Mass Shooting in Las Vegas - 58 Dead at Least 515 Injured, Suspect Killed - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52740507]I'd probably draw the line somewhere around: A. Government agents or hired hands start the wholesale slaughtering of anyone they don't like (Stalin's purges, Hitler's Holocaust, etc...) B. Mass disarmament and subjugation of the population (sometimes a warning of option A occurring) C. A foreign enemy stupid enough to attempt a conventional invasion. D. Shit hits the fan during a natural disaster and the rule of law cannot be maintained (which is increasingly more likely thanks to global warming) Ok well option D is less about government, but it's probably the most likely scenario where having firearms would help the individual by a lot.[/QUOTE] Yeah you're right. It's a more legitimate scenario when there is an active violent threat facing the people. I won't edit my post and pussy out tho so let the dumbs fly $$$

[media]https://twitter.com/DianneG/status/915037356499009536[/media]

Holy fuck

I'm a hippie liberal that has railed on gun culture for years. I still think it's dumb as heck and inherently self destructive, but two things have recently caused it to be a complete non-issue to me - even in the scope of what's going on now. 1) election of DJT, and the resulting left introspection. It's clear that a huge portion of the American populace loves their guns. Consequently, it's simply not an effective platform to rock given that we need to seek to expand our tent, not restrict it. This doesn't mean we can't enact common sense stuff that almost the whole country is in favor of (background checks etc), but in order for those same people to actually trust the Dems on that issue, we need to cut back the rhetoric on guns. I feel by toning down the rhetoric we might actually have the chance of, over time, affecting real change in the gun industry. 2) and more importantly, 3d printing technology. A short look forward just 15-20 years shows that the nature of manufacturing is about to fundamentally be reshaped. The effectiveness of any kind of legislation to control guns, I fear, will be severely hampered by the premise of joe shmo being able to print a pistol in his garage. Who knows as far as ammunition is concerned. That thankfully should be a bit easier to manage. The dust really has hardly settled on the victims and pundits of both parties are already prepping the cannons for political conflict. It's getting tiring for the country to politicize so much of every facet of our lives. Sometimes a tragedy is just a tragedy. Just like whenever in Europe an immigrant attacks someone it doesn't warrant a bunch of racists coming out of the woodwork politicising the issue, maybe here too we should take a step back, even if just to keep the peace. I dunno. It's just a shame to see people at each other's throats over something that should unite the nation. Not everything has to be winnable.

I haven't followed the event in detail, but I heard that he was shooting people with an automatic weapon from the top of the hotel. Man I wouldn't want to be in the same situation as the victims. That got to be hell.

[QUOTE=Snapster;52740593][media]https://twitter.com/DianneG/status/915037356499009536[/media][/QUOTE] JIMINY FUCKIN CRICKET THAT'S A LOT OF GUNS

[QUOTE=Snapster;52740593][media]https://twitter.com/DianneG/status/915037356499009536[/media][/QUOTE] So I take it he was expecting to last alot longer with so many guns? Either way, its amazing how fast the police and swat responded.

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;52740628]So I take it he was expecting to last alot longer with so many guns? Either way, its amazing how fast the police and swat responded.[/QUOTE] Based on what I have read, it may be that it only ended as quickly as it did because the smoke detector in his hotel room went off. Had he taken measures to disable them, who knows how long it might have taken police to zero in on his location.

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;52740628]So I take it he was expecting to last alot longer with so many guns? Either way, its amazing how fast the police and swat responded.[/QUOTE] Probably figured it was faster to grab another loaded gun than to reload given he was in a stationary vantage point.

