Active shooter in Las Vegas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord of the Fraud

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Predictions;

1) Vegas hotels and casinos ban guns and may institute security measures for screening large amounts of gun powder from entering higher level floors.

2) Every non-gun expert pops out and says that it's ridiculous to allow someone to own a gun that can easily kill 50 people, forgetting that hand guns kill WAY more people and if someone wanted to kill 50 people they could just get a bus driving license and drive it off a cliff or through a crowd.

3) This is used as the universal example of "look it's not all Islamic radicals" replacing Tim McVeigh. Of course this ignores the very fact that makes this shooting newsworthy: numbers count. The scale of these lone wolf attacks that are separate from Islamic terrorism are almost as laughable in scale to my human:water ratio consideration.

---

Then why doesn't this happen in developed countries where there's tight gun control?

No white people are driving off cliffs or through crowds because they lost their house playing video poker.

---

I won't ridicule you over the fact that you've never heard of Anders Breivik.

Or the fact that a white guy just ran a truck through a crowd in England in 2017, although I will cede to your point that it wasn't specifically about video poker...

This goes back to my question about why all cars can go above 85mph when you cant legally go above that speed anywhere in public in the US.

And it's funny you mention that no white people are doing this, as if their race or notice has any impact on whether certain guns should be banned.

confirmed AR15 modified to fully automatic (similar M16).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILEMzdzD4iA

Found pretty clear shot of the guys face 56 seconds in:

http://www.ktvn.com/story/36203418/p...lipId=13636675

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

From the Atlantic:

Yet despite the predictable recurrence of these crimes, Americans have developed a strong taboo against ever discussing or even thinking about them. When the killer strikes, it is “too soon.” The next day, it is “too late”; we have all moved onto the next topic. Then comes the next massacre, and it is “too soon” all over again.


Like ancient villagers, Americans accept periodic plagues as a visitation from the gods, about which nothing can or should be done. The only permitted response is “thoughts and prayers”—certainly never rational action to reduce casualties in future. Even to open the discussion as to whether something might not be done violates the taboos of decency: How dare you politicize this completely unpredictable and uncontrollable event! It is as if gun violence were inscrutable to the mind of man, utterly beyond human control.


The fact that such things do not happen anywhere else with anything approaching the same frequency—that too is the work of some ineffable mystery. Who can say why such things happen so seldom in Canada and Australia and Britain and Germany and France, and so often in the United States? Who would be rude enough even to wonder?

---

Is it too soon for some good ol' 'Merican gun porn?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ug4mAZvOXI&feature=youtu.be

---

Dammit! The dude who put this video up a few years ago must have made it private since I made that post. It showed a semi-auto belt-fed AR15 with a bump stock and front pistol grip operated off a tripod. With some practice, one can operate it like full auto.

Here's one with a normal stock showing the belt feed that he didn't take down (yet).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS4l2g7fL-E&feature=youtu.be

And here's one of an AR15 with bump stock but not belt fed, and operated by a girl, mind you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7DTjSla-O8&feature=youtu.be

('Merika!!!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Predictions;

2) Every non-gun expert pops out and says that it's ridiculous to allow someone to own a gun that can easily kill 50 people, forgetting that hand guns kill WAY more people and if someone wanted to kill 50 people they could just get a bus driving license and drive it off a cliff or through a crowd.

---

i don't get this reasoning

the fact that handguns kill way more people (in total) is true (much like the common cold), but has nothing to do with whether we can help reduce mass casualty situations like what happened this weekend.

your analogy about the bus is particularly ridiculous. you are essentially stating that since there are multiple ways to kill a bunch of people, it would be pointless to ban any of them. by that logic, why ban grenades, rocket launchers, flamethrowers, etc.? what is the legitimate justification for why any of us need assault rifles? sidenote it's also crazy to act like it's just as easy to kill groups of people with a get access to a bus as compared with an assault rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mintjewlips

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gordman

I also chuckle at politicians and other people who know nothing about weapons when they start talking about silencers and how evil they are. They clearly dont even know what a basic silencer actually accomplishes/doesn't accomplish.

100% of their knowledge comes from action movies. Really.

Im convinced a large number of those people would be severely disappointed if they suddenly went out and bought a silencer and tried to use it.

---

They know their base is full of urban retards that have never fired a pistol let alone fired an AR-15. Politicians want to ban guns to obviously make it way more easier for authoritarian rule.

The facts are, people who want to commit these attacks will find a way to do so.

