• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Vegas Mandalay Bay mass shooting / Gun Control 2017 Thread

Kittycat5 said:
Im convinced the majority of people with guns are always looking to use them and is one of the main reasons why they shouldnt have them. Still want to know how all the gun lovers lives would change without their weapons. I wont get any good answers because the truth of the matter is they wont change and they blindly support an antiquated idea then the actual reality of their and others lives.
Click to expand...

As a gun owner myself, I can swear that this is NOT true. I do not look to use them, I pray I NEVER do. After Trump was elected, I also got my CCW (the permit needed to carry a concealed gun). Does this mean I carry a gun often? No, I do not. Does this mean that I look forward to needing it some day? No, I do not. Does this mean that some day I might feel the need to carry one? Yes it does, and yes I will. Am I pro-gun? Not really, no. Do I believe that as an American citizen those that can legally own a gun should be able to? Yes

In the arguments following an event like this, people fall to note that the gun(s) used were ILLEGALLY obtained. Listening to the videos available I hear what at the very minimum is automatic (fully) gunfire, and entirely to many rounds for any legal clip. This could not (in my opinion) have been legal guns that were used to shoot 400+ yards, in fully automatic fashion, and a very large amount of bullets. If guns are illegal, will it stop people from obtaining illegal guns?

To the victims and their families, my heart goes out. To the witnesses and those who were there with love ones who did not walk away, my heart goes out. I hope you get the care you need to walk through the rest of your days. I have witnessed a similar event, and it was horrible, and I still suffer from the lasting effects many years down the road.

Peace- grsh
 
Look forward to having more of our rights taken away because of this and the absurd amount of mass shootings that have taken place out of nowhere in the recent past. How convenient for a government that doesn't want us to be armed at all so they can have complete control over us.
 
alasdairm said:
but in countering 'gun badness' with 'gun goodness' you're heavily implying that the two should be closely considered. if somebody could prove conclusively to you that, at the end of some very long, very complex, very objective equation, guns do more harm than good, would your position on guns change?

alasdair
Click to expand...

No. Guns are just tools. Lunatics are going to find a way to kill a bunch of people whether there's guns or not.

Kittycat5 said:
Nope. Sorry. Dont care if you are in the NRA or not, still dying to shoot someone. Nobody needs to hunt to put food on the table, either. Id like to see how many lives are saved from guns compared to lost from them. There is no purpose of havimg a gun except to say you have freedom that no other free person gives a shit about.
Click to expand...

Lol... Such nonsense. I personally have known people who hunted and their family too that ate what they killed but what do I know? I'm just a gun owner looking for any chance I get to murder someone. 8(
 
Last edited:
Yes, they are tools, but that makes everything so much easier. That's one of the problems- being so easy to 'simply' use your finger to kill and harm hundreds of people in a very small period of time. Terrorism and bombing would do that as well, but it would require much more 'efforts', timing, not to mention it would have to envolve more people and obviously go through more operational obstacles.
 
The Unabomber and Timothy Mcveigh acted alone. There's probably others I'm forgetting.
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
So far, no real motive or ideology.
Click to expand...

Motive? Vegas shooter was gambling as much as $30,000 per day recently; Update: Wired $100,000 to Philippines

AllahpunditPosted at 11:21 am on October 3, 2017

It’s hard to overstate how strange it is that we’re now 36 hours removed from the worst mass shooting in American history and there’s still not a wisp of hard evidence about a motive. No criminal record, no manifesto, no revealing angry outburst in front of the neighbors, no social media accounts littered with half-coherent polemics. Nada, so far as we know. He didn’t snap either: This guy carefully outfitted a sniper’s nest in the Mandalay Bay hotel overlooking a concert venue over the course of several days and then executed his plan, with no one the wiser. Even Charles Whitman left a note.

The bizarre vacuum where a motive’s supposed to be has invited some creative attempts to fill it. At HuffPost today someone semi-seriously argues that maybe meticulously avoiding any evidence of motive was all part of Paddock’s plan. He wanted to teach us a lesson about how easy it is for a determined lone wolf to use loose gun laws to inflict mass casualties, so he … killed a bunch of innocent people and then killed himself to leave us all baffled. Or something. Yesterday at Mediaite, John Ziegler speculated that maybe Paddock’s motive was nothing more or less than the ultimate sinister hedonistic “fun” in Vegas. He was a gambler who spent lots of time in the city. Maybe the thrill he got from risk finally turned pathological and led him to play the most dangerous game.

Today NBC offers a more prosaic possibility. Maybe Paddock was deeply in debt, saw no way out, and decided to vent his frustration spectacularly as his dying act.

The suspected gunman behind the Las Vegas massacre made several large gambling transactions in recent weeks, according to multiple senior law enforcement officials and a casino executive.

On several occasions, Stephen Paddock gambled more than $10,000 per day — and in some cases more than than $20,000 and $30,000 a day — at Las Vegas casinos, according to an NBC News source who read the suspect’s Multiple Currency Transaction Reports (CTR) and a casino gaming executive.

According to a U.S. statute, a CTR is a Treasury- and IRS-mandated report that casinos have to file when “each transaction in currency involving cash-in and cash-out of more than $10,000 in a gaming day.”

