Las Vegas Shooting

[largebus]

Alex Jones is a good laugh. He didn't even blame Hillary for this one!

[Shoblongoo]

9 hours ago, Lushen said:

Is there like an instinctual need to turn every issue in America into a form of racial injustice?  

Today you argue we cannot have the sensible gun control laws of every other first world country--all of which have lower rates of violence, crime, and incarceration then the United States--because it is more important to protect the sanctity of our individual right to own and carry firearms free from government interference then it is to reduce shooting deaths. Yesterday you argued that police acted properly when they killed a black man carrying a toy gun from the shelf to the cash register in a store that sells toy guns because they believed he had a real gun that could be used to shoot someone, and that if the black man didn't want to be executed by the police he shouldn't have behaved "stupidly." Everyone reading your posts understands what this signifies, even if you don't.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Lushen]

6 hours ago, Raven said:

People defending against a change in gun laws make me want to shoot them.

Which is exactly why from a statistical standpoint we've seen more homicides every time a gov't takes away people's guns. 

Creating more tension in America creates more motive.  More motive, more murder.  More guns has no correlation to the number of murders.  We teach our kids "Guns don't kill people, people do" and yet we adults can't seem to grasp this concept.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Lushen

[Tryhard]

It just so happens that people can kill people extremely fast and efficiently with guns :)

You whine about tyranny but I'd rather have my supposed tyrannical government than your batshit insane political fuckery of a country.

Where's the great American uprising when people have no confidence in government? Oh right, it ain't happening, you ain't doing shit.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Tryhard

[Phoenix Wright]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

Which is exactly why from a statistical standpoint we've seen more homicides every time a gov't takes away people's guns. 

Creating more tension in America creates more motive.  More motive, more murder.  More guns has no correlation to the number of murders.  We teach our kids "Guns don't kill people, people do" and yet we adults can't seem to grasp this concept.

yeah? gimme studies

[Lushen]

Just now, Phoenix Wright said:

yeah? gimme studies

I gave several graphs and statistics to which no one responded to because they don't care.  I shouldn't have to do your job for you.  If you're anti-gun point to me a rational reason to believe that more guns have a correlation to the number of murders.  Because current statistics I'm seeing say the exact opposite. 

[Res]

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

Which is exactly why from a statistical standpoint we've seen more homicides every time a gov't takes away people's guns. 

Where's your evidence for trigger-happy reactionaries being the reason?

Gun homicides were always low in the UK. We're talking less than 100 per year, and nearly all gun deaths, at least this century, have been confined to illegal gang activity. Simply put, being shot by a gun is not something the ordinary civilian ever has to worry about since gun restrictions were put into place (also, you have to understand that there were 5-6 tightenings of restrictions over the 20th century, so it wasn't that all guns were suddenly banned in 1997). Additionally you've already been provided one example of why there was a spike in non-gun homicides in the form of Harold Shipman; overall, homicide rates are low enough in the UK that a single event or person can significantly skew results. I'm still looking for a reason for the 01/02 spike anomaly in gun homicides (which only translates to *30* more deaths in a population of 65 million) but there's a 0% chance that it's because citizens were mad that their gun rights were restricted. 

Additionally do you realize how insulting it is to insinuate that people would turn into murderers simply if gun restrictions were tightened? Apparently everyone in the south is a trigger-happy moron who requires appeasement in order not to commit a crime. It's equivalent to when people claim that without a religion to guide them, that they would commit murder or rape with impunity.

There is a correlation between more guns and more homicides, even in countries that aren't the U.S. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Res

[Shoblongoo]

51 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I gave several graphs and statistics to which no one responded to because they don't care.  

You gave several graphs and statistics to which no one responded because they represent incomplete data points--false or misleading in the absence of more complete data--and its common knowledge to persons familiar with the comparative figures that what you're saying is just factually untrue.

Specifically: you have argued that even if you can demonstrate countries with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun crimes, you can not demonstrate that they have less homicides overall. A person who would otherwise commit murder with a gun is equally inclined to commit murder with a knife or a crowbar or a baseball bat.

This is patently, demonstrably false:





 You will notice two things from this figure:

1) The trend of the United States having more  homicides then comparably wealthy and stable countries with better gun control laws persists even when we look at all murders; not just at homicides committed with guns. The country with the world's strictest gun control laws, Japan, continues to observe the lowest recorded homicide rates.

