# Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert. The deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*This is happening right now. The only links I have are via Twitter. Will try to update the OP when I get more info.



 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914740130765733888
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/las-vegas-police-investigating-shooting-mandalay-bay-n806461

*


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

This is so fucking awful. I can't believe this happened here.


----------



## MillionDollarProns (Feb 10, 2011)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

This is terrible. To make it worse a lot of artists I like were performing, I hope they're all okay.


----------



## Architect-Rollins (Apr 3, 2016)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

The videos I've seen are very hard to watch, very scary. I've heard they got one of the suspects or he was found dead.


----------



## KO Bossy (Oct 23, 2011)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/las-vegas-shooting-1.4316121


Apparently people reported seeing muzzle flashes from the upper floors of the Mandalay Bay, so I guess the shooters were firing down at the people. So far, 2 confirmed dead and about 2 dozen injured. Just shocking.


----------



## adamclark52 (Nov 27, 2015)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

...I was there last week

...fuck this world


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

Terrible. That was hard to listen to. Can't imagine something like that. Truly evil. I'm sure the fatality numbers shall rise. Just hope they get the bastard(s) responsible for this.


----------



## nucklehead88 (Dec 17, 2012)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/21038/web

Link to the police scanner. This is awful.


----------



## .christopher. (Jan 14, 2014)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

Terrifying videos

2 dead, 24 injured, 12 in critical condition

maybe 2-3 potential shooters, 1 confirmed down

shootings apparently came from one of the persons hotel room on the 32nd floor - he wasnt at the festival. gunshot came from a high altitude


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

I think the most fucked up thing about this is that I've started to grow numb from all these shootings. I won't lie, nowadays it feels like a shooting or attack like this happens every other week now that I no longer feel much sympathy, sadness or anger. It feels like just another day now.


----------



## Ronny (Apr 7, 2016)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

What human being would open fire on a bunch of innocent civilians enjoying themselves at a concert?

Disgusted, hope the shooter(s) die a painful death in prison.


----------



## Banez (Dec 18, 2012)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

RIP to the victims that are dead, hopefully the rest will survive who got injured.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Grim stuff indeed. Didn't even have the guts to be in the mix, just shooting from his safe space.


----------



## MillionDollarProns (Feb 10, 2011)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

20+ dead and 100+ injured confirmed at press conference. :mj2


----------



## swagger_ROCKS (Jun 5, 2010)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*



MillionDollarProns said:


> 20+ dead and 100+ injured confirmed at press conference. :mj2


I was reaallly hoping for at the least some people in critical condition, but will recover. Fuck all of them (the shooters of course). that vid was so hard to watch. telling people to calm down and not to push like that. they're all just terrified as fuck and didn't expect to go out to a concert for this bullshit


----------



## Slickback (Jun 17, 2015)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

Fuck when i saw it an hour ago, there were 2 confirmed dead. 


Just horrible


----------



## venkyrenga (Jan 10, 2016)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

This is terrible. 

Any information on what the motive is?


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*



venkyrenga said:


> This is terrible.
> 
> Any information on what the motive is?


*None yet. He was killed by the police but they haven't released his name or anything like that. They are looking for his female companion, however. *


----------



## Slickback (Jun 17, 2015)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

That video is just horrific to watch and listen to


----------



## venkyrenga (Jan 10, 2016)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*



AryaDark said:


> *None yet. He was killed by the police but they haven't released his name or anything like that. They are looking for his female companion, however. *


Yeah I read that too. He is a local man, so I believe he is not some Al Qaeda guy or something. I am guessing he must be a psychopath. But hard to believe it's just one guy, the gun shots sounded like more than one were firing.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

Terrorist attack in Edmonton and now Las Vegas. ☹

Metro sheriff confirms the shooter was firing from his Mandalay Bay hotel room on the 32 floor while Jason Aldean was performing on stage. He fired his automatic weapon, emptied his clip, reloaded, and fired again. 280 rounds in 31 rounds.

Metro has killed suspect (a Las Vegas resident) in his room. They had The Strip on lockdown in twenty minutes. 20 people killed. 100 plus injured.

Reports of shootings at other casinos are fake news.

Suspect has been confirmed to be Stephen Paddock, companion of Mary Lou Danley (person of interest who reportedly told concert goers 45 minutes before the shooting happened that they were all going to die.)










- Vic


----------



## Slickback (Jun 17, 2015)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

They are looking for a woman 











Her image is all over Twitter, but nothing confirmed yet about who she is or relationship to shooter


----------



## Clique (Sep 9, 2007)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

This is devastating. I just want to cry for the people affected. 

One person did all the shooting and he's dead, but over 50 people killed and over 200 injured...I am at a loss...


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

Terribly sad. Peace and strength to everyone affected.

This needs to stop happening. People shouldn't have to fear going out in public where there are crowds. I wish there was a solution that could work for everyone but I can't think what it would be.


----------



## DoolieNoted (Dec 5, 2015)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

NBC (amongst others) just confirmed the shooter was 64yo Stephen Paddock..

This makes zero fucking sense at the moment.. Not that this stuff ever makes sense, but motivation?


----------



## Crasp (Feb 26, 2014)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

I'm almost dreading them establishing his motivation.

I hate how ordinary this all feels.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

That's odd. Why would a man so old commit mass murder? Usually the perpetrators of such crimes are far younger and just doing it for attention.


----------



## greasykid1 (Dec 22, 2015)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

Horrible news. I hate seeing it, but it's neither shocking nor even surprising any more.

What really sickens me is the people in authority "sending prayers", and thinking that is enough, when they actually have the power to cut down on these incidents. Mass shootings in America are not unusual. It's more surprising if there's NO mass shooting on any given day. It's just that the media only bother reporting the big ones now.

So damn depressing.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*



ForYourOwnGood said:


> That's odd. Why would a man so old commit mass murder? Usually the perpetrators of such crimes are far younger and just doing it for attention.


I expect it will be political, religious or moral outrage of some sort. There are a lot of angry people right now who feel threatened by what they perceive as mass movements against what they value. This applies to all sides and all viewpoints. The constant stream of information, and disinformation, that we're all surrounded with thanks to our constant access to traditional and social media is making us crazier by the day.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*



> That's odd. Why would a man so old commit mass murder? Usually the perpetrators of such crimes are far younger and just doing it for attention.


Hopefully, this will encourage the casinos to beef up security otherwise future outdoor events will be jeopardy.

- Vic


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

Absolutely horrible news. Latest I've heard from the BBC is that the death toll is 50+ with over 200 injured.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

50...woah. That's horrific.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

Deadliest mass shooting in America. Omg.

This feel like left-wing nutjob trying to prove a point in my completely baseless speculation.


----------



## JDP2016 (Apr 4, 2016)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

50!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you shitting me?????????????


50!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Jersey (Jun 24, 2014)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

Crazy madness behavior


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse (Jun 20, 2014)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

Absolutely beyond terrible. So much evil for no reason. So many families who have to grieve because of one pathetic cowards actions.

This shit has to be stopped.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*

Jesus Christ thats insane.


----------



## Mordecay (Aug 15, 2014)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert. The deadliest mass shooting in US history.*

Reading the news when I woke up felt so bizarre, yet sadly, I don't feel surprised. I feel bad for all those people who just wanted to have fun and some nut case ended or ruined their lifes for no reason.


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

The scale is horrific. The sounds are horrific. I haven't heard gunfire like that outside footage of fucking soldiers with their automatic weapons. 

This isn't surprising though. Deja vu and extreme lunacy. Feel awful for the people injured and the families and friends of those that have been killed. This shouldn't happen. It shouldn't be a possibility of happening. 

Very sadly - Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Tommy-V (Sep 4, 2006)

This has sadly become a common occurrence. You can expect multiple mass shootings every year now.

So much evil in the world


----------



## MillionDollarProns (Feb 10, 2011)

Press release circa ~2 minutes ago:

"An Estimated 406 People Transported to Hospitals, 50 Dead"

Source

406 people sent to hospitals


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

Absolutely a tragedy. 50+ dead and 400+ injured. I really wish we knew 100% what the motives were. Drugs, politics, the lady getting angry at the crowd? I have been angry at people at concerts many times, but would never shoot over 400 people. Sadly this happens way to often everywhere in the world.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

Truly horrible event. What the hell drives people to do something like this?


----------



## Buttermaker (Sep 29, 2009)

This is right out of control. What I'm wondering is how did he get that stock pile of weapons into his hotel room any way. Just insane.


----------



## blackholeson (Oct 3, 2014)

*Glad to hear that maniac is dead. What a terrible tragedy.*


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

krtgolfing said:


> Absolutely a tragedy. 50+ dead and 400+ injured. I really wish we knew 100% what the motives were. Drugs, politics, the lady getting angry at the crowd? I have been angry at people at concerts many times, but would never shoot over 400 people. Sadly this happens way to often everywhere in the world.


Mass shootings really don't happen everywhere in the world...


----------



## Ronny (Apr 7, 2016)

krtgolfing said:


> Absolutely a tragedy. 50+ dead and 400+ injured. I really wish we knew 100% what the motives were. Drugs, politics, the lady getting angry at the crowd? *I have been angry at people at concerts many times, but would never shoot over 400 people*. Sadly this happens way to often *everywhere* in the world.


Exactly, what would firing at thousands of innocent civilians achieve?

Not everywhere. You could say many places, but not everywhere - theres still faith in humanity.


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

themuel1 said:


> Mass shootings really don't happen everywhere in the world...


Eagles of Death Metal concert in France... While yes it was ISIS, it was still a MASS SHOOTING.


----------



## TKOK (Apr 6, 2006)

50 dead and 400 injured? goddamn man.


----------



## Ronny (Apr 7, 2016)

krtgolfing said:


> Eagles of Death Metal concert in France... While yes it was ISIS, it was still a MASS SHOOTING.


HONG KONG :cudi


----------



## Cowabunga (Oct 9, 2010)

50 dead and 400 injured?! Fucking hell man, what would compel someone to do this?!

This is a terrorist act. Fact.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

Have they established any kind of motivation for this? I mean this is about as senseless as anything can be. 

And how in the hell did he get that stockpile of weapons into a Vegas hotel room without being noticed?


----------



## Lenny Leonard (Dec 17, 2016)

Asshole shooter prob just wanted to be famous. Heard the smoke coming from his guns triggered the smoke alarm which is how they found him


----------



## DELETE (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*



venkyrenga said:


> This is terrible.
> 
> Any information on what the motive is?


He probably didnt like country music.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

50 DEAD?


----------



## JonLeduc (May 5, 2016)

This is horrific. The guy was on 32th floor of the hotel. So even if you run or stay down, you can get shot anyway.

I can't believe people are staying there taking videos while you can hear bullets siffling and landing on the ground around them.

Fucking Run or hide i don't know. Damn.

My prayers goes to the people affected by this.


----------



## Banez (Dec 18, 2012)

JonLeduc said:


> This is horrific. The guy was on 32th floor of the hotel. So even if you run or stay down, you can get shot anyway.
> 
> I can't believe people are staying there taking videos while you can hear bullets siffling and landing on the ground around them.
> 
> ...


While your logic is sound and right.. here's the thing. People never were taught to look up for the danger.

They didn't know what was going on, they didn't know which direction was being fired. Kinda explains why they just went down and waited it to stop.


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

JonLeduc said:


> This is horrific. The guy was on 32th floor of the hotel. So even if you run or stay down, you can get shot anyway.
> 
> I can't believe people are staying there taking videos while you can hear bullets siffling and landing on the ground around them.
> 
> ...


Exactly! Why the fuck would I take a video when there is somebody shooting innocent people. I would be looking for my friends/ family and then running like hell out of there. Not going to try and take a video when my life could be at risk.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

*The right wing media is refusing to call this an act of terrorism, and they're showing pictures of his Asian Australian girlfriend instead of the actual white male shooter. I can't wait for Trump to call him a "fine guy" or ignore it entirely.*


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

Legit BOSS said:


> *The right wing media is refusing to call this an act of terrorism, and they're showing pictures of his Asian Australian girlfriend instead of the actual white male shooter. I can't wait for Trump to call him a "fine guy" or ignore it entirely.*


Terrorism has to be religiously or politically motivated, though. If this guy _was_ just killing people to get in the papers, that's not exactly terrorism, is it? Not every spree killer is a terrorist, whether white or otherwise.


----------



## Kink_Brawn (Mar 4, 2015)

Legit BOSS said:


> *The right wing media is refusing to call this an act of terrorism, and they're showing pictures of his Asian Australian girlfriend instead of the actual white male shooter. I can't wait for Trump to call him a "fine guy" or ignore it entirely.*


Mmmm...Just like the left wing media ignored the Sudanese immigrant who was racially motivated in shooting up a white church the other week. Trump didn't comment on that either.

I bet you were just seething to post some shit about right wing/race/Trump related crap in lieu of a tragedy. You surely are a great person.


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

This is crazy. I'm almost numb to these mass shootings now. You can't even enjoy a concert in peace or go to church without being under threat. This was an act of domestic terrorism and needs to be treated as such.
@Sol Katti I'm glad you're alright. I sent you a message to make sure you were alright.


----------



## DELETE (Aug 23, 2016)

Bruh why the shooter look like Eric Andre if he was white.


----------



## ★Th0t Patr0L★ (Oct 22, 2013)

Legit BOSS said:


> *The right wing media is refusing to call this an act of terrorism, and they're showing pictures of his Asian Australian girlfriend instead of the actual white male shooter. I can't wait for Trump to call him a "fine guy" or ignore it entirely.*


Half of the bodies aren't even cold yet and both sides are politicizing it. fpalm


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

ForYourOwnGood said:


> Terrorism has to be religiously or politically motivated, though. If this guy _was_ just killing people to get in the papers, that's not exactly terrorism, is it? Not every spree killer is a terrorist, whether white or otherwise.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism

*It says nothing about religious motives. You're just conditioned to believe that terrorism is associated with Muslims. All killing sprees are acts of domestic terrorism.*


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

Legit BOSS said:


> *The right wing media is refusing to call this an act of terrorism, and they're showing pictures of his Asian Australian girlfriend instead of the actual white male shooter. I can't wait for Trump to call him a "fine guy" or ignore it entirely.*


Because there's a very clear definition of what terrorism is and what makes someone a terrorist. As of right now, he doesn't fall into the category of a terrorist, unless something is known about his religious and political affiliation that would make him one.


----------



## Stipe Tapped (Jun 21, 2013)

Legit BOSS said:


> *The right wing media is refusing to call this an act of terrorism, and they're showing pictures of his Asian Australian girlfriend instead of the actual white male shooter. I can't wait for Trump to call him a "fine guy" or ignore it entirely.*


Your attempt to politicize this without waiting for details is fucking disgusting.


----------



## Sensei Utero (May 1, 2016)

It's clear I'm no Trump supporter, but I just find it embarrassing that this tragic incident has occurred and certain folk are using it to target Trump. The facts/most of the facts about the incident aren't even out yet. Please have some respect.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

Why the fuck are people making this a political issue already? Calm your tits at least until we know all the facts please.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

Legit BOSS said:


> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism
> 
> *It says nothing about religious motives. You're just conditioned to believe that terrorism is associated with Muslims. All killing sprees are acts of domestic terrorism.*


The definition you linked to clearly stated that terrorism was usually politically motivated. My point still stands. Not every mass shooting is a terrorist attack, because not every mass shooter is acting on ideological grounds.
Consider the Orlando shooter. Regardless of _claiming_ he was working for ISIS, he was in fact a closeted homosexual acting out because of his own sexual issues. That's not terrorism.

If this guy did this because he wanted to prove a political point or a religious point, it's terrorism. If he just did it for attention, it's not.


----------



## Headliner (Jun 24, 2004)

Can we please leave race, nationality and politics out of this for once. This is about basic human decency and moral standards. This news made me really sad. It's depressing honestly.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

Zydeco said:


> Your attempt to politicize this without waiting for details is fucking disgusting.












*What was that? Try paying attention. These are facts. They have come out and said they won't label it terrorism yet. It's fucking terrorism. I just looked and left leaning NBC is guilty of it as well: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/02/shooter-las-vegas-strip-police.html

Anyone refusing to label it as terrorism needs to be called out. "FAKE NEWS" CNN did it first.*


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

InUtero said:


> It's clear I'm no Trump supporter, but I just find it embarrassing that this tragic incident has occurred and certain folk are using it to target Trump. The facts/most of the facts about the incident aren't even out yet. Please have some respect.


It's incredibly sad. Its the same as blaming Bernie Sanders for his supporter shooting at Republican politicians. It's just stupid and a waste of time


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

ForYourOwnGood said:


> The definition you linked to clearly stated that terrorism was usually politically motivated. My point still stands. Not every mass shooting is a terrorist attack, because not every mass shooter is acting on ideological grounds.
> Consider the Orlando shooter. Regardless of _claiming_ he was working for ISIS, he was in fact a closeted homosexual acting out because of his own sexual issues. That's not terrorism.
> 
> If this guy did this because he wanted to prove a political point or a religious point, it's terrorism. If he just did it for attention, it's not.


*Your point does not stand. It says "usually" not limited to. The Orlando shooter was a terrorist. The sniper from last decade was a terrorist. Black, White, yellow, orange, green, it doesn't matter: mass murder is terrorism and the standard should remain the same across the board. *


----------



## Bushmaster (Sep 28, 2010)

Woke up thinking today was gonna be shit due to having to do inventory and it just being a Monday. Feel a bit silly complaining now because I can't imagine what it was like for the victims and he families atm. been to a concert at the MGM so I know how crowded and crazy it can be in any big event in Vegas. 

Just been listening to CNN all morning and getting the news that way. Hearing the screams, the gunfire and the tales of what happened from survivors is just sad. A friend asking for help for her buddy who got shot in the head, strangers helping but making not that she was lifeless. Hearing the acts of bravery from police and average citizens is great but the loss of life just outweighs that. 

A real shame that any tragedy that happens these days has to turn into something about Trump or left wing/right wing. This is before we know much too. There's no way to stop these types of events sadly.


----------



## SovereignVA (Jan 3, 2012)

Legit BOSS said:


> *What was that? Try paying attention. These are facts. They have come out and said they won't label it terrorism yet. It's fucking terrorism. I just looked and left leaning NBC is guilty of it as well: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/02/shooter-las-vegas-strip-police.html
> 
> Anyone refusing to label it as terrorism needs to be called out. "FAKE NEWS" CNN did it first.*


The reason they won't label it as terrorism is because they're not sure what his motive was.

If you kill a bunch of civilians, they won't label it as terrorism. If you kill a bunch of civilians with a political or religious objective, they'll call it terrorism.

It's not how I would go about labeling things, but you should get the fuck over it. Learn some damn compassion over what happened and not what people are calling it.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

Legit BOSS said:


> *Your point does not stand. It says "usually" not limited to. The Orlando shooter was a terrorist. The sniper from last decade was a terrorist. Black, White, yellow, orange, green, it doesn't matter: mass murder is terrorism and the standard should remain the same across the board. *


Here's the thing, terrorists are a completely different animal from the typical spree shooter. Depending on where you live, for instance, those terrorists may well be considered the good guys. And regardless of what they do, there comes a time when governments negotiate with terrorist groups.

A spree shooter acting on some personal neurosis is simply not the same beast. By that logic, Elliot Rodger - a loser who threw a hissy fit because he couldn't find a girlfriend - would be considered a terrorist despite his motives boiling down to a temper tantrum.

Treating both as the same is not only intellectually dishonest, it does not allow for any attempts to combat the environment which breeds terrorism - be it institutional Islamophobia or the political radicalization of the white working classes.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

ForYourOwnGood said:


> Here's the thing, terrorists are a completely different animal from the typical spree shooter. Depending on where you live, for instance, those terrorists may well be considered the good guys. And regardless of what they do, there comes a time when governments negotiate with terrorist groups.
> 
> A spree shooter acting on some personal neurosis is simply not the same beast. By that logic, Elliot Rodger - a loser who threw a hissy fit because he couldn't find a girlfriend - would be considered a terrorist despite his motives boiling down to a temper tantrum.
> 
> Treating both as the same is not only intellectually dishonest, it does not allow for any attempts to combat the environment which breeds terrorism - be it institutional Islamophobia or the political radicalization of the white working classes.


Man such a great post.:applause


----------



## BoFreakinDallas (Jul 8, 2017)

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-57086


:crying: Sadly if a whole bunch of grade school kids shot dead don't change peoples minds Vegas aint gonna get people to push this to stop.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

Iron Man said:


> Woke up thinking today was gonna be shit due to having to do inventory and it just being a Monday. Feel a bit silly complaining now because I can't imagine what it was like for the victims and he families atm. been to a concert at the MGM so I know how crowded and crazy it can be in any big event in Vegas.
> 
> Just been listening to CNN all morning and getting the news that way. Hearing the screams, the gunfire and the tales of what happened from survivors is just sad. A friend asking for help for her buddy who got shot in the head, strangers helping but making not that she was lifeless. Hearing the acts of bravery from police and average citizens is great but the loss of life just outweighs that.
> 
> A real shame that any tragedy that happens these days has to turn into something about Trump or left wing/right wing. This is before we know much too. There's no way to stop these types of events sadly.


Everyone is quick to blame the other side.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

IS are claiming responsibility supposedly. I'm on my phone but there are a million gifs appropriate for that. What a bunch of divs thinking they can take credit.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

SovereignVA said:


> It's not how I would go about labeling things, but you should get the fuck over it. Learn some damn compassion over what happened and not what people are calling it.


*No, I won't get the fuck over it, because I have friends in Vegas who had THEIR friends shot right in front of them. I woke up to the news on Facebook by an actual survivor who was pissed that the news isn't calling this terrorism. If they make an account on this site, would that justify the outrage? If the answer is no, then don't worry about what I'm worried about, because I'm attacking the media, not any right wing poster here. *



ForYourOwnGood said:


> Here's the thing, terrorists are a completely different animal from the typical spree shooter. Depending on where you live, for instance, those terrorists may well be considered the good guys. And regardless of what they do, there comes a time when governments negotiate with terrorist groups.
> 
> A spree shooter acting on some personal neurosis is simply not the same beast. By that logic, Elliot Rodger - a loser who threw a hissy fit because he couldn't find a girlfriend - would be considered a terrorist despite his motives boiling down to a temper tantrum.
> 
> Treating both as the same is not only intellectually dishonest, it does not allow for any attempts to combat the environment which breeds terrorism - be it institutional Islamophobia or the political radicalization of the white working classes.


*We can agree to disagree. *


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

BoFreakinDallas said:


> http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-57086
> 
> 
> :crying: Sadly if a whole bunch of grade school kids shot dead don't change peoples minds Vegas aint gonna get people to push this to stop.


The NRA, it's supporters, and all other "2a" activists, as well as the politicians in office that block any sort of reasonable gun control legislation have blood on their hands for this. How many mass shootings like these have to happen before we actually do something about it?


----------



## Flair Flop (May 21, 2011)

There’s a reason for the different classifications when it comes to mass killings. You cant lump someone that kills for religious reasons in with, say, James Huberty, who you also can’t lump in with Jeffrey Dahmer. Their reasons for killing couldn’t possibly be more different and if prevention is truly what the goal is they must be looked upon for their individual motives. Fuck a name! How in the fuck is being called a serial killer any worse or better than being called a terrorist?


----------



## Bushmaster (Sep 28, 2010)

nyelator said:


> Everyone is quick to blame the other side.


Happens all the time for all groups. A tragedy like this happens and someone has to use it as ammo to attack the other side. And I'm just heard listening to survivors and just imagining what it would feel like. 

I'm planning a trip to LA and anything could happen while I'm there. Shit like this just hurts because people go out to live their life and have fun and it's the last thing you expect even when attacks like this happen what seems like every few months.


----------



## 751161 (Nov 23, 2012)

Holy fuck this is awful. Hard to even watch the footage.

I've personally been more fearful of going out to very public places lately, so much so that I've been avoiding doing so. People shouldn't have to be in constant fear when they go out to have fun at concerts. It's horrible.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas (Jul 8, 2017)

nyelator said:


> Everyone is quick to blame the other side.


Here are the facts as we know them

A civilian and possible civilian accomplice used military grade weaponary to shoot 50 people dead and injured hundreds of others. Whether he did solegally or illegally chances are 95% of adults in this country could buy the items he used through legal means with little effort.


I doubt the family victims care if he was a 4Chan Alt Righer, or Antifafa, or the killers mom never loved him when he was little and verbally or physically abused him,or if he was just genetically pre disposed to some mental disorder, or if he is a Bernie Bro or if he listen to conservative talk radio all day,or if follows no politics and sits in his underwear playing bejeweled and candy crush every day,or if he was a Moslem,Christian,Jew,Athiest ,or if he was an Opium addict or addicted to some other drug. 

This will keep happening again and again because almost every able bodied adult can buy military and police grade weaponary that goes far beyond self defense items.


----------



## altreineirialx (Sep 20, 2016)

Crazy democrat shot up country music christians.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

SovereignVA said:


> The reason they won't label it as terrorism is because they're not sure what his motive was.
> 
> If you kill a bunch of civilians, they won't label it as terrorism. If you kill a bunch of civilians with a political or religious objective, they'll call it terrorism.
> 
> It's not how I would go about labeling things, but you should get the fuck over it. Learn some damn compassion over what happened and not what people are calling it.


it was a white man that did it most likely the media and the government will spin this around and blame it on a mental illness. but was this a minority or a muslim doing it they'd quickly pull the terrorism card.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

King of Logic said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > IS are claiming responsibility supposedly. I'm on my phone but there are a million gifs appropriate for that. What a bunch of divs thinking they can take credit.
> ...


Yes http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-10-thunderbolt-warthog-centcom-a7372101.html

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/04/isis-...london-attack-but-put-the-wrong-date-6685157/

www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldvi...worth-reading-closely/?utm_term=.8700a3cb9688

If it comes to light this man was isis I'll eat my hat.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

Watching the interview with the shooter's brother. It's odd the dumb questions they ask and his sarcastic responses to them. "How is this affecting your life?" "My brother just killed 50 people. Strangely enough it is having an affect on me. Kind of have a headache right now."


----------



## Narcisse (Nov 24, 2015)

Flair Flop said:


> There’s a reason for the different classifications when it comes to mass killings. You cant lump someone that kills for religious reasons in with, say, James Huberty, who you also can’t lump in with Jeffrey Dahmer. Their reasons for killing couldn’t possibly be more different and if prevention is truly what the goal is they must be looked upon for their individual motives. Fuck a name! How in the fuck is being called a serial killer any worse or better than being called a terrorist?


Exactly. Motivation is the entire reason why such different classifications exist with a view to possible prevention. It in no way should be used to detract from the fact that this is still a horrible tragedy. Only time will tell if it was a preventable one.


----------



## altreineirialx (Sep 20, 2016)

His crazy liberal brother knew I bet. They run in packs like rats.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

Flair Flop said:


> There’s a reason for the different classifications when it comes to mass killings. You cant lump someone that kills for religious reasons in with, say, James Huberty, who you also can’t lump in with Jeffrey Dahmer. Their reasons for killing couldn’t possibly be more different and if prevention is truly what the goal is they must be looked upon for their individual motives. Fuck a name! How in the fuck is being called a serial killer any worse or better than being called a terrorist?


*It's not. I have a problem with terrorism being associated ONLY with Muslims. Domestic terrorism is a colorless issue, but we keep being fed the narrative of it ONLY coming from the Middle East. I can be outraged by this narrative while expressing concern for the affected individuals; some of whom I happen to know. These aren't mutually exclusive emotions. I didn't say anything here because I picked up the phone and called them directly. I'm not sitting here and laughing at the media's incompetence on this issue because it bothers me and it needs to be corrected.*


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

Legit BOSS said:


> *It's not. I have a problem with terrorism being associated ONLY with Muslims. Domestic terrorism is a colorless issue, but we keep being fed the narrative of it ONLY coming from the Middle East. I can be outraged by this narrative while expressing concern for the affected individuals; some of whom I happen to know. These aren't mutually exclusive emotions. I didn't say anything here because I picked up the phone and called them directly. I'm not sitting here and laughing at the media's incompetence on this issue because it bothers me and it needs to be corrected.*


How is labeling this terrorism going to solve anything exactly? Why not just call these things mass killings/ shootings? People should not be scared to go to a concert and get killed weather it be ISIS, Al Qaeda, or a fellow country.


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

The police are having a press briefing. The latest update is 58 killed and 515 injured in the Vegas shooting. There is no connection to ISIS according to police.


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

King of Logic said:


> What makes you think they're lying? Do they have a history of making false claims of responsibility?


So you're suggesting ISIS, a group of people that brutally kill innocent people around the world, are somehow above lying? 

I can't think of a terrorist incident in which it's only been one single group claiming responsibility. Terrorist cells have also even claimed to have blown stuff up that wasn't actually bombed. The TWA flight that was downed because of a fuel tank igniting on it's own vapours (sparked from crap wiring) was claimed to be done by several terrorist groups. 

They claim everything because they want the credit, no matter if they did it or not.


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

Empress said:


> The police are having a press briefing. The latest update is 58 killed and 515 injured in the Vegas shooting. There is no connection to ISIS according to police.


Holy shit. Incredible to think this is from just one guy shooting; These numbers just don't seem real!


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

Empress said:


> The police are having a press briefing. The latest update is 58 killed and 515 injured in the Vegas shooting. There is no connection to ISIS according to police.


