'Active shooter' near Las Vegas casino

[Jack Mountain]

Disarming the people is not a good idea at the moment with US government(s) hanging to fascist tendencies. 

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, dave_boo said:

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. 

 

Yeah, but what are the chances of being driven to the looney bin by a loopy math problem? Hint: you’re almost there.

[ToS2014]

So many want more laws to control guns, this, and even that.  Please remember that, in my humble opinion, that laws are ginned up because <1% do something heinous to generate laws that really control the 99%.  The <1% will STILL do what they want, when they want no matter the law(s) on the books.  A gun does not kill, people kill.  Automobiles don't kill, people kill, but there are numerous laws that control speeding, DWI, etc and STILL it happens.  Guess what I am attempting to posit is that I'm sick of hearing 'more gun laws' every time this crap happens.  I do hate it, but more laws will not stop it.

[Thakkar]

1 minute ago, ToS2014 said:

So many want more laws to control guns, this, and even that.  Please remember that, in my humble opinion, that laws are ginned up because <1% do something heinous to generate laws that really control the 99%.  The <1% will STILL do what they want, when they want no matter the law(s) on the books.  A gun does not kill, people kill.  Automobiles don't kill, people kill, but there are numerous laws that control speeding, DWI, etc and STILL it happens.  Guess what I am attempting to posit is that I'm sick of hearing 'more gun laws' every time this crap happens.  I do hate it, but more laws will not stop it.

 

Why have any laws at all? It’s not like laws have eliminated crime.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, sambum said:

 

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! 

 

 

Good man!

 

the reference to insurance was in regard to implementing insurance policies / requirements on gun owners.... which would then see insurance companies regulating this industry, much as insurance companies have effected change in so many other areas. I don't know if it would work.... but it is a positive suggestion

 

re insurance company or promoters liability on this issue... I can't see how they can be held accountable, (unless there was a requirement to have terrorism insurance, and they did not.... which I doubt)

[joecoolfrog]

10 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

That would be because this is a very pro-gun confiscation forum, maybe due to the prevalence of European and Australian members, and views/posts to the contrary are not appreciated nor allowed.

Paranoia is a terrible thing , seek help.

[farcanell]

14 hours ago, Grumpy Duck said:

I have suggested a great alternative to gun control. Make a mandatory insurance requirement for possession of any deadly weapon, (to include crossbows). Open carry or concealed, no proof of insurance no weapon. The insurance industry would make sure no whacko's or people with a history of violence could possess a weapon 

 

My last was referencing this post from grumpy duck. 

 

[joecoolfrog]

9 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.

You dont agree with what I said at all! You have just displayed the biased , one eyed , non negotiable type of hubris that guarantees this type of incident will carry on indefinitely.

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, Jack Mountain said:

Disarming the people

 

Who is advocating that?

[dave_boo]

59 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

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.

Nice try. The reason we can assign a statistical number to the chance of dying via shark attack or lightning is because the stats are defined based on people; not sharks or number of strikes. Much the same way that road deaths are publicised. A hint for the impaired - it's per POPULATION and not per car on the road.

 

And I purposefully did not use the standard "per 100k". Certain people who have preconceived concepts that their assumptions are correct and everyone who does not toe their line are ignorant would have problems wrapping their limited intellect around it. Resorting to false equivalence and hyperbole speaks volumes as to the strength of one's position...

 

 

[Kiwiken]

10 hours ago, Blackheart1916 said:

Not sure about NZ, but Australia "awash"? Pure garbage.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/national-amnesty-plan-aims-to-get-guns-of-australian-streets/news-story/b7042db781b4d880a16a18bccc987ba7

 

I can no longer access the article but they quote some 600,000 illegal firearms in Australia so pure garbage =No

[IAMHERE]

'They' only want to take away the 'bad' guns so no worries.

Baby steps.

Remember when the law was only that you had to have seat belts for the driver, and he didn't have to wear it?

Baby steps.

[joecoolfrog]

7 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.

Cars provide a societal benefit , guns do not !

