welp okay nothing will change I guess
all hail the status quo
This lawsuit is stupid, but what is it with this sinister motive stuff? People who survived a shooting or any other tragedy or loss might not always act rationally after surviving a shooting, looking for something to hold accountable.
"don't buy into hysterics" while stats are showing its becoming more and more prevalent. Okay bud, lets just keep sweeping the issue under the rug, that will solve it. The difference is these are innocent people being killed enmass by a psycho. Majority of people killed by shootings is because of crime, no one is arguing that. But what people ARE arguing is that increased security in events or densely populated areas is reasonable.
That's great that concerts and such have the same turnout, doesn't mean the general populace is in fear. You basically said "well I know drinking alcohol heavily is linked to health issues, but people still buy tons of alcohol" its a strawman of the highest degree. We aren't talking about ticket sales or concerts, we are talking about general fear of mass shootings among the populace. You said provide proof, I show you a gallup poll that people are scared of it.
Luggage check? Keep a list how much luggage is going in and out of the hotel. Its as easy as signing a number on the forum when checking in or out. If someone is checking in with 10 luggage, then checks in another 10, and another 2, something should be suspicious. There's videos of him walking in with literal cart loads of luggage (like about 5 full sized bags with wheels) and leaving and coming back with more. He even wore nearly the same clothes every single day he returned. You're making up variables that just didn't exist for the situation.
https://youtu.be/uCfC7riTfms
That's besides the point, The entire Vegas shooting was an odd situation and not what we are talking about here. You're comparing a indoor event to an outdoor event.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31K43GC9JBL.jpg
So heavy, just impossible to carry around or use. Every event/park I've been to has guards carrying these and scanning every person walking into the event. Then you argue "well he could just shoot the guard" then why the fuck have any security anywhere if you're going to just try to use that excuse. Why have a security detail for the president, I mean someone could just run over and shoot them from the crowd. The point of security is to prevent someone from getting in the middle of the building and shooting it up. The farther they are away from the event, the less damage they can deal out. This applies doubly with densely packed areas.
What people are saying is if you don't want the companies to hold higher security against guns, then the spotlight gets shift to gun control/regulation. You can sit back and say how they are not liable all day long, but people want solutions not excuses. Higher security prevents things like this from happening, people feel like regulating firearms would do the same (especially since the person in question was known to be mentally ill). Like so far, the only ignorant person is you. You rather just plug your ears and ignore stats pointing an upwards trend that's becoming increasingly more common just because they don't take the majority. Arguing lower deaths from a smaller group is pointless because the main group is bigger is idiotic.
if something with an extremely low chance increses it's frequency 10 times over that thing still has an extremely low chance, you're making prioritization error and it's by definition hysterics to be worried about getting caught in a mass shooting, despite how unacceptably common they're getting the chance is still rediculously low. Something should be done sure but not at the cost of putting metal detectors in every bar across the country, it's just fearmongering and security theatre at that point, I think its arguable you're just making more and more people afraid when they shouldnt be if you start putting disrproporionate security measures everywhere. And yeah, it's completely irrational to fear mass shootings on a daily basis. DO NOT justify this or encourage this line of thinking, you're just causing more damage and drumming up more hysterical fear, and more people in hysterical fear doesnt help us solve this as they dont go for good solutions, they demand dumb solutions that don't help anyone.
You should be several thousand times more worried about cars randomly veering off the road and taking out your entire family, or that car or even a power plant nearby releasing a particle that gives you cancer, and yet now there are many people who, despite having no direct trauma or involvement in mass shootings, irrationally fear for their lives because of imbalanced media coverage.
Go read the OP again and try to remember the topic of this thread. We're not talking about what you think EA should have done, we're not talking about what you think could prevent this. We're talking about whether or not EA or anyone else is liable for this. I dont care about security measures and how extreme they could be that a private bussiness could enact.
Now, I presented a precedent where the movie theater in Aurora Colorado was held not liable in state and federal court for the incident, based on the idea that they couldn't have possibly anticipated such an event. I draw parallels to the case in the OP because average event security, in place or otherwise, isnt in place to anticipate such an event.
Would you like to provide a counterpoint or do you just wanna keep debating the same dead horse in an off topic discussion.
>four (4.5) incidents per year from 2010 through 2013 (7.4 victims murdered, 6.3wounded per incident).
From 2010 to 2013, you say?
Nice of you to discredit the last, say, 5 years of mass shootings. Do you want to go get evidence for that?
I'd be inclined to agree if I didn't know your true agenda. You're pushing for a total ban, you've made this clear countless times. The perp in this case should have never been able to pass the background checks, and I'm all for tightening up the loophole that let him squeak through when otherwise he should have been denied, but what you want isn't the way to go.
He was shot twice, and arguing that it was the fault of the organizers for not preventing it isn't as ridiculous of an argument as people are making it out to be.