So there you go. Paddock had major losses, felt desperate, and his despair turned morbid. Except … there’s no evidence that these were losses. NBC says they could have been wins. And there’s also no evidence that Paddock would have gone bust even if he had been losing $30,000 a pop. According to his brother he was a wealthy man, a multi-millionaire who’d done well for himself in buying properties. There’s also a chicken-and-egg problem. Rather than sizable gambling losses driving Paddock to murder/suicide, the opposite may be true — it could be that he was planning the attack for months and therefore felt comfortable gambling big bucks in the weeks leading up to it. He knew he’d be dead soon. What did he have to lose by gambling $30,000 at a time?

So, no, still no solid evidence of a motive. But maybe not for much longer: A source told ABC News that “Paddock had a camera mounted in the room, apparently to record himself.” I haven’t seen that reported elsewhere; we knew that Paddock had cameras positioned somehow, presumably outside his room, to let him know when the cops were closing in but not that he may have recorded the actual attack. If he did then it’s a cinch he said something on the recording about motive. Why leave a document of your final act without explaining why?

In lieu of an exit question, a postscript to the story about the mystery woman supposedly overheard telling people at the concert they were going to die around 45 minutes before the shooting began. An eyewitness claimed the woman had been removed by security

Update: Was this Paddock’s farewell present to his girlfriend? If so, it would fit with the theory that he was blowing big money on gambling because he knew he didn’t have long to live.

Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock wired $100,000 to an account in his live-in girlfriend’s home country of the Philippines in the week before he killed at least 59 people in the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, according to multiple senior law enforcement officials.

Marilou Danley, 62, traveled to Hong Kong on Sept. 25 and was in the Philippines on Oct. 1, when Paddock began his rampage, say officials, but it’s not known whether the money was intended for her, her family or another purpose.

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/03/motive-vegas-shooter-gambling-much-30000-per-day-recently/
 
alasdairm said:
three sentences later:

isn't it?

:\

alasdair
Click to expand...

No that is a bold reality.

Without the US propping up Russia's military in WW2 and our own military intervention Nazis would be running things in any place that mattered in europe, and without our strength, brevity and genius, the land of Crocodile Dundee would be speaking Japanese.

After the world wars that was won by the great American people, our economy propped up the entire worlds economies that have currently made life livable in europe for common people.

The entire globe would be nothing and unrecognizable without the USA.
 
Btw i hate guns, dont like being around them and find some ppls obsessions over them obnoxious, but I still and always no matter what horrorshow happens support citizen's rights and more importantly constitutional rights.

If my neighbor sleeps better owning a gun thats their right.

All you ppl that thought Trump was some super nazi are gonna see him go 180 on guns, just like he does on everything else.
 
G.R.S.H. said:
As a gun owner myself, I can swear that this is NOT true. I do not look to use them, I pray I NEVER do. After Trump was elected, I also got my CCW (the permit needed to carry a concealed gun). Does this mean I carry a gun often? No, I do not. Does this mean that I look forward to needing it some day? No, I do not. Does this mean that some day I might feel the need to carry one? Yes it does, and yes I will. Am I pro-gun? Not really, no. Do I believe that as an American citizen those that can legally own a gun should be able to? Yes

In the arguments following an event like this, people fall to note that the gun(s) used were ILLEGALLY obtained. Listening to the videos available I hear what at the very minimum is automatic (fully) gunfire, and entirely to many rounds for any legal clip. This could not (in my opinion) have been legal guns that were used to shoot 400+ yards, in fully automatic fashion, and a very large amount of bullets. If guns are illegal, will it stop people from obtaining illegal guns?

To the victims and their families, my heart goes out. To the witnesses and those who were there with love ones who did not walk away, my heart goes out. I hope you get the care you need to walk through the rest of your days. I have witnessed a similar event, and it was horrible, and I still suffer from the lasting effects many years down the road.

Peace- grsh
Click to expand...
Your wrong his guns where legally obtained in Nevada. Nevada has no limit on clip size because the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire under Bush. Also he used what's called a bump stock to simulate full auto or burst fire these stocks are perfectly legal in Nevada. He was within the law and 400 yards isn't very far when your 32 floors up firing rifles at sillouetted targets with zero cover.
 
David Wooderson said:
Btw i hate guns, dont like being around them and find some ppls obsessions over them obnoxious, but I still and always no matter what horrorshow happens support citizen's rights and more importantly constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
do you also support gun regulation as long as it’s constitutional?

alasdair
 
nuttynutskin said:
No. Guns are just tools. Lunatics are going to find a way to kill a bunch of people whether there's guns or not.(
Click to expand...

No, guns are weapons, not tools, And yes, lunatics will kill regardless, why make it easier?

You have the most gun ownership per person in developed world, and the most massacres. You have permissive gun ownership laws. How can you refute the fact that these are the reasons you continue to suffer these mass murders? What other reason is there?
 
guns don't kill people. people kill people.

with guns. in america. a lot.

gun-murders-per-100000-deaths.png


alasdair
 
swilow said:
You have the most gun ownership per person in developed world, and the most massacres. You have permissive gun ownership laws. How can you refute the fact that these are the reasons you continue to suffer these mass murders? What other reason is there?
Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of reasons. Number one would be mental illness quite obviously I think, because no sane person is going to kill a bunch of innocent people.
 
Agreed that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

But guns do make it rather easy to kill.

I doubt strict gun control would prevent such all mass killings of random people. People who want to kill many people randomly, and have time to plan an attack, have many non-gun methods of killing others.

But strict gun control, to the point where almost nobody could legally carry a gun everyday without it being a crime, would probably do wonders for simple, stupid killings where someone gets pissed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top