Las Vegas shooting

[M. Jordan]

I am sure that is only the beginning. Once the false flag talking points really start to circulate Hillary and Obama will be financial sponsors of the ISIS hit team that framed Paddock, shot him and put his body there for the SWAT team to find as a justification to come and take your gunz away from you, so buy more.

That's sort of where Trump's buddy Alex Jones was heading yesterday.

 

[doowdniw]

Ask Tim McVeigh. He used something a lot more deadly than a gun, and we're unfortunate that Mcveigh didn't choose to use the more ineffective method of killing that the guy in Las Vegas did.

Paddock is probably getting the opportunity to speak to McVeigh as we sit here.
(If you believe in eternal damnation.)

 

[Rightguide]

There are 50 plus people killed in Chicago every friggin month but Democrats don't want to explain the failures of their bullshit gun laws which are the most stringent there. They remain silent when confronted with the black on black murder rate there because they have to admit their laws fail.

 

[zipman]

I think we're talking past each other a little bit here, and let me address what you're saying...

Stand Your Ground laws are in opposition to "force to flee" laws that some states have, that require you to run, try to bar a door, and retreat before using deadly force. I think that Stand Your Ground laws and Castle Doctrine laws are good overall. I do also think that there is room for abuse with them. A perfect example of that abuse is the George Zimmerman case. George Zimmerman acted as an aggressor, and not in self-defense in my personal opinion. He should have been tried and convicted for murder. That's not an issue with the law, however. I don't see how that's promoting anything irresponsible.

Insurance for CCL related incidents is good common sense. If you have to use your handgun due to a DGU, then the legal fees could run into the hundreds of thousands if the family of the perp decides to take you to civil court. I don't see how that's promoting anything irresponsible.

So far, your argument is 0/3. I'm happy to debate any legitimate qualms you have with the NRA, but so far, I haven't seen you provide one.

If you want to talk about their racist past, their inflammatory rhetoric, or their hard-leaning tendencies towards the Republican party in the last 10 years, I'm happy to debate those points and talk about that, but simply saying "they're bad", and "they're a strong lobby" doesn't really prove anything, and it's simply a tired talking point.

I disagree completely about Stand your Ground laws and the Zimmerman case is a perfect example of why I feel that way. They are based on the perception of a threat and basically excuse murder based on the mental state of the person with the gun even if the other person is unarmed. That is totally fucked up and is the same problem with many sexual harassment laws that also, operate based on nothing more than perceptions. The reason so many cops are getting off murdering unarmed civilians is the exact same reason, all they had to do was feel threatened. This alone, proves my point as it promotes gun owners avoiding the consequences of killing someone when other actions like fleeing or walking away were readily available. They are not self defense.

I said the insurance example wasn't a very good one but wanted to include it as again, it helps someone avoid the consequences of their actions.

I don't know where you got 0/3 from as I only gave 2 examples but I think I more than backed up my opinion. I also mentioned other problems that I have with the NRA and my argument was articulated far more than "NRA bad."

Personally I don't care if you agree with me or not, but to say I didn't back up my point is disingenuous at best.

 

[Hypoxia]

Paddock's ISIS-antifa masters told him, "No, no truck bomb! And don't fill your private plane with explosives and crash into the redneck crowd; you might miss and crash into a casino before our people have completed looting it. No, you can't have a grenade launcher! We're not into explosives this year. Bullets, boy, many many bullets. Here you go!"

Deep State operatives shuttled weapons, ammo, and gear to the hotel room. Paddock settled in with his fleshlight and jugs of meth-laced 151 rum. "Room service" regularly brought him opium-butter cookies and fresh pr0n. He awaited the chosen moment.

Something like that, right?

 

[MGurkus]

There are 50 plus people killed in Chicago every friggin month but Democrats don't want to explain the failures of their bullshit gun laws which are the most stringent there. They remain silent when confronted with the black on black murder rate there because they have to admit their laws fail.

58 people were killed, tell us more about your disdain for black people another day, vetteman.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I disagree completely about Stand your Ground laws and the Zimmerman case is a perfect example of why I feel that way. They are based on the perception of a threat and basically excuse murder based on the mental state of the person with the gun even if the other person is unarmed. That is totally fucked up and is the same problem with many sexual harassment laws that also, operate based on nothing more than perceptions. The reason so many cops are getting off murdering unarmed civilians is the exact same reason, all they had to do was feel threatened. This alone, proves my point as it promotes gun owners avoiding the consequences of killing someone when other actions like fleeing or walking away were readily available. They are not self defense.

