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

[QUOTE=Talon 733;52741735]Just as easily as the guy in the next room recording this on his phone could've shot this guy and saved hundreds of people if he had a gun[/QUOTE] Bursting into room inhabited by spree-shooter armed with automatic weapons seems bit foolish. Shooting through wall might have worked with luck, but again, the perpertrator had superior firepower. It might have drawn attention for some time.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52741641]On the topic of gun violence, there is this amendment called the Dickey amendment you might want to know about. Long story short: a CDC funded research in 1993 "found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide". NRA doesnt like this, lobbies, and in 1996, a spending bill gets an intentionally vague, menacing rider attached: [I]“none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”[/I] Authored by Representative Jay Dickey, (R). This is what happens ever since: [URL]https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx[/URL] They won't repeal this amendment, even with the author of it against it. This isn't about inane democrats wanting to penalize gun owners anymore. This is about the access to new information and research being blocked because Dickey in 1996 "simply didn't want to 'let any of those dollars go to gun control advocacy.' " This hurts the government's ability to base its gun control legislature on empirical data and evidence. While I don't think you can blame all inane gun control laws on this, it might have played a part, naturally. Why do I bring this up? I didn't know about this; It is the budget talks time in DC and this isn't getting repealed -again-; and there is a gun debate. I also wonder what pro-arguments you could make about this. There has to be some for this amendment to persist for 21 years, right?[/QUOTE] You're leaving out the part where the CDC openly declared firearm ownership to be a public health crisis, and funded research intended to argue for gun control. They weren't conducting research on gun violence and sources of death, they were [I]explicitly[/I] using government funding to push gun control as a partisan issue. That particular study in 1993 by Kellerman was [URL="https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/publichealth/55267"]widely criticized[/URL] by other doctors for its transparently awful methodology and far-reaching conclusions. For example, it used the data such that a home invader using a handgun to kill unarmed homeowners would be counted towards that 'having a handgun in your home increases your risk of death' statistic, as would someone living in a bad neighborhood keeping a gun for self-defense and then being stabbed in the street without the gun ever being involved. It was an awful study repudiated by actual professionals, but was still rammed through by the CDC because it fit the political agenda they were explicitly promoting. And the Dickey Amendment didn't prevent them from conducting research. It still doesn't. [URL="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/283955-dem-senator-cdc-already-has-authority-to-study-guns"]Even Democrats admit[/URL] that the CDC has the authority to study gun violence- they're just not allowed to make it a partisan issue like they did in the 90s. The issue is actually that Congress won't appropriate them money for the purpose. If I wanted to be [I]really[/I] cynical, I'd say that 'evil NRA-funded Republicans are obstructing legitimate research' is a more useful talking point for Democrats in Congress than actual research. I hate when people bring up the Dickey Amendment because the 'Republicans block gun research' narrative is an enormous distortion of the facts. I am all for gun violence research, but not when it's conducted with partisan goals.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52741641]On the topic of gun violence, there is this amendment called the Dickey amendment you might want to know about. -snip- Why do I bring this up? I didn't know about this; It is the budget talks time in DC and this isn't getting repealed -again-; and there is a gun debate. I also wonder what pro-arguments you could make about this. There has to be some for this amendment to persist for 21 years, right?[/QUOTE] The prohibition against the CDC advocating for gun control was a direct response to the CDC head of "gun research" at the time. The guy literally said he would use the CDC to advocate for gun control in an interview. A response was this add-on to spending bills. [quote]“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who oversaw CDC gun research, told The Washington Post in 1994. “Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly and banned.”[/quote] The law does not prohibit the CDC from researching gun violence. In fact they had done so under Obama when he direct them to after Sandy Hook. News article when the executive order was signed by Obama. [url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/executive-order-nra-fear-most-151849251.html[/url] The 2013 CDC report about guns. [url]https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ix[/url] A pro-gun website's take on the CDC research. [url]http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/[/url] The CDC report done was buried by gun control advocates. So the question is, why do gun control advocates bury the report from the CDC they commissioned?

