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

[BengalHawk62]

(10-04-2017, 10:03 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Just watched a news conference with the sheriff, an FBI agent and others which gave tidbits of news.

This guy had an escape plan
He had scoped out and had rented another room overlooking another venue
Explosive materials in his vehicle
So much ammo and weapons, he had to have had help
200+ rounds fired down the hallway at security gaurd
Security gaurd who was shot continued to help police clearing rooms after he was shot and forced to get medical attention
A nurse at the concert was shot in her hand. The bullet went through her phone, through her hand, she sewed it up herself then went to help others at the hospital she worked at
Heard about police officers using themselves to draw fire so concert goers could get away
Girlfriend questioned and I assume is cooperating

Still no motive, no rhyme or reason to this yet.

My opinion is this guy had help, spent too long firing at concert goers to get away to wreck more havoc on Las Vegas. I believe he wanted to fire down onto the crowd for 10 minutes, leave, get in his car while police were busy and drive somewhere else and blow stuff up, maybe that play his other rented room was over looking.

I just don't know why.

This.  More replies like this is what is needed in here.  The pissing match that has overtaken the thread just got old. 







































Sorry to be a scrooge.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2017, 02:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't think it is.  I think all weapons should be registered. 

Then you disagree with the reason, that doesn't make you correct or them incorrect.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Speculation from investigators, I'm assuming but it is being reported.

Authorities are looking for an accomplice
Authorities are looking for an electronic footprint
May have been radicalized by Islamic Terrorists

Nothing concrete yet

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2017, 01:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I've made it clear that I understand that some of these vanity bans are pointless given the easy "hacks" around them and with things like 3D printing. Some of the things people suggest we ban don't actually make the gun any more deadly or can be gotten around or jerry rigged. You also can't ban guns.


One thing I did see online that made me wonder was questioning what system is in place to monitor people who buy a large amount of guns. There's a facebook post going around comparing it to how monitor people buying over the counter drugs in an effort to prevent them from making other drugs. Is this something we already do? Do you think it would be effective?

No.  How many murders, out of the around 10k per year, are committed by legal gun owners who own "large amounts" of guns?  If it's over 100 I'd be shocked.  Most years I'd be willing to bet it's under twenty.  Legal gun owners do not account for the vast majority of gun related crime, this is a basic fact.  This is also why gun related laws have almost no effect on gun related crimes, because they only effect people who follow the law.  

This also ignores the fact that the number of guns you own doesn't make the guns you own more lethal.  Does the soldier on the battlefield carry five guns on them?  No, they all carry one, some have a sidearm (officer and senior enlisted?)  You carry one gun and ammunition for said gun.  Also not accounted for by people who know nothing about guns, ammunition is heavy.  The infantry have a saying about this: "rounds equal pounds and pounds equal pain."  One reason for the original adoption of the 5.56mm round is that it weighs less.  Try lugging your shotgun out for a long range day, your ammo bag is going to be unpleasantly heavy.  The Vegas incident is about the only type of incident in which having multiple firearms increasing your ability to inflict lethal injury.  The only parallel type of incident I can instantly recall is Charles Whitman at UT.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-06-2017, 12:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No.  How many murders, out of the around 10k per year, are committed by legal gun owners who own "large amounts" of guns?  If it's over 100 I'd be shocked.  Most years I'd be willing to bet it's under twenty.  Legal gun owners do not account for the vast majority of gun related crime, this is a basic fact.  This is also why gun related laws have almost no effect on gun related crimes, because they only effect people who follow the law.  

This also ignores the fact that the number of guns you own doesn't make the guns you own more lethal.  Does the soldier on the battlefield carry five guns on them?  No, they all carry one, some have a sidearm (officer and senior enlisted?)  You carry one gun and ammunition for said gun.  Also not accounted for by people who know nothing about guns, ammunition is heavy.  The infantry have a saying about this: "rounds equal pounds and pounds equal pain."  One reason for the original adoption of the 5.56mm round is that it weighs less.  Try lugging your shotgun out for a long range day, your ammo bag is going to be unpleasantly heavy.  The Vegas incident is about the only type of incident in which having multiple firearms increasing your ability to inflict lethal injury.  The only parallel type of incident I can instantly recall is Charles Whitman at UT.

This is part of the problem. The CDC is effectively blocked from collecting and studying this type of data due to legislation which bans the funding of such research geared toward firearm safety and gun violence.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2017, 12:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This is part of the problem. The CDC is effectively blocked from collecting and studying this type of data due to legislation which bans the funding of such research geared toward firearm safety and gun violence.

