Las Vegas Shooting

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Kittamaru, Oct 2, 2017.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    It is exactly what the news media and politicians want. And, their blood lust ain't ever gonna be satiated.
    more blood means they can sell more soap(etc)_ and the politicians have something for which they can posture.
    Like cockroaches, they come out of the woodwork to feast on the rotting flesh of the victims.
    Hype it in the media in hopes of encouraging the next crazy to give them more victims.
    Truck Captain Stumpy and Dr_Toad like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    how many were intentional and how many intended to take out more than one other driver?
    What of culpability?
    is correct in his assessment. IMO
    If you wish to allude to our bizarre relative life value systems then sure humans are definitely weird.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    With... compassion and concern for future victims? ...I'm sure you meant to say.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Pseudocompassion and a strong desire for future victims.
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    How so?
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Perhaps the actor overstates the difference; we already have some degree of knife control. According to police in Oregon, albeit twenty years ago, they fear knives more than guns, mostly because the people with guns show sooner; if they strike with a knife, they aren't missing. As a result, if I want to carry a concealed gun in Oregon, I can get a permit. Under no circumstances, though, am I allowed to carry my preferred knives concealed; if I want to carry them, I literally have—or, at least, at the time, had—to strap them on in full, unobstructed view. So, yeah, there seems some manner of "knife control" in effect, and the right to bear arms really does seem to be about killing people with guns.

    Still, if someone wants to kill or cause the panic and trample deaths of fifty-nine, and injury of five hundred-thirty, with a tanto, or punji sticks, or a broken beer bottle, or a pencil, or a phone cord, then, yeah, I suppose they're welcome to try.

    Meanwhile, if disrupting murder-machine markets results in the need to reload a little more often, or squeeze the trigger for each shot, such that a couple more people live through the moment, why would you object?


    @timothycsimons. "When a 64 year old white man kills 58 and wounds 500 in fifteen minutes from 1200 feet with a knife, I will absolutely call for knife control. Until then, you've made the world's shittiest point." Twitter. 2 October 2017. 2 October 2017.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    By now, any attempt to deflect this into the wingnut fantasy of banning guns is a deliberate dishonesty.

    We all know better. But nice try.
    Y0u are contradicting yourself. Clearly gun control is directly relevant to the prospects and practicalities of getting twenty such weapons and all that ammo into a hotel room.
    That's probably not true of rifles. My money says most people who own any of the weapons that guy carried own more than one.
    The rightwing media. The white folks's talking heads and propaganda sources.

    And besides: So? Are they important to you, these cockroaches?

    Don't bother, we can see: The wingnuts in this country have gone spla - stark, raving, 'round the bend monkeyshit crazy. Thirty years of inundation with fascist propaganda have had a cumulative effect.
  11. birch Valued Senior Member

    the problem isn't people are shot. the problem is good people get shot too.
  12. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Tiassa, what is it you object to? Does everything come down to controlling people in the name of freedom?

    Moo. Baaah,
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    More dishonesty from the faction that cannot face the reality of the current Republican Party and the US media enabling it, or the nature of that faction of the US citizenry that supports this depraved display.

    The rapid fire rifle - what their manufacturers called an "assault rifle" in the early days of marketing them - has been incorporated into the "arms" referred to in the 2A, and indeed with reason ( it is a bona fide militia weapon). But that is not the end of the matter. Serious and long overdue regulation of such weapons is fully compatible with that Amendment, and the manner in which such weapons are "kept" and "borne" is a legitimate concern of the citizenry - and therefore their governments.
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    If I was POTUS I would be demanding that the NRA find and fund a solution to this regular insanity that it's opposition to gun control is inspiring, provoking and enabling or face being held responsible , sued and otherwise sanctioned.

    It is the NRA that needs to find the solution, not the government per see. As they are profiting from the problem then they can pay for the solution as well.
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    A class action against the NRA may not succeed but it would be sure as hell fun to witness...
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Plenty. Would you care to be more specific and useful, or are you just blithering for the sake of feeling like you have something to say?

    (Hint: You could try paying↑ attention↑, but, I don't know, would that expectation somehow violate your rights?)

    Okay, you're on: I don't think you're capable of explaining what that question means.

    So what's the deal? Are you just utterly incapable of answering the question—

    Meanwhile, if disrupting murder-machine markets results in the need to reload a little more often, or squeeze the trigger for each shot, such that a couple more people live through the moment, why would you object?

    —or just that antisocial?

    Seriously, what is it with gun cult preachers that making sense is just too much to ask? Is the problem a lack of competence or a dearth of competency?

