Massive shooting in Vegas

Mime-Is-Money

Well-known member
May 29, 2002
8,539
550
113
As crazy as it is or may sound (to the left), you almost need to push forward and allow sane-people the right to carry.

I'm not sure what could happen to stop that guy, probably triple locked his room.. but if just a handful of people in the crowd had weapons, they could have possibly fired back and caused him to duck for cover, saving dozens of lives as people ran off.

I don't think there's much that could have been done even if the crowd was armed. Seems like no one knew from where the shots originated.

But most on the left aren't against the right to carry, rather support stricter background checks and restrictions on assault rifles / magazine size.
 

warrior-cat

Well-known member
Oct 22, 2004
190,052
4,579
113
I don't think there's much that could have been done even if the crowd was armed. Seems like no one knew from where the shots originated.

But most on the left aren't against the right to carry, rather support stricter background checks and restrictions on assault rifles / magazine size.
Assault rifles are already restricted. The definition the left uses is not the correct definition of an assault rifle and if we let it stand we will eventually lose other types of weapons.
 

LineSkiCat14

Well-known member
Aug 5, 2015
37,265
4,309
113
I don't think there's much that could have been done even if the crowd was armed. Seems like no one knew from where the shots originated.

But most on the left aren't against the right to carry, rather support stricter background checks and restrictions on assault rifles / magazine size.

This New Yorker's Facebook feed disagrees. I don't think I've met a single Lib who is for the right to carry, but just wants stricter background checks.. They just want them gone.

I don't know if I care so much about magazine size as I do background checks. I've never even looked into the process of owning a gun, so I have no clue. I would hope, and like to see very very strict laws in place allowing you to have a gun. If there's even a scent of you needing meds or have a recent criminal issue, you should be denied on the spot. (and I imagine these are already in place).
 

CrittendenWildcat

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
12,021
641
113
If this tragedy had fit into a neat little box, for example if it had been a Muslim extremist terrorist perpetrator, we would know better how to react. And maybe this thing ends up falling into our preconceived notions about who our enemies are and who we need to fear. It's been reported he was filming himself in the hotel room, and I'd like to see what explanations/motivations he indicates in those before I simply give up trying to understand. But the details so far are pointing to this guy just going insane and spending a lot of time, money and effort to commit a magnanimously senseless act of carnage, and we may never really understand the motivation for this act.
 
Feb 24, 2009
3,807
555
0
I'm not going to watch or listen to any media. Football will be on mute tonight. My flag will be at half staff. I don't know what to think but my presumption is that this guy is psychotic and I would bet it is politically motivated. White redneck deplorables. I will bet that kidn of rhetoric from the terrorist libs has something to do with his motivation.
All that I can say to you is that at some point in your life, I hope you find peace.
 

LineSkiCat14

Well-known member
Aug 5, 2015
37,265
4,309
113
Politics have turned into a divorce and custody battle. Each side wants to see the other suffer and be proven wrong. In this scenario, many liberals want to see the government walk right into conservatives homes and take all their weapons, even if they are legally purchased, while the republican weeps in a corner.
 

_Chase_

Well-known member
Jan 22, 2004
33,880
8,755
113
Putting political policy changes aside, is there anything at all that can actually be done to deter some of these shootings? Maybe we need some outside the box type ****, instead of just ******** in-fighting which never amounts to anything substantive at all.

For my off the wall idea, I would submit not naming shooters, but only identifying them as some reprehensible word we all agree to associate with mass shooters. Something like **** Lips or Dog Rapist, and then just tack on a randomized number to their name. So instead of articles bringing them fame in death, it would read more like:

The person police say killed at least 58 people on the Las Vegas Strip was named today as Dog Rapist 649. Here's what else we know about Dog Rapist 649, the assailant in the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. Nothing.

This way, people understand when they die that they'll never be glorified in death. Never be a martyr for a particular belief. They'll instead be cremated and their remains spread across a random landfill.

Not showing the streaker seems to have really reduced the incidents on televised sporting events, so maybe the same principle applies.

Obviously, in the social media age, this could never happen; but, there has to be something that can be done.
 

Mime-Is-Money

Well-known member
May 29, 2002
8,539
550
113
This New Yorker's Facebook feed disagrees. I don't think I've met a single Lib who is for the right to carry, but just wants stricter background checks.. They just want them gone.

I don't know if I care so much about magazine size as I do background checks. I've never even looked into the process of owning a gun, so I have no clue. I would hope, and like to see very very strict laws in place allowing you to have a gun. If there's even a scent of you needing meds or have a recent criminal issue, you should be denied on the spot. (and I imagine these are already in place).

