'Active shooter' near Las Vegas casino

[Grumpy Duck]

7 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

My sister is headed their next week and will be seeing the absinthe show.  My buddy was there just two weeks ago.  I bet when the investigation is complete here is what you will find.

 

1:  His girlfriend that is from the Philippines and flew back to the PI and they recently had broken up.

2:  News reports have said he does frequent the casinos a lot.  I predict he just went busted, is in debt, etc.  The casino records will show if this is true or not. 

3:  He is 64 and I think his social security should be looked at.  He may have just had an unfavorable ruling or just found out how little he may get, etc.  Something along those lines may be a factor.

 

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Why are you enabling unproven ISIS propaganda?

 

US law enforcement to date have so far not been able to identify the murderer's "beliefs". Media have announced many weapons located at the killer's hotel room, further 18 weapons, plus explosives, at his home, plus in the process of raiding another property in Northern Nevada. Right now, purely as an assumption, sounds like some White right wing conspiracy nutcase or simply mentally ill. If proven to be mentally ill it raises the question if he was identified by a medical professional and whether reported to relevant authorities who license gun owners - apparently some States do not comply to Federal requirements & report mentally ill gun owners.

Any person knowledgeable of the internet would realize that anytime someone visits a muslim website radical or not they are in the NSA sights. Any site they visit will be recorded. Here is something to look at: the guy lived next to the Clive Bundy ranch, perhaps there was a connection there?

 

To be honest I read another post which sounded logical, his gf dumped him, he may have lost big time at a casino.

Plus perhaps he got really annoyed at the noise from the born again harvest festival. (Not a country western concert)

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

He must be.

Since Sandy Hook, the USA has had 1,517 deaths from gun massacres . 6000 wounded. Gun massacres are defined as 4 or more people killed or wounded in a single event. Bad luck if it's less than 4. An eerie similarity to Thai road death statistics.

The shooter in Las Vegas had 41 firearms in his house. He took 19 of them to the hotel. Which poses a couple of questions:

1/ How did he manage to accumulate so many guns without a single warning bell?

2/ How did he get 19 firearms into the hotel without any hotel staff becoming suspicious?

3/ Why on earth do Americans need so many guns?

 

Yeah, yeah. I know - it's to protect you from the Commies. I heard that rationalisation 30 years ago - nothing has changed.

Crazy stats.  And yet those in power refuse to deal with it.  Horrible.

 

I'm not pro-gun.  But easy to accumulate that many weapons.  I know a few who have that many and more.  Most are collection pieces and are beautiful.  And expensive.  Rarely used.  Collected over a lifetime.

[sanemax]

12 minutes ago, Grumpy Duck said:

Plus perhaps he got really annoyed at the noise from the born again harvest festival. (Not a country western concert)

 

    He booked the room three weeks beforehand , which suggests that it was planned

[moonray]

3 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

You are really desperate for this guy to be linked to ISIS. The fact that this does not seem to be the case must be driving you crazy.

Things do not look as it seems - very often!

Have you noticed,it had been reported already:45 min before shootings started

one couple in concert crowd was yelling:" you will die!all of you here will die!"

then they were escorted out.Also - country&western festival?not exactly! It was very much christian/religious event,so?

Another fact: in US the authorities are desperate to exclude any political/racial/religious motives to the point of absurd.

 

[farcanell]

4 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I rest my case.

 

No no no....

 

im Australian and I fully support your right to own guns per the constitution.... I fully support every legal entitlement of the citizenry, and any reforms (or not) are purely a US domestic issue.... for US citizens to sort out.

 

i owned two firearms pre port Arthur , legally licensed etc etc, but when Australia changed its laws, I relinquished them well within the proscribed time frame, as required.

 

gun control will protect folk from accidental incidents (toddlers shooting mum, random bullets from pranksters, rage incidents etc), but not nessesarily from someone intent on this sort of heinous act..... this is a mind set issue which needs addressing through education, respect of others, tolerance and anti xenophobic teachings, etc

 

banning religions would arguably be better than banning guns lol 

 

mind you, if this incident does push the US towards reform, I do think that the earlier posting (grumpy???) regards linking it to insurance, is an excellent example of how it might be achieved, as this is a huge hurdle 

 

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, moonray said:

Things do not look as it seems - very often!