It's really frustrating to watch democrats push for gun control legislation using transparently false and misleading arguments. It doesn't seem like there's anybody involved in the conversation of addressing gun violence who actually knows anything about guns. It's really disheartening to watch people who laugh at others for being ignorant parade their own ignorance on national television without even the slightest hint of self awareness. It makes it really fucking difficult to support anybody when everyone so openly embraces hypocrisy.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52741795] And the Dickey Amendment didn't prevent them from conducting research. It still doesn't. [URL="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/283955-dem-senator-cdc-already-has-authority-to-study-guns"]Even Democrats admit[/URL] that the CDC has the authority to study gun violence- they're just not allowed to make it a partisan issue like they did in the 90s. The issue is actually that Congress won't appropriate them money for the purpose. If I wanted to be [I]really[/I] cynical, I'd say that 'evil NRA-funded Republicans are obstructing legitimate research' is a more useful talking point for Democrats in Congress than actual research.[/QUOTE] [quote]Still, the Dickey amendment has since 1997 had a chilling effect on nearly all CDC research as it tries to obey Congress’s rules and stay out of the political crossfire. Mark Rosenberg, who led the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control when the ban was enacted, told The Hill last year that the language was a “shot across the bow” for researchers. Since then, the CDC has had almost no funding for gun violence research. Those budget rules have come under renewed scrutiny this week after the powerful doctors group, the American Medical Association (AMA), decided to “actively lobby” to eliminate the budget rule in the wake of the Orlando nightclub massacre.[/quote] in the later part of that article surely depriving the CDC of funding for gun control research is heavily limiting their ability to conduct research in the same way that a ban would? what's the merit in depriving a research entity of funding to research a field which is a critical issue?

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52741728][url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lasvegas-shooting/las-vegas-police-look-for-motive-in-deadliest-mass-shooting-in-modern-u-s-history-idUSKCN1C70FU[/url] This guy is a fucking anomaly. What made him snap? As far as we can see, he lived a normal life with no indication that something like this would happen. [/QUOTE] Experts are as baffled as you are. [QUOTE="Me from this thread earlier"]...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[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52741848]in the later part of that article surely depriving the CDC of funding for gun control research is heavily limiting their ability to conduct research in the same way that a ban would? what's the merit in depriving a research entity of funding to research a field which is a critical issue?[/QUOTE] Because we don't want the CDC advocating politics. They are expected to be a neutral organization presenting facts only. By the way, Mark Rosenberg is the guy who got the CDC into that mess in the first place if you see my earlier post.

[QUOTE=Kigen;52741864]Because we don't want the CDC advocating politics. They are expected to be a neutral organization presenting facts only.[/QUOTE] i don't understand the point of a research entity, and research, is to work out what the facts are, so that you can then put the right measures, practices and legislation in place based on that research politics should be informed by facts

[QUOTE=im not iRunner;52741450]On the topic of gun control, from a Venezuelan's PoV. I think everyone should have the right to own a firearm, I think that the more people that have weapons the better. Why? Because I believe there's more people out there willing to fight to preserve life rather than destroy it. I believe if more people owned guns, less crime would occur, since response time from citizens would be quicker than police response time. As far as I've seen, crimes occur to those that can't defend themselves. If you want peace, you must be willing to fight for it.[/QUOTE] I think governments should put more focus and money on creating a society that doesn't punish homeless and unemployed people into oblivion, where they have to resort to crime in order to survive. Of course it's easier said than done, but it's not impossible.

If you guys want to continue discussing gun control/gun legislation, please move discussion to this thread: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1580860[/url] I'll try to update the OP with this too. It's a better avenue for this conversation.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52741848]in the later part of that article surely depriving the CDC of funding for gun control research is heavily limiting their ability to conduct research in the same way that a ban would? what's the merit in depriving a research entity of funding to research a field which is a critical issue?[/QUOTE] Like I said, I am all for research, and I think the CDC should be funded to conduct research. They were funded in 2013, in the wake of Sandy Hook, by the Obama administration- and when their results didn't support gun control, they were quietly buried. A funding issue is a completely separate beast from a law being passed to prevent gun violence research, which is what the Dickey Amendment narrative is. The Dickey Amendment is irrelevant, it's entirely a matter of appropriating funds, which Democrats were obviously able to do in 2013.

Have the police posted pictures of anything from this guy's arsenal? Because after hearing some rifles had bump fire stocks on them, I wondered how many considering they found 20+ guns alone in his hotel room, correct?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52741872]i don't understand the point of a research entity, and research, is to work out what the facts are, so that you can then put the right measures, practices and legislation in place based on that research politics should be informed by facts[/QUOTE] They weren't pushing facts.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52741896]Have the police posted pictures of anything from this guy's arsenal? Because after hearing some rifles had bump fire stocks on them, I wondered how many considering they found 20+ guns alone in his hotel room, correct?[/QUOTE] i'd assume that they weren't all rifles otherwise holy hell has there been an explanation as for why his partner didn't contact the police and instead when direct to the concert? i feel she could have saved a lot of lives, but i imagine there's some circumstance that meant she couldn't or something? [editline]3rd October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DuCT;52741897]They weren't pushing facts.[/QUOTE] i'm gonna observe pascall's wish to discontinue the discussion in this thread, but i believed the CDC had a very good record (in terms of other areas) and a previous bad study isn't a reason to suppress it entirely in my mind (through lack of funding) - i'd like a source on the gun control study from the obama administration getting buried before i believe it (from catbarf) happy to continue in the other thread if desired

