Las Vegas Shooting
- Thread starter Kittamaru
- Start date
American don't like to accept, that the only purpose of a gun is to kill. They come withe excuse : target
practice
It takes one bullet to kill. If it is a privilege to have gun, so be it outlaw to have bullets.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Totalitarianism, civil war, the apocalypse.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
When I was fourteen I worked all summer for a neighbor to get the privilege to target shoot with his guns. Over the next three years I got very good at it. For my seventeenth birthday he let me first his M2 .50 Cal. Browning heavy machine gun. I was hooked. I like target shooting, I like to rock and roll. When I joined the Navy the following summer they put that passion to good use.
My point is guns aren't dangerous if a responsible person has charge of them. But a mom who keeps a load gun under the seat cushions on the couch is just trying to have one less mouth to feed.
other people with guns....
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
Got more details from my daughter. While she wasn't down at that end of the strip, she was up near the Bellagio, watching the fountain show. She got caught in the crowd running from the shooting. There was a lot of confusion and reports of multiple shooters in multiple hotels. They weren't letting anyone into any of the casinos/hotels, so she and her friends headed North away from the strip, where they finally found a place they could hole up until they started letting people back into the hotels and they could return to the MGM, where they were staying.
One could argue that self-responsibility is lacking globally so much so that your argument to support the ownership/use of guns by so called responsible persons is in some ways silly.
The fact that a person is so scared that they need to carry a fire arm immediately disqualifies them from carrying a fire arm if the criteria is rooted in self-responsibility IMO
The point being that "scared people "are "dangerous people" especially if they're allowed access to a means to vent their paranoia.
You only need to look at North Korea to see a whole bunch of terrified people and the problem is they have a big gun. ( or two, or three) then look at the USA, a whole bunch of terrified people and note they have also got a big gun ( or 200 0r 300) and you have a recipe for global disaster.
glad to hear that she is safe...
Last edited:
The question though, for me ( and no doubt others), is that we have a man who has ownership of many extremely lethal weapons holed up on a high floor with full intent and culpability in the mass murder of innocent persons who wanted to close any door to his own survival of the event.
To commit suicide and kill as many as he could before killing himself.
A Murder suicide.
The question, though, is why he just didn't kill himself ( alone) instead of taking 55+and injuring over 500 innocent people with him?
To commit suicide and kill as many as he could before killing himself.
A Murder suicide.
The question, though, is why he just didn't kill himself ( alone) instead of taking 55+and injuring over 500 innocent people with him?
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
"In some ways silly"? Nice hyperbole.
In my experience, that makes you anti-gun.
My solution is pretty straightforward: No loopholes, no accidents, no excuses. The problem is that for the gun cult, accountability itself is anti-gun. Imagine the idea of mandatory insurance. They don't actually get to complain about abridgment; obligation of purchase dates at least to 1790 in these United States. And if we want to further the idea of automobiles, or whatever, as a comparison, despite the basic functional differances, we might point out that society far more readily intervenese in one's access to a car. Even if you only hurt yourself, society generally doesn't take a pass on drunk driving.
So, yeah, the guy who got drunk and tried to fire buckshot from a .22 in order to shoot bees out of the air↗, and ended up injuring his own left hand? No more guns for him. How about Jerry and Terry? No, really, a literal poop shoot that ended up with one guy shot in both thumbs↗. How about (ahem!) "when you carry around a gun aimed at your dick on Friday the 13th"↗, and, well, you know the rest, right? No more guns for you!
By contrast, I live in a country where you can illegally and irresponsibly (what do you mean it was loaded!) carry a handgun and accidentally kill someone, and, see ... I mean, despite the idea that you were allegedly only carrying the gun illegally in order to sell it, you were coming out of the gun store, apparently having not shown it to anyone as if to sell it, because, you know, maybe it's my prejudice after hearing so many gun owners boast of their knowledge and propriety and vigilance, but I just have a hard time believing the clerk behind the counter wouldn't have noticed the thing was loaded, but, you know whatever. Because the bottom line is, we all know that when the next thing you do is accidentally kill a child with the concealed weapon you are illegally carrying the one absolutely clear fact under the sun is that it would be wrong to prosecute you because you feel really, really bad, and, hey, you just lost your kid, so what kind of prosecutor would be so crass as to charge you for killing the seven year-old with the gun you were illegally carrying but apparently thought was unloaded because, hell, why would you actually check the chamber because why would the gun be loaded.
Besides, what passes for gun control? Consider this one: Instead of making certain crimes felonies, we try to extend our felony-conviction prohibitions to cover certain misdemeanors, thus leaving firearm acquisition disruption constitutionally exposed. But we also happen to need to consider that these are some of the most dangerous criminals in our society, and until the carnage in Las Vegas, domestic violence racked up the two biggest mass shootings of the year.
