Las Vegas - Active Shooter in Mandalay Bay (Updated - 59 Dead, 500+ Injured)

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

I understand your opinion, but I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

You own firearm(s) and I will be owning firearm(s) (gotta buy baby stuff first).... yet we can't fully agree on what's the acceptable level for responsible gun ownership.

And to think there are way more zealous pro-2nd and anti-2nd out there

The laws need to be way more strict about who gets a firearm.  The training and exams should be far more regulated.  Even with strict rules, there will be the Black Market for crazies to acquire weapons.  Don't see a way to eliminate crazies, like this guy, from doing horrible things.  

[Warhippy]

11 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Could not disagree more with a post if I tried.   You cannot define terrorism like that - well, I guess you can as that is how dictionarys do but it sucks.   In my world, IF you create terror with innocent people, you are a terrorist.    Someone ups and starts shooting people from the rafters of your next NHL game but claims no political motive, was the terror the people felt any less real?   

ding ding ding

 

This has been my stand point for a long long time.

 

An act of terror should not be defined in what one finds in Websters or Miriams.  This was an act of terror and I cringe when I think about how people will justify or not justify an act based on what they see in a dictionary.

 

500+ wounded.  58+ dead..  This was an act of terror.

 

Again, Nevada state law defines terror as such

 

‘any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population’

[Warhippy]

8 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

I understand your opinion, but I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

You own firearm(s) and I will be owning firearm(s) (gotta buy baby stuff first).... yet we can't fully agree on what's the acceptable level for responsible gun ownership.

And to think there are way more zealous pro-2nd and anti-2nd out there

That's the beauty of debate.  Point, counter point.  We obviously share a passion but disagree on aspects of it.

 

And that's fine.

 

I just think that there HAS to be a significant shift in laws and teachings.  When the constitution was written and the right to bear arms included, it meant literally to defend yourself and your country.  In a day and age where reload times for trained marksmen was still in the 40 second range and they had 1 single shot.

 

There are people that will go down in a hail of bullets to defend their "right" to own 28 fully automatic/semi automatic weapons with scopes and silencers and all the trinkets and baubles that go with them.  Because it si mah right as an american to own a B.A.R. if I want too.  And to me that is the frightening aspect.  Too many people that would be willing to die and take others with them over...weapons

 

That's why I believe the laws have to change.  The mentality of children throwing tantrums and threatening violence (that are capable of it) if someone tries to tell them they can't own anymore or have to give some up.

3 minutes ago, kloubek said:

I'm with you.  I'm a huge fan of guns.  Love 'em.  The feeling of firing a fully automatic weapon is a real thrill.  

 

But I'm glad we don't allow them here in Canada.  Not that I personally wouldn't want to own one - but because some people simply shouldn't have guns at all - let alone fully automatic ones.  This guy would likely never have been able to kill and injure nearly as many as he did if the US had the same gun laws as we do.  

 

But no - there are a lot of citizens in the US who believe it is their right and are up in arms (so to speak) as soon as anyone suggest curbing the laws to restrict such weapons.  Until America bands together enough to do something about this, we will continue to see mass-scale shootings there.

See above.

 

I know a lot of responsible gun owners that turn in to children the moment someone threatens to take their toys away.  As a hunter if someone came and said the laws changed, you need to turn over your arms.  I'd ask about a tax rebate for my loss and then go get another bow and try working with that or, as repugnant as I feel they are buy a crossbow.  Because I don't NEED guns.  I won't lose my mind if they're taken from me.  I have no attachment to them.  Some do, some do to a disturbing extreme.

 

Look at the flooding in Alberta.  gun owners threatening the government and the RCMP after certain people in certain parties or media started stating that the government and the cops were coming for your guns.

 

A school got shot up.  No change.  Night club, another school, a church.  no change anywhere.  now this.

 

I don't think there will be any change yet again sadly.

[trek]

20 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Not talking private - talking situations where large public gatherings exist.   Someone wants to take a gun to someone's house, that is messed up too but at least it isn't quite the same issue.   Try entering a courthouse sometime with a gun and see how that works out for you - so people don't take guns with them.   If there was a detector in hotels people would soon get the picture and it would cause little grief beyond an initial "hey, this sucks .. like the airport".

 

Until society starts taking away guns from people, not sure what else to do as clearly it is not getting any better out there.    