Maybe, although the FBI collects the data, it would be easy for a privately funded study to request redacted data on the shooters so these kinds of questions could be explored.  Why hasn't someone done this?

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2017, 12:58 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This is part of the problem. The CDC is effectively blocked from collecting and studying this type of data due to legislation which bans the funding of such research geared toward firearm safety and gun violence.

Interestingly enough, that is an interpretation of the law that may or may not be accurate. But the effect is the same either way.

(10-06-2017, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe, although the FBI collects the data, it would be easy for a privately funded study to request redacted data on the shooters so these kinds of questions could be explored.  Why hasn't someone done this?

They have, but the private funding isn't there, either. Because of the lack of federal funding for the research and the political climate, private funding is much lower on this than anything else because donors get skittish about it. Why spend the money if the government doesn't take it seriously enough to invest in the research as well?

There is minimal data out there (because while the FBI collects some data, it isn't as much as one might think), and there is some research, but it is proportionally tiny when compared to funding for other research areas and the impact it could have on society.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2017, 01:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They have, but the private funding isn't there, either. Because of the lack of federal funding for the research and the political climate, private funding is much lower on this than anything else because donors get skittish about it. Why spend the money if the government doesn't take it seriously enough to invest in the research as well?

Well then, maybe Jimmy Kimble and the rest of the teeth gnashing assholes on twitter can pony up some of their cash and STFU?

Quote:There is minimal data out there (because while the FBI collects some data, it isn't as much as one might think), and there is some research, but it is proportionally tiny when compared to funding for other research areas and the impact it could have on society.

There are plenty, mega wealthy, people who call for tighter gun laws after events like this.  Why don't they do something concrete like fund such a study?  I suspect it's because they know they won't get an answer they want.

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2017, 01:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are plenty, mega wealthy, people who call for tighter gun laws after events like this.  Why don't they do something concrete like fund such a study?  I suspect it's because they know they won't get an answer they want.

What is interesting is we have enough research and data to have a good idea of what would work, but to be convincing we need it to get out there more and we need the studies to be replicated. That is where the issues lie. The studies also indicate that things like assault weapons bans and things like that won't do a damn thing. The research shows that universal background checks (to include private party transfers) would be the most effective means of reducing firearm violence, and that a waiting period of three days would be one of the best prevention methods for firearm suicides.

That's where current research has us. But what we really want is the ability to look at root causes. These surface level things will help, but not as much as addressing other systemic issues that lead to gun violence.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2017, 11:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'll start by saying I've been consistent in my support for the 2nd amendment.  I think enforcement of current laws is better than continually adding more laws.

I've also said I don't understand the need to modify a weapon so that it acts like an automatic.  I don't think 700 people are going to invade your house at once.  Nor do I think it would really protect anyone if the government did indeed "come for your guns".  If the Marines show up at the door most people will pee themselves and turn over their guns...the ones that think they can fight will be dead long before they get to their stash.

Nonetheless...

"common sense" laws might include things like not letting people deemed by the state as unable to handle their own affairs buy a gun.  Or trying to find all those loopholes where guns being sold without background checks.  Or anything that would LIMIT the amount of guns in the hands of people who should not have them either for legal or medical reasons.  nothing COMPLETELY end these tragedies.

Maybe those laws are there and not being enforced?  Maybe there is an active group opposing any and all gun laws in order to boost sales.

 

(10-05-2017, 12:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Read post #112 (as per the Solomon Georgio quote).  I'm pro-life, and I know exactly what the pro-life laws are designed to do.  Just like the common sense no smoking laws.  

More proof, if any was needed;

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-las-vegas-mass-shooting-bump-stock-20171005-story.html

Quote:The cleanest solution would be to ban semiautomatic guns entirely, but that’s not likely to happen given who controls the White House and Congress. This isn’t about deterring hunting, or self-defense, or sport shooting, or even fighting off tyranny. It’s about taking away the tools of mass murderers.

I.e. we don't want to take away your guns, because right now we know we can't.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2017, 01:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What is interesting is we have enough research and data to have a good idea of what would work, but to be convincing we need it to get out there more and we need the studies to be replicated. That is where the issues lie. The studies also indicate that things like assault weapons bans and things like that won't do a damn thing. The research shows that universal background checks (to include private party transfers) would be the most effective means of reducing firearm violence, and that a waiting period of three days would be one of the best prevention methods for firearm suicides.

I agree on all counts.  If you'll recall I stated many years ago on the old board that the only gun control law that has any effect on crime are background checks.  I have no issue with a waiting period for first time firearm type buyers either.  It does annoy the shit out of me that I have to wait ten days, in CA, to pick up a firearm when I already own several.  

