Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
Democrats: "Well look, our measure worked again! Clearly we are onto something with gun control saving lives, which we've been saying all along. It is time to get with the rest of the civilized world and ban gun ownership..."
https://media1.giphy.com/media/tYIO8pQGJH356/giphy.gif
The bolded part of this narrative is where your story of what would likely happen goes off the rails. Why? Because *if* the mass gun shootings go down after the initial gun control legislaton gets enacted, the Dems won't be able to make valid argument about why *more* gun control legislation should be enacted. It could too easily be argued that additional controls aren't needed. The GOP and the Citizens United-fueled pro-gun lobby won't stand for it. And any additional gun control measures would still have to constitutional under the Heller vs D.C. SCOTUS ruling, which enshrined the right for individuals to own guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffIt's not an irrational fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
I see the same thing happen all the time in politics.
Unfortunately, compromise is often confused for weakness. Once a compromise is reached, often the floodgates are open to where such changes are considered the new normal, and then more extreme laws are passed in that direction.
This is a phenomenon of American politics (both parties), and is not confined only to the left, so please don't misunderstand me.
However, I can guarantee that many Republicans are afraid to agree to some reasonable automatic weapon gun control measures because they are (rightfully) afraid it will empower the anti-gun contingent on the left to start the movement toward full gun control.
It's not even difficult to see the cycle.
Republicans: "Okay, we agree to ban assault rifles and other guns which can be turned into fully automatic weapons, but nothing else."
(time passes, there are no high-profile mass shootings, simply due to luck)
Democrats: "Look how well our measures worked! However, we still have a very bad gun violence problem in the US. Here's another gun control measure which will fix that problem, yet everyone will still be able to have a gun to defend their home or busniness."
(bill is passed, shootings go down, but not necessarily because of this measure, similar to the decrease in violent crime from 1990-2013)
Democrats: "Well look, our measure worked again! Clearly we are onto something with gun control saving lives, which we've been saying all along. It is time to get with the rest of the civilized world and ban gun ownership..."
If I were a Republican lawmaker, I would refuse to compromise unless part of the compromise included Democrats pledging that they would not be pushing additional gun control legislation in the future. Of course, that promise can't be binding, but it would help for political purposes, and thus possible derail the efforts of those attempting to use this tragedy as a stepping stone to enact full gun control.
Simply put, look at some of the loudest proponents for changing gun laws right now, and you'll see they are also for full gun control.
Bottom line? You are parroting fear mongering fostered by the gun industry masquerading as level-headed commentary.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/us/las...ion/index.html
More info:
- He brought his guns up over a period of days, as I had assumed
- Video shows no evidence of anyone with him at the Mandalay Bay at any time
- No one else entered his room
- The security guard's quick response was due to an alarm from a room a few doors down, not because of the broken windows or the gunfire in Paddock's room. Jesus Campos, the guard, went up to check on this alarm, and then Paddock saw him on the camera and shot him in the leg through the door. This seems to have spooked Paddock, as he likely killed himself after that. He did not fire on the crowd after shooting Campos, likely (erroneously) believing that a large police response was right behind him. Mandalay Bay is claiming that the alarm was in error, because the door from that room was not open, nor did Paddock have access to it. However, I think it's more likely that the alarm occurred because the door wasn't fully closed, and the vibration from the gunfire a few rooms down might have jostled it. The Mandalay Bay is calling it a "coincidence", but I believe there's almost no chance that the alarm and Paddock's actions were unrelated. Anyway, this stupid alarm actually saved a lot of lives, given the slow police response.
- It appears that Paddock was actually firing from inside the room, so people wouldn't be able to see the flashes from his gunfire. It was very difficult to determine where the gunfire was coming from, hence the mass confusion outside. Brilliant plan, actually.
- It is not certain, but it is now assumed that Paddock first tried to blow up the nearby fuel tanks by firing upon them, and then gave up and started shooting at the crowd. It's still not understood why Paddock thought his plan to shoot fuel tanks into an explosion would work, as he had no chance of causing that to occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyThe bolded part of this narrative is where your story of what would likely happen goes off the rails. Why? Because *if* the mass gun shootings go down after the initial gun control legislaton gets enacted, the Dems won't be able to make valid argument about why *more* gun control legislation should be enacted. It could too easily be argued that additional controls aren't needed. The GOP and the Citizens United-fueled pro-gun lobby won't stand for it. And any additional gun control measures would still have to constitutional under the Heller vs D.C. SCOTUS ruling, which enshrined the right for individuals to own guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Bottom line? You are parroting fear mongering fostered by the gun industry masquerading as level-headed commentators.