Nicholas Kristof↱, for instance, offers a few notes on the subject:
So while there's no magic wand available, here are some steps we could take that would, collectively, make a difference:
1. Impose universal background checks for anyone buying a gun. Four out of five Americans support this measure, to prevent criminals or terrorists from obtaining guns.
2. Impose a minimum age limit of 21 on gun purchases. This is already the law for handgun purchases in many states, and it mirrors the law on buying alcohol.
3. Enforce a ban on possession of guns by anyone subject to a domestic violence protection order. This is a moment when people are upset and prone to violence against their exes.
4. Limit gun purchases by any one person to no more than, say, two a month, and tighten rules on straw purchasers who buy for criminals. Make serial numbers harder to remove.
5. Adopt microstamping of cartridges so that they can be traced to the gun that fired them, useful for solving gun crimes.
6. Invest in "smart gun" purchases by police departments or the U.S. military, to promote their use. Such guns require a PIN or can only be fired when near a particular bracelet or other device, so that children cannot misuse them and they are less vulnerable to theft. The gun industry made a childproof gun in the 1800's but now resists smart guns.
7. Require safe storage, to reduce theft, suicide and accidents by children.
8. Invest in research to see what interventions will be more effective in reducing gun deaths. We know, for example, that alcohol and guns don't mix, but we don't know precisely what laws would be most effective in reducing the resulting toll. Similar investments in reducing other kinds of accidental deaths have been very effective.
1. Impose universal background checks for anyone buying a gun. Four out of five Americans support this measure, to prevent criminals or terrorists from obtaining guns.
2. Impose a minimum age limit of 21 on gun purchases. This is already the law for handgun purchases in many states, and it mirrors the law on buying alcohol.
3. Enforce a ban on possession of guns by anyone subject to a domestic violence protection order. This is a moment when people are upset and prone to violence against their exes.
4. Limit gun purchases by any one person to no more than, say, two a month, and tighten rules on straw purchasers who buy for criminals. Make serial numbers harder to remove.
5. Adopt microstamping of cartridges so that they can be traced to the gun that fired them, useful for solving gun crimes.
6. Invest in "smart gun" purchases by police departments or the U.S. military, to promote their use. Such guns require a PIN or can only be fired when near a particular bracelet or other device, so that children cannot misuse them and they are less vulnerable to theft. The gun industry made a childproof gun in the 1800's but now resists smart guns.
7. Require safe storage, to reduce theft, suicide and accidents by children.
8. Invest in research to see what interventions will be more effective in reducing gun deaths. We know, for example, that alcohol and guns don't mix, but we don't know precisely what laws would be most effective in reducing the resulting toll. Similar investments in reducing other kinds of accidental deaths have been very effective.
The firearm lobby doesn't like any of these. The gun cult doesn't like them. Point three has been known to drive otherwise intelligent people bonkers; the compromise point is to extend felony rules to certain misdemeanors, inviting judicial scrutiny, and quite frankly, we do it precisely because we think we can.
What applies to this case is still something of a question; we haven't a very good sketch of the shooter, yet, but one of the questions arising today is the nature of the weapons. Conservative advocate David French↱ makes a certain point while marveling at the strangeness of the Las Vegas carnage:
Given these [regulatory] steps, it's no wonder that crimes with fully-automatic weapons are extraordinarily rare. As my colleague Charlie Cooke tweeted earlier this morning, legally-owned fully-automatic weapons have been used in three crimes since 1934.
So, a person who's "not a gun guy" has either expended untold thousands of dollars to legally purchase fully-automatic weapons, somehow found them on the black market, or purchased and substantially modified multiple semi-automatic weapons—and did so with enough competence to create a sustained rate of fire. This same person also spent substantial sums purchasing just the right hotel room to maximize casualties. I cannot think of a single other mass shooter who went to this level of expense and planning in the entire history of the United States.
So, a person who's "not a gun guy" has either expended untold thousands of dollars to legally purchase fully-automatic weapons, somehow found them on the black market, or purchased and substantially modified multiple semi-automatic weapons—and did so with enough competence to create a sustained rate of fire. This same person also spent substantial sums purchasing just the right hotel room to maximize casualties. I cannot think of a single other mass shooter who went to this level of expense and planning in the entire history of the United States.
There is a certain degree of complete bullshit about the brief article, but he does disclaim himself well enough. That he cannot think of something, something, something, might have a point, but, just how much more than sitting and thinking for a few minutes has he really put into it?
Nonetheless, there is about to be some sort of dispute political regarding automatic weapons, conversion kit markets, magazine capacity, and even something about trigger cranks. We might note Billvon's↑ point: Disrupting certain markets can help slow things down.