*Wow, it was 100 injured and 20 killed when I woke up this morning. The Vegas police need more tactical snipers.*


----------



## Flair Flop (May 21, 2011)

Legit BOSS said:


> *It's not. I have a problem with terrorism being associated ONLY with Muslims. Domestic terrorism is a colorless issue, but we keep being fed the narrative of it ONLY coming from the Middle East. I can be outraged by this narrative while expressing concern for the affected individuals; some of whom I happen to know. These aren't mutually exclusive emotions. I didn't say anything here because I picked up the phone and called them directly. I'm not sitting here and laughing at the media's incompetence on this issue because it bothers me and it needs to be corrected.*


Do you remember when serial murder was almost exclusively associated with white males? When even the top profilers in the world were completely wrong in the DC sniper case at least partially because it was so engrained into them to automatically think white male around 25 years of age. The most famous profilers in the world have spoken at length on this. This happened even as statistically things were beginning to shift away from it being so white male dominated. When people think serial killer, they think Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer. That’s nit going to change as today’s cases aren’t as widely publicized. When they think mass murder, Dylan and Eric are generally the first ones people think of. The word terrorism is probably always going to be most strongly with 9/11. 

I see the point you’re making, but when Roof opened fire on the church in my home state I quickly categorized that as terrorism as it was racially and politically motivated.


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

King of Logic said:


> Above lying, no. However, I'll judge their credibility the same way I'll judge anyone else's: by past behavior.
> 
> If they have a history of lying, which I've not seen (draykorinee's links were duds), I'll be highly skeptical.
> 
> If they don't, I'll side with believing them.


I'll judge the validity of their claim on actual evidence and keep an open mind until then thanks.


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

Here are clips of the updates:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914877881594945536

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914878821068718080

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914882240802426881
The shooter's brother


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914859562699776002

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914858082747998209


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

Flair Flop said:


> Do you remember when serial murder was almost exclusively associated with white males? When even the top profilers in the world were completely wrong in the DC sniper case at least partially because it was so engrained into them to automatically think white male around 25 years of age. The most famous profilers in the world have spoken at length on this. This haprobably always going to be most strongly with 9/11.


It is so funny you mention the DC Sniper. I lived near DC while all of that was going on, and the investigation was a total shit show. 

We were led to believe that it was, as you said, a white male fitting the profile of what is typical in cases like this. They also told us that "A White Van was spotted at the scene of each shooting" which had us all paranoid about white vans (despite the fact that I could walk down the street and find half a dozen white vans easily).


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

Flair Flop said:


> Do you remember when serial murder was almost exclusively associated with white males? *When even the top profilers in the world were completely wrong in the DC sniper case at least partially because it was so engrained into them to automatically think white male around 25 years of age. *The most famous profilers in the world have spoken at length on this. This happened even as statistically things were beginning to shift away from it being so white male dominated. When people think serial killer, they think Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer. That’s nit going to change as today’s cases aren’t as widely publicized. When they think mass murder, Dylan and Eric are generally the first ones people think of. The word terrorism is probably always going to be most strongly with 9/11.
> 
> I see the point you’re making, but when Roof opened fire on the church in my home state I quickly categorized that as terrorism as it was racially and politically motivated.


This hits home. I had a friend in college. His dad was killed by the DC sniper. We all thought it was a white male. You're right, assumptions can be wrong. I won't disagree with you there.

However, I will also stick up for @Legit BOSS. He's getting trashed as a race baiter, unsympathetic, etc. Not necessarily by you but that has been the argument to shut down his POV. 

He has friends in Vegas, some of whom were hurt I believe. I've got a friend who was a victim in the Pulse shooting. It's just a bit unnerving that if a shooter is a white male, terrorism is not seen as a motivating factor. Instead, it's the lone wolf narrative. With this story first started to get out, many were quick to blame Muslims. They weren't waiting for facts. He was calling out that double standard.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

Flair Flop said:


> Do you remember when serial murder was almost exclusively associated with White males? When even the top profilers in the world were completely wrong in the DC sniper case at least partially because it was so engrained into them to automatically think White male around 25 years of age. The most famous profilers in the world have spoken at length on this. This happened even as statistically things were beginning to shift away from it being so White male dominated. When people think serial killer, they think Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer. That’s nit going to change as today’s cases aren’t as widely publicized. When they think mass murder, Dylan and Eric are generally the first ones people think of. The word terrorism is probably always going to be most strongly with 9/11.
> 
> I see the point you’re making, but when Roof opened fire on the church in my home state I quickly categorized that as terrorism as it was racially and politically motivated.


*You're correct. I was 13 at the time, and remember assuming along with everyone else that it was a White guy because they're usually the serial killers. We were all shocked when it ended up being a Black father and son. I totally understand what you are saying. You seem slightly conservative leaning, so don't think I'm attacking YOUR views. You already know we're too close for me to even consider racism to be associated with you in any way. You're an older White conservative I'm an under 30 Black (social) liberal (fiscally conservative) and you're one of my favorite people here. 

My issue is with the general perception that domestic terrorism can only be labeled as such when it is a Muslim perpetrator-a philosophy that is USUALLY pushed by right wing media outlets. When they found out the Orlando shooter was Muslim, they didn't wait for facts, they called him a terrorist. Dylan Roof, like you said, was undeniably a terrorist. They hesitated to label him as such. They did the same for the vehicular homicide in Charlottesville. Why must we have all the details for White killers, yet IMMEDIATELY call Muslims terrorists? There's a clear double standard here. I was equally outraged about those incidents then as I am now. This mentality needs to change, but pretending like it doesn't exist won't help matters. I disagree with the notion that it's too soon to discuss it, because now is the best time to discuss it.*


----------



## Ben Lister (Jul 7, 2017)

Fucking hell man, this world is truly fucked. My heart goes about to all those suffering over there. Disappointed in you @Legit BOSS, thought you were better than that.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

Ben Lister said:


> Fucking hell man, this world is truly fucked. My heart goes about to all those suffering over there. Disappointed in you @Legit BOSS, thought you were better than that.


*Try reading. Unlike you on the other side of the world, I know people that are directly affected by this and spoke to them on the phone or on social media. That won't stop me from addressing bullshit double standards, and I will never be sorry about it.*


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

So the FBI say its not ISIS, its their job to protect the US so they won't randomly just say this. We still have to accept ISIS is telling the truth though, because other than the times I highlighted where they lied they don't lie.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

_*This world continues to be even more fucked, this is fucking sad and it really breaks my heart reading all of this and waking up to this as well. My step dad had to wake me up and tell me on happened to the people Las Vegas. It really makes me want to cry because I want people to do nothing but show love, kindness, passion, respect, and help each other instead of killing one another. My prayers goes out to the people that lost their families, friends, co workers, employees in the shooting. It's time for this world to show love and stop the hate.  *_


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

There's always going to be recency bias with stuff like this. Given that the amount of terrorism that was ISIS related over the last 5 years or so, our president currently, and how Muslim terrorism is presented in the media, it's no surprise that people are quick to judge when all of this is out on the table. I'm sure plenty don't mean harm, but yes, you'll always get a subset of people who are quick to point fingers and judge before details are presented, and those people do so with a purpose in mind. Can terrorism be done more by a certain subset of people? Perhaps, but can terrorism also be done by just about anybody who decides to put their mind to it? Also yes. 

Although I am becoming ever so desensitized to hearing about these mass shootings and terrorist attacks as they happen so often it seems, this one seems even worse than ever due to the sheer scope, and due to the person who carried out the attack being simply like an average joe. How was this allowed to happen, especially given the enormous amount of people in one location for a festival? Isn't there security, and how did he get access to the type of weapons needed to end the lives and injury so many so quickly, by himself? It's just mind-boggling, and generally scary and frighting to think about, much less witness with our own eyes. 

I hope for the best case scenario for anybody who has loved ones in the area, and hope that everybody injured can pull through. This kind of terrorism and violence has no place in our society, no matter what affiliation, and I think it is a problem that everybody should rise above together.


----------



## Ben Lister (Jul 7, 2017)

Legit BOSS said:


> *Try reading. Unlike you on the other side of the world, I know people that are directly affected by this and spoke to them on the phone or on social media. That won't stop me from addressing bullshit double standards.*


What you said isn't what bothered me, I agree it's terrorism but the fact you went straight to politics and refused like every else to offer love and sympathy on here is disrespectful. And I'm sorry for you and the people you know who are suffering.


----------



## MC (May 30, 2017)

Waht the hell is wrong with people? My condolences to the victims and their families of course.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

*sigh*


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

As I was following the chaos on social media of this horrific event, seeing everyone in my city in a clear panic, the furthest thing in my mind was the political affiliation of the shooter. 

But on Twitter, both sides were so quick to politicize it. It makes me sick.


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

Ben Lister said:


> What you said isn't what bothered me, I agree it's terrorism but the fact you went straight to politics and refused like every else to offer love and sympathy on here is disrespectful. And I'm sorry for you and the people you know who are suffering.


Do the written posts of "love and sympathy" from those of us on a wrestling message board do any good? Seems an odd and insensitive thing to criticise someone that has friends there because of this. 

Pretty sure the love and sympathy he'll directly show his friends involved in the situation will actually be of more use..... 

Just my thoughts. Not having a go at you. Just a little confused with the response.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

Fucking horrific. RIP to all of those poor people and hoping that the rest recover. What a sick motherfucker, this shouldn't be allowed to happen.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Another senseless mass shooting in the US, UGH, my heart and condolence goes out to all the families affected.


----------



## wwe9391 (Aug 31, 2016)

Anybody see Hillary’s tweet about this? What a fucking cunt


----------



## Ben Lister (Jul 7, 2017)

themuel1 said:


> Does the written posts of "love and sympathy" of those of us on a wrestling message board do any good? Seems an odd and insensitive thing to criticise someone that has friends there.
> 
> Pretty sure the love and sympathy he'll directly show his friends involved in the situation will actually be of more use.....
> 
> Just my thoughts. Not having a go at you. Just a little confused with the response.


It's the least he could have done on here just like very else did, I appreciate he's very angry and he has every right to be, it's a bloody awful situation right now but bringing politics into this was not the right thing to do. Only makes people more angry at stuff that doesn't have anything to do with this tragedy. At least do what every on else did on here first and then rant about ring wing media later.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

Ben Lister said:


> What you said isn't what bothered me, I agree it's terrorism but the fact you went straight to politics and refused like every else to offer love and sympathy on here is disrespectful. And I'm sorry for you and the people you know who are suffering.


*Then next time, don't assume my situation. For all you know, I could have dead friends over there, and guess what? I'd STILL be bringing up this issue. That doesn't make me any less sympathetic to this tragedy.*


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Ben Lister said:


> What you said isn't what bothered me, I agree it's terrorism but the fact you went straight to politics and refused like every else to offer love and sympathy on here is disrespectful. And I'm sorry for you and the people you know who are suffering.


Funny how when Trump goes right to politics when it's a Muslim killer its ok but the second its a white guy, oh people like you have a problem with it.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

> Shares in gun companies rose between 1-2% in the first few minutes of trading on Monday, just hours after the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told the BBC that shares in gun manufacturers tended to rise after events like these because "investors believe there will be a rush to purchase guns before new gun control regulations are put into place”.
> 
> Source @ 18:38


:hmm:


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

Ben Lister said:


> It's the least he could have done on here just like very else did, I appreciate he's very angry and he has every right to be, it's a bloody awful situation right now but bringing politics into this was not the right thing to do. Only makes people more angry at stuff that doesn't have anything to do with this tragedy. At least do what every on else did on here first and then rant about ring wing media later.


Ah, so a quick "Prayers for everyone involved" wait a day and then say what you want? 

Also seems very disingenuous if the only reason one expresses condolences and sympathy is because it's what everyone else has done.


----------



## Flair Flop (May 21, 2011)

Empress said:


> This hits home. I had a friend in college. His dad was killed by the DC sniper. We all thought it was a white male. You're right, assumptions can be wrong. I won't disagree with you there.
> 
> However, I will also stick up for @Legit BOSS. He's getting trashed as a race baiter, unsympathetic, etc. Not necessarily by you but that has been the argument to shut down his POV.
> 
> He has friends in Vegas, some of whom were hurt I believe. I've got a friend who was a victim in the Pulse shooting. It's just a bit unnerving that if a shooter is a white male, terrorism is not seen as a motivating factor. Instead, it's the lone wolf narrative. With this story first started to get out, many were quick to blame Muslims. They weren't waiting for facts. He was calling out that double standard.





Legit BOSS said:


> *You're correct. I was 13 at the time, and remember assuming along with everyone else that it was a White guy because they're usually the serial killers. We were all shocked when it ended up being a Black father and son. I totally understand what you are saying. You seem slightly conservative leaning, so don't think I'm attacking YOUR views. You already know we're too close for me to even consider racism to be associated with you in any way. You're an older White conservative I'm an under 30 Black (social) liberal (fiscally conservative) and you're one of my favorite people here.
> 
> My issue is with the general perception that domestic terrorism can only be labeled as such when it is a Muslim perpetrator-a philosophy that is USUALLY pushed by right wing media outlets. When they found out the Orlando shooter was Muslim, they didn't wait for facts, they called him a terrorist. Dylan Roof, like you said, was undeniably a terrorist. They hesitated to label him as such. They did the same for the vehicular homicide in Charlottesville. Why must we have all the details for White killers, yet IMMEDIATELY call Muslims terrorists? There's a clear double standard here. I was equally outraged about those incidents then as I am now. This mentality needs to change, but pretending like it doesn't exist won't help matters. I disagree with the notion that it's too soon to discuss it, because now is the best time to discuss it.*


I can’t say that I’ve ever dealt with having someone I know be killed or even involved in one of these high profile cases. I can also fully understand how that will obviously make a case far more personal. It’s something that I’ve spent most of life having an interest in, though. I actually burned all of my true crime books at a certain stage of my life as I felt it wasn’t something I needed in my life as it is pretty dark stuff to take in. 

I’m not attacking LB at all here. His point is completely valid. Some of us do tend to jump the gun before having all the facts and terrorism isn’t as often associated with whites. Even though there has been many cases throughout history. The only point I was making is that whites do have their own stigma attached to them when it comes to especially murders that are of a sexual nature. People want to be right so they can have their little “I told you so”bullshit so they jump to the most likely statistical probability which isn’t always right. The double standerd you’re my referring to is there. Sadly it’s not the only one of its kind, though. 

I’m not going to jump the gun on this guy, but I will say that I was a bit surprised at what his brother had to say about there being no interest in guns. 
@Legit BOSS you know you’re one of my fav people here whose opinion I greatly value. Whether it be about wrestling or politics you often offer me a perspective I wouldn’t have thought of. I’ve never considered the possibility of racism in any of our disagreements either. The mutual respect and understanding that we are different in some ways has always been there.


----------



## Ben Lister (Jul 7, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> Funny how when Trump goes right to politics when it's a Muslim killer its ok but the second its a white guy, oh people like you have a problem with it.


Wait what the hell are you talking about, it's never okay to talk about those things straight away after horrible events like this. Please don't take my comment as me been some right wing trump loving idiot. I hate that man and hate his double standards to these terrorist attacks. I always have a problem with people bringing politics into stuff like this when it isn't needed. Whether it be ring wing or left wing it's wrong.


----------



## Sasquatch Sausages (Apr 22, 2014)

senseless killing is about the worst thing anyone can do.


----------



## Architect-Rollins (Apr 3, 2016)

What a cowardice act for the shooter to shoot himself afterwards. The whole thing is very disturbing.


----------



## Stipe Tapped (Jun 21, 2013)

Legit BOSS said:


> *Then next time, don't assume my situation. For all you know, I could have dead friends over there, and guess what? I'd STILL be bringing up this issue. That doesn't make me any less sympathetic to this tragedy.*


You made a silly comment and got called out for it and now you're trying to insinuate that your situation gives your perspective more credibility than ours. Nobody's suggesting that you don't actually care about the tragedy but it was a dick move to immediately become political and make the ludicrous claim that Trump will defend this guy.

Was it terrorism? If we want to be technical, we'll have to wait until more details come out regarding motive before classifying it as such. I don't know why the semantics of the situation are such a big deal given the fact that hundreds of lives have been irreparably destroyed.


----------



## KO Bossy (Oct 23, 2011)

Nice to see how this thread got completely derailed by the usual suspects who have to make everything about politics and skin color.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

Zydeco said:


> You made a silly comment and got called out for it and now you're trying to insinuate that your situation gives your perspective more credibility than ours. Nobody's suggesting that you don't actually care about the tragedy but it was a dick move to immediately become political and make the ludicrous claim that Trump will defend this guy.
> 
> Was it terrorism? If we want to be technical, we'll have to wait until more details come out regarding motive before classifying it as such. I don't know why the semantics of the situation are such a big deal given the fact that hundreds of lives have been irreparably destroyed.


He likes to back pedal.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

Am I the only one who thinks that humans are just fundamentally broken in someway? Things just seem to be getting worse and this crap seems to prove it.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

virus21 said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that humans are just fundamentally broken in someway? Things just seem to be getting worse and this crap seems to prove it.


Oh great your one of these.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood (Jul 19, 2016)

virus21 said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that humans are just fundamentally broken in someway? Things just seem to be getting worse and this crap seems to prove it.


Other animals butcher each other, too. Humans only differ in terms of scale and speed.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

ForYourOwnGood said:


> Other animals butcher each other, too. Humans only differ in terms of scale and speed.


Animals tend to do for much different reasons then we do


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

virus21 said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that humans are just fundamentally broken in someway? Things just seem to be getting worse and this crap seems to prove it.


Things are not just getting worse, our coverage of them is, however, getting better. People learned of this attack minutes after it happened/while it was happening. Worldwide. That was unheard of in the past to put it lightly. Having a far accessibility to these things is why you think things are getting worse when humans have always done shitty things, typically far worse than this.




virus21 said:


> Animals tend to do for much different reasons then we do


Such as what? Certain animals kill to kill or kill to practice, etc. Don't even want to get into this as we're pretty far removed from every other species cognitively.


----------



## LucasXXII (Apr 21, 2014)

Shows you just how fragile civilization as we know it truly is.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

LONZO said:


> Such as what? Certain animals kill to kill or kill to practice, etc. Don't even want to get into this as we're pretty far removed from every other species cognitively.


Those animals tend to be predators who need to learn to survive in the first place. Far different then some asshole opening fire on people for no logical reason. The only animals I can think of that kill for reasons other then survival are cats.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

virus21 said:


> Those animals tend to be predators who need to learn to survive in the first place. Far different then some asshole opening fire on people for no logical reason. The only animals I can think of that kill for reasons other then survival are cats.


Dogs.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

Is it too soon to get into conspiracy theories? If so then skip this post.



Spoiler: :hmm:



The gun industry has been struggling due to everyone having confidence that the current president won't bring in any new gun restrictions. Now it's been boosted as people fear there will be repercussions because of this atrocity.

This guy wasn't a gun nut and had no military training (according to his brother) and yet was found with ten guns and was able to kill 50+ people from what, a hundred yards away? A crowd is a big target obviously but surely it still takes some significant skill/training etc to fire a powerful weapon like that consistently enough to kill that many people?

It does seem like his brother and him weren't that close, so his info might not be relevant or up to date. But this dude lived in a retirement home.

But why kill himself before they get to him? That's convenient. The somewhat estranged family and the foreign girlfriend make him a perfect patsy. I've probably just seen too many thriller movies. Though maybe that's what they want me to think... :hmm:


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

Based on the evidence we're seeing so far, this looks like a random act from a nutjob. 

Well that's scary.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

Zydeco said:


> You made a silly comment and got called out for it and now you're trying to insinuate that your situation gives your perspective more credibility than ours. Nobody's suggesting that you don't actually care about the tragedy but it was a dick move to immediately become political and make the ludicrous claim that Trump will defend this guy.
> 
> Was it terrorism? If we want to be technical, we'll have to wait until more details come out regarding motive before classifying it as such. I don't know why the semantics of the situation are such a big deal given the fact that hundreds of lives have been irreparably destroyed.


*Way to take my post out of context and radicalize it to make a non existent point. I specifically said Trump won't call it terrorism, not that he'd defend it. This is more than semantics-It's an on going issue of mislabeling all terrorists as Muslims. I was directly told that I don't care about people dying for bringing this up, so you're damn right I'm going to throw in your face that I know people directly affected. Don't come at me when you have NO idea what you're talking about.*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE (Sep 12, 2013)

People should donate blood if you desire to help. Horrific event.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

Body count is up to 59, apparently.

Shit is crazy, but sadly not beyond the norm nowadays. :serious:



Legit BOSS said:


> *I specifically said Trump won't call it terrorism, not that he'd defend it.*


Good to know you're a mind reader. :eyeroll


----------



## Stipe Tapped (Jun 21, 2013)

Legit BOSS said:


> *Way to take my post out of context and radicalize it to make a non existent point. I specifically said Trump won't call it terrorism, not that he'd defend it. This is more than semantics-It's an on going issue of mislabeling all terrorists as Muslims. I was directly told that I don't care about people dying for bringing this up, so you're damn right I'm going to throw in your face that I know people directly affected. Don't come at me when you have NO idea what you're talking about.*


Actually, you said that Trump will probably come out and say the shooter wasn't that bad a guy. No need to deny it, it's right there in your earlier post. I didn't take your post out of context in the slightest. You were pretty transparent with your words.

Your complaint about the media not referring to this guy as a terrorist was quite clearly addressed by numerous people in this thread, who corrected your overly broad understanding of the word "terrorism". You're ignoring those explanations and doubling down on your theory that it's because of racism because you've got your pride all caught up in this stupid argument. And I'm the one who has no idea what I'm talking about?


----------



## Reversoul (Jun 18, 2017)

I just watched a compilation of some of the footage and it's very chilling. I hate when these nut jobs commit suicide after killing and injuring so many people because it feels like there will never be justice or closure. I'm not a religious person, but if there is some type of afterlife, I hope this maniac suffers endlessly. 

In the end, people are dead and others are mentally scarred for life. And the victim's families are left to grieve. One person caused so much pain and he won't even have to answer for it. 

I think about these types of horrific scenes sometimes when I'm out in public especially when I'm with my wife and son. I know that we can't live in a bubble, but I try to stay mindful just in case. I never take anything for granted and I know something like this could happen at any time and place. I would lay on top of my family like any husband/dad would do, but it's a helpless and troubling feeling that I might not be able to fully protect my loved ones from these sick fucks.


----------



## Cooper09 (Aug 24, 2016)

RIP to all the victims. It's also pretty sad that far-lefties are in celebration that it was a white male that committed the crime.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

Zydeco said:


> Actually, you said that Trump will probably come out and say the shooter wasn't that bad a guy. No need to deny it, it's right there in your earlier post. I didn't take your post out of context in the slightest. You were pretty transparent with your words.
> 
> Your complaint about the media not referring to this guy as a terrorist was quite clearly addressed by numerous people in this thread, who corrected your overly broad understanding of the word "terrorism". You're ignoring those explanations and doubling down on your theory that it's because of racism because you've got your pride all caught up in this stupid argument. And I'm the one who has no idea what I'm talking about?


You got him on the ropes now you just have to finish him.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

Zydeco said:


> Actually, you said that Trump will probably come out and say the shooter wasn't that bad a guy. No need to deny it, it's right there in your earlier post. I didn't take your post out of context in the slightest. You were pretty transparent with your words.


*Is that not what he said about the massive violence in Charlottesville? Did the entire Congress not have to pass a unanimous bill to force him to declare white supremacists as terrorists? Again, I never said he would defend it, just that he won't address it with the seriousness it deserves. I stand by it. *



> Your complaint about the media not referring to this guy as a terrorist was quite clearly addressed by numerous people in this thread, who corrected your overly broad understanding of the word "terrorism". You're ignoring those explanations and doubling down on your theory that it's because of racism because you've got your pride all caught up in this stupid argument. And I'm the one who has no idea what I'm talking about?


*I've explained numerous times why they're wrong. I'm not repeating myself. If you want to play the "numerous people" card; type "domestic terrorism" into google. Read the dozens of articles and thousands of tweets on the subject. Keep acting like I'm the only one bringing this up. Again, you have NO idea what you're talking about. * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...reignites-a-real-and-really-important-debate/


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*I'm pretty sure Headliner asked people to keep the politics out of this. Please do before I remove you. If you wanna get political about this do it in that god awful fucking Trump thread. Not here.

EDIT: this post just happened to come right after a Boss post. I wasn't directing that at him as he's not the only one guilty of this. Just take the political argument of this storyline to the Trump thread please. This is not the place for it. I'll thank you.*


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jan 28, 2010)

:lmao Wonderful choice of post to follow LC's directive.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

* @AryaDark Will do.*


----------



## Arya Dark (Sep 8, 2006)

*Thanks for understanding, Boss. :aryep

The political side of this (if there is one) should absolutely be discussed. But not in this thread. *


----------



## just1988 (Jun 15, 2009)

*Awful, awful stuff. I've not read too much into it because it saddens me too much but what a truly fucked up situation. Guns eh*


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Kenny Hotz said:


> :lmao Wonderful choice of post to follow LC's directive.


I missed it:brady6


I still want to know how Mandalay Bay or any casino/hotel in Vegas doesn't have better security. I'm going to assume it's because they don't want to pay for it. Well you're going to be paying now.


----------



## Crasp (Feb 26, 2014)

MrMister said:


> I missed it:brady6


He reposted it in the Trump thread. Basically just baiting.


----------



## Bearodactyl (Apr 2, 2012)

TripleG said:


> Based on the evidence we're seeing so far, this looks like a random act from a nutjob.
> 
> Well that's scary.


It's never truly random, and it's always a nutjob :bearo

#Universaltruth


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

More of my conspiracy stuff. Please skip if you're not ready for this kind of thing.




Spoiler: wtf



Right so these fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US, right? So where did this guy learn how to fire one accurately and consistently enough to hit over 500 people and kills near 60 of them (so far) from what must a hundred yards away at least? Maybe further.

Surely you can only learn to do that in the military? But this guy wasn't ever in the military.

Also, this:



> Shares of gun makers rallied Monday, in the wake of what has been described as the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil.
> 
> Smith & Wesson parent American Outdoor Brands Corp.’s stock AOBC, +3.15% jumped 3.0% in afternoon trade. Volume topped 3.7 million shares, compared with the full-day average over the past 30 days of 2.1 million shares.
> 
> ...


I can't put it past weapons manufacturers to prioritize their profits above human lives. 

Of course, yeah, it's difficult to imagine the boardroom meeting that green lit this terrible business but damn if the pieces aren't falling into place.


----------



## Piers (Sep 1, 2015)

To be honest I’m quite surprised there has never been a terrorist attack on American soil since 2001


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

It's not a conspiracy Anark though I applaud your imagination. It's a crazy guy with a gun and non-existent vigilance that caused this.


----------



## MK_Dizzle (Dec 18, 2014)

They Call Him Y2J said:


> To be honest I’m quite surprised there has never been a terrorist attack on American soil since 2001


Orlando? That was last year. 


Also this is just wrong, why people are so evil is just beyond me.


----------



## Piers (Sep 1, 2015)

MK_Dizzle said:


> Orlando? That was last
> Also this is just wrong, why people are so evil is just beyond me.


I had forgotten about Orlando, and even when you reminded me of it I just thought of a regular American shooting


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

They Call Him Y2J said:


> To be honest I’m quite surprised there has never been a terrorist attack on American soil since 2001


ummm....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

They Call Him Y2J said:


> To be honest I’m quite surprised there has never been a terrorist attack on American soil since 2001


Not accurate at all.


----------



## Erik. (Mar 17, 2014)

Absolutely horrible.

Made me sick when I woke up, hadn't felt like that since 9/11 in all honesty.


----------



## Piers (Sep 1, 2015)

Cabanarama said:


> ummm....
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States


Never heard of almost all of these, but they’re not as deadly as 9/11 and yesterday anyway (thankfully)


----------



## Slickback (Jun 17, 2015)

Just saw what the death toll and injuiry numbers have risen to from last night. Impossible to rationalize or comprehend, sickening.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

They Call Him Y2J said:


> Never heard of almost all of these, but they’re not as deadly as 9/11 and yesterday anyway (thankfully)


Pulse night club was 49 dead.


----------



## MickDX (Sep 10, 2016)

RIP to all the victims, truly sad.


----------



## altreineirialx (Sep 20, 2016)

Im disgusted that the democrats are calling for gun control while people
lie bleeding in a hospital.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

altreineirialx said:


> Im disgusted that the democrats are calling for gun control while people
> lie bleeding in a hospital.


Can't believe you'd use people bleeding to make a political point. Disgusting.


----------



## Hencheman_21 (Apr 11, 2014)

*Re: Shooting in Vegas at outdoor concert*



Architect-Rollins said:


> The videos I've seen are very hard to watch, very scary. I've heard they got one of the suspects or he was found dead.


Last night as news was breaking I was watching cable and had no idea. Got on my tablet and noticed something about Vegas on Twitter. So first time I saw a video was on my tablet. Not only could I hear the shooting but my tablet had a slight vibration with the shots which was very unsettling. Had to stop reading/watching coverage and find something else to get my mind off of it before bed.

The whole thing is just sad. Especially when you realize this is far from the end. People have always been evil and killed for stupid reasons or none at all. Now they have even more technology and people are gathered in large groups to make it so easy to do this kind of damage. People complain about arguments on social media, and with good reason, but I would prefer people get their anger out there then in ways like this.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

For now, let's just ignore the people posting political agendas. They will be removed from the thread.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

So this just came in as an update:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914949928446824451
AP is a pretty reliable source and this is coming from the killer's brother. I can't suspect any reason why he would lie about this so I'm guessing this is likely true. Makes it even more shocking in some ways.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Well I've heard he had upwards of 20 guns. I can't imagine those guns were cheap. Not that this proves he was a multi-millionaire, but it does corroborate the brother's claim.


