Mass shooting Las Vegas, Oct. 2. 2017

[MigL]

Just intended as a possible suggestion...
But maybe, sometimes individual rights have to come second to society's safety.
To quote Mr Spock...
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
To quote Cpt Kirk...
"Or the one."
 

Edited October 4, 2017 by MigL

[scherado]

To date, a definitive motive for S. Paddock's murder spree remains, presumably, known to the authorities. The extreme level of planning involved by the murders indicates that he did not "snap" suddenly and went on a rampage. If it is determined that he was "radicalized" either politically or religiously, then it falls into the same category as the mass-shooting of the US Republican Congressmen, June 14, 2017, the truck-massacre of Nice, France, Jul 14, 2016 and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in USA, to name only three.

This thread is not about gun control. People are free to discuss that, but there is a thread, When is the time? dedicated to that ==>da thread.

11 hours ago, DrP said:

On a plus note...  (and back on topic) - he DID say that he might look at the gun laws, or at least have a discussion about them soon

Please see my post above.

[beecee]

The question I am prompted to ask the supporters of the current open slather for guns in the USA and their so called right to bear arms, is would they kill to protect this so called right. 

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, scherado said:

To date, a definitive motive for S. Paddock's murder spree remains, presumably, known to the authorities. The extreme level of planning involved by the murders indicates that he did not "snap" suddenly and went on a rampage. If it is determined that he was "radicalized" either politically or religiously, then it falls into the same category as the mass-shooting of the US Republican Congressmen, June 14, 2017, the truck-massacre of Nice, France, Jul 14, 2016 and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in USA, to name only three.

This thread is not about gun control. People are free to discuss that, but there is a thread, When is the time? dedicated to that ==>da thread.

Please see my post above.

There is an ongoing investigation. His motive is being investigated. I don't understand why you think authorities already know the motive and aren't releasing that information?

[scherado]

Just now, beecee said:

The question I am prompted to ask the supporters of the current open slather for guns in the USA and their so called right to bear arms, is would they kill to protect this so called right. 

I would take up arms--I don't own any--if it were necessary to protect the Constitution-given right to bear arms. It is not a so-called right, is is precisely of the same type as the two enumerated the amendment that precedes it, the First Amendment.

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There is an ongoing investigation. His motive is being investigated. I don't understand why you think authorities already know the motive and aren't releasing that information?

Simply for the reason that they possess the hard-drives of any of the computers he left behind and have interviewed his Phillipina "girlfriend."

[CharonY]

18 minutes ago, scherado said:

To date, a definitive motive for S. Paddock's murder spree remains, presumably, known to the authorities. The extreme level of planning involved by the murders indicates that he did not "snap" suddenly and went on a rampage. If it is determined that he was "radicalized" either politically or religiously, then it falls into the same category as the mass-shooting of the US Republican Congressmen, June 14, 2017, the truck-massacre of Nice, France, Jul 14, 2016 and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in USA, to name only three.

This thread is not about gun control. People are free to discuss that, but there is a thread, When is the time? dedicated to that ==>da thread.

Please see my post above.

From everything known so far it rather looks like Sandy Hook, Columbine, maybe Charleston or the Denmark terror attack in 2011 (though the latter two actually had some political connotations). I mean, while we are randomly pulling out shootings, I wonder what the common theme is.

Edited October 4, 2017 by CharonY

[scherado]

Just now, CharonY said:

From everything known so far it rather looks like Sandy Hook, Columbine, maybe Charleston or the Denmark terror attack in 2011 (though the latter two actually had some political connotations).

Adam Lanza was obsessed with the Columbine shooting. I haven't heard or read anything yet about Paddock. There is a video that or two that show a man with a significant resemblance to Paddock, with a woman resembling Marilou Danley, the "girlfriend" who is being interrogated upon returning from the Philippines

[Ten oz]

23 minutes ago, scherado said:

 

Simply for the reason that they possess the hard-drives of any of the computers he left behind and have interviewed his Phillipina "girlfriend."

Computers and girlfriends don't read minds. I am sure each has provided investigators important insights but I wouldn't assume they knew anything for sure yet. 

[OldChemE]

y'all ought to look up the "Bobo Experiment" done by a psychologist in the 1960's.  The bottom line of the research was that when people are shown an individual being overly aggressive to another without bad results those same people may also tend to be overly aggressive themselves.  in short, to some extent, aggression is a learned behavior.  The thing that really bothers me about these mass shootings is that they seem so much like movies and video games put together by the "entertainment" industry.  These events are about guns to be sure, but they are also about what we are teaching people to do.  We've got to stop teaching people to kill!

[beecee]

56 minutes ago, scherado said:

I would take up arms--I don't own any--if it were necessary to protect the Constitution-given right to bear arms. It is not a so-called right, is is precisely of the same type as the two enumerated the amendment that precedes it, the First Amendment.

I did ask if any of those crying about protecting their so called constitution would kill to protect it...I suppose taking up arms does answer that. So you would kill to protect some bit of amendment written in 1790, after a bloody war for independence? You don't believe in the year 2017 that such a thing is now grossly outdated? Particularly with the advanced forms of weaponry available. And wear does this right to bear arms stop...I mean what about hand grenades? 