 

I do agree with you that terrorists are winning - if their aim is to modify the way people live, they are succeeding. 

I agree with you, courthouses, etc there should be screeners to make sure no whackjob goes in there and tries to take out the defendant. But something like a hotel where there are multiple entrances and exits, with many people entering and exiting at any given time I feel a consolidated screening point wouldn't be feasible. If anything, it would cause a choke point and what happened in Manchester could occur.

 

I agree that a societal change needs to occur, especially in the US to where people shouldn't feel like they have to own a firearm. Make them taboo to have.

[Warhippy]

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

The laws need to be way more strict about who gets a firearm.  The training and exams should be far more regulated.  Even with strict rules, there will be the Black Market for crazies to acquire weapons.  Don't see a way to eliminate crazies, like this guy, from doing horrible things.  

See Charles Vacca

 

An Arizona firearms instructor that was killed when a 9 year old girl was given a fully automatic weapon and the recoil caused it to kick killing him instantly.

 

See Chistopher Bizilj.  A child kills himself while testing a fully automatic weapon at a gun show.

 

It's not about just about laws and regulations though.  it's about the entire mind set of people who think it's acceptable to give kids who probably spill milk when pouring a bowl of cereal fully automatic weapons to play with

[riffraff]

3 minutes ago, trek said:

I agree with you, courthouses, etc there should be screeners to make sure no whackjob goes in there and tries to take out the defendant. But something like a hotel where there are multiple entrances and exits, with many people entering and exiting at any given time I feel a consolidated screening point wouldn't be feasible. If anything, it would cause a choke point and what happened in Manchester could occur.

 

I agree that a societal change needs to occur, especially in the US where people shouldn't feel like they have to own a firearm. Make them taboo to have.

That's basically asking America to reset.

[Warhippy]

Just watching more footage from that.  You can hear the difference between a bullet striking concrete vs a person...gd that's hard to fathom.  And all those people just huddled on the ground.  The guy couldn't miss  

[Rob_Zepp]

7 minutes ago, trek said:

I agree with you, courthouses, etc there should be screeners to make sure no whackjob goes in there and tries to take out the defendant. But something like a hotel where there are multiple entrances and exits, with many people entering and exiting at any given time I feel a consolidated screening point wouldn't be feasible. If anything, it would cause a choke point and what happened in Manchester could occur.

 

I agree that a societal change needs to occur, especially in the US to where people shouldn't feel like they have to own a firearm. Make them taboo to have.

Yah, it is hard to know...I am sure I am knee jerking out of a sense that there must be more we can do.   I just cannot believe people would kill others so randomly.   So hard to understand.

[inane]

The onion on point today....http://www.theonion.com/article/nra-says-mass-shootings-just-unfortunate-price-pro-57094

 

NRA Says Mass Shootings Just The Unfortunate Price Of Protecting People’s Freedom To Commit Mass Shootings

 

FAIRFAX, VA—In the aftermath of a shooting in Las Vegas that left at least 58 people dead and more than 500 wounded, National Rifle Association officials said Monday that mass shootings are just the unfortunate price of protecting people’s freedom to commit mass shootings. “What happened in Las Vegas is a horrific tragedy, but it’s sadly the inevitable cost of safeguarding the rights of Americans to perpetrate such horrific tragedies,” said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, adding that defending the constitutional right to commit mass murder meant accepting that mass murders were occasionally going to happen. “As saddened as we are today, we must always remember that preserving our sacred liberty to go on violent rampages is far more important than any one violent rampage.” LaPierre went on to say that legislation like recent state laws permitting guns on college campuses and an upcoming House bill that would relax restrictions on the purchase of gun silencers were vital to ensuring people had more freedom to commit much deadlier massacres, even if they sometimes lead to much deadlier massacres.

[riffraff]

Just heard that a 23 year old man from Mission was killed in LV.  His parents are going down to return his body.  He would be 24 this Friday.

 

heartbreaking.

[Warhippy]

Dana Loesch, NRA spokesperson took a few minutes on the 30th to chide Edmonton mayor Iveson and make a statement about terrorists within an hour after the attack.