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

altreineirialx said:


> Im disgusted that the democrats are calling for gun control while people
> lie bleeding in a hospital.


When's the right time? By the time it's acceptable in your eyes, they'll be another shooting and you'll be saying the same thing. People said the same thing after Sandy Hook, Aurora, Orlando etc. It's an excuse by the weak minded.

The gun debate in the US is already over, it was over when the US decided children dying in Sandy Hook was a bearable price to pay to have your guns.

RIP to all of those who were murdered last night and to all of those fighting for their lives in hospitals in Las Vegas.


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

RIP to all the victims, I cannot fathom how scary this must've been for the people at the concert and for the poor survivors, how this will most likely affect them for the rest of their lives. I would probably have some PTSD if it happened to me.

Hopefully something, anything that can be done by lawmakers will be, that may reduce chances of things like this happening in future.

I have to wonder how the hell does this man get that many guns and ammo into the hotel in the first place? It's going to get to the point that all public places everywhere will need metal detectors.


----------



## Stormbringer (May 3, 2008)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byA77xkQBEE


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)




----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

yeahbaby! said:


> RIP to all the victims, I cannot fathom how scary this must've been for the people at the concert and for the poor survivors, how this will most likely affect them for the rest of their lives. I would probably have some PTSD if it happened to me.
> 
> Hopefully something, anything that can be done by lawmakers will be, that may reduce chances of things like this happening in future.
> 
> I have to wonder how the hell does this man get that many guns and ammo into the hotel in the first place? It's going to get to the point that all public places everywhere will need metal detectors.


They won't, republicans are cowards, they always have been and they always will be.

Readings reports he had up to 10 suitcases in his hotel room. Apparently cleaning staff hand gone in and out of his room during his stay as well. This is going to change the way hotels in major cities like this check in guests and monitor them.


----------



## altreineirialx (Sep 20, 2016)

If you're in a forum where there is nothing but slang, then it's appropriate for you to reply that way on that forum. If the person corresponding with you is taking the time to use proper grammar, punctuation, capitalization and paragraph breaks, you should do the same.


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

Horrible tragedy, R.I.P. to the victims and condolences to the families.


----------



## BaeJLee (Mar 12, 2017)

This was such horrible news to wake up to this morning. I'm so tired of the violence.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

I am so sorry to hear this happened, no words at all to describe this tragedy so I won't bother because words aren't enough.

So I'll just say I feel for the people who had family hurt, you won't get much justice and you all deserve better.

This was terrorism even without any political or Religious motive. His entire motivation could have been around to cause fear.

This whole thing is weird because nothing is adding up.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

Miss Sally said:


> I am so sorry to hear this happened, no words at all to describe this tragedy so I won't bother because words aren't enough.
> 
> So I'll just say I feel for the people who had family hurt, you won't get much justice and you all deserve better.
> 
> ...


I thought terrorism must have an intent to cause well, terror? Political or religious motive aside, you yourself said that his motivation could have been to cause fear but not necessarily. So how can you be sure this is terrorism if you're not sure of his motive yet?


----------



## Skermac (Apr 6, 2012)

very sad, not sure what is wrong with people these days


----------



## Pencil Neck Freak (Aug 5, 2013)

I just with we could find a solution to these things..... The fact that these have become so much part of normal life is so tragic. I wish they could stop here.... But this still happens year after year.


----------



## MrWrestlingFan (Nov 21, 2016)

I haven't been able to get this off of my mind all day. I have family in Vegas, I've been to plenty of concerts just like this one, I've even been in the hotel that he stayed in. This cuts really deep and I can't stop thinking about it. We live in really dark times and things just seem to keep getting worse. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone who was effected by this event, be it the people in the crowd, the families, or every person out there who will have to think twice about going to something that they should be able to have fun at without worrying for their own lives. We really have to get our shit together and unite or things are just going to keep getting worse and worse.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

> *CBS executive fired after saying Las Vegas victims didn't deserve sympathy*
> 
> CBS fired a legal executive Monday after she wrote on Facebook that she was not "sympathetic" to the victims of the mass shooting in Las Vegas.
> *
> ...


Wonder when she posted that how she thought it would play out. Did she really think everyone would just join her in her hardheartedness?

I don't get how some people can be this disconnected from empathy. How can how someone votes make you this calloused to their pain, suffering, and loss of life. And that's if they even did vote that way. Lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum like country.


----------



## nucklehead88 (Dec 17, 2012)

Stupid_Smark said:


> I just with we could find a solution to these things..... The fact that these have become so much part of normal life is so tragic. I wish they could stop here.... But this still happens year after year.


You mean like....getting rid of assault rifles?


----------



## Chloe (Apr 1, 2014)

Miss Sally said:


> I am so sorry to hear this happened, no words at all to describe this tragedy so I won't bother because words aren't enough.
> 
> So I'll just say I feel for the people who had family hurt, you won't get much justice and you all deserve better.
> 
> ...


You know having that motive is what makes something terrorism right? It's like people are just making up their own definitions of things now. And we all know how obnoxious people get when they throw around labels they don't know the meaning of.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

> Wonder when she posted that how she thought it would play out. Did she really think everyone would just join her in her hardheartedness?
> 
> I don't get how some people can be this disconnected from empathy. How can how someone votes make you this calloused to their pain, suffering, and loss of life. And that's if they even did vote that way. Lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum like country.


Unfortunately, the people who preach love tend to practice hate.

- Vic


----------



## BoFreakinDallas (Jul 8, 2017)

The thoughts and prayers from politicians and NRA activists just arrived












Don't have to worry about what happened in Pulse or Las Vegas ever taking place again now.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

I'm not attending any open air event next to high-rise hotels in America anytime soon.

Security can be beefed up at events at arenas to reduce the chance of nutjobs storming the area with guns or a suicide vest from executing his/her plan. I don't see how security can be beefed up at hotels while not turning off their customers to prevent nutjobs from moving their assault rifles into their room and spraying bullets on attendees from 30 stories up.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

Hotels will use metal detectors for sporting events and celebrity performances no problem, but for elevators to the guest rooms even after what happened? Probably not. 

- Vic


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

FriedTofu said:


> I'm not attending any open air event next to high-rise hotels in America anytime soon.
> 
> Security can be beefed up at events at arenas to reduce the chance of nutjobs storming the area with guns or a suicide vest from executing his/her plan. I don't see how security can be beefed up at hotels while not turning off their customers to prevent nutjobs from moving their assault rifles into their room and spraying bullets on attendees from 30 stories up.


When security is beefed up at one hotel, it might stop people from going to that one specific hotel. If security is beefed up at eve ry hotel though......

I doubt people would stop going to hotels because of this. If you're the type to stop going to t hem because of this though, then you probably have several illegal substances brought with you in which case I'm pretty sure the hotels are happy losing you.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Laughable Chimp said:


> When security is beefed up at one hotel, it might stop people from going to that one specific hotel. If security is beefed up at eve ry hotel though......
> 
> I doubt people would stop going to hotels because of this. If you're the type to stop going to t hem because of this though, then you probably have several illegal substances brought with you in which case I'm pretty sure the hotels are happy losing you.


Las Vegas already has a pretty tough security arrangement due to it being a soft target for terrorists. Not sure how much tougher they can get without offending 2nd amendment people.

If every hotels there have tougher checks, tourists might just skip the area for vacation altogether. I'm not talking about going to hotels, just attending events in the open held near them. Can't avoid staying at hotels if travelling. 
If some assholes want to kill people in hotels or arenas, at least we have a fighting chance if they are in proximity to people who can help to reduce the damage. There is almost no chance if they are shooting at everyone from a much higher ground.

Also, it is not about sneaking illegal substances but having an even longer booking in phase if every bags are checked. When on vacation the last thing I want is to wait even longer to get to my room.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

FriedTofu said:


> Las Vegas already has a pretty tough security arrangement due to it being a soft target for terrorists. Not sure how much tougher they can get without offending 2nd amendment people.
> 
> If every hotels there have tougher checks, tourists might just skip the area for vacation altogether. I'm not talking about going to hotels, just attending events in the open held near them. Can't avoid staying at hotels if travelling.
> If some assholes want to kill people in hotels or arenas, at least we have a fighting chance if they are in proximity to people who can help to reduce the damage. There is almost no chance if they are shooting at everyone from a much higher ground.
> ...


This is what I don't get. When people think the solution to fighting terrorist is to give people more guns. Not only does it you know, increase the tendency for these attacks to occur since its now easier to get guns, but you're just as likely to be misidentified as a gun-toting terrorist yourself. And imagine in a situation where people are getting shot, and you're not sure where its coming from. Everyones panickingn, you pull out your gun, suddenly you see a guy holding a gun in front of you. You quickly shoot him and you suddenly realixe that this guy was just like you, someone who pulled out his gun to defend himself. Then you yourself gets shot as someone else just saw you shoot an innocent person.

Ordinary people aren't soldiers. Giving them guns in a situation full of panic where they've never been trained for is just as likely to cause more deaths and more chaos.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Laughable Chimp said:


> This is what I don't get. When people think the solution to fighting terrorist is to give people more guns. Not only does it you know, increase the tendency for these attacks to occur since its now easier to get guns, but you're just as likely to be misidentified as a gun-toting terrorist yourself. And imagine in a situation where people are getting shot, and you're not sure where its coming from. Everyones panickingn, you pull out your gun, suddenly you see a guy holding a gun in front of you. You quickly shoot him and you suddenly realixe that this guy was just like you, someone who pulled out his gun to defend himself. Then you yourself gets shot as someone else just saw you shoot an innocent person.
> 
> Ordinary people aren't soldiers. Giving them guns in a situation full of panic where they've never been trained for is just as likely to cause more deaths and more chaos.


I was referring to fighting back without guns. Or at least security with guns fighting back. 

This dude probably make our point better than whatever we say.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/914872808110510080


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Caleb Keeter is awesome. Hilary was right as well, imagine if that gun had a silencer and no one heard the gunfire... And they want to legalise them because people are getting deaf? Use ear protectors you mongs.


----------



## Ham and Egger (Dec 13, 2005)

What will it take for there to be some gun reform in this goddamn country? Why do citizens need access to fully automatic weapons?


----------



## Unorthodox (Jan 8, 2013)

Well I am actually of the opinion that this should be considered a terrorist attack, Ofcourse the guy is gonna have political motives it's stupid to assume he didn't given the current situation of people constantly being at war with each other over which side is the right one. We're heading in to a really dark era here and I can't see it getting any better if I'm being honest. RIP to those poor people, Absolutely horrendous what has happened there and the fucking numbers of the dead and injured is staggering he should never have been able to pull off something like this especially as we've seen it happen time and time again.


----------



## Ronny (Apr 7, 2016)

Ham and Egger said:


> What will it take for there to be some gun reform in this goddamn country? *Why do citizens need access to fully automatic weapons?*


Do they have access? :cudi


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

Ratedr4life said:


> They won't, republicans are cowards, they always have been and they always will be.
> 
> Readings reports he had up to 10 suitcases in his hotel room. Apparently cleaning staff hand gone in and out of his room during his stay as well. This is going to change the way hotels in major cities like this check in guests and monitor them.


You don['t even live here but you pretend like you know everything.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

Now that I've had a day to kind of process this, there are several things about the case I'm trying to figure out. 

How on Earth did he get a cache of weapons up to the 32nd floor of a Vegas hotel? Did he sneak the guns in one at a time? Did nobody notice anything strange? 

And how the hell did he get access to military grade weapons?


----------



## Ham and Egger (Dec 13, 2005)

Ronny927 said:


> Do they have access? :cudi


Apparently this psycho did. I know we can get a semi-auto but fucking hell this is infuriating seeing tragedy after tragedy.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Ronny927 said:


> Do they have access? :cudi


Yes, its called buying an AR-15, attaching a bumper stock and then buying an ammo drum which are all legal in Nevada.

Even IF this wasn't a legal gun, you can still absolutely do it legally.


----------



## Ronny (Apr 7, 2016)

draykorinee said:


> Yes, its called buying an AR-15, attaching a bumper stock and then buying an ammo drum which are all legal in Nevada.
> 
> Even IF this wasn't a legal gun, you can still absolutely do it legally.


Can't argue with you there, anyone could buy an AK and a bump stock and easily simulate the effects of an automatic rifle. All I'm saying is that the 'fully automatic' guns you've mentioned isn't actually accessible, its just that there are legal ways to simulate their performances.


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

Unorthodox said:


> Well I am actually of the opinion that this should be considered a terrorist attack, Ofcourse the guy is gonna have political motives it's stupid to assume he didn't given the current situation of people constantly being at war with each other over which side is the right one. We're heading in to a really dark era here and I can't see it getting any better if I'm being honest. RIP to those poor people, Absolutely horrendous what has happened there and the fucking numbers of the dead and injured is staggering he should never have been able to pull off something like this especially as we've seen it happen time and time again.


The guy was apparently a high stakes gambler so it could very well be he lost a shitload of money in the casino and lost his mind. Most of these mass shootings are over personal issues. If it was politically motivated he would have likely targeted a more specific group of people rather than a bunch of concert goers.



TripleG said:


> Now that I've had a day to kind of process this, there are several things about the case I'm trying to figure out.
> 
> How on Earth did he get a cache of weapons up to the 32nd floor of a Vegas hotel? Did he sneak the guns in one at a time? Did nobody notice anything strange?
> 
> And how the hell did he get access to military grade weapons?


I don't see how it could be that hard. Just throw some of them into a large suitcase (probably multiple trips to get that many in), considering that people bringing suitcases into a hotel is pretty standard so nobody would suspect anything


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse (Jun 20, 2014)

Its ridiculous that there's always refusal from the media to call these things a Terrorist attack if its not a Muslim who did it. Terrorism has been commited by every race, creed, religion, political leaning, etc. And mass shootings like this are sadly just a part of the American way of life, because there's so much refusal to do anything to address the issue. And thats not just on gun control, but Joe Citizen doesn't need to have a cache of weapons. But mental health as well.

Its baffling that no matter what happens, there's nothing at all done by any politicians in America to try and stop it. Head in the sand approach, say some prayers and then just wait for the next time.Its reprehensible from every angle. How someone can do this, how someone can take so many lives and shatter so many families. And this is what one person can do with an assault rifle. And its reprehensible that nothing will change, countless people will continue to be slaughtered while out having fun, or at school, or wherever else.

Makes me proud to be in Australia though. After the Port Arthur massacre that was it, there was an instant ban on assault rifles. Because the average Joe doesn't need weapons like that. But here's the thing with stricter gun control/banning some weapons. We still have guns in Australia. I've gone hunting with a rifle, I know a shit load of people who have gone hunting and love hunting. We have gun ranges here everywhere. Back in NZ with all the farms guns are so common as well. Every farm has a rifle or two for pest control and hunting. But they're just not handed out to any old Idiot, and we're not able to buy stupidly impractical weapons. Why the hell do you need an Assault Rifle for hunting, or protection. A basic rifle is all you need for the first and a handgun is all you need for the latter. There's so much fear mongering from the gun nuts in America who act like any gun control means a total ban of all guns. And anyway do people know what an Amendment is? The second Amendment that is so precious...well it wasn't always in the Constitution, it was an Amendment, it was changed.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I always assumed a terrorist attack had a motive, I don't have any concerns about labeling this as a terrorist attack but a wacko just gunning people down just seems a random act of violence opposed to a concerted effort to spread terror, as if the terror was just a byproduct of his actual aims which was to kill.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

How about everyone who thinks the state is their mommy and daddy who gets to decide what they "need" go live somewhere else and let people who want freedom and are willing to accept the consequences of it stay here. Y'all can feel proud of yourselves for having such nice masters who don't "let you have" dangerous toys all you want elsewhere, just don't force that shit on me.

And enough of the super woke people coming in saying "IF HE WASN'T WHITE THEY'D CALL IT TERRORISM". No. They're not calling it terrorism BECAUSE THERE IS NO KNOWN MOTIVE. Terrorism is not just scary shit that happens. There is no racial bias at work here, sorry to disappoint those with victim complexes and social justice samurais. 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/02/before-calling-people-racist-or-politica


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I'm sure those 59 people share your views about accepting the consequences. Such an easy thing to say when it's not you, your family or friends.

Mah freedom! Plus woke, stfu.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

draykorinee said:


> I'm sure those 59 people share your views about accepting the consequences. Such an easy thing to say when it's not you, your family or friends.


I'm sure the 59 dead people all agree with _me_ politically. Why not? They can't speak for themselves so I may as well invoke them into a conversation they can't partake in to prove a point.

Just kidding. That would be repugnant.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> How about everyone who thinks the state is their mommy and daddy who gets to decide what they "need" go live somewhere else and let people who want freedom and are willing to accept the consequences of it stay here.


When the consequences are children being shot up in school like it's a national holiday and music fans, clubbers and cinema goers also getting slaughtered in huge numbers on the reg, you don't think it's worth a conversation about maybe putting some of those dangerous toys away?

I sense lots of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!! in your post.



CamillePunk said:


> Y'all can feel proud of yourselves for having such nice masters who don't "let you have" dangerous toys all you want elsewhere, just don't force that shit on me.


Yes, so much WAAAAAAAH.

You pay taxes, CP? Haha you slave. You obey other laws you had no say in drafting? Haha obey your masters! Haha.


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse (Jun 20, 2014)

CamillePunk said:


> How about everyone who thinks the state is their mommy and daddy who gets to decide what they "need" go live somewhere else and let people who want freedom and are willing to accept the consequences of it stay here. Y'all can feel proud of yourselves for having such nice masters who don't "let you have" dangerous toys all you want elsewhere, just don't force that shit on me.
> 
> And enough of the super woke people coming in saying "IF HE WASN'T WHITE THEY'D CALL IT TERRORISM". No. They're not calling it terrorism BECAUSE THERE IS NO KNOWN MOTIVE. Terrorism is not just scary shit that happens. There is no racial bias at work here, sorry to disappoint those with victim complexes and social justice samurais.
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/02/before-calling-people-racist-or-politica


I'm genuinely interested in the answer here, but what is it exactly that makes gun ownership more important than human life?

You're sitting there acting like the Government would be some mean old bully...while a single person just shot 600 innocent people. You're sitting there acting like a douche because "mah guns!!" while 50 people are dead for no reason. And hell in general you've proven that you cant be trusted with dangerous toys so maybe you're masters do need to step in. You're acceptance of this sort of thing is revolting.

Do you pay taxes? Go to work when your boss tells you? Drive at or below the speed limit? 

Oh and one final thing, "freedom" isn't an American thing. Overly-Patriotic Americans need to realise most of the world is free. New Zealand enjoys the most freedoms of any country in the World.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Anark said:


> When the consequences are children being shot up in school like it's a national holiday and music fans, clubbers and cinema goers also getting slaughtered in huge numbers on the reg, you don't think it's worth a conversation about maybe putting some of those dangerous toys away?


Nope. 



> I sense lots of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!! in your post


Sounds like projection. 



> You pay taxes, CP? Haha you slave. You obey other laws you had no say in drafting? Haha obey your masters! Haha.


Please learn how to think. 

How the fuck is this a response to anything I said? :kobe Yes I do things I'm forced to by the state under penalty of imprisonment. I don't want to add more shit to that list. Y'all want to add more shit to that list. That's the difference.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

Lol at CP having any knowledge of the world beyond 'Murica. We're all slaves to our evil mommy masters because it's been collectively decided that, on the whole, letting civilians run around with assault rifles probably isn't wise, considering how fragile some of us we are emotionally.

I assume CP is down with North Korea continuing to develop nuclear and ballistic missile weaponry? Sorry, I meant nuclear and ballistic missile toys.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Eva MaRIHyse said:


> I'm genuinely interested in the answer here, but what is it exactly that makes gun ownership more important than human life?


Freedom. If you have a different perspective it's fine. Just don't force it on me. That's all I ask. 



> You're sitting there acting like the Government would be some mean old bully...while a single person just shot 600 innocent people. You're sitting there acting like a douche because "mah guns!!" while 50 people are dead for no reason. And hell in general you've proven that you cant be trusted with dangerous toys so maybe you're masters do need to step in. You're acceptance of this sort of thing is revolting.


The government is a bully. That is its entire function. Thanks for the personal attack. I'm sure the mods will be right along tee hee jk. I don't need to be "trusted" by you to own whatever I desire to own. I don't accept the tragedy. I just reject calls to use it to restrict my freedoms. 



> Do you pay taxes? Go to work when your boss tells you? Drive at or below the speed limit?


Why do people think this is a rebuttal to what I've said? :lmao The boss thing is just ridiculous because it's a voluntary contract. I can quit my job without my boss rolling up and kidnapping me or shooting me if I resist. 



> Oh and one final thing, "freedom" isn't an American thing. Overly-Patriotic Americans need to realise most of the world is free. New Zealand enjoys the most freedoms of any country in the World.


I don't care. I live here and want it to be as free _here_ as possible. Patriotism isn't a thing with me.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Anark said:


> Lol at CP having any knowledge of the world beyond 'Murica. We're all slaves to our evil mommy masters because it's been collectively decided that, on the whole, letting civilians run around with assault rifles probably isn't wise, considering how fragile some of us we are emotionally.
> 
> I assume CP is down with North Korea continuing to develop nuclear and ballistic missile weaponry? Sorry, I meant nuclear and ballistic missile toys.


Let me know when you get something in your arsenal besides worthless ad hominem. 

North Korea has nothing to do with this. In any case I don't care what North Korea does. If they try and attack my country or its allies we can destroy them. I'd be fine with it.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> How the fuck is this a response to anything I said? :kobe Yes I do things I'm forced to by the state under penalty of imprisonment. I don't want to add more shit to that list. Y'all want to add more shit to that list. That's the difference.


You don't want to add 'shit' to the list of laws is the fulcrum of your intellectual response, yet new laws are made all the time. To claim these current events don't warrant a conversation about it is willful ignorance and an intentional derailment of a potentially progressive discussion.

Instead of posting your ill-thought out nonsense here, why don't you get your crayons and make a big list of the laws you like and then the laws you don't like and we'll send that off to the president.


----------



## Interceptor88 (May 5, 2010)

It's so hard to understand the pro-guns thought when you are from a country where guns are heavily restricted. 

In Spain a small minority of people has a pistol or a hunting rifle. And of course they need highly restrictives licenses, and cannot have a lot of weapons. 

The freedom speech? I don't buy it. Then they should allow North Korea to make hundreds of nuclear weapons; why can't they be free to decide if they want to destroy another countries or not at all? What's the difference? Hell, then we should have the right to own a missile launcher or crazy heavy artillery. Yeah, it only serves for killing but I'm in my right to decide if I want to use them to kill people or not. 

But it's a cultural thing. Those things seem like absolute common sense in Europe but in USA a lot of people think owning weapons is part of their inalienable freedom. Like a lot of cultural things that involve sentiments in some capacity (because, yes, guns are an important thing in USA History and culture), it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense. You can't change how the people feel. It's truly a part of themselves, even if it's simply incomprehensible seen from outside.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

Ham and Egger said:


> Apparently this psycho did. I know we can get a semi-auto but fucking hell this is infuriating seeing tragedy after tragedy.


According to investigators, he managed to nab semi-automatics and modified them accordingly into automatics, so as far as I know, gun laws sadly couldn't do shit to him regardless. :serious:

Couple that with the evident lack of him having a criminal record and/or listed mental issues and it's not too surprising that he'd slip through the cracks so easily.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure those 59 people share your views about accepting the consequences. Such an easy thing to say when it's not you, your family or friends.
> ...


When you say you're happy with the consequences in the same thread talking about those consequences you're the repugnant one mate. Keep deflecting, you're obscene acceptance of the consequences shows you have little to no interest in these people.

I'm not saying I do particularly, I'm British so Americans gunning each other down only affects me in the way it should affect everybody. But I'm not invested personally in them or what your ridiculous gun laws are.


----------



## SureUmm (Dec 4, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> How about everyone who thinks the state is their mommy and daddy who gets to decide what they "need" go live somewhere else and let people who want freedom and are willing to accept the consequences of it stay here. Y'all can feel proud of yourselves for having such nice masters who don't "let you have" dangerous toys all you want elsewhere, just don't force that shit on me.


Or, since you're very much in the minority on this "there shouldn't even, like, BE a state, man" nonsense, you can move to the libertarian utopia you seek. 

Wait! That doesn't exist, because it's an impractical pipe dream preached by pissy college kids who think they know everything.

JUST LIKE SOCIALISM


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Ham and Egger said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently this psycho did. I know we can get a semi-auto but fucking hell this is infuriating seeing tragedy after tragedy.
> ...


If the mod was a legal bumper yes, banning bumpers would help. So would a smaller magazine, you can buy ammo drums in Nevada, who needs that many bullets on one magazine?
The fact a man can get 23 weapons in to a room is amazing to me, if you see one gun in the uk you shit your pants and call the police. To me it's the gun culture that's the major problem, but I ain't changing that. There'll be a gun fair in a few weeks not far from this event and no one will bat an eyelid.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Flay said:


> You know having that motive is what makes something terrorism right? It's like people are just making up their own definitions of things now. And we all know how obnoxious people get when they throw around labels they don't know the meaning of.


You might want to deal with that projection.

No, I don't know his motive because he killed himself. Over 50 people died, maybe it was just wanton violence but when you go out of your way to spread that violence to as many people as possible it's terrorism.

Not all terrorism is simple Political/Religious terrorism.

Also can people stop saying he bought automatic weapons? You cannot legally buy anything other than a semi auto.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> According to investigators, he managed to nab semi-automatics and modified them accordingly into automatics, so as far as I know, gun laws sadly couldn't do shit to him regardless. :serious:
> 
> Couple that with the evident lack of him having a criminal record and/or listed mental issues and it's not too surprising that he'd slip through the cracks so easily.


There is no reason anyone should be able to legally get a semi-automatic assault rifle legally. All assault rifles should be banned.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> If the mod was a legal bumper yes, banning bumpers would help. So would a smaller magazine, you can buy ammo drums in Nevada, who needs that many bullets on one magazine?
> The fact a man can get 23 weapons in to a room is amazing to me, if you see one gun in the uk you shit your pants and call the police. To me it's the gun culture that's the major problem, but I ain't changing that. There'll be a gun fair in a few weeks not far from this event and no one will bat an eyelid.


Ask Nevada's lawmakers. :draper2

I don't care for guns, but gun laws can only do so much when you've got gangs running them with such ferocity that losing one of theirs could result in a gang member facing a less extreme punishment from a judge than their leader.



birthday_massacre said:


> There is no reason anyone should be able to legally get a semi-automatic assault rifle legally. All assault rifles should be banned.


Then tell that to your local representative.


----------



## Chloe (Apr 1, 2014)

Miss Sally said:


> You might want to deal with that projection.
> 
> No, I don't know his motive because he killed himself. Over 50 people died, maybe it was just wanton violence but when you go out of your way to spread that violence to as many people as possible it's terrorism.
> 
> ...


Except I'm not throwing around labels so check your suggestions at the door.

Sorry that you are confused with what terrorism actually is but don't expect people to go along with false definitions.

Motive is the sole factor in determining what is terrorism and what isn't and as far we know, this guy just wanted to kill people = not terrorism. That may change but to call it terrorism is jumping the gun and leads people down a slippery slope which they shouldn't even be going down. Just call it for what it is.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Ask Nevada's lawmakers. :draper2
> 
> I don't care for guns, but gun laws can only do so much when you've got gangs running them with such ferocity that losing one of theirs could result in a gang member facing a less extreme punishment from a judge than their leader.
> 
> ...


Don't need to assault weapons are banned in my state.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Don't need to assault weapons are banned in my state.


Congrats, you have nothing to worry about then so long as the ban stays in effect.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Anark said:


> You don't want to add 'shit' to the list of laws is the fulcrum of your intellectual response, yet new laws are made all the time. To claim these current events don't warrant a conversation about it is willful ignorance and an intentional derailment of a potentially progressive discussion.


I'm against any law that restricts someone's freedom to do something that doesn't directly harm someone else. Owning a gun does not directly harm anyone. 



> Instead of posting your ill-thought out nonsense here, why don't you get your crayons and make a big list of the laws you like and then the laws you don't like and we'll send that off to the president.


Just because you call something "ill-thought out nonsense" doesn't make it so. :lol 



SureUmm said:


> Or, since you're very much in the minority on this "there shouldn't even, like, BE a state, man" nonsense, you can move to the libertarian utopia you seek.


Nah I'm being peaceful where I am. You're the guy who wants men with guns to fuck with me for engaging in non-violent activity. You move.



draykorinee said:


> When you say you're happy with the consequences in the same thread talking about those consequences you're the repugnant one mate. Keep deflecting, you're obscene acceptance of the consequences shows you have little to no interest in these people.


Happy with the consequences of what? What are you even talking about? I don't think I used the word 'happy' or anything like it in this thread.

I care about other people, I just wouldn't surrender any of my freedoms to the state for them. :draper2


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> I'm against any law that restricts someone's freedom to do something that doesn't directly harm someone else. Owning a gun does not directly harm anyone.
> 
> Just because you call something "ill-thought out nonsense" doesn't make it so. :lol
> 
> Nah I'm being peaceful where I am. You're the guy who wants men with guns to fuck with me for engaging in non-violent activity. You move.