2) The gap between the lower murder rates in countries with strict gun control and the higher murder rates in the United States, while still observable and significant, is not as large as the gap observed when we look strictly at gun crimes. 

That is to say; gun control laws are effective at downwardly influencing the overall prevalence of homicide in a society. However unlike gun crimes,where strength of gun control laws is the single greatest predictor of prevalence and other factors are comparatively negligible, in the case of total homicides gun control is only one of several significant factors. And other significant factors can move the numbers, regardless of what level of gun control a country elects to pursue.

Specifically: The two (2) greatest predictors of a country's overall homicide rate are its average education levels and rates of poverty.

-less educated countries have more murders then more educated countries
-countries with a higher % of population living below the poverty line have more murders then countries with lower % of population living below the poverty line

Changes in these factors will have the highest influence on homicide rates overall.

So if you want to bring down homicide rates overall the best thing you can have are progressive policies in living wage laws and public funding of healthcare and higher education. (all of which you oppose)

...and then strength of gun control laws is influential, but secondary to the above-cited factors.

Now please. Stop making the [more guns = less crime] argument. You're wrong.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Res]

3 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Specifically: The two (2) greatest predictors of a countries overall homicide rate are its average education levels and rates of poverty.

-less educated countries have more murders then more educated countries
-countries with a higher % of population living below the poverty line have more murders then countries with lower % of population living below the poverty line

Changes in these factors will have the highest influence on homicide rates overall.

I meant to post this yesterday and forgot!

Yes; we can look at cultural reasons and other ways to decrease homicide rates and gun crimes without restricting guns. Sadly, the same swathe of the population so desperate to preserve the second amendment is generally against better public school funding, school desegregation, national healthcare and other measures that would raise the overall monetary and educational health of its population. 

[Lord Raven]

48 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I gave several graphs and statistics to which no one responded to because they don't care.  I shouldn't have to do your job for you.  If you're anti-gun point to me a rational reason to believe that more guns have a correlation to the number of murders.  Because current statistics I'm seeing say the exact opposite. 

people responded, it's not really their fault you've gone unignored

besides, the burden of proof is on you in this case; you make a claim, he questions the claim, and instead of backing up the claim you become belligerent

anyway, america has more violent crime than western europe. i hate to invoke a correlation/causation fallacy but here we are.

13 hours ago, Lushen said:

Is there like an instinctual need to turn every issue in America into a form of racial injustice?  

given the country we live in, yes, race has been a factor and will continue to be a factor until people like you open their ears to racial issues

 

anyway what do you think of the gun show loophole? are you aware of its existence? because gun control is still highly flawed in this country lol, if you think we have "enough regulation" (no we don't, the loophole isn't even a loophole, it's a feature) because we do background checks you are mistaken because we don't always do background checks. no politician in their right mind would propose banning guns in the US, nor would they propose regulation outside of banning semi-automatic rifles (which may or may not make sense and I want to spend some time looking into it myself before forming an opinion)

i don't understand guns as a hobby (and I kind of believe that it's the weirdest hobby to glorify here, but who am I to talk when I collect Gundam model kits) but I'm 100% against banning all guns because there are plenty of areas that could be described as the boonies in the US that absolutely cannot rely on 911 and it's cheaper (in terms of time, money, resources) for them to kill their food rather than go to the store when you live in the middle of buttfuck, wisconsin

there's a far more nuanced version of gun control than "libs/dems = want no guns" and "cons/reps = everyone should be armed to the teeth." No, both of these misconceptions are wrong (the latter not as much, since the NRA does influence them) and many democrats have stood in support for the second amendment...  but just with regulation so as to bring the 2nd amendment to modern times

Edited October 3, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

12 hours ago, Lushen said:

 Because the guns he had were already illegal.  So in this particular case the law says this should never have happened and it did.

It's worth noting that most places are reporting that the weapon used was a semi-automatic modified with a "bump stock", which is very much legal and allows for more rapid fire closer to an automatic weapon. Technically it is illegal to modify semi-automatic weapons, but since buying a bump stock is completely legal that means pretty much nothing.