You're misunderstanding.
I'm not talking about more mass shootings in the bolded part. I'm talking about non-mass shootings -- the ones which result in almost all of the gun deaths in the US each year.
After "solving" the mass shooting problem, Democrats will next go after the non-mass shootings, and claim more gun control is required.
I am NOT misunderstanding, sir. The SCOTUS ruling I mentioned protects the right for individuals to own guns. It essentially established a new constitutional regime regarding the balance of power over gun ownership, with that ruling swinging it dramatically into the hands of individuals versus the government regarding how to interpret the 2nd Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffQuote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
You're misunderstandings.
I'm not talking about more mass shootings in the bolded part. I'm talking about non-mass shootings -- the ones which result in almost all of the gun deaths in the US each year.
After "solving" the mass shooting problem, Democrats will next go after the non-mass shootings, and claim more gun control is required.
Prior to that ruling, any government could establish very strict gun ownership restrictions. Now they can't. It opened up the door for people to legally own handguns in places where before state and local laws had prohibited them based on interpeting the "regulated militia" clause as giving such governments power over such matters. With the Heller v D.C. ruling, that clause has essentially been neutered.
So, no. Your fears that the Dems are gonna run the table of enacting gun reform to the point where you have to surrender your bang-bang macho toy ain't gonna happen if the GOP gets on board with some gun reform measures in response to this latest shooting and the explosion in public awareness over force-multiplying gun accessories such as bump stocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyI am NOT misunderstanding, sir. The SCOTUS ruling I mentioned protects the right for individuals to own guns. It essentially established a new constitutional regime regarding the balance of power over gun ownership, with that ruling swinging it dramatically into the hands of individuals versus the government regarding how to interpret the 2nd Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Prior to that ruling, any government could establish very strict gun ownership restrictions. Now they can't. It opened up the door for people to legally own handguns in places where before state and local laws had prohibited them based on interpeting the "regulated militia" clause as giving such governments power over such matters. With the Heller v D.C. ruling, that clause has essentially been neutered.
So, no. Your fears that the Dems are gonna run the table of enacting gun reform to the point where you have to surrender your bang-bang macho toy ain't gonna happen if the GOP gets on board with some gun reform measures in response to this latest shooting and the explosion in public awareness over force-multiplying gun accessories such as bump stocks.
Sonatine: I found you and B a new Deli in Vegas.
This hasn't been discussed anywhere to my knowledge, but I believe Stephen Paddock killed himself believing he failed.
His goal was to cause hundreds or thousands of casualties. He attempted to blow up large fuel tanks, failed, and then fired upon the crowd.
However, he still believed he would have a lot of time to fire on them until the police located him and stopped him, which is why he brought 23 guns up there.
Imagine his shock when he saw a security guard approaching his room just 12 minutes after he started shooting.
In reality, the guard was up there to investigate an alarm on a room door a little bit down the hall (I'm guessing triggered somehow from the broken windows or shooting causing an unusual vibration), and police response would be far behind. Nobody realized where the bullets were coming from at that point.
However, Paddock didn't know this, and figured they located him quickly. He didn't fire one bullet at the crowd after that, and likely killed himself right at that moment.
I bet that one of his last thoughts before killing himself was, "How did they find me and get up here so quickly?"
Unrelated, but sometimes family-owned restaurants passed down through generations cause problems.
These restaurants end up in the hands of spoiled kids who are ill-prepared for managerial duties, nor do they understand how to treat customers.
I know a guy who manages a deli and has a horrible time dealing with his co-manager -- a really bitchy woman who routinely mistreats both customers and employees -- but he can't fire her due to a family agreement. Basically the deli was co-owned by two brothers, both of whom had their own families. Both brothers are now dead, and their kids are now running it. The bitchy woman is the daughter of one of the original owners, and the guy I know is the son of the other brother.
He detests this woman, but there's nothing he can do, and she's constantly driving away both customers and workers. I have read the reviews and it's just LOL seeing how many customers are bashing her. I feel bad for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I scratch my head at that whole fuel tank situation.
Frankly, after assessing the info presented so far, I think the fuel tank targeting was an afterthought - either that or Paddock knew much less about weapons and had much less training than the public is currently led to believe.
