Las Vegas

[Regina Minx]

A sniper opens fire at a music concert in Las Vegas, killing at least 50 and wounding 200 in the worst mass shooting in US history.

I feel the need to quote David Frum.

"[D]espite the predictable recurrence of these crimes, Americans have developed a strong taboo against ever discussing or even thinking about them. When the killer strikes, it is 'too soon.' The next day, it is 'too late'; we have all moved onto the next topic. Then comes the next massacre, and it is 'too soon' all over again.

Like ancient villagers, Americans accept periodic plagues as a visitation from the gods, about which nothing can or should be done. The only permitted response is 'thoughts and prayers'—certainly never rational action to reduce casualties in future. Even to open the discussion as to whether something might not be done violates the taboos of decency: How dare you politicize this completely unpredictable and uncontrollable event! It is as if gun violence were inscrutable to the mind of man, utterly beyond human control.

The fact that such things do not happen anywhere else with anything approaching the same frequency—that too is the work of some ineffable mystery. Who can say why such things happen so seldom in Canada and Australia and Britain and Germany and France, and so often in the United States? Who would be rude enough even to wonder?

A few hours before the attack on the Alexandria playing field, a lower-income housing tower erupted in flames in London. At least six people lost their lives; 20 more remain in critical condition at latest report. In an interview conducted even as firefighters battled the blaze, the mayor of London said, 'There will be a great many questions over the coming days as to the cause of this tragedy and I want to reassure Londoners that we will get all the answers.' About fires, apparently, it is permitted to use human reason. But not about firearms! Against the much greater toll from those, the only remedy—the only approved response—is to send 'thoughts and prayers.'"

What I'm saying is that there's going to be lots of news stories. Lots of prayers and thoughts and bad feelings. But then things go on, and we won't change a fucking thing.

[Lustful Bride]

This person picked out a killzone, had close to 10 loaded rifles with them and a height advantage. This was well planned and practiced. That's what honestly makes this so terrifying, its not just some random asshole, this was someone who knew their craft. From where he was only someone in a similar position was going to stop him, or a police entry behind him. Which took too long.

Id give up every gun I have ever had and never touch one again if it meant something like this never happening. But il still happen. They will just use vans, bombs, knives, acid, their own hands. What a beautiful world we have ruined.

[gaggedLouise]

This person picked out a killzone, had close to 10 loaded rifles with them and a height advantage. This was well planned and practiced. That's what honestly makes this so terrifying, its not just some random asshole, this was someone who knew their craft. From where he was only someone in a similar position was going to stop him, or a police entry behind him. Which took too long.

Id give up every gun I have ever had and never touch one again if it meant something like this never happening. But il still happen. They will just use vans, bombs, knives, acid, their own hands. What a beautiful world we have ruined.

How can anyone even get away with that kind of rifle buying and preparation without any sane person stopping him, checking him and asking "Hey, what are you up to with this shit?"  ??? Background checks, anyone?

Best song ever about pointless gun crime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T6sHBMvEEc

[Lustful Bride]

How can anyone even get away with that kind of rifle buying and preparation without any sane person stopping him, checking him and asking "Hey, what are you up to with this shit?"  ??? Background checks, anyone?

Best song ever about pointless gun crime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T6sHBMvEEc

I don't know the gunlaws of Nevada so I don't know.

Maybe he did ping alerts but due to his age no one cared. Maybe it was perfectly legal and due to a life of calm behavior no one noticed when he suddenly started arming up and getting a ton of ammunition.

As of late we have been seeing a ton of super owners. Single person/family gun owners who buy up tons of guns and ammo and do nothing with them, just letting them lie and collect dust.

I mean my family has maybe....7 guns I think? Revolver for me, one for mom, dad has a revolver and a sig sauer. A shotgun that he hasn't touched in years, and a Ruger mini 30 which is also mine. And we only really go to the range. We aren't arming for any invasion or end of the world thing, just if something like Katrina,Irma, Maria, happens to us. And with the killings over food and gas going on back in Puerto Rico, and how the government has absolutely dropped the ball on that, I cant say I disagree.

Its this fine line. Until we develop a way to read minds we really wont ever know a person or what they will do, and even then they may change their minds. Some harsher gun laws could go a way to stopping events like this. But at the end of the day a gun is a tool, a tool  for death, to protect or to slaughter. It has no mind of its own and wont do anything without commands. We cant just ignore the science of the killers, we need to understand the people who do this and find a way to anticipate and prevent them. But they always kill themselves before being captured, so unlike serial killers out knowledge base is limited.

[Iniquitous]

I might get fried for this, but I do not think guns are the problem.  Sure, they make it easy to kill - but so does a vehicle, so does a bladed weapon, so does poisoning water/food.

I think the problem, specifically in the US, is the lack of acknowledgment and care of mental illness.  I truly believe that anyone capable of murdering anyone has a mental illness. There is such a stigma attached to mental illness in this country.  No one wants to talk about it, no one wants to admit they or a loved one has a mental illness. 

Do I think there needs to be more gun control laws?  I am honestly not sure.  I do not see a way to ensure that only mentally sound people can purchase a gun.  There is also no way to determine if someone is going to just snap one day.  I certainly do not support the idea of everyone turning in their guns and only police and military possessing them.  There is a reason our constitution was set up the way it was … even if I doubt the current population would ever fight to take this country back.  And I have heard every argument concerning gun control.  ‘A civilian doesn’t need an assault rifle.’  Has anyone ever bothered to learn what an assault rifle is?  I can assure you it is not an AR15.

Either way, remove guns from the American populace and those wishing to kill will find other ways to do so. Bladed weapons, bombs, poison, vehicles.  If someone is determined, they will find a way - which is why I view the issue to not be the weapon used but rather the mental state of the murderer.  Deal with the root problem - not the symptom.

[AmberStarfire]

I was very sad to see the news about Las Vegas. :(

A lot of people in the US have developed a way of living their lives with guns. I'm from Australia, and the vast majority of the population lives their lives without guns. You just don't have them, and generally you don't think to have them, because it's the way things are. Americans have got used to having them in their lives, and having them as a fallback if needed. I can understand not wanting to give them up, and that some people really like their guns. They almost have a sub-culture of their own. It's true though that in a lot of other western countries without easy access to firearms, there are less things like this that happen. Far less. In a country where so many people have guns, you could rationalise that you'd be less safe without them. The problem is that when so many people have them, lots of untrustworthy people do too. And it only takes one person to do something like that.

You've got so many guns out there that I don't think you're at a point where they could easily be 'taken away' and approaches to them easily changed. There are a lot of strong, differing viewpoints. Even a person who's responsible a lot of the time might not always be. Not one is 100%. Everyone goes through emotional troubles, and some people handle that less well than others. Life isn't easy. Even with responsible people, accidents happen, or guns could be taken from them and used against them. A gun can potentially inflict much greater carnage than a knife can, so I don't think they're so easily compared to each other.  The only way things are likely to fully change is if everyone agrees, and time has shown that simply isn't going to happen.

[Regina Minx]

I might get fried for this, but I do not think guns are the problem.  Sure, they make it easy to kill - but so does a vehicle, so does a bladed weapon, so does poisoning water/food.

I have to disagree with you, Ini. Let me show you some data. It's not that the US has a higher rate of crime than other countries. In fact, other countries, which might or might not have a better system of mental health management, have worse crime rates than the United States:




There are more burglaries and assaults per 100,000 people in Germany and the Netherlands than there are in the United States, for example.

It's not that the US has more crime than other countries. It's that the US has more lethal crime than other countries. It's only when we consider the specific crime of homicide that the US has more of these per 100,000 people than other countries:

Either way, remove guns from the American populace and those wishing to kill will find other ways to do so. Bladed weapons, bombs, poison, vehicles.  If someone is determined, they will find a way

The dark bar in the graph above represents homicides by guns. What you're essentially saying is that if there were no homicides by guns, that those same number of homicides would move over to the other part of the bar. And I don't think that's a reasonable thing to say.

Yes, there are ways to kill without guns. But it becomes so much easier. The only method I have at my disposal to kill someone, being a petite-ish Asian woman without ready access to poison nor the means to poison someone, would be to go to a gun store and buy a gun. Take that ability out of my hand, and I would have to work at it in order to kill SOMEONE, let alone many someones or a specific someones.

[Lustful Bride]

You've got so many guns out there that I don't think you're at a point where they could easily be 'taken away' and approaches to them easily changed. There are a lot of strong, differing viewpoints. Even a person who's responsible a lot of the time might not always be. Not one is 100%. Everyone goes through emotional troubles, and some people handle that less well than others. Life isn't easy. Even with responsible people, accidents happen, or guns could be taken from them and used against them. A gun can potentially inflict much greater carnage than a knife can, so I don't think they're so easily compared to each other.  The only way things are likely to fully change is if everyone agrees, and time has shown that simply isn't going to happen.

Highlighted the point that I agree with. We saw what happened when we tried to prohibit alcohol, and it led to a boom in organized crime. I don't want to see what would happen if the government tried hard to regulate guns and take them away. The best thing to do would be to make some changes to laws and intelligent legislation.

Problem is neither party will talk to the other and intelligence is frowned upon in the government. To make actual effective gunlaws it would require both parties sitting down and compromising, working on something that could help crack down on crime and other such things using guns, and hopefully would have people on it who actually understand guns better than just watching movies.

As my father always told me, if you are going to hate something, you need to understand it first, what motivates it, what drives it, what makes them act. But in the government its just "Guns bad! Guns good! Guns bad!" with no actual thought behind it.

[Lustful Bride]

The dark bar in the graph above represents homicides by guns. What you're essentially saying is that if there were no homicides by guns, that those same number of homicides would move over to the other part of the bar. And I don't think that's a reasonable thing to say.

Yes, there are ways to kill without guns. But it becomes so much easier. The only method I have at my disposal to kill someone, being a petite-ish Asian woman without ready access to poison nor the means to poison someone, would be to go to a gun store and buy a gun. Take that ability out of my hand, and I would have to work at it in order to kill SOMEONE, let alone many someones or a specific someones.

You have a large number of ways to kill someone, it just depends on being an active vs passive killer and how much planning is put into it.

Active: Guns, Stabbing, strangulation, smothering with a pillow suddenly hitting them with an object.

Passive: Cutting break lines, poison, waiting till some moment to shove them off of someplace high when they aren't expecting it.

If we took guns away/regulated them harder we would likely see a decrease in gun related suicides and murders in the het of passion, before it rebalanced with something new/people started buying them off the black market. People will end up buying them not because they want to protect themselves, but just because the government tells them no.

[Regina Minx]

As my father always told me, if you are going to hate something, you need to understand it first, what motivates it, what drives it, what makes them act. But in the government its just "Guns bad! Guns good! Guns bad!" with no actual thought behind it.

I also have to disagree with this. At least one major political party has made it all but a mission statement to oppose automatically any legislation related to regulating and limiting firearms, no matter how sensical or pragmatic.:

[Regina Minx]

If we took guns away/regulated them harder we would likely see a decrease in gun related suicides and murders in the het of passion, before it rebalanced with something new/people started buying them off the black market.

I think you overstate how easy it is to buy things off the black market. If I wanted to get ahold of heroin, I could not do so legally. Making things illegal does make it harder for them to get.

[Lustful Bride]

I also have to disagree with this. At least one major political party has made it all but a mission statement to oppose automatically any legislation related to regulating and limiting firearms, no matter how sensical or pragmatic.:

Had to edit my post because it wa sme losing control.

Now that I am more calm, I can say the party is in need of a massive reset button. This only further pushes me to vote Dem because they are less insane by 1%.

I think you overstate how easy it is to buy things off the black market. If I wanted to get ahold of heroin, I could not do so legally. Making things illegal does make it harder for them to get.

To be fair I have never gotten anything illegally so I wouldn't know. It might be insanely easy or as difficult as a broken pinky toe.

[Valerian]

From what I've been reading, the shooter had no military background or training and was generally considered a regular guy with no particular political leanings and no history of violence, money problems, or trouble with the authorities.

As far as the guns, some of them were reportedly bought in California so it's probable he spread his buying around to avoid attention.  And since the U.S. hasn't seen fit to set up a good federal database for purchasing firearms -- since merely recording the fact of someone's gun purchase somehow counts as a horrible infringement of second amendment rights -- no one would have realized he was building up such an armory.  Also, some of the guns he used were altered to function as automatic weapons.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/10/02/what_we_know_about_stephen_paddock_the_suspected_gunman_in_a_las_vegas_attack.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-attack-stephen-paddock-trnd/index.html

[Darkcide]

This saddens me. I lived in Vegas for four years, I have been checking in on people all day.

[Serephino]

Yeah, sure, I could kill someone with a knife.  First I have to get close to them.  I have to know which vital areas to hit to kill them quickly before they can get medical attention.  Obviously the person is not going to just stand there and let me stab them, so I have to hit those areas with them trying to run, or hit me, or kick me, screaming their asses off for help all the while.  With a knife you can only kill one person at a time, 2 if you're ambidextrous and really awesome at multitasking.  And unless you're a master at stealth, after that one person the alarm is raised and if you want another victim you'll have to chase them down with the cops probably on your ass in short order.

But a gun...  He didn't have to get up close and personal to kill 50 people, did he?  He just had to point and pull the trigger from a distance.  Even with my horrible aim if I found a big crowd and a nice hiding spot with a good view I could do some major damage.

There are only 2 ways to kill several people at a time that don't involve close personal contact.  Guns and bombs.  And even then I think bombs cause more mass injury than death.  They aren't a controllable thing, but a gun is concentrated damage that where it hits depends on the shooter's ability to aim.  So to say that the availability of guns has absolutely nothing to do with the problem, well, I can't say I agree.  It is a whole lot easier to kill a large number of people with a gun than anything else.

Now I do agree that mental health awareness is also important.  Like most things in this world, the solution is not simple and one dimensional.  Some really smart people need to sit down and analyze a whole bunch of data to determine what all needs to be done.  Obviously something needs to be done because this is absolutely insane. 

[Lustful Bride]

I feel like Philip defranco did a good non biased recap of the situation, I cant believe there were people tweeting out false information just for kicks...but then I remember that's par for the course now.

https://youtu.be/byA77xkQBEE

[elone]

I have to disagree with you, Ini. Let me show you some data. It's not that the US has a higher rate of crime than other countries. In fact, other countries, which might or might not have a better system of mental health management, have worse crime rates than the United States:




There are more burglaries and assaults per 100,000 people in Germany and the Netherlands than there are in the United States, for example.

It's not that the US has more crime than other countries. It's that the US has more lethal crime than other countries. It's only when we consider the specific crime of homicide that the US has more of these per 100,000 people than other countries:



The dark bar in the graph above represents homicides by guns. What you're essentially saying is that if there were no homicides by guns, that those same number of homicides would move over to the other part of the bar. And I don't think that's a reasonable thing to say.

This data could also show that armed citizens are a deterrent to said assaults and burglaries.

But really, this country will have an impossible job getting guns away from people that already have them. Our only hope is to enact some serious control on sales and address mental health problems ie. recognition and treatment.  I have no idea where this will go.

[Regina Minx]

This data could also show that armed citizens are a deterrent to said assaults and burglaries

Except that there’s a negative correlation if you look in several lines of comparison. Switzerland has a low rate homicide and assault, and slightly more burglaries than the United States. Norway is low in all three metrics. The United States has more homicides AND assaults than Canada, and so on.

[Skynet]

I might get fried for this, but I do not think guns are the problem.  Sure, they make it easy to kill - but so does a vehicle, so does a bladed weapon, so does poisoning water/food.

I think the problem, specifically in the US, is the lack of acknowledgment and care of mental illness.  I truly believe that anyone capable of murdering anyone has a mental illness. There is such a stigma attached to mental illness in this country.  No one wants to talk about it, no one wants to admit they or a loved one has a mental illness. 

Do I think there needs to be more gun control laws?  I am honestly not sure.  I do not see a way to ensure that only mentally sound people can purchase a gun.  There is also no way to determine if someone is going to just snap one day.  I certainly do not support the idea of everyone turning in their guns and only police and military possessing them.  There is a reason our constitution was set up the way it was … even if I doubt the current population would ever fight to take this country back.  And I have heard every argument concerning gun control.  ‘A civilian doesn’t need an assault rifle.’  Has anyone ever bothered to learn what an assault rifle is?  I can assure you it is not an AR15.

Either way, remove guns from the American populace and those wishing to kill will find other ways to do so. Bladed weapons, bombs, poison, vehicles.  If someone is determined, they will find a way - which is why I view the issue to not be the weapon used but rather the mental state of the murderer.  Deal with the root problem - not the symptom.

Slippery slope argument. There are some folks who want to ban all guns, but the Democratic Party standard is for more background checks, as are most of the voting public. It's mostly rich lobbyists in the NRA who bribe politicians to vote otherwise.

(1) Unfortunately, there's a common line of thinking whenever a white person in the US commits a mass shooting it's blamed on mental illness as a deflection from the issue. What's even worse is that when folks like the NRA's President further uses it as justification to treat all mentally ill people as walking time bombs who need to be documented regardless of the symptoms or disorder like something akin to a sex offender registry. It's the unwillingness to confront the idea that a person of one's in-group/tribe/etc with a chemically balanced brain is incapable of harboring murderous hatred. Some of the worst killers are very, very sane.

I cannot comment on Nevada's gun laws, but overall the NRA and various conservative lawmakers make it explicitly easier for criminals, terrorist suspects, etc to get their hands on firearms without background checks. An example in the Mother Jones article below is a law banning the computerization of records of crimes committed with firearms (2). This goes against the "bad guy with a gun" argument of the NRA, as they are intentionally making it easier for bad guys with guns to get away with crimes.

Former ATF Director Stephen E. Higgins and others intimately familiar with the agency’s history say the root of the problem is that ATF has no political constituency, no one invested in seeing it succeed and willing to stand up against those determined to see it fail. The success of ATF’s critics in reining in its authority is nowhere more evident than in the bureau’s appropriation statute, which is two pages long, devotes 11 lines to describing the agency’s budget and the remaining 76 lines to proscriptions on its powers. Many of these “riders,” as they’re known, go to the agency’s most basic investigative functions. Two of the riders effectively ban consolidation and computerization of records. One limits access and use of crime gun trace data, while another undermines the credibility of whatever trace data are released. One rider overturns ATF efforts to ban the import of large-capacity shotguns, which the agency found had no “sporting purposes.” Another overturned an ATF regulation to limit the import of dangerous weapons under a law originally designed to protect collectors of “curios and relics.”

I heard a lot of the common points. That easy access to firearms will help the populace resist government tyranny. That any form of regulation is akin to a ban. But again and again the people who seem the most gung-ho about gun rights are the same people who are silent towards or rationalize away every death of an unarmed black man in police shootings regardless of circumstance (3), who in 2003 wanted to nation-build in Iraq, who want a wall across the US Mexican border and support most of Trump's legislation (4), who are depriving access to healthcare to society's most vulnerable, who have racists like Tend Nugent on their Board of Directors (5).

The 2nd Amendment needs better defenders.

I am in favor of gun ownership; an outright ban will lead to a Prohibition-era effect, but just like we can regulate drunk driving and medical licenses we can also create more sensible regulation.

Sources:

(1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/21/the-nra-wants-an-active-mental-illness-database-thirty-eight-states-have-that-now/

&

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-adams/why-white-mass-murderers-_b_7617412.html

(2) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/atf-gun-laws-nra/

(3) https://reason.com/blog/2017/07/10/nra-breaks-silence-on-philando-castile-s

(4) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/us/nra-ad-trump-protests.html

(5) http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-nugent-jews-gun-control

[gaggedLouise]

Barely ever seen a public figure at a press briefing looking so devastated and shocked as Carolyn Goodman, the mayor of Las Vegas at the long press session yesterday (around 4 pm local time, and past midnight in Europe). The dread and hard effort to keep going were all over the face of that dignified woman.  :-(

Edit: Finally found a good video of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8lrO0Camno

[SINless]

I have to disagree with you, Ini. Let me show you some data. It's not that the US has a higher rate of crime than other countries. In fact, other countries, which might or might not have a better system of mental health management, have worse crime rates than the United States:




There are more burglaries and assaults per 100,000 people in Germany and the Netherlands than there are in the United States, for example.

It's not that the US has more crime than other countries. It's that the US has more lethal crime than other countries. It's only when we consider the specific crime of homicide that the US has more of these per 100,000 people than other countries:



The dark bar in the graph above represents homicides by guns. What you're essentially saying is that if there were no homicides by guns, that those same number of homicides would move over to the other part of the bar. And I don't think that's a reasonable thing to say.

Yes, there are ways to kill without guns. But it becomes so much easier. The only method I have at my disposal to kill someone, being a petite-ish Asian woman without ready access to poison nor the means to poison someone, would be to go to a gun store and buy a gun. Take that ability out of my hand, and I would have to work at it in order to kill SOMEONE, let alone many someones or a specific someones.

These statistics are both inacurate and misleading. Burglaries, yes there are more burglaries in many countries, however 95% of burglaries in the Netherlands for example are done to empty residential OR commercial properties while the inhabitants or staff are away.

In the US, commercial properties aren't added in that statistic. Way to keep the numbers low.

Same for assault. What qualifies as assault varies greatly by country. Therefore we need to look at specific crimes, not crime groupings.

The US has more people per capita shot by toddlers than the Netherlands has shot per capita in total, including criminal on criminal violence.

It has more people shot by accident, than Switzerland has in total, accidentally or purposefully, despite Switzerland having a much higher density of guns.

And another big one: The US is the only country in the west where ASSAULT rifles (remember that name are considered a weapon for self defense. In reality though, it is less useful in self defense than a butter knife. Unless you're defending yourself from a mass of oncoming armed attackers 500 feet away.


A rather scary thought. The US congress is currently debating a bill allowing the unrestricted sale of silencers.

[SINless]

https://youtu.be/ruYeBXudsds

[Regina Minx]

These statistics are both inacurate and misleading. Burglaries, yes there are more burglaries in many countries, however 95% of burglaries in the Netherlands for example are done to empty residential OR commercial properties while the inhabitants or staff are away.

In the US, commercial properties aren't added in that statistic. Way to keep the numbers low.

I don't assume you're accusing me of being misleading by keeping numbers low. However, while the Department of Justice in the US might only count burglaries as theft from residential homes, the report from which the data was gathered does not limit itself or use different methodological measures when collecting data from the US vs. abroad. From the report:

"Burglary was described to mean 'to gain access to  a  closed  part  of  a  building  or  other  premises  by  use  of  force  with  the  intent  to  steal  goods'.  Figures  on  burglary  were  asked  to  include  theft  from  a  factory,  shop  or  office,  theft  from  a  military  establishment,  theft  by  using  false  keys,  and  to  exclude  theft  from  a  car,  theft  from  a  container,  theft  from  a  vending  machine,  theft  from  a  parking  meter  and  theft  from  fenced  meadow/compound."

Your criticism does not appear to reflect the actual data assembled in the report and the graph made from it. They normalized the definition of crimes and asked surveyed member states how many crimes reflected the common definition, instead of using multiple different measurements. I would suggest reading the report and in particular the abstract and methodolgy section in each chapter.

[Silk]

I'm not in the US and by extention my knowledge of gun laws is pretty limited, but I thought there was a mix between special profiling and outright bans on automatic weapons in particular.

Also am I the only one noticing that each time something like this happens, fundamentally the things being said are the same but the positions change?

Non white shooter:
"We shouldn't make this about race!" -left
"His race is a factor!" - right

White shooter:
"We shouldn't make this about race!" -right
"His race is a factor!" - left

I dunno, guess I'm just sick of people using identity politics as a means to push an agenda. Still thoughts with those affected first and foremost.

[gaggedLouise]

I'm not in the US and by extention my knowledge of gun laws is pretty limited, but I thought there was a mix between special profiling and outright bans on automatic weapons in particular.

Also am I the only one noticing that each time something like this happens, fundamentally the things being said are the same but the positions change?

Non white shooter:
"We shouldn't make this about race!" -left
"His race is a factor!" - right

White shooter:
"We shouldn't make this about race!" -right
"His race is a factor!" - left

I dunno, guess I'm just sick of people using identity politics as a means to push an agenda. Still thoughts with those affected first and foremost.

Yeah, change "shooting" to terrorist attack or suicide bomber and non-white to Islamist/Jihadist and you'll find the same split in many countries. ^_ ^

[LisztesFerenc]

Highlighted the point that I agree with. We saw what happened when we tried to prohibit alcohol, and it led to a boom in organized crime.

  Alcohol and guns are a poor comparison. Alcohol is consumed, and then its gone. Its a risk to drink alcohol when its illegal, but you aren't constantly incriminating yourself by going to speakeasies. By contrast, if you keep guns when its illegal, they could be found. Plus, people don't know this because it isn't as amusing, but national alcohol consumption did fall under prohibition. I'm not sure massive changes in gun laws could work, but basing such speculation on how outlawing a completely different substance went seems flawed.

[WindFish]

I think Trevor Noah said it beautifully:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW-jDoW33ug

[Holly Marlow]

I live in Las Vegas. Most people here have been affected either directly or indirectly by what happened. The public schools canceled all after hours activities. The hospitals are jammed packed and not taking any new patients unless its an emergency. Post acute care hospitals are taking the overflow of patients. People are waiting up to eight hours in line to donate blood. The airport was closed for a while, and the Strip was shut down, and I'm not sure if its open again.

This hit my city hard. This hit me hard. I may not have lost anyone in the shooting, I am still losing someone. My aunt, who has had several health problems and been kicked from hospital to physical rehab centers since my mother died four months ago, was put on life support yesterday. We don't know why she stopped being able to breath on her own or why she is non-responsive. The post acute care that she is at cannot do the type of tests that would tell us what is going on, and her situation is not dire enough for a hospital to take her in. The facility she is at called every hospital yesterday, and they all turned her down because they are simply overwhelmed.

In the end, I'm not sure if it will help knowing that she had a stroke or not. I do not wish to see her suffer as my mother did for seven months.

When things like this happen, its normal to want to fix it, to make sure horror stories like this don't happen again. Most people see what happened here and go right to thinking about how to lock down the guns. I cannot say if that is the right or wrong thing to do. Smarter people than me will decide that. But I do know that guns were not the only problem, and I hope the other issues of this tragedy will not be ignored.

That monster had bombs. Where did he get them? Did he make them? How did he learn to make them?

Was this the final act of a suicidal man who was swamped in debt from gambling? Gambling is an addiction, and I've seen it ruin lives and tear apart families. We have so many places here in two to help with gambling addiction, but the success rate is low.

Could this have been stopped if we had better mental health care here? I don't know. I don't know if he ever sought mental health care, or if he had to see a psychiatrist when he was a youth because his father was a criminal.

I do know that Nevada has the highest rate of suicides in people over 60 in the nation, and is over double the national average. 80% of people who commit suicide in Nevada are men. More people in Nevada die by suicide then from homicide, AIDS, or car accidents. Guns are used in 53% of suicides here. (Reference: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Exhibits/Assembly/HHS/AHHS205E.pdf)

Why do I care about the suicide so much? I may be wrong, but for now I believe he wanted to die, and he wanted to take as many people with him as possible. Maybe he could have been dissuaded from his horrific actions if Nevada had reasonable mental health care. But we don't. We are the lowest ranking state when it comes to mental health care.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mental-health-america-report_us_580a59b9e4b000d0b1567459 .

So many are suffering, and it feels like nothing is being done. It wasn't even that long ago that Las Vegas was dumping its patients in California, just leaving them on the streets.

So yes, the amount of guns he had must be addressed. But don't forget the other factors that surely played a part.

[Retribution]

I have insulated myself from politics and public opinion as I more and more find it is sides of the same coin. Suffice to say I am a second amendment proponent. Do not bother lecturing me, you will not change my mind nor will I change yours and that is fine. But this event has affected me on a personal level because there is just no visible motive. The fellow almost seems like a Manchurian Candidate type. Not associated with any group left, right, pink, purple.

Just plain creepy. While other such acts are vile at least one could see why on some level. This leaves me with a question of why not to mention no idea how to address such things that could possibly prevent another such event. Now that is a scary thought. But then I read this editorial, I suppose this sums up how I feel.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/opinions/the-best-way-to-respond-to-las-vegas-massacre-randazza/index.html

[LisztesFerenc]

This leaves me with a question of why not to mention no idea how to address such things that could possibly prevent another such event. Now that is a scary thought.

  Of course there is, its the options you ruled out in your first paragraph. Saying "do not bother lecturing me" doesn't allow you to ignore reality and not get called on it. There are two possible answers for why mass shootings happen in the USA at a rate far higher than any other Western country:

  a. The access to guns
  b. US society uniquely breeds spree killers

Even if b plays an important part and introducing stricter gun control doesn't reduce the murder rate in the US to ones more comparable to other modern countries, it would still almost certainly help. Especially compared to the sadly popular tagline "this is unavoidable so let's not even try anything". Is there a third option I missed?

[Retribution]

Not getting into a debate man  :-) as I said all the debates and acid out there today have left me terribly tired. You are certainly allowed your opinions as I am allowed mine. But I am working very hard at hearing or reading an opinion I do not agree with and then going on with my life. I think more of that practice would go a long way today. I actually do have some reform opinions, but I shall not share them as that leads to more of the dog chasing its tail that has gotten way too common.

I simply wished to share an article that I found interesting and that I think illustrates what I am trying to articulate above. If you do not like that okay, still I hope you have a good day.

~R~

[Lustful Bride]

The case has gotten curious as the shooter transferred 100K to the Philipines before the shooting.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/las-vegas-shooter-wired-dollar100000-to-philippines-last-week/ar-AAsRCGj?li=BBnb4R7&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

[Oniya]

Are they tracing who it was wired to?

[Valerian]

His live-in girlfriend was born in the Philippines (and was there at the time of the shooting), and she is still considered a person of interest.

[Serephino]

http://beyondrealitynews.com/2017/10/03/this-cbs-exec-no-sympathy-for-vegas-victims-facebook-post-will-infuriate-you/

*plops this here and grumbles about stupid and hateful people*

[Cognitive Brainfart]

It's just the same as always. People using this to point fingers at each other and blame "those other guys and their politics". It turned into another political debate, first about guns, then about 'whiteness' for some reason. Just as WindFish said in the News topic, if I may quote that here,

It's just as sad that I've seen people more interested in playing the blame game than having any sympathy for the victims.

I was going to write something earlier, but then I found this short video by TJ Kirk that actually summed up what I think perfectly and a lot more briefly than I would have done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7732e6DTb_U

[gaggedLouise]

The depressing thing about those gun rights debates is that the whole issue of some kind of tightened fun control sems to have gone into a hard stalemate around the time of Columbine or a little after. Every time there's a new mass shooting there are heartfelt questions about why this kind of thing keeps returning, and (often) calls for at least some partial restrictions and improved control - and each time, the issue ends up politically stiff due to the power of the gun lobby (NRA etc), the polarization and some, well (if I may say so as a white outsider), archaic ideas holding that

1) the wordings of the second amendment were actually meant to include modern assault rifles and mass produced machine guns. As personal everyday weapons??  ???

2) a *real* dictatorship that had overturned democracy in the USA, and had put its paws on the weapons resources of the modern US army, navy and air force, could be reversed with a bunch of Robin Hood-like guys sneaking around using rifles and handguns - or even any kind of modern rifles and machine guns in fairly small units. Sorry, I really think one would need a *lot* heavier weapons than that to stand a chance in fighting down a modern dictatorship that's got nukes, jet planes, satellites and the most powerful army in the world. It's not a realistic idea anymore. The real reason gun rights are cherished is because many people in the US use guns, or the right to carry a gun, in connection with their work, in recreation or in other important personal pursuits. The "armed rebellion" thing has become a red herring.

Back in the late 18th century, there wasn't even such a thing as modern revolvers where the next bullet is pushed into place at once. Most firearms were single-bullet; the shooter had to manually install a new bullet for each shot, THe idea of a modern hail of automatic bullets, or running around and shooting everyone you'll meet in the head, simply didn't exist. If George Washington had been shown a modern AK-5, would he have said "Every free man (and his wife) must have the option of owning and using one of these without any controls, even at his home or in the street"?

[Iniquitous]

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People that keep screaming the second amendment was for single shot weapons only are the ones who believe that the framers never meant for semi-automatic weapons.  Thing is, there is no wording at all about what kind of arms.  Bayonets on guns were common then, so technically swords could be bearing arms.

The thing is, and the reason I am utterly pro-second amendment, that if we are no longer allowed to keep and bear arms, we become incapable of keeping a free state. Now, like Retribution, I am not going to debate this nonsense of 'omg assault rifles!' or the whole nonsense on what the framers meant - especially since no one is capable of knowing exactly what the framers meant because not one person can go back and talk to them.

Suffice to say, I am in favor of reasonable gun control. I am most certainly not in favor of taking guns away. Nor do I believe that it would actually make the US a 'safer place'. It would just make the populace an unarmed victim.

[Retribution]

In the US there seem to be two ways of viewing the world. I happen to be of one that is less prevalent here on E but I will not get into that. But here is what I think is going on and would also be my SWAG [strategic wild ass guess] on part of why in the modern US people seem to feel enough rage to go on a killing spree for no apparent reason.

Those two view are split in the US at about 50/50. Each side thinks the other is a bunch of delusional idiots that are below contempt. Each side can produce of pile of factoids that may or may not be accurate to back up their claims. Of course neither side is convinced and only seem to take that as further evidence of the absolute lack of intelligence and or sophistication of the contemptible other side. These feelings are amplified on social media.

Over the last few years this 50/50 split in opinion has turned from disagreement to out and out hatred. Hell, I have been guilty of it myself. It all sort of reminds me of one of the original Star Trek episodes. A planet populated with a race that had black pigment on one side of their body and white on the other. But there were two components of this race. One had one color on the right and one had the other color on the right....hatred grew. The race enjoyed civil war until it exterminated its self.

I feel like in the US we are near that stage. If anything is going to happen on any of these political fronts there is going to have to be some compromise. It will make neither side happy, but that is the only way anything is going to change. The two halves of US society are just plain not going to like one another in the foreseeable future. At this point I would be happy if they could manage to tolerate one another.

That includes me and thus why I have fought the urge to correct pro gun control types that I think are horribly misguided. We got to meet each other in the middle someplace. I think that in my own SWAG way would do more to reversing the trend in such tragedies than any legislation we could ever hope to pass.

[LisztesFerenc]

The thing is, and the reason I am utterly pro-second amendment, that if we are no longer allowed to keep and bear arms, we become incapable of keeping a free state.

  Do you consider "The rest of the western world lacks the second amendment, yet has managed to keep a free state for longer than the US has existed politically" to be a nonsense argument as well?

[Oniya]

Please refrain from attacking individual members when framing your arguments.  Civility still holds in the PROC.

The thing that most people seem to overlook is the first four words in the Second Amendment.  'A well regulated Militia'.  That implies that 1) there are regulations and 2) that they are enforced.

[Skynet]

The thing is, and the reason I am utterly pro-second amendment, that if we are no longer allowed to keep and bear arms, we become incapable of keeping a free state. Now, like Retribution, I am not going to debate this nonsense of 'omg assault rifles!' or the whole nonsense on what the framers meant - especially since no one is capable of knowing exactly what the framers meant because not one person can go back and talk to them.

Suffice to say, I am in favor of reasonable gun control. I am most certainly not in favor of taking guns away. Nor do I believe that it would actually make the US a 'safer place'. It would just make the populace an unarmed victim.

And yet in spite of loose gun control, we're already becoming less and less free. Warrantless wiretapping goes unchallenged. Whistleblowers of abuses of power get their lives ruined (Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden) (1). Corporations like Warner Bros. can file false DMCAs against movie reviews they don't like on popular platforms like YouTube and suffer no financial penalties as a result in spite of Fair Use (2). The PATRIOT Act alone allowed for warrantless searches, and the United States legalized torture for a time in the form of waterboarding (3). And then there are cases like Philando Castile where poor decision-making by law enforcement ends up with dead civilians and the officers responsible get a slap on the wrist and even support from segments of the population (4).

Hate to do Godwin's Law, but gun rights in Nazi Germany were actually loosened for Non-Jewish, non-Roma, etc people. In fact, many of the early Nazis were more or less paramilitary thugs (5).

A well-armed populace is not enough to act as a counterbalance to the rise of tyranny, especially when most gun rights lobbyists in mainstream US politics are authoritarian on virtually every other issue. We need all the other freedoms, and to ensure minority protections so that said well-armed populace won't go around oppressing said minorities. Part of this involves changing the social conditions of systemic racism. If open carry is legal, but ethnicities viewed as "violent" are disproportionately targeted for lawfully carrying licensed firearms while the dominant majority are able to carry them with impunity, that doesn't make the affected parties feel safer and freer (6).

Sources:

1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/08/edwards-snowden-us-government-spied-human-rights-workers

2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVqFAMOtwaI

3: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808

4: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/police-shooting-trial-philando-castile.html

5: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/

6:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXv2Pjtc3Zk

[Iniquitous]

And yet in spite of loose gun control, we're already becoming less and less free. Warrantless wiretapping goes unchallenged. Whistleblowers of abuses of power get their lives ruined (Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden) (1). Corporations like Warner Bros. can file false DMCAs against movie reviews they don't like on popular platforms like YouTube and suffer no financial penalties as a result in spite of Fair Use (2). The PATRIOT Act alone allowed for warrantless searches, and the United States legalized torture for a time in the form of waterboarding (3). And then there are cases like Philando Castile where poor decision-making by law enforcement ends up with dead civilians and the officers responsible get a slap on the wrist and even support from segments of the population (4).

Hate to do Godwin's Law, but gun rights in Nazi Germany were actually loosened for Non-Jewish, non-Roma, etc people. In fact, many of the early Nazis were more or less paramilitary thugs (5).

A well-armed populace is not enough to act as a counterbalance to the rise of tyranny. We need all the other freedoms, and to ensure minority protections so that said well-armed populace won't go around oppressing said minorities as well as changing the social conditions of systemic racism. If open carry is legal, and yet ethnicities viewed as "violent" are disproportionately targeted for lawfully carrying licensed firearms while the dominant majority are able to carry them with impunity, that's not really freedom (6).

Sources:

1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/08/edwards-snowden-us-government-spied-human-rights-workers

2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVqFAMOtwaI

3: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/08/hitchens200808

4: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/police-shooting-trial-philando-castile.html

5: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/

6:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXv2Pjtc3Zk

None of those have anything to do with the Second Amendment, and from where I am sitting, is just an attempt to muddy the water. 

[Skynet]

None of those have anything to do with the Second Amendment, and from where I am sitting, is just an attempt to muddy the water. 

It was in response to your claim that gun rights are needed to ensure freedom. They're of no use when all other freedoms are chipped away at and said gun rights groups do nothing to oppose this. On the contrary, many organizations and politicians who fall into this field help spur things on. My last post in this thread shown how the National Rifle Association has involved themselves with right-wing groups who are authoritarian and/or hypocritical when it comes to other rights: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=276216.msg13571457#msg13571457

I understand that not all gun rights begin and end with the NRA, but they and the Republican Party are the major 2 advocates. And this is not directed towards you, but I find said groups' claims tiresome when they repeatedly show they don't really care about freedom at all, and end up skeptical of those who use the claim as a result. Maybe if more left-wingers beyond anarchists and communists championed gun rights my attitude towards the slogan may soften, but until then it's more or less a slogan appropriated by authoritarians and the far right.

[Iniquitous]

Bringing this back to Las Vegas...

I am getting links from people that are indicating that there was more than one shooter and that it is being covered up.  Also seeing a map that shows where the festival was in relation to the hotel - and that looks to be a considerable distance.  Also have a recording of the police scanner that, at the 19:04 mark, says there is an 8 man team on the 32nd floor but needed more for the 29th floor and saying it sounded like a confirmed second shooter.

I try hard to steer clear of conspiracy theories, but when there are numerous people from different points in the area saying the same thing, you kind of have to go 'hmm...'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2119s&v=1xAcTKNpDeY&app=desktop









A real time posting from the night of ... further down the post the poster starts talking about other shooters at different hotels.

https://www.reddit.com/r/vegas/comments/73qwgq/gunshots_downtown_right_now/


Like I said, if it was just one or two people differing from the 'official' story, I'd not give it much thought.  But there are a LOT of different people from different locations on the strip saying the exact same thing.  Makes one scratch their head.

[stormwyrm]

Seems to be thoroughly debunked:

http://www.snopes.com/second-gunman-shoot-fourth-floor-mandalay-bay/

Well as they say, eyewitness testimony tends to be not quite so reliable, and is in fact not considered very strong evidence in a court of law. You might have been there, but it's doubtful that you really know and more importantly understand everything you thought you saw, especially in a confused situation like  that. Here's another link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/fact-check-vegas-gunman.html

But well, conspiracy nuts are notably resistant to having debunking evidence that does not support their preconceived notions shoved in their faces, and doing this will in fact usually make them dig in their heels and double down on them more often than not. I remember well the conspiracy theories that flew around shortly after 9/11 and even partly believed some of them myself for a time, until looking around a bit more kinda made me feel sheepishly embarrassed.

[Doomblade403xxx]

  Of course there is, its the options you ruled out in your first paragraph. Saying "do not bother lecturing me" doesn't allow you to ignore reality and not get called on it. There are two possible answers for why mass shootings happen in the USA at a rate far higher than any other Western country:

  a. The access to guns
  b. US society uniquely breeds spree killers

Even if b plays an important part and introducing stricter gun control doesn't reduce the murder rate in the US to ones more comparable to other modern countries, it would still almost certainly help. Especially compared to the sadly popular tagline "this is unavoidable so let's not even try anything". Is there a third option I missed?

If memory serves didn't a dude from Switzerland get 75 kills in a spree shooting a few years ago? I also seem to remember a guy in China flipping a switch and killing dozens with a knife. In Canada a few days ago a guy killed several with the combo of car and knife. Evil people will commit evil acts and they don't need guns to do it.


I was a law enforcement officer for 10 years. An avid shooter. I used to own an AR-15 in A2 configuration and logged a lot of range time because shooting was something I enjoyed doing. I spent time with people who were experts in weapons and tactics. That said I am a trained shooter and it boggles my mind that this man could cause so many casualties. We are talking about a senior citizen with no military training. On those bump fire stocks, sure you are firing something like full auto, but firing full auto causes muzzle climb. An untrained shooter is going to land a lot more shots outside the killzone than a marksman.

Why bring so much ordinance into the hotel? Seriously with an AR rifle you can reload in seconds. You are a spare mag away from being ready to rock and roll again. In the time it's gonna take to pick up another rifle you could be reloaded and firing again. There is no reason to have a dozen weapons in that room.

Now they are saying he fired alot of rounds at a jet fuel tank. Now are you telling me, a pilot, doesnt know that a 5.56 will never punch a large fuel storage tank. It's inches thick of metal. I dont care what you saw in walking dead, you would need AT LEAST a 308 or 30-06 to punch a hole in a propane tank. A large fuel tank is even thicker. You probably couldn't punch it with a 50 cal. While we are on that subject, bombs in the room. If you wanted to blow those tanks explosives would be the better option. You couldn't beat the tank most likely but the pipes.

Finally we are expected to believe this millionaire has never ran afoul of the law before, and he chooses now with a mass shooting to break bad? People really selling that he is the lone shooter? Really? There are full squads who couldn't pull off a better ambush than this guy did. I am very entrenched in the opinion that he did not act alone. There were other shooters, and I think as more information is released we will find this was something bigger. There is some talk of him becoming radicalized. I've seen some pictures and tweets saying he is a member of Antifa. We might never know, but its my opinion he wasn't alone.

[LisztesFerenc]

If memory serves didn't a dude from Switzerland get 75 kills in a spree shooting a few years ago? I also seem to remember a guy in China flipping a switch and killing dozens with a knife. In Canada a few days ago a guy killed several with the combo of car and knife. Evil people will commit evil acts and they don't need guns to do it.

  If not simple binary "happens" vs. "not happens", you also need to look at frequency. There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015. There were not 372 mass shooting in the combined Western World excluding USA in 2015, and US has a very high homicide rate compared to other Western countries, and the number of guns involved in such crimes heavily suggests a link there.

  Yes, some evil people will find another way, but less will, they will fail more often, and they may kill less. Guns are really useful for killing people. Take that away and the evil people be less able to harm others. This is common sense and everyone will understand, just imagine someone is coming after you and then think if you'd rather they had a gun or a knife. Pretty sure everyone would rather the latter.

[Doomblade403xxx]

Well I have a gun in order to deter someone from coming after me at all. I would also like to point out a bullet can be relatively quick. A knife artist will in all scenarios likely have to cut you several times and then you die painfully bleeding out from a stab or a cut.

It has nothing to do with the volume of guns here. I'm 47 years old. I grew up around guns my entire life and learned not only to use them but also respect them. I was also taught to respect people. The primary issue in this country is the lack of values. STL, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, are all shooting galleries. Also this was not the largest mass shooting in United States History as the media is claiming. Wounded Knee ring a bell?

[LisztesFerenc]

Well I have a gun in order to deter someone from coming after me at all.

  Not a knife? If that because guns better suited for the task?

It has nothing to do with the volume of guns here.

  So the US high murder rate within the Western world, (and the high %-tage of guns in that figure), and the ease of access to guns within the Western world is purely coincidental? That's a mighty big coincidence. Other Western countries are grappling with values and mental health, but they don't have a problem with gun violence.

[Doomblade403xxx]

Well lemme put it to you this way...if you take the murder rates of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and St. Louis from the equation in regards to firearms...the united states wouldnt even crack the top 20.

[LisztesFerenc]

  That's a common misconception. Removing those cities drops the murder rate yes, but not by much.

[Vekseid]

Removing New York would raise the national murder rate. Removing LA would not significantly change it, as it pretty closely tracks the total us murder rate.

[Regina Minx]

The primary issue in this country is the lack of values.

Citation needed.

[LisztesFerenc]

Each side can produce of pile of factoids that may or may not be accurate to back up their claims.

  Going by this thread so far, gun control advocates have statistical comparison with other western countries and the gun advocate have pushing made up facts about how removing cities would significantly change the US's homicide ranking and vague statements about declining values and the essence of freedom. The two sides cannot really be compared as equal and then dismissed.

  If both sides have piles of factoids, can we hear a few more from the other side?

[DominantPoet]

Well lemme put it to you this way...if you take the murder rates of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and St. Louis from the equation in regards to firearms...the united states wouldnt even crack the top 20.

Yeah, no.

Just going by per 100,000 population, and back in 2013, the highest state with gun deaths was actually Alaska. Going per city that you listed there, Illinois was 40th overall, New York was 48th, California was 42nd, and Missouri was 13th. In fact, Louisiana was the only one of the five to be overly high on the list. http://www.vpc.org/fact-sheets/state-firearm-death-rates-ranked-by-rate-2013/

Is the US the worst country in the world for gun-related deaths? No. But it's certainly quite high on the list, and taking the murder rates of five cities away would not magically make it drop such a huge amount, sorry to say.

[Valerian]

The "good guy with a gun" theory always gets a lot of traction after a mass shooting.  This is probably largely because it's such a popular trope in movies -- the brave hero charging to the rescue, outnumbered and outgunned, who always saves the day somehow.

Unfortunately this is something that will rarely, if ever, work in real life.

This is a statement from Caleb Keeter, a musician who was at the festival.

I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life.

Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with CHL licenses and legal firearms on the bus.

They were useless.

We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think that we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers, desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.

Enough is enough.

Writing my parents and the love of my life a goodbye last night and a living will because I felt like I wasn’t going to live through the night was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand. These rounds were powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in a close proximity of a victim shot by this f---ing coward received shrapnel wounds.

We need gun control RIGHT. NOW.

My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it.

We are unbelievably fortunate not to be among the number of victims killed or seriously wounded by this maniac.

[Lustful Bride]

And now there is a rash of people calling it a hoax. This makes me so depressed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/las-vegas-shooting-youtube-hoax-conspiracy-theories

[LisztesFerenc]

And now there is a rash of people calling it a hoax. This makes me so depressed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/las-vegas-shooting-youtube-hoax-conspiracy-theories

  Its never fails to amaze me how people can simultaneously think the US is some chest playing masterfully fabricating these events to manipulate the media and public, pulling on strongs from the shadows, and yet forgets to recruit a fresh set of faces for each gig.

[Valerian]

I also don't understand why anyone would assume that this shadowy Illuminati-style group would continue to fake gun massacres when clearly, faking gun massacres isn't accomplishing anything at all.  If they have the time, people, and resources to manufacture something on this scale, then surely they must be able to come up with another sort of fake that would be more effective.

[DominantPoet]

And now there is a rash of people calling it a hoax. This makes me so depressed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/las-vegas-shooting-youtube-hoax-conspiracy-theories

This happens with every large-scale event in the US really. You can honestly look up most any instance of things similar to this, or even just events in general in the US, and somewhere out there, are people who are convinced it was a hoax, it didn't happen, etc etc. There are people who are still convinced the Earth is actually flat, after all.

[Retribution]

I believe this is as unbiased a citation as I can come up with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

I think most would say wikipedia for the most part has no real political agenda. The article also covers all kinds of statistics from a wide range. And as I said I am not wading into  debate that is well going in the direction I anticipated  :-) If I was feeling difficult I could produced statistics spit out by the NRA or other such organizations that would be summarily dismissed by those with an opposing view. I do not feel like being difficult.

Here is the thing guys "The Congressional Research Service in 2009 estimated there were 310 million firearms in the U.S." and here is another "n Gallup's 1972 survey, 43% reported having a gun in their home, while GSS's 1973 survey resulted in 49% reporting a gun in the home; in 1993, Gallup's poll results were 51%, while GSS's 1994 poll showed 43%.[28] In 2012, Gallup's survey showed 47% of Americans reporting having a gun in their home,[29] while the GSS in 2012 reports 34%.[28]
In 1997, estimates were approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States."

Do you really think passing gun control is going to make these vanish? Great Britain and Australia are frequently cited as a proper response to mass shootings. In those places one had what was essentially abolishment of private firearm ownership. Okay I will bite firearms in private hands are abolished in the US tomorrow I do not think it will make -points up- those vanish. The genie is out of the bottle. I could see this working about as well as nuclear none proliferation has, North Korea anyone? Wanting to do something is all well and good, but lets be realistic.

[Lustful Bride]

I also don't understand why anyone would assume that this shadowy Illuminati-style group would continue to fake gun massacres when clearly, faking gun massacres isn't accomplishing anything at all.  If they have the time, people, and resources to manufacture something on this scale, then surely they must be able to come up with another sort of fake that would be more effective.

+1 I am so amazed that people think the government, or the illuminati or whatever, are actually competent enough to do anything like this. I can tell you from 3 generations of family doing government work they are absolutely not that competent.

[Valerian]

+1 I am so amazed that people think the government, or the illuminati or whatever, are actually competent enough to do anything like this. I can tell you from 3 generations of family doing government work they are absolutely not that competent.

I've always found this study to be very interesting, on the estimated numbers of people required to make a conspiracy theory happen, and the resulting likelihood that one of those people will give the whole game away.

Using secrecy as a key criterion of success for a potential conspiracy, [David Robert] Grimes applied his model to four alleged plots, estimating the maximum number of people required to be in on the intrigue, and how long it would take for them to unravel.

Through his equations, Grimes calculated that hoax moon landings (410,000 people) would have been revealed in three years eight months, climate change fraud (405,000 people) in three years and nine months, a coverup of unsafe vaccinations (22,000) in three years and two months and a suppressed cancer cure (714,000 people) in three years and three months.

“My results suggest that any conspiracy with over a few hundred people rapidly collapses, and big science conspiracies would not be sustainable,” he said.

And my brother worked for the government in various capacities for many years.  You're quite right that most government agencies lack the basic organization to allow anything remotely like a conspiracy to work for more than ten minutes.  :P

Do you really think passing gun control is going to make these vanish? Great Britain and Australia are frequently cited as a proper response to mass shootings. In those places one had what was essentially abolishment of private firearm ownership. Okay I will bite firearms in private hands are abolished in the US tomorrow I do not think it will make -points up- those vanish. The genie is out of the bottle. I could see this working about as well as nuclear none proliferation has, North Korea anyone? Wanting to do something is all well and good, but lets be realistic.

I don't think anyone imagines that gun control laws will make anything vanish.  But how is doing nothing the answer?  If there's any chance that stricter background checks, to name the single most popular option*, could reduce the numbers of gun deaths in this country, don't you want to take that chance?


*Citation here -- polls indicate that about 90% of the U.S. population supports stricter enforcement of background checks.

[DominantPoet]

I believe this is as unbiased a citation as I can come up with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

I think most would say wikipedia for the most part has no real political agenda. The article also covers all kinds of statistics from a wide range. And as I said I am not wading into  debate that is well going in the direction I anticipated  :-) If I was feeling difficult I could produced statistics spit out by the NRA or other such organizations that would be summarily dismissed by those with an opposing view. I do not feel like being difficult.

Here is the thing guys "The Congressional Research Service in 2009 estimated there were 310 million firearms in the U.S." and here is another "n Gallup's 1972 survey, 43% reported having a gun in their home, while GSS's 1973 survey resulted in 49% reporting a gun in the home; in 1993, Gallup's poll results were 51%, while GSS's 1994 poll showed 43%.[28] In 2012, Gallup's survey showed 47% of Americans reporting having a gun in their home,[29] while the GSS in 2012 reports 34%.[28]
In 1997, estimates were approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States."

Do you really think passing gun control is going to make these vanish? Great Britain and Australia are frequently cited as a proper response to mass shootings. In those places one had what was essentially abolishment of private firearm ownership. Okay I will bite firearms in private hands are abolished in the US tomorrow I do not think it will make -points up- those vanish. The genie is out of the bottle. I could see this working about as well as nuclear none proliferation has, North Korea anyone? Wanting to do something is all well and good, but lets be realistic.

Gun control in general is not about getting it out of the hands of those who already have them. It's a constitutional right, and we do live in a world where people feel safer if they can protect themselves from potential law breaking citizens. Gun control generally is about restricting the rather free market that the US has for not only guns, but ammo in general as well. Putting stricter regulations on the acquiring of said guns and ammo. Perhaps reducing the rather large list of events where guns are sold or traded and what not as well.

http://gunshows-usa.com/

That's just for the next two weeks.

Legally, in many states, it's not that difficult to get a gun. Just for example, in Canada, were I to want to purchase a gun, I first have to take a safety course including a test to acquire an application form for a licence, fill that out, mail it to the government, wait a few weeks, and get my licence. And even then, what I can buy is MUCH smaller than what you could typically buy in most US states at any given gun store, or at said gun shows and the like.

Furthermore, it's quite literally illegal to carry a handgun unless we can prove it's required for our profession. Never mind any other guns. Not to mention it costs roughly 200 dollars for us to take the class and the license fee and the like, before we can even purchase any guns, more so if we want to get a restricted license which lets us buy some restricted weaponry, which is still highly regulated as well.

That's not to say illegal firearms don't exist in the country, of course they do. That's the nature of law breakers - to break laws. To do things that they are told they cannot or should not do, after all. But I certainly think the US in general could do with a whole hell of a lot of tightening up on regulating gun sales in general. And typically, in my experience, the main reason people are opposed to it isn't so much they think their guns will be taken away - it's just more so they don't want the inconvenience of having to go through additional steps or paying more to protect themselves.

[Retribution]

Alright I have gotten sucked into debate despite not wanting to be lol.

Look at this point I have no problem with more gun control. I was an adult during the much hyped assault weapon ban and it did not change my life. At times the silliness gets to me: I once won a gun in a raffle and had to hang onto my ticket while the waiting period expired, last year when I bought new firearm I showed up after waiting period to pick it up 15 minutes early and since it is an electronic system I could not pick it up legally 15 minutes early. Alright so I went and bought a cause of ammo during those 15 minutes, but whatever. Minor inconveniences but they vex me as I do not see it doing anything other than irritating me. And color me skeptical, but I doubt mass shooters are buying raffle tickets. To my Canadian friend I cancelled a hunting trip to Canada that would have brought some tourist bucks because well the bureaucracy was starting to make my head hurt and I swear I only planned on being a threat to ducks.

At anyrate! I keep mentioning compromise so here I will offer up what I would like to see. It will never happen, but I would like to see it. Then I will sign out of this debate as it gets us no place but angry.

-Do away with all state gun laws and replace them with one federal umbrella. It is just plain confusing and inefficient. And when one travels a lot with firearms like I do I have found myself in violation of the law with crossing of a state line. For the control crowd what you get is a removal of loop holes and a standardization that would possibly tighten things up.

-Create a nation wide data base. In that include mental and criminal records nation wide. No I would oppose a record of what firearms each person has as I think that is ripe for abuse. But if we had such a functioning data base scans could be made instantly determining who could legally purchase a firearm. Hell, I have a banking app so why could this not be linked to an app on like a phone? Private gun sales as well as gun shows would then have the ability to do a check and submit the appropriate data electronically from any place.

-Drastic improvements to mental health care as well as a health care system that funds such things. Not gun control per say, but I do not believe you do something like this unless you are a sick person. Track such matters in the above listed system so that they can be monitored for firearms purchases. Int he case of Sandyhook I am not sure how I feel...was a family member using another family member's firearms. Penalizing someone for having a mentally disabled family member makes me leery.

-Licensing and classes. While such classes are often just plain silly I have sat through hunter safety four times and taught it twice. I can do it again. But I often run into people that have not been around firearms and such ignorance leads to carelessness as well as nervousness that all leads to danger. I am a  father of two and both my kids think nothing about firearms. They were raised around them and know how to respect them, there is no mystery there. Thus no curiosity and curiosity can indeed kill.

-When a felon commits a crime with a gun, tries to obtain a gun, uses a gun in a crime. Pardon my French, but throw the fucking book at them and lock them up and throw away the key. During the Obama administration the President touted felons stopped from buying guns. Okay if you google Justice Department statistics you will find that none of them were thrown in jail for the attempt. My reaction to this is WTF?

And last this is not gun control per say, but the horse I was trying to ride when I chimed in here. If you watch the news wire today there are rumblings that this POS planned on escaping and possibly did not act alone. That he may have been radicalized in some form or another. I do not know what it is in our modern society that is causing this in many shapes and forms, but we sure need to do some studies and figure out what it is and take steps. If you look at the link I cited you will find statistically mass shootings make up a small number of deaths and have actually decreased in some cases. That does not matter they are still horrendous that make an impact on us not unlike 911. Then the conspiracy theorists all chime in  and we all do a lot of thinking not unlike what I have done. We need to pursue all avenues including how to prevent people from going down this road. Or on a larger scale address the inner city poverty and hopelessness that breeds gun crime.