I said the insurance example wasn't a very good one but wanted to include it as again, it helps someone avoid the consequences of their actions.

I don't know where you got 0/3 from as I only gave 2 examples but I think I more than backed up my opinion. I also mentioned other problems that I have with the NRA and my argument was articulated far more than "NRA bad."

Personally I don't care if you agree with me or not, but to say I didn't back up my point is disingenuous at best.

Zimmerman didn't "feel threatened." He was attacked, and was acquitted, presumably on the grounds of self-defense.

 

[phrodeau]

There are 50 plus people killed in Chicago every friggin month but Democrats don't want to explain the failures of their bullshit gun laws which are the most stringent there. They remain silent when confronted with the black on black murder rate there because they have to admit their laws fail.

I could explain that, if I thought you were at all willing and able to comprehend.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Zimmerman didn't "feel threatened."

Yeah. Guess that's why he ignored an order to do nothing and went on to murder an innocent American boy who went to the store for candy and flavored drink.

 

[EternalFantasies]

58 people were killed, tell us more about your disdain for black people another day, vetteman.

Ur an idiot.

 

[EternalFantasies]

I kept thinking today, what if Hillary was president and this shooting took place...

She'd be making speeches indirectly inciting protests asking for new gun laws.


Seriously, thank GOD she lost.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

LVPD:

Police dispatch first reported "Shoots fired" @ 10:08pm LV time.

The killer got off 12 separate volleys.

Killer's last shot recorded @ 10:19pm LV time.

11 minutes.

A number of police were already in the Mandalay building, working another detail, when they decided to form themselves into a team to assault the killer's room.

12 volleys in 11 minutes...

...it's hard for me to imagine a more logical reason that many, many more weren't killed than police's incredible 11 minute response time; that's about as close to as miraculous as it gets, if it's not a true miracle itself.

Just another 11 minutes, another 12 volleys, another 60 dead?

ATF reports 49 weapons have been secured so far, at three locations; they identify them as "handguns, shotguns, and rifles". Some of the rifles were bump stocked, which quickens a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire, BUT DOES NOT modify a semi-automatic rifle into fully-automatic fire. Bump stocking is completely legal.

59 confirmed dead = 58 + the killer.

 

[coachdb18]

I kept thinking today, what if Hillary was president and this shooting took place...

She'd be making speeches indirectly inciting protests asking for new gun laws.


Seriously, thank GOD she lost.

Amen!!!!

 

[lickitandstickit]

LVPD:

I was told there would be no math

 

[coachdb18]

You can't predict this sort of thing.

Also, this happens all of the time.

But you in fact CAN predict where mass shootings will take place... nearly all have taken place in gun free zones, and the mass shooting requires a mass of people to make it worthwhile for the shooter. Situational awareness should tell you this already.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Agreed. The suggestions in that article would be a great start.




He was cherry picking.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Absolutely. I read the article and completely agree. My comment was to those who say and armed society is a polite society.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

I am convinced that incredible 11 minute response time by the cops wasn't anything close to what the killer ever imagined - how heavily he was armed, a camera system focused on buying him much time to kill as possible - it ruined the rest of his original plan.

The killer was as clean as a whistle, law enforcement & mental health record-wise. Every one of the 49 weapons already secured were all legally purchased and possessed. Police have publicly announced not an iota of evidence of any hint of pre-warning from the killer.

And that's the ONLY thing that's preventing me from turning to the jihadi angle: almost impossible to accept he turned radical without any sniff, either.

However...

...the law's interest in his ex-girlfriend, who's in the Philippines right now and where the killer recently sent sent $100K, is growing, it's been reported.

If she just happens to be Muslim and the law can link her to radicalism, this case might turn really quick.

Can't even imagine how much investigating is being paid to this case right now.

 

[KimGordon67]

I am convinced that incredible 11 minute response time by the cops wasn't anything close to what the killer ever imagined - how heavily he was armed, a camera system focused on buying him much time to kill as possible - it ruined the rest of his original plan.

The killer was as clean as a whistle, law enforcement & mental health record-wise. Every one of the 49 weapons already secured were all legally purchased and possessed. Police have publicly announced not an iota of evidence of any hint of pre-warning from the killer.