Saying owning a gun is okay because it isn't considered a violent activity and doesn't harm anyone else is like saying everyone can have nukes at their disposal because just having them is considered non-violent activity and doesn't harm anyone else when you know damn well some idiot out there is going to fire of a nuke that will kill us all and by then, no law you guys can make up will stop it. Laws aren't made just to directly stop non-violent activity, sometimes laws are made to stop violent activities from potentially happening in the first place.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Laughable Chimp said:


> Saying owning a gun is okay because it isn't considered a violent activity and doesn't harm anyone else is like saying everyone can have nukes at their disposal because just having them is considered non-violent activity and doesn't harm anyone else when you know damn well some idiot out there is going to fire of a nuke that will kill us all and by then, no law you guys can make up will stop it. Laws aren't made just to directly stop non-violent activity, sometimes laws are made to stop violent activities from potentially happening in the first place.


How convenient that the weapons of mass destruction created by governments can be used as a justification to have governments. :lol Dangerous psychopaths already have nuclear weapons and other dangerous weapons because of governments. This isn't a convincing argument.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> How convenient that the weapons of mass destruction created by governments can be used as a justification to have governments. :lol Dangerous psychopaths already have nuclear weapons and other dangerous weapons because of governments. This isn't a convincing argument.


No, its a comparison. I'm not trying to make a point about nuclear weapons.

But saying that it should be legal to have guns because just having guns doesn't hurt anyone is a flawed argument. Its the guns doesn't kill people, people kill people thing. Yes, technically its not the guns that murder people, its the people who use them. But there is no practical and effective way to stop people who have guns from misusing them. All it takes is one moment or irrationallity, lapse in judgment or misuse and someone's dead. Its impossible to make sure people don't misuse guns like that. There's always going to be shootings because some people are crazy.

So the next best thing, is to remove the tool that allows them to murder all these people. AKA guns. While the very act of owning a gun isn't harmful or violent, it increases the potential of people to be dangerous and do these mass shootings and since it is practically impossible to educate the human population fully and effectively against such misuse of guns, the best way to stop shootings must be to remove guns in the first place. Its like giving a young child a knife. A child holding a knife isn't inherently harmful or violent, but does that make it okay to give these young children sharp knives?


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> Don't need to assault weapons are banned in my state.


And you actually think this would of stopped the tragedy in Vegas?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

krtgolfing said:


> And you actually think this would of stopped the tragedy in Vegas?


He did buy his guns legally, so yes it very well could have.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

some one who apparently had no military training became a one hell of marksman and also learned how to modify semi auto into full autos in the span of a few months? 

something about the story is off. and why hasn't this labeled as Domestic terrorism? are they looking for mental illnesses to justify what he did :kobe being white sure gets you off a lot of shit. 

all the right wingers Trumpanzees here acting as if this was a minority or muslim doing it Trump and his cabinet of retards wouldn't dig deep into the whole terrorist card and give a whole terrorism bigot rant/speech about Islamic Blacks or Latinos.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

God Of Anger Juno said:


> some one who apparently had no military training became a one hell of marksman and also learned how to modify semi auto into full autos in the span of a few months?
> 
> something about the story is off. and why hasn't this labeled as Domestic terrorism? are they looking for mental illnesses to justify what he did :kobe being white sure gets you off a lot of shit.
> 
> all the right wingers Trumpanzees here acting as if this was a minority or muslim doing it Trump and his cabinet of retards wouldn't dig deep into the whole terrorist card and give a whole terrorism bigot rant/speech about Islamic Blacks or Latinos.


You don't have to be an expert marksman to spray bullets into a huge crowd and hit people.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> You don't have to be an expert marksman to spray bullets into a huge crowd and hit people.


I agree and with a vantage point.


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> He did buy his guns legally, so yes it very well could have.


People who want to cause harm will find a way to do harm.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

CamillePunk said:


> Anark said:
> 
> 
> > You don't want to add 'shit' to the list of laws is the fulcrum of your intellectual response, yet new laws are made all the time. To claim these current events don't warrant a conversation about it is willful ignorance and an intentional derailment of a potentially progressive discussion.
> ...


You said you accept the consequences of your current gun laws, in a thread where those consequences led to 59 deaths. Sure you didn't say 'happy' but being okay with the consequences seems pretty sick when the consequences are dead people.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> You don't have to be an expert marksman to spray bullets into a huge crowd and hit people.


truth but the body count and injure counts sounds other wise. someone with no knowledge on weapons would have a hard time dealing with the kick and recoil that comes with shooting an semi automatic weapon. he had to have some sort of combat experience before attempting this. not to mention he has to dismantle the rifles in order to fit them in suit cases assuming that there was as many rifles as the authorities reported.

I've shot out semi auto before and myself being 6'0 240 lb I almost busted my ass on the ground after firing a Saiga 12 in the woods in my first try. imagine having that force of kick and recoil every time a bullet come out that AR-15 chamber he's not even shape to handle that kind of pressure. He knew what he was doing some one who's new to guns would have issues handling a semi auto rifle.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

krtgolfing said:


> People who want to cause harm will find a way to do harm.


That logic never makes any sense.

So why shouldn't we make it more difficult for someone to do a mass shooting like this?





God Of Anger Juno said:


> truth but the body count and injure counts sounds other wise. someone with no knowledge on weapons would have a hard time dealing with the kick and recoil that comes with shooting an semi automatic weapon. he had to have some sort of combat experience before attempting this. not to mention he has to dismantle the rifles in order to fit them in suit cases assuming that there was as many rifles as the authorities reported.


No he didn't. People shoot these kinds of guns all the time at shooting ranges with little to no experience.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

God Of Anger Juno said:


> some one who apparently had no military training became a one hell of marksman and also learned how to modify semi auto into full autos in the span of a few months?
> 
> something about the story is off. and why hasn't this labeled as Domestic terrorism? are they looking for mental illnesses to justify what he did :kobe *being white sure gets you off a lot of shit.*
> 
> all the right wingers Trumpanzees here acting as if this was a minority or muslim doing it Trump and his cabinet of retards wouldn't dig deep into the whole terrorist card and give a whole terrorism bigot rant/speech about Islamic Blacks or Latinos.


He also sent tens of thousands of dollars to his Filipino girlfriend's family the week before he did this, so something is definitely iffy about this. However, it hasn't been listed as terrorism yet because the motive is still up in the air. ISIS is claiming responsibility and had even called for an attack on the Vegas Strip not too long ago, but the feds aren't sold on that because, again, there's no remotely concrete motive. Regardless, I wouldn't be surprised if this winds up being listed as terrorism.

In regard to the bolded part, race baiting does nobody any favors, especially in light of a tragedy. @Legit BOSS is proof of that, as he had good points up until he needlessly embarrassed himself by race baiting several pages ago because of his disdain for Trump.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

God Of Anger Juno said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > You don't have to be an expert marksman to spray bullets into a huge crowd and hit people.
> ...


No one said he had no experience, he has gun licences and was supposedly a Hunter. But you don't have to be an expert marksmen to spray bullets in to thousands of people from a few hundred yards.

Also you can find YouTube videos on how to bumper pretty much any gun, the company who sell them show you how to do it. I think you completely exaggerate how difficult this is.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b0KKuxg_Q3Q


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Laughable Chimp said:


> Its the guns doesn't kill people, people kill people thing. Yes, technically its not the guns that murder people, its the people who use them. But there is no practical and effective way to stop people who have guns from misusing them. All it takes is one moment or irrationallity, lapse in judgment or misuse and someone's dead. Its impossible to make sure people don't misuse guns like that. There's always going to be shootings because some people are crazy.


Correct. 



> So the next best thing, is to remove the tool that allows them to murder all these people. AKA guns. While the very act of owning a gun isn't harmful or violent, it increases the potential of people to be dangerous and do these mass shootings and since it is practically impossible to educate the human population fully and effectively against such misuse of guns, the best way to stop shootings must be to remove guns in the first place.


There is no magical "disappear all guns" button that I'm aware of. There are laws you can pass that could remove guns from law-abiding citizens, of which I'm sure there would be a lot less of if such laws were passed. So you're really talking about disarming people who would be willing to surrender their guns to the state. Something tells me these are not the people going around shooting people.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> In regard to the bolded part, race baiting does nobody any favors, especially in light of a tragedy. @Legit BOSS is proof of that, as he had good points up until he needlessly embarrassed himself by race baiting several pages ago because of his disdain for Trump.


* @AryaDark specifically said end the political debate in this thread. Don't mention me again. I will make my own Domestic Terrorism thread if you want me to expose your awful position so badly.*


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> That logic never makes any sense.
> 
> So why shouldn't we make it more difficult for someone to do a mass shooting like this?
> 
> ...


The logic is true though. You can make a bomb out of a damn pressure cooker. Things you can buy at your local appliance store.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> Correct.
> 
> There is no magical "disappear all guns" button that I'm aware of. There are laws you can pass that could remove guns from law-abiding citizens, of which I'm sure there would be a lot less of if such laws were passed. So you're really talking about disarming people who would be willing to surrender their guns to the state. Something tells me these are not the people going around shooting people.


Australia did it and have not had a mass shooting since being much tougher on guns and that was like 20 years ago.

Before this shooting, the shooter was a so-called law-abiding citizen. 

A lot of mass shooting shooters have no criminal background before their shooting. So your point about law-abiding citizens fails.

If making stricter gun laws, like no allowing private sales at gun shows, making all sales need background checks (private and online sales don't), not allowing mentally ill people access to buying guns, and banning all assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles would drastically cut down on gun violence and mass shootings.





krtgolfing said:


> The logic is true though. You can make a bomb out of a damn pressure cooker. Things you can buy at your local appliance store.


the logic I am talking about is when someone says lets try and cut down on all this gun violence and someone says well if they crack down on gun violence some people will find other ways to try to kill people.

There is one mass shooting per day in the US, there isn't someone killing others with a pressure cooker even close to as much as they do with guns.

Gun violence is a huge issue in the US, pressure cooker bombs is not.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

Legit BOSS said:


> * @AryaDark specifically said end the political debate in this thread. Don't mention me again. I will make my own Domestic Terrorism thread if you want me to expose your awful position so badly.*


 @God Of Anger Juno clearly didn't notice that, hence why I told them to leave it at the door.

No need to bitch at me for giving them a heads up. :armfold


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> He also sent tens of thousands of dollars to his Filipino girlfriend's family the week before he did this, so something is definitely iffy about this. However, it hasn't been listed as terrorism yet because the motive is still up in the air. ISIS is claiming responsibility and had even called for an attack on the Vegas Strip not too long ago, but the feds aren't sold on that because, again, there's no remotely concrete motive. Regardless, I wouldn't be surprised if this winds up being listed as terrorism.
> 
> In regard to the bolded part, race baiting does nobody any favors, especially in light of a tragedy. @Legit BOSS is proof of that, as he had good points up until he needlessly embarrassed himself by race baiting several pages ago because of his disdain for Trump.


I'm not trying to race bait or anything but if history has shown us is that the US would consider this as Domestic Terrorism has this been islamic.

look at all the crazy Caucasian males that has shot schools churches etc and they always blame mental illnesses. 

this man killed 50 something people and injured 500 more I don't need motives to label this as Domestic terrorism because in fact that what it was.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

draykorinee said:


> You said you accept the consequences of your current gun laws, in a thread where those consequences led to 59 deaths. Sure you didn't say 'happy' but being okay with the consequences seems pretty sick when the consequences are dead people.


The fact I didn't say "happy" seems like an important distinction. If I came in and said "Happy with this. " I agree, that would be sick. Recognizing the consequences of freedom and making a principled stand against calls to restrict those freedoms regardless is not sick. You can disagree with my stand and it's fine, but there's no sickness here, just political disagreement. 

I'm not sure when a better time to make a stand for freedom would be other than when people are talking about taking freedoms away. I won't let 59 dead people be a shield for people who want to disarm me and empower the state. All apologies.

EDIT: Well I clearly missed or perhaps forgot seeing the mod posts saying not to get political in this thread so I sincerely apologize and will cease at once assuming that is still the desired state of affairs.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

God Of Anger Juno said:


> I'm not trying to race bait or anything but if history has shown us is that the US would consider this as Domestic Terrorism has this been islamic.
> 
> *look at all the crazy Caucasian males that has shot schools churches etc and they always blame mental illnesses.*
> 
> this man killed 50 something people and injured 500 more I don't need motives to label this as Domestic terrorism because in fact that what it was.


The KKK were the biggest domestic terrorist group in the U.S. because of their numbers and their ideological motive.

The Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh's bombings are classified as terrorism because their motives were obviously ideological.

Wade Michael Page and Dylann Roof's shootings are classified as terrorism because their motives were obviously ideological.

Guess what? All of those folks listed are white and deemed as terrorists because their motives were obviously ideological. Until Paddock's motive is fully established, it's dishonest to call it terrorism, especially if his motive wasn't ideological.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Not sure what the big deal it is to call it terrorism or not. It's just a meaningless label. People need to stop focusing on what to label this tragedy as and actually how to prevent it from happening again.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Shit, didn't see the no politic bit. Deleted. Don't ban me.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

also what's banning gun is going to do? guns are easy to be illegally acquired in the United States through the black market or even your local neighborhood drug dealers and even if they were to ban guns, people still have access to knifes and every other items they can buy at a local dollar store to make a bomb out of a rice pressure cooker as someone mentioned. 

either way is not going stop lunatics from being just that lunatics.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> Recognizing the consequences of freedom


59 people dead are not the consequences of "freedom". They are the consequences of someone wanting to kill lots of people and having access to high powered assault rifles which enabled him to kill lots of people.

You use the word freedom like it's trademarked to the USA or something. I don't think you actually know what it means.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Not sure what the big deal it is to call it terrorism or not. *It's just a meaningless label.* People need to stop focusing on what to label this tragedy as and actually how to prevent it from happening again.


Wrong.

If he was indeed mentally unstable, that goes to show that more focus should be aimed at combating mental illness. If it is revealed that he was ideologically-driven, then that goes to show that more focus should be aimed at combating his ideology.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Anark said:


> 59 people dead are not the consequences of "freedom". They are the consequences of someone wanting to kill lots of people and having access to high powered assault rifles which enabled him to kill lots of people.


Seems like a semantic argument. I don't know the specifics of how the guns were acquired but assuming it was done legally then clearly he had the freedom to buy them. 



> You use the word freedom like it's trademarked to the USA or something. I don't think you actually know what it means.


Not sure where you're getting that idea. I'm just talking about being able to do non-violent things without interference.

I don't know why people keep trying to caricature me as some patriotic zealot. :lol It's a complete hallucination to fit preexisting bias.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

God Of Anger Juno said:


> also what's banning gun is going to do? guns are easy to be illegally acquired in the United States through the black market or even your local neighborhood drug dealers and even if they were to ban guns, people still have access to knifes and every other items they can buy at a local dollar store to make a bomb out of a rice pressure cooker as someone mentioned.
> 
> either way is not going stop lunatics from being just that lunatics.


When someone kills 60 people and injuries over 500 in a mass knifing then we can talk but until then get out of here with that BS argument.

Banning guns would drastically cut down on gun violence and mass shootings in the US. Its common sense what it would do. Again look at Australia. No mass shootings since they cracked down on guns 20 years ago.

No one is even saying to ban all guns. Just better gun laws and ban just assault rifles. People can have all the handguns they want.

And AGAIN there is not a pressure cooker attack every day in the US like there are gun attacks




Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Wrong.
> 
> *If he was indeed mentally unstable, that goes to show that more focus should be aimed at combating mental illness.* If it is revealed that he was ideologically-driven, then that goes to show that more focus should be aimed at combating his ideology.


Obama put in an executive order so mentally ill people could not get a gun, Trump undid that. So not giving the mentally ill access to guns would prevent shootings like by the mentally ill.

Its still a gun issue.

Do you think the mentally ill should be legally allowed to buy guns?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Apr 21, 2014)

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> @God Of Anger Juno clearly didn't notice that, hence why I told them to leave it at the door.
> 
> No need to bitch at me for giving them a heads up. :armfold


*Nobody asked you to tag me. I let this go yesterday. You tried to take a shot and it blew it up in your face. Like I said, don't mention me again in this thread.*


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Wrong.
> 
> If he was indeed mentally unstable, that goes to show that more focus should be aimed at combating mental illness. If it is revealed that he was ideologically-driven, then that goes to show that more focus should be aimed at combating his ideology.


I still fail to see how his mental health or ideological beliefs exempts him from being labeled as a terrorist, Look at the body count and injured count. Even if he was going through some mental problems that shouldn't be a reason for him to equip himself with a whole cache of sorted weapons. if that was the case then every person suffering mental illness would be doing the same thing he did before he even started processing thoughts of doing this. 

in my honest opinion he still a terrorist whether it was or wasn't politically religiously or ideological beliefs or mental illness that sparked it. 

500 people are injured the body count keeps rising because there still many people on critical condition that keeps dying.

if doing all that doesn't label you a domestic piece of shit terrorist then I don't know what will.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Call him a terrorist if you want, just don't try and push a racial conspiracy based on everyone else not conforming to your personal definitions of words. :draper2

I don't think anyone is on the other side of "This guy was a piece of shit".


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> Australia did it and have not had a mass shooting since being much tougher on guns and that was like 20 years ago.
> 
> Before this shooting, the shooter was a so-called law-abiding citizen.
> 
> ...


Great logic! Anyone with a basic understanding of physics/ engineering can make one. I guess we should not forget about Boston.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> Seems like a semantic argument. I don't know the specifics of how the guns were acquired but assuming it was done legally then *clearly he had the freedom to buy them*.


Yeah, that's kinda the issue here. Glad you're catching up.



CamillePunk said:


> Not sure where you're getting that idea. I'm just talking about being able to do non-violent things without interference.


To dismiss out of hand any discussion as to whether assault rifles are 'non-violent things' seems intentionally obtuse. They are not ornaments; their entire purpose is violent.

I'm sensing a foggy overlap between your ideology and reality. You want this mythical FREEDOM but don't actually understand that pure, unqualified freedom doesn't and has never existed.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

Flay said:


> Except I'm not throwing around labels so check your suggestions at the door.
> 
> Sorry that you are confused with what terrorism actually is but don't expect people to go along with false definitions.
> 
> Motive is the sole factor in determining what is terrorism and what isn't and as far we know, this guy just wanted to kill people = not terrorism. That may change but to call it terrorism is jumping the gun and leads people down a slippery slope which they shouldn't even be going down. Just call it for what it is.


Actually you did, let's not pretend otherwise with your insinuations, they're really not subtle.

I'm very much aware what terrorism is, but I appreciate your concern.

I never debated what his motive was, I'm sure we'll get to that eventually and that can be discussed. The moment he stock piled weapons, took out a vantage point and begun opening fire at a large group of people it was terrorism. Possibly not because of any ideological reasons but to disregard it simply because we don't know why he did is simply semantics at this point.

Frankly the dance around if this is terrorism or not when he has amassed a large pile of bodies is quite sad.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

birthday_massacre said:


> When someone kills 60 people and injuries over 500 in a mass knifing then we can talk but until then get out of here with that BS argument.
> 
> Banning guns would drastically cut down on gun violence and mass shootings in the US. Its common sense what it would do. Again look at Australia. No mass shootings since they cracked down on guns 20 years ago.
> 
> ...


wheres the bs argument did you forget about the Boston bombing and 100 of daily massacres that happens in the US daily because of a knife weilding jackass? please don't quote me if you can't debate me with out retorting to the LOL is not gonna happen you full of shit counter argument.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> Obama put in an executive order so mentally ill people could not get a gun, Trump undid that. So not giving the mentally ill access to guns would prevent shootings like by the mentally ill.
> 
> Its still a gun issue.


Well then Trump and the GOP deserve criticism for doing that then, especially if it turns out that Paddock was mentally ill and caused the shooting because of his illness.



Legit BOSS said:


> *Nobody asked you to tag me. I let this go yesterday. You tried to take a shot and it blew it up in your face. Like I said, don't mention me again in this thread.*


Duly noted. And no, it wasn't a shot at you. It was advice toward someone who didn't know that race baiting does nothing of value whatsoever. Now run along and cry elsewhere.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

God Of Anger Juno said:


> wheres the bs argument did you forget about the Boston bombing and 100 of daily massacres that happens in the US daily because of a knife weilding jackass? please don't quote me if you can't debate me with out retorting to the LOL is not gonna happen you full of shit counter argument.





krtgolfing said:


> Great logic! Anyone with a basic understanding of physics/ engineering can make one. I guess we should not forget about Boston.


Once again you keep ignoring the point. Every day in the US there is a mass shooting ( a shooting in which 4 or more people are injured or killed), there isn't a bombing from a pressure cooker happening every day.

I don't understand why this simple concept is so hard to grasp.

And guns kill way more people per year in the US than knives, its not even close.


----------



## JustAName (Sep 17, 2012)

Empress said:


> This hits home. I had a friend in college. His dad was killed by the DC sniper. We all thought it was a white male. You're right, assumptions can be wrong. I won't disagree with you there.
> 
> However, I will also stick up for @Legit BOSS. He's getting trashed as a race baiter, unsympathetic, etc. Not necessarily by you but that has been the argument to shut down his POV.
> 
> He has friends in Vegas, some of whom were hurt I believe. I've got a friend who was a victim in the Pulse shooting. It's just a bit unnerving that if a shooter is a white male, terrorism is not seen as a motivating factor. Instead, it's the lone wolf narrative. With this story first started to get out, many were quick to blame Muslims. They weren't waiting for facts. He was calling out that double standard.


Ok I am just gonna answer this REAL quick.. if people have heard about the shootings in Norway, Utoya 2011, which I assume majority here has heard about, it was performed my a white male and it was a terrorist attack, he had political/religious motivation, THAT is the very DEFINITION of a terrorist attack it has NOTHING to do with someones color of their skin. I am sorry but you being ignorant to something or emotional about something(due to personal involvement) does not justify you in going on generalizing in a situation you have either zero knowledge about or because you are partly racist yourself. Everyone that knows what terrorism is will call it terrorism the second it would be found out that his motives was either political or religious and there are no two ways about it, it has NOTHING to do with skin color. Oh and btw the shooter in Norway was also a "lone wolf" your theory has factually been shut down

"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, describes the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror, or fear, to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim." Thus far that has not been proven to be the case with this guy to my knowledge, hence it's not a terrorist attack, does it make it mean any less of a crime or any less horrific? Obviously not, but it is what it is and not something else


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Anark said:


> Yeah, that's kinda the issue here. Glad you're catching up.


Are we going in circles? :lol I know the issue is that people want to restrict freedoms. That's what I've been arguing against this entire time. :lol Although I'm done now because the mods don't want this to be a political thread so now I'm just defending myself against sophistry.  



> To dismiss out of hand any discussion as to whether assault rifles are 'non-violent things' seems intentionally obtuse. They are not ornaments; their entire purpose is violent.


The act of buying an assault rifle is non-violent. The act of firing an assault rifle at someone is violent. There is no force involved in the act of purchasing a gun and thus you can't call it violent and be correct.



> I'm sensing a foggy overlap between your ideology and reality. You want this mythical FREEDOM but don't actually understand that pure, unqualified freedom doesn't and has never existed.


I'm not really interested in your hallucinations of possessing psychic powers.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

God Of Anger Juno said:


> I still fail to see how his mental health or ideological beliefs exempts him from being labeled as a terrorist, Look at the body count and injured count. *Even if he was going through some mental problems that shouldn't be a reason for him to equip himself with a whole cache of sorted weapons.* if that was the case then every person suffering mental illness would be doing the same thing he did before he even started processing thoughts of doing this.
> 
> in my honest opinion he still a terrorist whether it was or wasn't politically religiously or ideological beliefs or mental illness that sparked it.
> 
> ...


I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded part. Sadly, a law enacted by Obama to prevent mentally ill folks from buying guns was overturned by Trump. So if it turns out that Paddock was indeed mentally ill, this massacre could easily blow up in his and the GOP's faces.

You're entitled to your opinion, but terrorism by U.S. legal definition is "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." If Paddock's motive is revealed to be ideologically-driven, then he will indeed be properly viewed as a terrorist.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

Gun Control has always been one of those issues I feel there is definitely room for a middle ground, but neither side is willing to bend. 

The right says "Lay off our guns! 2nd Amendment! People kill people!", and the left says "No guns for anybody! Guns don't protect! Won't somebody PLEEEASE think of the children?!" a stance supported by politicians and celebrities that, in many cases, benefit from armed security. 

I am not for taking everybody's guns away, BUT, is it asking too much to have extensive background checks or a stringent licensing/training process? I mean, we have the right to drive a car, but they put us through the ringer sure we're ready to do so. And can we also find ways to prevent illegal guns from coming into the country? (no build a wall jokes please, lol). 

And one thing I do respect about the NRA is their emphasis on gun safety and the proper way to handle a firearm. Is there anyway we can involve them in mandatory training and evaluation before gun ownership is obtained?

Can we at least strive for that? I think that's reasonable.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Well then Trump and the GOP deserve criticism for doing that then, especially if it turns out that Paddock was mentally ill and caused the shooting because of his illness.


And to take it a step further the GOP let people on a terrorist watch list be able to legally get guns too.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> The act of buying an assault rifle is non-violent. The act of firing an assault rifle at someone is violent. There is no force involved in the act of purchasing a gun and thus you can't call it violent and be correct.












Back to the Trump thread with you.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

JustAName said:


> Ok I am just gonna answer this REAL quick.. if people have heard about the shootings in Norway, Utoya 2011, which I assume majority here has heard about, it was performed my a white male and it was a terrorist attack, he had political/religious motivation, THAT is the very DEFINITION of a terrorist attack it has NOTHING to do with someones color of their skin. I am sorry but you being ignorant to something or emotional about something(due to personal involvement) does not justify you in going on generalizing in a situation you have either zero knowledge about or because you are partly racist yourself. Everyone that knows what terrorism is will call it terrorism the second it would be found out that his motives was either political or religious and there are no two ways about it, it has NOTHING to do with skin color. Oh and btw the shooter in Norway also a "lone wolf" your theory has factually been shut down


so is only considered terrorism when they have a political belief is that right chief?

so he could get exempt to be labeled as terrorist as far they don't have a motivation to do it?

tell that to the victims families and friends affected and devastated by it. 

so if he's not a terrorist going as far as removing windows from his hotel room mounting a rail to support the rifle not to mention he also chose the room with the best vantage view on his target. he knew what he was doing you can't tell me other wise.

when you shooting at INNOCENT CIVILIANS from a vantage point who were just there to enjoy a concert then I don't need any other way to look at it.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> Are we going in circles? :lol I know the issue is that people want to restrict freedoms. That's what I've been arguing against this entire time. :lol Although I'm done now because the mods don't want this to be a political thread so now I'm just defending myself against sophistry.
> 
> The act of buying an assault rifle is non-violent. The act of firing an assault rifle at someone is violent. There is no force involved in the act of purchasing a gun and thus you can't call it violent and be correct.
> 
> I'm not really interested in your hallucinations of possessing psychic powers.


Not that I disagree with you totally per se, however, what exactly is a non-violent use for a gun?


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

JustAName said:


> Ok I am just gonna answer this REAL quick.. if people have heard about the shootings in Norway, Utoya 2011, which I assume majority here has heard about, it was performed my a white male and it was a terrorist attack, he had political/religious motivation, THAT is the very DEFINITION of a terrorist attack it has NOTHING to do with someones color of their skin. I am sorry but you being ignorant to something or emotional about something(due to personal involvement) does not justify you in going on generalizing in a situation you have either zero knowledge about or because you are partly racist yourself. Everyone that knows what terrorism is will call it terrorism the second it would be found out that his motives was either political or religious and there are no two ways about it, it has NOTHING to do with skin color. Oh and btw the shooter in Norway was also a "lone wolf" your theory has factually been shut down
> 
> "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, describes the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror, or fear, to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim." Thus far that has not been proven to be the case with this guy to my knowledge, hence it's not a terrorist attack, does it make it mean any less or any less horrific? Obviously not, but it is what it is and not something else


Timothy McVeigh and The Unabomber were both white guys and basically were the faces of terrorism before 9/11 as well



RavishingRickRules said:


> Not that I disagree with you totally per se, however, what exactly is a non-violent use for a gun?


Shooting ranges?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> Are we going in circles?
> 
> The act of buying an assault rifle is non-violent. The act of firing an assault rifle at someone is violent. There is no force involved in the act of purchasing a gun and thus you can't call it violent and be correct.


The intent of buying an assault rifle is to commit violence.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not that I disagree with you totally per se, however, what exactly is a non-violent use for a gun?


Exactly. ... even if you were using the gun for self defense it still an act of violence. 

maybe they can just flash and wave the gun around like the rappers did in the 90's even then you're still exhibiting violence since well... There's a gun in your hand.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous (Aug 19, 2013)

birthday_massacre said:


> And to take it a step further the GOP let people on a terrorist watch list be able to legally get guns too.


I heard. Prior to that, they were already cancerous enough to make me sickened of them for a lifetime, so it's not like they can't stoop any lower.

Oh well, at least Trump gives no shits about putting them on blast when they're being fucktards of the highest degree. :lol


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jan 28, 2010)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not that I disagree with you totally per se, however, what exactly is a non-violent use for a gun?





















:kappa


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

You know, there is a clue in the name: _assault _rifle.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

I know some people that collect guns. As far as I know, they don't even have ammunition. 

They just collect the guns and put them in a display case. 

I'd consider that non-violent. 