    Here, try it this way: The question of controlling the nutjobs↑ can actually have an interesting, compelling context regardless of your personal unreliability—i.e., apparently inconsistent application of the words, "control" (the nutjobs) and "controlling" (people in the name of freedom)—because while they cannot be controlled according to the context of uneducated, paranoid gun cult preachers bawling about others "controlling people", one way to slow the proliferation of stupidity is to not honor ignorance, bad faith, and general malice.

    Toward which end, it is true that I do object to disingenuous↗, pathetic↑ whining↑ about rights. How dare we talk about this event in a context that threatens whose rights ... to what? As I have asked others, just what liberties do you so fear for that you would denigrate yourself this way? And I know y'all don't like the question put that way, but please attend the urgency: If a building burns down, they say, "Hey, maybe next time we shouldn't cover a highrise in flammable material." But no, not with guns. Something goes wrong and we start hearing that now isn't the time. There is a chorus of cultists just waiting to recite the Stations of the Gun.

    People don't like to vote for tax increases on excess wealth because they, too, want to be excessively wealthy, someday. Just like they don't want to tack irresponsible gun owners to the wall because they might need to be let off the hook for killing someone, someday. And just like they don't want to give up all the extra baubles and toys to make it easier to kill literally tons of people ... because ... why? I mean, honestly, what, they might need to kill tons of people, someday?

    CBC's Ideas ran an encore episode from 2016, today, "Gun Crazy"↱:


    Paul Kennedy: So, what could be done that would actually start the conversation? We're in this sort of culture of war with people who are pro-gun and people who are anti-gun, and they say they need to have a conversation, at least those who are anti-gun say there needs to be a conversation. How do we get that conversation started? I mean, what does it take?

    Chris Hedges: You can't. It's not a rational conversation, because most of these people think that they have their weapons in their homes for when the federal government comes to get them. And I can assure you—

    Kennedy: Well, that's the [Second] Amendment, isn't it? I mean, that's why there is a right to bear arms.

    Hedges: Right. But I can assure you, the moment a SWAT team shows up, they're going to run out of the house with their hands up. You know, the idea that you're going to take your AR-15 and hold off, you know, a trained platoon or SWAT is insane. I covered the wars in the Middle East, and Yugoslavia; everybody had guns, they often had AK-47s, but, you know, at a moment like that, it's kind of suicidal. So it's a fiction ....

    Yeah. One might need to kill tons of people, someday. And here's a political irony that inevitably arises when we turn to guns and rights and all of this: That'll be cops and soldiers they're dreaming of killing.

    And, besides, Chris Hedges is right; in the moment, the greater portion will choose to live. And if they're white enough, they'll be given the chance. And a jury might even acquit.

    Seriously: What rights are the cult preachers on about? The Las Vegas question is going to focus on, what, your right to go plinking cans with some kind of crank to easy-squeeze your trigger like a machine gun? Your right to convert an AR-15 into a fully automatic weapon for the purposes of home defense and hunting small, fast game?

    At the threshold between who lives through this and who doesn't, which one of these rights are you willing to tell the dying is worth it? "Thanks for buying my right to [_____]"—what?

    Now, it's true there are substantial questions of rights in other mass shootings, like a stalker's right to bear arms, but what is the substantial right at stake in Las Vegas? It's like the bit about the right to arm toddlers. Seriously: Why is it never the time to discuss these things?

    But we already know the answer. It's not really about the right to have the guns. What good are the guns if you can't kill people with them?

    It's all about jealousy and homicidal lust.


    Kennedy, Paul. "Gun Crazy: How fetishizing guns shuts down debate about them". 2016. Ideas. 2 October 2017. 3 October 2017.
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Maybe send the bill for all those 58 funerals, medical costs for the 500 + injured and first responder costs to the NRA and see what happens...
  18. Bells Staff Member

    And if he managed to get past the security measures to get the bus into the open air concert area that was behind barriers (so the bus could not get through), to do that much damage, then you might have a point.

    But instead, we have one man, with well over a dozen long guns, some fully automatic guns, and what has every appearance of a small armament in bullets, and he shot indiscriminately down on people in said open area concert. To wit, more people would have survived if he had used a bus and black powder.

    Well your constitution guarantees his right to have his guns with him in the hotel. And Nevada has very loose gun laws.

    Nevada has some of the most relaxed gun control laws in the country and the state doesn't require firearms owners to be licensed, register their weapons, or have a limit on the number of firearms that a person can own. Background checks are conducted when people buy guns in the store, but there are no laws requiring them to be performed when people buy guns privately. Automatic assault weapons and machine guns are also legal in Nevada as long as they're registered, according to the National Rife Association.

