Active Shooter On Las Vegas Strip

[Daweii]

28 minutes ago, Rodders said:

no doubt he'll be viewed as a traitor or a 5th columnist type. 

He's already getting shit from the anti-gun people for taking "almost dying" to change his mind. I mean it doesn't matter what changed his mind on guns, the simple fact is he changed his mind. No one would chastise a fat person for having a heart attack and then afterwards realising the error of their ways. Sometimes it takes the absolute extremes to cause someone to wake up and unfortunately for this guy it was an event where 58 people died at the hands of a gun.

[Guest av1]

This **** world pisses me off. We have aresholes shooting innocent people at gigs in vegas. Police battering people voting for democracy, isis bombing anyone that doesn't believe in a made up god and arseholes in the west bombing anything in the middle east thinking that will sort it all out. 

If life is a ride i want to **** get off. 

[AVFCDAN]

Just seen the interview with the gunmans brother where he laughs off the fact that he was a gun enthusiast while stating that he had a couple of pistols and a rifle, that’s 3 guns too many mate. He could have taken out a similar number with just those weapons if he wanted.

[Guest av1]

1 minute ago, AVFCDAN said:

Just seen the interview with the gunmans brother where he laughs off the fact that he was a gun enthusiast while stating that he had a couple of pistols and a rifle, that’s 3 guns too many mate. He could have taken out a similar number with just those weapons if he wanted.

I really don't know enough about the American constitution to make comment, but is the right to bare arms more important to the right to feel safe? The right to be able to go to gig without the fear of some word removed emptying ten machine guns into a crowd?

The country makes me sick but then these words removed voted for Trump so we shouldn't be suprised. 

[Daweii]

10 minutes ago, av1 said:

I really don't know enough about the American constitution to make comment, but is the right to bare arms more important to the right to feel safe? The right to be able to go to gig without the fear of some word removed emptying ten machine guns into a crowd?

The country makes me sick but then these words removed voted for Trump so we shouldn't be suprised. 

I wonder if at this point it's less about the right to bear arms and more that they have been defending the right for so long it would feel like losing if they conceded. We know how stubborn people can be when they believe in something even though they know that they're wrong. They know that the thing they love so much hurts so many people, but admitting that guns are not the answer is just a bridge to far for so many people. So they likely want the right to feel safe like everyone, but at the expense of losing their guns? Not sure it's ever going to happen. 

[TheAuthority]

8 hours ago, Chindie said:

Nobody truly needs a gun. Absolutely nobody needs an assault rifle, ever. There is no justifying a weapon like that. Yet in lots of the US, of you can afford it, you can have it. In Nevada, you sing even need to wait.

This a country where a supermarket sells rifles. 'Honey, don't forget the eggs, and get the right detergent this time. Oh and pick up an AR15 while you're there'.

Nuts. And literally will never, every be solved. Because they like guns too much. The price to be paid for that is thousands of needless deaths year after year. And every once in a while some word removed needs desperately to show the world his rage and kills dozens of innocents with the nice force multiplier he got from the good old gun store. Or at the show.

There's some things about America I admire. And then you remember this kind of thing.

I can agree with the 1st two sentences of your post.

Quote

This a country where a supermarket sells rifles. 'Honey, don't forget the eggs, and get the right detergent this time. Oh and pick up an AR15 while you're there'.

Hyperbolic BS. This simply doesn't happen. Walmart (which is where I'm guessing you're talking about) is a 'super-mall' under one roof. Some of them in certain states sell weapons and food under the same roof. But you are being dramatic for drama sake.

Quote

Nuts. And literally will never, every be solved. Because they like guns too much.

The problem is way more nuanced and complicated than that. What a dumb derivative of the topic.  But I am sure you know that.

Quote

There's some things about America I admire. And then you remember this kind of thing.

Yep - life is shades of grey. Some good some bad, some great some terrible. Then things come along and make us emotional and angry and upset.

You are an intelligent poster Chindie and this "Americans are just nut-jobs who buy guns with their morning coffee" is an asinine attitude trotted out very frequently on VT and it touched a nerve with me today. Please don't dissolve the topic to such base instincts and thoughts. With the current US political climate and now this tragedy in Vegas, we need as many people as possible dialoguing  in an intelligent way not sinking to hyperbole and easy cliches.

I'm very sad today for my adopted country.

[This Could Be Rotterdam]

So this nutter had over 40 guns, explosive and 'electrical devices' that they're looking into. It almost seems impossible to comprehend that this could've been any worse than what it was but it could have. It's been said many times already but ic ant understand for the life of me how someone can accumulate that many guns and not have questions asked, concerns raised. It goes so far beyond the realms of personal protection or being able to overthrow a government or whatever the ancient stance they like to draw upon says. But it seems like this is just considered normal to too large a chunk of Americans for this to change in our generation. 

