jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (89 posts)

Tragedy in Las Vegas

  1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
    RJ Schwartzposted 2 weeks ago

    Another horrific shooting in America occurred last night at at Country Western concert in Las Vegas.  The motives of the shooter are not yet known, the investigation is just getting started but already people are rushing to put a political slant on the man and the event.  ISIS has even claimed the man was part of their organization (claiming her converted a few months ago.)  Hillary Clinton is blaming the NRA, some are claiming its an act of a White Supremacist, and there is much rhetoric on gun control over the social media feeds.

    I'm tired of people rushing to judgement instead of waiting to see the truth. The FBI has already confirmed no connection to terrorism.  What are your thoughts on this event?


    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13725036.jpg

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Easy answer. For most of my life, assault rifles were illegal. We had no massacres with them.

      Now they are illegal, and we get one massacre after another. And yes, it is very much political thanks to the NRA buying off Congress.

      By the way, the NRA is now demanding that Congress lift restrictions on silencers despite strong opposition from police organizations. Can you imagine how many people would be dead today if the shooter had silencers?

      1. GA Anderson profile image84
        GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Maybe you could expand on your thought promisem. If by "assault" rifles you are talking about semi-automatics like the well-known AR-15, I don't recall that they were ever illegal. There was a 10-year period when their sales were banned, but not ownership of the guns.

        So, pre-2004 there were no "assault" rifle massacres? And post 2004(? +/- a couple years), we have them "one after another?" I think there might be another explanation other than the gun's availability. How else would you explain the pre-1994 period when the same guns were legal and available?

        GA

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          GA, you are referring to the 1994 ban, but there were other restrictions well before 1994 including the Roberti-Roos Act. We will get nowhere in a discussion if we dive into what laws were in place at what point and for which guns.

          I would love it if you could address my larger point of the growing number of massacres using assault rifles along with the NRA's control over Congress. While we're at it, do you agree with lifting restrictions on silencers despite opposition from police organizations?

          1. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            promisem, it was your point about the illegality of "assault" rifles that I addressed. I believe the facts pertinent to your assertion contradict it.

            Your larger point about the growing number of massacres - which I must assume runs primarily along gun control lines, has been discussed multiple times in these forums. We probably wouldn't break any new ground there.

            But... I will discuss one aspect of it that I think is relevant. And that would be the almost instant worldwide exposure and notoriety. I think this nearly automatic "15 minutes of fame" has driven a majority of non-terrorism shootings of recent years. My impression is that both the Sandy Hook  and Dylan Roof incidents probably had that motivation. Which means I do not think the availability of "assault" rifles is a motivator.

            The NRA's control of Congress is really no different than any other lobbyist group's control - like the Trail Lawyers or the Pharmaceutical industry. The fault isn't with the buyer, it's with the seller.

            I do support restrictions on silencers.

            GA

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              I agree with your point that the pursuit of fame could be part of the problem. I don't think a lobbying group that floods the country with assault rifles is on the same playing field as the trial lawyers or pharma industry.

              Thank you for answering my question about silencers.

              1. GA Anderson profile image84
                GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                promisem, the victims of the opiode epidemic we are currently experiencing, folks suffering the potentially life-altering consequences of artificial pharmaceuticals pricing, and the victims of the lack of tort reform might feel like they are part of the playing field of injustice too.

                GA

        2. Ken Burgess profile image82
          Ken Burgessposted 5 days agoin reply to this

          I will not waste days looking into this matter, but I did watch a few videos on youtube last night made by people who were there, taken with their phones, as the attack occurred.  Evidence was clear of the following:

          1- More than one shooter.  At one point in particular I could clearly make out two very distinct and different types of weapons being fired.

          2- There was a shooter on the lower level, about the 4th floor, the muzzle flash was clear, beyond any question or doubt.

          I have some experience with weapons and CQB/combat scenarios, if that helps give any credibility to my opinion.

          There are various (even understandable and logical) reasons why the truth in this matter will never come to light.  Not the least of which now is once they come out with a story like this (single shooter, crazy old man with no motive), they do everything possible to stick to it and sell it. 

