What's new
By:

Las Vegas: Worst Mass Shooting in US History

DutchJazzer said:
would you have a truck debate, or truck control debate. if a guy just drove into the concertgoers with a mack truck?
Click to expand...

It's a stupid comparison, and there's no reason to go into why.

Regardless of what side you fall on, there is absolutely an issue with guns in this country. The NRA and their supporters are protecting the rights of those who make huge profits off of gun sales, at the cost of people being slaughtered needlessly. Getting rid of guns isn't the answer, but that doesn't mean there isn't a hell of a lot we could do as a society to make it harder for people to commit such acts.

It's kind of crazy that some people in this country consider this nutjob's access to firearms a right, and at the same time consider medical care for his victims to be a privilege and not a right.

I can guarantee anybody that if I was supporting a political party that thought that way, I would have to rethink my entire existence.
 
Last edited:
Ron Mexico said:
Do you have statistics to show that they have more people being burned or stabbed? What is your basis for that assertion?

Here are their crime statistics. They show that homicide rates continue to decline in Australia since the law change. They have been on a pretty steady decline every year since 1997. They also showed a huge drop in Suicides. Additionally they have had 0 mass shootings since the law change and way less mass killings since then.

http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/
Click to expand...

Funnily enough most armoured van robberies are now done to steal the firearms off the security guards, they have a black market value of 30 to 40k each, the cash is a secondary consideration.
 
DutchJazzer said:
FUnny how normallyt the media scours for the motive. but the motive has not been found. while the shooter left a note in the hotel room!


we need the motive instead of a gun debate.

this is not a gun issue!
Click to expand...

I haven't heard this about the note. Link?
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
Link
Click to expand...

No Link, part of my industry training. Cash in the van is normally pretty hard to get to, taking the weapons off the guys filling an ATM is much more lucrative. Again this is in Australia where owning hand guns is heavily regulated and rare, hence the black market value.
 
DutchJazzer said:
would you have a truck debate, or truck control debate. if a guy just drove into the concertgoers with a mack truck?
Click to expand...
Wow what a dumb post
 
Bulletproof said:
"Gun show loophole" is a misnomer.

The "loophole" is that private party to private party sales do not require a background check. That's the loophole.

Any licensed gun dealer has to run background checks on all gun sales. At a gun show or anywhere else.
Click to expand...

Ron Mexico said:
I'm aware that is the law. I'm also aware that people sale guns illegally quite often. I have bought multiple guns and own guns, I have never gone through a background check to buy one. My friend's dad owns multiple fully automatic guns. He converts many semi's but he has also purchased many through back channels and gun shows in Utah that are great place for making those contacts.
Click to expand...

A rule that isn't enforced is in my opinion no rule.

JustTheTip said:
Bah.

I'm working 80+ hours a week right now. Even if I wanted to (and I don't) I wouldn't have the time to plan something like this and execute it.

People just aren't happy. Money doesn't do it. The latest toys don't do it. Their spouse or families don't do it. They're searching, aren't finding, and they're angry. Nobody is content with what they have...which could be attributed partly to a hyper competitive mentality I guess, but I wouldn't go that far. I think people work harder because they think if they have more they'll be happier...and that never works.
Click to expand...

What you describe are societal ripple effects in my opinion. If certain benchmarks were more tolerant, a wider spectrum, ppl wouldn't feel forced to prove themselves to others, but could rather explore what they'd do so they like themselves.
What I find likely from what I read is that even though he was well off financially, recognition of professional gamblers is basically zero unless you're really robbing everyone. By setting a record in terms of homicides in a single shootout, he could've filled the lack of purpose he may have perceived.
Anger is probably a thing too, but IMO it's a secondary factor. Anger has a root, the root as you said was probably unhappiness and instead of dealing with it himself or asking for help to discuss that, he's projected it towards others and this could've lead to his plan.

If society wants change it needs to change how it deals and portraits reward and punishment. tragedies are highlighted on a daily basis, seeing criticism and bad examples all the time really affects his you view reward. Media would need to switch the focus on finding really cool stories and displaying achievements instead of judging others for their behavior based on few facts and circumstances.
 