It's hard to explain one of the stressor ranges, but it has to do with the forfeiture of values in the face of disappointment, such as the failure of the American Dream or some other such notion. There has also been a rising admiration for certain ranges of antisocial behavior, because, you know, some sociopathy is cool. By and large, though, people feel completely disempowered and, furthermore, our society has failed to educate people about themselves. As they feel sad and dislocated, they have no framework for metaperception and metaresponse. It is a lot like certain physical pain; one can more easily talk themselves through it if they know what is going on.
For instance, on some levels, I ridicule the Craigslist queers who pretend their homosexual behavioral patterns somehow reinforce their heterosexual masculinity, but think also about the idea of people born, say, twenty-four years ago, who have lived their entire lives in a relativist universe their forefathers warned against. They don't know what's happening to them because there are no real facts. And that dearth is the common element 'twixt seemingly disparate manifestations of deseperate bullshit.
It's not just the feeling of disempowerment. Remember the old slogan, that knowledge is power? They don't know what to do about it because they cannot describe it. The result is a detachment in which (A) assesses (B) as if (B) was (A), and thus can't figure it out; and, furthermore, (A) most certainly, and (B) most likely, is not sufficiently educated to comprehend this basic difference. It's hard to explain, but a certain amount of it is jealousy and territorial pissing. It's similar to a dysfunctional variant on the cogito, and some might know Dwayne Hoover Syndrome; I actually forget what the real name of the disorder is, but, yes, one starts to feel as if they are the only real person in the Universe. And that's why. Taking other people with them is a vendetta against the Absurd in the moment of surrender.
Notes for #32↑ Above
French, David A. "Based on the Early Reports, the Las Vegas Shooting Is Very, Very Strange". National Review. 2 October 2017. NationalReview.com. 2 October 2017. http://bit.ly/2xbPtq7
Kristof, Nicholas. "Preventing Mass Shootings Like the Vegas Strip Attack". The New York Times. 2 October 2017. NYTimes.com. 2 October 2017. http://nyti.ms/2fGczyL
French, David A. "Based on the Early Reports, the Las Vegas Shooting Is Very, Very Strange". National Review. 2 October 2017. NationalReview.com. 2 October 2017. http://bit.ly/2xbPtq7
Kristof, Nicholas. "Preventing Mass Shootings Like the Vegas Strip Attack". The New York Times. 2 October 2017. NYTimes.com. 2 October 2017. http://nyti.ms/2fGczyL
Yeah. Me, too.
This has shit to do with gun control. If you want mayhem, you can have it, whether you choose firearms, vehicles or explosives, anthrax, LSD or punji sticks.
Want to control the nutjobs? Good luck.
I actually think that mass shooters do it largely for the notoriety. They want their lives (and their deaths) to mean something. They know they'll get a lot of media coverage if they kill lots of innocent people. They'll be famous. And even if it's fame for a bad reason, they think they deserve their 15 minutes. Society owes them, they think. And this is also payback, in their minds.
I think a good move would be for the media to stop the wall-to-wall coverage of mass shootings and terrorist attacks - and more particularly in posting photos of the gunmen, going through their biographies, interviewing people who knew them etc. That is exactly the sort of publicity that might lead another narcissist to copy-cat.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Agree!
Regarding gun control in the United States, all I can say is: here we go again (and origin is right).
This is the country that did nothing meaningful about guns after somebody shot a schoolroom full of children.
This time will be no different. There will be some hand wringing. We will hear all the usual excuses about how guns don't kill people, people kill people. We will hear that most gun owners are law abiding and that this is an aberration that we need to put up with to secure 2nd amendment protections etc. We will hear the usual NRA nonsense about how this could have been prevented if only there were more guns, more freely available.
The US Congress will debate things (maybe, if somebody thinks there's a chance of progress on the issue), but nothing will come of it.
And then we'll wait until next week, or next month, and another shooting no very different to this one will happen. More innocent people will die. But, hey, at least everybody will get to keep their guns!
Gun control reduces mass shootings. How could it not?
This is the country that did nothing meaningful about guns after somebody shot a schoolroom full of children.
This time will be no different. There will be some hand wringing. We will hear all the usual excuses about how guns don't kill people, people kill people. We will hear that most gun owners are law abiding and that this is an aberration that we need to put up with to secure 2nd amendment protections etc. We will hear the usual NRA nonsense about how this could have been prevented if only there were more guns, more freely available.
The US Congress will debate things (maybe, if somebody thinks there's a chance of progress on the issue), but nothing will come of it.
And then we'll wait until next week, or next month, and another shooting no very different to this one will happen. More innocent people will die. But, hey, at least everybody will get to keep their guns!
And so it starts.
Gun control reduces mass shootings. How could it not?
The problem is that some of the people can't be trusted with the tool.
Can't you see how contemplating any "solution" that involves exacerbating the basic problem is ludicrous?
Oh, well I guess that means 50 avoidable gun deaths is OK then.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
And that is in no wise equivalent to this event.