Mass shooting Las Vegas, Oct. 2. 2017

[Airbrush]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

And maybe he's a space alien with butt problems. Good grief. Really?

Did you listen to the interview?  I would like to know if he was a big fan of Obama.  In the interview I got a far leftist impression of the Paddock family.  What did you get?

Edited October 6, 2017 by Airbrush

[iNow]

In no way relevant to my comment about your rampant unsupported speculations.

[Airbrush]

Then you did not listen to the interview.  It's too long, 27 minutes.  After you listen to the interview tell me what you think.

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Did you listen to the interview?  I would like to know if he was a big fan of Obama.  In the interview I got a far leftist impression of the Paddock family.  What did you get?

Why does it matter? Is protecting people from being shot at a partisan thing?  

There could be any number of motives for doing something like this. Even if you figure it out, how does that help? The next madman to come along will have a different motive. 

[Phi for All]

55 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Did you listen to the interview?  I would like to know if he was a big fan of Obama.  In the interview I got a far leftist impression of the Paddock family.  What did you get?

!

Moderator Note

This is NOT a conspiracy theory site. Opinions are fine, but this sort of "impressionism" guesswork is fake news fodder, and we just don't want it here anymore. I hope you understand. Stick to what we know about this unfolding story.

 

[CharonY]

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why does it matter? Is protecting people from being shot at a partisan thing?  

There could be any number of motives for doing something like this. Even if you figure it out, how does that help? The next madman to come along will have a different motive. 

Even if it was relevant, overinterpreting an interview and derive some grand theory is the what a conspiracy theorist would do. And their right to wrong ratio is not something to be proud of.

 

Crossposted

Edited October 6, 2017 by CharonY

[Airbrush]

I'm just trying to figure out the guy's motives.  Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.  Nobody knows his motives.  He shot up a country music concert.   If we understand motives we can make progress towards preventing this in the future.   The next madman will have a different motive, but there are commonalities and therefore things to learn.

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, Airbrush said:

I'm just trying to figure out the guy's motives.  

Neither of us is equipped to achieve this goal. 

[iNow]

51 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

If we understand motives we can make progress towards preventing this in the future.

Maybe he read too many of your posts here at SFN and just snapped.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

By comparison this sort of implies Africa as a whole is the worst place on earth. That is debatable and unnecessarily dismissive of Africa as a whole which has nothing to do with this conversation. Opressive regimes, famine, and atrocities exist all over the world; to say that Assad, Kim Jung-un, ISIS, or etc are evil and use them as specific examples for comparison is more appropriate than just casually throwing the whole of Africa and "Islam countries" under the bus generalizing to an insulting degree.

Totally wrong! If you read what I posted correctly, you notice I did say "some" African countries and also "some" Islam countries where lawlessness and strife is prevalent.  I'm really not sure how else to compare a country where an individual can accumulate 30 or 40 guns, some of them military automatic type weapons. I earlier in this thread posed a question to scherado, half jokingly about this second amendment many Americans seem so stuck on, and if it included freedom to own and possess hand grenades...It is notable that he did not answer that question. And when this country is supposedly the leader of the free world, it makes the contrast doubly troubling and weird.

But I do agree that as an outsider, my opinion is just that, and the existing problem is up to Americans to solve, but really, just because they probably see themselves as the leader of the free world, is no reason why they should not look at the systems of other countries and not be so proud and protective of that label as leader of the free world. I remember a while back Hillary Clinton, while visiting our country, remarked in gushing terms about the success of our own gun laws, along with our health care system for all Australians. But perhaps such realization of the reasons and methodologies our relatively small country (in terms of population), is far too hard for the average American to swallow their collective pride and accept and adopt.

But then again, I'm only an outsider.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Did you listen to the interview?  I would like to know if he was a big fan of Obama.  In the interview I got a far leftist impression of the Paddock family.  What did you get?

What gave you that impression? The shooter bought 33 guns in the last 12 months and in the interview you are referencing his brother mentions owning a semi automatc gun he uses to teach his children to shoot with. Are you under the impression most gun enthusiast are leftist?