---

this right here is the only reason that right-wingers feel they "need" assault rifles. in their mind, they are a protection against the US military. NRA folks don't like to advertise this, but it's 100% their mindset

Are those wishing to own guns to fight against authoritarian rule the ones cheering Trump's authoritarian tendencies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlhUuAGkXpM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Predictions;

2) Every non-gun expert pops out and says that it's ridiculous to allow someone to own a gun that can easily kill 50 people, forgetting that hand guns kill WAY more people and if someone wanted to kill 50 people they could just get a bus driving license and drive it off a cliff or through a crowd.

---

i don't get this reasoning

the fact that handguns kill way more people (in total) is true (much like the common cold), but has nothing to do with whether we can help reduce mass casualty situations like what happened this weekend.

your analogy about the bus is particularly ridiculous. you are essentially stating that since there are multiple ways to kill a bunch of people, it would be pointless to ban any of them. by that logic, why ban grenades, rocket launchers, flamethrowers, etc.? what is the legitimate justification for why any of us need assault rifles? sidenote it's also crazy to act like it's just as easy to kill groups of people with a get access to a bus as compared with an assault rifle.

---

Particularly ridiculous? Who said I think that grenades and rocket launchers should also be banned?

The argument is that banning is a slippery slope. This should cover your apparent confusion about my hand gun argument and my school bus argument. If you ban semi-auto assault rifles, there will be an eventual call to ban handguns (which kill more people and are a much greater problem).

I could make a bomb out of legal fireworks that would make a grenade look like a firecracker. Should be ban fireworks?

They banned large amounts of liquids from airplanes after one attempted bombing attempt - are you also for the water bottle ban?

:facepalm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

i don't get this reasoning

the fact that handguns kill way more people (in total) is true (much like the common cold), but has nothing to do with whether we can help reduce mass casualty situations like what happened this weekend.

your analogy about the bus is particularly ridiculous. you are essentially stating that since there are multiple ways to kill a bunch of people, it would be pointless to ban any of them. by that logic, why ban grenades, rocket launchers, flamethrowers, etc.? what is the legitimate justification for why any of us need assault rifles? sidenote it's also crazy to act like it's just as easy to kill groups of people with a get access to a bus as compared with an assault rifle.

---

Particularly ridiculous? Who said I think that grenades and rocket launchers should also be banned?

The argument is that banning is a slippery slope. This should cover your apparent confusion about my hand gun argument and my school bus argument. If you ban semi-auto assault rifles, there will be an eventual call to ban handguns (which kill more people and are a much greater problem).

I could make a bomb out of legal fireworks that would make a grenade look like a firecracker. Should be ban fireworks?

They banned large amounts of liquids from airplanes after one attempted bombing attempt - are you also for the water bottle ban?

---

i'll give you points for being ideologically consistent if you're against banning grenades and flamethrowers, but will deduct points for you being batshit crazy

you're right that banning forms of weapons is a slippery slope, but it's part of being in a civilized grownup society. we make these decisions all the time

even in the wild west that is the USA, we decided that machine guns are so inherently dangerous that there is no legitimate reason for anyone to own them. same with a million other types of military weapons. assault rifles belong on that banned list. it's fucked up that this is even controversial

The fact of the matter is damn near any American can pull off a mass shooting if they want, that'll never change. Damn near every problem in the America can be traced back to right wing policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Lurker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Here is (supposedly) Stephen Paddock:

https://everipedia-storage.s3-accele...ock__40872.png


He lived with Marilou Danley.

I wonder if Marilou was the woman described to have gone to the front row about 45 minutes before the shooting, telling people that "everyone's going to die".

Given that Marilou's husband is Geary Danley, who is described as a left-wing fanatic, I wonder if this whole thing was left-wing terrorism.



Even if Geary had nothing to do with this, his strong left-wing association makes you think that it's likely people associated with him (or his wife) might also be left-wing fanatics.

The targeting of a country music concert (a genre of music known to have a Republican-leaning fan base) would also be a good target for a deranged left-wing shooter looking to kill the "opposition".

---

Can you please sticky this post to the front page, so every time I log on I can get a good laugh?

---

It was a fucked up post IMO. Trying to speculate on political motivation, especially speculation of a group you dont like being involved, when so many people on this board could have been effected by this was very callous IMO. Can't really put my finger on it right now but it definitely didn't sit well with me. Druff isn't the only one... I've seen a shit ton of it on social media. Its sad. And once again mintjewlips and xfactor once again prove to be moronic douchenozzles.

