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

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2017, 06:00 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Too late. Hillary and few others have already come out slamming the NRA and a gun bill in Congress. And no one knows exactly how he got the auto weapons yet. As much as I hate Trump, I think I hate that **** even more.

Ugh, I'll follow my own statement and resist the urge to respond.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-02-2017, 04:52 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Maybe its just me, but im honestly shocked that this kind of stuff doesnt happen more often. Its so easy for someone to run up into a crowd with some kind of weapon and kill a bunch of people.

Prayers and thoughts to those affected in Vegas. Absolutely horrible.

I'm not. The common average human being is a relatively good person insofar that if you put a gun in a person's hand and put them in front of a helpless wounded person with absolutely no witnesses, the vast vast overwhelming majority would help the wounded person. At least that's what I believe.

Now as you get less extreme and change it to things like dropped money, the ratio of good-to-bad would be a lot more equal, but I do believe that overall they are mostly good.

I mean, we sell bleach and ammonia by the gallons to anyone in a supermarket. Pretty much everyone has some in their house, and everyone knows it's dangerous if they got mixed together, yet I have never heard of anyone combining them and using them in an attack.

(10-02-2017, 05:04 PM)Benton Wrote: I was talking to a co-worker who was saying we should just outlaw anything that's not a handgun, but along the same lines, if you wanted to injure or harm lots of people, you could make a portable bomb in a black suitcase, roll it into public area (hotel, mall, parking lot of tailgaters) and have it go off. Or a Timothy McVeigh-esque van parked near somewhere populated.

And have to bow hunt for all that delicious venison? Boo.

But you're right about the bomb. There will always be other methods. Which is a bummer, but there's simply no realistic way of stopping all of them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Damn shame what happened in Vegas, though. I hope all the wounded recover.

I saw articles where tons of people are lined up to donate blood for the victims.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2017, 06:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm not. The common average human being is a relatively good person insofar that if you put a gun in a person's hand and put them in front of a helpless wounded person with absolutely no witnesses, the vast vast overwhelming majority would help the wounded person. At least that's what I believe.

Now as you get less extreme and change it to things like dropped money, the ratio of good-to-bad would be a lot more equal, but I do believe that overall they are mostly good.

I mean, we sell bleach and ammonia by the gallons to anyone in a supermarket. Pretty much everyone has some in their house, and everyone knows it's dangerous if they got mixed together, yet I have never heard of anyone combining them and using them in an attack.

Exactly.  Studies have shown that, in war, a significant percentage of soldiers can't bring themselves to fire accurately at the enemy.

[Bengalzona]

(10-02-2017, 04:52 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Maybe its just me, but im honestly shocked that this kind of stuff doesnt happen more often. Its so easy for someone to run up into a crowd with some kind of weapon and kill a bunch of people.

Prayers and thoughts to those affected in Vegas. Absolutely horrible.

(10-02-2017, 04:54 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Exactly. Obtain and modify weapons - easy enough. Book a hotel room requesting a concert facing room - even easier. Cary the guns up to your room in a black duffel bag or ammo case - easy. 

I could literally walk into a hotel anywhere in the US with a black case filled with ammo and guns and no one would suspect a thing. They would just think its normal luggage. 

(10-02-2017, 05:01 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Exactly. Tailgating at at football game.  Or during a game.  Set up shop across the street and fire into the crowd.  It's ***** scary.

Don't forget one of the main ingredients in these situations: a killer willing to commit suicide. Those are pretty rare.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

This shooting makes absolutely no sense.
This guy was well off money wise, had no political views, had no religious views, liked to gamble, liked country music, was a hunter, called his mother to talk with her regularly, had no mental issue that we know of, had no run ins with the police. This guys family is dumbfounded, don't know what is going on. From one interview of this guys brother, he was genuine when he was speaking.


From reports I've heard and read, he had at least 10 rifles in his room with plenty of rounds of ammunition. There's a report of a fully automatic AK-47 that he had to convert before. He had video survalence set up to see police as they got closer to his hotel room. He had to have been planning this for a while. There is no way he got a hotel room facing the venue for this concert the day the concert started, on Thursday. He had to book the room at least a month or two before the concert. This was not a spur of the moment thing.


There is no motive that we know of unless the investigators are holding it back.


The conspiracy theorist in me is going nuts right now. This sounds like something made for the movies.