Hey I have a Lego Death Star, so I'm not going to judge other people's hobbies and decorative choices.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Not that I disagree with you totally per se, however, what exactly is a non-violent use for a gun?


There's a few, but it's immaterial to my point which is that simply purchasing the weapon is not initiating violence against anyone and thus is a restriction of freedom to conduct oneself non-violently. 

It's not the case that all violence is bad. If we need to defend ourselves, either against some wanton attacker or a tyrannical state, I'd consider that a moral use of violence.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

TripleG said:


> I know some people that collect guns. As far as I know, they don't even have ammunition.
> 
> They just collect the guns and put them in a display case.
> 
> ...


Most people that collect guns collect vintage guns not newer guns.


----------



## Chloe (Apr 1, 2014)

Miss Sally said:


> Actually you did, let's not pretend otherwise with your insinuations, they're really not subtle.
> 
> I'm very much aware what terrorism is, but I appreciate your concern.
> 
> ...


No I didn't. You're the one blindly labelling the killings as terrorism, I'm not. 

And you clearly don't know what terrorism is. None of what the is bolded is relevant as terrorism isn't defined by actions, it's defined by motive. When will you get that? You can't just make up a definition of something and think people will take it as truth. You can tell people over and over again that grass is red but you will never be correct.

The people calling it terrorism clearly have an agenda and want to take it to a political place because that's what terrorism is actually about yet there has been no political aspect even confirmed to this killing in the first place. Ironic huh. Sadly the irony isn't amusing in this situation nor is the agenda.


----------



## ElTerrible (Feb 8, 2004)

TripleG said:


> Gun Control has always been one of those issues I feel there is definitely room for a middle ground, but neither side is willing to bend.
> 
> The right says "Lay off our guns! 2nd Amendment! People kill people!", and the left says "No guns for anybody! Guns don't protect! Won't somebody PLEEEASE think of the children?!" a stance supported by politicians and celebrities that, in many cases, benefit from armed security.
> 
> ...


That scum is working on laws to put guns into the hands of mentally ill people and legalize silencers. Are you kidding me. You think these politicians sit around and suddenly think: Hey wouldn´t it be a great idea, if we gave crazy people guns and silencers, too. They vote like they vote, cause of the campaign donations they receive from lobbies. 

It´s bad enough the gun industry and the NRA have no human decency, but they are not supposed to. These politicians have a responsibility for the well-being of America and it´s citizens, and they simply do not give a fuck whether innocent people are killed by their laws. They want to make it easier for people to kill other people, just so they can keep getting them cheques. 

There is no majority in the American public for giving guns to mentally ill people or selling silencers legally. It´s the same fucking shit with health care. The Republicans took millions and millions from the pharma industry and they hate that Obama is associated with a positive change for American society, so they try to destroy a good health care bill, that is supported by the vast majority of Americans, instead of making it even better. And the ultimate goal is not to fight income or education inequality with the alleged budget savings. No to give even more tax breaks to themselves and their rich buddies.


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

Flay said:


> No I didn't. You're the one blindly labelling the killings as terrorism, I'm not.
> 
> And you clearly don't know what terrorism is. None of what the is bolded is relevant as terrorism isn't defined by actions, it's defined by motive. When will you get that? You can't just make up a definition of something and think people will take it as truth. You can tell people over and over again that grass is red but you will never be correct.
> 
> The people calling it terrorism clearly have an agenda and want to take it to a political place because that's what terrorism is actually about yet there has been no political aspect even confirmed to this killing in the first place. Ironic huh. Sadly the irony isn't amusing in this situation nor is the agenda.


terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m] 
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

krtgolfing said:


> terrorism
> [ter-uh-riz-uh m]
> Spell Syllables
> Examples Word Origin
> ...


This last shooting had everything bolded, and we don't know his political aim or if there was one since he killed himself.

Terrorism shouldn't only have to apply to political or religious reasons IMO. If you are using violence to create terror or fear on a group of people that should be considered terrorism.


----------



## Jam (Nov 6, 2015)

Fucking coward killed himself after all that, should've done that before killing others..don't take anyone's life along with your own if it comes to that

Utter scum


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> This last shooting had everything bolded, and we don't know his political aim or if there was one since he killed himself.
> 
> Terrorism shouldn't only have to apply to political or religious reasons IMO. If you are using violence to create terror or fear on a group of people that should be considered terrorism.


Well according to the definition it is not terrorism until we know the agenda. Liberals will try and argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. Lol!


----------



## JustAName (Sep 17, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> The intent of buying an assault rifle is to commit violence.


It's a bit to narrow minded way of looking at it and too bombastic. Weapon enthusiast's will own said weapons just because they have an admiration and fascination for it.. again you can't generalize things like these cause there are always legitimate exceptions to what seems to have become the rule.

I am against civilians owning any kind of firearm, but that doesn't mean there aren't situations where people buy their guns to not use them against others or to cause fear. People allowed to carry a firearm in my view, whether you're a cop or a soldier need to get mental/emotional testing monthly or at the least every 3rd month and they need to be strict


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

krtgolfing said:


> Well according to the definition it is not terrorism until we know the agenda. Liberals will try and argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. Lol!


That is what I said it shouldn't matter if it's political or not. if it's done to create terror then, in my opinion, that should be all that is needed. I know what the official definition is.

And LOL at your comment Liberals will try and argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4 when its conservatives who deny climate change and evolution (they want creationism taught in schools).


----------



## Chloe (Apr 1, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> This last shooting had everything bolded, and we don't know his political aim or if there was one since he killed himself.
> 
> Terrorism shouldn't only have to apply to political or religious reasons IMO. If you are using violence to create terror or fear on a group of people that should be considered terrorism.


Love how you conviniently forgot to bold the last part acting like it doesn't matter.

Political motive is what makes mass murder = terrorism, deal with it.


----------



## JustAName (Sep 17, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> This last shooting had everything bolded, and we don't know his political aim or if there was one since he killed himself.
> 
> Terrorism shouldn't only have to apply to political or religious reasons IMO. If you are using violence to create terror or fear on a group of people that should be considered terrorism.


On the political aim not being known part is just plain wrong as anyone with a political aim or religious aim for that matter will leave evidence of such if not their acts won't matter and their message won't get the time of day. So IF this was politically or religiously motivated you will hear about it, if not, it wasn't, cause there is no logic behind something being politically or religiously motivated for then to be nothing left behind about it, it defeats the purpose


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Flay said:


> Love how you conviniently forgot to bold the last part acting like it doesn't matter.
> 
> Political motive is what makes mass murder = terrorism, deal with it.


Mass murder still creates terror, that is why IMO political motive should not matter.

This is just my personal opinion, not saying its how it is. Not sure why people like you keep pretending it is. I keep saying IMO.


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> That is what I said it shouldn't matter if it's political or not. if it's done to create terror then, in my opinion, that should be all that is needed. I know what the official definition is.
> 
> And LOL at your comment Liberals will try and argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4 when its conservatives who deny climate change and evolution (they want creationism taught in schools).


Well you clearly have a basic English comprehension problem then as your trying to argue a definition. And yes a lot of conservatives are a bunch of idiots who deny a bunch of logical shit. Some probably can not even add 2 plus 2.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

JustAName said:


> It's a bit to narrow minded way of looking at it and too bombastic. Weapon enthusiast's will own said weapons just because they have an admiration and fascination for it.. again you can't generalize things like these cause there are always legitimate exceptions to what seems to have become the rule.
> 
> I am against civilians owning any kind of firearm, but that doesn't mean there aren't situations where people buy their guns to not use them against others or to cause fear. People allowed to carry a firearm in my view, whether you're a cop or a soldier need to get mental/emotional testing monthly or at the least every 3rd month and they need to be strict


It's not narrowminded at all. Guns have one sole purpose and that is to kill someone which is violence.

And AGAIN Weapon enthusiast buy vintage guns, not new guns. 

If you are a gun collector you are buying classic guns from like WW1 WW2 and early colts, things like that. Not 2017 assault rifles with ammo for it.





krtgolfing said:


> Well you clearly have a basic English comprehension problem then as your trying to argue a definition. And yes a lot of conservatives are a bunch of idiots who deny a bunch of logical shit. Some probably can not even add 2 plus 2.


it has nothing to do with comprehension, it has to do with thinking the definition should be changed. Learn the difference.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I don't really care how legitimate your gun collection fantasies are, you still shouldn't be buying working assault rifles.


----------



## Chloe (Apr 1, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> Mass murder still creates terror, that is why IMO political motive should not matter.
> 
> This is just my personal opinion, not saying its how it is. Not sure why people like you keep pretending it is. I keep saying IMO.


And referring to someone as 'milquetoast' doesn't mean we're calling them bread.

Don't know how you can still champion that opinion when it's been proven wrong but whatever, more power to you.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> I don't really care how legitimate your gun collection fantasies are, you still shouldn't be buying working assault rifles.


I got one to test that theory for them.

If they are just for "collection" then people that buy assault rifles just for their "collection" just have it not work, they can take out the working parts so it cannot be fired.

Do you think they would go for that?





Flay said:


> And referring to someone as 'milquetoast' doesn't mean we're calling them bread.
> 
> Don't know how you can still champion that opinion when it's been proven wrong but whatever, more power to you.


Nothing has been proven wrong. I am saying what should be call terrorism. I am not saying it is.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

Stinger Fan said:


> Timothy McVeigh and The Unabomber were both white guys and basically were the faces of terrorism before 9/11 as well
> 
> 
> Shooting ranges?


Are they not often called "target PRACTICE?" What are you practising shooting a gun for? :shrug


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> There's a few, but it's immaterial to my point which is that simply purchasing the weapon is not initiating violence against anyone and thus is a restriction of freedom to conduct oneself non-violently.
> 
> It's not the case that all violence is bad. If we need to defend ourselves, either against some wanton attacker or a tyrannical state, I'd consider that a moral use of violence.


Interestingly though, I've been attacked/mugged numerous times in my life, never needed a gun. In fact, because there are almost no guns here (even though I've been mugged in one of the cities with the worst gun-crime, less than 10 deaths a year though for perspective) when I've been attacked and not been blocked in, I simply run away and call the police. :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Interestingly though, I've been attacked/mugged numerous times in my life, never needed a gun. In fact, because there are almost no guns here (even though I've been mugged in one of the cities with the worst gun-crime, less than 10 deaths a year though for perspective) when I've been attacked and not been blocked in, I simply run away and call the police. :shrug


I suppose it depends on your standard of outcomes. My standard is to not be attacked or mugged and that is what I like to maintain. I also like to have the capacity to defend my home against intruders. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> I suppose it depends on your standard of outcomes. My standard is to not be attacked or mugged and that is what I like to maintain. I also like to have the capacity to defend my home against intruders. Different strokes for different folks.


Why wouldn't you be able to defend your home? In a society with hardly any guns the intruder has no advantage, I've got a kitchen full of knives, bats, and other "weapons" easy to hand and legal protection from the government should I kill someone who breaks into my home :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> I suppose it depends on your standard of outcomes. My standard is to not be attacked or mugged and that is what I like to maintain. I also like to have the capacity to defend my home against intruders. Different strokes for different folks.


Defend it with an assault rifle?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Why wouldn't you be able to defend your home? In a society with hardly any guns the intruder has no advantage, I've got a kitchen full of knives, bats, and other "weapons" easy to hand and legal protection from the government should I kill someone who breaks into my home :shrug


I don't want to have to physically outmatch someone because they've chosen to be violent, or risk my personal safety with close quarters combat, especially using sharp weapons.

I don't think that's a reasonable burden on someone defending themselves.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> I don't want to have to physically outmatch someone because they've chosen to be violent, or risk my personal safety with close quarters combat, especially using sharp weapons.
> 
> I don't think that's a reasonable burden on someone defending themselves.


I don't want to have a shootout with somebody who likely already has a gun loaded and pointed ready to fire, I'm not Billy the Kid. I'm far more likely to survive any attack with no guns involved than one without, and much easier to disable than take a life :shrug. You know our police just disarm people with knives and arrest them? Crazy I know, killing them outright is obviously much better....


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

It seems to me that people who think our government has been taken over by a racist fascist, possibly with the help of a foreign government, should absolutely want assault rifles. If I thought that I would definitely be stocking up on some high powered weaponry by whatever means necessary.


RavishingRickRules said:


> I don't want to have a shootout with somebody who likely already has a gun loaded and pointed ready to fire, I'm not Billy the Kid. I'm far more likely to survive any attack with no guns involved than one without, and much easier to disable than take a life :shrug.


Then don't get a gun. Problem solved.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> I suppose it depends on your standard of outcomes. My standard is to not be attacked or mugged and that is what I like to maintain. *I also like to have the capacity to defend my home against intruders*. Different strokes for different folks.


59 people wouldn't have had to die and hundreds of school kids over the years wouldn't have had to die if feeble or physically weak men just bought a fucking BASEBALL BAT. 

Or got to the gym and lift some weights. Take a boxing or Jiu Jitsu class. If someone breaks into my house, I don't need an assault rifle to defend me or my family. I'm charging that fucker with a claw hammer or a dumbbell or my stinking socks from the laundry basket.

By the time you get your assault rifle ready to fire (assuming you keep it locked up, unloaded, and thus safe from children/theft/etc) the thief will have stolen your new widescreen plasma TV, your car keys and probably your girlfriend with his manly roguish charm that doesn't need an assault rifle to defend itself.

Is that what it all comes down to, being afraid that having an assault rifle is the only way you can physically compete with other men?


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> It seems to me that people who think our government has been taken over by a racist fascist, possibly with the help of a foreign government, should absolutely want assault rifles. If I thought that I would definitely be stocking up on some high powered weaponry by whatever means necessary.


Yeah because having an assault rifle is a great weapon against aircraft carriers, nuclear bombs and stealth bombers :lmao


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

Also love how CP thinks having an assault rifle will enable him to defend himself against the United States military :lmao

Good luck with that pal.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> It seems to me that people who think our government has been taken over by a racist fascist, possibly with the help of a foreign government, should absolutely want assault rifles. If I thought that I would definitely be stocking up on some high powered weaponry by whatever means necessary.Then don't get a gun. Problem solved.


That is ironic because conservatives used the same logic with Obama claiming he was going to put everyone in FEMA camps.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Anark said:


> 59 people wouldn't have had to die and hundreds of school kids over the years wouldn't have had to die if feeble or physically weak men just bought a fucking BASEBALL BAT.
> 
> Or got to the gym and lift some weights. Take a boxing or Jiu Jitsu class. If someone breaks into my house, I don't need an assault rifle to defend me or my family. I'm charging that fucker with a claw hammer or a dumbbell or my stinking socks from the laundry basket.
> 
> ...


I don't remember saying I had or needed an assault rifle? 

I'm not going to risk anyone's safety on the gamble that I can just beat up anyone who barges into my home. :lol 



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah because having an assault rifle is a great weapon against aircraft carriers, nuclear bombs and stealth bombers :lmao


Not sure how much of the military would go along with using any of those weapons against its own citizens, but I generally agree that militias should be armed with more than just assault rifles to overcome a tyrannical government. Glad we've reached a place of agreement.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Anark said:


> Also love how CP thinks having an assault rifle will enable him to defend himself against the United States military :lmao
> 
> Good luck with that pal.


All that will happen if someone was to discharge an assault rifle in a house would be it possibly spraying bullets outside or to the house next door and hitting an innocent person maybe even killing them.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Anark said:


> Also love how CP thinks having an assault rifle will enable him to defend himself against the United States military :lmao
> 
> Good luck with that pal.


Are you incapable of arguing against something I've actually said that you have to continuously make things up? :lol


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

JustAName said:


> Ok I am just gonna answer this REAL quick.. if people have heard about the shootings in Norway, Utoya 2011, which I assume majority here has heard about, it was performed my a white male and it was a terrorist attack, he had political/religious motivation, THAT is the very DEFINITION of a terrorist attack it has NOTHING to do with someones color of their skin.* I am sorry but you being ignorant to something or emotional about something(due to personal involvement) does not justify you in going on generalizing in a situation you have either zero knowledge about or because you are partly racist yourself.* Everyone that knows what terrorism is will call it terrorism the second it would be found out that his motives was either political or religious and there are no two ways about it, it has NOTHING to do with skin color. Oh and btw the shooter in Norway was also a "lone wolf" your theory has factually been shut down
> 
> "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, describes the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror, or fear, to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim." Thus far that has not been proven to be the case with this guy to my knowledge, hence it's not a terrorist attack, does it make it mean any less of a crime or any less horrific? Obviously not, but it is what it is and not something else


I'm in control of my emotional facilities and will repeat once more that I believe that the shooter behind this attack is a domestic terrorist. As for the rest of your diatribe, you wouldn't know me if you passed me on the street. So your opinion of me, or lack thereof since you're quick with the insults, is of no consequence. Proceed.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> Are you incapable of arguing against something I've actually said that you have to continuously make things up? :lol


My comment mocking you for thinking you could defend yourself against the government's attack on you was a reply to this:



CamillePunk said:


> It seems to me that people who think our government has been taken over by a racist fascist, possibly with the help of a foreign government, should absolutely want assault rifles. *If I thought that I would definitely be stocking up on some high powered weaponry* by whatever means necessary.Then don't get a gun. Problem solved.


You see how you said that, and then I replied to it? Good. You can now stop casting imaginary strawman allegations everywhere every time you get shown up to be intellectually ineffectual.


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

CamillePunk said:


> I suppose it depends on your standard of outcomes. My standard is to not be attacked or mugged and that is what I like to maintain. I also like to have the capacity to defend my home against intruders. Different strokes for different folks.


And you don't need an automatic or semiautomatic to defend yourself or your home. You don't need a high capacity magazine to defend yourself or your home. If you're attacked or mugged, you don't need a gun, you can use pepper spray/ mace, a taser, a pocketknife, or all sorts of other weapons that will do the trick to fend off your attacker. You can have it somewhere where its easy access for you but difficult for a kid or someone else to get it. You can deal with making the process of getting a new gun or some more ammo a little longer a little more arduous so it prevents some lunatics from getting their hands on one. 
The fact that the NRA and the "pro 2a" types aren't even willing to compromise on common sense issues like this is the problem, and have blood on their hands because of it.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Anark said:


> You see how you said that, and then I replied to it? Good. You can now stop casting imaginary strawman allegations everywhere every time you get shown up to be intellectually ineffectual.


You went off about how I needed an assault rifle to defend my home when I never said anything like that. 

By high powered weaponry I meant things even more powerful than an assault rifle, which is what a militia would need to oppose a tyrannical government. So again, your statement that I think I can or would defend myself against the US military with an assault rifle IS A STRAWMAN. Sorry you don't like being called out on this but you keep doing it.


----------



## ElTerrible (Feb 8, 2004)

CamillePunk said:


> I suppose it depends on your standard of outcomes. My standard is to not be attacked or mugged and that is what I like to maintain. I also like to have the capacity to defend my home against intruders. Different strokes for different folks.


Harvard have done studies on criminals in jail with gunshot wounds and virtually nobody reported being shot by a law-abiding citizen in self-defense.

That´s such an unrealistic movie BS scenario. 

1. Burglars break into empty houses. They wait for you to leave. They want to maximize their earning potential and reduce their probability to get caught. 

2. You have no idea what the sound you heard outside your bedroom was. 

Are you willing to immediately unload your assault rifle into a moving shadow. 

Oops was just your teenage daughter sneaking back into the house from a secret date with her boyfriend. 

3. Do you have your assault rifle easily accessable and ready to shoot? 

4. How do you know that nobody you love gets caught in a crossfire, when dozens of bullets are flying?

5. I think with the easy acccess to mobile phones loud shouting and informing the mysterious sound from downstairs that the cops are under way, will result in 99% of burglars running and 100% of naughty daughters living.


----------



## ElTerrible (Feb 8, 2004)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah because having an assault rifle is a great weapon against aircraft carriers, nuclear bombs and stealth bombers :lmao


It would indeed be funny, if it was not so sad. :frown2:


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> It seems to me that people who think our government has been taken over by a racist fascist, possibly with the help of a foreign government, should absolutely want assault rifles. If I thought that I would definitely be stocking up on some high powered weaponry by whatever means necessary.Then don't get a gun. Problem solved.





CamillePunk said:


> I don't remember saying I had or needed an assault rifle?
> 
> I'm not going to risk anyone's safety on the gamble that I can just beat up anyone who barges into my home. :lol
> 
> Not sure how much of the military would go along with using any of those weapons against its own citizens, but I generally agree that militias should be armed with more than just assault rifles to overcome a tyrannical government. Glad we've reached a place of agreement.


No we completely disagree, you're just not particularly well educated so your reading comprehension's pretty poor. I'm saying that the supposed reason for "bearing arms" is idiotic, you could never win that fight ever with all of the citizens armed with assault rifles. It's a bullshit excuse to keep guns tbh.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

ElTerrible said:


> 1. Burglars break into empty houses. They wait for you to leave. They want to maximize their earning potential and reduce their probability to get caught.


Yeah, burglars tend to do this. Sometimes they don't, and not everyone who invades a home is a burglar. Either way, I'd prefer to have a gun than not have one in that situation. 



> 2. You have no idea what the sound you heard outside your bedroom was.
> 
> Are you willing to immediately unload your assault rifle into a moving shadow.
> 
> Oops was just your teenage daughter sneaking back into the house from a secret date with her boyfriend.


An assault rifle would be a terrible choice to defend your home with, I agree. That's why I never suggested using one. That was a strawman by another poster who knows no other way of posting. 



> 5. I think with the easy acccess to mobile phones loud shouting and informing the mysterious sound from downstairs that the cops are under way, will result in 99% of burglars running and 100% of naughty daughters living.


Police response time isn't great, but I'm not opposed to having multiple defense plans. Obviously using the gun is a last resort.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> It seems to me that people who think our government has been taken over by a racist fascist, possibly with the help of a foreign government, should absolutely want assault rifles. If I thought that I would definitely be stocking up on some high powered weaponry by whatever means necessary.Then don't get a gun. Problem solved.


I don't need to, I don't live in a country where guns are everywhere and the citizens and government take turns to summarily execute each other.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

RavishingRickRules said:


> No we completely disagree, you're just not particularly well educated so your reading comprehension's pretty poor. I'm saying that the supposed reason for "bearing arms" is idiotic, you could never win that fight ever with all of the citizens armed with assault rifles. It's a bullshit excuse to keep guns tbh.


Yawn. More personal attacks from you. Was the warning last time not enough? Can't get through the debate on arguments alone? 

My reading comprehension is poor and yet you just repeated a claim I agreed with already as if I didn't already agree with it. I guess I'm not educated enough to understand how that works.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> You went off about how I needed an assault rifle to defend my home when I never said anything like that.


You said it here:



CamillePunk said:


> I also like to have the capacity to defend my home against intruders.


Or are you now going to claim that 'the capacity' to defend your home against intruders which you mention does not include guns despite the entire conversation being about why you want them?

You're embarrassing yourself now, pal.



CamillePunk said:


> By high powered weaponry I meant things even more powerful than an assault rifle, which is what a militia would need to oppose a tyrannical government. So again, your statement that I think I can or would defend myself against the US military with an assault rifle IS A STRAWMAN. Sorry you don't like being called out on this but you keep doing it.


Are you fucking serious? Are you talking about those hick militias holed up in a hunting lodge tweeting out demands to the government (and requests for food from friends because they forgot about that bit)? Who then bow down like bitches when the police glance in their general direction?

Where the fuck are you getting a tyrannical government from anyway? I like dystopian sci-fi too, dude, but come on.

The fact that you think that is a potential reality is hilarious. Keep saying STRAWMAN at everything though. And don't forget to add a laughing smiley in every post so every knows how clever you are.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Anark said:


> You said it here:
> 
> Or are you now going to claim that 'the capacity' to defend your home against intruders which you mention does not include guns despite the entire conversation being about why you want them?
> 
> You're embarrassing yourself now, pal.


Are all guns assault rifles?  





> Are you fucking serious? Are you talking about those hick militias holed up in a hunting lodge tweeting out demands to the government (and requests for food from friends because they forgot about that bit)? Who then bow down like bitches when the police glance in their general direction?
> 
> Where the fuck are you getting a tyrannical government from anyway? I like dystopian sci-fi too, dude, but come on.
> 
> The fact that you think that is a potential reality is hilarious. Keep saying STRAWMAN at everything though. And don't forget to add a laughing smiley in every post so every knows how clever you are.


If you actually read my post I was talking about people who think Trump is a racist fascist trying to impose tyranny. In that case clearly, if they wanted to resist, they would need some high powered weaponry. How is any of that incorrect or me saying I'm gonna take on the US military myself with an assault rifle or that we currently live under a tyrannical regime? It's not. You. Are. Strawmanning.


----------



## Crasp (Feb 26, 2014)

Feel a bit bad for Sheriff Lombardo, that guy clearly hasn't slept since this whole thing happened.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Let's stop with the personal attacks right now. This is mostly at @Anark. Thanks bud.


This tragedy is on Mandalay Bay. Is there some secret lobby I don't know about that has prevented them from being at fault here? Let's say guns are totally banned. A person can still procure them illegally. He'd still need to get into the high rise casino with his arsenal of combat firearms. He'd have done it too because they apparently have zero security. I bet the security for the money that the casino brings in is extremely tight. It's like they've never heard of Charles Whitman though.


edit: Also someone said assault rifles are made for killing people. Definitely true. So are handguns. Handguns are made specifically to kill people. We can't ban something just because it's made specifically to kill people. The high rate of fire on some guns isn't actually designed to cause mass casualties in combat. It's usually to suppress enemy fire so other soldiers can potentially move to other positions. There aren't masses of people that are essentially living walls in combat. This is why high rate of fire is outlawed in civilian life. Yet this guy had guns with high rate of fire. Even if those guns were illegal, he'd still be able to get them. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it disappear. Heroin is illegal. Yet the United States has a severe heroin problem.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> Are all guns assault rifles?


This whole conversation has been about assault rifles. Now you are trying to twist things to back track on ridiculous comments you made which have since been trampled on by logic and reason.



CamillePunk said:


> If you actually read my post I was talking about people who think Trump is a racist fascist trying to impose tyranny. In that case clearly, if they wanted to resist, they would need some high powered weaponry. How is any of that incorrect or me saying I'm gonna take on the US military myself with an assault rifle or that we currently live under a tyrannical regime? It's not. You. Are. Strawmanning.


You have changed 'I' to 'They'. Your original post said in such a circumstance that you personally would be willing to do that, so not a strawman, just a reply to something you actually said which you are now backtracking on. 

But please, keep shouting STRAWMAN every time your nonsense gets picked apart. You'll no doubt go back to your Trump pals and laugh that you trolled everybody in this thread, but you really have embarrassed yourself.

Ooh ooh, is this where I add a laughing smiley to show how clever I am? :lol

(is that right?)


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Anark said:


> This whole conversation has been about assault rifles. Now you are trying to twist things to back track on ridiculous comments you made which have since been trampled on by logic and reason.


No, it hasn't been. That's just false. 




> You have changed 'I' to 'They'. Your original post said in such a circumstance that you personally would be willing to do that, so not a strawman, just a reply to something you actually said which you are now backtracking on.
> 
> But please, keep shouting STRAWMAN every time your nonsense gets picked apart. You'll no doubt go back to your Trump pals and laugh that you trolled everybody in this thread, but you really have embarrassed yourself.


I didn't change anything.  I don't know what you're talking about anymore.

EDIT: Nevermind I see what you're saying now. Yeah I'd be willing to help overthrow a racist, fascist, tyrannical regime through force. That's not me defending my lone self against the military. 

Are you saying you'd just give up your country in that situation? If so that's fine, I won't judge you. I just feel differently about it.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

CamillePunk said:


> I didn't change anything.  I don't know what you're talking about anymore.


Behold.



CamillePunk said:


> It seems to me that people who think our government has been taken over by a racist fascist, possibly with the help of a foreign government, should absolutely want assault rifles. *If I thought that* I would definitely be stocking up on some high powered weaponry by whatever means necessary.Then don't get a gun. Problem solved.





CamillePunk said:


> If you actually read my post I was talking about people who think Trump is a racist fascist trying to impose tyranny. In that case clearly, *if they wanted to resist*, they would need some high powered weaponry. How is any of that incorrect or me saying I'm gonna take on the US military myself with an assault rifle or that we currently live under a tyrannical regime? It's not. You. Are. Strawmanning.


If this is where we're at in terms of the discussion then I'll step out, thanks. I can't be arsed to keep going back and getting your posts to show you what you said to prove I am not strawmanning but actually responding to something you said. That's the second time I've had to do it now. Whatevs. Mr's right, we don't need me saying what I think of that kind of approach to debate in this thread.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

I think its time of FIREARMS 101 with stevefox1200 

Every-time there is a shooting a bunch of people on both sides of the debate start leaking weird, uninformed shit so here is some quick lessons on guns so you don't start talking about "machine guns"

Automatic: Originally automatic referred to any firearm that did not have a manual action to chamber the next round, a good example of this is the classic pump action shotgun or lever action rifle. The machine gun was called "fully automatic" which meant the gun could fire while just holding down the trigger while "automatic" only cycled with each trigger pull. These were eventually reclassified for simplicity, "automatic" became "semi-automatic" and "fully automatic" became "automatic". Its worth noting that this simplification is hardly universal and many nations and gun makers still use automatic and fully automatic

Assault rifle: After World War 2 the governments of the world found that the current line of riles were far too powerful for the ranges that combat was taking place and suppression was far more important than accurate shooting. This lead to the development of the "Assault rifle", a rifle chambered in an intermediate round (aka smaller than a full rifle, bigger than a pistol). These intermediate rounds vary in size but the most common in the west is the good ole 5.56 which light and offers little recoil but tends to lack stopping power (which doesn't really matter in war where everyone is wearing body armor or when fighting insurgents who lack proper medical care). The semi-automatic rifles that fired full rounds were then reclassified as "battle rifles"

(note an "assault rifle" can be the latest military weapon or an old ass hunting rifle, its the size of the round not its functions that count)

Assault weapon: whatever is black or miltiaryish, seriously, nearly every list of "assault weapons" the government or media puts out have nothing in common 

Machine gun: a automatic support weapon that fires rifle rounds connected via a belt or magazine. These have never been legal in the last 50 years and are far too complicated for a non trained user. The "legal" ones tended to be WW2 vintage that were smuggled in

Light Machine gun: a automatic support weapon that fires intermediate rounds. They have also never been legal.