Not to make this into a political thing but I think this man is evidence that if you "try to take our guns" as my dad often says, you'd have literal armies to get passed. This was one man who snapped, imagine instead these were the capabilities of a man fighting for a just cause with support of any kind. People don't realize that yea there's a lot of people with guns, there's also a lot of people with [I]a lot of guns[/I]. Never underestimate the money and legal hoops a hobbyist will go through to get their hands on some crazy wicked firepower. (for reference, I'm extremely pro firearm I'm just pointing out how the scales seem kind of tipped one way in terms of who owns more weapons when talking about legal vs illegal guns, more than than I'd expect I guess.) I'd be interested to see what people from countries with different gun laws have to say. Like if places where citizens often have weapons, are there 'power-users' so to speak, or do people typically just buy what they need?

[url]http://tribunist.com/news/images-leaked-of-las-vegas-shooters-guns-none-are-fully-automatic/?utm_source=MOH[/url] Suspect used AR-15's with bump fire stocks, no true full autos as of yet.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52741641]On the topic of gun violence, there is this amendment called the Dickey amendment you might want to know about. Long story short: a CDC funded research in 1993 "found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide". NRA doesnt like this, lobbies, and in 1996, a spending bill gets an intentionally vague, menacing rider attached: [I]“none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”[/I] Authored by Representative Jay Dickey, (R). This is what happens ever since: [url]https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx[/url] They won't repeal this amendment, even with the author of it against it. This isn't about inane democrats wanting to penalize gun owners anymore. This is about the access to new information and research being blocked because Dickey in 1996 "simply didn't want to 'let any of those dollars go to gun control advocacy.' " This hurts the government's ability to base its gun control legislature on empirical data and evidence. While I don't think you can blame all inane gun control laws on this, it might have played a part, naturally. Why do I bring this up? I didn't know about this; It is the budget talks time in DC and this isn't getting repealed -again-; and there is a gun debate. I also wonder what pro-arguments you could make about this. There has to be some for this amendment to persist for 21 years, right?[/QUOTE] That study was critically flawed. It looked at robberies that involved a homicide and from that pulled to see if the homeowners had firearms, instead of looking at homes that owned guns and then seeing if there was a death in them. It also didn't differentiate between the home owner or the burglar dying, or who brought the gun that killed them.

[QUOTE=Ridge;52742005]That study was critically flawed. It looked at robberies that involved a homicide and from that pulled to see if the homeowners had firearms, instead of looking at homes that owned guns and then seeing if there was a death in them. It also didn't differentiate between the home owner or the burglar dying, or who brought the gun that killed them.[/QUOTE] Hey take this to the other thread thanks ! Only giving out warnings here since I just posted it.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52742006]Hey take this to the other thread thanks ! Only giving out warnings here since I just posted it.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I hadn't seen your post at the time.

In the meantime, what can we do to help out if it hasn't already been mentioned before? Are there any legitimate sites set up for donations? Can blood be donated from the east coast or would the logistics of that be unfeasible? Sorry in advance if it was already mentioned earlier, but I don't feel like trying to sift through twenty pages of debates.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52741918]i'd assume that they weren't all rifles otherwise holy hell has there been an explanation as for why his partner didn't contact the police and instead when direct to the concert? i feel she could have saved a lot of lives, but i imagine there's some circumstance that meant she couldn't or something? [/QUOTE] According to the Las Vegas Sheriff's Office, it were above 20 rifles and at least one handgun. They also noted that hotel staff has testified that Paddock had hauled at least 10 suitcases to his room during his stay prior to the shooting. Given that he was apparently a high-roller gambler, it would explain why hotel staff didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. Especially if he came there regularly, but that isn't one hundred percent clear yet. Before the SWAT breach, he shot at security guards, wounding one guard. Upon the SWAT breaching into his room, they found that Paddock had committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.([URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooting.html"]NY Times, just picked the statements from the LVPD from there.[/URL]) About his partner, the situation with her seems very vague at the moment. I thought at first that she was in custody, but I hear also sources saying that she was out of the country during the time of the shooting, but has been contacted. It's still a question if anyone else was with him during his stay at the hotel at all, and who those two women were who were shouting about an incoming massacre an hour before the shooting began. I do think that would be cleared up as the investigation continues, especially as they go further in what Paddock did in the days before the shooting. There is bound to be CCTV footage of him hauling those suitcases with weapons to his room, maybe it would also show if he was truly alone or had anyone else with him during his stay?