The guy supposedly had 23 guns in his room.
As far as I've seen with the types of guns he had, not ONE of those guns are going to penetrate the fuel tanks from that distance. It's a LOCK in my book. The semi auto's (obv made auto with bump stocks) aren't going to do that (or it is HIGHLY unlikely that they will)
The rounds are too small and the distance is too great; Supposedly the fuel tanks are approximately 2000 feet. Even after you successfully place your shots at that distance, you have to penetrate the metal, which I would imagine is probably reasonably thick considering the size of the tanks
He could have more likely accomplished that feat with a nice high-powered large caliber rifle.
23 guns and you didn't get one to properly accomplish the goal you supposedly had?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordman
Would not be surprised if this was a sting operation gone wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brittney Griner's Clit
Oblivious to the horrors of humanity....
Hiiiiiii Todd
Maybe this is why he wanted tracer rounds, so he could adjust his aim if he was going specifically for the fuel tanks. Was it jet fuel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Some of the fuel tanks were punctured by some rounds, but simply piercing a fuel tank isn't at all likely to ignite the fuel for a few reasons. Most people mistakenly think fuel tanks will burst into flames when shot by standard ammunitions because of the make-believe shit they see on TV and in movies. (Spoiler alert: Those explosions are staged using pyrotechnic charges.)Quote:
Originally Posted by GordmanQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I scratch my head at that whole fuel tank situation.
Frankly, after assessing the info presented so far, I think the fuel tank targeting was an afterthought - either that or Paddock knew much less about weapons and had much less training than the public is currently led to believe.
The guy supposedly had 23 guns in his room.
As far as I've seen with the types of guns he had, not ONE of those guns are going to penetrate the fuel tanks from that distance. It's a LOCK in my book. The semi auto's (obv made auto with bump stocks) aren't going to do that (or it is HIGHLY unlikely that they will)
The rounds are too small and the distance is too great; Supposedly the fuel tanks are approximately 2000 feet. Even after you successfully place your shots at that distance, you have to penetrate the metal, which I would imagine is probably reasonably thick considering the size of the tanks
He could have more likely accomplished that feat with a nice high-powered large caliber rifle.
23 guns and you didn't get one to properly accomplish the goal you supposedly had?
But he might have been able to explode them using tracer rounds, as they are burn very hot for quite some distance down range. That may have been why he drove 10 hours roundtrip to Phoenix to try to buy tracer rounds before his big fuck-you-people-who-are-enjoying-life escapade.
64 year old man that can hit fuel tanks hundreds of yards away and shoot enough rounds to injure 600 people and kill about 59 people in about 10 minutes time.........yea all of that makes perfect sense (feel the sarcasm).
Oh and he also manages to lug up more then 30 firearms along with ammo to his room without no one suspecting anything......riiiiiiight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
lol totally who the fuck can hit fuel tanks hundreds of yards away NOT A 64 YEAR OLD MAN ILL TELL YOU WHAT
HUMANS WONt DEVELOP THIS TECHNOLOGY FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS
We get it, you're a paid troll...
a mossad time traveler on the other hand, they would have easy access to advanced fuel tank puncturing technology.
DO THE MATH
a human round would have to transverse half the distance between the hotel and the fuel tank, then half that distance, then half THAT distance, and this process would be continued infinitely with the bullet running out of inertia long before it ever reached the tank.
ONLY A MOSSAD TIME TRAVELER COULD FIRE THE BULLET AND WAIT FOR THE PLANET'S ROTATION TO CARRY THE FUEL TANK INTO THE ROUND.
Lol at the thought of tine gripping a rifle with his tiny hands.... i guess its tiny handguns for you!
:lol2
gonna need you to simmer down, pfa's dale gribble.
It seems like a lot of these people once someone is on to them go into this shutdown mode instead of trying to shoot more people like many in these cases possibly could and Stephen likely could here. The person seems to consider it as a game or pride type of thing where they get in their head "They won't take me alive! They won't kill me either so I will end my own life not giving the police that chance".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
It's a good thing these people have that mentality because in cases like Paddock he could have done much more damage. He could have that mentality if I'm going to die I'll carry this even further doing more destruction but most of these guys rather go out this way.
They certainly don't want to surrender like the police would really like because they would love to take them alive but normally that's impossible to do. Police obviously would love to question him to find out what his motive was and trial him instead of going through what they are now having questions they likely will never know.