The purpose of automatic fire: its all about suppression and keeping the enemy pinned down so another groups can approach from the side or back

In handgun terms a Semi-automatic is any handgun that is not a revolver (we can get into single and double action another time). Automatic pistols are sub-machine guns or machine pistols (the older European term) and can vary in size and shape

Silencers: Silencers do not make your gun "silent" it just makes them more quite. As in slamming a door as opposed to setting of a fire cracker. Their main use is to hide muzzle flashes. There are much quieter silenced weapons but those tend be designed from the ground up to be silenced often require the user to use underloaded rounds with less powder


----------



## Flair Flop (May 21, 2011)

I’m curious as to where or even if some here feel that the distinction between terrorist and mass murderers should be drawn at. The biggest difference between serial killers and mass murderers is the cooling down period in between murders and it doesn’t sound like that to problematic to some here. I guess my thing is this. Do people really believe that when it comes to profiling and specialty task forces that a case like Richard Speck should be lumped in with religious attacks? No cooling down period so technically a mass murder but there was a sexual element. If the terminology is to be adjusted I really don’t care, but I just don’t see the issue with using a political agenda as a means of classification. The motive means far more than how the murders are carried out, IMO.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

I think this guy was/is a terrorist @Flair Flop. I don't think the motive has to always be political. He just murdered more people at one time than anyone in US history. He has severely disrupted society. To me this is terrorism.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania (Oct 16, 2012)

Horrible. If the cops didn't kill him, I'd be all for death penalty.

At least this didn't approach 9/11 numbers.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

MrMister said:


> Let's stop with the personal attacks right now. This is mostly at @Anark. Thanks bud.
> 
> 
> This tragedy is on Mandalay Bay. Is there some secret lobby I don't know about that has prevented them from being at fault here? Let's say guns are totally banned. A person can still procure them illegally. He'd still need to get into the high rise casino with his arsenal of combat firearms. He'd have done it too because they apparently have zero security. I bet the security for the money that the casino brings in is extremely tight. It's like they've never heard of Charles Whitman though.
> ...


The buying, selling and transportation of heroin is far more difficult for being illegal, at some point this person may have been arrested just like the numerous people who get arrested for drug crimes. Making it illegal doesn't stop everything but common sense dictates it stops something somewhere eventually. 

This whole it won't stop X is such a non argument, just like people who get uppity about their guns being banned.

No one argues from a point of gun laws stopping all crime, nor do people want to ban all guns.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Just a few more quick notes

"OVER A THOUSAND ROUNDS: is not that much, you can buy a single order case of 1000 5.56 rounds for about 300 bucks. The average amount of bullets fired per kill in the military is 200,000 

magazine caps: not really an issue, 10 round mags are easy as fuck to get. Anything less than 10 and the magazines will be awkward as fuck. I tend to shoot .45 so I am used to 7 and only load 7 on all handguns no matter the size. I can't imagine any none radical having a problem with a size limit. My dad loves to hunt and told me he would be fine with 5 if revolvers were not an issue 

A magazine is a metal casing that holds your bullets, a clips is a metal wiring that keeps your bullets together for loading, they are not the same thing and "clips" have not really been used since WW2


----------



## Ratedr4life (Dec 18, 2008)

nyelator said:


> You don['t even live here but you pretend like you know everything.


Believe me Canadian politics and policy is VERY boring, hence why I tend to be more engaged and informed on US politics. Plus not all the victims in Las Vegas were American, four of the deceased were Canadian.

It doesn't really matter where I'm from, I'm a human being seeing other human beings gain access to weapons to commit mass murder. I'm contributing common sense to a situation that lacks it.

What's your issue with that?


----------



## JustAName (Sep 17, 2012)

Empress said:


> I'm in control of my emotional facilities and will repeat once more that I believe that the shooter behind this attack is a domestic terrorist. As for the rest of your diatribe, you wouldn't know me if you passed me on the street. So your opinion of me, or lack thereof since you're quick with the insults, is of no consequence. Proceed.


Well.. even domestic terrorism is targeted generally at their own government and/or is motivated by ideology or politics. As for insults, no, but you do not seem to know what you're talking about if that's insulting, that's fine.

"The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[2] [3]"

Thus far he does NOT fit the title of a domestic terrorist as it has also been heard from his brother that he had no political or religious interest and they have up until this point not found any. While point A and C obvious applies, B, which is vital because it's about the intent behind, which at the end of the day determines if something is terrorism, domestic or regular he does not at current time fall under.

Also the "insult" was actually more directed at who you were defending, who obviously was very emotionally invested in the situation and had a decided take on what was going on without much knowledge on it. As ignorance simply means not knowing something, that is a fact with regards to what you think classifies a domestic terrorist. 

If you believe he has ideological or political motives for what he did, that's fine, but if you're an american you have something called "innocent until proven guilty" and he is not proven to be what you believe at this point in time, so you're sort of jumping to conclusion on this and based on what? Not emotions, right? So if you want to explain what makes you jump to that conclusion I am more than willing to listen if you have information the rest of us don't at this point. I am also not saying that you can't be proven right, but at this very point, it's all assumptions, right? It's dangerous and foolish to assume in my honest opinion


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Are they not often called "target PRACTICE?" What are you practising shooting a gun for? :shrug


Maybe they enjoy shooting at the range in a legal environment while getting better at using a gun? Why buy a gun if you aren't going to use it ever? Not everything has to be nefarious reasons behind it, some people enjoy shooting a gun at a target 






Take it from these liberals who were anti-gun but ended up enjoying shooting guns at a range in a controlled environment...


----------



## nonogs (Jul 14, 2015)

Stinger Fan said:


> RavishingRickRules said:
> 
> 
> > Are they not often called "target PRACTICE?" What are you practising shooting a gun for?
> ...


This is what his girlfriend was about.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

Ratedr4life said:


> Believe me Canadian politics and policy is VERY boring, hence why I tend to be more engaged and informed on US politics. Plus not all the victims in Las Vegas were American, four of the deceased were Canadian.
> 
> It doesn't really matter where I'm from, I'm a human being seeing other human beings gain access to weapons to commit mass murder. I'm contributing common sense to a situation that lacks it.
> 
> What's your issue with that?


Nothing when put like that.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

I've been watching the interviews with the shooter's brother. Really quite fascinating, and frustrating how it's starting to seem like we'll never have an answer for why this guy did what he did. The brother is hoping for a brain tumor from the autopsy to in some way have this all make sense. I feel for the guy. His world seems totally turned upside down by this.

Doubt the girlfriend had anything to do with it. From what the brother said it wouldn't be unusual or a big deal for his brother to wire money like that to his loved ones and described 100,000 dollars as "not a lot of money" to them. There's also the fact she actually bothered to return to the US and speak with investigators. 

I've become quite obsessed with this case. I want to know why this guy did this yet the more we learn the more questions seem to arise rather than answers.

One thing that sticks out to me is that the shooter's father was a bank robber...so...way to go mom, marrying and having 4 kids with a bank robber. Really helping our civilization along there with your choice in mating partners.


----------



## Banez (Dec 18, 2012)

So what happened with the crazy woman who was shouting "you're all going to die" 45 mins before this went down?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Banez said:


> So what happened with the crazy woman who was shouting "you're all going to die" 45 mins before this went down?


Just some rando crazy lady apparently, or it possibly never happened. It was described as a "false report", whatever that means.


----------



## Banez (Dec 18, 2012)

CamillePunk said:


> Just some rando crazy lady apparently, or it possibly never happened. It was described as a "false report", whatever that means.


Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. Media outlets i follow stopped talking about her and said nothing so i was puzzled what happened to that one.


----------



## 3ku1 (May 23, 2015)

What seems crazy to me is the shooter's accuracy. He killed 50 odd people. Was he trained? Does he have any background in the Military? Based on what his brother said. Who seems completley bewildered his brother did this. 

And on Gun Control. I don't think Control is the issue here. But the legalizing of it. Regulating the law is what needs to happen. Trump has a partnership with the NRA. Who supported him in his campaign. So he seems vague on changing the law at this stage. OF course Obama failed to legislate any law since 2012. So it is up to Trump now. But I Don't see things changing any time soon.

Does make you second guess your moves though Who's to say at what concert the next attack well be.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Not sure what law could've possibly stopped this guy. Even an outright ban on all guns doesn't seem like it would've stopped him. Dude was loaded, resourceful, and apparently extremely intelligent.


----------



## TKOK (Apr 6, 2006)

3ku1 said:


> What seems crazy to me is the shooter's accuracy. He killed 50 odd people. Was he trained? Does he have any background in the Military? Based on what his brother said. Who seems completley bewildered his brother did this.


i don't think that he would have to be super accurate to hit people. He was shooting into a crowd of more or less 30,000 from a elevated position. All this fucker had to do was shoot into all the groups of people who were ducking or laying on the ground.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Maybe changing the law might not stop this guy, but it could stop someone less resourceful as him from doing something similar. :shrug

Why is it OK to accept this type of shooting as 'a way of life' but when the Mayor of London said preparing for a terrorist attack in cities is a way of life was seen as a cuck liberal move?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Oh no, not this whole accuracy thing again...



3ku1 said:


> OF course Obama failed to legislate any law since 2012. So it is up to Trump now. But I Don't see things changing any time soon.


Obama failed for the same reason everyone will fail.



FriedTofu said:


> Why is it OK to accept this type of shooting as 'a way of life' but when the Mayor of London said preparing for a terrorist attack in cities is a way of life was seen as a cuck liberal move?


Thats a pretty decent point. People are okay to accept the consequences of mass shootings for freedom, yet so quick to denounce the consequences of the freedom given to legal immigrants. They want to blanket ban immigration, ban abortion, restrict access to birth control but mah guns, thats my freedom you're taking.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

draykorinee said:


> Thats a pretty decent point. People are okay to accept the consequences of mass shootings for freedom, yet so quick to denounce the consequences of the freedom given to legal immigrants. They want to blanket ban immigration, ban abortion, restrict access to birth control but mah guns, thats my freedom you're taking.


Don't use the term blanket ban. They just want more reasonable limits because they are reasonable people.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

> I've been watching the interviews with the shooter's brother. Really quite fascinating, and frustrating how it's starting to seem like we'll never have an answer for why this guy did what he did. The brother is hoping for a brain tumor from the autopsy to in some way have this all make sense. I feel for the guy. His world seems totally turned upside down by this.
> 
> Doubt the girlfriend had anything to do with it. From what the brother said it wouldn't be unusual or a big deal for his brother to wire money like that to his loved ones and described 100,000 dollars as "not a lot of money" to them. There's also the fact she actually bothered to return to the US and speak with investigators.
> 
> I've become quite obsessed with this case. I want to know why this guy did this yet the more we learn the more questions seem to arise rather than answers.


Theories going around:

1.) He supported Antifa.

or

2.) He was running out of money from his gambling problem.

- Vic


----------



## ElTerrible (Feb 8, 2004)

At the end of the day it´s not even about these mass shootings. It´s about the gun culture and the overall numbers, the daily killings that aren´t even news anymore, and also the suicides and accidents. 

People think they need something, but once you take it away, they´ll adapt and realize it often makes no difference to their life. Like the changes to the cigarette industry. Many countries banned smoking in buildings and public places for safety and health reasons. And? People quit or adapted their smoking habits. It´s part of society and a politicians responsibility to make decisions for the greater good of the public. Obama pushed through health care and suddenly citizens realizes: Eh this "communist" stuff isn´t half bad. I and/or my family don´t go broke over injuries or illness. That´s a pretty nice feeling.

You really think, if handguns and hunting rifles were capped at two each with strong background checks, that it would affect the personal life of normal people. Of course not. They adapt. What it would do is change the way people view guns, slowly and over time, probably generations.

What would some politicians not do for a "campaign donation"? I´m seriously trying to think of what could be worse than taking bribes over guns and health care. What if there was a financially backed rape and pedophile lobby. Would they vote to legalize child rape?


----------



## 3ku1 (May 23, 2015)

End of day legalising Gun Control, or regulating it. Won't stop mass killings. Theirs a lot of hate in America right now. Since 911 tbh. Thing is your so desensitised to it all now. Fundamentally society needs to change. White privilege? They killed him. A lot of normal people can just buy guns on the black market, or other countries.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

Vic Capri said:


> Theories going around:
> 
> 1.) He supported Antifa.
> 
> ...


One nut job theory floating around is that his gf had ties to Islamic terror groups in the Philippines. FBI is doing their due diligence but nothing being said means theorists abound everywhere. 

Friend of mine went to the concert. He and his brother spent the first two nights there then sold their tickets for day three. Fortunately the couple they sold them to called it an early night and had just entered their hotel room when the shooting started, My friend had called them hoping they were OK (having had the cell number to complete the ticket sale). He told them he and his brother ended up spending the money at the Bunny Ranch.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

I'm sure people are missing the point of laws, it's not to stop everyone ever it's to catch and prevent as many as possible. The 'it won't stop every shooting anyways' crowd are the worst.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

I usually stay out of the gun control arguments because the "but mah freedom!" crowd is fucking retarded and you often don't get a whole lot of sanity from the other side of the argument either. These are my opinions and mine alone. I am not interested in debating the merits of the argument. This is simply a statement of my feelings on the topic.

The USA doesn't need to ban all guns. There does need to be bans on certain types of guns though. Even the most adamant "freedom" types will usually agree that civilians don't need to be walking the streets with flamethrowers and rocket launchers and bazookas or whatever. So, if you can get even the 2A crazies to agree that some kind of arms restrictions are necessary, then the argument becomes how much. All the fucking morons who claim having guns is to defend against a tyrannical government are just that; fucking morons. The United States government has built the most powerful military in the history of mankind. Your puny assault rifles ain't going to win a war against an army that has drones and tanks and fighter jets. Sorry, but they laugh hysterically at Jim Bob and Billy Bob and Joe Bob piling into the back of a pickup with their little peashooters. I hate to burst your little bubble but you're not going to Red Dawn your way out of this mess.

I'd like to end the tyranny of our government as well but you're not going to do it with violent means. If it's going to be done at all, it's going to have to be done with peaceful, democratic measures. Attempting violence means your war is lost before you fire the first shot.

_But but but but gun control won't stop ALL the massacres!!!!!!!!_

True. However, it can lower the amount of them that happen. Do you people not understand how statistics work? If 30k a year die now and we institute more national gun control measures and that number goes down to 15k a year, maybe we did not stop ALL the massacres and a lot of people still senselessly died but we did cut that number in half. I'd considerate that an admirable achievement.

I am perfectly fine with hunting rifles (venison is fucking delicious). I'm also perfectly fine with having a shotgun at home to defend your property. You don't fucking need assault rifles with high capacity magazines for self defense though. I'd also get rid of handguns for civilians but if we could get rid of modern semi-auto handguns and only allow revolvers, that would be my compromise position.

It's perfectly reasonable argument that the government can't and shouldn't be raiding the homes of civilians to confiscate guns. What they can do is go after the manufacturers. If the people who make the guns are no longer selling them to the public, eventually, over time, there will be fewer of them on the streets. Establish gun buyback programs, so people can peacefully turn in their guns. Pass laws with strict penalties for people who get caught in public with illegal guns. Will there still be illegal guns out there? Sure. It's going to take a long time to change the gun culture in the USA. The biggest mistake that we could possibly make is sending the government into the homes of people to take their guns away. If we're ever going to change things, it needs to be done peacefully and it can't be attempted in a short amount of time. There is no silver bullet, as it were, that is going to solve this problem.

It's not just about the guns themselves either. There needs to be a much bigger cultural shift in the USA; one that doesn't breed divisiveness, hatred and desperation. People need strong communities and economic security. Someone is going to be much less inclined to commit a gun crime if they already have a successful life.

As for the Second Amendment itself...

*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.*

Read it and read it again. Then read it again if you are still not getting it. The well regulated militia part and the right to bear arms part are not different sections. It's all one fucking sentence. If the only part you cite is the 2nd half of it, you're either being intellectually dishonest or you're a fucking moron. Fuck you if you think you should have the right of keeping and bearing arms while ignoring the well regulated militia part. I'm all for well regulated militias to defend the security of a free state. I'd be perfectly fine with state militias being set up around the country, outside of the federal government army, whose sole purpose is to defend the USA in case of attack by a foreign invading army. Allow them access to all of the best and most technologically advanced weaponry available today. Train these militias and make sure they are ready to defend our country if and when the time comes. Then lock it all up in case of emergency. Should an emergency arise, then everyone who is a part of that well regulated militia will receive their call to arms and they'll go defend our free state. If you think the Second Amendment means you should be able to walk the streets with whatever arms you damned well please, then please kindly go fuck yourself.

Gun violence in the USA is a complicated issue and it's not one that can be solved easily. It can be done though, if we, as a society, are willing to put in the effort to create a more peaceful and prosperous society for all.


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

While nothing can take away what's happened, if something positive can come out of tragedy then there's hope for these events to someday become rare in the US. Rosanne Cash is a long-time advocate for gun regulation but maybe her voice is no so alone in her industry any more. 

link



> Rosanne Cash: Country Musicians, Stand Up to the N.R.A.
> By Rosanne Cash Oct. 3, 2017
> 
> I’ve been a gun-control activist for 20 years. Every time I speak out on the need for stricter gun laws, I get a new profusion of threats. There’s always plenty of the garden-variety “your dad would be ashamed of you” sexist nonsense, along with the much more menacing threats to my family and personal safety.
> ...


The majority of pro-gun control advocates do not want to take away all the guns. Many of us have grown up using them. I'm a gun owner; I know that might surprise some of you here. Guns are not toys and they have no practical use other than killing and sport. No one needs military style guns to hunt, no one needs an arsenal in the basement. As people who were there in Vegas understand, having a gun on you in a mass shooting situation isn't much help and pulling it will bring you more trouble than you're already in. 

All most of us who are misconstrued as anti-gun are asking for is some common sense applied to an out of control situation. Take our advice or leave it, it's your choice. Just know that these shootings are not as common in countries that exercise some form of gun control and gun registration.


----------



## Steve Black Man (Nov 28, 2015)

Honestly, while I think the first amendment is perfect the way it is, I feel that the second amendment is pretty archaic and outdated :draper2

Back when it was written, the available firearms were muskets, long rifles and bayonets. Just sayin'.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

GothicBohemian said:


> While nothing can take away what's happened, if something positive can come out of tragedy then there's hope for these events to someday become rare in the US. Rosanne Cash is a long-time advocate for gun regulation but maybe her voice is no so alone in her industry any more.
> 
> link
> 
> ...





> *I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise*
> 
> Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
> 
> ...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin....html?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.0622e192ffa1


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

Back in the 1970's, there was an epidemic of people dying in car accidents. So the federal government put in laws requiring all cars to be equipped with seat belts and for everyone in a car to wear one. Since then, the laws have been expanded (requiring over the shoulder harnesses in addition to the seat belts, requiring air bags in cars, having special requirements for children and infants). As a result, millions of lives have been saved. 

When we had more accidents as a result of people using their phones while driving, many states and municipalities have passed laws banning the use of cell phones

15 years ago, some dude put some explosives in his shoe and was caught trying to light them on fire during a flight... ever since, we've had to take our shoes off when we go through TSA
A little over a decade ago, intelligence agencies foiled a plot to sneak explosives on a plane using shampoo bottles. In response, the government banned all gels and liquids from going through TSA, even bottled water.
A while back, some guy got caught going through TSA with contraband taped to his thigh. Within months, the metal detectors at airports were replaced with full body scanners.

When some workplace accident happens that injures/ kills employees and there's some sort of safety protocol that could have prevented it, the government will usually enact regulations to enforce that safety protocol so something like it doesn't happen again

Everytime there's some sort of significant terrorist attack somewhere in the world, the security protocol at concerts, sporting events, and any other large gatherings are increased

Whenever some fan at some baseball or hockey game gets seriously hurt by a ball or puck going in the stands, the league has taken precautions to ensure more safety for the fans (increased netting, etc.). Leagues in every sport are always creating new rules and safety protocols to reduce the risk of injury, typically in response to some serious injury.

We're proactive in every single way when it comes to safety in anything else. Yet, we do nothing when it comes to guns, nothing is ever done. Yes, a lot of these gun deaths happen no matter what kind of gun control laws you enact. But if you can potentially do something that prevents a small amount of gun deaths per year, say 10-20%, that's thousand of lives saved every year (enacting all the "common sense" laws would probably be more than that). Isn't it worth it?


----------



## KO Bossy (Oct 23, 2011)

For all the people who are pro 2nd amendment, let me ask you this: why do you need guns so badly? Legit question. I can't wrap my head around this. Everyone seems to worried about losing their guns because then, they won't have protection. What do you need protection from so badly?


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

KO Bossy said:


> For all the people who are pro 2nd amendment, let me ask you this: why do you need guns so badly? Legit question. I can't wrap my head around this. Everyone seems to worried about losing their guns because then, they won't have protection. What do you need protection from so badly?


Well say you are a single mom in a rural community without anyone for miles and someone breaks into your house do you want a knife or a gun.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

nyelator said:


> Well say you are a single mom in a rural community without anyone for miles and someone breaks into your house do you want a knife or a gun.


You can have a handgun you don't need an assault rifle.





AD91 said:


> According to those on the left, our current president is literally Hitler and a fascist.
> 
> Well, what did Hitler and fascists do? That's right, they deliberately unarmed the populace in order to physically rule over them and carry out genocide.
> 
> ...


If the govt wants to overtake you, not even assault rifles are going to matter.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> You can have a handgun you don't need an assault rifle.
> 
> We agree here.
> 
> ...


You have a point.


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

AD91 said:


> According to those on the left, our current president is literally Hitler and a fascist.
> 
> Well, what did Hitler and fascists do? That's right, they deliberately unarmed the populace in order to physically rule over them and carry out genocide.
> 
> ...


Actually, you're wrong. Hitler only banned Jews from owning guns. For the majority of the populace, he loosened up the gun laws because they wanted the populace to have more guns to help them keep down the Jews (and other non Aryans).
Also, it's downright foolish to think that having a gun would be able to do jack shit to protect you if the government came after you, considering all they have in their disposal.


----------



## KO Bossy (Oct 23, 2011)

nyelator said:


> Well say you are a single mom in a rural community without anyone for miles and someone breaks into your house do you want a knife or a gun.


OK, first off-burglars 99.9% of the time break into houses when nobody is home. That way they can take their time, load stuff into a truck, etc. They also spend time casing areas for the prime targets to break into. So if you aren't home, there's no point in having a gun to defend yourself against a burglar.

Second, 99.9% of burglars are just there to steal shit, not murder people. 

Third, does a person really need a semi-automatic gun to defend against that? Wouldn't, say, just a pistol suffice?

Add into this the fact that having your house broken into is extremely low.

So my question stands-why do you require a gun when the situation you'd be required to use it in is so astronomically low? We're talking about a burglar selecting your house to break into, you being home, him being armed and having the intent to kill. The chances of it happening are virtually non-existent.

And yet in their obsessive need for protection of their person, they don't seem to exhibit it when it comes to other things. Tons of people in the US are morbidly obese, yet don't seem to protect themselves from the onset of diabetes or heart failure when they continually cram triple bacon cheeseburgers into their 400 pound frames. Tons of people in the US drink excessively, risking cirrhosis and liver cancer, but that doesn't bother them. It would seem that ultimately, they don't really care that much about their own protection from how badly they abuse their bodies. They just care about the harm other people can do to them, which as I again said, the chances of that affecting them are incredibly low.

Let's take a look at some data. This article is for 2015:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/latest-crime-statistics-released



> The estimated number of murders in the nation was 15,696
> During the year, there were an estimated 90,185 rapes. (This figure currently reflects UCR’s legacy definition. Learn more about the revised rape definition.)
> There were an estimated 327,374 robberies nationwide, which accounted for an estimated $390 million in losses (average dollar value of stolen property per reported robbery was $1,190).
> Firearms were used in 71.5 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.8 percent of robberies, and 24.2 percent of aggravated assaults.
> Property crimes resulted in losses estimated at $14.3 billion. The total value of reported stolen property (i.e., currency, jewelry, motor vehicles, electronics, firearms) was $12,420,364,454.


The population in America in 2015 was approximately 320.9 million. 

15,696 divided by 320.9 million equals 0.00004891243. Those are the chances of you being murdered in the US-less than a thousandth of a percent.

40.8% of robberies had a gun involved. There were 327,374 robberies, 40.8% of which would be 157,138.52. Divided by the population, that equals 0.00048968376, less than a hundredth of a percent.

Here's a story about guns from last year:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/



> An estimated 55 million Americans own guns.
> The percentage of the U.S. population who own guns decreased slightly from 25% in 1994 to 22% last year.
> Between 300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.
> Gun owners tend to be white, male, conservative, and live in rural areas.
> ...


3% of the population owns half of the guns. So called "super owners" own on average 17 guns each. Oh and between 300k and 600k are stolen each year.

So I once again pose the question-with the odds of you being killed or robbed with a gun present so winning the lottery levels of low, why do you need guns, let alone 17, so fucking badly? Because the 2nd amendment says you have the right to bear arms? That means you CAN have a gun, not that you MUST have one. This protection excuse is bullshit. People are relying on a constitutional amendment made in 1791, just after America's war of independence with England and when the majority of the little land America owned was extremely rural and undefended, and you had Natives and the Spanish still posing a potential threat. At that time, it made sense. It has long since stopped being relevant.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

Why are people do terrified of guns they always feel the need to abuse a rare tragedy to stomp their feet about gun control? As already posted, these shootings are only a tiny number of gun related deaths. And the majority of those other deaths would not be affected by banning “assault” weapons (a yerm which only proves the anti gun crowd has little knowledge about guns).

So is this about saving lives... or is this about an irrational fear of a tool on top of making political points? Because to many, it is certainly not looking like it is about saving lives.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

Although this is an old article it is relevant to the discussion now being had about gun control. In short: gun control doesn't work

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/



> (TFC) Washington, DC – A church was shot up by a lunatic. The US government never lets a tragedy or crisis pass without attempting to find a new way to restrict the American people. So, we can expect a renewed push for gun control. There is a lot of propaganda about gun control. So much so that the truth has been lost.
> 
> The National Rifle Association (NRA) would have you believe that guns stop murders. The gun control lobby would have you believe that gun control reduces murders. They are both wrong. Gun bans have always had the same effect once implemented: none. They do not create a (sustained) period of increased murders, nor do they reduce the rate of homicides. The gun control crowd is currently stomping their feet and screaming “No, it reduces violence! I’ve seen the statistics.” *What you probably saw were studies that point to reduced instances of “gun murders,” not murder.* The pro-gun crowd is screaming that gun bans cause crime. At least this is grounded in reality. Typically, there is a spike in murders immediately after a ban, but it is short lived.
> 
> ...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Kabraxal said:


> Why are people do terrified of guns they always feel the need to abuse a rare tragedy to stomp their feet about gun control? As already posted, these shootings are only a tiny number of gun related deaths. And the majority of those other deaths would not be affected by banning “assault” weapons (a yerm which only proves the anti gun crowd has little knowledge about guns).
> 
> So is this about saving lives... or is this about an irrational fear of a tool on top of making political points? Because to many, it is certainly not looking like it is about saving lives.


thinking like yours is everything that is wrong with the pro-gun crowd.

Who cares of banning assault rifles would not prevent other kinds of gun related shootings, it would help prevent THESE TYPES OF SHOOTINGS.

The gun nuts logic is well if making stricter gun laws won't stop all shootings then why even bother. If it just stops some like the one we just saw that is well worth it. But gun nuts don't care about that as long as they can have their guns.

Its all about saving lives, the only thing that is irrational is thinking one or two gun laws should stop all shootings. 

At least the people that want better gun laws care about saving some lives, people like you don't care about saving any lives.

The only ones making political points are the pro-gun crowd who keep yelling 2nd AMENDMENT when they don't even know how to read it, because the intent clearly stated a well-regulated militia but you guys always ignore that.
But yeah keep claiming wanting to save lives is political, its calling being human and having compassion, something the right knows nothing about.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Time for more firearms information with stevefox1200

today's lesson

Why handguns and not rifles

Many people bring up "Handguns are fine but rifles need to be better controlled" but this is actually a horrible stance for gun control. Hanguns face far harsher control due to concealability. I can walk in a bank with six snub nosed revolvers strapped to my chest and not look out of place. That's 36 shots of any number of different calibers. Rifles face much less rules because running down the street with a hunting rifle tends to attract a ton of attention. That's why many nations allow rifles and shotguns but not handguns, at the ranges most shootings take place pistols are more than adequate even with no training.