[peterms]

Quote

Former Fox News presenter Bill O’Reilly has called the Las Vegas shooting “the price of freedom” in a post on his personal website arguing against stricter gun control laws.

“The murderer had a number of deadly weapons in his room and you can count on the gun control debate to ramp up,” he said. “But ... I can tell you that government restrictions will not stop psychopaths from harming people.

“This is the price of freedom,” he continued. “Violent nuts are allowed to roam free until they do damage, no matter how threatening they are.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-two-dead-in-mandalay-bay-casino-shooting-latest-updates

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, This Could Be Rotterdam said:

So this nutter had over 40 guns, explosive and 'electrical devices' that they're looking into. It almost seems impossible to comprehend that this could've been any worse than what it was but it could have. It's been said many times already but ic ant understand for the life of me how someone can accumulate that many guns and not have questions asked, concerns raised. It goes so far beyond the realms of personal protection or being able to overthrow a government or whatever the ancient stance they like to draw upon says. But it seems like this is just considered normal to too large a chunk of Americans for this to change in our generation. 

1 gun, 10 guns or 40 guns it doesn't really matter. They are all deadly weapons and you can only shoot one at a time (unless you're in a John Woo film I suppose). 

Anyway the point I am making is that the guy with one semi automatic rifle could well be the far greater threat than the guy with an extensive collection. 

[LondonLax]

40 minutes ago, peterms said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-two-dead-in-mandalay-bay-casino-shooting-latest-updates

I wonder if he'd still call it a price worth paying if he was personally affected. 

Empathy never was his strong suit. 

[Rugeley Villa]

Guns are a big part of th culture of the states going all the way back to the cowboys and Indian times. Hollywood has always glamourised guns and even music going from the rap artists to even lynyrd skynyrd. Like other problems affecting the world it will take generations to sort out. To change the way of thinking is going to take some doing, especially as it's such a violent country. Personally I can't see it happening. 

[colhint]

If I'm reading this right, and it's earlyish, trying to go over the maths in my head. 

3% of Americans own 50% of the guns in the US.

Quote

3%

Proportion of people who own half of the country’s guns, according to an unpublished Harvard/Northeastern University survey result summary. Anchoring this group are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns.

Guardian US guns in numbers

Does this suggest that 47% don't have guns at all. If so this is good, maybe that will increase, and all hope isn't  lost.

[Chindie]

4 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

I can agree with the 1st two sentences of your post.

Hyperbolic BS. This simply doesn't happen. Walmart (which is where I'm guessing you're talking about) is a 'super-mall' under one roof. Some of them in certain states sell weapons and food under the same roof. But you are being dramatic for drama sake.

The problem is way more nuanced and complicated than that. What a dumb derivative of the topic.  But I am sure you know that.

Yep - life is shades of grey. Some good some bad, some great some terrible. Then things come along and make us emotional and angry and upset.

You are an intelligent poster Chindie and this "Americans are just nut-jobs who buy guns with their morning coffee" is an asinine attitude trotted out very frequently on VT and it touched a nerve with me today. Please don't dissolve the topic to such base instincts and thoughts. With the current US political climate and now this tragedy in Vegas, we need as many people as possible dialoguing  in an intelligent way not sinking to hyperbole and easy cliches.

I'm very sad today for my adopted country.

My point about supermarkets isn't literally someone is going to grab a rifle whole they get the milk, im being flippant. It's that the culture of guns is so ingrained that a supermarket even sells guns. 

Of course the gun debate is nuanced but it can boil down to liking having their guns. There isn't a need to own a firearm. There just isn't. Defence? Nope, you're not going to be effectively defend anything and are more likely to use it for murder in a rage or a suicide. Hunting? You don't need to hunt and even if you decide you do, the guns needed for that do not include many of those on sale. Etc etc.

There isn't a debate to be had anymore about guns. They're isn't a solution. The lobby is too powerful, the people too adamant they need they them, and every tragedy does nothing more than frustrate. It's another flippant point, but made a lot yesterday, once Sandy Hook happened and nothing moved the debate, what little there was, was dead.

I can understand you've written this on the heat of the moment.

[lapal_fan]

8 minutes ago, colhint said:

If I'm reading this right, and it's earlyish, trying to go over the maths in my head. 

3% of Americans own 50% of the guns in the US.

Guardian US guns in numbers

Does this suggest that 47% don't have guns at all. If so this is good, maybe that will increase, and all hope isn't  lost.

That's what I figured when I was honeymooning over there.  I never saw a weapon that wasn't holstered to a police officer.  I went to Vegas, Chicago & NYC.  I expected to see these things, but I didn't see anyone who you'd think shouldn't have one, have one and felt as safe walking around those cities during the day or night as I would around Birmingham.  