          So it becomes a futile point to try and figure out, how many were involved, why, what their beliefs were, was Paddock even the shooter, etc. .. but one of the things that is clear, is that they are making it painfully obvious in the storyline that there were a massive amount of high powered rifles and automatic weapons at his disposal.

          Right now, not only do on-sight videos taken during the attack prove that the official story is false... but the fact that they have not produced dozens of security videos showing Paddock coming and going carrying all these weapons and loads of ammo to the room is striking.  There is absolutely no way, in Las Vegas at such high profile place, there weren't multiple angles of every entryway and access point to that hotel.

          I won't waste my time on this more than I already have... but the same people who bought the story that the Benghazi 'riots' happened because of a youtube video are going to believe the official storyline on this tragic event.  The rest of us know better.

          1. ptosis profile image80
            ptosisposted 5 days agoin reply to this

            Yes, in LV there are cameras everywhere. Funny how he is not showing up on videos.

            Oh BTW, I do AMT & yesterday got this survey, (cut& paste partial)
            Looks like they are doing a poll on the most acceptable reason for the shooting?
            _____HERE IT IS_____

            You will read about Stephen Paddock and one possible explanation for his actions. You will rate your perceptions of the explanation.

            Read the explanation and imagine that it is an authoritative account of what happened, arrived at following a rigorous investigation. I was given one choice,after the survey the choices across crowdsourcing was:

            Severely abused as a child
            Brain tumors
            He finally acted on violent fantasies that he's had for a long time
            He was secretly working for ISIS
            It was simply a choice he made

            ________
            Weird huh?

    2. Readmikenow profile image93
      Readmikenowposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      I think we need to wait and find out where this person got the guns he used in Las Vegas.  A fully automatic weapon is illegal and has always been illegal.  If this person was able to obtain these weapons legally, then we've got a problem.  If he was able to obtain them illegally, no law would have stopped him. Gun laws only hurt the law abiding, they do nothing to stop those who get their weapons illegally.  These people are not restricted by laws. Gun laws will make us more vulnerable to those who get illegal guns and there are many of them on the streets.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Were true "assault rifles" - fully automatic rifles - used then?  I haven't seen that.

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          I saw the videos. They were fully automatic. No one can pull the trigger that fast.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Thanks, but I prefer the word of the person that examined the weapon over the conclusion of someone watching a home video. The only thing I can find is that there may have been at least one assault rifle - is there anything from those people that actually handled the guns?

          2. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            I thought so too promisem, but, we can't be sure, and are probably wrong.

            A friend pointed out something that I hadn't heard of before. It's called a "bump stock," and it's a legal accessory for semi-auto rifles, (primarily AR and AK types. It allows a legal AR-15 to fire almost like an full automatic. The rifle is still only firing one time per trigger-pull, but the bump-stock uses the rifle's recoil to pull the trigger instead of the human - or something like that. A quick google search would be more helpful to you than an explanation from me.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              I ran across that somewhere, too - it makes the gun "stutter fire" and while it isn't at machine gun levels, it's quicker than a normal semi-automatic rifle.  The article I saw didn't mention the stock; just that there such modifications available.

            2. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              GA, a device that speeds an semi-automatic rifle to the point of shooting 400 to 800 rounds per minute without making someone pull a trigger makes that rifle an automatic rifle.

      2. MizBejabbers profile image87
        MizBejabbersposted 13 days agoin reply to this

        Mike, the press released the sources of the weapons today, and they had some interviews with the owners of the gun shops where the guns were legally obtained. This man passed all background checks, but it also appears that he had been planning this and amassing these weapons for the last 2 years. He'd also bought 8 weapons recently at a particular gun shop. Seems like this should have raised a red flag.  The crux of the problem appears to be the interchangeable "butts" or stocks that can turn a legal semi automatic into an automatic weapon capable of firing 700 rounds per minute. These are easily obtained online. I saw this on CBS. They also said that these butts probably will be the next focus on changing gun laws.

    3. RJ Schwartz profile image92
      RJ Schwartzposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Another angle to this story was that the shooter was the child of a "psychopath" bank robber who was on the FBI's most wanted list in the 1960's

      1. colorfulone profile image90
        colorfuloneposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yeah, I just saw a report on Twitter about that.  Curious.