Quote:That's where current research has us. But what we really want is the ability to look at root causes. These surface level things will help, but not as much as addressing other systemic issues that lead to gun violence.

That's actually easy too, street gangs.  There's reams of studies and evidence about street gangs, why they exist, why people join them, etc.  Most gun related violence is criminal on criminal.  Chicago's murder rate is almost solely fueled by this, outside of certain areas Chicago is a safe city.  This would require people having honest discussions about the issue though, and we can't have that.  Far better to take the easy way out and try and ban guns and watch the murder rate stay constant, or rise.

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2017, 01:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree on all counts.  If you'll recall I stated many years ago on the old board that the only gun control law that has any effect on crime are background checks.  I have no issue with a waiting period for first time firearm type buyers either.  It does annoy the shit out of me that I have to wait ten days, in CA, to pick up a firearm when I already own several.  

This is one reason I am in favor of the "permit to purchase" model. Creating a system where you visit your locality, every year, maybe two, and get a background check done and a permit that says you are cleared to buy a firearm. The person you are buying from calls into the locality, gives a number on the card to verify it is still valid, bam, quick and painless. If you have to plan ahead by obtaining the card, it provides a built in waiting period for a first-time buyer and prevents that spur of the moment purchase in anger or depression, and it can also reduce the time spent waiting for a background check at the time of purchase and make it easier for a private transfer situation. Putting it at the local level can allow for them to flag a permit if something happens legally, like they would a concealed permit currently.

(10-06-2017, 01:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's actually easy too, street gangs.  There's reams of studies and evidence about street gangs, why they exist, why people join them, etc.  Most gun related violence is criminal on criminal.  Chicago's murder rate is almost solely fueled by this, outside of certain areas Chicago is a safe city.  This would require people having honest discussions about the issue though, and we can't have that.  Far better to take the easy way out and try and ban guns and watch the murder rate stay constant, or rise.

No one wants to dig into the nitty gritty of the socioeconomic factors that cause these sorts of problems. Those are too difficult to fix and would offend the delicate sensibilities of a lot of conservative type folks.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2017, 01:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is one reason I am in favor of the "permit to purchase" model. Creating a system where you visit your locality, every year, maybe two, and get a background check done and a permit that says you are cleared to buy a firearm. The person you are buying from calls into the locality, gives a number on the card to verify it is still valid, bam, quick and painless. If you have to plan ahead by obtaining the card, it provides a built in waiting period for a first-time buyer and prevents that spur of the moment purchase in anger or depression, and it can also reduce the time spent waiting for a background check at the time of purchase and make it easier for a private transfer situation. Putting it at the local level can allow for them to flag a permit if something happens legally, like they would a concealed permit currently.

I'd be fine with this as well, to a point.  There's a lot of potential for abuse by anti-gun types in that model, like what is a valid reason to issue such a permit.

Quote:No one wants to dig into the nitty gritty of the socioeconomic factors that cause these sorts of problems. Those are too difficult to fix and would offend the delicate sensibilities of a lot of conservative type folks.

To be sure, but it wouldn't just be the right being squeamish.  Thomas Sowell has a lot of excellent writings on how the welfare state has destroyed the black family in America.  If you're not familiar with him, I'd recommend reading some of his works.  I also agree with him on the issue of legalizing drugs, although maybe not all of them as he has suggested.

[BmorePat87]

(10-06-2017, 12:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No.  How many murders, out of the around 10k per year, are committed by legal gun owners who own "large amounts" of guns?  If it's over 100 I'd be shocked.  Most years I'd be willing to bet it's under twenty.  Legal gun owners do not account for the vast majority of gun related crime, this is a basic fact.  This is also why gun related laws have almost no effect on gun related crimes, because they only effect people who follow the law.  

This also ignores the fact that the number of guns you own doesn't make the guns you own more lethal.  Does the soldier on the battlefield carry five guns on them?  No, they all carry one, some have a sidearm (officer and senior enlisted?)  You carry one gun and ammunition for said gun.  Also not accounted for by people who know nothing about guns, ammunition is heavy.  The infantry have a saying about this: "rounds equal pounds and pounds equal pain."  One reason for the original adoption of the 5.56mm round is that it weighs less.  Try lugging your shotgun out for a long range day, your ammo bag is going to be unpleasantly heavy.  The Vegas incident is about the only type of incident in which having multiple firearms increasing your ability to inflict lethal injury.  The only parallel type of incident I can instantly recall is Charles Whitman at UT.