 

Today..she calls for "more information" "need more proof"  "waiting for facts" "still early for developments" "just an FYI ISIS is quadrupling down on Vegas claims" 

 

How is it possible these people can be so ignorant.  1 hour and it's "terrorists" in edmonton and 7 hours later "need more info Isis, proof, facts"

[Warhippy]

14 minutes ago, inane said:

The onion on point today....http://www.theonion.com/article/nra-says-mass-shootings-just-unfortunate-price-pro-57094

 

NRA Says Mass Shootings Just The Unfortunate Price Of Protecting People’s Freedom To Commit Mass Shootings

 

FAIRFAX, VA—In the aftermath of a shooting in Las Vegas that left at least 58 people dead and more than 500 wounded, National Rifle Association officials said Monday that mass shootings are just the unfortunate price of protecting people’s freedom to commit mass shootings. “What happened in Las Vegas is a horrific tragedy, but it’s sadly the inevitable cost of safeguarding the rights of Americans to perpetrate such horrific tragedies,” said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, adding that defending the constitutional right to commit mass murder meant accepting that mass murders were occasionally going to happen. “As saddened as we are today, we must always remember that preserving our sacred liberty to go on violent rampages is far more important than any one violent rampage.” LaPierre went on to say that legislation like recent state laws permitting guns on college campuses and an upcoming House bill that would relax restrictions on the purchase of gun silencers were vital to ensuring people had more freedom to commit much deadlier massacres, even if they sometimes lead to much deadlier massacres.

look I know it's THE ONION and it's supposed to be satire...but I feel as though this will be very close to the official statement that comes out from them

[kloubek]

23 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I know a lot of responsible gun owners that turn in to children the moment someone threatens to take their toys away.  As a hunter if someone came and said the laws changed, you need to turn over your arms.  I'd ask about a tax rebate for my loss and then go get another bow and try working with that or, as repugnant as I feel they are buy a crossbow.  Because I don't NEED guns.  I won't lose my mind if they're taken from me.  I have no attachment to them.  Some do, some do to a disturbing extreme.

 

....

 

I don't think there will be any change yet again sadly.

No there won't be; not with Trump in office.  Trying to take guns away is political suicide down there to begin with, it isn't going to happen any time soon - especially in America where their rights and Constitution are defended with rather explosive vigor.   It is unfortunate that so many aren't willing to see the bigger picture; it sounds like you would be one of the few if you lived there, but you're also a Canadian and can appreciate losing something for the greater good of society where as most of America is very much a "me first" society.

 

I agree with you though - if it were to ever happen the government would need to provide compensation.  You can't just ban something and expect everyone to happily turn in their expensive item for nothing.  It is further challenging since there are so many illegal weapons in circulation that many would feel quite undefended and vulnerable without a weapon of their own.

It isn't about taking away the right to have guns as the advocates would suggest.  It's just limiting the availability of guns that are designed to kill as many people as possible in the least amount of time.  It's about reducing a psychotic episode like this from 50 death event into a 5 death event.  Still horrendous, but far less impact.

[Heretic]

Just read some interesting stats:

 

There have been more than 1,500 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. In case you don't remember, Sandy Hook happened only 5 years ago. 300 hundred a year since then.

 

Kind of long to post the entire page:

 

 

Gun violence in America, explained in 17 maps and charts

In the developed world, these levels of gun violence are a uniquely American problem. Here’s why.

America is an exceptional country when it comes to guns. It’s one of the few countries in which the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. But America’s relationship with guns is unique in another crucial way: Among developed nations, the US is far and away the most violent — in large part due to the easy access many Americans have to firearms. These charts and maps show what that violence looks like compared with the rest of the world, why it happens, and why it’s such a tough problem to fix.

1) America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany

 

 

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, Heretic said:

Just read some interesting stats:

 

There have been more than 1,500 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. In case you don't remember, Sandy Hook happened only 5 years ago. 300 hundred a year since then.

 

Kind of long to post the entire page:

 

 

Gun violence in America, explained in 17 maps and charts

In the developed world, these levels of gun violence are a uniquely American problem. Here’s why.

America is an exceptional country when it comes to guns. It’s one of the few countries in which the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. But America’s relationship with guns is unique in another crucial way: Among developed nations, the US is far and away the most violent — in large part due to the easy access many Americans have to firearms. These charts and maps show what that violence looks like compared with the rest of the world, why it happens, and why it’s such a tough problem to fix.

