General / Off-Topic More than 50 killed in Las Vegas terror attack

[ZeroAi]

Authorities are saying that the gunman had an "automatic machine gun" before relentlessly spraying bullets into a crowd, killing 50+ and injuring 400+. When police stormed the rooftop of a building the gunman was on, they discovered the man had took his own life. The body was identified as 64-year old Stephen Paddock. Reports are coming out saying that this may have been the deadliest ever shooting attack in modern US history.

As to what the reason was for his massacre is currently unknown. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility, however authorities have stated otherwise. The President has announced the attack to be an "act of pure evil".

Updates:

- Paddock has never had a criminal record, other than a traffic citation.
- Paddock lived a relatively happy life, he was wealthy and had a pilot's license, owned two airplanes.
- Paddock has no history of mental illness and wasn't facing any financial issues.
- A woman was yelling out to people "you're all going to die!" just less than an hour before the massacre.
- Two windows were found broken in the casino hotel, Paddock likely didn't stay in one spot to shoot people.
- Paddock wasn't showing any previous suspicious activity enough for him to be under surveillance beforehand.
- Ammonium Nitrate, an explosive chemical ingredient for bombs was found in Paddock's car.
- Despite the US's gun laws, automatic guns are illegal, such heavy weaponry like Paddock's fully-automatic machine gun cannot be purchased legally.
- The reason why Paddock had went on a rampage is still unknown.

Such a very sad story. So many innocent lives lost. Such senseless violence.

That said, recent reports share evidence that not only was the gunman was a very disturbed individual, but he had been scouting out different venues.

And while I didn't read the replies to your post (just too sad a subject) I did want to point out that fully automatic firearms are not illegal everywhere in the US.

When I went through the required firearms training and background checks required to get a license to carry a concealed handgun as well as semi-automatic guns like the AR15 (in the very liberal state of MA,) I also had the option to apply for a license to own a fully automatic firearm, but the licenses are expensive and the actual firearms can cost as much as a car.

PS - Not to diminish the horror of this event, but another horror many forget about is that each and every year 40,000 Americans die in car accidents. That's a pretty sobering number.

 

[lysan]

Such a very sad story. So many innocent lives lost. Such senseless violence.

However, the latest news not only states the gunman was a very disturbed individual, but he had been scouting out many different venues.

PS - I didn't read the replies to your post (just too sad a subject) however I wanted to correct your original post to inform you that fully automatic firearms are not illegal everywhere in the US. When I went through the required firearms training and background checks required to get a license to carry a concealed handgun as well as semi-automatic guns like the AR15 in the very liberal state of MA, I also had the option to apply for a license to own a fully automatic firearm, but the licenses are expensive and the actual firearms can cost as much as a car.

PPS - Not to diminish the horror of this event, but another horror many forget about is that each and every year 40,000 Americans die in car accidents. That's a pretty sobering number.

The problem is that when someone, want to commit a crime, they really don't care about the law do they? and to make a rifle from semi to full auto is not that hard, just checkout this video.

[redacted] too much harsh ...meh explaining...

 

[jmg]

And while I didn't read the replies to your post (just too sad a subject) I did want to point out that fully automatic firearms are not illegal everywhere in the US.

.

not entirely accurate. ONLY machine guns made before 1986, ONLY if you have a license, and ONLY if you register them. Otherwise, fully automatic in all states... can't be sold, owned, possessed, or carried across state lines.

 

[Morbad]

But guess what? A lot of that stuff is such that Uncle Sam wouldn't let me have it even if I was a citizen.

Which is the result of the Second Amendment being repeatedly and continually undermined for the last century.

It is not an uncommon request to make, especially in Vegas. To have housekeeping stay out, or just leave the towels at the door.

On the rare occasions I travel, I don't let housekeeping in my rooms...not because I'm trying to conceal a crime in progress, but because they tend to steal my stuff.

...the rest of the world is safer than the USA.