Furthermore we endlessly strive to reduce car accidents , I know of no large organisation that actively hinders road safety legislation.

Edited October 3, 2017 by joecoolfrog

[attrayant]

18 minutes ago, dave_boo said:

And I purposefully did not use the standard "per 100k".

 

Of course not; that would have yielded a more honest answer.

 

Can you explain why are your numbers nowhere to be found on the many, many risk assessment sites that know how to do the math properly?  I guess you know something that they're all missing.  Can you support your math with any mainstream professional risk analysis?  Even the CATO Institute knows how to do the math:
 

Quote

Think of it this way: from 1975 to 2015, more than 1.13 billion foreigners entered the U.S. legally and illegally. So, more than 28 million foreigners entered the country for each successful terrorist who actually managed to kill somebody in a domestic terrorist attack.

 

And CATO's analysis specifically about refugees:

 

Quote

Of the 3,252,493 refugees admitted from 1975 to the end of 2015, 20 were terrorists, which amounted to 0.00062 percent of the total. In other words, one terrorist entered as a refugee for every 162,625 refugees who were not terrorists. Refugees were not very successful at killing Americans in terrorist attacks. Of the 20, only three were successful in their attacks, killing a total of three people.

 

I await your supporting cites.

 

[bazza73]

1 hour ago, ToS2014 said:

So many want more laws to control guns, this, and even that.  Please remember that, in my humble opinion, that laws are ginned up because <1% do something heinous to generate laws that really control the 99%.  The <1% will STILL do what they want, when they want no matter the law(s) on the books.  A gun does not kill, people kill.  Automobiles don't kill, people kill, but there are numerous laws that control speeding, DWI, etc and STILL it happens.  Guess what I am attempting to posit is that I'm sick of hearing 'more gun laws' every time this crap happens.  I do hate it, but more laws will not stop it.

Wrong. Australia has proved better gun control works. What part of that don't you understand?

[Thakkar]

7 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.

 

Comparing cars and guns Is unhelpful. A more apt (but still flawed) comparison would be between guns and potentially lethal medicine. Both have their legitimate uses, but only potentially lethal medicine is highly regulated and difficult to obtain and the prescription needs regular renewal.

 

Arguments from analogy, while fun, are hopelessly unhelpful. Both sides of the gun debate use the gun/car analogy and both are equally unhelpful.

 

Drawing such parallels is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors to make us feel better about our choices:

"Yes, guns are dangerous. So are household cleaners if ingested. If Kids can (and do) die from ingesting household cleaners, I should be allowed to keep my guns!"

 

I'll let the leftist Daily Kos and the Rightist Breitbart duke it out endlessly and uselessly on guns and cars.

[joecoolfrog]

7 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

I do think about it.  But Liberals only see one side of things.  Cars = Good.  Guns = Bad! 

 

Is such a rabid example of stereotyping an example of your thought process ?

[joecoolfrog]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

That's funny. Usually right wingers blast liberals as tree hugging car haters.

I spotted that straight away , thought it weakened his 'argument' just a tad !!!

[joecoolfrog]

6 hours 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.

 

Are you serious , if there was any indication that this was IS linked , the Orange Clown would have twittered himself into a frenzy by now.

[ilostmypassword]

19 hours ago, howto said:

The weapon used is certainly a full auto 30 cal, belt fed Machine Gun.
It is not a semi-auto.
It is not a M16, nor a varient of any AK.
It is not a BAR.
I say it is a ''Browning 30 Cal Machine Gun Model 1919A6'' a very serious firearm.

This 30 cal matches both sound and cycle rate,
compair yourself ,,,
the recording from

Very expensive and not easy to own.
The perp does have a criminal record.
No way he could acquire this weapon legally.

 

This was planned, well in advanced, with help.
He had a perfect vantage point at 32 floors,
with a clear line of sight to the target(s).

Honestly, I am amazed far more are not dead.

 

We, whom do own firearms here in the USA, certainly do abhor this.

 

I DO look forward to a full accounting from FBI, CIA, NSA -whatever,
and for POTUS Trump to 'take it balls deep to whomever is responsible'.