It just makes no sense.

[Benton]

(10-02-2017, 06:00 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Too late. Hillary and few others have already come out slamming the NRA and a gun bill in Congress. And no one knows exactly how he got the auto weapons yet. As much as I hate Trump, I think I hate that **** even more.

(10-02-2017, 06:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, I'll follow my own statement and resist the urge to respond.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-clinton-blasts-nra-fellow-dems-renew-call-for-gun-control-after-attack.html

Quote:“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get,” she tweeted...

Timing is bad, but can't say I disagree with the sentiment. As much as I'm a proponent of the Second, I also don't see any reason why a silencer should be legal. Fox calling her ignorant doesn't help the issue, especially when they use Loesch's tweet trying to describe silenced weapons as quiet as jackhammers. This didn't happen in the middle of a forest where the loudest thing is a bird chirp (and where a jackhammer would be noticeable). It was a music concert in a busy city, most likely well above 125-140 decibels where a lot of silenced weapons would fall. 

But we're back to rhetoric on both sides. Yay!

[JustWinBaby]

(10-02-2017, 06:35 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: This shooting makes absolutely no sense.

I think sometimes, after the fact, we learn the family missed/ignored warning signs....and often that people were deeply disturbed and worked really hard to hide it from those closest to them.

I'm not sure how much success/money/happiness has to do with your typical middle-aged white male that commits 90% of these events.  Honestly, I imagine some day they're going to find a gene that only a small % of white males has that causes 1 in 100 to go batshit insane.

[Bengalzona]

(10-02-2017, 06:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I mean, we sell bleach and ammonia by the gallons to anyone in a supermarket. Pretty much everyone has some in their house, and everyone knows it's dangerous if they got mixed together, yet I have never heard of anyone combining them and using them in an attack.

The pathology between a shooter, a bomber and someone who poisons with gas are pretty different.

A guy who walks into a place to shoot it up with auto or semi-auto weapons knows he is going to have to face the law. He'll either be killed or arrested. Snipers have a different mentally, but they are very rare.

A bomber usually thinks they can get away, unless it is a suicide bomber. But suicide bombers are very rare and the person who makes the bomb is rarely the one willing to sacrifice their life detonating it.

Gas attacks are extremely rare to begin with because you have to know a few things to optimize the attack and because it is difficult to control and direct gas to a target. I've never heard of someone attacking with gas who doesn't try to protect themselves (i.e. a suicide gasser).

What is becoming disturbingly more common in some parts of the world are acid attacks. People put the acid in plastic spray bottles and then spray people in the face. These are rarely fatal, but cause pain, blindness and permanent disfigurement.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2017, 06:37 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-clinton-blasts-nra-fellow-dems-renew-call-for-gun-control-after-attack.html


Timing is bad, but can't say I disagree with the sentiment. As much as I'm a proponent of the Second, I also don't see any reason why a silencer should be legal. Fox calling her ignorant doesn't help the issue, especially when they use Loesch's tweet trying to describe silenced weapons as quiet as jackhammers. This didn't happen in the middle of a forest where the loudest thing is a bird chirp (and where a jackhammer would be noticeable). It was a music concert in a busy city, most likely well above 125-140 decibels where a lot of silenced weapons would fall. 

But we're back to rhetoric on both sides. Yay!

I typed up a long and detailed post about suppressors and then couldn't post it.  Maybe I'll revisit the topic another day.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-02-2017, 06:37 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-clinton-blasts-nra-fellow-dems-renew-call-for-gun-control-after-attack.html


Timing is bad, but can't say I disagree with the sentiment. As much as I'm a proponent of the Second, I also don't see any reason why a silencer should be legal. Fox calling her ignorant doesn't help the issue, especially when they use Loesch's tweet trying to describe silenced weapons as quiet as jackhammers. This didn't happen in the middle of a forest where the loudest thing is a bird chirp (and where a jackhammer would be noticeable). It was a music concert in a busy city, most likely well above 125-140 decibels where a lot of silenced weapons would fall. 

But we're back to rhetoric on both sides. Yay!

I'll preface this with my agreement that I don't really see a need for silencers either.

That said, I agree that the idea that it would have made the crowd unaware they were being shot at is some shit people watching way too many movies would say.

A silencer on a 5.56 rifle lowers the noise from like 160 decibels to 130.