One of the things I ask when one of these shootings occur is "would gun laws have prevented this?"

Many times the answer is no, but the fact that this occurred resonated more with us than a poor person of color getting killed, so we use this as the catalyst for requesting changes. I guess that's why I always fall back on, let's focus on the mental health component. 

Though I will say that we shouldn't depend on wealthy donors to fund research on the pathology of gun violence. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2017, 02:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd be fine with this as well, to a point.  There's a lot of potential for abuse by anti-gun types in that model, like what is a valid reason to issue such a permit.

Ah, well, in the model which I am thinking there is not a reason needed. It is a "shall issue" situation based upon clearing the background check. If we are going to stick with the current interpretation of the 2nd, then that is the only viable option.

(10-06-2017, 02:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To be sure, but it wouldn't just be the right being squeamish.  Thomas Sowell has a lot of excellent writings on how the welfare state has destroyed the black family in America.  If you're not familiar with him, I'd recommend reading some of his works.  I also agree with him on the issue of legalizing drugs, although maybe not all of them as he has suggested.

I'm familiar with Sowell, and while his work is compelling it may be subject to some of the typical flaws we see in arguments made from partisan researchers. Finding causal relationships when the evidence is only correlative, overgeneralizations, etc. I will say that our current welfare system is flawed, but what would help will still require domestic spending on social programs and that is something conservatives (and our current flock of neo-liberal Democrats) won't take too kindly to. I tell people all the time that I am a New Deal type of Democrat, but FDR and his breed weren't perfect, and how the programs affected minorities and women is a primary example of that. We need to reform welfare to help these issues that are the root of gang violence and other issues, but it's going to cost us.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Another update I heard

Police are getting frustrated since they are having a hard time finding anything out about this guy. 

I think I heard something like "Ghost", not from officials but from a reporter.

The NBC report that someone entered the room while this guy was out was false. Don't blame NBC for reporting this, reporters are as much in the dark and will follow any lead.

Heard something along the lines about how we will learn everything about this guy but may never find a motive.

Blame thrown around all over the place
Radicalized
Depression
Brain tumor
Fantasy
Bloodlust
Hollywood
Video games
NRA
Guns
Laws
Republican
Democrat
Mental illness
People who own guns

Seriously, who's not to blame? I guess everybody and everything is to blame besides the guy who committed the murders and attempted murders.

[JustWinBaby]

Guns aren't the problem. Bullets are the problem. I'm only being partially facetious :)


But I really don't get why some of these weapons aren't limited to gun clubs (where they would be highly regulated). How much damage could this guy have done at 400 yards with a handgun?

[Bengalbug]

Originally the shooter stopped firing bc of a hotel guard that came to the door. Now, they are saying the guard was shot at 9:59 pm, 6 min before he opened fire on concert goers. So it took about 16-17 min for the first police officers to get to the room. 6 minutes is forever, so in theory the whole thing could have been stoppped. But then it took 11 additional minutes once it started?

Also, he had bullet proof vests, and an apparent "escape plan" so why go through all this and commit suicide?

Something doesn't add up, and it's getting weirder and weirder by the day.

[Hoofhearted]

(10-11-2017, 09:39 AM)Bengalbug Wrote: Originally the shooter stopped firing bc of a hotel guard that came to the door. Now, they are saying the guard was shot at 9:59 pm, 6 min before he opened fire on concert goers.  So it took about 16-17 min for the first police officers to get to the room.  6 minutes is forever, so in theory the whole thing could have been stoppped.  But then it took 11 additional minutes once it started?

Also, he had bullet proof vests, and an apparent "escape plan" so why go through all this and commit suicide?

Something doesn't add up, and it's getting weirder and weirder by the day.

They had to assemble a tactical team and go over their plan. When I was in the SRT team in the Navy, it took us about right around 7-10 minutes to get into full combat gear, git a sit-rep, and develop a plan...and that's WITH us being on location. Not to mention he tried to bolt the entrance doors, possibly set booby-traps (gotta check that)... Lot's of obstacles to go over in that amount of time

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Ok, this whole thing is just getting stupid now.

Now MGM is saying that this guy shot at the gaurd and the crowd at the same time.
There is still no motive.
Victims are suing the promoters of the festival, the hotel and the guy who did the shooting, which is understandable to me although I wouldn't hold the festival responsible.
Investigators still don't know much about this guy except that he had money, owned property, gambled and had a girlfriend. 
Oh, we did find out he shot incendiary rounds at those jet fuel tanks.


I don't know about you but this whole thing just doesn't add up.