Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

[Sanji Himura]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...america-mass-shootings-gun-violence?CMP=fb_gu Some statistics.

There is no definition, legal or otherwise, of a mass shooting, Bottom line. This is trying to create a false narrative by creating one.

 

[Famine]

Well, you could start by imagining a country like Spain, which experienced a bloody & brutal civil war, which frankly still lies beneath Catalans' desire for independence now. The two sides were armed, both felt justified in their position & the result was death & destruction on a grand scale & decades of a fascist dictatorship. Armed resistance is no guarantee of a favorable outcome.

Are you currently comparing open civil warfare (80 years ago) with police using illegal weapons to assault people doing nothing other than voting in an opinion poll? I suppose that on both occasions the fascists won...

What would have happened last week if Catalan separatists were armed & fought back is unknowable

That'll be Catalan civilians. They were voting on an independence referendum, not protesting against the state - and around 10% of the votes counted were against independence. It may have been more, but police broke into polling stations and stole ballot boxes, because fascism.

but I doubt the outcome would have been preferable.

The police broke into a polling station with impunity, knowing they were not facing any weapons on the other side. Had they been facing weapons on the other side, that would change the dynamic and insert some caution. Caution in exercising military force against a civilian population that is not threatening is always preferable.

It's unclear how the Catalonia situation will ultimately be resolved, but domestic & international pressure could be brought to bear & a non-violent, political solutions is always a possibility.

None of which helps the 900 people brutally abused by fascists seeking to prevent them exercising freedom of speech because they were afraid of what they'd say. It's only luck that there are no reports of life-changing injuries, from a corrupt, militarised police force exercising unrestricted power over an unarmed population that posed no threat to them. They needed defending. The people that should have been defending them were attacking them - so who is left to defend them?


Unfortunately Spain has now set the tone, with incredible and unjustifiable violence, and that is unlikely to lead anywhere good.

 

[McLaren]

Hey, making automatic weapons illegal is useless based on what happened, so why not make them legal again?

I mean, criminals are going to be criminals.

I get that this is likely a rhetorical question.

But, they technically are, just heavily regulated. The cost alone though, is probably enough to distract people. I’ve seen sources claim M16s cost as much as a new car.

 

[mustafur]

I'm pretty sure in a battle of force, the Spanish government would win quite comfortably. If you try and use guns as a deterrent, the government are just going to bring bigger guns, it wouldn't help the situation at all, just escalate it into more people getting injured and probably killed.

No, for example in America the government couldn't stand up to a possible 100 million plus gun owners(the actual number is probably way lower but easily this many could have access to guns) and if a government wanted to they wouldn't be a government much longer.

 

[Biggles]

No, for example in America the government couldn't stand up to a possible 100 million plus gun owners(the actual number is probably way lower but easily this many could have access to guns) and if a government wanted to they wouldn't be a government much longer.

As I've pointed out, it wouldn't be "the government", it would much more likely be different factions within the government & outside the government fighting each other. Just take a look at the divisions in America now.

Are you currently comparing open civil warfare (80 years ago) with police using illegal weapons to assault people doing nothing other than voting in an opinion poll? I suppose that on both occasions the fascists won...

That'll be Catalan civilians. They were voting on an independence referendum, not protesting against the state - and around 10% of the votes counted were against independence. It may have been more, but police broke into polling stations and stole ballot boxes, because fascism.

The police broke into a polling station with impunity, knowing they were not facing any weapons on the other side. Had they been facing weapons on the other side, that would change the dynamic and insert some caution. Caution in exercising military force against a civilian population that is not threatening is always preferable.

None of which helps the 900 people brutally abused by fascists seeking to prevent them exercising freedom of speech because they were afraid of what they'd say. It's only luck that there are no reports of life-changing injuries, from a corrupt, militarised police force exercising unrestricted power over an unarmed population that posed no threat to them. They needed defending. The people that should have been defending them were attacking them - so who is left to defend them?


Unfortunately Spain has now set the tone, with incredible and unjustifiable violence, and that is unlikely to lead anywhere good.