So besides all his guns/rifles at the hotel he had 18 more at home along with plenty of ammo. His plans to carry out this mission are disgusting and he probably hoped he could get out of the hotel to do more damage but when he realized it wasn't possible he just ended his life.

They still have to search the second home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GringoStar

Particularly ridiculous? Who said I think that grenades and rocket launchers should also be banned?

The argument is that banning is a slippery slope. This should cover your apparent confusion about my hand gun argument and my school bus argument. If you ban semi-auto assault rifles, there will be an eventual call to ban handguns (which kill more people and are a much greater problem).

I could make a bomb out of legal fireworks that would make a grenade look like a firecracker. Should be ban fireworks?

They banned large amounts of liquids from airplanes after one attempted bombing attempt - are you also for the water bottle ban?

---

i'll give you points for being ideologically consistent if you're against banning grenades and flamethrowers, but will deduct points for you being batshit crazy

you're right that banning forms of weapons is a slippery slope, but it's part of being in a civilized grownup society.

even in the wild west that is the USA, we decided that machine guns are so inherently dangerous that there is no legitimate reason for anyone to own them. same with a million other types of military weapons. assault rifles belong on that banned list. it's fucked up that this is even controversial

---

Well I'm not batshit crazy and I sold the only gun I owned.

We can both have valid arguments here and disagree, but I am a pragmatist when it comes to guns and technology - the toothpaste is out of the tube.

Also, this guy was actually using a fully automatic weapon, which is already banned. A demonstration of the effectiveness of bans.

I'm for bans the way I am for affirmative action. I'd be all for it if it actually proved impactful.

Id personally like to know why the leaders of the white community arent speaking out about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Lurker

Can you please sticky this post to the front page, so every time I log on I can get a good laugh?

---

It was a fucked up post IMO. Trying to speculate on political motivation, especially speculation of a group you dont like being involved, when so many people on this board could have been effected by this was very callous IMO. Can't really put my finger on it right now but it definitely didn't sit well with me. Druff isn't the only one... I've seen a shit ton of it on social media. Its sad. And once again mintjewlips and xfactor once again prove to be moronic douchenozzles.

---

Oh and marilou isn;t even on this continent right now.

And people wonder why media is hesitant to release names...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d80f8903c114

Geary Danley was not the gunman in Las Vegas who killed at least 50 people late Sunday. But for hours on the far-right Internet, would-be sleuths scoured Danley’s Facebook likes, family photographs and marital history to try to “prove” that he was.

Danley, according to an archived version of a Facebook page bearing that name, might have been married to a Marilou Danley. Police were looking for a woman by that name in the hours after the shooting, but later said they did not think she was involved. To name someone as a mass murderer based on that evidence would be irresponsible and dangerous. But that’s exactly what a portion of the far-right Internet did overnight.

The briefest look at the viral threads and tweets falsely naming Geary Danley as the attacker makes it easy to guess why a bunch of right-wing trolls latched on to him: His Facebook profile indicated that he might be a liberal.

......


This narrative, backed by no evidence or confirmation of Danley’s involvement in the Las Vegas shooting, spread quickly. That Everipedia post had 77,000 views as of Monday morning, just hours after it was created. It has since been edited and no longer names Danley as the shooter. His personal photos, taken from Facebook, were still plastered all over the page.

But even as those rumors were thoroughly, conclusively debunked, this false narrative was picked up in the algorithms that, increasingly, have come to define a person’s public-facing identities. During a search I ran about 9 a.m. Monday, hours after the real shooting suspect — a different person — was identified, the entire first page of Google results for a search for Geary Danley’s full name were links to news sites, YouTube videos, message boards and even several /pol/ threads repeating the rumor about him. There was one exception: a link to Danley’s personal Facebook page. There were no links to debunkings or to any mainstream news outlets that had identified Paddock as the attacker.


And for a time on Monday morning, one of those 4chan threads falsely naming Danley as the shooter was promoted by Google as a “top story” for searches for his name, as one BuzzFeed reporter noticed.

The right-wing news site Gateway Pundit also picked up these rumors as fact in a now-deleted article. That article’s URL was still the top result for Danley’s name on Google in the early hours of Monday morning. The headline, still visible in search results, and remaining on the first page of results for Danley when I ran my 9 a.m. search, read, “Las Vegas Shooter Reportedly a Democrat Who Liked Rachel Maddow, MoveOn.org and Associated with anti-Trump Army.”