Active shooter in Las Vegas

[Lord of the Fraud]

But he still irrationally fears that gun control reform might swing wildly to the left, culminating with a complete ban of guns. You could hear the fear in his voice when he discussed that possibility on the radio show.....

(Psssst! Druff! You're gonna be able to keep your macho toy! Honest! Obama's spawn isn't coming for it. But just remember to keep it regularly lubed and loaded just in case...)

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..."

[MumblesBadly]

But he still irrationally fears that gun control reform might swing wildly to the left, culminating with a complete ban of guns. You could hear the fear in his voice when he discussed that possibility on the radio show.....

(Psssst! Druff! You're gonna be able to keep your macho toy! Honest! Obama's spawn isn't coming for it. But just remember to keep it regularly lubed and loaded just in case...)

It's not an irrational fear.

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.

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.

Bottom line? You are parroting fear mongering fostered by the gun industry masquerading as level-headed commentary.

[Dan Druff]

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.

[Dan Druff]

It's not an irrational fear.

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.

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.

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.

[MumblesBadly]

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.

Bottom line? You are parroting fear mongering fostered by the gun industry masquerading as level-headed commentators.

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.

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.

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.

[Tellafriend]

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.

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.

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.

[FPS_Russia]

Sonatine: I found you and B a new Deli in Vegas.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/915241910629011456

[Dan Druff]

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?"

[Dan Druff]

Sonatine: I found you and B a new Deli in Vegas.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/915241910629011456

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...005-story.html

[Dan Druff]

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.

[Gordman]

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?"

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?

[Mintjewlips]

Would not be surprised if this was a sting operation gone wrong.

[Mintjewlips]

Mintjewlips how are your children?

Oblivious to the horrors of humanity....

[HoodedN]

Hiiiiiii Todd

[hongkonger]

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?"

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?

[MumblesBadly]

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?"

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?

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.)

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.

[Mintjewlips]

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.

[sonatine]

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).

lol totally who the fuck can hit fuel tanks hundreds of yards away NOT A 64 YEAR OLD MAN ILL TELL YOU WHAT

[sonatine]

HUMANS WONt DEVELOP THIS TECHNOLOGY FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS

[Mintjewlips]

We get it, you're a paid troll...