To put that in some context, the Chiefs got back the loudest crowd record by producing 142 decibels. That's 76,000 people screaming with the intent on retaking the loudest stadium record back from the Seahawks. So I actually doubt the open air concert would have been loud enough to drown out the fire even with a silencer. Even with a silencer, the gun is still shooting bullets that are breaking the sound barrier. Unless he used sub-sonic rounds, in which case the gun would likely not have enough gas pressure left to cycle a fully automatic weapon.

That said, I still see no need for anyone to have one.

But yeah, "huzzah" rhetoric.

(10-02-2017, 06:45 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The pathology between a shooter, a bomber and someone who poisons with gas are pretty different.

A guy who walks into a place to shoot it up with auto or semi-auto weapons knows he is going to have to face the law. He'll either be killed or arrested. Snipers have a different mentally, but they are very rare.

A bomber usually thinks they can get away, unless it is a suicide bomber. But suicide bombers are very rare and the person who makes the bomb is rarely the one willing to sacrifice their life detonating it.

Gas attacks are extremely rare to begin with because you have to know a few things to optimize the attack and because it is difficult to control and direct gas to a target. I've never heard of someone attacking with gas who doesn't try to protect themselves (i.e. a suicide gasser).

What is becoming disturbingly more common in some parts of the world are acid attacks. People put the acid in plastic spray bottles and then spray people in the face. These are rarely fatal, but cause pain, blindness and permanent disfigurement.

Yeah, I have no idea where that whole acid thing suddenly became popular from, but I keep hearing about it happening recently. It's some crazy shit, who even thought of that?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2017, 07:15 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah, I have no idea where that whole acid thing suddenly became popular from, but I keep hearing about it happening recently. It's some crazy shit, who even thought of that?

It's big in the middle east, it's used against women who are considered impure or too Western, or just to punish them.  It made its way to the UK as they have a sizable Pakistani population, as well as people from other Middle Eastern countries.  Because weapons, even knives, are heavily regulated in the UK acid, like drain cleaner, has become a popular way to attack and disfigure enemy gang members or just as a weapon to use during the commission of other crimes.  Like anything, it catches on and then it becomes commonplace.

[RoyleRedlegs]

Don't forget the seeming increase in vehicle attacks.

[Benton]

(10-02-2017, 07:15 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'll preface this with my agreement that I don't really see a need for silencers either.

That said, I agree that the idea that it would have made the crowd unaware they were being shot at is some shit people watching way too many movies would say.

A silencer on a 5.56 rifle lowers the noise from like 160 decibels to 130.

To put that in some context, the Chiefs got back the loudest crowd record by producing 142 decibels. That's 76,000 people screaming with the intent on retaking the loudest stadium record back from the Seahawks. So I actually doubt the open air concert would have been loud enough to drown out the fire even with a silencer. Even with a silencer, the gun is still shooting bullets that are breaking the sound barrier. Unless he used sub-sonic rounds, in which case the gun would likely not have enough gas pressure left to cycle a fully automatic weapon.

That said, I still see no need for anyone to have one.

But yeah, "huzzah" rhetoric.




Yeah, I have no idea where that whole acid thing suddenly became popular from, but I keep hearing about it happening recently. It's some crazy shit, who even thought of that?

The problem there is distance. 

Concert noise is around 120 db. If someone was shooting in the middle of the concert at 130 or 160 db, yeah, it's louder. If they're firing from 100 yards away, the math here is way above me, but it's not as loud. In this instance, the guy was around 300 yards away. How much drop off in db's there was, no idea. People there reported hearing firecrackers. I would assume dropping it 20-30 db's, they might not have heard much of anything.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-02-2017, 07:38 PM)Benton Wrote: The problem there is distance. 

Concert noise is around 120 db. If someone was shooting in the middle of the concert at 130 or 160 db, yeah, it's louder. If they're firing from 100 yards away, the math here is way above me, but it's not as loud. In this instance, the guy was around 300 yards away. How much drop off in db's there was, no idea. People there reported hearing firecrackers. I would assume dropping it 20-30 db's, they might not have heard much of anything.

Perhaps so. I will admit the math for the noise/distance is way above me as well.

I just knew that silencer don't work like they do in movies. "Silencers" make guns silent about as much as "bulletproof" vests are actually bulletproof. But nobody wants to buy a "makes your gun slightly quiet-er" or a "may or may not stop a bullet-vest", I guess.