But I think a lot just plain starts with being less angry with each other and accepting that we all have different life styles and views and just because someone does not agree with me that does not per say make them evil. Treat one another well it costs nada and goes a long way.

Have a great day everyone I am out.

~R~

[Oniya]

Retribution, if someone could get the list that you proposed through Congress, I would call them a fucking hero.  And this is from one of those (self-declared) crazy-ass liberals.

[Retribution]

LoL see there is hope! I tend conservative as you can guess. But with the above list both sides would reject it. Left would say not enough, right would say too much and the band plays on.

[Oniya]

LoL see there is hope! I tend conservative as you can guess. But with the above list both sides would reject it. Left would say not enough, right would say too much and the band plays on.

I'm pretty sure you and I have had this conversation specifically.  :-) 

I look at it this way:  we constantly hear the argument that 'cars are more dangerous than guns and we don't ban those'.  So, treat guns like cars.  For any given car, law enforcement, and I think car dealers can plug in the VIN and know who has owned it (legally) since the time it rolled off the assembly line.  You can find out if it's been in an accident.  You have to have a license to buy one, and take regular assessments to keep that license.  If you have too many incidents with your car, they can take away your license.  If you have certain medical conditions, your doctor can flag that you are unable to drive (my vision isn't up to snuff, I've had friends with seizure disorders, and a co-worker of Mr. Oniya's got a temporary restriction due to a concussion).

As far as I can see, all those things are covered by your list.

[Retribution]

Should have been I lean right. And if you look at my list above you will find I see compiling of such lists an area that could be abused. Storm trooper knocking on the door and saying you have this, this, and this. Such makes me nervous.

So I would like an initial tracking via serial. But then that info goes someplace inaccesible other than via court order.

But in the event of a crime such an order is issued and the initial sale offers a starting point. But do not crusify the buyer because his firearm was stollen or the like. That is not their fault.

[LisztesFerenc]

LoL see there is hope! I tend conservative as you can guess. But with the above list both sides would reject it. Left would say not enough, right would say too much and the band plays on.

  I think overall the left would accept that list. Many would probably want more yes, but when an actual bill is before them and not just theoretical stuff, I think they'd be more than willing to make compromises. They could always try adding more later, and if subsequent years had a drop in gun violence, they have some good talking points to make that case.

[Retribution]

  I think overall the left would accept that list. Many would probably want more yes, but when an actual bill is before them and not just theoretical stuff, I think they'd be more than willing to make compromises. They could always try adding more later, and if subsequent years had a drop in gun violence, they have some good talking points to make that case.

See that is the rub for me as a gun owner. Though until I became disillusioned and left I was a voting member of the NRA (means had been a member long enough that I had rights to vote on policy). But for years leading up to the Brady Bill the stance was give them an inch and they will take a mile. If the gun owning public gives in on one thing the gun control crowd will use it as just the first step in restrictions, bans, and ultimately confiscation. I simply did not believe this.

But then the Brady billed passed as well as the assault weapons ban. I watched the news on TV and the ink from Clinton signing was not even dry and Mrs. Brady was there saying "now we can really go after guns." I am paraphrasing of course. My reaction was holy shit the NRA was right it is a conspiracy. So yeah, the creep is what scares me about gun laws.

[LisztesFerenc]

See that is the rub for me as a gun owner. Though until I became disillusioned and left I was a voting member of the NRA (means had been a member long enough that I had rights to vote on policy). But for years leading up to the Brady Bill the stance was give them an inch and they will take a mile. If the gun owning public gives in on one thing the gun control crowd will use it as just the first step in restrictions, bans, and ultimately confiscation. I simply did not believe this.

But then the Brady billed passed as well as the assault weapons ban. I watched the news on TV and the ink from Clinton signing was not even dry and Mrs. Brady was there saying "now we can really go after guns." I am paraphrasing of course. My reaction was holy shit the NRA was right it is a conspiracy. So yeah, the creep is what scares me about gun laws.

  I know you probably don't mean it that way, but "creep" is a bit disingenuous here. You're not going to wake up one day and find that the gun control bill you supported suddenly gives the government authority to take your guns or something. It will be a new bill, with new debates and new votes, and if the second bill goes too far in your mind, you can oppose that one and keep the first one you supported.

[Valerian]

I agree with your list, Retribution, and I think those guidelines would do a lot to help this country. 

But I have one fundamental disagreement with the approach most people are taking to those ideas.  Most people are still throwing up their hands and saying, "But if you expect anything to change, you're dreaming!  Never happen in a million years!"  And that is unbelievably frustrating.

Of course this entire list won't happen quickly or all at once.  Any change will come bit by painful bit, but here's the thing: more people have to WANT change enough to MAKE it happen.  It doesn't matter that the previously mentioned 90% of the country agrees on these things if less than half the country is actually fighting for these things, and right now it feels like a great deal less than half.

If every U.S. citizen reading this right now contacted their elected officials and talked to them about these ideas, it would make a difference.  If each of us also urged a friend or relative to call, we'd be getting somewhere.  Unfortunately, the GOP is counting on voter apathy, and they're right to do so.  In another few days or weeks, the furor about Las Vegas will die down and we'll be back to business as usual until the next major mass shooting.  The smaller ones don't even register anymore.

See that is the rub for me as a gun owner. Though until I became disillusioned and left I was a voting member of the NRA (means had been a member long enough that I had rights to vote on policy). But for years leading up to the Brady Bill the stance was give them an inch and they will take a mile. If the gun owning public gives in on one thing the gun control crowd will use it as just the first step in restrictions, bans, and ultimately confiscation. I simply did not believe this.

But then the Brady billed passed as well as the assault weapons ban. I watched the news on TV and the ink from Clinton signing was not even dry and Mrs. Brady was there saying "now we can really go after guns." I am paraphrasing of course. My reaction was holy shit the NRA was right it is a conspiracy. So yeah, the creep is what scares me about gun laws.

Considering that the Brady Bill passed a quarter of a century ago and as yet almost exactly nothing more has changed except to make gun restrictions LESS strict -- heck, the Brady Bill itself isn't even uniformly enforced -- I suspect it's all right to stop worrying about that now.  Both sides will never be happy, of course, but people in this country are forgetting that there's still a middle path.  We just have to find it.

Right now half of the guns in the entire country are owned by about 3% of the population.  That 3% should not have the sole say in the gun debate and right now it seems like they do.

[Retribution]

LoL I am probably one of that 3%. My dear, liberal, wife of 26 years blinks when she sees inventories of the numbers of firearms criminals have as she thinks hell Ret has a lot more than that. Then she has a moment of "oh my god I am part of the gun culture" then her and I have a good laugh. Almost as funny as when she is trying to pin me and my adult son down on how many are around the house and each of us keeps blaming the other until she gives up. In all seriousness though we have fun with it as a family and most realize I am more anal about proper handling of firearms than the nut jobs people always seem to be pointing a camera at.

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.

Should we do nothing? No we need to try, but I just have such a fear when we start with something I consider one of my fundamental rights. Mrs. Brady really scared me that night I watched her 30 years ago. She chose entirely the wrong words to reassure someone like me. If we are going to experiment I like it to start with mental health, getting past the anger in society, things like that. Not something I consider essential to my way of life. Show me that can be done without being screwed up then I might feel a bit less nervous about telling me essentially Retribution you and your way of life are now illegal.

I hope that makes some sense.

[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.

[LisztesFerenc]

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?

  There's a correlation between population density and crime rates, and in 1920 the US population was less than a third of what it is today (106 million vs. 323 million). The year JFK was assassinated, the US population was 58% of what it is today.

[Regina Minx]

...No one blew up a building in Ok-city or anything like that...

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenian_dynamite_campaign
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9502E3D91031E033A25755C0A9649C94659ED7CF&legacy=true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia#Assassination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism#Emergence_of_modern_terrorism
https://cromwell-intl.com/travel/usa/new-york-revolutionary/anarchists.html
https://www.amazon.com/Dynamite-Treason-Plot-Terrorism-Victorian/dp/0752463780

[LisztesFerenc]

  So, "proof" that this was a false flag operation: the festival is called Route 91, and it happened on the 1st of October, put those together and you have 91101, or 9/11/01. I should really purge my friends list on facebook.

[Retribution]

I got a problem with the limit on number of firearms idea. I think I explained that in previous posts so we will agree to not agree there.

On the other fronts, yes, it happened in the past I reckon. But maybe it has increased with the population. I do not know. It just feels like it is more prevalent now. Maybe because of better news coverage it just seems more prevalent. Hell, I do not know, I am just guessing. As I think about it I also wonder if the "success" of terrorism has made such things more prevalent. I just know I am 50 years old and do not recall these things happening near as often when I was a younger man.

[DominantPoet]

  So, "proof" that this was a false flag operation: the festival is called Route 91, and it happened on the 1st of October, put those together and you have 91101, or 9/11/01. I should really purge my friends list on facebook.

If you add together the two ones that gives you 2, and you get 90210. That show had a spin-off named Melrose Place, and another named Models Inc. The franchise has 3 shows in total, therefore - Half Life 3 confirmed.

*head desk*

It never ceases to amaze me the inane lengths people will go to come up with these "conspiracies".

[Oniya]

There are two factors in the 'outside help' conspiracy theories.  One is (as I mentioned before) why does Group X want you to believe that they helped Paddock.  The other is 'Why do you want to believe that Group X helped Paddock.'  The idea of 'other' is one possibility, but there is another, more primal reason that Timothy McVeigh himself stated when interviewed about whether he had outside help.  He told the interviewer "...'the truth is, I blew up the Murrah building and isn't it kind of scary that one man could reap this kind of hell?'"  (Source)

[Iniquitous]

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.

Bold part mine.  Some people collect guns just like others collect porcelain cat knick knacks. My youngest brother collects guns (and has quite an awesome collection).  And again - I hate that "civilians don't need assault weapons" crap.  The average US citizen wouldn't be able to tell what was an assault weapon and what isn't. (Case in point - the AR-15 does not mean Assault Rifle-15. It means Armorlite Rifle -15.)   The average US citizen doesn't even really understand the difference between semi-automatic (which is what an American can legally own) and an automatic (which the American cannot legally purchase). The lack of understanding about weapons in general is why I hate all of these discussions about gun control from every day citizens. Usually, the conversation ends up in arguments because of that lack of understanding and knowledge.

[Oniya]

The average US citizen doesn't even really understand the difference between semi-automatic (which is what an American can legally own) and an automatic (which the American cannot legally purchase).

From the StoreHouse:  A semi-automatic weapon is one where the trigger must be pulled once per shot, but can be operated without pause until the magazine is empty.  With an automatic weapon, the trigger may be held down for continuous fire, although most military-issued automatics include a '3-round' burst setting to help save on ammo.  (If you haven't hit your target in 3 rounds, you need to aim better, soldier!)

[Regina Minx]

From the StoreHouse:  A semi-automatic weapon is one where the trigger must be pulled once per shot, but can be operated without pause until the magazine is empty.  With an automatic weapon, the trigger may be held down for continuous fire, although most military-issued automatics include a '3-round' burst setting to help save on ammo.  (If you haven't hit your target in 3 rounds, you need to aim better, soldier!)

Ffffff. Calling a marine a soldier....

[LisztesFerenc]

Bold part mine.  Some people collect guns just like others collect porcelain cat knick knacks. My youngest brother collects guns (and has quite an awesome collection).  And again - I hate that "civilians don't need assault weapons" crap.

  Its true though, you don't need assault weapons. Collecting isn't a need. Going through the possibly actual uses of a gun:

  1. You can say you need a handgun for self-defense outside the home = not an assault weapon
  2. You need a rifle to  go hunting = could be an assault weapon, but doesn't have to, the ammo capacity doesn't have to be that high
  3. Shot gun can be used for hunting I believe, and you can say you need a shotgun for home defense = again, typically not an assault weapon

  That basically covers any "needs" you can possible have for guns. You may want to collect others, but that's no longer need.

[Retribution]

Trying not to argue as I have already said I do not agree, but in this case I am failing. One could argue that running water and electricity is not needed. I deal with not having either in hunting camp all the time. But that does not mean I plan on trying to go without when they can be had. One can argue free speech is not needed there are countries that do just fine without it. Does not mean I plan on giving up that right without a fight. Some can argue a vehicle is not needed people got by with horses for a long time. Anyway, you get my point I simply find that argument vexing. I have a big problem with another citizen or my government telling me what I do or do not need. I view it in the same vein as as politicians trying to tell same sex unions that they do not have the right. Who to hell died and made them god to dictate a life style?

Anyway, on that note I shall end my rant there. But as I have stated before I am sure I have a lot more firearms than most of you would think I "need." I consider that my business not yours. As for the three round burst autos? You see, on rock and roll it is hard as heck to hit something. The muzzle climbs and the effects of recoil make precise aim difficult. Three round bursts make the shooter slow down and aim. They also reduce the effect of muzzle climb. Full auto is for suppressing fire, keep the enemies head down. This guy had success with what amounted to full auto because he had a large mass he was shooting into. Spray and pray worked because all he had to do was point in the general direction.

[LisztesFerenc]

Trying not to argue as I have already said I do not agree, but in this case I am failing. One could argue that running water and electricity is not needed. I deal with not having either in hunting camp all the time. But that does not mean I plan on trying to go without when they can be had. One can argue free speech is not needed there are countries that do just fine without it. Does not mean I plan on giving up that right without a fight. Some can argue a vehicle is not needed people got by with horses for a long time. Anyway, you get my point I simply find that argument vexing. I have a big problem with another citizen or my government telling me what I do or do not need. I view it in the same vein as as politicians trying to tell same sex unions that they do not have the right. Who to hell died and made them god to dictate a life style?

  You're reading WAY too much into what I said. I said you don't need assault weapons. That's all. Nothing about dictating your life style, nothing about needing to give up your right. Simply that any need you can have for guns would involve semi automatic weapons.

  And comparing it to running water and electricity is a bad example, there are health complication associated with not having ready access to them. There are no health complications associated with not having access to assault weapons.

[Retribution]

I was not referring to assault weapons I was referring to limits on numbers of firearms a person may be allowed to have. Perhaps I used bad examples, but at the end of the day that is just something I will not go for. But we can also have a disagreement on that and still be civil which we both are. So sorry if my tone was poor.

I guess at the end of the day here is the real rub for me on that. Take 911, Oklahoma, whatever tragedy or terrorist event. Part of the intent of those perpetrators is also to affect the way people live. Or at least I think that is part of what it is. In the case of 911 for example they were very successful in that area.

Call me obstinate, but when it comes to things like this to quote Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge "do not give the bastard the satisfaction."