        1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
          RJ Schwartzposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          Today's news state he was wealthy and retired - gambling for months at a time and traveling

          1. MizBejabbers profile image87
            MizBejabbersposted 13 days agoin reply to this

            The press called him a "multimillionaire". Where did he make or inherit his money? It's curious about his wife or girlfriend, whichever she is because authorities haven't determine that yet. Apparently she has returned to her native Philippines. The question is: Did she know what he was planning and flee without alerting the authorities?

    4. jackclee lm profile image72
      jackclee lmposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      The question I have is why did it take 72 minutes to get to this guy? He is holding up in a hotel room.
      Where is all the security? The cameras? They can track a thief from stealing chips at the gaming table but they can't catch a guy shooting from a hotel window 32 floors up....

  2. Aime F profile image84
    Aime Fposted 2 weeks ago

    Awful. Just awful. I have my thoughts on America's gun situation but there's absolutely no use in expressing it anymore. It's clear nothing will change.

    I don't believe that ISIS was involved strictly based on their claim as it's pretty typical for them to pipe up and claim anything that results in death and fear. I don't believe he was a white supremacist as a country music festival is probably not where a white supremacist would find most of his intended targets.

    I honestly have no idea what anyone's motivation is for killing 58 people. There's nothing that makes any sense. All I can really say with certainty is that it's a tragedy and I wish the world was a kinder place.

    1. jackclee lm profile image72
      jackclee lmposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      There you have it, it does not make any sense. Sometimes in life, there are things we have no control over... just like a person wanting to commit suicide, no laws can stop that. These automatic rifles were illegal to began with. If someone breaks the law, as many criminals do, no amount of gun laws will stop them. IMHO

  3. crankalicious profile image87
    crankaliciousposted 2 weeks ago

    Before we politicize this into a pro-gun vs. anti-gun argument, why not just wait until police are done investigating?

    1. ptosis profile image80
      ptosisposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yes, it's interesting, isn't it, that hours after the shooting, it's called a "Lone Wolf' instead of a terrorist action - before the investigation has even begun.

      "reporters who asked if it was a terrorist act: “No, not at this point. ... Instead, terms like "lone wolf" and "mentally ill" are often used about white male ..."

      Shooters of color are called ‘terrorists’ and ‘thugs.’ While white shooters are called ‘mentally ill’.

      U.S. media outlets practice a different policy when covering crimes involving African Americans or Muslims. As suspects, they are quickly characterized as terrorists and thugs (if not always explicitly using the terms), motivated purely by evil intent instead of external injustices. While white suspects are lone wolves,  an act of just “one hateful person” .

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        If there is one thing we can on from a racist, it is that everything in their lives is about racism and that everything bad, done by a different race, is racially motivated.

    2. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      It's a valid question. And one answer is simply that we know the core fact: once again, someone bought one or more assault rifles and murdered dozens of people.

      The question that goes with that core fact is, how to we prevent more such massacres from happening?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Absolutely correct.  Unfortunately we'll do the same thing that we've done in the past, and that has failed the world over.  We'll talk about taking more guns away with the quaint notion that if we deny the preferred tool, killers will slink away and go about their lives without killing anyone.

        What we will NOT do is address the causes of the violence in our country.  We won't even try - it is much easier, politically, socially, culturally and financially to deny constitutional rights.

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          We will not do the same thing because the NRA has a lock on Congress. The NRA thinks the solution is more guns for everyone along with removing limits on silencers.

          What is your solution?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Oh, we'll talk about it - the screams for gun controls are already rising.

            Mine?  I suggest a strong effort to understand why our culture is so violence prone. Then work at finding and implementing a solution that might result in fewer murders.

            How about you?  What do you think our response should be?

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              Remove the private sale loophole. Maintain strict adherence to the mental illness database.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                Why (loophole)?  Taking guns away doesn't solve a thing - worldwide experience shows that, so why bother infringing on constitutional rights to accomplish nothing?  It buys votes, but I deny that buying politician's votes is more valuable than my freedoms.

                Sorry, but I deny governmental right to my doctor, and particularly, psychologist reports - that's worse than denying constitutional rights.  Can we all chant Hoover! Hoover! in unison?  A witch hunt to end all witch hunts, and giving government the right to remove us from our home and society at the drop of a hat.