You won't get any argument from me - it was a reprehensible action by the Spanish authorities. What I am questioning is whether injecting guns into the hands of the Catalan separatists would improve the situation. It COULD then escalate into "open civil warfare". The fascists haven't won. Quite clearly the moral victory was won by the Catalans. There are many steps the Catalans could take without resorting to violence - which would undoubtedly lead to more violence.

Martin Luther King led a civil rights movement that achieved many gains without returning violence with violence. Ghandi led India to independence from Britain. Years of bitter & bloody conflict in Northern Ireland came because the IRA chose to arm themselves & fight back against Protestant & British repression. It's really not clear that this was an effective strategy to achieve their long term goals ... they could have just waited for Brexit.

Force of arms is rarely a satisfactory solution to complicated political problems.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Force of arms is rarely a satisfactory solution to complicated political problems.

Too bad the Spanish authorities aren't aware of this axiom.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What I am questioning is whether injecting guns into the hands of the Catalan separatists would improve the situation. It COULD then escalate into "open civil warfare".

They have guns, at least some of them do. Officially issued police guns. This is why Madrid has parked two large ships full of their own police officers in the harbour with a huge pool of their own vehicles parked on the dockside - the Catalonian police form part of the populace (who are by majority the 'separatists'). However, I'm not aware of a single case of a uniformed Catalonian police officer using their weapon in any of the last week's extreme disturbances.

Using the term 'separatists' is a little dangerous in the circumstances, I think. The Catalonian civilians who tried to go to schools, village halls, community centres and the like to cast a vote were far from being Basque-style terrorists.

 

[Sprite]

Wrong thread!

Sorry about that.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Several of these issues and shootings have come from the unarmed man/woman trying to grab the cops gun.

So there is no statistic of this?

You can't be serious. You just can't. It's not possible.

Let say example... 50 years ago. You think there is more or less chance of this to happen today if a ban was placed then? Like I'm say... This takes time.

I'm pretty sure it's against the AUP to completely insult someone, but what the hell kind of logic are you trying to throw at us, Todo? I'm losing IQ points trying to argue with you.

Exactly what I'm insult? You opinion? haha-

"guns are always bad" logic. Dealing with him earlier today stressed me out to the point that the girl i'm interested in told me to give her space for a few days because I was stressing her out.

Safe to say that my day got worse when I dropped to his level.

That your problem that you can't control you feelings.

 

[Com Fox]

So there is no statistic of this?

From what I gather, there is no real statistic ever recorded of a police shooting happening where the victim tried the grab the officers gun, there has only been reports of it occurring: https://www.officer.com/tactical/firearms/article/12147584/gun-grabs-and-officer-survival

Let say example... 50 years ago. You think there is more or less chance of this to happen today if a ban was placed then? Like I'm say... This takes time.

Do you have any evidence or examples that this would be the case?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Would having trackers on weapons help? If when a gun was sold its tracker activated, it could stop people from being able to stockpile them, which might have made this tragedy a bit less devastating.

Why should people not be able to have many weapons? Want to know a secret...I have many many weapons, should I be on a watch list now?

But, they technically are, just heavily regulated. The cost alone though, is probably enough to distract people. I’ve seen sources claim M16s cost as much as a new car.

That's because they're antique/classic weapons that are no long produced, and from surplus. Nothing to do with Automatic or what not, M16s aren't built anymore M4s are. Military style M4s aren't sold to the public, but you can get an AR platform that is similar just not automatic with three round burst also not an option.

You can get post sample weapons of an M16 (basically an AR with auto drop in sear), but that would require finding a dealer with the right FFL forms and SOT, and then the buyer filling out all the required paperwork necessary, and living in a state that allows for such purchase.

So you're right for the most part again, that yes heavily regulated, not something you can go to walmart or bass pro shop and buy. Even if you do find said weapon it's highly expensive, takes a few months to actually be cleared for purchase, and follows a stringent ATF and FBI background check. The gun is in a register and will be linked to that owner.