Have you noticed,it had been reported already:45 min before shootings started

one couple in concert crowd was yelling:" you will die!all of you here will die!"

then they were escorted out.Also - country&western festival?not exactly! It was very much christian/religious event,so?

Another fact: in US the authorities are desperate to exclude any political/racial/religious motives to the point of absurd.

 

As you said yourself, things do not look as it seems  - very often.

 

At a born again festival some people coming with claims about everybody dying soon would not be out of the ordinary. USauthorities are giving information as known and as long as it does not interfere with the investigation. All those people claiming they're hiding information should take a look at themselves.

[moonray]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

As you said yourself, things do not look as it seems  - very often.

 

At a born again festival some people coming with claims about everybody dying soon would not be out of the ordinary. USauthorities are giving information as known and as long as it does not interfere with the investigation. All those people claiming they're hiding information should take a look at themselves.

You will give excuse for anything,you are part of establishment(may be retired?)

[JHolmesJr]

Horrible tragedy.

 

But it sure is convenient for a few politicians on the left....now whenever Trump talks about his ban on certain muzzlim countries, this incident will be recounted ad nauseam to say that the real threat to america comes from domestic terrorism.

 

[Thakkar]

 

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Horrible tragedy.

 

But it sure is convenient for a few politicians on the left....now whenever Trump talks about his ban on certain muzzlim countries, this incident will be recounted ad nauseam to say that the real threat to america comes from domestic terrorism.

 

The real threat comes from domestic terrorism, that has been proven time and time again.

[Thakkar]

28 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Horrible tragedy.

 

But it sure is convenient for a few politicians on the left....now whenever Trump talks about his ban on certain muzzlim countries, this incident will be recounted ad nauseam to say that the real threat to america comes from domestic terrorism.

 

 

Only if the shoe fits. And, hey waddaya know? It fits.

[attrayant]

 

58 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

whenever Trump talks about his ban on certain muzzlim countries, this incident will be recounted ad nauseam to say that the real threat to america comes from domestic terrorism.

 

 

As well it should, because it is.  White American men are a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners

 

Quote

But in the eight months since Trump took office, more Americans have been killed in attacks by white American men with no connection to Islam than by Muslim terrorists or foreigners.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by attrayant
added quote

[zydeco]

58 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Horrible tragedy.

 

But it sure is convenient for a few politicians on the left....now whenever Trump talks about his ban on certain muzzlim countries, this incident will be recounted ad nauseam to say that the real threat to america comes from domestic terrorism.

 

 

Give it a month or two, and moslem terrorists will pull another big terror event.  Las Vegas will be forgotten about.  Just like San Bernadino and Orlando have almost been consigned to the memory bin. Doesn't matter who is responsible.  It all becomes one big blur while waiting for the next one, which in turn will recede from memory. This is life in the modern West.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Gun ownership and use is already heavily controlled in the U.S. 

Very true.  If you want to buy an arsenal using cash, no questions asked, you have to go to a gun show.  You can't go to a licensed shop, they insist on an inconvenient background check.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I agree. The basic problem is that "gun control" is code for gun confiscation by Democrats and others of their ilk. That is why Second Amendment supporters can't give an inch on this issue...because then they'll find themselves living in Australia. There is no good faith on the Democrat side.

I'm a gun owner.  I think guns and people using guns should be regulated similarly to autos and people who drive.  Regulating drivers in the US doesn't keep all nutcases from driving, but it does make it harder for them.

 

"The basic problem is that "gun control" is code for gun confiscation by Democrats and others of their ilk."

 

That is NRA propaganda.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

You want to ban all guns to protect people?  Ok, fine.

So should we also ban cars, as they consistently kill a hell of a lot more people every year than guns? 

Think about it.

Most of the people who have a car need a car for work, education, travel to the doctor etc.  They also have to demonstrate competence in driving before getting a license.

 

Most of the people who have a gun don't need a gun, they just want a gun.  I have no problem with that, but think it's ridiculous that they don't have to demonstrate any competence before being allowed to own and use their guns.  Also, if they buy from gun shows or individuals, they don't have to go through any kind of criminal or psychiatric background check.  That is nuts.