Rifles may look scary but most criminals would gladly trade them for a compact .22


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

Paddock targeting the Life Is Beautiful festival disproves the notion the Route 91 massacre was politically motivated. He just wanted to kill people just because. 

- Vic


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

L-DOPA said:


> Although this is an old article it is relevant to the discussion now being had about gun control. In short: gun control doesn't


That article needs an update quickly.

Australia and the UK has lower homicde rates than before the gun ban, thats a fact they won't bother telling you now. 



> The number of murders and killings in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level in nearly 30 years, Office for National Statistics figures show.
> Police recorded 550 homicides in 2011-12, 88 fewer than the previous year and the lowest number since 1983.





> We wrote at the time: “Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.”
> With Australia’s population steadily increasing, the nation’s homicide incident rate has fallen even more than the number of homicides — from 1.6 per 100,000 in 1995-96 to 1 per 100,000 in 2013-2014, according to a government report on crime trends. That was the lowest homicide incident rate at the time in 25 years, as we mentioned earlier.


Germany also saw a sustained drop in homicides after their ban in 2002

Handily all other crime has since hit all time lows as well.

Its almost like statistics can be abused by everyone.

Ugh, they even used Irlenad, 1974 was one of the worst years for the IRA and they used that to attack gun laws...damn L-Dopa, so disappointing. Actually they said 1975...it was 1974 the rates shot up to 1.6 because of IRA activity, they can't even get the dates right.

:david

I think in the context of this thread though, your seemingly absurd assumption that gun controls dont work in the context we're all discussing can be easily dismissed with the fact that these countries have had 1 or 2 mass shootings between them in twenty years. Refute that please.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

Found best theory on the_Donald on reddit

Shooter was an undercover FBI agent who was selling guns to ISIS in Vegas

for those who don't understand, you can get guns in Africa and the middle for like $2 US dollars


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

stevefox1200 said:


> Found best theory on the_Donald on reddit
> 
> Shooter was an undercover FBI agent who was selling guns to ISIS in Vegas


How does that even remotely start to make sense?


----------



## GothicBohemian (May 26, 2012)

@birthday_massacre

While I'm on your side to a degree, calling people "gun nuts" doesn't help solve anything. There's nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership. Some people are not responsible, but not all people who distrust government regulation of firearms are "gun nuts". 

I sure hope you don't consider @stevefox1200 among the "gun nuts". He's shared useful information if you've been reading his posts. 

@L-DOPA

For me, this isn't about homicide in general, it's about a specific kind of homicide. People are murdered for lots of reasons, but most often it's by someone either they or someone close to them knows. Usually they are the sole victem or one of a small number of linked individuals killed. 

Homicides with large numbers of victims, many or most of them unrelated to the killer in any way, and with many injured bystanders, tend to have certain things in common. One of those common elements is the weapon style of choice. These weapons are chosen not for accuracy but for amount of damage possible to the widest range of targets in the shortest time frame and with limited reliance on physical strength. While it isn't hard to kill a dozen or more people in a closed environment, such as a school, with a simple rifle or handgun, not all guns are suitable for mass murder on the scale of what happened in Vegas. Certain types are, and there's no good reason for not taking measures to at least make it harder for average folks to obtain them on a whim. The same goes for ammunition that is overkill for everyday use. The illegal trade is not the biggest issue; most people who commit mass shootings wouldn't even know how to navigate the black market for guns. Those guns are more apt to be featured in the depressingly grim statistics for gang and drug trade related killings. 

I don't think a longer waiting period, more extensive background checks and training requirements, some further restrictions/tougher enforcement of current restrictions on who can purchase guns, gun accessories and ammunition that fall outside regular use equipment, closing the gun show sale loopholes and instituting meaningful gun registration would cause much grief for the average gun owner. Most aren't stockpiling dozens of guns and involved in turning the few they have into fully automatic weapons.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

virus21 said:


> How does that even remotely start to make sense?


https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...vs_fbi_scary_that_we_arent_sure_which_one_to/

Ask them 

They also seem confused about the difference between the CIA and the FBI

(CIA and the FBI have no love loss and if the CIA tries to do anything stateside they are likely to get their heads ripped off)


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

GothicBohemian said:


> @birthday_massacre
> 
> While I'm on your side to a degree, calling people "gun nuts" doesn't help solve anything. There's nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership. Some people are not responsible, but not all people who distrust government regulation of firearms are "gun nuts".
> 
> ...


I am talking about the people in that example I gave about how some people think why even bother making better gun laws when it won't stop all shootings but just some of the shootings. Gun nuts are the crowd who don't care about saving lives, or making better gun laws, and just care about their precious little guns. 

That is why I mostly used the term pro-gun crowd when making other points.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Theres a reason why gun regulations doesn't instantly reduce homicide, it takes decades to get guns out of circulation and to change gun culture, the UK has never really had one but the fact that 23,000 guns were handed in in 1997 and 43,000 in 2003 shows that the initial gun laws didn't work well and/or didn't affect peoples eagerness to keep guns. Now we're seeing lower massively lower gun crime (21,000 down to 7,000) AND lower homicides. It takes time, although statistics are abused, so I'm not going to give the credit to the laws only.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> Theres a reason why gun regulations doesn't instantly reduce homicide, it takes decades to get guns out of circulation and to change gun culture, the UK has never really had one but the fact that 23,000 guns were handed in in 1997 and 43,000 in 2003 shows that the initial gun laws didn't work well and/or didn't affect peoples eagerness to keep guns. Now we're seeing lower massively lower gun crime (21,000 down to 7,000) AND lower homicides. It takes time.


Australia did it and has not had a mass shooting in 20 years.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> Australia did it and has not had a mass shooting in 20 years.


Take it up with L-Dopa, he claimed Gun control doesn't help.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

draykorinee said:


> That article needs an update quickly.
> 
> Australia and the UK has lower homicde rates than before the gun ban, thats a fact they won't bother telling you now.
> 
> ...


The graph you are using in the case of Germany shows that the homicide rate was falling before the legislation on gun control was already put in place. In fact, there was an extremely sharp fall in the homicide rate between 1996-1998 when the gun control measures were put in place.

The rest of the graph with the exception of 2001 shows a steady decline in the murder rate and has been at about the same pace since 2002. The biggest decline and drop off again was between 1996-1998. The murder rates were already dropping before the legislation was put in place, so it's disingenuous to say that gun control was the reason. It has very little reason to do with the drop of the homicide rate when it was already declining.

As far as the UK, yes the homicide rate is at it's lowest point but the figures in terms of the homicide rate it have heavily fluctuated since the firearms at of 1997. Murder rates have actually gone up in two significant periods since that time period, the most significant being right after the legislation was introduced increasing by over 6 killings per million people and again it went up again in the early 2010's. Even by that period at it's lowest stage, it still wasn't lower than the beginning of the 90's murder rate and it took until 2009, over 10 years for the murder rate to get back down to 1997 levels. Hardly evidence for gun control having a major impact on the overall homicide rate. There is even evidence of this hidden in your response to me trying to refute my arguments, you said that the homicide level is the lowest since 1983. Of course that should be welcomed, but 1983 levels were not only before the 1997 firearms act but also before the *1988 firearms act. * So it essentially took 20 years for the homicide rate to fall to levels before those two gun control were even implemented :done.

The point is that there are many more variables at work than simply control over guns or the weapons themselves which lead to whatever the homicide rate is and whether or not it falls or grows. The idea that gun control is a magic solution to murder is absurd.




draykorinee said:


> I think in the context of this thread though, your absurd assumption that gun controls dont work can be easily dismissed with the fact that these countries have had 1 or 2 mass shootings between them in twenty years. Refute that please.


Mass shootings in the countries we are talking about were much lower than the US's currently speaking. So it isn't really a fair comparison. Mass shootings have gone down since gun control measures we're put in place but gun control is more than just about mass shootings. Mass shootings whilst they are horrific account for very little of the overall homicide rate in the United States. Plus let's look at this recent case which I've already talked about before:

This happened in Nevada, one of the strictest states in terms of gun control. it's been illegal for private citizens to own fully automatic weapons since 1986, any weapons that are fully automatic manufactured after 1986 cannot be obtained legally. This doesn't mean that the killer couldn't have gotten a fully automatic weapon that was made before that time period but it is very difficult and hinges on a number of tight regulations that need to be bypassed. The weapons themselves have to be of a certain class and the person has to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) as well as go through very extensive background checks. Most critically, under Nevada state law, NFA items (National Firearms Act) are only legal if they have been legally obtained and registered under federal law. Any NFA weapon whether it being manufactured, sold or owned must be licensed by the ATF, which of course fully automatic weapons would full directly under and with it only be legal if obtained and registered federally in Nevada, it would have been extremely difficult for anyone to obtain a fully automatic and heavily modified weapon legally in Vegas.

Yet the mass shooting still happened, why?

It's very much the same case as the war on drugs, tight regulation to the point of having to have a federal background check to even own an assault rifle in the US did nothing to stop the shooter. Does that mean I think actual assault weapons should be legal? Of course not, the point is that there is a huge gun culture in the US and simply tightening up gun control will not solve the issue. There needs to be smarter solutions than that. I'm not against background checks being implemented for example, and it is clear in this case that more needs to be done to enforce the current gun laws and close any loopholes there might be. But I'm not convinced that simply banning "assault weapons" or limiting magazine size is going to solve the overall problems with gun crime in the United States.

@Stinger Fan linked a very good article about a gun control advocate (still in principle as they admitted) actually looking at the statistics and facts surrounding murder cases and whether the further gun control suggested by advocates would have had any effect and overwhelmingly they found it not to be the case and that other methods would have a much better and longer lasting impact: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin....html?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.5a1a257c83ec



> Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
> 
> Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
> 
> ...


I could go further with gun control states vs pro-gun states (bit misleading but the best way I could think to distinguish them) and other countries where they have strict gun control yet the murder rate is staggeringly high but I'll leave it there for now.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

L-DOPA said:


> The idea that gun control is a magic solution to murder is absurd.


And this here is the crux of it. Not one person believes that do they? This sits alongside those people who think gun control is a gun ban or the idea that people think gun control will stop all mass shootings.

Gun control is controlling guns. Not people. Its a small part of a very big pie. Australia had 13 mass shootings in 18 years, put in gun control laws, bought guns off people and in the subsequent twenty years has had none. 

Since the UK ban guns are becoming more and more a thing of past and are heavily stigmatised in society to the point where its really only a niche market or an illegal one. Stigmatising guns in my opinion is actually part of the benefit of regulations. Throw in a wait time to buy a gun (seems sensible right) and a robust register and maybe restricitons on things like bumpers and semis (not bans) and maybe you'll just keep one gun out of one shooters hands. Seems worth it to me. 

I don't profess to understand US gun culture mind so maybe waiting two days to buy a gun really is that detrimental.



> There needs to be smarter solutions than that. I'm not against background checks being implemented for example


Thats still gun control...



L-DOPA said:


> I could go further with gun control states vs pro-gun states (bit misleading but the best way I could think to distinguish them) and other countries where they have strict gun control yet the murder rate is staggeringly high but I'll leave it there for now.


Wouldn't get you far anyway, I'd just throw Japan etc. Its almost like its a mutlifaceted thing and maybe what fits one doesn't fit another. But to flat out suggest gun control doesn't work seems in poor form when you cherry pick your data and countries. I'm at least only suggesting it should be given a try.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

draykorinee said:


> And this here is the crux of it. Not one person believes that do they? This sits alongside those people who think gun control is a gun ban or the idea that people think gun control will stop all mass shootings.
> 
> Gun control is controlling guns. Not people. Its a small part of a very big pie. Australia had 13 mass shootings in 18 years, put in gun control laws, bought guns off people and in the subsequent twenty years has had none.
> 
> ...


As I said, I'm not against background checks provided that the legislation isn't rushed and get's it right. I'm not a gun nut, hell if you asked me what my priorities are in terms of what needs changing in the UK, gun laws is not one of them :lol.

I just think that the situation in the US in terms of gun laws is a lot more complex and has more variables than some people are willing to give credit for.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

As a I guy who really likes guns I have zero problems with tighter gun restrictions 

You have to keep in mind there are more than one type of "gun nut"

I like firearms with historical value and aesthetic appeal, the kind of thing you spend a bunch on money on and then put in a show case only use occasionally at range to prevent damage (I would rather own a damaged WW2 firearm than the hottest newest whatever). AKA a collectors mindset

Then you have people who are really into competition shooting and hunting, for them its all about function. My dad loves to hunt and has guns and said he would be fine with a magazine cap of five because he never needs any more than that for anything practical. (you don't a 70 round drum to take down a deer). For them its a sport and a gun is their "ball" 

You also have the tacticool guys. They like guns because they are "badass" and will buy anything that looks cool. They will have a gun with biggest mags, aiming sights and grips. They are the type to go a range and dump 1000 rounds into targets. 

The last type buy guns because they want "power". They feel weak and feel a gun will give them an edge over other people. They buy full auto converters and add-ons not because its it improves performance or looks cool but because it makes it easier to kill people. They tend to only talk about their guns to brag/threaten people 

There are a more reasons but most gun owners I see fall into one of the four 

I would say the last two are the more likely to do something stupid and kill people

Also for self defense: buy a semi-automatic, store it unloaded with the magazine close by but not right next to it (two different drawers for example). Zero chance of discharge and if your dumbass kid finds it he will only have half of what he needs to kill his playmates


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Why can't it be gun control is like vaccination. It can't be truely effective if the majority does it. Or the place is on an island like Australia. But if we want everyone to do it, it has to start somewhere. :shrug


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

FriedTofu said:


> Why can't it be gun control is like vaccination. It can't be truely effective if the majority does it. Or the place is on an island like Australia. But if we want everyone to do it, it has to start somewhere. :shrug


The trouble is people who now own something that is "illegal"

To be a responsible citizen they have to take something that they paid there own money for get rid of it because someone else used it irresponsibly 

It hard to tell someone to give up their personal positions by telling them "you shouldn't be allowed to own this"


----------



## yeahbaby! (Jan 27, 2014)

L-DOPA said:


> I just think that the situation in the US in terms of gun laws is a lot more complex and has more variables than some people are willing to give credit for.


Absolutely agreed, gun control and addressing the spectre of the NRA is a piece of the pie. But it's a piece that can be addressed and should be to start to change the gun-loving culture.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

stevefox1200 said:


> The trouble is people who now own something that is "illegal"
> 
> To be a responsible citizen they have to take something that they paid there own money for get rid of it because someone else used it irresponsibly
> 
> It hard to tell someone to give up their personal positions by telling them "you shouldn't be allowed to own this"


We can start by controlling ammunition. :shrug.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

FriedTofu said:


> We can start by controlling ammunition. :shrug.


What about the people who bought 2000 rounds? Are you going to go their homes and just take it away

I don't mind taking some types of ammo off sale but if you start removing calibers than certain guns become worthless

Not mention the market is very flexible, there are tons of redundant calibers that are not used but can be used in substitution. Ban .40 and 10mm comes back, ban 5.56 then everyone switches over to .223

Bullet size doesn't matter as a .357 is not much bigger than a .38 but the ballistics are competently different

Ban all rifle rounds and then old-west style lever action and carbines that fire pistol rounds fill the gap 

The problem is the people who know about guns and the people who right the laws are two different people 

Many of the people who favor harsh gun control almost take pride in how little they know about guns and because of that nothing get done 

The gun lobby has so much power because when they push a law they know the exacts while the anti-gun lobby pushes vague broad bans that look poorly thought out in comparison

I am fine with harsher gun laws but someone on the anti-gun side needs to "dirty their soul" and learn about what they are talking about


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

L-DOPA said:


> As I said, I'm not against background checks provided that the legislation isn't rushed and get's it right. I'm not a gun nut, hell if you asked me what my priorities are in terms of what needs changing in the UK, gun laws is not one of them :lol.
> 
> I just think that the situation in the US in terms of gun laws is a lot more complex and has more variables than some people are willing to give credit for.


Its not complex at it, its pretty simple.

Get rid of the loophole where private sales don't have to give background checks.
Ban assault rifles.
Also, make sure anyone mentally ill cannot get guns.

that is a starting point and is not very complex at all.


----------



## Iapetus (Jun 5, 2015)

L-DOPA said:


> As I said, I'm not against background checks provided that the legislation isn't rushed and get's it right. I'm not a gun nut, hell if you asked me what my priorities are in terms of what needs changing in the UK, gun laws is not one of them :lol.
> 
> *I just think that the situation in the US in terms of gun laws is a lot more complex and has more variables than some people are willing to give credit for.*


It’s really not. All they have to do is ignore the cries of those who oppose gun control like they do everyone else. Nothing is holding us back short of far right America’s socially detrimental opinions and ideological entitlement. Cast that aside and it’ll be fairly easy.


----------



## TD_DDT (Jul 28, 2015)

I'll keep my guns, thanks. I only having guns for hunting, so enlighten me - do people want to ban assault rifles or EVERY gun? Because I see no reason to own an AK, but to not own shot guns would be crazy.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

birthday_massacre said:


> Its not complex at it, its pretty simple.
> 
> Get rid of the loophole where private sales don't have to give background checks.
> Ban assault rifles.
> ...


Why "Assault rifles"?

What qualifies as assault rifles?

Because there are semi-autmoatic hunting rifles that are not "assault rifles" that can do everything they can do










This an STG 44 reproduction, it is an assault rifle and is not capable of full auto conversion without re-doing the whole gun 










This is an M1A, it is not an assault rifle and is capable of full auto conversions 

All "assault rifle bans" are closer to a "scary synthetic part ban"


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

stevefox1200 said:


> The trouble is people who now own something that is "illegal"
> 
> To be a responsible citizen they have to take something that they paid there own money for get rid of it because someone else used it irresponsibly
> 
> It hard to tell someone to give up their personal positions by telling them "you shouldn't be allowed to own this"


I'd be perfectly for a government buyback on guns...hell, if you make certain guns illegal, you can even offer those who own those kinds of guns more than what they paid to give them up



TD_DDT said:


> I'll keep my guns, thanks. I only having guns for hunting, so enlighten me - do people want to ban assault rifles or EVERY gun? Because I see no reason to own an AK, but to not own shot guns would be crazy.


Don't worry, nobody is coming after your shot gun.
Hardly anyone is calling for a ban on all guns. It's about assault rifles, magazine capacities, add-ons that make guns more powerful and/ or dangerous, making it more difficult for criminals, mentally ill people, and others who should be near a gun to get their hands on, etc. The problem is the gun lobby has convinced a lot of people that any sort of "common sense" legislation is part of the greater plan to completely ban guns.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

TD_DDT said:


> I'll keep my guns, thanks. I only having guns for hunting, so enlighten me - do people want to ban assault rifles or EVERY gun? Because I see no reason to own an AK, but to not own shot guns would be crazy.


I don't think there's a person in the world dumb enough to advocate blanket gun bans in America, even socialist UK still has a million or so gun owners.

Maybe if the NRA stfu and allowed sensible talks about gun control without all the muh freedom baiting you'd get somewhere?


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

birthday_massacre said:


> Its not complex at it, its pretty simple.
> 
> Get rid of the loophole where private sales don't have to give background checks.
> Ban assault rifles.
> ...





Iapetus said:


> It’s really not. All they have to do is ignore the cries of those who oppose gun control like they do everyone else. Nothing is holding us back short of far right America’s socially detrimental opinions and ideological entitlement. Cast that aside and it’ll be fairly easy.


I think @stevefox1200's posts right after you two's, someone who I don't agree with all the time mind you pretty much illustrates the issue is more complex and has many more variables you guys are willing to give credit to.

Just simply enacting assault rifle bans and limiting mag clips isn't going to solve the US's gun homicide issues. And that's not even from a law and order and legality standpoint solely.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

draykorinee said:


> I don't think there's a person in the world dumb enough to advocate blanket gun bans in America, even socialist UK still has a million or so gun owners.
> 
> Maybe if the NRA stfu and allowed sensible talks about gun control without all the muh freedom baiting you'd get somewhere?


"socialist UK" wtf?! You are aware that pretty much every government since Thatcher has been either conservative or neo-conservative right? "New Labour" was basically conservativism with a social responsibility focus. The current government was found to be directly responsible for thousands of deaths of vulnerable and disabled people because of draconian cuts to line their pockets and you consider the country socialist? :lmao


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse (Jun 20, 2014)

I have to say, as someone living elsewhere, in particular as someone in Australia, a country where gun control has positively changed things and hasn't affected our freedoms or ability to protect ourselves one bit it is all at once sad, pathetic, terrible, miserable, a joke, and absolutely disgusting that once again this sort of thing has happened in America, and not a single thing will change. Because the second anyone starts talking about trying to address the issue all the nutters who care about guns more than human life in America get all pissy about it.

It doesn't even have to be gun control, more put into mental health.

How do people just accept this sort of shit is part of life in America? There's so much effort put into hating Muslims and being scared of Terrorists thesedays but so called regular Americans still love going on mass murder spree's. How is nothing ever done to try and address the issues.

And gun control doesn't mean a gun ban. In Australia we still have guns. We still hunt. We can still protect ourselves, families and homes. We're not living in a Police State. None of the things that the gun nuts in America claim will happen with stricter gun control have happened here, and our politicians are just as bad. Someone influential in America needs to just have the balls to call the nutters out on their bullshit fear campaigns and the worship of guns over human life and do something to stop this sort of shit.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

RavishingRickRules said:


> "socialist UK" wtf?! You are aware that pretty much every government since Thatcher has been either conservative or neo-conservative right? "New Labour" was basically conservativism with a social responsibility focus. The current government was found to be directly responsible for thousands of deaths of vulnerable and disabled people because of draconian cuts to line their pockets and you consider the country socialist? :lmao


Knowing dray, he mean't it in a sort of mocking tone considering that there are people who would think the UK is a socialist country. He's a lot closer to your views than me for example. Hell the term socialism has been bastardized for a while now, ever since Bernie has been arguing the Scandinavian countries are socialist even though they have a market economy and in many ways are more economically liberal than the United States. Many on both the left and right in the states confuse social democracy with socialism and that annoys me to death :lol.

We've been a Centrist/social democratic country for decades now both under Labour and the Conservatives switching from centre-left and centre-right. Only way that changes is if Corbyn gets into power....god help us if that ever happens :lol.


----------



## Cabanarama (Feb 21, 2009)

L-DOPA said:


> I think @stevefox1200's posts right after you two's, someone who I don't agree with all the time mind you pretty much illustrates the issue is more complex and has many more variables you guys are willing to give credit to.
> 
> Just simply enacting assault rifle bans and limiting mag clips isn't going to solve the US's gun homicide issues. And that's not even from a law and order and legality standpoint solely.


Even if it simply reduces the issue, it's still the right move. Let's say it cuts back gun deaths by as low as 10%, that's still legislation that saves 3,000-4,000 lives a year. Wouldn't you agree that it is worth it? This notion that because there's nothing we can do to end all gun deaths or put an end to gun culture in this country, that we should do nothing at all to curb the number of gun deaths is ridiculous to me.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

L-DOPA said:


> Knowing dray, he mean't it in a sort of mocking tone considering that there are people who would think the UK is a socialist country. He's a lot closer to your views than me for example. Hell the term socialism has been bastardized for a while now, ever since Bernie has been arguing the Scandinavian countries are socialist even though they have a market economy and in many ways are more economically liberal than the United States. Many on both the left and right in the states confuse social democracy with socialism and that annoys me to death :lol.
> 
> We've been a Centrist/social democratic country for decades now both under Labour and the Conservatives switching from centre-left and centre-right. Only way that changes is if Corbyn gets into power....god help us if that ever happens :lol.


Funnily enough the person I've seen closest to "my views" is Reaper I think :lmao . He's just further over on the "right libertarian" whereas I'm more centrist. We're both socially liberal and believe in free market capitalism though. People always confuse me for a left-wing/socialist type because I'm a progressive but that couldn't be further from the truth. I voted Corbyn at the last election because I knew May and the Tories were going to fuck everything up, and they have. I'm far from a fan of his though, it's just stupid to vote on partisan lines when it was blatantly obvious the Tories only cared about lining their pockets whereas at least Labour focused on the people. I came up poor, I may be wealthy now but I can't remotely vote for the Tory party with their history of abuse and even more important worse financial record than Labour by a huge country mile.


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse (Jun 20, 2014)

Cabanarama said:


> Even if it simply reduces the issue, it's still the right move. Let's say it cuts backs gun deaths by as low as 10% a year, that's still legislation that saves 3,000-4,000 lives a year. Wouldn't you agree that it is worth it? This notion that because there's nothing we can do to end all gun deaths or put an end to gun culture in this country, that we should do nothing at all to curb the number of gun deaths is ridiculous to me.


Exactly. Its a logic that doesn't hold up.

We cant possibly stop every person from taking illicit drugs, so should there be no efforts made in the war on drugs?

People will always have car accidents so should we do away with all speed limits?

Not everyone can beat Cancer or other diseases so should anyone with a terminal disease just give up and accept death?

We cant possibly ever truly defeat terrorism across the globe so should we not fight it at all?

You cant prevent every rape, every theft, every assault, every murder, so should we not even try too?

If you apply the gun nut idea of "you cant stop every murder with a gun" to any other situation you'd be rightly ridiculed.

There is nothing in the world that is a blanket 100% guarantee that works 100% of the time. The gun nuts holding gun control up to that insane standard is just ridiculous.


----------



## nyelator (Oct 3, 2016)

KO Bossy said:


> OK, first off-burglars 99.9% of the time break into houses when nobody is home. That way they can take their time, load stuff into a truck, etc. They also spend time casing areas for the prime targets to break into. So if you aren't home, there's no point in having a gun to defend yourself against a burglar.
> 
> Second, 99.9% of burglars are just there to steal shit, not murder people.
> 
> ...


Semi auto is not needed that we agree with.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

Cabanarama said:


> Even if it simply reduces the issue, it's still the right move. Let's say it cuts back gun deaths by as low as 10%, that's still legislation that saves 3,000-4,000 lives a year. Wouldn't you agree that it is worth it? This notion that because there's nothing we can do to end all gun deaths or put an end to gun culture in this country, that we should do nothing at all to curb the number of gun deaths is ridiculous to me.


The problem is, the evidence suggests that more gun control doesn't just simply reduce the amount of overall homicides, even if there are less gun related deaths, that vacuum is filled by something else. In the UK for example, particularly in London, the void has been filled with knife crime. The murder rates as I already explained in the UK have constantly fluctuated up and down to the point in which further gun control really wasn't worth the cost of the results that has been achieved. Could the results be different in the US? Perhaps but I don't see any evidence that it would.

Even in places like Germany and Australia where further gun control has been deemed a success, the murder rates were drifting down anyway. In Australia until very recently the statistics have remained relatively flat whilst in Germany the trend downwards was actually slower than before the gun legislation was put in place with the exception with one year where it went upwards which is 2001.

I'm British, pretty much throughout most of my life we've had very heavy gun control and it's not really something that bothers me too much overall. I'm not a heavy gun advocate but that doesn't mean that I think the facts overall lay on the side that gun control is a magic solution. It really isn't. There are many more factors at play here.

If the US wants to go the route of further gun control then by all means. Maybe I'll be wrong and it will work. From what I've seen with the UK it hasn't worked and with Australia and Germany it has very little effect overall. The mass shootings certainly are one area but again it is only one aspect and it accounts for little of the overall death toll, even if those deaths are particularly horrific.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

RavishingRickRules said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there's a person in the world dumb enough to advocate blanket gun bans in America, even socialist UK still has a million or so gun owners.
> ...


I was being facetious lol. That's what you hear a lot of people say about the UK.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

draykorinee said:


> I was being facetious lol. That's what you hear a lot of people say about the UK.


HA. Looks like my mind reading work :lol . I said the exact same thing in response .


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

L-DOPA said:


> If the US wants to go the route of further gun control then by all means. Maybe I'll be wrong and it will work. From what I've seen with the UK it hasn't worked and with Australia and Germany it has very little effect overall. The mass shootings certainly are one area but again it is only one aspect and it accounts for little of the overall death toll, even if those deaths are particularly horrific.


I'd agree with most of what you wrote. However, you can't say it "hasn't worked " in the UK when we've had less gun related deaths in the last 50 years than the US has had in he last year, no? :shrug 

Whether people like it or not, in countries like here in the UK where we still have guns (my father owns one in fact and shoots clay pigeons most weekends) but they're heavily controlled we have barely any gun related deaths. How's the US looking on that statistic?


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

RavishingRickRules said:


> I'd agree with most of what you wrote. However, you can't say it "hasn't worked " in the UK when we've had less gun related deaths in the last 50 years than the US has had in he last year, no? :shrug
> 
> Whether people like it or not, in countries like here in the UK where we still have guns (my father owns one in fact and shoots clay pigeons most weekends) but they're heavily controlled we have barely any gun related deaths. How's the US looking on that statistic?


The argument isn't exactly gun related deaths but the overall homicide rate, which is key because the gun control argument essentially boils down to decreasing murder and violent crimes. 

Yes, gun crime has gone down but it has been replaced by other methods of murder. As I've stated, knife crime has gone up considerably in the last 20 years which has filled the void, when criminals can't get a hold of guns they will start using knifes and it is much easier to defend yourself if you have a gun than if you are attacked with a knife and have to use physical force. Recently we've also seen acid attacks being used as an alternative to maiming as well so there will also be other methods. The only difference being is that it becomes much harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves when the access to guns becomes that much harder.