 

[Robin]

Don't know how accurate this is as it's from the Daily Mail but to all those wondering, the weaponry included...

X4 DDM4's
X3 FN-15's
X1 AK47
X1 AR-15

23 guns in total out of 42 that he owned. Some were found to be modified legally with bump stock devices.

Also it's reported that he was a pretty wealthy guy owning planes and multiple properties making him probably the first millionaire mass shooter in modern US history.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

From what I gather, there is no real statistic ever recorded of a police shooting happening where the victim tried the grab the officers gun, there has only been reports of it occurring: https://www.officer.com/tactical/firearms/article/12147584/gun-grabs-and-officer-survival


Do you have any evidence or examples that this would be the case?

Look to your own country:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/australia-gun-law-reform-study/index.html

Or maybe you think this type of attack is more likely to happen inside USA, or Australia?

 

[Com Fox]

Look to your own country:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/australia-gun-law-reform-study/index.html

Or maybe you think this type of attack is more likely to happen inside USA, or Australia?

Problem with the article, is that it only accounting for mass shootings and not other forms of crime. It wasn't too long ago that we dealt with the Sydney Siege which was done with a gun.

Also, I'm not too confident with using Australia as a prime example. While we have lowered done crime after a spike, it should be noted about our location, our place in politics as well as our culture.

For starters, it would be incredibly more harder to get a gun in the black market in Australia. Our location makes importing illegal weapon only possible by boat or plane which mostly have to go through pretty tight security. USA can get their illegal weapon goods from countries like Mexico in terms of the black market which is more easier to pass. It isn't impossible, the Sydney Siege is a prime example but it is harder.

Also Australia isn't strong in terms of our politics. Most shootings come in form of either religion or politics. What country is considered the most responsible outside of Russia and North Korea? USA. There isn't any benefits for mass shooters to go out and attack Australia unless they actually exclusively want our attention, when you can get multiple birds and attack USA, with a massive population in comparison.

Then there is the culture, we never had an ammedment to go for in terms of carrying weapons, so it was a lot easier for us to depart with the weapons and even easier to develop into a mass shooting free country, USA is a very different country in comparison.

 

[ExigeEvan]

So you're right for the most part again, that yes heavily regulated, not something you can go to walmart or bass pro shop and buy. Even if you do find said weapon it's highly expensive, takes a few months to actually be cleared for purchase, and follows a stringent ATF and FBI background check. The gun is in a register and will be linked to that owner.

Except, as is becoming increasingly likely, in the case that you went and legally (in Nevada) modified the weapon with a bump-fire stock.

If nothing else comes out of this, it should be US-wide banning of single-pull, multi-shot modifications and adaptions on weapons originally sold in a semi-automatic function.

 

[Dotini]

X4 DDM4's
X3 FN-15's
X1 AK47
X1 AR-15

Also it's reported that he was a pretty wealthy guy owning planes and multiple properties making him probably the first millionaire mass shooter in modern US history.

That's an enviable, elite inventory of carbines. Those DD's and FN's come in many variations and special-purpose versions. Clearly the armory of a knowledgeable multi-millionaire.

I'm extremely curious as to his motive.

An honest and first-rate autopsy of his brain would be of essential value. Watch for some excuse or coverup here.

My own hunches:
1) His motivation likely stems from a very strongly held ideology, about which we know nothing.
2) Or, he may have suffered from some pathological disease - another words, he's gone crazy. Maybe, as a consequence of too much flying, he took a cosmic ray hit to the brain. Or whatever.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Don't know how accurate this is as it's from the Daily Mail but to all those wondering, the weaponry included...

X4 DDM4's
X3 FN-15's
X1 AK47
X1 AR-15

23 guns in total out of 42 that he owned. Some were found to be modified legally with bump stock devices.

Also it's reported that he was a pretty wealthy guy owning planes and multiple properties making him probably the first millionaire mass shooter in modern US history.

