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

[Yojimbo]

I don’t know anything about this website, but they have an interesting theory given to them by a think tank in the UK. If you don’t want to click the link, it basically states that the amount of ammo and guns, modifications to increase fire rate, crowd target and location on the 32nd floor is the message the guy left behind. He basically wanted to horrify the American public with how easy it is to acquire and use so much firepower.

http://thehayride.com/2017/10/think-mark-steyns-correspondent-las-vegas-massacre-figured/

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(10-17-2017, 06:30 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I don’t know anything about this website, but they have an interesting theory given to them by a think tank in the UK. If you don’t want to click the link, it basically states that the amount of ammo and guns, modifications to increase fire rate, crowd target and location on the 32nd floor is the message the guy left behind. He basically wanted to horrify the American public with how easy it is to acquire and use so much firepower.

http://thehayride.com/2017/10/think-mark-steyns-correspondent-las-vegas-massacre-figured/

I didn't read the link but the explanation you give about how the article says something about this guy wanting to show how easy it is to get firepower just reeks of crazy bias.

As for the message left behind, it has been determined to be calculations on how to maximize damage plus wind speed, elevation, velocity and things like that.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-06-2017, 01:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well then, maybe Jimmy Kimble and the rest of the teeth gnashing assholes on twitter can pony up some of their cash and STFU?


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.

Would you believe a study which indicated gun control laws would decrease gun violence if it was funded by a wealthy gun control nut?

[Yojimbo]

(10-17-2017, 07:17 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I didn't read the link but the explanation you give about how the article says something about this guy wanting to show how easy it is to get firepower just reeks of crazy bias.

As for the message left behind, it has been determined to be calculations on how to maximize damage plus wind speed, elevation, velocity and things like that.

So, you think a person, that obviously had a screw loose, wouldn’t think filling a hotel room full of unused weapons and mods then killing a bunch of people wouldn’t have the affect of getting people to demand more gun control laws?

Not message as in note left behind, message as in the point he was trying to make, his motive.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-17-2017, 07:19 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Would you believe a study which indicated gun control laws would decrease gun violence if it was funded by a wealthy gun control nut?

Whomever funded it, my acceptance of the findings would be solely on the organization conducting the study and the methodology.  I get your point though, although I could make the same point for many regarding the federal government depending on the party currently in power.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(10-17-2017, 10:09 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: So, you think a person, that obviously had a screw loose, wouldn’t think filling a hotel room full of unused weapons and mods then killing a bunch of people wouldn’t have the affect of getting people to demand more gun control laws?

Not message as in note left behind, message as in the point he was trying to make, his motive.

The only reason this guy did this was because he wanted to.

If he had any agenda, we would have know about from the jump. His only agenda was to kill as many people as he could and he just felt like it. 

Personally, I also think he murdered and injured people because he wanted to be the guy who murdered and injured the most...to set the bar.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-17-2017, 11:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Whomever funded it, my acceptance of the findings would be solely on the organization conducting the study and the methodology.  I get your point though, although I could make the same point for many regarding the federal government depending on the party currently in power.

I believe you. But, the people acting upon the study would be legislators; Republicans and Democrats. Do you believe they would do the same? Hell, they don't even accept what the CBO says so I doubt any legitimate research from what should be credible, nonpartisan sources such as the CDC, NIH, or HHS would make much of a difference in the partisanship that is already a problem.

[GMDino]

(10-18-2017, 12:12 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The only reason this guy did this was because he wanted to.

If he had any agenda, we would have know about from the jump. His only agenda was to kill as many people as he could and he just felt like it. 

Personally, I also think he murdered and injured people because he wanted to be the guy who murdered and injured the most...to set the bar.

This might be the simplest and most logical reason.

Evil people doing evil things.

Given how calculated he was it might even turn out he's killed before...but not on this scale.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-17-2017, 06:30 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: I don’t know anything about this website, but they have an interesting theory given to them by a think tank in the UK. If you don’t want to click the link, it basically states that the amount of ammo and guns, modifications to increase fire rate, crowd target and location on the 32nd floor is the message the guy left behind. He basically wanted to horrify the American public with how easy it is to acquire and use so much firepower.

http://thehayride.com/2017/10/think-mark-steyns-correspondent-las-vegas-massacre-figured/

Is there anything in his history that has him favoring stricter gun laws?  If not, that was a pretty big first step.