[newnative]

9 hours ago, Blackheart1916 said:

The way things are right now? This cycle has repeated no matter how things are and who is in charge. Every time there is a mass killing, we hear the same platitudes from the same Oval Office, and nothing ever happens. I am no fan of DT, but to be fair this has been going on for decades.

     Totally agree.  I wasn't referring to Trump with my comment.  Indeed, the same gridlock and nothing ever getting done would likely be happening with Clinton as president.  Politics is suppose to be all about compromise but you see precious little of that in Washington.  Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to see the other side accomplish anything so, as a result, nothing meaningful gets done.

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

You want to ban all guns to protect people?  Ok, fine.

So should we also ban cars, as they consistently kill a hell of a lot more people every year than guns? 

Think about it.

 

Few people are advocating banning ALL guns.  That's right-wing hysteric BS (yet it works to rile up their idiotic/fearful crowds).  

 

Here's a comparison:  boxing fans want to see hard hits.  Regulators have laws which mandate boxing gloves which are cushioned to a specific degree.  Some fans would like to see no gloves, like MMA.  Some fans would like to see brass knuckles being allowable.  No gloves is like semi-automatic rifles when compared to the guns debate.   Brass knuckles are like fully automatic, in comparison.   

 

         The Vegas shooter had 17 automatic weapons in the hotel room.  There are 2nd Amenders (as Trump would call them) who think it's fine for anyone to have as many automatic weapons as that person chooses to have.  Really.  They exist, and they're getting more credence/traction in Congressional debates than people (the majority of Americans) who want bans on semi- and fully-automatic weapons.

 

NRA may not be a terrorist organization (that's debatable), but it certainly supports terrorists.  Right-Wing politicians are in the same boat.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Crazy stats.  And yet those in power refuse to deal with it.  Horrible.

 

I'm not pro-gun.  But easy to accumulate that many weapons.  I know a few who have that many and more.  Most are collection pieces and are beautiful.  And expensive.  Rarely used.  Collected over a lifetime.

It's impossible to 'come up' with the 'right answer', and your post points out why some have a collection of 'antique' weapons.

 

I also gather that the original intention behind the 'right to bear arms'' was in case they were needed to fight for the country?  Whereas nowadays they're more likely to be needed if the country turns against its populace (ala the film 'V for Vendetta')....

[dunroaming]

16 hours ago, chrisinth said:

Actually I would predict that something will be done after this.

 

Silence from the White House and we all know Trump will do nothing whatsoever to address this.  America's moral compass is truly lost with this moron as POTUS.

[newnative]

3 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

You want to ban all guns to protect people?  Ok, fine.

So should we also ban cars, as they consistently kill a hell of a lot more people every year than guns? 

Think about it.

       Nobody's talking about banning all guns; but that's a jim-dandy scare tactic that is always hauled out to block any meaningful gun control legislation.  Key word 'control'.  Not 'ban'.  Putting a control on the types of weapons that can be purchased, putting a control on the number of weapons that can be purchased, putting a control on gun modification devices, and putting a control on the types of ammunition that can be purchased, among other things, is not taking away anyone's right to own a gun.   A gun.  Not an arsenal. 

[dave_boo]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

 

As well it should, because it is.  White American men are a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners

 

 

 

Ummmh...right.

 

So whites, making up ~71% of the population, are more dangerous than Muslims who make up ~1% of the population. 

 

So a group totalling ~235,000,000 people having killed 48 is worst than a group of ~3,250,000 killing 26.

 

That 2.04E-7 chance of a white person terrorist killing you versus 8.0E-6 of a Muslim terrorist killing you in the States. Or in simple math you're looking at 39.17 times the chance that a Muslim will be a terrorist killer in the USA. 

[Jingthing]

Well, my running theory is that the shooter did this to be darkly infamous. Also, for his motivations to be a mystery. No note or anything. The longer his motivations are a mystery, the longer his fame star glows in the public's attention. I'm surprised he didn't trash his computer though. There will be clues there. 

[chrisinth]

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

 

Silence from the White House and we all know Trump will do nothing whatsoever to address this.  America's moral compass is truly lost with this moron as POTUS.

 

Can't disagree with the comments about the White House and it's occupants...............

 

But I do like to think that if anything positive is to come from this tragic event it would be that they, the US government,  have been rocked by this and that is the reason for the silence from Trump

[sambum]

3 hours ago, farcanell said:

 

No no no....