                Which leaves the mental illness thing as a major problem.  And personally, I do think it a major cause, especially in mass murders like Vegas.  I just don't have an answer except requiring a yearly (or bi-yearly?  Monthly?) mental checkup of every person in the country - a fate worse than even the mass murders and loss of life we see.

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Because the private sale loophole means anyone can sell a gun to a child, convicted felon or mentally ill person without getting caught.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    But you ignored that taking guns doesn't help.  Are you prepared to prove (prove!) that adding to the difficulty and cost of getting a gun will help?  Because we've been down the road of guessing that it will dozens of times, only to find that it doesn't.

                    What little I have seen on the cases of child, felon or insane person getting a gun is that it's not done legally anyway.  So what will making private gun sales illegal help?

          2. jackclee lm profile image72
            jackclee lmposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            There is no solution in a situation like this.

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              We might start by stopping the sale of guns to felons and mentally ill people.

              1. jackclee lm profile image72
                jackclee lmposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                Isn't that the law already? As far as we know, this man is not a felon and not known to be a mental case until now.

                1. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  No, it is not the law already.  There are no federal laws and some states do not require background checks or block any category or person from gun ownership.

                  Even 75% of NRA members agree with licensing and background checks but if you can afford to drive to another state, you can avoid that requirement.

                  Making automatic weapons illegal to private citizens and requiring licensing of each gun with checks on high volume purchases might well have prevented this from happening.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image72
                    jackclee lmposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                    How does that prevent a criminal who does not abide by any laws, of getting these same weapons?
                    That is the whole problem, elephant in th room, about the gun debate. You can have all the laws in the book but it can't stop a criminal from getting guns. Hence, what good are these laws?

                  2. Readmikenow profile image93
                    Readmikenowposted 13 days agoin reply to this

                    It IS illegal for a convicted felon to own a gun. 
                    "In 1968, the U.S. Congress passed the Gun Control Act, and it was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. One of the primary purposes of the legislation was to further regulate interstate transfers of firearms. However, the law also reinforced existing federal law that made it illegal for a felon to own a gun. Although Congress had already passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, which made it illegal for felons convicted of a violent crime to own a gun, the Gun Control Act expanded the prohibition to include all felony crimes."

                  3. MizBejabbers profile image87
                    MizBejabbersposted 13 days agoin reply to this

                    Again, the shooter did not lhave automatic weapons. He bought a legal attachment that turns a legal semiautomatic into an automatic, according to CBS. These are obtained without any hassle online. That is where the govt. should be focusing attention at this point. No private citizen needs these, and anybody who buys one should be scrutinized for motive.

                2. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  No, it isn't enforced. How do you know his mental health history?

    3. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Is pro- or anti- automatic rifle a political issue?  I don't see it.  The majority of American support making these types of weapon illegal for private ownership--including people from all political parties.

      Today I brought my friends some kinder eggs from Denmark.  This candy is illegal to sell in the US, but machine guns aren't.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        No, they aren't illegal to buy.  Just VERY difficult.  (Legally buy, anyway)

      2. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        You are right. The majority does oppose it. Polls even show NRA membership is less extremist than the NRA board.

        But laws in America go to the highest bidder. The NRA has a lot more money to spend on politicans than the rest of us.

  4. colorfulone profile image90
    colorfuloneposted 2 weeks ago

    Pure evil lurks in the hearts of people like this murderer, that is the only explanation that makes any sense.

  5. jackclee lm profile image72
    jackclee lmposted 2 weeks ago

    I will answer that. No laws can change the hearts of men. I believe in some forms of gun control but as this incident clearly shows, laws does not translate into desired outcome. These automatic weapons used were illegal and yet, it was bought and used to kill. What do you do them? Ban all guns?

    1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
      RJ Schwartzposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately Jack, you are correct.  Centuries ago it was mass slaughter by the sword, decades ago it was mass slaughter with the Gas Chambers, or starvation, or exile to Gulags.  The Middle East has many more injuries and deaths from IED and roadside bombs versus guns. No laws can change the hearts of men.

  6. crankalicious profile image87
    crankaliciousposted 2 weeks ago

    Why didn't the murderer roll a few grenades into the crowd? Or explode a few poison gas canisters?