[LisztesFerenc]

I was not referring to assault weapons I was referring to limits on numbers of firearms a person may be allowed to have. Perhaps I used bad examples, but at the end of the day that is just something I will not go for. But we can also have a disagreement on that and still be civil which we both are. So sorry if my tone was poor.

  To be clear, when I talk about guns and need, its the same thing I mean when I say "No one needs to own more than 3 houses". I don't oppose people owning 4+ houses, I'm not saying they should lose that property or have their rights to ownership compromised in any way, I am simply stating that they don't need to have that many.

I guess at the end of the day here is the real rub for me on that. Take 911, Oklahoma, whatever tragedy or terrorist event. Part of the intent of those perpetrators is also to affect the way people live. Or at least I think that is part of what it is. In the case of 911 for example they were very successful in that area.

Call me obstinate, but when it comes to things like this to quote Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge "do not give the bastard the satisfaction."

  I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your point her with reference to 9/11. Are you against the security measured that have been introduced since then, as the change to our lifestyle meant giving "the bastard the satisfaction"?

[Oniya]

  I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your point her with reference to 9/11. Are you against the security measured that have been introduced since then, as the change to our lifestyle meant giving "the bastard the satisfaction"?

I know I enjoyed being 'randomly selected' for special screening when flying up for my husband's grandmother's funeral.  In a stunning coincidence, he was 'randomly selected' as well on a different flight (he'd been OTR).  I'm sure that the fact we were flying same-day tickets had nothing to do with that.

[Retribution]

Unfortunately we had to take those measures. So no, though I do question the usefulness of say airport security patting down a 90 year old woman in a wheelchair to show they are not profiling.

Just lets not change more than absolutely needed. Otherwise bad guy wins so to speak.

[Retribution]

I know I enjoyed being 'randomly selected' for special screening when flying up for my husband's grandmother's funeral.  In a stunning coincidence, he was 'randomly selected' as well on a different flight (he'd been OTR).  I'm sure that the fact we were flying same-day tickets had nothing to do with that.

I know a poor bastard who happens to have the same name as someone on a watch list. He allows all day to board a plane.

[Serephino]

I am not saying people shouldn't be allowed to collect guns.  What I am saying is that if a person does end up having a large number, especially if they are high powered, that somebody knows about it.  If a person just wants to collect, and doesn't plan on going on a shooting spree, what is there to hide?  I'm not sure exactly how many guns my parents had when I was little.  They each had a deer rifle, and a bird shot gun, my dad had an antique Brownie that was a family heirloom.  And except for my dad shooting up a neighbor's back porch one night, they were responsible with them. 

Also, there is a difference between buying a few collectible firearms in a year vs 45 in one year.  Chances are, if you are buying a lot of them very quickly, you're not up to any good.  I am not anti-gun.  I just really want to see something put in place to stop this crap.

I'm also against people with mental illnesses getting their hands on guns.  That would mean I could never have one, but I'm completely fine with that.  I'm not jumping up and down screaming for everyone's guns to be taken away, just asking for people to use their heads and figure out what is wrong and fix it.  Because I guarantee you that if nothing at all changes then by the end of the year, or at least by the end of next year, the Vegas shooting will no longer be the deadliest one in modern history.  Some psycho will get it in their heads to top it, and use current loopholes to do it.  I'm sick of it, so shut the loopholes already.

[Retribution]

I am not saying people shouldn't be allowed to collect guns.  What I am saying is that if a person does end up having a large number, especially if they are high powered, that somebody knows about it.  If a person just wants to collect, and doesn't plan on going on a shooting spree, what is there to hide?  I'm not sure exactly how many guns my parents had when I was little.  They each had a deer rifle, and a bird shot gun, my dad had an antique Brownie that was a family heirloom.  And except for my dad shooting up a neighbor's back porch one night, they were responsible with them. 

Also, there is a difference between buying a few collectible firearms in a year vs 45 in one year.  Chances are, if you are buying a lot of them very quickly, you're not up to any good.  I am not anti-gun.  I just really want to see something put in place to stop this crap.

I'm also against people with mental illnesses getting their hands on guns.  That would mean I could never have one, but I'm completely fine with that.  I'm not jumping up and down screaming for everyone's guns to be taken away, just asking for people to use their heads and figure out what is wrong and fix it.  Because I guarantee you that if nothing at all changes then by the end of the year, or at least by the end of next year, the Vegas shooting will no longer be the deadliest one in modern history.  Some psycho will get it in their heads to top it, and use current loopholes to do it.  I'm sick of it, so shut the loopholes already.

Hey there! If you look at the points I made earlier I think I addressed this, but I will refine my stance a bit for you. First off I have no issue with some trigger for a closer look being set off at X number of firearms in Y time period. But I get nervous about the compilation of lists. The reason being, I have worked as a government regulator for 30 years. How rule making takes place is legislation is passed then people like me and my agency's legal staff decide what the intent of the law was as well as what it means. That often times turns out to not quite be what the framers of said law had in mind. Then toss in general government incompetence and you get the idea how screwed up it can be. So yeah compiling lists of who has what firearms concerns me. It is ripe for abuse kind of like the current practice of tracking cell phone calls and the like.

Having said that, at least in my home state and four others I guide in, when one buys a firearm their name so on as well as serial number is collected for a background check. The length of waiting period varies from state to state and is ostensibly so that said background check can be conducted. And yes, they even are legally required to do this at gun shows despite news arguments to the contrary. The real rub is like in my case I travel as a hunting guide in different states, so when I purchase firearms or ammo in other states my documents are from another state. Then toss in a side od differing laws from state to state and it gets complicated. But in all cases, once the background check is done the feds require that info listing what firearm I bought is not stored on some master list under my name. But if at anytime in the future that firearm turns up used in a crime by its serial number it can be tracked who bought it, when, where. That is the sort of thing I back as well as a national list doing away with state laws that as I explained complicate things and putting it all under one UNIFORM fed law.

Also, as I am drinking my java this morn let me offer up something on "assault weapons." Here is my rub with that label. As I explained in previous posts before the "ban" I purchased a firearm I still have. It has a bayonet and lug. When the "ban" took place it was grandfathered in, but it was considered an "assault weapon" because it had a bayonet. But if you went into a gun shop they had racks of the dam things for sale they just all had, had the bayonet removed. The "ban" expired and now those racks in a gun shop have bayonets again. The thought process being that bayonet makes said firearm a military weapon used only for killing people. Take it off and it is a sporting weapon. Yet, the same semi auto action functions the same on AR, AK, or the shotgun I duck hunt with. Color me skeptical but I do not see where such things make much of a difference.

Now large capacity magazines are indeed a bit of another matter. But someone like me who is familiar with firearms looks at that and goes "uh it literally takes me a second to slap another mag in." That is also why knowledgeable sorts look at things like the Vegas shooter and wonder why to hell he carried 12 firearms or whatever it was to his room. It takes longer to pick another one up. Maybe one backup if you get a jam or whatever, but the rest is action movie BS.

Anyway, hope that clears up some of my views.

[ReijiTabibito]

Just wanted to chime into this thread - perhaps just this once (though if it is, this thread will probably go on for another dozen pages and I'll get reminded every time there's a new post) - but maybe my statement will spark something.

Whenever an event like Vegas, or Orlando, or any mass shooting occurs, the immediate impulse is to discuss gun control.  But to approach the problem from a lateral angle, guns aren't the problem.

(Before you decide I've gone full Heston, hear me out.)

Firearms are weapons, things designed for a very select purpose - but they rely upon a very specific supply.

Bullets.  Cartridges.  Rounds.  Call them whatever you will.  But an empty gun is essentially a very heavy paperweight, which can be used to kill people, with a factor of 'not as easy' as a loaded firearm.

French firearms law has a number of provisions, but one of its provisions is that it limits the number of cartridges that can be purchased for a weapon every year.

I'm not 100% on what the total statistics are for this, but I would imagine that Paddock expended a not-insignifcant amount of ammunition to be able to carry out this attack.  (If someone can provide me with the stats on that, that would be excellent.)  Now, maybe he'd been planning this for the last 10 years and an ammunition limit law would have done all of jack and squat (and Jack left town) against it.  But shouldn't we at least entertain the notion that if someone walks into a store and asks to buy 3000 rounds of ammunition, there should be some sort of 'hey, something's off' here alert?

[TheGlyphstone]

It probably wouldn't be nearly as effective as you might think, since reloading equipment is easy to obtain by virtue of its value to sport hunters. Similarly, gunpowder can be bought in bulk for industrial purposes and there's a huge secondhand market for empty brass. To get the same effect by putting a bottleneck on ammunition supply, you would require even more legislation and have significantly more side effects in unrelated areas.

[Doomblade403xxx]

I am not saying people shouldn't be allowed to collect guns.  What I am saying is that if a person does end up having a large number, especially if they are high powered, that somebody knows about it.  If a person just wants to collect, and doesn't plan on going on a shooting spree, what is there to hide?  I'm not sure exactly how many guns my parents had when I was little.  They each had a deer rifle, and a bird shot gun, my dad had an antique Brownie that was a family heirloom.  And except for my dad shooting up a neighbor's back porch one night, they were responsible with them. 

Also, there is a difference between buying a few collectible firearms in a year vs 45 in one year.  Chances are, if you are buying a lot of them very quickly, you're not up to any good.  I am not anti-gun.  I just really want to see something put in place to stop this crap.

I'm also against people with mental illnesses getting their hands on guns.  That would mean I could never have one, but I'm completely fine with that.  I'm not jumping up and down screaming for everyone's guns to be taken away, just asking for people to use their heads and figure out what is wrong and fix it.  Because I guarantee you that if nothing at all changes then by the end of the year, or at least by the end of next year, the Vegas shooting will no longer be the deadliest one in modern history.  Some psycho will get it in their heads to top it, and use current loopholes to do it.  I'm sick of it, so shut the loopholes already.

They do know about it bro. Any gun you buy in my state new or used has a ream of paperwork that goes along with it. The dealer or pawn shop that sells it to you have to be a licensed federal firearms dealer. There are background checks with every purchase. Handguns sold from person to person also fall under this restriction. The sheriffs department runs a check for these transactions and papers have to be filed through the government.

And let's take a look at the past few years, not only here but abroad. About 4 years ago a chinese dude went nuts in a subway station and killed a bunch of people with a knife before he was stopped. In France a man with a truck killed 80 some odd people. This isn't about the instrument. If a killer wants to kill, he will kill and you would be shocked at the number of ways they can do it. There are components to lethal devices in every hardware store, dollar general, dollar tree, and wal mart in the country. These shootings make flashy headlines and strike our jaded shock and awe centers but gun violence is not the worse problem in our society.

We lose about 3500 people a year from Heroin Overdoses. About 9800 from drunk driving. 40000 in motor vehicle crashes. 8000 from cigarettes. 75000 from alcohol. All statistics easily found with a google search. So not doggin on you, but if we are going to start taking a stand against stuff that kills, there is a whole mess of things that kill just as bad, if not worse than a gun. It's not guns that kill anyway. You give a law abiding citizen a gun and its just his gun. Uses it to hunt, target shoot, or just have for protection. Literally millions of people today in our country own guns and didn't go out on a spree killing each and every day. The killer is responsible for his actions...no what he used.

[LisztesFerenc]

And let's take a look at the past few years, not only here but abroad. About 4 years ago a chinese dude went nuts in a subway station and killed a bunch of people with a knife before he was stopped. In France a man with a truck killed 80 some odd people. This isn't about the instrument.

  Then why is the murder rate in the US so much higher than any other Western country? Other than access to guns, what other unique attribute does the US have to explain this? This isn't shooting being flashy and therefor reported by the media, homicide rate per 100,000 is cold hard fact.

  Plus, that's if you only focus on murder. Many more people commit suicide by guns in the US, and whilst a common argument is they would commit suicide by other means, that is false as a quick google research will tell you.

We lose about 3500 people a year from Heroin Overdoses. About 9800 from drunk driving. 40000 in motor vehicle crashes. 8000 from cigarettes. 75000 from alcohol.

  Which are problems in all Western countries. Gun violence is, again, unique to the USA.

[Doomblade403xxx]

  Then why is the murder rate in the US so much higher than any other Western country? Other than access to guns, what other unique attribute does the US have to explain this? This isn't shooting being flashy and therefor reported by the media, homicide rate per 100,000 is cold hard fact.

  Plus, that's if you only focus on murder. Many more people commit suicide by guns in the US, and whilst a common argument is they would commit suicide by other means, that is false as a quick google research will tell you.

  Which are problems in all Western countries. Gun violence is, again, unique to the USA.

As a former law enforcement officer I have seen plenty of suicides. As a general rule the methods of suicide generally depend on whats at hand and the sex of those involved. Firearm suicides with women are rare. But the issue is not suicides either. If someone wants to kill themselves they will do it. Again a gun is not the issue in that case either. A hose from the tailpipe of your car, rope, razor blade, or overdosing are also methods of suicide. Just what I worked on or was privy too in my service, 2 hangings, 3 overdoses, 1 shotgun blast to the mouth, and last but not least the dude I dragged out of his car as he tried to asphyxiate himself with exhaust. Everyone wants to point a finger at guns and act like that is the only issue in society today. It's not. You can sit a gun someplace fully loaded and watch it 24/7. It will do nothing. It's the person who picks it up thats going to do something with it.

[LisztesFerenc]

As a former law enforcement officer I have seen plenty of suicides. As a general rule the methods of suicide generally depend on whats at hand and the sex of those involved. Firearm suicides with women are rare. But the issue is not suicides either. If someone wants to kill themselves they will do it.

  That's not true. The majority of suicide attempts fail, the majority who fail do not reattempt. These are from statistics gathered the WHO. This "if they want to they will" suits the gun lobby because it makes the suicides from guns seem as if they cannot be attributed to the instrument of choice, but it isn't true, they can. Guns are the second most lethal method of suicide and the most common in the US.

Everyone wants to point a finger at guns and act like that is the only issue in society today. It's not. You can sit a gun someplace fully loaded and watch it 24/7. It will do nothing. It's the person who picks it up thats going to do something with it.

  A bomb without the detonator won't do anything on its own either. Should it be legal to possess them as long as the two are kept separate? Of course not. A signal jammer won't do anything as long as its switch off. Can I bring mine on a plane? I won't turn it on.

[Doomblade403xxx]

  That's not true. The majority of suicide attempts fail, the majority who fail do not reattempt. These are from statistics gathered the WHO. This "if they want to they will" suits the gun lobby because it makes the suicides from guns seem as if they cannot be attributed to the instrument of choice, but it isn't true, they can. Guns are the second most lethal method of suicide and the most common in the US.

  A bomb without the detonator won't do anything on its own either. Should it be legal to possess them as long as the two are kept separate? Of course not. A signal jammer won't do anything as long as its switch off. Can I bring mine on a plane? I won't turn it on.