"On Election Day, gun owners did in fact come through for Trump. Sixty-two percent of gun owners voted for Trump, according to data from the 2016 American National Election Studies (ANES). "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/09/gun-ownership-used-to-be-bipartisan-not-anymore/?utm_term=.f00d5162b17e

 

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

But I do agree that as an outsider, my opinion is just that, and the existing problem is up to Americans to solve, but really, just because they probably see themselves as the leader of the free world, is no reason why they should not look at the systems of other countries and not be so proud and protective of that label as leader of the free world. I remember a while back Hillary Clinton, while visiting our country, remarked in gushing terms about the success of our own gun laws, along with our health care system for all Australians. But perhaps such realization of the reasons and methodologies our relatively small country (in terms of population), is far too hard for the average American (hmmmm) to swallow their collective pride and accept and adopt.

But then again, I'm only an outsider.

I am under the opinion that the average U.S. voter who supports the current Admin and leadership in Congress has no real interest in resolving the policy issues you mentioned. Pride has nothing to do with it. They simply want certian things for themselves, believe ONLY they are entitled to those things, and actually enjoy the suffering of others as it provides relative perspective to their victories; someone one must lose for someone else to win.

 

Hmmm - The Average American voter voted for the candidate you said gushed about your gun laws and healthcare system.

[scherado]

12 hours ago, geordief said:

 

On 10/4/2017 at 8:50 AM, hypervalent_iodine said:

!

Moderator Note

Sorry, I wasn't necessarily referring to the posts directly prior to the last note. I am satisfied that those posts are on topic. I was more hinting at the posts about rapes and  the breakdown of U.K.  society. Scherado, whether you authored this thread or not, we have standards and rules that you agreed to obey upon signing up. We expect that the topic of a thread is what is outlined in the title and OP. Anything more is considered off topic, for the purposes of keeping discussion focussed. If you wish to discuss other things, please start other threads. 

 

 

 

Exactly what in the box is directed toward me other than the sentence that begins with my name?

9 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Did you listen to the interview?  I would like to know if he was a big fan of Obama.  In the interview I got a far leftist impression of the Paddock family.  What did you get?

Many of us here--in the USA, not trapped in the Mainstream Media narrative and squirrel cage--think the scent of this massacre is of the type that occurred at the baseball practice for Republican members of Congress, June 2017, except this guy Paddock, the smell of this tells us he had helpers; and the brother's show in front of the gaggle of reporters told me that the brother is what we call a Lefty. What's very obvious and not a matter of debate is that the Left in the US has become deranged and unhinged. Personally, I've been studying this subject since 1991--the Presidential race between Bush, The President and candidate Clinton.

[rangerx]

36 minutes ago, scherado said:

What's very obvious and not a matter of debate is that the Left in the US has become deranged and unhinged.

Who died and made you the arbiter of what can or cannot be discussed, no less in the same breath punctuated with a bigoted statement?

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

well It did happened.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, scherado said:

Many of us here--in the USA, not trapped in the Mainstream Media narrative and squirrel cage--think the scent of this massacre is of the type that occurred at the baseball practice for Republican members of Congress, June 2017, except this guy Paddock, the smell of this tells us he had helpers; and the brother's show in front of the gaggle of reporters told me that the brother is what we call a Lefty. What's very obvious and not a matter of debate is that the Left in the US has become deranged and unhinged. Personally, I've been studying this subject since 1991--the Presidential race between Bush, The President and candidate Clinton

Interesting observations, but some of them leave me a little confused. I hope you will help me remove that confusion. Here are some questions.

 

• Is the narrative you refer to the narrative of this particular event, the narrative of mass shootings in general, the narrative of the present divided condition of the USA, or some other narrative?
• I'm not American and though I am reasonably well versed in American history and politics for an outsider I am not familiar with your "baseball practice" reference. Would you explain this please?
• The opening phrases of the  quote do not parse. You seem to be saying that paddock is the exception to being trapped by the aforementioned narrative. Is that the case?
• What aspects of the brother's performance led you to conclude he was a Lefty?
• It's not obvious to me that the Left has become unhinged. (This may be because that typical leftist positions in the US would place right of centre in the UK and so I have a different perspective.) Would you detail the principle items of evidence that led you to this conclusion?
• Which subject have you been studying since 1991? The Mainstream Media narrative? The derangement of the Leftists? The Leftists in general? Something else?

I hope you can assist me by answering each of these points. I'll conclude with an observation. I've been studying American poliltics on and off for fifty years. I don't think that's relevant to the discussion and equally don't think your period of study of about half that is relevant either.

[scherado]

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

I'll conclude with an observation. I've been studying American poliltics on and off for fifty years. I don't think that's relevant to the discussion and equally don't think your period of study of about half that is relevant either.