    You know why? That stuff is much harder to get.

    1. jackclee lm profile image72
      jackclee lmposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      So what's your point?

      1. crankalicious profile image87
        crankaliciousposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        You might be able to figure it out if you try.

        1. jackclee lm profile image72
          jackclee lmposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          You talk like it is something we can control. We can't control people who are crazy just like you can't stop someone committing suicide. If someone wants to get weapons illegally and used it to harm others, what laws will stop that?

          1. crankalicious profile image87
            crankaliciousposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            True, but we'll certainly reduce the death toll in mass shootings if we limit access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons. These are weapons average people do not need.

    2. MizBejabbers profile image87
      MizBejabbersposted 13 days agoin reply to this

      Crankalicious, bombs, grenades, etc. may be hard to buy, but there are instructions online for anybody who wants them badly enough to build them themselves. And if you are rich like this guy probably was, you can probably obtain them from the black market.

      1. crankalicious profile image87
        crankaliciousposted 13 days agoin reply to this

        Sure, but you don't see nearly as many mass killings with them because they're hard to get. People like what's easy, including mass murderers.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 13 days agoin reply to this

          Is the built in assumption that if harder to get they won't be used if the easy method is unavailable?  Because I'd have to call BS on that one; insanity is not stopped nearly so easily.

          1. crankalicious profile image87
            crankaliciousposted 13 days agoin reply to this

            I would never say that any of these idea will stop anything. Crazy people will do crazy stuff no matter what, but the argument that making buying guns harder will just mean we'll see just as many mass killings with grenades so we should just let them kill people with the guns to make sure everyone has the right to buy an automatic weapon is a ridiculous argument. Remember, I am not advocating for confiscating everyone's guns, I'm just arguing for more restrictions and possibly a near ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

            As an aside, the GOP pulled their most recent gun bill, which would have eased restrictions on silencers. Undoubtedly, this bill will make it back to the floor. It's really a shame the lunatic in Las Vegas didn't outfit all his weapons with silencers, though I'm sure he could have if he tried. Is that really the kind of legislation we need?

        2. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 13 days agoin reply to this

          Like Australia, which has had a steep decline in murders by guns ever since the country started clamping down on them. The graphic below comes from the Aussie government.

          https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13727832_f248.jpg

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 days agoin reply to this

            Whups!  That graph shows the "steep decline" happening about 10 years before the "clamp down" (confiscation).  Disarming the people must not have been the cause, not unless the result occurred before the causal action!

  7. Paul Wingert profile image77
    Paul Wingertposted 2 weeks ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13725560.png

  8. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 2 weeks ago

    Can we all agree that lobbying for a company that cares more about their bottom line than they do about the well being of our citizens is bad, regardless of the nature of the company?

    Can we all agree that we can certainly address more than one problem at once?

    However, I would say the NRA is particularly insidious because they are promoting consumer items that have very little redeeming value.  Pharmaceuticals do help people.  I honestly don't see how a private citizen owning guns that can kill 59 people in 16 minutes is helpful to anyone.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 13 days agoin reply to this

      "However, I would say the NRA is particularly insidious because they are promoting consumer items that have very little redeeming value.  "

      To you.  Do you not care about others?  That they find "redeeming" value where you do not seems rather obvious.

      "I honestly don't see how a private citizen owning guns that can kill 59 people in 16 minutes is helpful to anyone."

      In other words, no one needs such a gun.  Or any gun for that matter.  But of course it isn't about "need" and it isn't about being "helpful".  It's about rights, guaranteed rights under the law.

      And no, I'm not comment on whether automatic guns, or parts to modify something else into an automatic, should be readily available.  Just commenting on the attitude that your desires and feelings should be the same for everyone.  They aren't.

  9. Readmikenow profile image93
    Readmikenowposted 13 days ago

    I'll think this is a good idea when you can show me Australia has the size and scope of crime as we do in the United States.  Unfortunately, we don't have Australian criminals, we have American criminals.  Also, we don't live on an island like Australia, we're connected to other countries.  It's a bit different.

  10. profile image61
    Lare1961posted 5 days ago

    Still can't believe this happened, this is so wrong, and i really can't imagine how people that lost their relatives, friends, family feel, so sad...

 
working