believe that this guy, an untrained senior citizen, could do this so easily? Not buying it at all. He had help. Why the hell else would he be bringing all those guns if he didn't?

An important part of Bayesian reasoning is to consider how expected the evidence is if our theory is false. If the evidence is exactly what we should expect regardless of whether the theory we are testing is true or false, then the consequent probabilities are indeed both one, and in such a case we simply don't have any evidence that permits us to tell whether our theory is true or not, apart from its prior probability.

The majority of mass shooters bring 3 or more guns to commit their crimes. That means that the 10 or more rifles used by Paddock in his hotel room is in keeping with this trend of having shooters carry multiple guns. Perhaps being so high above the average makes this a little unusual. Nevertheless, Paddock having more than 10 guns is very much expected on the evidence that he was the shooter, and I would colloquially assign it a 90% probability of being consistent with the theory that he was the only shooter.

If we're considering the alternative hypothesis, which is that he was either framed or part of a conspiracy, then we have to ask ourselves how likely it would be that we would have the same evidence, the large number of guns he had with him. You initially claim that it is unlikely, but I beg to differ. If there was a conspiracy, then the conspiracy is also motivated to make a more convincing frame on Paddock. If they're leaving behind evidence that 'some asshole on the Internet' can use to expose their nefarious plans, they're not doing a very good job of it. A conspiracy would in all likelihood take the time to cover their tracks, up to and presumably including reducing the number of guns in Paddock's room to be less surprisingly large. I am being generous when considering alternatives, however, so I'd go ahead and bump the probability to a 60% likelihood that we'd have this same evidence if Paddock was being framed or if there was a conspiracy.

Using the odds form of Bayes, we would then consider 90%/60%. That means that the odds favoring the theory that this evidence favors the theory that Paddock acted alone is 1.5 to 1. In my estimation, using the math and logic laid out above, the number of guns found with Paddock argues more strongly that he acted alone than there's a conspiracy afoot. Even if you argued against this and pushed the needle that this was evidence of a conspiracy all the way up to 90%...because that same evidence is STILL 90% expected on a lone shooter theory, it can't move the needle between the competing shooter/conspiracy theories.

[Valerian]

Of course what is really disturbing here. Is that unless somethinh comes out is that this guy would trigger virtually none of it. No criminal record, no history of mental issues. Nothing that has come out so far. Think about that. Average guy does this. It is mind boggling.

This is another reason why so many people want to accept a label for the shooter -- the right want to believe that he was part of Antifa, for example -- because that gives some psychological comfort.  It makes him quantifiable even as it also makes him part of "the other".  If he got mixed up with some terrorist group or other, then of course he was radicalized.  He became one of "them" and no longer part of normal society.  The rest of us can then reassure ourselves with the fact that all we have to do is stay away from those bad people (however we define them) and we'll never be one of them.  If we start to accept that the massacre happened because of mental illness, which at the moment seems to be where the evidence is leaning, that's something that could, at least theoretically, happen to any of us at any time.  Then the boogeyman is no longer IS or their ilk -- it could be anyone who might be the next mass shooter, and no one wants to think about that too closely.

[Retribution]

This is another reason why so many people want to accept a label for the shooter -- the right want to believe that he was part of Antifa, for example -- because that gives some psychological comfort.  It makes him quantifiable even as it also makes him part of "the other".  If he got mixed up with some terrorist group or other, then of course he was radicalized.  He became one of "them" and no longer part of normal society.  The rest of us can then reassure ourselves with the fact that all we have to do is stay away from those bad people (however we define them) and we'll never be one of them.  If we start to accept that the massacre happened because of mental illness, which at the moment seems to be where the evidence is leaning, that's something that could, at least theoretically, happen to any of us at any time.  Then the boogeyman is no longer IS or their ilk -- it could be anyone who might be the next mass shooter, and no one wants to think about that too closely.

Exactly, and I keep thinking what has gone wrong along the way that this keeps happening? For example, a little more than 100 years ago you could go to the hardware store and buy a couple sticks of dynamite to get rid of that stump in the back pasture. One can no longer do that, but the fact remains around 1900 you could indeed do that. No one blew up a building in Ok-city or anything like that. Why is it happening now?

[Serephino]

There wasn't anything that triggered any systems in place now, but...  I'm getting different numbers on how many guns he had in the room, but yesterday I think it was I heard he had bought 45 guns in different towns and different states over the course of a year.  Who needs that many?  I mean, growing up my parents had a few in the house, but not that many.  And they were all hunting rifles, not assault weapons.  My roommate knows a guy who has an AR who thinks it's fun to take it to a shooting range and decimate the target.  But he just has the one.  One of the common sense things that need put in place is a national registry so that someone is made aware if an individual starts buying high powered weapons like there is no tomorrow.  Personally, I don't think civilians need assault weapons, but one is a whole lot different than 45.  When you're buying that many in that short of a time you can't be up to anything good.