Guy had either a lot of money in a short period (as you say he was wealthy), or took plenty of time stockpiling over the years. Which is possible too since his brother said he owned guns, but not too many long rifles. DD M4/AR-15s are expensive, to have 4 is about 8k. The FN isn't any better around 1500-1600$. AK 47 are easy to find and buy cheap due to surplus guns. 1X AR-15 doesn't make sense since 7 of the guns listed are AR-15s. Since early reports claimed 10 rifles before it climbed to 23, I wonder if this is only the 10 he was able to fire.

This wasn't your average, I'm going to go shoot up a place or murder someone psycho. This was a guy that knew his weapons, knew the capabilities and probably had many hours logged in use of them at a range. Though it brings no peace to anyone, I'm sure, this is an anomaly.

The guy having this much money, time, and effort is scary, and the fact that we know all this so far, but still don't know exactly who he was or what he did, and some motive is all the more sad.

Except, as is becoming increasingly likely, in the case that you went and legally (in Nevada) modified the weapon with a bump-fire stock.

If nothing else comes out of this, it should be US-wide banning of single-pull, multi-shot modifications and adaptions on weapons originally sold in a semi-automatic function.

Yes he could have used a bump-fire or got an auto sear.

https://www.wired.com/story/las-vegas-shooting-automatic-rifle/

It's not single pull, I put up the article to help you understand what you're making conclusions about before you know the reality. Now if you want to ban certain modifications that alter the rate of fire on a gun that would be a good place to start. It would be met with much opposition because it wouldn't be a fine print law most likely, but a broad stroke. And then you'd have to analyze what is a modification on rate of fire from the standard purchase. Is it having a bump stock? Is it narrowing down the trigger weight to make trigger pulls quicker over time?

The article also mentions how gatling cranks are in a very grey area of the law, since the user doesn't pull the trigger, rather a mechanism does it that is operated by the user.

 

[Com Fox]

That's an enviable, elite inventory of carbines. Those DD's and FN's come in many variations and special-purpose versions. Clearly the armory of a knowledgeable multi-millionaire.

I'm extremely curious as to his motive.

An honest and first-rate autopsy of his brain would be of essential value. Watch for some excuse or coverup here.

My own hunches:
1) His motivation likely stems from a very strongly held ideology, about which we know nothing.
2) Or, he may have suffered from some pathological disease - another words, he's gone crazy. Maybe, as a consequence of too much flying, he took a cosmic ray hit to the brain. Or whatever.

Would it be possible to get any sort of answers from his supposed girlfriend first?

 

[Grayfox]

Would it be possible to get any sort of answers from his supposed girlfriend first?

She was cleared any any involvement.
If she knew anything should would've told investigators who may or may not have informed the media.

 

[Dotini]

Would it be possible to get any sort of answers from his supposed girlfriend first?

They've got to get her back from Japan first. Shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Problem with the article, is that it only accounting for mass shootings and not other forms of crime. It wasn't too long ago that we dealt with the Sydney Siege which was done with a gun.

Also, I'm not too confident with using Australia as a prime example. While we have lowered done crime after a spike, it should be noted about our location, our place in politics as well as our culture.

For starters, it would be incredibly more harder to get a gun in the black market in Australia. Our location makes importing illegal weapon only possible by boat or plane which mostly have to go through pretty tight security. USA can get their illegal weapon goods from countries like Mexico in terms of the black market which is more easier to pass. It isn't impossible, the Sydney Siege is a prime example but it is harder.

Also Australia isn't strong in terms of our politics. Most shootings come in form of either religion or politics. What country is considered the most responsible outside of Russia and North Korea? USA. There isn't any benefits for mass shooters to go out and attack Australia unless they actually exclusively want our attention, when you can get multiple birds and attack USA, with a massive population in comparison.

Then there is the culture, we never had an ammedment to go for in terms of carrying weapons, so it was a lot easier for us to depart with the weapons and even easier to develop into a mass shooting free country, USA is a very different country in comparison.