 

im Australian and I fully support your right to own guns per the constitution.... I fully support every legal entitlement of the citizenry, and any reforms (or not) are purely a US domestic issue.... for US citizens to sort out.

 

i owned two firearms pre port Arthur , legally licensed etc etc, but when Australia changed its laws, I relinquished them well within the proscribed time frame, as required.

 

gun control will protect folk from accidental incidents (toddlers shooting mum, random bullets from pranksters, rage incidents etc), but not nessesarily from someone intent on this sort of heinous act..... this is a mind set issue which needs addressing through education, respect of others, tolerance and anti xenophobic teachings, etc

 

banning religions would arguably be better than banning guns lol 

 

mind you, if this incident does push the US towards reform, I do think that the earlier posting (grumpy???) regards linking it to insurance, is an excellent example of how it might be achieved, as this is a huge hurdle 

 

 

Your reference to religion does not need an apology - it is blatantly obvious when you look at how many deaths can be attributed to religion over the last 2000+ years, (Some "species" more than others advocate the extermination of people who choose not to follow their particular beliefs, which is one reason why I am an atheist.

 

However, depending which post about insurance you are referring to, I can not agree with placing the blame with the promoters of the concert - whether it was a C & W concert, a Rock and Roll concert, or a Born Again Christian concert , IMHO the blame lies with the hotel in question for their inadequate security. OK you could argue the point that if it was a religious/country concert, they should have been aware of possible repercussions from their "opponents", but to be honest, that would mean implementing your suggestion as alluded to in my first paragraph! 

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by sambum

[Berkshire]

33 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Well, my running theory is that the shooter did this to be darkly infamous. Also, for his motivations to be a mystery. No note or anything. The longer his motivations are a mystery, the longer his fame star glows in the public's attention. I'm surprised he didn't trash his computer though. There will be clues there. 

I still think that law enforcement dudes will figure it out...or at least find some clue.  They'd better.  Otherwise the alt-right crazies will come out with all kinds of made-up nonsense (which some already have).  One thing that I've noticed is that while some on the far left (not MSM's, but true lefties) will exaggerate, the far right has no problem at all just making stuff up.

[oxo1947]

5 hours ago, pegman said:

My thoughts are with the loved ones of the victims. It just be very difficult to deal with this being done by a so called normal person. How on earth do you rationalize it? 

 

[dunroaming]

12 minutes ago, chrisinth said:

 

Can't disagree with the comments about the White House and it's occupants...............

 

But I do like to think that if anything positive is to come from this tragic event it would be that they, the US government,  have been rocked by this and that is the reason for the silence from Trump

 

I wish that were true.  Trump has responded and did so very quickly but by sympathising with the victims and condemning the act.  He had the opportunity to condemn the use of automatic weapons being used but didn't and I am afraid that is never going to come from his mouth.  The gun lobby have responded with the same response and sound bites they always do, squirming in their seats like naughty schoolboys.

[Jingthing]

Jimmy Kimmel does it again. Some credit Kimmel for the ACA not being dead yet.

But on the gun control thing, there could be a million Jimmy Kimmels, can't ever beat the NRA.

 

 

[attrayant]

49 minutes ago, dave_boo said:

So a group totalling ~235,000,000 people having killed 48 is worst than a group of ~3,250,000 killing 26.

 

That 2.04E-7 chance of a white person terrorist killing you versus 8.0E-6 of a Muslim terrorist killing you in the States. Or in simple math you're looking at 39.17 times the chance that a Muslim will be a terrorist killer in the USA. 

 

Oh no, massive statistics fail!  You're attempting to assign a fatality value to each member of a group that causes said fatality.  That's not the way to assess risk.  To illustrate: we are able to calculate the odds of dying from shark attack, even though we don't know how many sharks there are in the ocean.

 

Here, I'll let you figure out your mistake for yourself with a simple problem.  You can apply the same, eh... "math" you used in your post:

 

According to National Geographic, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike each year are one in 700,000.  We also know that an average of 84 people die from lightning strikes each year.  You should be able to tell me how many lightning bolts are sitting up in the clouds, just waiting for Zeus to throw down at us.  I anxiously await the answer.