    The state also doesn't have any restrictions on ammunition magazine capabilities, meaning that Paddock could have bought guns and plenty of ammunition locally that could held multiple rounds, allowing him to fire even longer without reloading his gun, according to the New York Times.

    Hooray for your 2nd Amendment! The irony is that 'y'all' whine about abortion and a woman's right to choose, but if she went out and bought 10 guns and enough bullets to gun down a few thousand people, no one would say boo.

    The question you should be asking is how anyone is able to buy that many weapons and magazines to begin with and not raise any red flags. He didn't empty one clip. You could actually hear him pause and reload and it went on for 5 or so minutes? So the real question is how anyone can be allowed to buy that many of those types of weapons and magazines and not raise any giant flags. Oh yeah, he had a right to do so.

    He carried them up himself. Over the course of a few days. After all, it's a heavy load.

    And guess what? He could probably buy explosives in Nevada as well. The laws are more concerned about storage of explosives and how much he could buy.

    And the NRA and Republicans keep pushing the line that more guns are needed to stop tragedies like this from happening.

    Sooo? What? Are we going to see the NRA and Republicans, after they stop offering their prayers to the victims, once again declare that more guns are needed to protect and defend against others with guns?

    Isn't that why there was a push to arm teachers and the like, to defend against the "madmen" with guns? I guess it's too bad the bellboys were not carrying weapons.. Isn't that how the line always goes when these tragedies occur?

    And if the laws were in place that prevented him from buying magazines that can shoot 50 to 100 bullets, and he had to keep reloading, think how many could have managed to escape and the death and injury toll would likely be much lower.

    But that would be a reasonable measure too far, eh Dr Toad?

    I am very glad that your daughter and her friends are okay and were far enough from the carnage, Janus. It is tragic that she was not able to seek shelter closer to where she was and instead had to keep running. When something like this happens, people should be able to easily get inside and away from the shooting.
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  19. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Being internally correct in a bad assessment isn't much to go on.
  20. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Litigation, or lawyers just being lawyers and impartially making the most of their expanding opportunities, is what has been a happenstance part for decades to moving along and giving teeth to agendas of the Ministry of Social Utopian Micro-Management, anyway.

    So persistence in such an area until eventual success literally is how the NRA's dominance would be overthrown. Not just via capitalizing on violent episodes like this, but the whole gamut of anything that could be pursued within its very administration itself in terms of "inner victims" coming forth: Sexual harassment, discrimination, etc.

    - - -
  21. timojin Valued Senior Member

    You can have your freedom in your own house , but when you live within the society your freedom is reduced to protect the society. Again the whole purpose of a gun is to kill. So every gun owner is a potential killer. This incident have shown it once more
  22. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    knife laws are confusing as there is very little federal regulation and you can have changes between cities depending on the area you live, so that is a poor example to model gun laws after - even a cursory check should have demonstrated that one
    it's still true (in most places)

    1- black powder most certainly does explode.
    2- making an explosion from a fast burning material is all about confinement (like a pipe bomb). making any explosive more effective is also about confinement and focus, and perhaps materials (as you can build deadlier devices by including flying parts as the effective tool for destruction)
    3- black powder is unregulated and any idiot can buy it (or a similar material, like pyrodex); case in point, see the video link (also note that any idiot can teach how to build effective bombs on youtube or the interwebz...)

    4- it doesn't matter what was used. the issue isn't that someone used [x] weapon, be it guns, knives, buses or even a hammer: the issue is that the person killed. the tool is inanimate, otherwise we would be regulating hammers, screwdrivers and cars as they're completely unregulated and kill more than firearms (BJS)... and that isn't even considering cars, which are regulated but still kill more than firearms.

    so, using that same logic, anyone who owns a lighter, matches or more than one stick is a potential arsonist.

    that also means everyone is a potential rapist - better regulate life.

    maybe we can license it and get rid of the "undesirables" eh? that sounds familiar...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    as usual - no one wants to talk about the issue that caused the problem; everyone wants to blame the gun for the evils of the criminal.

    and one wonders why this issue is such a hot topic?

    sculptor and Dr_Toad like this.
  23. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Timojin, you have shown once more that you can't reason. Freedom "in your own house" is nothing. The people slaughtered by the madman were "free" to stay home, or come and go as they pleased, yet they were stilled killed.

    Yes, guns are for killing. So what? Cars are for driving. Shoes are for throwing at the heads of stupid people, or for walking across rough ground.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.

Share This Page