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52740261] Guns themselves as objects/tools/utilities aren't an issue per se, but the whole nearly religious attitude and unhealthy paranoia fueled "from my cold dead hands" view makes the whole situation seem incredibly dangerous.[/QUOTE] Most of the other points have been covered already, but this is one that bears some delving into. So what? I'm not being flippant here. Seriously. So what? Gun violence is ludicrously overemphasized. Yes, there are a myriad of reasons for why it is high, and some of those reasons do not have simple solutions, but it is far from the biggest threat this country faces. Hell, if you ignore most of the major cities (IE really poor areas with terrible infrastructure and limited to nonexistent economic mobility), it's really not that out of line with what is seen in some European countries. Whatever, getting off topic. The point is, you are far, far more likely to be injured or killed by a drunk driver than to be killed by a gun. That's just drunk driving. That doesn't include other incidents involving alcohol. Nor does that even begin to get into the aggregate financial costs of crippling alcoholism upon the country. The medical costs associated with that are nothing short of ludicrous. OK, fine, you can make the argument that self inflicted injuries/conditions are less important than events that impact others, so you could justify ignoring or at least downplaying many of the socioeconomic costs, but at the end of the day you cannot ignore the body counts. 10,265 people died from alcohol related traffic fatalities in 2015. With the body count currently at 59, that's approximately equivalent to one of these events every other day. Meanwhile Sergent Shitfaced out on probation after his 5th DUI doesn't make the headlines unless he plows into a preschool in an affluent white neighborhood. It's not just alcohol. Let's move onto other root causes. The drug epidemic has created new breeding grounds for violence. Black markets and organized crime are huge avenues for violence. Turf wars get innocents killed all the time. Junkies steal and become violent in their quest for their next fix. Solve the issues around drugs, and a lot of your gun violence evaporates. Hell, even marginally impacting the drug epidemic would outright cripple many of the crime rings because it would kill their profitability. Same thing with debilitating poverty. Access to public transit is the single greatest indicator for upwards mobility in impoverished shitholes. People with jobs do not generally have a need to resort to crime. Yes, there will always be criminals, but tackling the desperation kills the majority of crime. There are far bigger issues to tackle. You even acknowledge this. [QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52740261]I just wish the US would focus more on mental health and rehabilitation, and take that final step into becoming a great first world country.[/quote] Want a real world example? Look at New Hampshire? Murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000. That's lower than most countries in the EU, and by a fairly substantial margin. This from a state with some of the highest firearms ownership in the country. It's upper middle class and largely rural. There's limited opportunity for crime because of the rural nature, and there is little reason for crime because of the economic stability. Now look at dumpster fires like some of the districts in Chicago and Baltimore. High population density combined with zero money leads to large amounts of violent crime. The gun crime is in many ways a side effect of that.

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;52740655]Based on what I have read, it may be that it only ended as quickly as it did because the smoke detector in his hotel room went off. Had he taken measures to disable them, who knows how long it might have taken police to zero in on his location.[/QUOTE] I specifically heard that that was false. The police found him with the help of hotel staff and guests.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;52740613]1) election of DJT, and the resulting left introspection. It's clear that a huge portion of the American populace loves their guns. Consequently, it's simply not an effective platform to rock given that we need to seek to expand our tent, not restrict it. This doesn't mean we can't enact common sense stuff that almost the whole country is in favor of (background checks etc), but in order for those same people to actually trust the Dems on that issue, we need to cut back the rhetoric on guns. I feel by toning down the rhetoric we might actually have the chance of, over time, affecting real change in the gun industry.[/QUOTE] If there's one thing I really wish more liberals would realize, it's this. I lean left on most issues but I have a very hard time accepting gun control proposals, no matter how benign, simply because there is absolutely no reason for me to trust that whatever current measure will be good enough. I'm not personally opposed to universal background checks (I proposed it as a possible measure in an essay I wrote after the Pulse shooting), but under the current Democratic political paradigm I have every reason to believe that a universal background check law passing would be taken as a 'symbolic step' towards further restriction, and that's not something I can get behind. So, yeah. If Democrats would stop rallying behind folks like Cuomo or Feinstein when they say confiscation is on the table, they might actually be able to get some buy-in from gun owners. As it stands this whole 'nobody's coming for your guns (except us, when we discuss what we'd like to do long-term)' shtick is downright insulting.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52740673]If there's one thing I really wish more liberals would realize, it's this. I lean left on most issues but I have a very hard time accepting gun control proposals, no matter how benign, simply because there is absolutely no reason for me to trust that whatever current measure will be good enough. I'm not personally opposed to universal background checks (I proposed it as a possible measure in an essay I wrote after the Pulse shooting), but under the current Democratic political paradigm I have every reason to believe that a universal background check law passing would be taken as a 'symbolic step' towards further restriction, and that's not something I can get behind. So, yeah. If Democrats would stop rallying behind folks like Cuomo or Feinstein when they say confiscation is on the table, they might actually be able to get some buy-in from gun owners. As it stands this whole 'nobody's coming for your guns (except us, when we discuss what we'd like to do long-term)' shtick is downright insulting.[/QUOTE] I don't even own firearms and I've been saying this for several years now. The left has repeatedly tried strongarm tactics, and has repeatedly shown that every inch taken will never be returned without very aggressive fights. Why would [i]anyone[/i] with a fleeting interest in firearms be willing to trust the left? It's honestly quite depressing. The utter refusal to let go of the bullshit around firearms has indirectly torpedoed a lot of things that I am in support of because the left has consistently managed to piss off enough voters to teeter on the edge of totally losing any semblance of control. That has empowered the republicans to swing into their own particular flavor of insanity because they are not suffering any consequences for doing so. Congrats dems, you've managed to throw away a position you couldn't have lost because of your own pride. Great job. Can't wait for the next republican ideologue pushing horrific agendas with a firm handshake and a smile rather than batshit insane tweets. Cause you sure as shit aren't beating that without giving up the gun fight.