So yes, as far as I understand it he used a weapon + modification that is completely legal to buy. And the guardian was reporting he had about 42 weapons in his properties.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-two-dead-in-mandalay-bay-casino-shooting-latest-updates?page=with:block-59d2f24ae4b00d657809d16e#block-59d2f24ae4b00d657809d16e

Quote

Gunshop owners are required under federal law to alert ATF if a client buys more than one handgun from the same store within five days, but the same rule doesn't apply if a gun owner buys mulitple semi-automatic rifles, said David Chipman, a former ATF special agent and senior policy advisor at Americans for Responsible Solutions, which advocates for tougher gun rules. 

That discrepancy allows people like Paddock to stockpile arsenals such as the one used in Sunday's shooting, he said. 

"The amazing loophole here is you could buy two small pistols and ATF will be alerted to that, but you could buy 20 assault rifles and ATF won't be alerted at all," Chipman said. "It doesn’t make any sense."

The lack of regulation around bump stocks -- that allows semi-automatic rifles to fire like machine guns -- also makes gun regulation less effective, he said. "It's an ingenious workaround of the law," Chipman said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/03/what-gun-used-las-vegas-shooting/726743001/

Edited October 3, 2017 by Tryhard

[Sias]

14 hours ago, Lushen said:

@SiasAll the other graphs I posted had the same delay.  While I am unsure to the exact cause, I would imagine the delay is caused either from a delay of belief or escalation of anger towards the ban.  This, or it is because the ban took longer to fully go in effect than the start date indicated.  I tend to believe this delay is just how it is, rather than believing that all four cases had a coincidence at the same time given that the spike is MASSIVE.  I mean what are the odds?

 

Also, the overall statistics point towards the fact that America has been in steady decline when it comes to overall homicides.  All this talk of gun control like things are getting out of hand is utterly ridiculous.  Not only does America NOT actually have a high homicide rate, but homicide has been in steady decline despite a lack of gun control since 2000.  Why are dems trying to ruin a good thing?  Why is a decline in homicide that puts us at an all time low since the 1920s and a brief portion of the 1950s a bad thing? 

http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/Murders 1.bmp

Oooor it could be that there's simply no correlation between gun bans and increased homicide rate? You yourself are unsure about why there would be such a long pause between these two events - and a suggestion like "the anger escalating for about 10 years until suddenly everyone gets so angry that they shoot someone" just borders on being ridiculous.

I also did show you that the graph about Britain, for example, was both completely ripped out of context and ignored a spike caused by a morphine serial killer, so you know, that website of yours might not be the most reliable one in regards to topics like these.

The US also DOES have a high homicide rate if you actually compare it to similarly developed places (Europe, Australia).

10 hours ago, Lushen said:

As I said before I don't care whether someone is stabbed, strangled, or gunned down - I care that someone was murdered.  If anything, guns are the most humane.  So what ACTUALLY matter is the TOTAL number of homicides, not the number of homicides related to guns because, as an example, a man who wants to kill his wife will not grow a conscious because he doesn't have a gun.  He'll use his hands.

I posted a counter-argument to literally this before. Using the same example of a husband killing his wife. To which you actually agreed, but then continued to tell me how we shouldn't restrict guns regardless of that because they still enable self-defense killings. Afterwards I did point out that you heavily overvalue those and provided some sources, but you apparently ignored that, so I dunno what to tell you.

55 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I gave several graphs and statistics to which no one responded to because they don't care.  I shouldn't have to do your job for you.  If you're anti-gun point to me a rational reason to believe that more guns have a correlation to the number of murders.  Because current statistics I'm seeing say the exact opposite. 

I actually responded to several of your statistics (homicides worldwide, homicides in the UK, homicides in Chicago), but you either couldn't explain the discrepancies I pointed out or didn't even reply to what I wrote.

[eclipse]

I'm on the first page. This topic is already awful.

I'm going to close it until I have a chance to read through everything.  Due to the nature of this topic, I WILL be handing out warnings for particularly bad comments.  If you don't have something meaningful to say, keep it to yourself.

EDIT: After more warnings than I care to give out, I'll tentatively reopen the topic.  Any further warnings regarding content will be automatic suspensions.  There's a time and place to be an ass, and this topic ISN'T it.

My only on-topic comment is: How the heck did he get all those guns/ammo up to the room?!