All of those nations (except Russia) would still be safer than the US, in the narrow context here, if you removed all firearm related homicides from the US tally.

Most of of the gun violence is in the liberal, gun controlled centers.

That's where the people are, and gun control is usually reactionary, not preventative.

When I went through the required firearms training and background checks required to get a license to carry a concealed handgun as well as semi-automatic guns like the AR15 (in the very liberal state of MA,) I also had the option to apply for a license to own a fully automatic firearm, but the licenses are expensive and the actual firearms can cost as much as a car.

Plenty of Class III weapons can cost as much as my house.

Gun Control is one of the most racist and classist institutions I can think of. It's not there to protect people, it's there to keep poor people from being as well armed as wealthy old white people.

The problem is that when someone, want to commit a crime, they really don't care about the law do they? and to make a rifle from semi to full auto is not that hard, just checkout this video.

To make a rifle from scratch is not particularly hard and it's only going to get easier.

 

[lysan]

To make a rifle from scratch is not particularly hard and it's only going to get easier.

Exactly, my point, you can't make it go away with a stroke of a pen, not possible.

The issue here is what is going on in people's minds, if people are mentally strong and healthy we will not see these actions at all, no matter how many guns that are in circulation. Of course if you make the country like a prison white check point everywhere, scanners, strip down points, sure it would help, however I do not want to live in a society like that, not in a million years.

Switzerland got a lot of firearms, we don't see this behaviour there, not to my knowledge, Israel also a lot of weapons in circulation, haven't checked if there are other places but I guess they not the only places in the world.

On the otherside, Mexico got a lot of gun control so do venezuela and most of the south american continent, well that is not going so well down there is it?

 

[Adept]

Here's a good article. We have great examples of these in the thread.

'Gunsplaining' and conspiracy theories: how rightwing pundits saw the Las Vegas shooting

 

[lysan]

Here's a good article. We have great examples of these in the thread.

'Gunsplaining' and conspiracy theories: how rightwing pundits saw the Las Vegas shooting

Well, I actually will agree with some of the statements in that article.

Some differences of opinion are permissible in conservative media. Not everyone agrees about wars, foreign powers, terror, or drugs. Some are not fans of the current president. Some even risk unconventional “pro-choice” opinions.

But the second amendment – virtually unrestricted access to guns – is sacrosanct. Across the spectrum of rightwing opinion, from libertarians to the Christian right, pretty much everyone agrees that Americans’ unique access to firearms should continue.

As a libertarian I agree [up]

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Hypothetically the 2nd Am is repealed like elites such as Michael Moore want, the illegally owned and black market guns still exist...

Believe me, so would the guns that his security uses to protect him. You can be sure of that.

It's the little people who have no right to self defense, not the important ones, like Michael Moore.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Believe me, so would the guns that his security uses to protect him. You can be sure of that.

It's the little people who have no right to self defense, not the important ones, like Michael Moore.

Lots of unintended consequences.
I assume bump stocks are entirely sold out or going for premiums right now, for example.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I promise to be astonished if you can show evidence that gun massacres and murders are carried out by liberals in the majority.

I suspect you'll find that they tend to be the victims, not the perps.

Well, I don't know how most gang members and career criminals identify (They're doing a bulk of the murders, principally each other but not always), but that's surely true on the victims' end.
For example, criminals will bypass the Pacific ocean to come where gun laws are tight and they are soft on crime.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/36397223/waikiki-murder-suspect

They don't care about the laws.
They will also procure weapons where they clearly have no legal means of doing so.
That's implicit in my point, sure.

It's still not fair to lampoon or malign the real gun enthusiasts and legal owners, because it's simply not them doing the bulk of those crimes.
Those murders aren't imported rednecks or something.
It's people illegally obtaining guns to do crimes, despite the laws there, and perhaps because of them in a lot of cases.

Even the definition of "mass murder" is problem too.


But back to your point, do you think these guys voted for Trump?