It's always bizarre when these threads devolve into civil war talk. As if the main two reasons for gun ownership weren't protection and fun. It feels like I'm reading a speculative fiction draft someone wrote at a Starbucks.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;52740613]The dust really has hardly settled on the victims and pundits of both parties are already prepping the cannons for political conflict. It's getting tiring for the country to politicize so much of every facet of our lives. Sometimes a tragedy is just a tragedy. Just like whenever in Europe an immigrant attacks someone it doesn't warrant a bunch of racists coming out of the woodwork politicising the issue, maybe here too we should take a step back, even if just to keep the peace. I dunno. It's just a shame to see people at each other's throats over something that should unite the nation. Not everything has to be winnable.[/QUOTE] I dunno, a tragedy to me is something you can't prevent. Like an earthquake, which you can't really prevent. Not to disagree with your other two points but I don't like the implication* that those trying to say "let's prevent something this bad from happening ever again" and "let's kick out all the muslims" are two sides of the same coin. *I'm probably inferring this [editline]2nd October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;52740673]If there's one thing I really wish more liberals would realize, it's this. I lean left on most issues but I have a very hard time accepting gun control proposals, no matter how benign, simply because there is absolutely no reason for me to trust that whatever current measure will be good enough. I'm not personally opposed to universal background checks (I proposed it as a possible measure in an essay I wrote after the Pulse shooting), but under the current Democratic political paradigm I have every reason to believe that a universal background check law passing would be taken as a 'symbolic step' towards further restriction, and that's not something I can get behind. So, yeah. If Democrats would stop rallying behind folks like Cuomo or Feinstein when they say confiscation is on the table, they might actually be able to get some buy-in from gun owners. As it stands this whole 'nobody's coming for your guns (except us, when we discuss what we'd like to do long-term)' shtick is downright insulting.[/QUOTE] I strongly believe any gun control changes have to come from within gun culture as a group, or from a group that is majority gun owners. If the gun literacy of the group is poor, they'll just make poor legislation and neither party will be happy.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52739900]Does that genuinely happen enough to be constant threat for you guys.[/QUOTE] It's the go-to excuse.

Reddit is sending tons of pizza to hospitals, dont worry its already paid for so all the people have to do at the hospital is just take the pizza [url]https://np.reddit.com/r/Random_Acts_Of_Pizza/comments/73vc3f/request_vegas_hospitals/[/url]

[QUOTE=plunger435;52740692]It's always bizarre when these threads devolve into civil war talk. As if the main two reasons for gun ownership weren't protection and fun. It feels like I'm reading a speculative fiction draft someone wrote at a Starbucks.[/QUOTE] Well, those are the main reasons people [i]own[/i] guns, but the reason why the 2nd amendment was made in the first place was to allow the people of the United States to start a violent revolution if so necessary. So it's relevant, sort of, but I'm not going to even enter that ring of debate.