Here are a few ways: [URL="https://www.gofundme.com/dr2ks2-las-vegas-victims-fund"]GoFundMe Setup by Steve Sisolak, Chair of the Clark County Commission[/URL] [URL="https://victimsofcrime.giv.sh/45f1"]National Compassion Fund[/URL] No more blood is needed at this time though! They had a ton of people turn out for donations and I believe they're set as far as blood goes. [editline]3rd October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52741918]i'd assume that they weren't all rifles otherwise holy hell has there been an explanation as for why his partner didn't contact the police and instead when direct to the concert? i feel she could have saved a lot of lives, but i imagine there's some circumstance that meant she couldn't or something?[/QUOTE] They said she was out of the country actually and that she wasn't believed to be involved.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52742117]In the meantime, what can we do to help out if it hasn't already been mentioned before? Are there any legitimate sites set up for donations? Can blood be donated from the east coast or would the logistics of that be unfeasible? Sorry in advance if it was already mentioned earlier, but I don't feel like trying to sift through twenty pages of debates.[/QUOTE] I believe the Clark County Sheriffs created a gofundme if you'd like to check that out. Oh, didn't see that link was the first one above me, go right there then :v: [editline]3rd October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52741980][url]http://tribunist.com/news/images-leaked-of-las-vegas-shooters-guns-none-are-fully-automatic/?utm_source=MOH[/url] Suspect used AR-15's with bump fire stocks, no true full autos as of yet.[/QUOTE] I believe the second rifle shown, with the bipod and scope was the .308 based on the casing sizes and the mag shape in that image. / <--- Scratch this statement Fucker sprayed the crowd then took concentrated shots when people were panicked, dear fucking god.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52742149]I believe the second rifle shown, with the bipod and scope was the .308 based on the casing sizes and the mag shape in that image.[/QUOTE] That's a .223 Pmag in the gun.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52741980][url]http://tribunist.com/news/images-leaked-of-las-vegas-shooters-guns-none-are-fully-automatic/?utm_source=MOH[/url] Suspect used AR-15's with bump fire stocks, no true full autos as of yet.[/QUOTE] Is there a reason for why this sort of modification is legal? Just asking since I don't know much about guns.

[QUOTE=butre;52738338] as it currently stands the gun debate is irrelevant. as far as anyone can tell the gun used was already illegal.[/QUOTE] That point is not irrelevant. In a way, it kind of proves that gun control works. Since there are so many shootings and mass shootings in the US every year, the fact that we haven't seen one this big until now proves that making guns illegal does(usually) keep them out of people's hands. Like making things illegal doesn't make it impossible to get your hands on it but it makes it much harder to get your hands on it and that's enough. Based on that alone, more control would prevent a lot of shootings.

[QUOTE=Potus;52742511]Is there a reason for why this sort of modification is legal? Just asking since I don't know much about guns.[/QUOTE] Because there's a certain point where you'd have to end up banning any conceivable weapon modification that [I]may[/I] improve the weapon, and it's incredibly hard to legislate along those lines. Especially when the people making the laws often seem to have no idea what the actual technical aspects of a firearm are. This is where you put in the picture of the M1 Garand with a piece of string tied between the bolt and the trigger, and the letter from the ATF indicating that it does in fact violate the law, in regard to, "a weapon who's trigger is connected to it's breach action."

[QUOTE=Potus;52742511]Is there a reason for why this sort of modification is legal? Just asking since I don't know much about guns.[/QUOTE] A lot of it deals with how the government defines guns. Legally speaking a gun is not a machine gun unless it can expell more than 1 shot with a single trigger pull (unless it expells shot, like a shotgun) So while that makes sense in a broad sense it means double barrel shotguns cannot have a trigger that shoots both barrels at the same time, as that would be considered a machine gun. Bump fire stocks are legal because the gun itself is not a machine gun, it still requires 1 pull per shot fired. What it does is allows someone with practise to use the recoil of the gun itself along with forward pressure to force the trigger back into the users finger, thus pulling the trigger.

I'm still waiting for some big revelation about this guy. People don't spends lots of time premeditating a mass murder with 50 guns and explosives for no reason.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52742625]I'm still waiting for some big revelation about this guy. People don't spends lots of time premeditating a mass murder with 50 guns and explosives for no reason.[/QUOTE] Some men just want to watch the world burn