Edited October 3, 2017 by eclipse

[Captain Karnage]

51 minutes ago, eclipse said:

My only on-topic comment is: How the heck did he get all those guns/ammo up to the room?!

a duffel bad, a suitcase, a backpack, really anything that's not see through

and if you're wondering how he could have gotten the weapons up there, he probably dissassembled and reassembled the rifels

what I'm curious is abbout how he got the window open, windows in hotel rooms that high up are ment to be unopenable and nearly shatterproof

Edited October 3, 2017 by Captain Karnage

[eclipse]

3 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

a duffel bad, a suitcase, a backpack, really anything that's not see through

and if you're wondering how he could have gotten the weapons up there, he probably dissassembled and reassembled the rifels

what I'm curious is abbout how he got the window open, windows in hotel rooms that high up are ment to be unopenable and nearly shatterproof

23 guns with the requisite ammo?  Wouldn't that be rather heavy?

It looks like the windows were shattered.  Maybe he threw a chair into the window to soften it up, then let the gunfire do the rest?

[Acacia Sgt]

Just now, eclipse said:

23 guns with the requisite ammo?  Wouldn't that be rather heavy?

It looks like the windows were shattered.  Maybe he threw a chair into the window to soften it up, then let the gunfire do the rest?

I think it was stated he brought them up in several trips.

Depending on the bullets he used, perhaps he didn't had to use a chair?

[Captain Karnage]

Just now, eclipse said:

23 guns with the requisite ammo?  Wouldn't that be rather heavy?

It looks like the windows were shattered.  Maybe he threw a chair into the window to soften it up, then let the gunfire do the rest?

you could have put it all on a rolling cart, it could have only taken a trip or 2 to get it all in the room

I've been around that type of glass, you have to really really work at it before you can even get a crack in it

what I find odd is that nobody seemed to hear any gunfire from any of the other rooms, it took investigators a while before they could even figure out where the shots came from

[Shoblongoo]

11 minutes ago, eclipse said:

23 guns with the requisite ammo?  Wouldn't that be rather heavy?

It looks like the windows were shattered.  Maybe he threw a chair into the window to soften it up, then let the gunfire do the rest?

He had 10 separate suitcases, reportedly. 

More striking--he was in this room for quite some time before carrying out the attack, including during times when housekeeping would have entered to clean the room. They reported nothing to hotel management.

 (you would think one guy checking in with 10 suitcases would draw some heightened scrutiny)

Now apparently this was a hotel where persons coming into attend gun conventions would have stayed; bringing with them all the gear you would typically bring to a gun show. Meaning its conceivable that the shooter checked in with 10 suitcases of guns and ammo. AND hotel staff knew he checked in with 10 suitcases full of guns and ammo. 

AND that didn't strike them as something out-of-the-ordinary enough to report or find alarming.

That's incredible. 
 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[eclipse]

6 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I think it was stated he brought them up in several trips.

Depending on the bullets he used, perhaps he didn't had to use a chair?

From the exterior pictures I saw, it looks like most of the window is gone.  I'm not sure what could've caused that pattern.  If the glass is as tough as the guy below me says, then there's also a chance that merely shooting at it would cause the bullets to ricochet off of it.  But I'm not a hotel window expert!

6 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

you could have put it all on a rolling cart, it could have only taken a trip or 2 to get it all in the room

I've been around that type of glass, you have to really really work at it before you can even get a crack in it

what I find odd is that nobody seemed to hear any gunfire from any of the other rooms, it took investigators a while before they could even figure out where the shots came from

It looks like most of the window is gone.  The jagged edges indicate that something shattered it from the inside.  I have no idea if the glass is actually bulletproof, or merely tough enough so that an angry couple can't throw a bag of golf clubs out of the window (what do you mean, oddly specific?).  I doubt the glass is Literally Unbreakable, since it would hinder the fire department's efforts, should they need to break a window.

Perhaps everyone else was out enjoying the festival.  It would make sense to book at that hotel for such an occasion!  But it also means that this guy planned it out well in advance. . .

EDIT:

Just now, Shoblongoo said:

He had 10 separate suitcases, reportedly. 

More striking--he was in this room for quite some time before carrying out the attack, including during times when housekeeping would have entered to the clean the room. They reported nothing to hotel management.

 (you would think one guy checking in with 10 suitcases would draw some heightened scrutiny)

Now apparently this was a hotel where persons coming into attain gun conventions would have stayed; bringing with them all the gear you would typically bring to a gun show. Meaning its conceivable that the shooter checked in with 10 suitcases of guns and ammo. AND hotel staff new he checked in with 10 suitcases full of guns and ammo. 