 

[Boomer Kay]

As to my alternate reality? Am not clear what you mean as I'm referring to the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, and to the letter of the law itself (here's an interesting SCOTUS pecedent on The 2nd Am.: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment ).

I repeat the entire post here again as a reminder:
....

No, you don't.
You soundbite your interpretation together and veer of the constitution to find explanations that support your interpretation while ignoring or downplaying the others.

"federalists ... anti-federalists"
Ohhh, there was no "the founding father" with a monolithic approach to things?

Of course you can be intellectually dishonest and switch between modernism (the most recent interpretation of the 2nd A is the valid one) and literalism (but they said "not be infringed" .. which .. had a slightly different use in 17xx) ... ^^

 

[Boomer Kay]

Huh?...I don't follow...

Kant deficit.

Here's the other reading of the thing:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-meaning-history

Now go and find the synthesis.

This is the 2nd paragraph of Columbia vs. Heller:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

It explicitely sais it's not a "no gun control" ruling.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Could you address that, fuzzy?

No. For two reasons.

1. It is rude to ask someone to address an argument made by someone on their ignore list.

2. The argument that someone doesn't care about certain types of death because they didn't explicitly mention those deaths is an argument so insulting, dishonest, ridiculous, vacuous, illogical, and merit-less it is a perfect example of why ignore lists are necessary. I have far more important things to do, like counting my bananas.

Still don't follow you. I have no opinion on Immanuel Kant.

The categorical imperative?

 

[Boomer Kay]

The categorical imperative?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transzendentale_Dialektik (yea, no english version of that).

 

[FuzzySpider]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transzendentale_Dialektik (yea, no english version of that).

It's good practice, thanks.

Enjoy this...

[video=youtube;xwOCmJevigw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw[/video]

 

[Boomer Kay]

It's good practice, thanks.

Enjoy this...

"There's nothing morally wrong with you locking the door and calling the police".... lol

3 Thumbs up.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Sorry for the crossed lines, I'm not making the argument it is!

Then it might be better for the sake of clarity not to use broad generalizations?
"the words of the founding fathers"? (that was 3 quotes from 2 founding fathers, rest was ignored?)

edit: also interesting in the historical context of the founding fathers (federalist vs. non-federalists) should be: http://www.emersonkent.com/images/us_territorial_growth.jpg
Those "state lines" they added after the founding were even more "synthetic" (something Europe doesn't have and can't really relate to), so whatever "organic self-determination purpose" the initial 13 states with their 3 million inhabitants had, was pretty much dumped 1850/60 at the latest?)

"Gun control of any sort doesn't prevent gun crime"
Law does not prevent crime (duh), law enforcement does?

 

[FuzzySpider]

So after that synopsis I kant say I'm a fan of Kant, he seems a bit of a K-nt, to use the vernacular

The opposite of Kant is most often considered to be Jeremy Bentham, the man who created the utilitarian school of ethics, if you can call it that. But I find a more appropriate opposite to Kant in Ayn Rand. Are you a fan of hers?

 

[Adept]

They don't care about the laws.

So how come criminals in the UK very rarely have firearms? By your logic legislation only effects law abiding citizens, and criminals will always have guns, right?

But back to your point, do you think these guys voted for Trump?

https://www.featureshoot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Jonathan_May_04.jpg

Are those the liberals then, since you complain that the shootings happen in liberal areas?

 

[Boomer Kay]

So how come criminals in the UK very rarely have firearms? By your logic legislation only effects law abiding citizens, and criminals will always have guns, right?

The best "defense" I've seen against this statistic is that it's "unfair" to compare the US to other developed countries:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W9LkhCs6ib4/Vhi6mB06y9I/AAAAAAAAIn0/4KoXL5iNehE/s1600/imrs.php.jpg

Even "unfairer", if you take overall homicide:
http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-homicide-rates-chart-2015-6?IR=T

Totally unfair to compare to well performing countries with working law enforcment.