I composed a lengthy response to your bulleted questions. Then I read again, carefully, what I quoted here and then decided to flush my response down the toilet--specifically what's in red. I just wasted a whole lot of time. Where do I send the bill?

[beecee]

6 hours ago, scherado said:

What's very obvious and not a matter of debate is that the Left in the US has become deranged and unhinged.

And what of the nut you have for a President? 

Quote

Personally, I've been studying this subject since 1991--the Presidential race between Bush, The President and candidate Clinton.

Yes yes I know, just as you have made in depth studies of every subject/matter you get involved in. 

 

Particularly when others dare disagree with you and point out your own apparent unhinged attitude that the maniacal right like to adhere to.

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I am under the opinion that the average U.S. voter who supports the current Admin and leadership in Congress has no real interest in resolving the policy issues you mentioned. Pride has nothing to do with it. They simply want certian things for themselves, believe ONLY they are entitled to those things, and actually enjoy the suffering of others as it provides relative perspective to their victories; someone one must lose for someone else to win.

 

Hmmm - The Average American voter voted for the candidate you said gushed about your gun laws and healthcare system.

You may well be right and I wrong more likely. And of course we have many in every country of the type you describe.  At this very time we are having a poll in Australia on the recognition or otherwise of gay marriages. Every adult person has been sent a form to vote either yes or no. How would this go in the states on strict/er gun laws?  

Edited October 7, 2017 by beecee

[Area54]

2 hours ago, scherado said:

I composed a lengthy response to your bulleted questions. Then I read again, carefully, what I quoted here and then decided to flush my response down the toilet--specifically what's in red. I just wasted a whole lot of time. Where do I send the bill?

Your responses were relevant. How you arrived at them, not really. If you are making assertions I - and I think other readers - wish to see citations and links and arguments that support those assertions. We don't really care when and how you came across them, or how long it took you to do so. It simply isn't relevant.

I specifically noted that my own exploration of this area, although carried out over twice the time you have been studying it,  was not relevant to the discussion. Someone who has been studying the issue for a week may have a position and supporting data that outargues both of us. I'm sorry you feel that the time you have spent studying the issue is somehow relevant, but it is that mistaken belief that has led you to waste time, not my observation.

Anyway,  my questions remain. You already have the answers, apparently. I'm here ready to read them, when you are ready to post them.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

 

You may well be right and I wrong more likely. And of course we have many in every country of the type you describe.  At this very time we are having a poll in Australia on the recognition or otherwise of gay marriages. Every adult person has been sent a form to vote either yes or no. How would this go in the states on strict/er gun laws?  

I honestly cannot imagine that here in the States. Here in the States numerous steps are put into place to restrict who votes. To vote in the States one must register months in advance, travel to a specific prescribed location, andelection are nearly never held during the weekend which ensures huge portions of voters will need to figure out how to get time off of work/daycare/and etc. If every adult was sent a ballot the U.S. of A would be a very different place and policy would look very different on a wide range of issues.

[scherado]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Someone who has been studying the issue for a week may have a position and supporting data that outargues both of us.

I agree that length of time does NOT determine accuracy. That should be considered obvious. The facts of the Las Vegas case are scant. In leiu of receiving the facts-in-waiting (being held close to the vest by authorities), we, all of us, must rely on our experience and knowledge.

Do you dispute any of this?

What is the point of something that "outrages" someone no matter what length of time? I am outraged by fatuity and inanity. Do you follow?

I'll consider revealing what I wrote based upon your replies.

9 hours ago, rangerx said:

Who died and made you the arbiter of what can or cannot be discussed, no less in the same breath punctuated with a bigoted statement?

 

9 hours ago, scherado said:

What's very obvious and not a matter of debate is that the Left in the US has become deranged and unhinged. Personally, I've been studying this subject since 1991--the Presidential race between Bush, The President and candidate Clinton.

I meant I not we or thee, won't debate what I know to be facts based upon considerable observation of the population in question, a.k.a. American Leftists. I will discuss in the sense that I may post a comment on the subject. I most certainly don't have the time to post links and data in support of the psychic transition from hinged to unhinged; and I most certainly don't mean all of the Left is unhinged. If that were true, then I wouldn't have time to type such things and would be fighting in the streets or some such thing. Hiding perhaps. As I've made quite clear, I don't own guns.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Here in the States numerous steps are put into place to restrict who votes.