DutchJazzer said:
FUnny how normallyt the media scours for the motive. but the motive has not been found. while the shooter left a note in the hotel room!


we need the motive instead of a gun debate.

this is not a gun issue!
Click to expand...

Yes, the media does "normally" search for a motive, and that's exactly what they've been doing this time as well. As many networks as I've been watching, I'm hearing the same puzzlement over motive. We usually do hear something by this point that sheds light on the "why" behind mass shootings. Not this time. It's what makes the shooting so hard to understand so far. A 64 year old white millionaire whose main "hobby" was gambling seems a disconnect as a recruit for ISIS, despite ISIS's repeated claims he was a soldier for them.

As far as the note, who in the media can possibly know what it says based on that one photo, or if it's even a note, or if so, if it describes motive?

Our best bet at this point, for motive, may lay with his girlfriend in the Philippines....
 
Well, the shooter's girlfriend has returned to the US, so authorities will now be able to question her, in a search for the elusive motive. Her sisters claim he sent her out of the country to "spare her", but I don't know how they would know that to be the case:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local...-girlfriend-arrives-back-in-us-is-met-by-fbi/

And since bump stocks make it so easy to convert a weapon to automatic, I do not think it too early or "wrong" for Denocratic senators to want to debate the legality of bump stocks. Both McConnell and Ryan are brushing aside gun control debate, but that too is to be expected. But, certainly, we don't need to understand the actual motive to question the legality of bump stocks....

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...rapid-fire-are-legal-senators-ask-why-n807266
 
If there is a ban in the United States on automatic weapons manufactured post 1986, and if bump stocks effectively represent an easy and inexpensive way to circumvent that ban, and if the use of bump stocks by the Las Vegas shooter made it possible for him to kill and injure more people then he would have otherwise, then I don't understand, given those easily deduced facts, why anyone would argue that it's "too early" to talk about the legality of bump stocks.

Of course we want to understand motive. There is nothing we can do to bring back all those lives. We can at least search tirelessly for the motive, for the "why" behind this madness. But discussing bump stock legality is a separate issue altogether, and it's understandable and appropriate to talk about something that literally renders the automatic weapon ban moot, and helped kill more people then would have likely been the case otherwise.

I hope the "note" sheds light on motive. I hope it starts off reading "this is why I did this..." But, right now, looking at the photo, I can't even tell if there is any writing at all on that piece of paper. All we can do is hope it sheds light on motive. Until the police reveal more, we cannot know with certainty if it is a suicide note that would shed light on this mystery. What bump stocks do, on the other hand, is no mystery, and it's only natural for some to want to discuss what bump stocks make possible, completely irrespective of the killer's motive or motives.....

I'm assuming here, since bump stocks affect the ban on automatic weapons, that they are part of any debate on "gun control", and I think therefore that it would be silly to suggest it's "too early" to talk about their legality...
 
I don't have any problem discussing those things. I did find the rush, within a few minutes in many cases, to get to that debate to be pretty tasteless. Let people have a minute, or even a day, to wrap their heads around what happened. For people to grieve. Also actually knowing the details of the case, like we do now, is instrumental in discussing it. Like the fact that he used bump stocks.
 
BTP said:
A rule that isn't enforced is in my opinion no rule.
Click to expand...

The rule that FFL holders (licensed gun dealers) run background checks, including for all sales at guns shows, is enforced. If you go to a gun show and try to buy a gun you will have to do a background check if you are purchasing from an FFL holder (or if the gun you are purchasing is part of an FFL holder's inventory). No FFL holder is going to sale a gun that is part of their inventory without doing a background check.

THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE

At gun shows, or anywhere else, a privately owned gun can be sold from one private individual to another private individual without a background check. This is not something that is unique to gun shows. This is not something that happens more often at gun shows than outside of gun shows. This is the loophole. It is not a gun show loophole, it is a private party to private party loophole. Not sure why there has been an insistence to call the private party to private party loophole a gun show loophole, but calling it a gun show loophole is misleading, it's sloppy, it's dishonest if once you know what the loophole is you continue to call it a gun show loophole.

