Deadliest Mass Shooting in US History: 50 dead in Las Vegas

[Yojimbo]

(10-19-2017, 05:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: How does, for instance, the fact that he had cameras setup to monitor the hallway advance their theory?  It doesn't, but when I see people throwing in useless facts as evidence I get the feeling they are straining credibility.

I would assume he put up cameras so that he would know if anybody (the security guard he shot) was trying to stop his plan of shooting at the concert goers.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-19-2017, 08:08 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I would assume he put up cameras so that he would know if anybody (the security guard he shot) was trying to stop his plan of shooting at the concert goers.

Yeah but they mentioned it as some sort of proof of their theory. Somehow meticulous planning bolsters their argument. You know what group of people are known for meticulous planning? Psychopaths. That never occurred to them?

[Yojimbo]

(10-19-2017, 08:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah but they mentioned it as some sort of proof of their theory. Somehow meticulous planning bolsters their argument. You know what group of people are known for meticulous planning? Psychopaths. That never occurred to them?

I’m sure it did, since they are a room full of people with IQ’s over 160 and get paid six figures to just study and think about things.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2017, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pretty much this. There is limited research that has been done, but there is a good idea on things that could help. No one wants to hear it, though, because continuing to use it for politics is more valuable.

I've already pointed out one course of action that has proven results, incarcerate violent criminals for longer periods of time.  For some reason the Dems don't dig this solution.  But, yes, the "money" isn't in the cure, it's in the "treatment".

(10-19-2017, 10:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Not conducting research because idiots will ignore it for political reasons is a poor excuse to not conduct research. Which is more likely to effect change for the better; research or no research?

I think we both agree on this, however, you contradict your own argument, made earlier, that no one would listen anyways.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-19-2017, 08:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Psychopaths. That never occurred to them?

Yeah, I really don't get why maybe this guy just had a psychopathic break isn't enough for people.

Absolutely, investigate exhaustively...but why should the fact he wasn't "self-radicalized [insert cause]" be more unsettling?  I assume anyone who commits mass murder, most murder period, has problems.  Whether or not some attach to radical ideology is pretty secondary, IMO.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-19-2017, 10:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've already pointed out one course of action that has proven results, incarcerate violent criminals for longer periods of time.  For some reason the Dems don't dig this solution.  But, yes, the "money" isn't in the cure, it's in the "treatment".


I think we both agree on this, however, you contradict your own argument, made earlier, that no one would listen anyways.

I don't think anyone would listen now. But, maybe if we had reasearch from credible source during the past 20 years it would be too much for even if these idiots to ignore. Twenty years ago no God-fearing, Reagan-lovin', red, white, and blue blooded, conservative American would think to ignore Russian espionage. And look at 'em now. So who knows what the research might change in the future. But, I do know what the lack of reasearch will change; nothing.