Is that the purpose of "numerous steps?" Are you sure of that?

Edited October 7, 2017 by scherado

[Area54]

42 minutes ago, scherado said:

I agree that length of time does NOT determine accuracy. That should be considered obvious. The facts of the Las Vegas case are scant. In leiu of receiving the facts-in-waiting (being held close to the vest by authorities), we, all of us, must rely on our experience and knowledge.

Do you dispute any of this?

What is the point of something that "outrages" someone no matter what length of time? I am outraged by fatuity and inanity. Do you follow?

I'll consider revealing what I wrote based upon your replies.

Background Reminder: I don't know what you were studying since 1991, since you were ambiguous in your original post and declined to provide an answer in your last post. I had to make a reasonable guess that it fell somewhere within the field of US Politics. It clearly cannot be the Las Vegas incident, since it had not occurred in 1991.

Now, of course length of time does not determine the accuracy of one's viewpoint. The length of time studying a topic is relevant only the the student.

We rely on our experience and knowledge - I would hope - in all circumstances and situations. But I do not say to you, for example, A=M, you can rely upon this because I have a lot of experience in this area. That would arrogant and fatuous. I would say, A=M, this has been demonstrated by this research here, or is discussed in that textbook there, or can be seen as likely by following this line of reasoning.

So I remain adamant that the time you have spent studying anything is of no interest for the matters being discussed. If you cannot suport your assertions with independent evidence then those assertions can be dismissed with the same flippancy. Do you dispute any of this?

[Ten oz]

58 minutes ago, scherado said:

 

Is that the purpose of "numerous steps?" Are you sure of that?

Yes I am sure about that. It isn't a secret. Politicians discuss it openly.

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, scherado said:

Is that the purpose of "numerous steps?" Are you sure of that?

The courts seemed pretty sure. (in North Carolina, especially, and in Wisconsin)

[scherado]

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

Anyway,  my questions remain. You already have the answers, apparently. I'm here ready to read them, when you are ready to post them.

I decided to post a few of the answers.
----------------

0. What I've been "studying": 1991-present, American politics, political philosophy  & "the Press"; 2001-present, Radical Islamic Terrorism; Referent Analysis (critical analysis)

0b. "of the type that occurred at the baseball practice for Republican members of Congress, June 2017

1. Mainstream Media (MSM) narrative: This refers to the prejudicial, biased interpretations peddled repeatedly, predictably, comprehensively by MSM--the resultant narrative has a theme and it pervades the content sold (broadcast) by the outlet: ABC, NBC, CBS and cable CNN, MSNBC and, since mid-2016, FOX. On my cable provider, BBC is offered and that would be included in my list if I were to broaden my answer to international media outlets. For this news event, the Las Vegas massacre, if S.Paddock had been a "neo-nazi"/civil-war-statue preserver/white supremacist type (Conservative) killer then his name, address, family-member names, biographical history, entire internet content, favorite "right-wing radio" personalities/books, and so on would have been revealed 60 minutes after the name of the shooter was established. Except, in the USA, conservatives don't do this kind of thing; no they do not. The narrative of MSM is shaped by the the goal to protect Leftists, Democrats (unless pedophiles) and destroy, denigrate, demean Conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives and Republicans are two distinct groups, though some Republicans are conservative; they can be counted on two hands. There is a type called Constitutional Conservative, to which I will answer.

...

3. I have spent several decades around--living, working, playing--around Leftists. I spent 8 years in central Massachusetts, in the heart of the "Five College Area"; a few years in Santa Fe, New Mexico; many decades in the one-party state of New York (Democrats)

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

Background Reminder: I don't know what you were studying since 1991,

Please see the above.

[Area54]

19 minutes ago, scherado said:

I decided to post a few of the answers.

How gracious of you.

A provisional reading of these answers reveals the same acerbic, dogmatic, angry style that seems to pervade your posts. Just as a point of information for you: this style inclines readers to think "What a dickhead" and then to ignore what has been written. You're not stupid, so perhaps you are doing this deliberately. Perhaps you want to evoke emotional reactions so you can take an imaginary moral high ground.

Frankly, I don't really care what your motivation is. I will tell you I don't like the end product and if this dialogue is to continue you will post in a polite, measured fashion. If this strikes you as disagreeable I shall just have to think of you as Scarlet.

As to the substance of your replies, I'll allow 24 hours or so to pass in order to wash the  cant content from my memory, and then reply.