AND that didn't strike them as something out-of-the-ordinary enough to report or find alarming.

That's incredible. 
 

From my recent experience in a different hotel, housekeeping won't clean a room unless the occupant is out.  It's possible that he had the "Do Not Disturb" sign up, which would keep them out.

Edited October 3, 2017 by eclipse

[Acacia Sgt]

11 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

I've been around that type of glass, you have to really really work at it before you can even get a crack in it

Hm, so what type of glass was it?

6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

From the exterior pictures I saw, it looks like most of the window is gone.  I'm not sure what could've caused that pattern.  If the glass is as tough as the guy below me says, then there's also a chance that merely shooting at it would cause the bullets to ricochet off of it.  But I'm not a hotel window expert!

It looks like most of the window is gone.  The jagged edges indicate that something shattered it from the inside.  I have no idea if the glass is actually bulletproof, or merely tough enough so that an angry couple can't throw a bag of golf clubs out of the window (what do you mean, oddly specific?).  I doubt the glass is Literally Unbreakable, since it would hinder the fire department's efforts, should they need to break a window.

Well, again, it depends on the bullet. Unless it's something like aluminum oxynitride glass, then high enough caliber rounds would shatter it.

[Res]

So the gunman was known at his local Starbucks for berating his girlfriend; if he treated her that way in public it's probably safe to assume it was probably worse at home, which if of no surprise since the one factor that links together more mass shooters than anything else (other than maleness) is domestic violence. 

 

[Tetragrammaton]

Look at this if you still think more gun = more safe

and

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/02/investing/las-vegas-shooting-gun-stocks-sturm-ruger-american-outdoor-brands/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/business/after-mass-shootings-some-on-wall-st-cash-in-on-gun-shares.html

>>> Actually, more mass shootings = more money

Edited October 4, 2017 by hanhnn

[Lushen]

56 minutes ago, hanhnn said:

>>> Actually, more mass shootings = more money

I think that's attributed to people expecting more gun regulations and buying more guns in the short term which will cause gun stock to go up. 

 

And yea, I'm very interested to hear what his girlfriend has to say.  I am still expecting a mental illness in here somewhere.  I am going to refrain from believing reports from people who claim to have known him for a while.  Not that I don't believe any of it, but I see people lie about this stuff all the time.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Lushen

[Sias]

27 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I think that's attributed to people expecting more gun regulations and buying more guns in the short term which will cause gun stock to go up. 

 

And yea, I'm very interested to hear what his girlfriend has to say.  I am still expecting a mental illness in here somewhere.  I am going to refrain from believing reports from people who claim to have known him for a while.  Not that I don't believe any of it, but I see people lie about this stuff all the time.

Of course the shooter wasn't right in the head - someone who's completely mentally healthy probably wouldn't even have the idea to relieve whatever aggressions he had by going on a shooting spree.

The problem people have with this narrative is a certain double-standard in the media: If the shooter had been a muslim, everyone would immediately tell us about Islamic terrorism and calling for things immigration bans and additional surveillance for all Muslims who are already in the US. But because the shooter is white, it's like: "Oh noooo, but he had some kind of mental illness, you can't generalize here! Also don't politicize the tragedy, the corpses haven't even gone cold!".

Essentially: Tragedy is somehow only allowed to be politicized when it furthers the goals of the right wing.

[eclipse]

1 hour ago, hanhnn said:

Look at this if you still think more gun = more safe

IMG_0790.JPG is a very compelling argument.

7 minutes ago, Sias said:

Of course the shooter wasn't right in the head - someone who's completely mentally healthy probably wouldn't even have the idea to relieve whatever aggressions he had by going on a shooting spree.

The problem people have with this narrative is a certain double-standard in the media: If the shooter had been a muslim, everyone would immediately tell us about Islamic terrorism and calling for things immigration bans and additional surveillance for all Muslims who are already in the US. But because the shooter is white, it's like: "Oh noooo, but he had some kind of mental illness, you can't generalize here! Also don't politicize the tragedy, the corpses haven't even gone cold!".

Essentially: Tragedy is somehow only allowed to be politicized when it furthers the goals of the right wing.

This isn't just a case of some guy snapping.  He needed time to plan this out.  Hotels tend to be busy during festivals.

Regardless, there was definitely something up with this dude, and I doubt anyone will argue that, politics aside.  A search of his house revealed more firearms.