[img_thumb]www.imgur.com/6JTon2C[/img_thumb]

Back from work, I wanna Pause The Gun control Debate for a second. While some good Experts I follow Can't exactly call this Terrorism because Motive isn't known yet. They said however this is very, very Out of a normal pattern because this guy doesn't fit the criteria for a lone shooter/terrorist

google used 4chan as a news source for this [url]https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/10/google-admits-citing-4chan-to-spread-fake-vegas-shooter-news/[/url] [QUOTE]The incorrect shooter's name, which Ars Technica will not repost to reduce any further robo-aggregated hits, began appearing on 4chan's "pol" board, which is infamous for pushing intentionally inflammatory content. The name appeared on the board when its members began looking through people connected to names that had been mentioned by Las Vegas investigators. One of those people—a sibling of a person of interest who was later cleared by Vegas police of wrongdoing—had social-media attachments to left-leaning subjects such as MoveOn.org and MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. Both 4chan and right-wing misinformation sites like Gateway Pundit began spreading the false name as a suspect while calling the person a "far-left loon." (GP's article has since been removed, but a Google Cache of it still exists.) Google News' statement claims that these false reports landed on the service's "Top Stories" feed due to a burst of activity for a name that had never received many search attempts. "When the fresh 4chan story broke, it triggered Top Stories, which unfortunately led to this inaccurate result," the statement reads. "We use a number of signals to determine the ranking of results—this includes both the authoritativeness of a site as well as how fresh it is," the statement continues. "We're constantly working to improve the balance and, in this case, did not get it right."[/QUOTE]

Has there been any word on the possible motives for this shooting? This seems like it was a shooting that was planned out well ahead of time, there must be some kind of motive to it beyond random violence. Or is it far too early to say?

[QUOTE=Wii60;52740838]google used 4chan as a news source for this [url]https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/10/google-admits-citing-4chan-to-spread-fake-vegas-shooter-news/[/url][/QUOTE] Dang google fucked up hard here

Has this been posted yet? [media]https://twitter.com/abbytheodros/status/914735456943607808[/media]

The shots seems weirdly inconsistently spaced for a fully-automatic weapon.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;52740840]Has there been any word on the possible motives for this shooting? This seems like it was a shooting that was planned out well ahead of time, there must be some kind of motive to it beyond random violence. Or is it far too early to say?[/QUOTE] The media keeps saying there was nothing unusual about this guy, and that he just snapped, but I find it extremely hard to believe the man capable of committing the largest mass shooting event in US history did so without absolutely anyone noticing the man had bought dozens of guns, hundreds of rounds and explosives stashed in both his home and his hotel suite, inside a fucking casino.

[QUOTE=OvB;52740858]Has this been posted yet? [media]https://twitter.com/abbytheodros/status/914735456943607808[/media][/QUOTE] yeah, I posted it on like page 3. Such a insane amount of rounds shot off, definitely a dual drum magazine.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52740879]The shots seems weirdly inconsistently spaced for a fully-automatic weapon.[/QUOTE] Could be a crank.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;52740881]The media keeps saying there was nothing unusual about this guy, and that he just snapped, but I find it extremely hard to believe the man capable of committing the largest mass shooting event in US history did so without absolutely anyone noticing the man had bought dozens of guns, hundreds of rounds and explosives stashed in both his home and his hotel suite, inside a fucking casino.[/QUOTE] We're not going to know what the hell is going on until the police go through all his possessions. They're going to have to go through all his stuff and see if anything points to why. All this seems so unreal to me, it is insane.

If I were to guess, probably an overheat. Another possibility is a Binary Trigger: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVJHVqgXRVI[/media] The thing is, that is not 30 or 100 rounds. That's something much, much longer lasting. Would it be possible to convert a semi-auto belt-fed RPK/RPD?