Would it shock you to know that most anything you need to make a bomb can be found at retail outlets and farming supply stores across the United States? I mean Timothy Mcveigh killed alot of people with Fertilizer and diesel fuel, which you can literally get anywhere. You can buy a knife at wal mart for 3 bucks and up. Any electronics store has switches and electronics gear. Someone with even a basic knowledge of electronics and build a detonator out of a couple gas station cell phones.

And exactly what isn't true? The methods of suicide? Men tend to be more violent and succeed hangings and firearms are pretty much dominated by men.  Women tend to choose methods that aren't as violent and for the majority of women it's overdosing. You can look it up. Every bit of that is hard fact.

[LisztesFerenc]

Would it shock you to know that most anything you need to make a bomb can be found at retail outlets and farming supply stores across the United States? I mean Timothy Mcveigh killed alot of people with Fertilizer and diesel fuel, which you can literally get anywhere. You can buy a knife at wal mart for 3 bucks and up. Any electronics store has switches and electronics gear. Someone with even a basic knowledge of electronics and build a detonator out of a couple gas station cell phones.

  No, I'm well aware how terrorists cells make them (I don't know the exact process, but I know its not very expensive or hard to acquire the parts). Its still illegal to make bombs, even if you remove the detonates.

And exactly what isn't true? The methods of suicide? Men tend to be more violent and succeed hangings and firearms are pretty much dominated by men.  Women tend to choose methods that aren't as violent and for the majority of women it's overdosing. You can look it up. Every bit of that is hard fact.

  You're statement of "If someone wants to kill themselves they will do it". Like you're previous statement about removing several cities drastically altering the homicide rate of the US, its a sadly not that uncommon misconception spread primarily over the internet.

[Doomblade403xxx]

Well none of the suicides i ever worked called and let us know beforehand they were making the attempt. The only one who didn't succeed was the one I accidentally found. So I'll stand by my statement and let you call me liar if you want.

[LisztesFerenc]

Well none of the suicides i ever worked called and let us know beforehand they were making the attempt. The only one who didn't succeed was the one I accidentally found. So I'll stand by my statement and let you call me liar if you want.

  http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics

  Relevant extract: According to the American Association of Suicidology (based on a SAMHSA study)1, there are 25 attempts at suicide for every one success.

  So yes, unless you "accidentally found" 24 out of every 25 attempts, you're either a liar or stubbornly sticking a mistaken impression your first hand experience gave you that is contradicted by the actual numbers.

[Vekseid]

33,000 gun-assisted suicides per year, over 70,000 gun injuries per year.

Just by owning a gun, it is 40 times more likely to be used on you or a family member than it is on an intruder.

I've sworn off ever owning a handgun because of this. Long guns secured in a safe for me.

...
If someone wants to kill themselves they will do it.
...

This is false.

The immediacy of a gun is a prime factor, as the drop in Australia's suicides demonstrates. Their suicide rate has fallen by almost a third since enacting gun control, the majority of it because of gun control.

[Regina Minx]

Well none of the suicides i ever worked called and let us know beforehand they were making the attempt. The only one who didn't succeed was the one I accidentally found. So I'll stand by my statement and let you call me liar if you want.

A) The plural of anecdote is not data

Firearm suicides with women are rare.

B) So rare, in fact, that it's only the second largest cause of death by suicide among women (and only 5% less, at that):



Throughout this entire conversation, you have been incorrect in point of fact at least twice to my knowledge, and you have never acknowledged this point. This leads me to suspect that you are not arguing in good faith.

C) On the topic of suicide by guns, the method of suicide IS significant to the conversation. Suicide attempts are far more likely to result from temporary life crises. Most people who survive suicide attempts do not, in fact, end up dying from suicide. But attempting to kill yourself with a gun makes it very unlikely that you will survive your suicide attempt.



Given the brief duration of some suicidal crises, a lethal dose of pills in the nightstand poses a greater danger than a prescription that must be hoarded over months to accumulate a lethal dose. Similarly, a gun in the closet poses a greater risk than a very high bridge five miles away, even if both methods have equal lethality if used.

D) There are 25 attempted suicides for every 1 successful suicide.

More people start an attempt and abort it than carry it through; therefore, methods that can be interrupted without harm mid-attempt — such as overdose, cutting, CO poisoning, and hanging/suffocation — offer a window of opportunity for rescue or change of heart that guns do not. Even jumping from a high place offers an opportunity to interrupt that a self-inflicted gunshot wound does not. Most people who commit suicide do not make the attempt like they wanted to get it over with. They hesitate for a significant amount of time before jumping, shooting, or swallowing the pill, or starting their car in a garage. That time on a window ledge, roof, or bridge gives passersby a long time to notice and call help, which is why suicides by falling only succeed 30% of the time, in addition to not choosing a high enough jump point.

E)  In Israel, where military service is mandatory they had a pretty bad suicide problem over the weekend when soldiers went home. Their solution was to require that soldiers keep their guns on bases when they went home. Here is a key line from the study's abstract: Following the policy change, suicide rates decreased significantly by 40%. Most of this decrease was due to decrease in suicide using firearms over the weekend...Decreasing access to firearms significantly decreases rates of suicide among adolescents. The results of this study illustrate the ability of a relatively simple change in policy to have a major impact on suicide rates.

[Vergil Tanner]

So, quickly gonna poke my head in here and chime in about the Vegas shooting itself for a moment, since nobody seems to really know what actually happened.

Love him or hate him - and believe me, I've disagreed vehemently with him before - Sargon seems to have made at least a half decent attempt at working out exactly what happened in Vegas. Since there are conflicting accounts and altering details, it's tough, so...there are lots of maybes and I don't knows, of course. But his video at least makes a respectable attempt at a non biased accounting of the different stories and postulations abounding. Again, I know he's polarising, but you have to respect the effort if nothing else.

Das Video

I dunno what to believe at the moment, but even the possibility that there was more than one shooter and that this might have been planned is...chilling in how plausible it is. >.>

[Regina Minx]

Sargon of Akaad is a well-known conspiracy theorist. Honestly, Vergil, I don't have 40 minutes to waste on the 'evidence' offered by a 9/11 Truther, PizzaGate-er, Seth Rich was silenced by the DNC-er, and New World Order-er.

To your final point, plausible does not mean probable.

[Vergil Tanner]

As far as I'm aware, he doesn't believe any of those things, and I've been watching his videos for a while. In fact, as far as I remember, he actively makes fun of the people who believe that nonsense. I don't always agree with.him, but listening to other opinions is never a bad thing.

As far as I'm concerned, he goes out of his way in the video to avoid editorialising or bias, and tries to just present the conflicting stories and accounts that are present so far, as well as what we van be sure of.

I do find it strange though that you can label him as a conspiracy nut and dismiss him out of hand without even watching the video, especially on a justification that I don't even think is true. If you're going to dismiss him, then that's fine...but it would be intellectually dishonest to do so without hearing him out first.

[Oniya]

Well, he doesn't have a particularly encouraging track record.

[Vergil Tanner]

I'm not saying he's always right, or that I always agree with him. I will say that labelling him a 9/11 truther, NWOer and Pizza Gater is unfair considering that as far as I'm aware, he's never stated he believes any of those things.

Of course, most of what's.present on that page is controversial, yes, but not objectively wrong. I mean, I don't know.enough about Gamergate to speak to any of it - I became aware of it towards the end when there was so much shit slinging from both sides to be able to work out with confidence what had started the whole mess - but everything else...well, you might disagree with him, but it isn't like he's an unreasonably science denier who thinks the moon landing was fake.

And hell, you can disagree with him, that's fine. Again, I frequently do. But dismissing his attempt to piece together what happened in Vegas without even watching it? It's not exactly reasonable or open minded. Even if he were a crazy conspiracy but, a broken clock can still be right twice a day. An argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on who is making it.

[Regina Minx]

I'm not saying he's always right, or that I always agree with him. I will say that labelling him a 9/11 truther, NWOer and Pizza Gater is unfair considering that as far as I'm aware, he's never stated he believes any of those things.

911 Trutherisms:

• Video: "One of [my friends] is a complete skeptic, he thinks that the 9/11 attacks were caused by planes, that the buildings fell down because planes collided with their top stories and that caused the structural collapse of these two giant skyscrapers that were designed to withstand plane impacts. So he's very much blue-pilled in that regard."
• From the comments of that video:
• Another video
• A livestream

NWOer:

• Video
• From the comments of that video:

Pizza Gate:

• Video. Note I was flippant in summarizing this view of his before. He is NOT a Pizza Gater per se. However, in this video, he spends a very long time talking about why child sex rings are common and "the left" should take them seriously. Which is kind of Pizza Gate in another name.

And hell, you can disagree with him, that's fine. Again, I frequently do. But dismissing his attempt to piece together what happened in Vegas without even watching it? It's not exactly reasonable or open minded. Even if he were a crazy conspiracy but, a broken clock can still be right twice a day. An argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on who is making it.

If a person constantly peddles conspiracies with very little evidence to back them up, they have a serious credibility problem. Sargon is quick to jump to conclusions and chronically fails to do enough research. If I'm being less polite about it, he's a tin-foil hat wearing, fact-challenged idiot.

Aside:
Yes, a stopped clock may be right twice a day. But if we actually need the clock to tell us what time it is, at any given moment we check it the chance that the clock would be right is only 1/720 (roughly 0.14%). If you want to be extraordinarily generous and say that +/- five minutes of the actual time is 'close enough', the clock is still only accurate 2.8% of the time.

And I'm not spending 40 minutes watching a conspiracy theorist with no relevant expertise or credibility get it wrong (which he is almost certainly doing based on prior probabilities alone).

[Vergil Tanner]

911 Trutherisms:

• Video: "One of [my friends] is a complete skeptic, he thinks that the 9/11 attacks were caused by planes, that the buildings fell down because planes collided with their top stories and that caused the structural collapse of these two giant skyscrapers that were designed to withstand plane impacts. So he's very much blue-pilled in that regard."
• From the comments of that video:
• Another video
• A livestream

I was unaware of that video, or those comments. In that case, then, I disagree with him strongly and think he's bought into a lot of the misinformation and misconceptions peddled around the issue. But, that being said, him having one opinion I think is stupid isn't justification to dismiss him as a conspiracy nut. Everybody has opinions that other people are gonna think are stupid, and everybody is gonna be wrong about some things. As I said above, the argument stands or falls on its own merits, and I think that Sargons attempt to compile the different accounts of what happened in Vegas is a fairly respectably non-bias attempt.

NWOer:

• Video
• From the comments of that video:

Well I mean...I think he's being a bit silly, but I don't know anything about "Agenda 21" so I can't comment. That was three years ago, though, and opinions can change. All I know is that I've seen him mocking NWO'ers since then, so...I dunno. Maybe he changed his mind, maybe he didn't.

Pizza Gate:

• Video. Note I was flippant in summarizing this view of his before. He is NOT a Pizza Gater per se. However, in this video, he spends a very long time talking about why child sex rings are common and "the left" should take them seriously. Which is kind of Pizza Gate in another name.

Well....he's right, in a way. Child sex rings are more common than people like to admit, and even if they aren't, they should most certainly be paid more attention to because even ONE child sex ring is one ring too many.

If a person constantly peddles conspiracies with very little evidence to back them up, they have a serious credibility problem. Sargon is quick to jump to conclusions and chronically fails to do enough research.

Oh I agree, his research in a lot of cases leaves a lot to be desired. It's why I don't tend to take what he says on face value and look at other sources. I do agree with him sometimes, and I disagree with him sometimes. My point was simply that, having not watched the video at all, you are...not qualified to comment on its contents because you're ignorant of them. I personally think that that particular video is actually a decent attempt at compiling the conflicting information we have at the moment, and he goes out of his way on several occasions to say "I can't corroborate this, this is just what's being claimed by some people."
And of course, it being a planned attack is not controversial. The amount of guns he had on him - and the explosives at home - suggest that this was not a spur of the moment thing. Which is chilling in its own right.

If I'm being less polite about it, he's a tin-foil hat wearing, fact-challenged misogynist.

I'm sorry, I have to take issue there; Sargon is a lot of things, but he's most certainly not a misogynist, and using that word to try and discredit everybody you happen to disagree with on certain issues just devalues the word. I disagree with a lot of things he says and does, but accusing him of misogyny is, in my opinion, extremely unfair.

And I'm not spending 40 minutes watching a misogynist conspiracy theorist with no relevant expertise or credibility get it wrong (which he is almost certainly doing just based on prior probabilities alone).

And of course, probabilities are always correct.
See, on this, unless you watch the video, your opinion can be dismissed just on the basis of you not doing the research into what he's saying, which is exactly your problem with him. I can appreciate your perspective on the matter, but since you haven't watched / listened to the video...you don't know whether this is actually one of the rare cases where he's being reasonable.


NOTE:

ANYWAY, this isn't a thread about Sargon, so I'd rather stop discussing that before we derail the thread. I don't agree with him all the time, and i do agree that he has a habit of jumping to conclusions sometimes which is why I tend to ignore his conclusions and just listen to the reasons he has them. In any case, I know that he has a habit of that, which is why I brought the video up; I do think it's a rare example of him actually being pretty unbias and just reporting on what different people are saying. There's a little bit of his conclusion jumping towards the end, but relatively minor compared to some of the leaps he tends to make.

In any case, this thread is about Vegas and the shooting, and the gun laws therein, so I'm gonna stop derailing the thread now :P

[Regina Minx]

But, that being said, him having one opinion I think is stupid isn't justification to dismiss him as a conspiracy nut.

He's stated that the chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged, presented as fact a debunked about evidence OF the attack as being a photoshop, stated that the statements of "journalist" Eva Bartlett's conspiratorial statements on Syria were "completely accurate" (they were not).

He spends a lot of time tweeting about George Soros. (Tweets deleted, alas)

He proposed many conspiracy theories around Brexit.

He has stated that Cultural Marxism is a greater threat to civilization than right-wing violence.

He stated that Adolf Hitler faked his own death and fled to Argentina. He later said that is probably true.

He said: "Chat, what was the name of the guy? He was actually a DNC insider who was a Bernie supporter who was totally disaffected by the Hillary Clinton campaign. And then he turns up dead and, it's like, he was the leak. He was the fuckin' leak. He was bound to be the leak. I'm just gonna get the chat up. I can't remember his fuckin' name off the top of my head... Seth Rich. He was basically murdered while walking home in an apparent mugging gone wrong, in which nothing was taken..." He also later said that Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC.

Dude, he's a fucking conspiracy theorist.

I'm sorry, I have to take issue there; Sargon is a lot of things, but he's most certainly not a misogynist, and using that word to try and discredit everybody you happen to disagree with on certain issues just devalues the word. I disagree with a lot of things he says and does, but accusing him of misogyny is, in my opinion, extremely unfair.