And that's the ONLY thing that's preventing me from turning to the jihadi angle: almost impossible to accept he turned radical without any sniff, either.

However...

...the law's interest in his ex-girlfriend, who's in the Philippines right now and where the killer recently sent sent $100K, is growing, it's been reported.

If she just happens to be Muslim and the law can link her to radicalism, this case might turn really quick.

Can't even imagine how much investigating is being paid to this case right now.

One person can seriously buy 49 guns and it's both legal and doesn't raise alarm bells? I'm really sorry, but no matter how supportive you are of the right to arm bears, surely no one thinks that's OK? Or did someone just assume he was altruistically intending to arm the local militia single-handedly?

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

One person can seriously buy 49 guns and it's both legal and doesn't raise alarm bells?

Have you ever heard of an American state called Texas?

I'm really sorry, but no matter how supportive you are of the right to arm bears, surely no one thinks that's OK?

Why would you apologize for being absolutely clueless about why multi-millions of American don't have any issue with it at all? Do you just automatically assume a great number of folks need to see things as you do?

Or did someone just assume he was altruistically intending to arm the local militia single-handedly?

There is no limit on how many arms a law-abiding American citizen may possess...

BOO!

 

[KimGordon67]

There is no limit on how many arms a law-abiding American citizen may possess...

... and you don't find that even a tiny bit worrisome? Honestly, I can kind of get gun ownership per se (well, not really, but nearly), but forty nine? How can that be considered a sensible 'constitutional right'?

 

[BotanyBoy]

... and you don't find that even a tiny bit worrisome? Honestly, I can kind of get gun ownership per se (well, not really, but nearly), but forty nine? How can that be considered a sensible 'constitutional right'?

Not at all.

Because freedom, I could try to explain but you'd have to not be a socialist tyrant to understand it.

 

[about_average]

I disagree completely about Stand your Ground laws and the Zimmerman case is a perfect example of why I feel that way. They are based on the perception of a threat and basically excuse murder based on the mental state of the person with the gun even if the other person is unarmed. That is totally fucked up and is the same problem with many sexual harassment laws that also, operate based on nothing more than perceptions. The reason so many cops are getting off murdering unarmed civilians is the exact same reason, all they had to do was feel threatened. This alone, proves my point as it promotes gun owners avoiding the consequences of killing someone when other actions like fleeing or walking away were readily available. They are not self defense.

Even the Florida Stand Your Ground law says you can't pick a fight with someone then kill them and use it as a defense.

I said the insurance example wasn't a very good one but wanted to include it as again, it helps someone avoid the consequences of their actions.

Why should I suffer consequences from the system for defending my life or the life of another from someone intent on doing bodily harm?

 

[about_average]

A number of police were already in the Mandalay building, working another detail, when they decided to form themselves into a team to assault the killer's room.

I have to wonder what they were doing in the Hotel with explosives.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I would say that human rights are defined by their necessity for everyone to live in society with their basic needs met, and with dignity and to a standard that we would commonly believe to be acceptable for a human being.

You seem to be arguing that we can decide something is a 'human right' subjectively, and I guess to some extent that's true. There is, for example, an argument at present that access to the internet is possibly a human right. However, I think for something to be a human right it has to be fairly widely accepted as necessary to maintain a certain standard of living. I can't really see that guns fit into that category.

Just as a point here - I do think there's some argument for legal gun ownership, for example for use for hunting. That's pretty much how it works here, and although every now and then some idiot nuts off and goes on a rampage, the instances are fairly few and far between, and the ownership of guns is pretty tightly controlled. However, I don't think they're a fundamental human right, in the same that while I obviously agree with legal car ownership, I don't think cars are a fundamental human right.

A human right does not rely on the ability of someone else to provide it which is pretty much why they are regulated to life, liberty and property.

Why did you avoid my question about self-defense and whether or not you would disarm me and leave with a knife to fight off bears, wolves and coyotes?

Hell, the dogs are out there raising holy hell with something in the forest even as I am typing this.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's because you've never needed one, probably because you are privileged enough to have people with guns taking care of things for you.

It's ok, stay in your iggy bunker, wouldn't want your worldview challenged.

What's the biggest predator in NZ?


Some guy named Bunny playing the piano in the hotel lounge?