[Yojimbo]

(10-18-2017, 11:45 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Is there anything in his history that has him favoring stricter gun laws?  If not, that was a pretty big first step.

That’s kind of the problem. There’s nothing in his history to suggest any motive. The think tank tried determining the motive from the only thing they had to work with, which was evidence at the crime scene.

Here’s the whole theory, beware it’s a long read:

Quote:Today we turned our collective minds to the the shooting in Las Vegas as a test case since the event is extraordinary in that thus far no one appears to have identified a cause behind the carnage. This is our reasoning:

The fact pattern in this event is striking for not fitting any known profile. In particular:

The gentleman concerned had no known political or religious affiliations.

The level of premeditation is unusual and crystal clear from his mass buying of guns and the cautious systematic smuggling operation to ferry them to his room together with the illegal modifications and the position of the room he chose and occupied for several days beforehand.

This denotes a deeply serious commitment to his act. And one which leaves no doubt that act was conceived to generate the maximum possible publicity.

The question then is: ‘publicity’ for what exactly?

And the answer would appear to be ‘nothing that can be identified’.

But consider the moral behind the following joke (I assure you it has a point beyond humour):

A known smuggler crosses the border every day at a particular crossing. Every day his suitcase is searched and nothing is found. After 20 years he crosses for a last time and confides to the policeman who has been searching him all that while that he is retiring.

The policeman asks him ‘Ok – since you’re clean today and will never cross the border again tell me this – you’ve been smuggling – right?’

The man says ‘Right.’.The policeman says ‘Smuggling what?’

The man says ‘Suitcases.’

Hold that ‘hiding in plain sight’ concept as we return to the shooting. This man amassed (rough figures) 24 guns in the hotel and another 19 at his home – 42 guns in total. He spent some $100,000 on buying them. The guns at his home are one thing but he also spent days filling his hotel room with more weapons and ammunition than he could ever conceivably use along with an array of advanced modifications and accessories.

Everything brand new. And very expensive. And mostly entirely redundant. Representing in effect an enormous waste of money and time and risk.

Except that is in the realm of generating massive publicity. Guaranteed massive publicity.

Yet despite having gone to enormous lengths to achieve that goal we are asked to believe this same man never troubled – never took the most elementary steps – to speak to that publicity. Indeed left behind no trace of anything that might demonstrate indicate or even hint at his motive or motives.

That would appear to make very little sense.

We would argue the opposite – that it makes absolute sense.

Because this gentleman did not simply fail to leave behind a motive; He took substantial trouble to ensure that no motive could be found – or attributed to him. All of which can lead us to only one conclusion:

It has been said that ‘the medium is the message’.

In this case that is the literal truth. There is only one plausible motive for what this man did. And here it is:

This man wished to telegraph to America in graphic form the hard irrefutable evidence that guns and gun ownership and the ease of gun purchase in America are an evil and must be controlled. On that hypothesis everything now makes sense. And it must be said his concept has a certain demented genius.

Because even if the public learns and believes that his motive was all about ‘guns’ the horror of the act itself – an act to protest such acts – is in some ways even worse for being plain evidence that there is no limit to the insanity to which guns can be put.

Here then is our argument:

1. His long planned and carefully executed purchase of a virtual armoury of unprecedented scope and scale guaranteed that very armoury would inevitably become the central focus of the media.

2. His assiduous removal of evidence of any tangible motive also removed the possibility that the news cycle might move on from guns – simply the means of the killing – to considering the more interesting issues of motive and message – be it political or economic or environmental or anything else.

3. This man was a highly methodical and systematic thinker. Nothing in the scenario that unfolded was left to chance – even down to positioning cameras to surveil the corridor. It is therefore inconceivable that this was all done in this precise manner for no reason. That there is no message.