 

As to ,,,
- Trump haters will hate
- anti-gunners will hate
- anti-americans will hate
- the main stream media will lie
- Islam is not a religion of peace

 

 

 

But one of Nevada's few restrictions is on the sale or manufacture of automatic weapons, and the Associated Press reports that Paddock used a perfectly legal device to effectively circumvent that.

The device, known as a "bump stock," replaces the shoulder rest of a rifle with a device that bounces the weapon back into the shooter's trigger finger. Effectively, the weapon still fires one bullet for every pull of the trigger, but the bump stock automates the trigger pull process allowing shooters to fire 400-800 rounds per minute.

http://www.businessinsider.com/las-vegas-gunman-bump-stock-automatic-weapon-2017-10

[balo]

In any civilized country the government would not allow civilians to own a military rifle!   Sure some countries allow handguns , but not the big bad ones that are used in wars. 

 

So I don't get it , why is it so hard to stop the sales of military weapons in the US?   

It's plain stupidity to allow any American to buy a machine gun! 

It's the cowboy wild west mentality that goes back 150 years . 

 

This is 2017 , wake up! 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by balo

[ToS2014]

5 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

Why have any laws at all? It’s not like laws have eliminated crime.

 

Laws are for law abiding citizens as you well know

[Thakkar]

24 minutes ago, ToS2014 said:

5 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

Why have any laws at all? It’s not like laws have eliminated crime.

 

Laws are for law abiding citizens as you well know

 

So criminals go to jail for breaking what, a fart?

[nausea]

30 minutes ago, balo said:

 It's plain stupidity to allow any American to buy a machine gun! 

Just to clarify, it seems this guy wasn't firing a machine gun, he was firing a semi-auto with a bumpstock.

 

"So I don't get it , why is it so hard to stop the sales of military weapons in the US?"

 

Yeah, the desire for military grade weapons is a strange one, as it goes way beyond what's needed for basic self-protection.  It seems connected to the idea of a citizens' militia to safeguard against tyrannical government, not so much Wild West as Colonial America; at least that seems to be the idealogical base of it, so far as I can figure.

 

 

 

[Blackheart1916]

8 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/national-amnesty-plan-aims-to-get-guns-of-australian-streets/news-story/b7042db781b4d880a16a18bccc987ba7

 

I can no longer access the article but they quote some 600,000 illegal firearms in Australia so pure garbage =No

Ok Kiwi I will take it that there is an article you read that said there are 600000 illegal guns on Oz, fair enough. BUT,  It's in a Murdoch rag so not worth the paper it's written on, any number quoted would be all types of guns, and looking at the crime rate involving and recovery rate of these alleged automatic weapons, I just don't see any evidence of it at all. The country wasn't awash with auto weapons before the laws changed, so it certainly isn't now. I hope NZ is the same, bro.?

[nausea]

Two of the guns on the floor of Paddock's hotel room, together with a hammer used to break out the hotel windows.

 

 

http://www.fox25boston.com/news/only-on-boston-25-exclusive-photos-of-las-vegas-shooters-guns/618716556

[gk10002000]

On 10/2/2017 at 6:26 PM, Ruffian Dick said:

Could be, but would he choose 9mm when he's shooting from 30+ floors high?

It does sort of sound like that.

yeah.  later i looked at a few others and it looked more and more like the bump stock.  And the latest photos from the hotel show that on at least one rifle

[DM07]

A friend of mine said it best:

What is the fuss about Northkorea, having nukes?

Nukes don't kill people...

 

See how stupid that sounds?!

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, DM07 said:

A friend of mine said it best:

What is the fuss about Northkorea, having nukes?

Nukes don't kill people...

 

See how stupid that sounds?!

Yes, sounds very stupid to compare NK to what happened here.  Show some respect.

 

[DM07]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Yes, sounds very stupid to compare NK to what happened here.  Show some respect.

 

Oh grow up!

I think even the dumbest person, will understand this comparison.

Only most will not like it-, because it touches on the dumb "guns don't kill people"- narrative!