OK. My FB feed shows people on the left hoping for increased back ground checks, a decrease of semi-auto weapons that can be converted to automatic, smaller magazine size, etc.
 

angryram

New member
Sep 23, 2017
107
0
0
Putting political policy changes aside, is there anything at all that can actually be done to deter some of these shootings? Maybe we need some outside the box type ****, instead of just ******** in-fighting which never amounts to anything substantive at all.

For my off the wall idea, I would submit not naming shooters, but only identifying them as some reprehensible word we all agree to associate with mass shooters. Something like **** Lips or Dog Rapist, and then just tack on a randomized number to their name. So instead of articles bringing them fame in death, it would read more like:

The person police say killed at least 58 people on the Las Vegas Strip was named today as Dog Rapist 649. Here's what else we know about Dog Rapist 649, the assailant in the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. Nothing.

This way, people understand when they die that they'll never be glorified in death. Never be a martyr for a particular belief. They'll instead be cremated and their remains spread across a random landfill.

Not showing the streaker seems to have really reduced the incidents on televised sporting events, so maybe the same principle applies.

Obviously, in the social media age, this could never happen; but, there has to be something that can be done.
I enjoy watching streakers esp when they get tackled by security.
 

LineSkiCat14

Well-known member
Aug 5, 2015
37,265
4,309
113
^^ I think we're too deep into technology. People will want to know a name, and someone will be able to find it. As much as I'd like them to remain anonymous so they have no fame, I'm not sure Mass Shooter #34 wouldn't eventually have his name attached.

Also, I'd bet not every one of these guys cares to be remembered. They might just snap. They might have a goal to accomplish and they really don't care how they are remembered for it.
 

Hank Camacho

Well-known member
May 7, 2002
27,371
2,448
113
I like an Adam Carolla suggestion: make it a death penalty eligible felony for anyone who knew or should have known of a shooter's intentions and did not alert the police.

Probably unconstitutional, but the idea is solid. Family and close associates are the ones who can usually spot the warning signs but don't do anything.

The fact that the Lanza mom let that nutcase have access to military grade weaponry is disgusting. Had she not been gun-downed, she should have been held criminally responsible.
 

LineSkiCat14

Well-known member
Aug 5, 2015
37,265
4,309
113
Funny enough, while technology might ruin that idea, I think technology is ultimately the answer. Something needs to be created or invented. Biometrics come to mind, the ability to authenticate yourself could stop unlawful use of a weapon that isn't yours. Maybe you need to take 1 second, re-auth, to be able to fire again?
 

Violent Cuts

New member
Jun 22, 2001
26,917
1,192
0
This is the same idea I have for terrorists, and it's extreme, but I think it's the only way to limit these attacks.

If someone commits an attack, all of their possessions will be destroyed (their home, automobiles, etc), their assets seized, and all of their family members will either be thrown out of the country or imprisoned.

This is drastic, but I don't know of a better idea.
 

CrittendenWildcat

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
12,021
641
113
I guess I'm just stating the obvious, but when we talk about our justice system and the state's heavy burden in criminal cases, the adage is that it is better that 10 men who are guilty go free than 1 man who is innocent go to prison. I would assert that we have a similar attitude with regard to our right to bear arms. We suffer these terrible and violent tragedies perpetrated by those who abuse their right to guns because we put a high value on our constitutional right to arm and defend ourselves against others, against invaders, even against our own government. It is ingrained in our extreme independence and individualism.

Should we as a country continue to value our right to bear arms and accept that these tragedies are the price we pay for that right? Are the same rationales supporting the establishment of the Second Amendment still as strong today as they were when the Constitutional Congress met? That's the determination that needs to be made.
 

mashburned

New member
Mar 10, 2009
40,283
18,584
0
Gun control didn't stop any of those people. Passing it here just means you have no one able to defend their homes.

It's the dumbest argument in politics, imo.

But man it makes the "dreamers" feel good to pretend that they can legislate a world free of violence, where nobody is injured, killed, or even e-bullied, and neighbors of all colors can leave their front doors open for we have created utopia! FINALLY!!!!!
 
Jan 28, 2007
20,400
984
0
Should we as a country continue to value our right to bear arms and accept that these tragedies are the price we pay for that right?

In the respect that our government was not respecting our borders by letting millions of illegal immigrants in, I definitely did not want to lose our right to bear arms. I feel a little better about it now, however.
 

Mime-Is-Money

Well-known member
May 29, 2002
8,539
550
113
Advocates for stricter gun control also pushed for research around gun violence from the CDC, which has been blocked by the NRA and their legislative representatives for decades.