Fuck... I just can't stand the stupidity... We have these things in hotels called bell hops. They are people that handle your luggage for you and sometimes assist with check-in. It's a pretty cool convenience the hotels offer. Get this... You get to a hotel and when you go to check in the bell hops put your luggage on this thing called a luggage cart. It has wheels... I know, cool right?.. it also has enough room to fit a LOT of luggage. The bell hop wheels your luggage to your room on that super cool contraption, the luggage cart. When the bell hop drops off your bags you usually tip them. If your bags are really heavy and maybe you don't want the bell hop to ask questions you tip him more than a standard tip. I'm sure in this case they were tipped very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
Get it, detective dipshit?
Oh, and btw... he had 23 guns in his room, which is common knowledge at this point. Not "more then 30". This is what cracks me up about you. Aside from the typical jsearles then/than mistake, you can't even absorb the obvious shit, yet you think everything is a conspiracy and you know more than most cause you see things from a different perspective. The perspective of the stupid.
I had no idea he let the bellhops handle his gun luggage. Talk about brazen. I'm not someone who likes to cast judgement upon people but the more I hear I'm really starting to think this Stephen Paddock guy was a real jerk.
No one has any idea if hotel staff helped with bags because it's day 8 and we have zero video evidence the guy was in the hotel.
Oh, and 23 guns? 23 just happens to be 32 backwards.
Joo-incidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by devidee
J is 10th letter of alphabet. A is first letter.
Jason Aldean
10/1
Talk about Erie Pennsylvania, I tell you what!
I can't believe all the rubes in this thread that believe the fact that he had EXACTLY 23 guns was a "COINCIDENCE"Quote:
Originally Posted by devidee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H24V...ature=youtu.beQuote:
Originally Posted by The_LurkerI can't believe all the rubes in this thread that believe the fact that he had EXACTLY 23 guns was a "COINCIDENCE"Quote:
Originally Posted by devidee
Druff,
Here is an excellent short article that discusses the current state of constitutional law regarding gun rights, and why you needn't worry about Dems running the table on gun control anytime soon even if the GOP suffered from brain tumor and worked with them to ban "assault weapons". Not even close.
The Supreme Court created a gun rights crisis it's unwilling to solve
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-s...-solve-2017-10
Come on, man. Can we please keep this serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brittney Griner's ClitQuote:
Originally Posted by devidee
J is 10th letter of alphabet. A is first letter.
Jason Aldean
10/1
Talk about Erie Pennsylvania, I tell you what!
Next you guys are going to tell me John Beilman murdering his disabled daughter and killing himself (with a gunshot to the back of the head mind you) is just another joo-incidence. Not related at all to any of this, right?
Jesus Christ on a cracker, people.
Something that hasn't been discussed much:
So the guy apparently has a plane or two. If he's looking to inflict the most harm, why not put those explosives in your plane and do a nose dive into the crowd. Would have been easy enough and the damage would have been far greater. Oh, and I don't buy the story that he believed he was going to escape and get out of this alive, particularly with as quickly as he offed himself when just one security guard showed up who he'd already shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
What I want to know is, if he was so rich, why didn't he have at least a dozen hookers in his hotel room?
hard to believe that authorities still wouldn't have come up with anything terror-related if this guy really was inspired by ISIS, so i've got lower that percentage chance. still unbelievable to me that they haven't come up with any motive whatsoever. this is the most bizarre thing i've ever heard of.
but the craziest part of this story is that it might be possible to be a +EV slot player
druff, we're going to need you to break down if this is really possible and exactly how it could be done cause i'm about ready to quit my job.
His conscience must have gotten the best of him. Key witness kills himself and performs mercy killing on daughter.
http://thenewyorknewsday.com/2017/10...ing-fbi-raid/#
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brittney Griner's Clit
'The CIA, this report further notes, has long been known to eliminate witnesses to their “murder sacrifice” “false flag” operations—and that includes the hundreds of witnesses mysteriously killed following the 9/11 “Tower Sacrifice”'
lol i dont know what i was expecting from one of your links.
Plenty of mass killings have had no clear motive. I don't know why you think it's impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
I think the media fucked up his income. They say things like "paddock reported $5M in gambling profits in 2015". I think someone pulled his W2-Gs, saw they totalled $5M for the year, and misunderstood what that meant. If he played 10 hours a week at $100/hand, he could easily have spent $5M winning that $5M back.