1) America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany

 

 

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

IIRC 2015 had more mass shootings (4 or more) than they had calendar days in that year.

 

This year is shaping up to be possibly as bad or within the same range.

 

People are terrified about terrorism but since 9/11 have only seen 100 or so people die to known "terrorist radicals" but something like 20,000 or 30,000 gun deaths...per year.

 

It's never going to change

 

Time to institute a travel ban on white males entering canada from the US until we figure out what the hell is going on in America

[clam linguine]

ISIS must be falling on hard times if they are taking false credit for the attack.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-isis-shooting-claims-stephen-paddock-responsibility-latest-a7978941.html

[taxi]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Could not disagree more with a post if I tried.   You cannot define terrorism like that - well, I guess you can as that is how dictionarys do but it sucks.   In my world, IF you create terror with innocent people, you are a terrorist.    Someone ups and starts shooting people from the rafters of your next NHL game but claims no political motive, was the terror the people felt any less real?   

By your definition any crime that creates "terror" is terrorism. When you beat your wife, she feels terror. When you rob a store, the clerk feels terror. When you break into a home, the occupants feel terror. 

 

The reason why the definition of terrorism needs to be restricted to actual terrorism is that:

 

1. It needs to be dealt with entirely differently by authorities. Dealing with terrorism involves disrupting organizations and networks. Whereas many other acts of mass murder involve issues of gun control and mental health.

 

2. The impact terrorism has on the victims is different. When someone is targeted by terrorism because of their political beliefs, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.. it creates a wave of terror that spreads through that population in a totally different way than a random act. 

 

So no, we do not know if this is "Terrorism" yet. 

[Rob_Zepp]

3 minutes ago, taxi said:

By your definition any crime that creates "terror" is terrorism. When you beat your wife, she feels terror. When you rob a store, the clerk feels terror. When you break into a home, the occupants feel terror. 

 

The reason why the definition of terrorism needs to be restricted to actual terrorism is that:

 

1. It needs to be dealt with entirely differently by authorities. Dealing with terrorism involves disrupting organizations and networks. Whereas many other acts of mass murder involve issues of gun control and mental health.

 

2. The impact terrorism has on the victims is different. When someone is targeted by terrorism because of their political beliefs, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.. it creates a wave of terror that spreads through that population in a totally different way than a random act. 

 

So no, we do not know if this is "Terrorism" yet. 

Don't like your examples but in my world, if you create a terror filled situation or innocent and unsuspecting people, you are a terrorist.   You can pick and choose as you like but if someone is targeting just "anyone" with their random cowardly violence, they are creating terror and will have that impact you speak of.

 

How authorities react should be commensurate to the potential threat to innocent people - not based upon political (or lack thereof) motivation.   If your wife is getting beaten, I would like the authorities to protect her...yes.

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, taxi said:

By your definition any crime that creates "terror" is terrorism. When you beat your wife, she feels terror. When you rob a store, the clerk feels terror. When you break into a home, the occupants feel terror. 

 

The reason why the definition of terrorism needs to be restricted to actual terrorism is that:

 

1. It needs to be dealt with entirely differently by authorities. Dealing with terrorism involves disrupting organizations and networks. Whereas many other acts of mass murder involve issues of gun control and mental health.

 

2. The impact terrorism has on the victims is different. When someone is targeted by terrorism because of their political beliefs, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.. it creates a wave of terror that spreads through that population in a totally different way than a random act. 

 

So no, we do not know if this is "Terrorism" yet. 

Gonna stop you right there.

 

When someone is targeted based on their skin colour, orientation or political beliefs that's a whole other ball game.  When a terrorist attacks someone as we've lately seen it is either 

 

A:  A target of immense strategic importance (bombings in the 80's and early 90's being embassies or military targets over seas)

or

B:  A target that has a massive amount of civilians that are essentially "just there" (Bataclan, Manchester, Bastille day)

 

Pretty sure that nobody in Vegas affected last night would feel differently if the shooter was a guy named Mohammed who wanted to die for a god vs a white guy named stephen who just snapped.

 

Fairly certain victims and those affected don't feel differently at all and to claim otherwise is kind of a dick move

 

Now as stated in Nevada state law an act of terrorism is as such

 

“act of terrorism means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population”.

 

So again, for the 29th time today.  This was in fact an act of terrorism

[-Vintage Canuck-]