Las Vegas Mass Shooting

The Walking Dickhead · Oct 6, 2017

People are reporting multiple shooters, which could be explained as simply the shots bouncing and echoing around the place. But if you watch this video there are shots fired at the start that appear to be going off near where the camera is filming that seem to echo shortly after from a distance, but then there are shots heard coming from a distance that aren't preceded by louder ones. How can that be explained without suggesting there was more than one shooter?

https://www.************/rikki.raulerson/videos/pcb.1677587885598408/1677581905599006/?type=3&theater

morrow · Oct 6, 2017

I was thinking it sounds a bit like JFK..

So sorry about this people, was there any hipsters caught up in this?

My heart goes out to you all, if you look how big UK is this was our Manchester!

Ok we have strict gun laws, but you can't stop this stuff..

6-eyed shaman · Oct 6, 2017

May the tweets of people who celebrated the deaths of the concert goers haunt them for the rest of their lives.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/02/cbs-exec-fired-for-unsympathetic-vegas-massacre-post/

Noserider · Oct 6, 2017

morrow said:

I was thinking it sounds a bit like JFK..

So sorry about this people, was there any hipsters caught up in this?
Click to expand...

r0llinstoned's cousin was there, but she's okay.

I think he said one of the victims was a teacher where he went to school too.

newbie-one · Oct 6, 2017

Vanilla Gorilla said:

You're country is retarded
Click to expand...

I think you mean to say, "Your country is retarded".

BlackBillBlake · Oct 6, 2017

morrow said:

My heart goes out to you all, if you look how big UK is this was our Manchester!

Ok we have strict gun laws, but you can't stop this stuff..
Click to expand...

If we didn't have the gun laws, I imagine that terrorists who now wield only knives, could and would claim a lot more victims when they launch the next attack.

Not trying to minimize the nastiness of the knife attacks, but it would be far worse if they could just go to a shop and buy high powered rifles and so on.

soulcompromise · Oct 6, 2017

ArtOfJaCOb said:

This is such a stupid argument.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

RIP to all in Las Vegas.
Click to expand...

You can't seriously believe that guns are perfectly safe and sensible to own! This is the act of a madman, granted, but it wouldn't have happened if he didn't have any guns! Look at how many guns he had. And how much ammunition he had. Why are we only after the fact looking at these factors? We need common sense gun laws to prevent these attacks!

The Walking Dickhead · Oct 6, 2017

How many people die per year in car accidents compared to guns?

soulcompromise · Oct 6, 2017

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/repeal-the-second-amendment/ar-AAsVImn?li=BBnb7Kz

Here is a controversial article by Bret Stephens about repealing the second amendment. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.
From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.
From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.
From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.
Sign up for the Morning Briefing newsletter
From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?
And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous “active shooter” phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas.
What might have raised a red flag? I’m not the first pundit to point out that if a “Mohammad Paddock” had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.
Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?
Maybe it’s because they argue their case badly and — let’s face it — in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment — or rather, “a nuanced reading” of it — with all the conviction of Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.
Then there are the endless liberal errors of fact. There is no “gun-show loophole” per se; it’s a private-sale loophole, in other words the right to sell your own stuff. The civilian AR-15 is not a true “assault rifle,” and banning such rifles would have little effect on the overall murder rate, since most homicides are committed with handguns. It’s not true that 40 percent of gun owners buy without a background check; the real number is closer to one-fifth.
The National Rifle Association does not have Republican “balls in a money clip,” as Jimmy Kimmel put it the other night. The N.R.A. has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998, according to The Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of Kimmel’s salary. The N.R.A. doesn’t need to buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular.
Nor will it do to follow the “Australian model” of a gun buyback program, which has shown poor results in the United States and makes little sense in a country awash with hundreds of millions of weapons. Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people is a sensible goal, but due process is still owed to the potentially insane. Background checks for private gun sales are another fine idea, though its effects on homicides will be negligible: guns recovered by police are rarely in the hands of their legal owners, a 2016 study found.
In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.
There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.
Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.
Donald Trump will likely get one more Supreme Court nomination, or two or three, before he leaves office, guaranteeing a pro-gun court for another generation. Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the “right” itself ceases to be.
Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.
I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Las Vegas Mass Shooting

The Walking Dickhead orbiter of helion

morrow Visitor

6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

newbie-one one with the newbiverse

BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

soulcompromise Member Lifetime Supporter

The Walking Dickhead orbiter of helion

soulcompromise Member Lifetime Supporter

Log in or Sign up

Las Vegas Mass Shooting

The Walking Dickhead orbiter of helion

morrow Visitor

6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

newbie-one one with the newbiverse

BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

soulcompromise Member Lifetime Supporter

The Walking Dickhead orbiter of helion

soulcompromise Member Lifetime Supporter

Useful Searches