[JustWinBaby]

My theory is the time it takes your average person to distinguish between gun fire and fireworks is probably as long (if not longer) than it takes to realize people have been hit by bullets. So I'm not sure a silencer really matters.

I'm not making an argument for or against silencers. I think they are unnecessary, but I also think it's a non-issue.

And the guy was some 400 yards away and 300+ feet up. Hearing "fireworks" is probably not something that would surprise or seem odd to a visitor in Vegas.

[WeezyBengal]

(10-02-2017, 06:35 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: This shooting makes absolutely no sense.
This guy was well off money wise, had no political views, had no religious views, liked to gamble, liked country music, was a hunter, called his mother to talk with her regularly, had no mental issue that we know of, had no run ins with the police. This guys family is dumbfounded, don't know what is going on. From one interview of this guys brother, he was genuine when he was speaking.


From reports I've heard and read, he had at least 10 rifles in his room with plenty of rounds of ammunition. There's a report of a fully automatic AK-47 that he had to convert before. He had video survalence set up to see police as they got closer to his hotel room. He had to have been planning this for a while. There is no way he got a hotel room facing the venue for this concert the day the concert started, on Thursday. He had to book the room at least a month or two before the concert. This was not a spur of the moment thing.


There is no motive that we know of unless the investigators are holding it back.


The conspiracy theorist in me is going nuts right now. This sounds like something made for the movies.


It just makes no sense.

I dont think anyone is saying that he didnt plan it out well in advance, we are just saying its a relatively easy thing to do. He planned it all out, yes, but it will still a pretty easy plan to execute. 

[WeezyBengal]

(10-02-2017, 06:37 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-clinton-blasts-nra-fellow-dems-renew-call-for-gun-control-after-attack.html


Timing is bad, but can't say I disagree with the sentiment. As much as I'm a proponent of the Second, I also don't see any reason why a silencer should be legal. Fox calling her ignorant doesn't help the issue, especially when they use Loesch's tweet trying to describe silenced weapons as quiet as jackhammers. This didn't happen in the middle of a forest where the loudest thing is a bird chirp (and where a jackhammer would be noticeable). It was a music concert in a busy city, most likely well above 125-140 decibels where a lot of silenced weapons would fall. 

But we're back to rhetoric on both sides. Yay!

I agree with this. Why on earth does one need to have a silencer on their weapon? 

Im for some sort of gun control. I dont want to ban guns completely, but im open for banning all guns except hand guns. I still think its important to give people the option to protect themselves and their property while limiting the amount of damage some sort of psychopath can cause if he decides to go ballistic. 

Whats lost in the whole gun debate though is the black market. I was reading Freakonomics earlier this year and they had some compelling points about gun control. They claimed the data shower that in most shootings the weapons used by the shooters are obtained on the black market. They also showed that there isn't a direct correlation between guns per capita and gun violence. I think they used Switzerland as an example. They had the most guns per capita but they have some of the lowest gun violence in the entire world. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-03-2017, 10:50 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: I agree with this. Why on earth does one need to have a silencer on their weapon? 

Im for some sort of gun control. I dont want to ban guns completely, but im open for banning all guns except hand guns. I still think its important to give people the option to protect themselves and their property while limiting the amount of damage some sort of psychopath can cause if he decides to go ballistic. 

Whats lost in the whole gun debate though is the black market. I was reading Freakonomics earlier this year and they had some compelling points about gun control. They claimed the data shower that in most shootings the weapons used by the shooters are obtained on the black market. They also showed that there isn't a direct correlation between guns per capita and gun violence. I think they used Switzerland as an example. They had the most guns per capita but they have some of the lowest gun violence in the entire world. 

It wasn't that long ago that handguns were what was being demanded to be banned.  

[WeezyBengal]

(10-03-2017, 10:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It wasn't that long ago that handguns were what was being demanded to be banned.  

Yeah I actually take back that part of my post. I need to think on that one a little more. There are a lot of technicalities that come with the banning or outlawing of weapons. 

Hand guns are more discrete. If you do ban hand guns, do you ban rifles that are helpful with hunting? Etc. 

Like I said, I need to think on that one a little more. 

[WeezyBengal]

What do you guys think about this: