Mass Shooting in Las Vegas
- Thread starter Daniel
- 543 comments
- 27,401 views
- 5,629
- North Carolina
- Droptop2001gt
- 11,985
- Australia
- I_Grayson_Fox_I
Dont you get put on a watch list of you buy a lot of certain chemicals which can be used for the manufacture of a bomb?
If so why not do the same for firearms?
Why is this person buying so many guns that can be used for a small army?
Like the bundy brothers.
A lot of guns, then started a lot of crap.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Delete
- 5,629
- North Carolina
- Droptop2001gt
Danoff
Premium
- 34,034
- Mile High City
As @MustangRyan mentioned above, it could indicate that you're supplying them under the table. Another possibility is that you're a collector. Another possibility is that you're a doomsday prepper and want to be capable of arming the local town against a hostile government invasion. Another possibility is that you want to fire guns for an extended period of time and you're worried that your gun will jam or overheat or break in some other way, and will prevent you from firing as many rounds as you'd like to in that time period. And for that last scenario, it's more difficult to come up with a legitimate purpose.
It's hard to picture a scenario where someone is defending themselves by trying to shoot as many rounds as they can in a limited period of time, so many rounds that they need to grab another gun and keep shooting. The examples that I can come up with are infantry assaults in war, and trying to murder innocent people indiscriminately.
- 1,377
- zzxxz
I never said they were. I said mass shootings happen far more regularly in America. As for the terrorist attacks you refer to, they are committed generally by people on terrorist watch lists whereas mass shootings are generally committed by average Joe who can legally purchase an arsenal of weapons.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,034
- Mile High City
I don't believe McVeigh was on a watch list of any kind, and that was terrorism in the US which killed more people without shooting them. And I'm still actually not certain that this shooter was not a terrorist. We'd have to know his motivations to know whether or not he was a terrorist. Certainly some degree of terrorism has been achieved regardless.
Is James Holmes, for example, who attacked a theater full of people watching the new Batman movie in 2012, a terrorist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism#Definition
Based on the definition above, the question is whether this attack appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce the population. That's a tough one. I don't think that someone who is trying to obtain notoriety or be remembered, even though they might be doing so through intimidation, is a terrorist. But if James Holmes wants you to be scared the next time you're in a theater, or choose not to go, even if it's just because of him, it's terrorism.
The killer of the Sandyhook shooting was known to have psychological problems. So was James Holmes.
Your big distinction is attacks that can be tracked (such as through known sources radicalization of Islam) vs. attacks that are harder to track (such as individual cases of psychological distress). Terrorism vs. not terrorism is actually not particularly relevant. Some sources of Terrorism are more difficult to track (McVeigh) than pure psychos (Holmes). And it's not at all clear that removing guns from the equation (if that were even possible) would reduce the body count. If Holmes had placed bombs in that theater (he did at his apartment), would the body count have been less than 12? He considered other forms of attack prior to the theater, including stabbing hikers in national parks.
You're trying to draw a line where there isn't one. You want to separate mass murders like McVeigh, or the 9/11 hijackers from mass murders like Paddock or Holmes. The desire to kill indiscriminately is the problem, and tracking and catching people who want to do so before they do it is not easy.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,597
- Texas
The key info that is these were bought over a 35 year period. There’s no restriction on how many guns can own, per Exige’s point, and I don’t think the govt keeps tabs on how many guns an individual is purchasing; in fact, seems a lot of transactions are done on paperwork rather than electronically.
I’d be for a system that keeps track of how many guns a person has applied to buy, as a precaution. If someone tries to buy say 10 in 6 months, there would be a flag followed maybe by an interview asking why so many guns in a short period?
Just thinking out loud. There may already be something similar in place.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,034
- Mile High City
I want another go at this one too. Let me count the ways this sentiment is wrong:
1) Domestic terrorism in the US uses guns (Orlando, San Bernardino, Charleston, Wisconisn)
2) Domestic terrorism in the US uses bombs (Boston Marathon, Centennial Olympic Park, Oklahoma City, Unabomber)
3) Foreign terrorism in the US uses alternative means (at least 9/11)
4) Domestic terrorists aren't always on watch lists
5) Mass murderers other than terrorists are sometimes known ahead of time to be psychologically disturbed (Sandyhook, Aurora)
6) Mass murderers other than terrorists sometimes don't use guns (Wall street bombing) and at least planned attacks which did not involve guns (Holmes).
Guns are not a problem specific to crimes outside of terrorism, and mass killing are not a problem specific to guns. I see ZERO reason to think that Paddock could not have mimicked Nice.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
I think you nailed it here. I know that I disagree with your views on whether gun ownership is a right and on whether the country should have further gun control, but putting that aside I think it's important to note that the reasons you pointed out are exactly why it's extremely unlikely that tighter gun control laws will prevent terrorist attacks like those we've seen over the past few years. As you point out, all it would do is force these people to find another weapon, and unfortunately there are a lot of options. At the end of the day, do you want to focus on the tool used or the user themselves? I think it's important to take a step back and examine the root problem rather than the publicised scapegoat.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Investigators have tipped that the gunman traveled to the Middle east many times. They also found a cryptic noise referring to "the gunman". Either he liked to talk of himself in the third person, or there was maybe another gunman?