I even went shooting in Vegas, and almost all of the people I saw and overheard (who were American) had never even shot before - much like my party of people going for first time. 

Likewise my in-laws carried on to San Fran, and they didn't see anyone with a gun.  

I think it's probably right.  I played PS3/4 with a load of Americans and they often engaged in a gun debate.  The guys who lived in the middle of nowhere all owned multiple weapons (say 3 or 4, including 1 rifle amongst a couple of hand guns), but the city goers never had them, apart from one guy who was ex-army lifeguard, and that was a .22 (which would take a bullet to the temple to kill you).  

The problem is, or at least to me seems..  That (a portion of) the people who do feel the need to purchase these super-powerful weapons, tend to be naturally more paranoid, introverted, private than the every man who is "normal", otherwise, why would they need them?  

I know there are exceptions to the rule.  I know there are "normal" people with guns in their homes, there are people who enjoy shooting (Dom Wren for example!) & there are veterans who have firearms.  

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, colhint said:

If I'm reading this right, and it's earlyish, trying to go over the maths in my head. 

3% of Americans own 50% of the guns in the US.

Guardian US guns in numbers

Does this suggest that 47% don't have guns at all. If so this is good, maybe that will increase, and all hope isn't  lost.

I think it means about half the population won't have one, assuming there continues to be fewer guns than population.  The article says that there are 88 guns for every 100 people, so that means that 44 guns remain to be shared among every 97 people.  That suggests that if all the remaining gun owners owned only one gun, then 53% of people couldn't have one as of today.  But the total of guns isn't fixed, and has gone up since last week.  So the picture will depend on the share of guns among the 97%, but also the total number of guns.

[lapal_fan]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

My point about supermarkets isn't literally someone is going to grab a rifle whole they get the milk, im being flippant. It's that the culture of guns is so ingrained that a supermarket even sells guns. 

Of course the gun debate is nuanced but it can boil down to liking having their guns. There isn't a need to own a firearm. There just isn't. Defence? Nope, you're not going to be effectively defend anything and are more likely to use it for murder in a rage or a suicide. Hunting? You don't need to hunt and even if you decide you do, the guns needed for that do not include many of those on sale. Etc etc.

There isn't a debate to be had anymore about guns. They're isn't a solution. The lobby is too powerful, the people too adamant they need they them, and every tragedy does nothing more than frustrate. It's another flippant point, but made a lot yesterday, once Sandy Hook happened and nothing moved the debate, what little there was, was dead.

I can understand you've written this on the heat of the moment.

In fairness you can't assume that there wholly isn't a need for a firearm to use as protection. 

I know a guy who lives in Montana, who owns a semi automatic rifle.  He has it because he lives in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by forests which contain bears, which enter peoples homes for food etc. 

Luckily, he's never used it, but if that was a potential situation I lived near, I'd think about having a gun! 

[Rugeley Villa]

6 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

In fairness you can't assume that there wholly isn't a need for a firearm to use as protection. 

I know a guy who lives in Montana, who owns a semi automatic rifle.  He has it because he lives in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by forests which contain bears, which enter peoples homes for food etc. 

Luckily, he's never used it, but if that was a potential situation I lived near, I'd think about having a gun! 

Why shoot the bear though? Simple solution to the problem is just make sure you have plenty of jars of honey lying about the place. 

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, peterms said:

I think it means about half the population won't have one, assuming there continues to be fewer guns than population.  The article says that there are 88 guns for every 100 people, so that means that 44 guns remain to be shared among every 97 people.  That suggests that if all the remaining gun owners owned only one gun, then 53% of people couldn't have one as of today.  But the total of guns isn't fixed, and has gone up since last week.  So the picture will depend on the share of guns among the 97%, but also the total number of guns.

The article ends with a table showing the 'demographic characteristics of gun owners'. The headline figure is that, according to The Stock and Flow of US Firearms: Results from the 2015 National Firearm Survey, 22% of people in the US own a firearm.

Edit: I haven't read the survey - is this purely legal gun ownership? *Thinking out loud*

Edited October 3, 2017 by snowychap

[peterms]

26 minutes ago, snowychap said:

The article ends with a table showing the 'demographic characteristics of gun owners'. The headline figure is that, according to The Stock and Flow of US Firearms: Results from the 2015 National Firearm Survey, 22% of people in the US own a firearm.

Edit: I haven't read the survey - is this purely legal gun ownership? *Thinking out loud*

Interestingly it says that ownership among men is falling and among women, rising.  A drop from 42% of men to 32% owning a gun over the last 20 years is a pretty big shift.

[Paddywhack]

34 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Why shoot the bear though? Simple solution to the problem is just make sure you have plenty of jars of honey lying about the place. 

Paw prints on your driveway, claw marks across your front door, brown fur caught on a few door handles and a big pile of crap in your living room.

You: "Those ISIS bastards..."