If private party to private party sale of guns needs background checks... SAY THAT! Because to close the gun show loophole you have to require background checks on all private party to private party sales, which would have much more of an effect completely removed from gun shows than it would have on gun shows.
 
Wow, there are leaked videos of the room and one of the shooter after he took his life. That photo is very graphic. You can never be to sure with this stuff but it appears legit.

There are articles on various sites showing the majority of the leaked photos.

Again, if you go looking the one of his body is GRAPHIC. You've been warned.
 
Bulletproof said:
The rule that FFL holders (licensed gun dealers) run background checks, including for all sales at guns shows, is enforced. If you go to a gun show and try to buy a gun you will have to do a background check if you are purchasing from an FFL holder (or if the gun you are purchasing is part of an FFL holder's inventory). No FFL holder is going to sale a gun that is part of their inventory without doing a background check.

THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE

At gun shows, or anywhere else, a privately owned gun can be sold from one private individual to another private individual without a background check. This is not something that is unique to gun shows. This is not something that happens more often at gun shows than outside of gun shows. This is the loophole. It is not a gun show loophole, it is a private party to private party loophole. Not sure why there has been an insistence to call the private party to private party loophole a gun show loophole, but calling it a gun show loophole is misleading, it's sloppy, it's dishonest if once you know what the loophole is you continue to call it a gun show loophole.

If private party to private party sale of guns needs background checks... SAY THAT! Because to close the gun show loophole you have to require background checks on all private party to private party sales, which would have much more of an effect completely removed from gun shows than it would have on gun shows.
Click to expand...
Gun shows allow people to pretend to be private seller while setting up booths and selling guns in mass. If they were to do this in another setting it would be illegal because they would need a business license. Private selling outside of gun shows has its own issues possibly but gun shows allow bigger issues. They allow people to sell at rates like a gun dealer but follow the laws of a private seller.

I actually had a long talk with an ATF agent again last night. I changed my mind slightly on a couple issues but also reinforced some things I thought. I'll have to post when I have a little more time later today. Gun shows are one of the things we discussed and the problems they present.
 
Stoked said:
I don't have any problem discussing those things. I did find the rush, within a few minutes in many cases, to get to that debate to be pretty tasteless. Let people have a minute, or even a day, to wrap their heads around what happened. For people to grieve. Also actually knowing the details of the case, like we do now, is instrumental in discussing it. Like the fact that he used bump stocks.
Click to expand...

This. Our empathy, as limited as it really is from a "mob mentality" standpoint (the Men in Black line "the person is smart, but 'people' are stupid"), has really been eroding. The constant influx of this kind of media, along with the ability to add to our superiority complexes through our "anonymous" fake online lives, has, imo, desensitized us to the suffering of others by and large. We are much more inclined to get our jabs in so we can be "right" in our fake online lives than worry about the fact that someone else is suffering for us to get our validation.
 
Eminence said:
Is it confirmed he was bump-firing? Thought it sounded like that in the videos I'd seen, but wasn't sure.
Click to expand...

Yes, several of the weapons that appeared to have the most rounds fired were equipped with bump stocks. And otherwise there was no way to get the bursts of fire heard on the multitude of videos out there now.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Gun shows allow people to pretend to be private seller while setting up booths and selling guns in mass. If they were to do this in another setting it would be illegal because they would need a business license. Private selling outside of gun shows has its own issues possibly but gun shows allow bigger issues. They allow people to sell at rates like a gun dealer but follow the laws of a private seller.

I actually had a long talk with an ATF agent again last night. I changed my mind slightly on a couple issues but also reinforced some things I thought. I'll have to post when I have a little more time later today. Gun shows are one of the things we discussed and the problems they present.
Click to expand...

Yeah right. I have a hard time buying into your conspiracy theory that the BATFE turns a complete blind eye to gun shows. If I were a gambling man I would bet they have a special task force that targets them with even closer scrutiny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top