Don't impugn me again. If I call someone a misogynist, I'm doing so because I have a reason, and I won't have you insinuating otherwise. I'm actually a little lot insulted that you seem to think that I'd just call someone a mysoginist as a way of poisoning the well.

He honestly believes that feminists and feminism are a mental illness needing to be destroyed. And that Anita needs to be destroyed.

Content Warning: You May See Red

And of course, probabilities are always correct.

A) You were the one that brought up stopped clocks, which have an accuracy that can be mathematically described
B) Yes. By definition, something that is probably true is going to be true more often than not. And if something, like a stopped clock or Sargon of Akkad (remember, you made the comparison), is only correct less than 1% of the time, they're almost certainly going to be wrong. To say "But they might not be" is to commit the possibly therefore probably logical fallacy.

See, on this, unless you watch the video, your opinion can be dismissed just on the basis of you not doing the research into what he's saying, which is exactly your problem with him.

I think I pretty well proved that I have a better understanding of this individual than you do. Sargon lacks any real respect for truth or logic and lacks any relevant credibility or expertise in the field of shooting investigation. I am not interested in what a conspiracy theorist has to say about this.

[Vergil Tanner]

He's stated that the chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged, presented as fact a debunked about evidence OF the attack as being a photoshop, stated that the statements of "journalist" Eva Bartlett's conspiratorial statements on Syria were "completely accurate" (they were not).

He spends a lot of time tweeting about George Soros. (Tweets deleted, alas)

He proposed many conspiracy theories around Brexit.

He has stated that Cultural Marxism is a greater threat to civilization than right-wing violence.

He stated that Adolf Hitler faked his own death and fled to Argentina. He later said that is probably true.

He said: "Chat, what was the name of the guy? He was actually a DNC insider who was a Bernie supporter who was totally disaffected by the Hillary Clinton campaign. And then he turns up dead and, it's like, he was the leak. He was the fuckin' leak. He was bound to be the leak. I'm just gonna get the chat up. I can't remember his fuckin' name off the top of my head... Seth Rich. He was basically murdered while walking home in an apparent mugging gone wrong, in which nothing was taken..." He also later said that Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC.

Dude, he's a fucking conspiracy theorist.

I have a lot to say about all of that, but I don't want to derail the thread anymore. But yes, I agree that he has some really weird ideas. As I said, I don't always agree with him on much, but I listen to his opinions in order to listen to people that I disagree with. Every so often I find myself agreeing with him on something, and that's enough reason for me to continue to include his channel in the "prevent an echo chamber" program I have for myself.
However, I will say this: That Brexit Debate was not conspiracy theories, just opinions that have variable basis in fact. Also, his "Cultural marxism is a bigger threat?" Disagree or agree, that isn't a conspiracy theory, and i think you're stretching the definition of the term there.

As for the Hitler thing, I had no idea he said that. As I said, I only really watch his longform videos, so I'd have to look into that to form an opinion on it. I will, though, because if true that's...absurd.

Don't impugn me again. If I call someone a misogynist, I'm doing so because I have a reason, and I won't have you insinuating otherwise. I'm actually a little lot insulted that you seem to think that I'd just call someone a mysoginist as a way of poisoning the well.

See, on the surface, that's a justified offence. And then you say this.

He honestly believes that feminists and feminism are a mental illness needing to be destroyed. And that Anita needs to be destroyed.

Sorry? I know about his position against Feminism. Thing is, disliking feminism is NOT the same as disliking WOMEN, and you're conflating the two together. Are you saying that everybody who dislikes modern Feminism is a sexist misogynist? That's utterly absurd. Hey, guess what? I don't really like modern feminism that much, and I don't identify as one for a myriad of reasons. Does that make me a sexist?

You can dislike Sargon. I kinda dislike a lot of what he says as well. But saying that he's misogynistic because he dislikes feminism? Sorry, but the opposite of feminist is "Not a feminist." The opposite of "Feminist" is NOT "A sexist."

Also, on Anita: Yeah, he does. But that's because he dislikes her ideas, not because she's a woman. And on this, I find myself kind of on his side in that I really dislike Anita and her ideas as well. Because they're simplistic, poorly researched and - in some cases - outright dishonest. Not because she's a woman.

Content Warning: You May See Red

Oh, I know about that tweet. And though I don't really think it was clever or funny, and I think he should have handled it better, I will say that I kinda see the point he was trying to make; that is, it doesn't matter what you say, there are people in any given movement that will construe your comments in a way that furthers what they want to achieve. Case in point, people immediately accused Sargon of giving out a rape threat. Now...say what you want about the tweet. It's distasteful, insensitive and deliberately inflammatory, but the one thing it isn't is a threat. And yet people claimed it WAS. Which was precisely the point he was trying to make.

B) Yes. By definition, something that is probably true is going to be true more often than not. And if something, like a stopped clock or Sargon of Akkad (remember, you made the comparison), is only correct less than 1% of the time, they're almost certainly going to be wrong. To say "But they might not be" is to commit the possibly therefore probably logical fallacy.

Except I never said that just because he COULD be meant that he IS. I said that because he COULD be, it was at least worth taking the time to investigate. All I'm advocating is listening to people you disagree with. Even if you come out still disagreeing, then that's fine. At least your position on his opinion will be honest and informed, rather than reactionary.

I am not interested in what a conspiracy theorist has to say about this.

And that's fine. That's your prerogative. I just think that if you haven't actually heard what he has to say, you have literally 0 authority to judge his opinion either way. You can say "I don't care what he thinks," that's fine. But you can't say that he's right or wrong, since you don't know what he thinks. That's all I'm saying; if you want a valid opinion on somebodies position, you at least need to know what that position is first.

[Oniya]

To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful. - Edward R. Murrow

There's a real problem with claiming that something-or-other is a 'rare instance of' someone being reasonable - that problem is that they've already destroyed their credibility by being unreasonable.  There used to be a tabloid called the Weekly World News.  They specialized in outlandish articles like 'Boy Raised By Bats', and had frequent articles about JFK, Elvis, and occasionally Marilyn Monroe being alive and - in whatever state of health would be appropriate for their age.  It was good for a laugh, and to line the bottom of the bird cage, but it was the kind of journalism that was (intentionally) so non-credible that if the WWN predicted rain, you wouldn't bring an umbrella.

If someone only has 'rare instances' of being reasonable, my time is better spent listening to people who have an established track record of being reasonable.

[Vergil Tanner]

To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful. - Edward R. Murrow

There's a real problem with claiming that something-or-other is a 'rare instance of' someone being reasonable - that problem is that they've already destroyed their credibility by being unreasonable.  There used to be a tabloid called the Weekly World News.  They specialized in outlandish articles like 'Boy Raised By Bats', and had frequent articles about JFK, Elvis, and occasionally Marilyn Monroe being alive and - in whatever state of health would be appropriate for their age.  It was good for a laugh, and to line the bottom of the bird cage, but it was the kind of journalism that was (intentionally) so non-credible that if the WWN predicted rain, you wouldn't bring an umbrella.

If someone only has 'rare instances' of being reasonable, my time is better spent listening to people who have an established track record of being reasonable.

And that's completely fair. I never said he should be taken seriously all the time; he's a self professed "Internet Shitlord," which suggests that he at least has a little bit of self awareness about him, but that's not the point. The point I was making was that, of the videos I've seen, it's actually the best so far of trying to piece together the different accounts of what happened and is worth a look if nothing else, since...well, as controversial and polarising as he is, he's of the fairly uncontroversial opinion that what happened was bad and that the possibility of more than one shooter should at least be investigated just in case.
I know that he has a habit of jumping to conclusions. I wouldn't have posted the video if I thought it was just another one of those. I mean...as I said before, an argument stands or falls on its own merits, and if this is an example of him being unbias and reasonable, then it couldn't hurt to at least take a look, no?

[Regina Minx]

See, on the surface, that's a justified offence. And then you say this.

The correct response was "I apologize for accusing you of arguing in bad faith. I realize, Regina, that you are dedicated to logic and reason and that you would never intentionally engage in fallacious thinking, and that even if I suspected that to be the case, the a fortiori thing to do would be to ask you what evidence you had to back up your claim that Sargon was a misogynist."

Since you haven't done that, and indeed, doubled down on your claim that I'm arguing in bad faith, I'm going to disengage with you at this point.

Anyone interested in Sargon of Akkad and getting a sense for the kind of person he is could do little better than to watch this debate-slash-interview from a conference I attended earlier in this month.

https://youtu.be/TwY4rvhWVf4?t=6785

Even when Sargon was asked to attempt a civil and respectful debate, to try and dialogue and understand another person, he did the exact opposite. Literally the exact opposite. And his bizarre ideology and basic failings at logical reasoning and empathy, and his constant rage and disgust and contempt are so clearly and efficiently on display in this video that I don't need to justify why I don't think that Sargon has anything to contribute to the conversation.

[Oniya]

And that's completely fair. I never said he should be taken seriously all the time; he's a self professed "Internet Shitlord," which suggests that he at least has a little bit of self awareness about him, but that's not the point.

No, it most certainly is the point.  If I were to come to you and say 'The Weekly World News has an article saying that JFK and Elvis are living together in San Francisco', you would have every right to dismiss that without a second glance, because the Weekly World News was, in its day, exactly the sort of tabloid that would write up whatever pack of fiction would get the most 'views'.  (It worked until the Internet came around and people could read creepypastas instead.)

[Vergil Tanner]

The correct response was "I apologize for accusing you of arguing in bad faith. I realize, Regina, that you are dedicated to logic and reason and that you would never intentionally engage in fallacious thinking, and that even if I suspected that to be the case, the a fortiori thing to do would be to ask you what evidence you had to back up your claim that Sargon was a misogynist."

Since you haven't done that, and indeed, doubled down on your claim that I'm arguing in bad faith, I'm going to disengage with you at this point.

Sorry, Regina, but when I did indeed challenge your assertion that Sargon was a misogynist, your first point of defence was that he dislikes feminism...which was exactly what I was implying that you do; "Everybody who disagrees with feminism is sexist." That's what you were implying by saying that you think he's misogynistic for disliking feminism.

If that is not what you're saying, then I will happily apologise. I wasn't (intentionally) accusing you of arguing in bad faith in my previous reply, I was genuinely asking if you were actually suggesting that not being a feminist makes you a sexist, since that seemed to be the implication of your response. If that is not what you are saying, then please by all means, clarify your position. But from where I'm standing, when you respond to the challenge that you're mislabelling him and your first point of evidence - the one you reach to automatically - is that he's an anti-feminist, that implies that you believe that everybody who is against feminism is inherently sexist. Now that might not be your actual position...but that's what it looked like.

I will admit that I jumped the gun a little bit and overstepped when I implied that you thought him a sexist because you disagreed with him rather than because he's done something you think is sexist. However, in my defence, your reaction to that implication did nothing to dispel my impressions, since - whether you were intentionally using it or not - it remains a pretty common tactic of the louder, more aggressive feminists in the world is "If you're not a feminist, you're a sexist and I can safely ignore you." Which your comment seemed to imply in context.

If you want to disengage, then that is entirely your right. But I will maintain that the implication of your response to my original questioning of your position implies that you are indeed engaging in a logical fallacy. You might not be, but that's the impression that your own words have given.

Anyone interested in Sargon of Akkad and getting a sense for the kind of person he is could do little better than to watch this debate-slash-interview from a conference I attended earlier in this month.

https://youtu.be/TwY4rvhWVf4?t=6785

Even when Sargon was asked to attempt a civil and respectful debate, to try and dialogue and understand another person, he did the exact opposite. Literally the exact opposite. And his bizarre ideology and basic failings at logical reasoning and empathy, and his constant rage and disgust and contempt are so clearly and efficiently on display in this video that I don't need to justify why I don't think that Sargon has anything to contribute to the conversation.

I watched that debate, and honestly, neither of them came out looking good...but in all honesty, Thomas lost his shit a LOT more than Sargon did, and I think ended up looking much worse. Sargon repeatedly tried to boil down to the principles and why they disagree, but all Thomas was interested in doing was throwing shade to try and make Sargon look like an awful human. In all honesty, the "debate" was kind of a circus, but BOTH sides contributed to that, not just Sargon.

I mean, you say "His rage and and disgust," but Sargon just looked amused. it was THOMAS losing his shit, not Sargon. It was Thomas with the emotional arguments and reactionary responses, not Sargon. Sargon was actually trying to be relatively civil, and Thomas was the one engaging in personal attacks. Hell, he even turned around and started hurling abuse at the AUDIENCE as well. Which is...not the thing to do. >.>

No, it most certainly is the point.  If I were to come to you and say 'The Weekly World News has an article saying that JFK and Elvis are living together in San Francisco', you would have every right to dismiss that without a second glance, because the Weekly World News was, in its day, exactly the sort of tabloid that would write up whatever pack of fiction would get the most 'views'.  (It worked until the Internet came around and people could read creepypastas instead.)

Yeah, but they're hardly comparable. If you said that the Weekly World News was saying that Elvis and JFK are in SF, then yeah, I'd dismiss it as stupid. But that isn't what I said. I said that Sargon has a video that I think is actually a decent attempt at piecing together the different accounts of something that happened LAST WEEK that the police are still uncertain exactly what happened. That is hardly the same thing, so your analogy is kind of a false one.

If you said to me, as somebody that I respect the opinions of and who I know is not prone to wild conspiracy theories or irrational thought that the WWN had a surprisingly decent attempt at working out what happened in Vegas, I would say "Huh, if Oniya thinks it's worth a nose, I might as well skim through it and see what I think. What's the harm?"
But then, I guess I just have more time on my hands hands than some other people. >.>

[Oniya]

And I would honestly hope that when you found out I'd used such a terrible source, that your opinion of my credibility would go down.

[Vergil Tanner]

I'm not saying that Sargon is a.credible source. I'm saying that a broken clock is right twice a day, and I think that this might be one of those times. It's very hard to be wrong on 100% of what you say, after all, and I don't think that anybodies credibility should go down because they've said "I know he isn't normally a good source, but I think on this occasion he's made a respectable effort.
I mean, I'd like to think whatever credibility I might have can survive saying " I think this is an uncharacteristic example of an actually half decent video by him." Unless you're saying that because I happen to think this video isn't bad, I'm now tainted despite you not having watched it? I don't think that's particularly fair.

[Oniya]

No, I'm saying that if I watch the video and determine that it is indeed a horrible source, that your credibility will be lowered.  However, first I have to decide if the value I place on my time makes those 40 minutes a good risk.  As you say, perhaps you have more free time than others.

[Vergil Tanner]

Aaah, I see. Then with that, I agree with you. Though if you do find it a horrible source, then I'd like you to tell me why so I can consider whether I think you're right or not :P I do want my beliefs and opinions to be backed by fact, after all xD

And yeah, I know I have a lot more time. I listened to it on the train to work the other day; I have like an hour and a half journey to school, so I have about three hours of travel to kill every day xD