At the very least we can do this.
 
Last edited:

mashburned

New member
Mar 10, 2009
40,283
18,584
0
Advocates for stricter gun control also pushed for research around gun violence, which has been blocked by the NRA and their legislative representatives for decades.

At the very least we can do this.

Hell yea we can waste stupid money on stupid studies. It's what we do.
 

mashburned

New member
Mar 10, 2009
40,283
18,584
0
In the respect that our government was not respecting our borders by letting millions of illegal immigrants in, I definitely did not want to lose our right to bear arms. I feel a little better about it now, however.

If we do, however, will our govt supply us the opportunity to purchase fully auto weapons for a fair, black market price? That's their business after all. If they can cut out "legal" gun business, they're poised to make a lot more cash.
 

RacerX.ksr

New member
Sep 17, 2004
132,592
26,415
0
I don't think there's much that could have been done even if the crowd was armed. Seems like no one knew from where the shots originated.

But most on the left aren't against the right to carry, rather support stricter background checks and restrictions on assault rifles / magazine size.
Yeah, that's all you want. Just like gay marriage was all you wanted and now we have men in the ladies restroom and idiots saying their six year old is transgender. This is an adult situation pal, wait in the truck, the republicans will handle it.
 

KingOfBBN

New member
Sep 14, 2013
39,077
3,295
0
It's the dumbest argument in politics, imo.

But man it makes the "dreamers" feel good to pretend that they can legislate a world free of violence, where nobody is injured, killed, or even e-bullied, and neighbors of all colors can leave their front doors open for we have created utopia! FINALLY!!!!!

I agree.

The weird thing about the gun control crowd is that these same people would acknowledge that the war on drugs failed. We didn't stop drugs being sold or drugs being used...

So why would guns be any different?
 

Mime-Is-Money

Well-known member
May 29, 2002
8,539
550
113
Yeah, that's all you want. Just like gay marriage was all you wanted and now we have men in the ladies restroom and idiots saying their six year old is transgender. This is an adult situation pal, wait in the truck, the republicans will handle it.

[laughing] :thumbsdown:

There are some serious misplaced anger issues on this forum. I hope you get help.
 
May 10, 2002
2,076
629
0
Things Obama said that were divisive:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

“Middle-class families can’t wait for Republicans in Congress to do stuff. So sue me.”

“There’s no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests or to throw protesters in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.”

“On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that, as a Christian, I am supposed to love. And I have to say that sometimes, when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned. But that’s a topic for another day.”

When talking about the Dallas police shooter, a BLM member, "First of all, I think it's very hard to untangle the motives of this shooter."

"Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

There are numerous incidents where Obama rushed to judgment to condemn the police, but would always so to refrain rushing to judgment when it was a black person or Muslim.
Those are a SERIOUS stretch. You must be offended by the easter bunny. Meanwhile, we have a real divisive leader in the WH who says the nastiest things about groups and people and then wonders why there's so much hate right now.
 

pitinoshairplugs

New member
Nov 24, 2007
23,247
1,887
0
So you own a fully automatic weapon?

Definition of assault rifle
:any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire.

no. I own a SKS. It is semi-automatic, not fully automatic.

The general public confuses the term "automatic" with fully automatic quite often. There is a MASSSSSIVVVEEE difference.
 

qwesley

New member
Feb 5, 2003
17,606
3,810
0
I do guess the truth hurts when you are in that group. Election of Trump proved him right.
No he got elected despite high disapproval b/c so many people work with obnoxious cardkillas and rqarnolds and decided they hated you more.
 

RacerX.ksr

New member
Sep 17, 2004
132,592
26,415
0
It's the dumbest argument in politics, imo.

But man it makes the "dreamers" feel good to pretend that they can legislate a world free of violence, where nobody is injured, killed, or even e-bullied, and neighbors of all colors can leave their front doors open for we have created utopia! FINALLY!!!!!
Well hell, now that you put it like that, I'm a liberal too! What could possibly go wrong? (you might want to check your white privilege with the extra exclamation marks though)
 

kevcat

New member
Feb 26, 2007
27,686
702
0
Unfortunately, there's not a damn thing anyone could have done to stop this piece of trash.

Hopefully he's rotting in hell.

My thoughts and prayers to all the victims, their families, and friends.

There are evil people in this world, and any of us could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, just as these unfortunate souls were.

I've been to 100's, if not in the thousands, of events with large groups of people. Concerts, sporting events, festivals,..etc, and it has crossed my mind more than once that some deranged lunatic could kill a lot of people in those situations.