The question then becomes is having heavy gun control worth it in this situation if the overall homicide rate has pretty much fluctuated like it has? Is gun crime or being murdered by gun fire that much more horrific than say being stabbed? You might think the answer to that is yes and if so then fair enough, I can't change your mind on something that is that personal. But that is essentially what it boils down to now at least in the UK, the US is a completely different scenario.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

L-DOPA said:


> The question then becomes is having heavy gun control worth it in this situation if the overall homicide rate has pretty much fluctuated like it has? Is gun crime or being murdered by gun fire that much more horrific than say being stabbed? You might think the answer to that is yes and if so then fair enough, I can't change your mind on something that is that personal. But that is essentially what it boils down to now at least in the UK, the US is a completely different scenario.


I've been stabbed, I survived. Similarly, how many US citizens/criminals are shot to death by police for carrying a knife? In the UK we just disarm them and lock them up. Guns increase death, it's really that simple for me. You may want the UK to go down the US route of people being shot to death all the time, including criminals. I'd rather we didn't have summary execution by the police force on the streets of the UK and live in a place where more often than not, people have never even seen a gun in person, never mind be shot at by one. :shrug


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> Its not complex at it, its pretty simple.
> 
> Get rid of the loophole where private sales don't have to give background checks.
> *Ban assault rifles.*
> ...


never going to happen hate to break it to you and also most gun crimes arent committed with a rifle


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

RavishingRickRules said:


> I've been stabbed, I survived. Similarly, how many US citizens/criminals are shot to death by police for carrying a knife? In the UK we just disarm them and lock them up. Guns increase death, it's really that simple for me. You may want the UK to go down the US route of people being shot to death all the time, including criminals. I'd rather we didn't have summary execution by the police force on the streets of the UK and live in a place where more often than not, people have never even seen a gun in person, never mind be shot at by one. :shrug


Well as long as the populace is unarmed, then the police should be too with the exception of what we have already and I can live with that. There's zero chance that the gun control laws get reversed now anyway, there isn't really a big move to do so, people are used to what the status quo is now and it's not really high on my priority list :lol.

I'm sorry you got stabbed, that sounds awful. I've been held at knife point and that's bad enough dude.


----------



## ElTerrible (Feb 8, 2004)

L-DOPA said:


> The argument isn't exactly gun related deaths but the overall homicide rate, which is key because the gun control argument essentially boils down to decreasing murder and violent crimes.
> 
> Yes, gun crime has gone down but it has been replaced by other methods of murder. As I've stated, knife crime has gone up considerably in the last 20 years which has filled the void, when criminals can't get a hold of guns they will start using knifes and it is much easier to defend yourself if you have a gun than if you are attacked with a knife and have to use physical force. Recently we've also seen acid attacks being used as an alternative to maiming as well so there will also be other methods. The only difference being is that it becomes much harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves when the access to guns becomes that much harder.
> 
> The question then becomes is having heavy gun control worth it in this situation if the overall homicide rate has pretty much fluctuated like it has? Is gun crime or being murdered by gun fire that much more horrific than say being stabbed? You might think the answer to that is yes and if so then fair enough, I can't change your mind on something that is that personal. But that is essentially what it boils down to now at least in the UK, the US is a completely different scenario.


According to the United Nations data

USA has a murder rate of 4.88 per 100k inhabitants
United Kingdom has a murder rate of 0.93 per 100 inhabitants

That´s ALL Murders.

So what are you even talking about.


----------



## venkyrenga (Jan 10, 2016)

I am confused, I don't understand this. I learnt that it is actually possible for someone in USA to legally possess the weapons the assailant used. What kind of nonsense is this!

I am Indian and mass shootings like this don't happen here, not because there is no nutcase here but because nobody has the kind of weapons that Paddock used. Guns are not legal here unless you have a license which is given only for a very few people that really need them. Why does a common man need guns that too automatic guns that can kill people from 500 meters. That is some kind of shit the military has. 

Lunatics are everywhere, it is our responsibility to not give them the power to cause damage like this. Paddock is not the only culprit here, the government which made all those weapons legal is equally responsible.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

ElTerrible said:


> According to the United Nations data
> 
> USA has a murder rate of 4.88 per 100k inhabitants
> United Kingdom has a murder rate of 0.93 per 100 inhabitants
> ...


I was talking about the fluctuations of the murder rate WITHIN THE UK. I was talking solely about the effects of gun control in the UK in response to that post. Mainly because we are both British and that's where the discussion was drifting towards. Please keep up.

Also if we want to go that route, the biggest per capita murder rates come from El Salvador and Honduras, both of which have heavy gun control.

Try again.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

L-DOPA said:


> I'm sorry you got stabbed, that sounds awful. I've been held at knife point and that's bad enough dude.


It was a long time ago tbh, hazards of growing up in a very rough area and having a reputation for being a "nerdy kid" I guess. I've been stabbed with a screwdriver (worst feeling I've ever experienced btw) and cut once in the face with a scalpel and on the arm with a knife when some lunatic was waving it around trying to threaten a whole bunch of us. All of this happened before I was 16 too which is kinda fucked up. I wouldn't have minded but every time it's happened I haven't even been mugged 2 were random attacks and the other was some crazy motherfucker who threatened a group of us trying to get one of the lasses to go off with him (police fucked him right up tbh because he tried to fight them with the knife lmao.)


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

L-DOPA said:


> I was talking about the fluctuations of the murder rate WITHIN THE UK. I was talking solely about the effects of gun control in the UK in response to that post.
> 
> Also if we want to go that route, the biggest per capita murder rates come from El Salvador and Honduras, both of which have heavy gun control.
> 
> Try again.


They're also both developing countries and not really "1st world western civilisation." That's a problem I have with your argument as well, the US statistics don't match most developed countries of a similar level, they look like statistics from a central american drug-riddled scare fest to me. Compare the US to any 1st rate country with gun control and the disparity is staggering.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

RavishingRickRules said:


> They're also both developing countries and not really "1st world western civilisation." That's a problem I have with your argument as well, the US statistics don't match most developed countries of a similar level, they look like statistics from a central american drug-riddled scare fest to me. Compare the US to any 1st rate country with gun control and the disparity is staggering.


Okay you have a point there at least about Honduras and El Salvador, I was just kinda annoyed the guy didn't realize I was talking specifically about the UK, not in comparison with the US :lol.

That guy who waved the knife to the police in your story sounds like a total lunatic by the way :HA.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

L-DOPA said:


> That guy who waved the knife to the police in your story sounds like a total lunatic by the way :HA.


Mate....the dude was maybe 45-50 ish and if he wasn't a smack-head then he had some serious illness because it was just skin, bone and knock-off Adidas tracksuit. Started off callin over to us (we were hanging on a park, as you do) with lewd suggestions to the girls then decided he'd come over with a knife and threaten us all if they didn't go off and have sex with him. I hate to think what would've happened if there wasn't like 10 of us there, he cut at least 5 of us during his threatening before the cops showed up. I don't even know how you deal with people like that until they commit a crime though, it's shitty because it's almost like you have to wait for the inevitable knowing that someone's going to be put in danger when it happens.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

RavishingRickRules said:


> Mate....the dude was maybe 45-50 ish and if he wasn't a smack-head then he had some serious illness because it was just skin, bone and knock-off Adidas tracksuit. Started off callin over to us (we were hanging on a park, as you do) with lewd suggestions to the girls then decided *he'd come over with a knife and threaten us all if they didn't go off and have sex with him.* I hate to think what would've happened if there wasn't like 10 of us there, he cut at least 5 of us during his threatening before the cops showed up. I don't even know how you deal with people like that until they commit a crime though, it's shitty because it's almost like you have to wait for the inevitable knowing that someone's going to be put in danger when it happens.


What the fuck?! There are some really messed up people in this world. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a drug addict to be honest, it definitely sounds like it considering your description. Worst I've had it is being held at knife point by two guys for my phone. It was right near my home as well which makes it even more bizarre.

I'm lucky that I live in a pretty decent suburban area, there are places which are bad around it but near me there is only one council estate which is pretty messed up. We joke about it being mordor because one does not simply walk into it and guarantee that you will come out of there unscathed :lol. But it's pretty easy to avoid.


----------



## RavishingRickRules (Sep 22, 2016)

L-DOPA said:


> What the fuck?! There are some really messed up people in this world. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a drug addict to be honest, it definitely sounds like it considering your description. Worst I've had it is being held at knife point by two guys for my phone. It was right near my home as well which makes it even more bizarre.
> 
> I'm lucky that I live in a pretty decent suburban area, there are places which are bad around it but near me there is only one council estate which is pretty messed up. We joke about it being mordor because one does not simply walk into it and guarantee that you will come out of there unscathed :lol. But it's pretty easy to avoid.


Haha yeah I can see the Mordor thing. I lived in one of those areas I guess, people I went to school with NEVER wanted to hang around near where I was from. I'm an inner-city guy, lots of drugs, lots of poor people, lots of immigrants, very little hope for a lot of people if I'm honest. I was extremely lucky to have been able to go to Cambridge because it literally changed mine and my families lives.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

L-DOPA said:


> The argument isn't exactly gun related deaths but the overall homicide rate, which is key because the gun control argument essentially boils down to decreasing murder and violent crimes.
> 
> *Yes, gun crime has gone down but it has been replaced by other methods of murder. As I've stated, knife crime has gone up considerably in the last 20 years which has filled the void, when criminals can't get a hold of guns they will start using knifes and it is much easier to defend yourself if you have a gun than if you are attacked with a knife and have to use physical force. Recently we've also seen acid attacks being used as an alternative to maiming as well so there will also be other methods. The only difference being is that it becomes much harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves when the access to guns becomes that much harder.*
> 
> The question then becomes is having heavy gun control worth it in this situation if the overall homicide rate has pretty much fluctuated like it has? Is gun crime or being murdered by gun fire that much more horrific than say being stabbed? You might think the answer to that is yes and if so then fair enough, I can't change your mind on something that is that personal. But that is essentially what it boils down to now at least in the UK, the US is a completely different scenario.


I can easily defeat your logic here.

If this shooter was only able to get his hands of a knife would he have been able to kill and injure as many people as he did? Sure if someone can't get their hands on a gun they could turn to a knife, but they won't be able to injure or kill nearly as many people as they can with a gun, especially an assault rifle.





Roxinius said:


> never going to happen hate to break it to you and also most gun crimes aren't committed with a rifle


Most mass shootings of this degree have assault rifles involved. You really think if this shooter only had a handgun he would have been able to injure and kill that many people? Just because most gun crimes are not committed by a certain type of gun does not mean there is not a problem and that assault rifles shouldn't be banned. Using that logic, why not make fully auto rifles, like machine guns legal?


----------



## themuel1 (Feb 19, 2004)

If given the shitty choice, I'll take Knife crime in the UK over gun crime in the USA thanks.

Fancy my chances much more against a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun. That said, RavishingRickRules (I don't know how to tag), that's not to make light of what you went through in any way. Just that from above posts, the knife crime filling the gun crime void and the impossibility of the carnage of Vegas with a knife.

BTW El Salvador and Honduras have huge smuggling problems, complete lack of resources to combat that and have had massive corruption issues in government and Police. Gun control doesn't work if you have all of those issues.


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> I can easily defeat your logic here.
> 
> If this shooter was only able to get his hands of a knife would he have been able to kill and injure as many people as he did? Sure if someone can't get their hands on a gun they could turn to a knife, but they won't be able to injure or kill nearly as many people as they can with a gun, especially an assault rifle.
> 
> ...


they are legal you have to pass an extensive background check register them with you local sherrifs office and pay $250 a year in a tax stamp not to mention you're paying minimum 15-20k for a pre 1986 gun capable of full auto. and no hje wouldnt have been able to but with a hand gun at the range he was at he would have done no dmg thats just stupid to compare long rifles are not the issue you are wrong


----------



## Lesnar Turtle (Dec 6, 2011)

RavishingRickRules said:


> They're also both developing countries and not really "1st world western civilisation." That's a problem I have with your argument as well, the US statistics don't match most developed countries of a similar level, they look like statistics from a central american drug-riddled scare fest to me. Compare the US to any 1st rate country with gun control and the disparity is staggering.


The US being seen as a first world country is somewhat misleading. Its more like a continent of 50 little countries, with a significant separation between the good and the bad. The worst bits of which are bad enough that they can have their first world status questioned. 

Add easily available firearms (at this point it makes no difference whether they are legal or not) plus a certain *ahem* "demographic" factor that European cities dont have on the same scale and yes, you end up with a high murder/gun crime rate.


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

birthday_massacre said:


> I can easily defeat your logic here.
> 
> If this shooter was only able to get his hands of a knife would he have been able to kill and injure as many people as he did? Sure if someone can't get their hands on a gun they could turn to a knife, but they won't be able to injure or kill nearly as many people as they can with a gun, especially an assault rifle.
> 
> ...


At the range that most mass shootings happen I think hand guns could be just as if not more lethal due to them being far more concealable and thus get closer before starting and allowing the shooter to carry more than one weapon as well as plenty of back up magazines

There are subcompact pistols that have double stack mags that hold 12 or more and you could put four in your waistband and not look out of place. That's not even getting into the idea of taping magazines to your leg or chest for easier access 

Mass shootings tend to just be shooting into a crowd at like less than five yards, your are more limited by the amount of bullets you bring than the type of weapon


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Roxinius said:


> they are legal you have to pass an extensive background check register them with you local sherrifs office and pay $250 a year in a tax stamp not to mention you're paying minimum 15-20k for a pre 1986 gun capable of full auto. *and no hje wouldnt have been able to but with a hand gun at the range he was at he would have done no dmg thats just stupid to compare long rifles are not the issue you are wrong*


I am not wrong, you even admitted I was right a handgun would not have done the amount of damage the assault rifle did. 

It's not stupid to compare the two, you only claim its stupid because you had to admit I was right.




stevefox1200 said:


> Mass shootings tend to just be shooting into a crowd at like less than five yards, your are more limited by the amount of bullets you bring than the type of weapon


True of false.

You can spray more bullets and do more damage to a crowd with an assault rifle than you can with a handgun


----------



## stevefox1200 (Jul 7, 2009)

birthday_massacre said:


> I am not wrong, you even admitted I was right a handgun would not have done the amount of damage the assault rifle did.
> 
> It's not stupid to compare the two, you only claim its stupid because you had to admit I was right.
> 
> ...


What makes an "assault rifle" cause more damage?

The bullet is bigger but not big enough to make a huge difference if you have medical care

I guess you could argue penetration but 5.56 has shit penetration (as by design)


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

stevefox1200 said:


> What makes an "assault rifle" cause more damage?
> 
> The bullet is bigger but not big enough to make a huge difference if you have medical care
> 
> I guess you could argue penetration but 5.56 has shit penetration (as by design)



The bigger bullet for one, the clips or whatever the proper term is, of assault rifles can hold way more bullets than handguns, assault rifles on average can hold the double amount of bullets handguns can.

Not to mention like in this shooting, it's easy to legally buy mods to make semi-automatic rifles into auto.

Like I asked another poster if the shooter in Vegas only had a handgun, would he been able to kill and injure as many people in that short amount of time

Would you have preferred the word carnage instead of damage, since that is what I was referring to?


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

So we now know the guns were legally available and modded with a legal mod. Interesting because that's what I said from the start.

Now the NRA are jumping to ban the stocks, I thought hell had frozen over then I raised that they're just completly deflecting from the rifles to the stock instead of looking at both. Clever.


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> I am not wrong, you even admitted I was right a handgun would not have done the amount of damage the assault rifle did.
> 
> It's not stupid to compare the two, you only claim its stupid because you had to admit I was right.
> 
> ...


there is no such thing as an assault rifle stop using your liberal buzz words but again bnlame everything but the subhuman piece of shit doing this and i'll keep my Ar-15s to use at the range. also to your second point semi automatic is semi automaic a standard Ar platform rifle will only fire as many times as you pull the trigger may want to get some semblance of knowledge of what you're talking about


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

draykorinee said:


> So we now know the guns were legally available and modded with a legal mod. Interesting because that's what I said from the start.
> 
> Now the NRA are jumping to ban the stocks, I thought hell had frozen over then I raised that they're just completly deflecting from the rifles to the stock instead of looking at both. Clever.


hate to piss in your cheerios here but bump fire stocks arent the only way to bump fire i can easily bumpfire my mac 11 with no set up


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Roxinius said:


> there is no such thing as an assault rifle stop using your liberal buzz words but again bnlame everything but the subhuman piece of shit doing this and i'll keep my Ar-15s to use at the range. also to your second point semi automatic is semi automaic a standard Ar platform rifle will only fire as many times as you pull the trigger may want to get some semblance of knowledge of what you're talking about


Oh look someone playing the semantic game over terms used when you fully know what we are talking about.

Keep deflecting.




Roxinius said:


> hate to piss in your cheerios here but bump fire stocks arent the only way to bump fire i can easily bumpfire my mac 11 with no set up


And that is why any device that can turn a semi-automatic rifle or gun into an automatic needs to be banned.


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> Oh look someone playing the semantic game over terms used when you fully know what we are talking about.
> 
> Keep deflecting.


deflecting what? im speaking the truth


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Roxinius said:


> deflecting what? im speaking the truth


You are deflecting the topic at hand about which is the type of damage and carnage the rifles in the vegas shooting can do vs handguns and instead just crying about the name people are calling those guns.

And to your other point in the first quote, about a semi automatic is semi automatic a standard Ar platform rifle will only fire as many times as you pull the trigger, yeah unless you mod it like the shooter did, in this case, to make it act like an automatic rifle.


Another defection and not directly answering the point.

Nothing you should legal to make semi automatic guns act like automatic guns.


----------



## Kabraxal (Jun 14, 2004)

I still don’t get why so many ate afraid of automatic weapons... they are not easy weapons for the average person to pick up and use. But then have taken the chance to use one... or any firearm for that matter?

This incident was so lethal not because of the weapon, but the meticulous planning and apparent experience of the suspect. No gun law would have taken that away. In fact, from what is being found out... we should be grateful he chose a gun and not a bomb or even a vehicle. This guy was what was dangerous.


----------



## amhlilhaus (Dec 19, 2013)

Lesnar Turtle said:


> The US being seen as a first world country is somewhat misleading. Its more like a continent of 50 little countries, with a significant separation between the good and the bad. The worst bits of which are bad enough that they can have their first world status questioned.
> 
> Add easily available firearms (at this point it makes no difference whether they are legal or not) plus a certain *ahem* "demographic" factor that European cities dont have on the same scale and yes, you end up with a high murder/gun crime rate.


Please, do tell what state wouldnt be considered first world


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

draykorinee said:


> So we now know the guns were legally available and modded with a legal mod. Interesting because that's what I said from the start.
> 
> Now the NRA are jumping to ban the stocks, I thought hell had frozen over then I raised that they're just completly deflecting from the rifles to the stock instead of looking at both. Clever.


My guess is they figure they can sell more silencers than bump stocks.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Now reports are coming out this asshole might have been casing other targets before this one. Could have been Chicago or Boston. Chilling.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4955868/Vegan-biz-owner-sorry-post-Las-Vegas-meat-eaters.html
Disgusting behavior


----------



## T'Challa (Aug 12, 2014)

virus21 said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4955868/Vegan-biz-owner-sorry-post-Las-Vegas-meat-eaters.html
> Disgusting behavior


Sounds like an extremist I have heard some Vegans saying stuff like this in the past on Youtube, fucking crazy but he only speaking these views but wouldn't be a surprise if there was some type of uprising that's all we need Vegan terroists.


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> You are deflecting the topic at hand about which is the type of damage and carnage the rifles in the vegas shooting can do vs handguns and instead just crying about the name people are calling those guns.
> 
> And to your other point in the first quote, about a semi automatic is semi automatic a standard Ar platform rifle will only fire as many times as you pull the trigger, yeah unless you mod it like the shooter did, in this case, to make it act like an automatic rifle.
> 
> ...


again bumpfire stocks are not the only way to bump fire a gun they make it easier but not the only way to do it i can do it with my mac 11 with my belt loop


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Roxinius said:


> again bumpfire stocks are not the only way to bump fire a gun they make it easier but not the only way to do it i can do it with my mac 11 with my belt loop


This shooter didn't use a belt loop did he? And belt loops are not made to make semiautomatic rifles shoot like an automatic rifle.

But using your logic well since bump stocks are not the only way to do this, they shouldn't be banned. Any mod for a gun that is designed to make a semiautomatic rifle shoot like an automatic should be banned.

It would be easier to just ban all semiautomatic rifles but a start would be banning the mods.


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> This shooter didn't use a belt loop did he? And belt loops are not made to make semiautomatic rifles shoot like an automatic rifle.
> 
> But using your logic well since bump stocks are not the only way to do this, they shouldn't be banned. Any mod for a gun that is designed to make a semiautomatic rifle shoot like an automatic should be banned.
> 
> It would be easier to just ban all semiautomatic rifles but a start would be banning the mods.


ban all semi autos is absolutely fucking retarded to ban a type of gun hardly ever used in crimes do you see where your logic hits retarded levels here?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Roxinius said:


> ban all semi autos is absolutely fucking retarded to ban a type of gun hardly ever used in crimes do you see where your logic hits retarded levels here?


Semiautomatic rifles.

How is my logic retartd here? the worst mass shootings semi-automatic rifles were mostly used like the shooting we just saw. There is no need for anyone to have a semi-automatic rifle.


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> Semiautomatic rifles.
> 
> How is my logic retartd here? the worst mass shootings semi-automatic rifles were mostly used like the shooting we just saw. There is no need for anyone to have a semi-automatic rifle.


and who are you to tell me what i should and shouldn't own?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Roxinius said:


> and who are you to tell me what i should and shouldn't own?


And you make a non-sequitur. LOL Im done,


----------



## Roxinius (Jul 21, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> And you make a non-sequitur. LOL Im done,


seriously hate to be the one to piss in your cheerios here but semiauto rifles are used in what less than 10% of crimes committed that's where your logic hits retarded just be honest you want them banned because to you their scary


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Roxinius said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> > This shooter didn't use a belt loop did he? And belt loops are not made to make semiautomatic rifles shoot like an automatic rifle.
> ...


But why do you need one?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Roxinius said:


> seriously hate to be the one to piss in your cheerios here but semiauto rifles are used in what less than 10% of crimes committed that's where your logic hits retarded just be honest you want them banned because to you their scary


If banning semiautomatic rifles to stop another shooting like the Vegas shooting isn't enough then no reason will ever be good enough for you.

Progunners like you have the worst logic, well banning semi-automatic rifles won't stop all shootings but just the worst mass shootings, so why even bother is just sickening.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

It's been a week since the atrocity and still no surveillance footage from Mandalay Bay. Question everything.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

No new evidence, no motive yet?

One doesn't just stockpile weapons, get a good vantage point and find the best weapons for use for no reason at all.

Little weird.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

I guess it isn't impossible that he acted alone, but something is not adding up here. 

I find it hard to believe that one lone nut would stock up that much weaponry and ammunition, manage to get it all up there with no one noticing, and did it all by himself.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*Las Vegas gunman shot security guard a full six minutes before opening fire on concertgoers, police reveal*

Copying this from reddit.



> "The sheriff also changed the timeline of the shooting, explaining that a security guard in the hotel’s hallway responding to a report of an open door heard drilling from Paddock’s room. Paddock, who had installed three cameras to monitor the approach to his suite, opened fire through the door, spraying 200 shots down the hall and wounding the guard, who alerted other security officials."
> 
> The whole timeline now makes no sense.
> 
> ...


I'm not a conspiracy guy at all, but I have to admit this seems odd. If he wasn't interrupted by the security guard why did he stop killing and turn the gun on himself? Why didn't anyone notice 200 gunshots in the hotel six minutes before the concert shooting?


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

OK, now this is REALLY getting bizarre. 

Very little about this made any sense to begin with, but to find out a guard was shot during a barrage of 200 bullets a full six minutes before the rampage began, it just doesn't make sense. 

Adding to the speculation? The guard was shot through the door and never actually saw the shooter, so feel free to jump on the "there's more than shooter" hypothesis. 

Again, I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but there is something fishy here.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

TripleG said:


> OK, now this is REALLY getting bizarre.
> 
> Very little about this made any sense to begin with, but to find out a guard was shot during a barrage of 200 bullets a full six minutes before the rampage began, it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> ...


Unless the guard is lying. Pretty weird the guard thing is just coming out now.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

I don't think it's unreasonable that it took the guard a few minutes to escape and ensure his safety from a hail of gunfire before making the call. You're not alerting anyone if you get shot to death before you can get a second word out.

There's also the possibility that the Las Vegas PD did get reports from other guests and just fucked up their response and are trying to hide it. There's simpler, more plausible explanations than conspiracy to do anything but cover up incompetence, which is common when it comes to the government.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

CamillePunk part of the conspiracy CONFIRMED.


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

Cops kill unarmed non-threatening people. It's not out of the realm of possibility that they suck at responding to an actual threat.

Basically yes I'm saying fuck the police.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

Let's stop with the police attacks right now. This is mostly at @MrMister . Thanks bud.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

Its not that weird that it took a wounded guard six minutes to notify people. 

However, 200 shots go off inside the hotel and I am shocked anybody needs to be alerted at all. 200 shots go off and NOBODY heard or reported anything? Covering up incompetence seems very likely because this just isn't adding up. 

We've all seen the footage of the shooting. Think of how loud those shots are outside and while live music is playing. Now imagine those shots going off inside. There is no way 200 shots could have gone off inside and NOBODY heard it.


----------



## MOX (Dec 6, 2011)

Here's the thing: y'all saw me putting conspiracy theories out there the day after or whatever, based on him seemingly not being the type of dude etc etc, but surely if this was a Gen.U.Ine conspiracy then the people organizing it would have their shit together enough to have arranged a motive etc to become known. 

The fact that nothing has come out opens up other conspiracy doors, such as a cover-up to prevent the public finding out his true motive which the government might find embarrassing or some other thing a government actually thinks, I dunno, never been a government.

Problem with all that is it takes an awful lot of people to make such a conspiracy work properly and I doubt all of them would keep their mouths shut. Something would leak somewhere.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

2 Ton 21 said:


> *Las Vegas gunman shot security guard a full six minutes before opening fire on concertgoers, police reveal*
> 
> Copying this from reddit.
> 
> ...


Maybe he was taking a break after firing for 10 minutes? Killed himself because there is more than one person at the door now.

I am guessing people just ignore whatever is happening outside their hotel rooms.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

How about the reports that the shooter was an undercover FBI spy posing as a gun runner selling guns to ISIS terrorists inside the country? The gambler gig was his cover. Explains his trips to the Middle East and other countries as well as the two broken windows and the second shooter theory.

That he had a deal setup in that room that day to sell guns to the terrorists? That’s why all the cameras were setup to record the deal. Report is that ISIS discovered he was an agent, shot him and then opened fire into the crowd to set him up as the shooter? This of course is being kept hush hush by the FBI, if it is indeed true.

- Vic


----------



## UniversalGleam (Jan 30, 2017)

I guess you could say its possible that the guard believed that the gun man was planning on opening fire within the building so therefore it was case of getting to a safe place before he came out his room, I suppose its feasible to think that people didnt expect the guy to start firing out of the windows on the 32nd floor, its just not the immediate thought when your inside a building. The whole thing does seem abit odd though.

as far as the guns go, I don't honestly see any reason for a civilian to own military grade weaponry, plus if the idea of having guns is protect ones self from danger then it clearly doesnt work in these situations so the very reason for having them in the first place is flawed.

carrying around a small hand gun is one thing, owning a machine gun with extended magazines and advanced sighting simply isnt necessary AT ALL, what do you need that for? to shoot an old fridge on a Saturday afternoon?

ridiculous.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

TripleG said:


> Its not that weird that it took a wounded guard six minutes to notify people.
> 
> However, 200 shots go off inside the hotel and I am shocked anybody needs to be alerted at all. 200 shots go off and NOBODY heard or reported anything? Covering up incompetence seems very likely because this just isn't adding up.
> 
> We've all seen the footage of the shooting. Think of how loud those shots are outside and while live music is playing. Now imagine those shots going off inside. There is no way 200 shots could have gone off inside and NOBODY heard it.


I go to Vegas pretty often and most rooms in places like this are designed to keep down the noise. Also not sure if anyone was even in their rooms next to him etc. 

Chances are nobody would hear it or they were busy partying inside. It's weird but chances are very few people were in their rooms during the attack.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

Mandalay Bay security guard JesseCampos broke his silence in his only interview on EllenDeGeneres's show.



> He reviewed the events of the shooting, recounting how he was alerted to check on a door that was ajar. He said he was on the stairwell going from the 31st to the 32nd floor and came upon a door that was blocked and wouldn’t open. So he re-routed through a hallway and called security dispatch to get an engineer to check on the blocked door. The worker summoned would be Stephen Schuck.
> 
> Campos said he then heard drilling sounds and believed the slamming of the heavy door he passed through to get to the 32nd floor alerted Paddock to his presence. Paddock shot through the door and hit Campos in the leg.
> 
> ...


Why is this important? It matches up with the ORIGINAL timeline of events that Las Vegas Metro gave!

- Vic


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

Wrong thread, ignore this post.


----------



## Vic Capri (Jun 7, 2006)

A picture of Stephen Paddock's corpse was leaked. He shot himself in the mouth before the police could get to him.

- Vic


----------



## krtgolfing (Nov 2, 2015)

Roxinius said:


> seriously hate to be the one to piss in your cheerios here but semiauto rifles are used in what less than 10% of crimes committed that's where your logic hits retarded just be honest you want them banned because to you their scary


----------