But of course there is indeed a message. It only happens to be implicit instead of explicit. That message is ‘guns’. And that message is being trawled over every minute of every day on every network in America. Given the nature of the man and the facts this is not a chance outcome. On the contrary given the known facts it is indeed the only possible outcome. An outcome so obvious that anyone given the full story beforehand would have predicted as inevitable.

4. The people he chose to kill supports the hypothesis on ‘guns’. Country and Western fans are virtually guaranteed to own or at least to defend the ownership of guns. By a certain logic this provides the gunman with two sound moral positions (because it is not beyond possibility he has a conscience):

First – While killing a very large number of innocent people is an horrendous crime it is nonetheless entirely justifiable – in moral terms – if it causes a restriction on guns. Because such a restriction would – it is widely held – save innumerable lives in the long run. There is no evidence for this but it is still a widely and passionately held belief.

Second – Since the people he is shooting are actively or passively defenders of guns and an obstacle to gun control they are by definition responsible in part for all the people who have been and continue to be killed by guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-18-2017, 12:47 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I believe you. But, the people acting upon the study would be legislators; Republicans and Democrats. Do you believe they would do the same?  Hell, they don't even accept what the CBO says so I doubt any legitimate research from what should be credible, nonpartisan sources such as the CDC, NIH, or HHS would make much of a difference in the partisanship that is already a problem.

I completely agree.  What you have done, though, is make an excellent argument for the uselessness of the CDC conducting similar studies, for the same reasons.  Neither side is interested in a genuine debate or a potential answer.  Guns, like abortion, is a hot button issue both sides can gin up to get their voters to the polls.

[Belsnickel]

(10-18-2017, 10:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree.  What you have done, though, is make an excellent argument for the uselessness of the CDC conducting similar studies, for the same reasons.  Neither side is interested in a genuine debate or a potential answer.  Guns, like abortion, is a hot button issue both sides can gin up to get their voters to the polls.

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.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-18-2017, 10:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree.  What you have done, though, is make an excellent argument for the uselessness of the CDC conducting similar studies, for the same reasons.  Neither side is interested in a genuine debate or a potential answer.  Guns, like abortion, is a hot button issue both sides can gin up to get their voters to the polls.

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?

[GMDino]

(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?

Almost as bad as not conducting research because a lobbyist group pays a lot of money to keep the research about their product and their usage from being done at all.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-18-2017, 11:54 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: That’s kind of the problem. There’s nothing in his history to suggest any motive. The think tank tried determining the motive from the only thing they had to work with, which was evidence at the crime scene.

Here’s the whole theory, beware it’s a long read:

That's just made up as far as I'm concerned.  They came up with some "genius" theory, and tried (not very successfully) to fit the evidence in.  Somehow him having no previous religious or political views means those aren't the reason, but they skip the part where he had no overt views on gun laws.  

[Yojimbo]

(10-19-2017, 11:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That's just made up as far as I'm concerned.  They came up with some "genius" theory, and tried (not very successfully) to fit the evidence in.  Somehow him having no previous religious or political views means those aren't the reason, but they skip the part where he had no overt views on gun laws.  

He had no known or published views on politics/religion, doesn’t mean he didn’t have them. By definition a theory is something that is just made up until there’s evidence to support it.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-19-2017, 04:42 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: He had no known or published views on politics/religion, doesn’t mean he didn’t have them. By definition a theory is something that is just made up until there’s evidence to support it.

No they ruled out politics and religion because he had no known history, but didn't do the same with gun laws.  

I can make a theory that he wanted to show that Americans should have a right to RPGs in case someone high up in a hotel room starts blasting away.  

[*jason*]

(10-19-2017, 05:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No they ruled out politics and religion because he had no known history, but didn't do the same with gun laws.  

I can make a theory that he wanted to show that Americans should have a right to RPGs in case someone high up in a hotel room starts blasting away.  

I think he just hated pop country music... I know I do.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-19-2017, 04:42 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: He had no known or published views on politics/religion, doesn’t mean he didn’t have them. By definition a theory is something that is just made up until there’s evidence to support it.

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.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-19-2017, 05:11 PM)jason Wrote: I think he just hated pop country music... I know I do.

Nailed it.