I don't agree that the organizers are truly the ones at fault, but then again I don't know what precautions they took, vs which ones were standard for that particular kind of event. If they took less precautions than what is considered to be adequate, then trying to blame them for negligence isn't out of line.
Nope! It's remarkable how the internet has made mind readers out of people.
Thats a quote from codemasters citation to me lmfao. The study was published before the last 5 years of shootings lol. Even if theres 10 incidents a year with 10 deaths each, thats 100 people killed per year, out of the 10,000 killed in firearm homicide, out of the 30,000 killed with guns, out of 350,000,000.
Would you like to attempt to prove me wrong or do you wanna just keep tossin out snark as if it fortifies your position?
title is one of the most American things I've ever read
But that brings up the point that mass shootings were much less common in the past, and gun laws were less strict back then. You could own literal machine guns at the time, and there were never any mass shootings with one. So the question is what else happened since then, because whatever it was it was entirely unrelated to guns. Something in society is obviously severely fucked up, trying to pin the blame on something that's been around since our nation's inception isn't going to fix it.
This is a premium example of "feels before reals". The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are astronomically slim. People fear it though because the media is constantly telling people they need to be scared, they need to be terrified, they need to surrender their rights so that they can feel safe again. This shit reminds me of the post 9/11 world and the media's fear mongering about terrorists and why we need the NSA and TSA to keep us safe. I could go on and on about how dishonest and shady the anti-gun campaigns are in this country.
So the Hotel needs 24/7 surveillance of every single guest to make sure they aren't bringing in an abnormal amount of luggage because it might mean he's planning a mass casualty attack? That seems like a massive waste of resources for literally every other hotel including that one until that day. And again, the answer to this question is more invasive security measures that don't help.
Now you're just being disingenuous, there's always someone in these threads to point out ways to lower gun crime without specifically targetting law abiding citizens for enforcement. Here's a list of suggestions that comes up frequently, and would actually be effective unlike the Democrat's prized Assault Weapons Bull.
Allocate the DoJ funds specifically for prosecution of straw purchase, the #1 source of illegal firearms, but which they currently lack the resources to pursue.
Allocate the ATF funds specifically for prosecution of unscrupulous FFL holders, the #2 source of illegal firearms, but which they currently lack the resources to pursue.
Raise liability on stolen firearms, or introduce safe storage laws (preferably without requiring an actual gun safe because those things are expensive and can’t be reliably installed in apartment)
Further restrict handguns (but not ban), the overwhelmingly most common weapons used in crime.
Open the NICS to non-FFLs, then mandate background checks on all sales including private sales.
Fix the broken interaction between state and federal databases (due to HIPAA) which often causes mental issues to not be reported to the federal background check system.
Address suicide in some meaningful capacity. Address gang violence in some meaningful capacity. These are the social issues that are the most common root causes of gun violence.
Again showing how our current laws aren't working, but rather than fix them, everyone wants to propose new laws that won't work. Alternatively, they want to ban all guns and criminalize millions of law abiding citizens.
Football, lawsuits, and shooting?
https://i.imgur.com/sntVxi3.gif
Gun owners/hobbyists/enthusiasts seem to have a very us vs them attitude that I'm very tired of
I just think something should be done about guns or the regulation thereof. Something that isn't banning all guns. All of those points you mentioned seem good but sure as hell won't be considered by this president.
lol ok :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.005780e69626
WP put a full timeline towards the bottom blotting every mass shooting since 1966 to 2018 with each one listed. It even leaves out gang violence and general crime out of the timeline.
Its just hard to find a up to date article about it because half the time they are outdated with new shootings.
Don't take this as condescension, but I see this a lot - "I don't want to ban guns, I just want to do something." It's always that nebulous something.
What are your ideas for solving these problems? Put yourself in the shoes of a lawmaker drafting a bill. What steps do you think we should take? How might those steps affect your constituents?
Beyond what someguy mentioned I think it would be a good idea to ensure education about gun safety is taught nationwide. Get congress to pass a funding bill to states that incentivizes that somehow.
It wasn't very civil of me to call you out like that without even knowing quite where you stand, I mistook your post for the usual shitposting people do in these discussions. There's a strong us vs them attitude around the debate, and both sides are responsible. From my perspective, anti-gun groups are out there vilifying gun owners every day, saying shit like "if you don't support gun bans then you support dead kids" and generally spreading misinformation and fearmongering to get more people to side with them.
That's what gets to me the most, they don't care about the problem, they're set on gun bans and aren't above playing dirty to achieve it. A couple months ago CNN did an "exposé" on the AR-15 and they really played it up as this terrifying evil rifle that should be banned. That shit isn't helping, it's disingenuous and really no better than when Republicans call Democrats babykillers. Seeing the Democrats talk about gun control is like watching Republicans talk about Abortion or National Healthcare. The amount of wilful ignorance and demonizing is staggering.
EA was Event Security? Unless they weren't there's no point
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