Las Vegas (CNN)In addition to his frequent forays into casinos and gun shops, Las Vegas strip killer Stephen Paddock took 20 cruises, many of them in Europe and the Middle East, investigators have learned.
New video shows concertgoers fleeing scene 02:57
The cruises included stops at ports in Spain, Italy, Greece, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, according to information provided by a law enforcement source who asked not to be identified because the source was not authorized to share information about the investigation. Paddock's girlfriend, Marilou Danley, accompanied him on nine of the cruises.
The information provided by the source did not specify the cruise line involved, the type of cruises, when they occurred or the couple's reason for travel. Most cruise ships have casinos on board, and Paddock was an avid gambler.
Investigators have taken note of the foreign travel as they attempt to piece together a profile of the mass killer and a timeline of his activities leading up to the attack that left at least 58 people dead and nearly 500 injured.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/06/us/vegas-shooter-paddock-foreign-cruises/index.html
Las Vegas (CNN)In addition to his frequent forays into casinos and gun shops, Las Vegas strip killer Stephen Paddock took 20 cruises, many of them in Europe and the Middle East, investigators have learned.
New video shows concertgoers fleeing scene 02:57
The cruises included stops at ports in Spain, Italy, Greece, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, according to information provided by a law enforcement source who asked not to be identified because the source was not authorized to share information about the investigation. Paddock's girlfriend, Marilou Danley, accompanied him on nine of the cruises.
The information provided by the source did not specify the cruise line involved, the type of cruises, when they occurred or the couple's reason for travel. Most cruise ships have casinos on board, and Paddock was an avid gambler.
Investigators have taken note of the foreign travel as they attempt to piece together a profile of the mass killer and a timeline of his activities leading up to the attack that left at least 58 people dead and nearly 500 injured.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/06/us/vegas-shooter-paddock-foreign-cruises/index.html
- 1,377
- zzxxz
@Danoff I agree with you that Paddock shouldn't be called a terrorist until his motives are clear. Until then it's speculation, he could have been mentally ill but with more time on his hands than certain others. I also agree with what you say about the difference in types of attacks, but I do see a serious difference in the response to these.
You mentioned Holmes and Adam Lanza (responsible for Sandy Hook) were known to be mentally ill. How on Earth are they allowed to buy/be in a house with such weaponry then? After 9/11 what passengers were allowed to take on a plane became heavily restricted. After the Paris attacks security at gigs got much tougher. The German market here in Birmingham last year had concrete bollards either side to stop vehicles in response to the Nice attacks. These are all because of one incident each time, yet mass shootings continue to happen in America and nothing changes. Whatever you think is the biggest cause, surely you think something must be done?
You mentioned Holmes and Adam Lanza (responsible for Sandy Hook) were known to be mentally ill. How on Earth are they allowed to buy/be in a house with such weaponry then? After 9/11 what passengers were allowed to take on a plane became heavily restricted. After the Paris attacks security at gigs got much tougher. The German market here in Birmingham last year had concrete bollards either side to stop vehicles in response to the Nice attacks. These are all because of one incident each time, yet mass shootings continue to happen in America and nothing changes. Whatever you think is the biggest cause, surely you think something must be done?
- 3,585
- Phoenix, AZ
- GTP_Snaeper
Donald Trump, love him or hate him, did more to slow the growth of firearms sales than Obama did in eight years, by simply taking office. It became known as the "Trump Slump" and numerous gun stores closed and layoffs occurred at weapon and weapon accessory manufacturers.
As absurd as it is, the conspiracy that gun manufacturers are behind spree shootings to drive sales does have some bizarre merit, not that I'm feeding from that trough so to speak.
Whenever these shootings occur, we get the emotional arguments attempting to reel in guns as people want to prevent what happens. These shootings are sensational and stir up a lot of emotions, especially with the amount of publicity they receive. Unfortunately, when looking at the leading causes of gun deaths, these laws that are designed to ban "assault weapons" feel empty because these incidents are a drop in the bucket of the bulk of gun deaths in a year, and I never hear anyone wanting to address those.
- First is gun suicides. By and large, if there's a case to be made about funding mental health and preventing high risk mental health patients access from firearms, this is the metric where we'll see the most gains. Helping people to rise from depression or mental illness won't just potentially reduce gun deaths on a greater scale, but would also ensure those gun deaths are not replaced with another form of suicide. If we teach people to value their lives, hopefully they can learn to value others as well. Taking care of our Veterans should come first on this list as they make up the largest single group that is likely to end their life with a gun.