Your question was regarding mass shootings, so I'm give you the answer. And yes you are right, every country is different but the main problem still stands. And how is anyone ever gonna have "evidence" that a gun ban doesn't work if you can only say "yes but that country is different"?

 

[Obelisk]

That your problem that you can't control you feelings

Don't you have anything better to do? You've been arguing a flawed point for two days now.

 

[Touring Mars]

Shocked and deeply saddened by this tragic incident, but not all that surprised.

Freedom isn't free, as they say, and neither is the right to bear arms - it comes at a terrible price. The US constitution and US gun culture being as they are, however, means that it is a price America is stuck with for the foreseeable future.

By taking a three-pronged approach

A) doing a better job of educating people properly
B) providing better mental healthcare
C) reducing the ease of access to deadly weapons

That would make a difference, but good luck with achieving any of those aims in today's America.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Don't you have anything better to do? You've been arguing a flawed point for two days now.

I'm supply well found evidence and common sense to this thread, same cannot be say about you. Control your feelings my friend,

 

[Obelisk]

I'm supply well found evidence and common sense to this thread, same cannot be say about you. Control your feelings my friend,

"Control my feelings".



Dude, I've been fine since 10 PM last night.

I'm supply well found evidence

Where is your evidence? I have not seen you post one link to back up your statements. As a matter of fact, someone else pointed out, with evidence, that gun crimes were higher in places that heavily restricted civilians legally buying guns.

So where's your evidence that banning assault rifles (a misnomer, these are semi-automatic rifles) would make things safer for everyone?

Also:

common sense

That was a brilliant joke. You've done nothing but stick to the same "guns are bad" mentality and refused to listen to the opposing viewpoint.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm supply well found evidence and common sense to this thread, same cannot be say about you. Control your feelings my friend,

Between the broken English, the lack of acknowledgement from other peoples evidence, and just a general fixated world view that you're unwilling to budge from. You are not at all bringing common sense, it's not an opinion it is a reality at this point. While I agree he should leave out whatever personal issues he's had, you shouldn't be quite to claim yourself some arbiter of truth. You're far from it, and just a casual "new" user sweeping in to bring a view.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

"Control my feelings".



Dude, I've been fine since 10 PM last night.


Where is your evidence? I have not seen you post one link to back up your statements. As a matter of fact, someone else pointed out, with evidence, that gun crimes were higher in places that heavily restricted civilians legally buying guns.

So where's your evidence that banning assault rifles (a misnomer, these are semi-automatic rifles) would make things safer for everyone?

Also:

That was a brilliant joke. You've done nothing but stick to the same "guns are bad" mentality and refused to listen to the opposing viewpoint.

Good that you feel ok.
My evidence is in my previews post. Also here is more of what I'm supply; https://www.sciencealert.com/studies-show-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-to-save-lives
Enjoy.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

Between the broken English, the lack of acknowledgement from other peoples evidence, and just a general fixated world view that you're unwilling to budge from. You are not at all bringing common sense, it's not an opinion it is a reality at this point. While I agree he should leave out whatever personal issues he's had, you shouldn't be quite to claim yourself some arbiter of truth. You're far from it, and just a casual "new" user sweeping in to bring a view.

Only "evidence" that your side supply was something about Chicago which was debunked easily by another user. The control obviously need to be for the whole country. Same for all states, by common sense.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

That would make a difference, but good luck with achieving any of those aims in today's America.

Indeed. Unfortunately it seems to me that the political environment in America is both very toxic and generally devoid of logic and objectivity.

 

[Exorcet]

Good that you feel ok.
My evidence is in my previews post. Also here is more of what I'm supply; https://www.sciencealert.com/studies-show-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-to-save-lives
Enjoy.

That's limited to gun deaths according to the article, which is a bit of an arbitrary classification. You can find sources that show the lack of effectiveness of gun bans against more general crime.

https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

That someone is harmed or killed should be of more concern than how they were harmed or killed in my opinion. Going beyond that though, the fear of harm does not give people the right to force their will on other people. These are some of the things that make a sweeping gun ban very unattractive.