- The next greatest cause of guns deaths is the tricky minefield that is domestic abuse. Spousal abusers should not have access to firearms to remove the quickest and easiest option to murder their significant other. Unfortunately, what follows is issues where individuals are potentially falsely accused to have their weapons removed in spite by an un-abused spouse. The fact that both (or more) individuals live together or at least have a great deal of familiarity with each others' lives does not necessarily mean a weapon being removed ensures safety for the victim, so attacking the greater problem of domestic violence would likely see an overall reduction of deaths.
(Regarding the above two, these are the two deaths that are most likely to see a significant decrease in the event of broad sweeping gun restrictions. However, due to the availability of guns in America, it is important to ensure that both are attacked at the source of the problem, to ensure the Suicides and Domestic Abuse homicides are not replaced with other means.)
- Then there's the third greatest cause of gun deaths, often pertaining to criminal activities. These deaths are homicides committed by and against young men involved in drug trafficking and gang activity. Unfortunately, these are the most difficult to regulate and least likely to stop in the event of broad nationwide firearms regulation and control. Due in part to their known reluctance to disregard written law, but more importantly that their crimes are often committed with simple, cheap handguns and like weapons that are not likely to disappear as they're easy to smuggle.
That leads to the $300,000,000 question: To really have any firearms regulation take root and ensure it's effectiveness, what do you do about the 1 to 1 ratio of guns to people that already exists in the country? Buyback programs and confiscation would be costly and not guaranteed to fully remove America's arsenal. Even in the event of 99% of the guns being collected and destroyed, it still leaves a potential three million guns floating around in what is now potentially a black market.
Which leads to my final point: In the event of weapons bans, what do we do to ensure the legal sale and re-sale of firearms is not replaced with a completely unregulated black market as firearm owners attempt to recoup the cost of their investment by selling their firearms to any buyer willing to pay?
It is for these reasons that Assault Weapons bans seem empty in comparison. They do not tackle the real meat of gun deaths. They do not attempt to pass effective or meaningful reform. The bump stock being a separate matter that I am wholly in favor of banning before they become too proliferated. They serve no hunting, sporting or target purpose and as has been seen, are quite effective in enhancing the rate of fire on a rifle which opens it's lethality to a greater degree when aimed at a target rich environment.
I bring these up merely to illustrate the obstacles I perceive with seeing a proper reduction in gun deaths and violence and certainly the issues that would need to be targeted if I'm to consider giving up my own firearms. (The other big issue being a reduction in the militarization of Police equipment and the number of armed patrol officers).
I apologize if this is a bit of a mess, I'll be back to edit and clean it up when I'm fully awake. Thank you.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
And "so what"? If you exceed a certain number of guns do you go on a list of surveillance targets? Do they search your property? Can they confiscate weapons? Is it just a limit except for certain circumstances?
I'm not against the idea, but the practicalities are unreal when you consider US gun politics and the fact there are undoubtedly many, many law abiding gun collectors in the US with perhaps a dozen weapons. Statistically insignificant perhaps, but a logistical nightmare to monitor.
To be fair, if I had space to store, didn't have to tax/insure and could just take down to the race track for a few hours (i.e. I owned a barn and lived near a track) I'd probably have a dozen cars. There's enough variation in guns that you could justify the variety.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Once again doesn't stop anything from happening...this guy as far as you know before this tragedy was a collector that went ballistic. The fact that you think more papers and more categorization will do the trick is inane and unrealistic. Also categorizing people has been done before and people have found ways to work around that by adhering to the category they want. Simply just saying what you have isn't a solution until you further break down how it will work.
- 4,573
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
Is it true that Paddock had a car rigged with explosives parked near the Las Vegas Airport?
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
First I've heard of this.
- 11,985
- Australia
- I_Grayson_Fox_I
I saw an link about it too but this could've been just crap the media made up to get sales.
Shame trump and other politicians cant make a law that forbids news companies from making **** up for rating/sales/views.
And before the "Free Speech" argument.
A news company has to report factual news to the public, anything else that has not been proven is pretty much gossip and should be marked as such.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
That's not how it works, sources could be wrong and outlets can choose to redact or not to redact, not redacting known falsehoods could lead to an outlet losing credibility on its own. There is no law against this as much as I agree that it doesn't serve society. However we've had three Presidents in the past sign executive orders limiting media because it put them in a bad light or a national situation, why infringing upon rights to save face for another is acceptable to you, is questionable and ultimately wrong. You don't usurp someone else for others.
In the end it boils down to you, to see if other outlets are reporting the same thing if not then it should be pretty easy to assess, and then you know from then on not to trust the misinformed news group as much.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Rigged to blow or just containing explosives? The latter is true AFAIK.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,597
- Texas
As noble as that sounds, good luck with it.
News media in the US goes bananas over this kind of stuff, sadly. I wish I could remember, but I believe there a joke that used to go, "Why does the news say good morning, when it's always bad stuff to follow". May have been a Mitch Hedberg line.
Similar threads
- Locked