And I see after doing some research that this so called bill of rights and the second ammendment actually stems from Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

Yet it appears our English friends have obviously updated without any fear or favour re and constitutional offence. All I can say as an outsider is  thank f%&$#@* Christ  I live 12,000 kms away with 25 million other of my countrymen and we are not affected by such arrogant, stubborn craziness!

[scherado]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Computers and girlfriends don't read minds. I am sure each has provided investigators important insights but I wouldn't assume they knew anything for sure yet. 

I'll bet of my pinky fingers on it--my assumption being correct.

42 minutes ago, beecee said:

So you would kill to protect some bit of amendment written in 1790, after a bloody war for independence? You don't believe in the year 2017 that such a thing is now grossly outdated?

That might be the most easy to answer: No.

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

ll I can say as an outsider is  thank f%&$#@* Christ  I live 12,000 kms away

I am very, very happy that you live there too.

[beecee]

39 minutes ago, scherado said:

That might be the most easy to answer: No.

No matter how much or how often you and the NRA distort the truth, in time I believe the decent Americans will see that change does eventuate. A shame that in the meantime, the NRA and its associates will be responsible for many more probable deaths that may have otherwise been avoided.

Quote

I am very, very happy that you live there too

Glad you agree. Again many Americans will I believe see that change does take place. Not all are of the same stubborn arrogant macho frame of mind as those associated with the NRA.

Just to counter the furphy our macho gun lobbyists like to push re gun control having no or minimal effect.......

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-largest-dataset-we-have-shows-powerful-evidence-gun-control-works/page-2

extract:

Quote

 

It usually takes major legislation overhaul - not just one new law - to see significant change.

Restricting access to guns and their purchase is associated with reductions in firearm deaths.

Individual studies need to be better executed and planned in future to get more convincing results.

That first point is particularly interesting. Because the 130 studies were mostly dealing with different laws, the review wasn't able to pinpoint one specific 'magic' legislation that turned gun deaths around.

But it showed that when countries pass several laws at once that worked together to overhaul the country's firearm code, gun-related deaths tended to decrease.

Santaella-Tenorio told Beauchamp that these overhauls generally included:

Banning "weapons that are actually very powerful", for example, automatic weapons.

Implementing background checks.

"They all required permits and licenses for purchasing guns," Santaella-Tenorio told Vox.

For example, in South Africa in 2000, the Firearm Control Act contained all these measures, and saw a 13.6 percent reduction in firearm homicides every single year for the next five years. 

A similar overhaul law was introduced in Australia in 1996 in the wake of a mass murder, and according to one study, overall firearm death rates decreased by 14 percent the following year. Tellingly, there also hasn't been another mass shooting in the country in the 20 years since.

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by beecee

[scherado]

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

No matter how much or how often you and the NRA distort the truth, in time I believe the decent Americans will see that change does eventuate. A shame that in the meantime, the NRA and its associates will be responsible for many more probable deaths that may have otherwise been avoided.

Glad you agree. Again many Americans will I believe see that change does take place. Not all are of the same stubborn arrogant macho frame of mind as those associated with the NRA.

Just to counter the furphy our macho gun lobbyists like to push re gun control having no or minimal effect.......

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-largest-dataset-we-have-shows-powerful-evidence-gun-control-works/page-2

extract:

I don't know about the NRA, but I know that I don't distort the truth, as it may exist. I am not a member of the NRA, never have been and I don't know anyone who is a member, just for the record.

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Computers and girlfriends don't read minds. I am sure each has provided investigators important insights but I wouldn't assume they knew anything for sure yet. 

Sheriff Joe Lombardo just mentioned in a news conference, the shooter had several cases of tannerite in his vehicle.
 

[scherado]

7 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Sheriff Joe Lombardo just mentioned in a news conference, the shooter had several cases of tannerite in his vehicle.
 

Go to mm:ss==02/15 at 30lbs of tannerite vs 79 Ford Bronco

[beecee]

50 minutes ago, scherado said:

I don't know about the NRA, but I know that I don't distort the truth, as it may exist. I am not a member of the NRA, never have been and I don't know anyone who is a member, just for the record.

And yet when I ask you if   something installed in 1790 could not be grossly outdated in 2017, you answer smugly, "that's easy, no". Every decent country in the world has seen the need to change laws, constitutions, governmental procedures, etc as the march of time sees them as outdated. In other words if the cap fits, wear it.

As an aside when the first cars rolled off the assembly lines, did not they have to by law have someone walking in front of them waving a lantern?

Edited October 5, 2017 by beecee

[rangerx]

The sheriff gave an indication the placement of counter-surveillance cameras and other evidence (without being too specific for ongoing investigative purposes) that the shooter had plans to escape the scene. With all that explosive material and numerous other rounds in the vehicle, it seems he was prepared for other carnage elsewhere. Suicide bomb? Hit and run? I'm sure the detectives will look for timers or other initiating devices to make a determination as to his overall intent.

When the security guard approached the room (perhaps seen on the placed cameras), the shooter strafed 200 rounds through the door and down the hall. Law enforcement said they could see guns through the holes, but not the shooter himself. The door was breached 75 minutes after the first 911 call, even though he was only actively shooting for 12 (or so) minutes. The likelihood of booby-traps was probably a great concern for the tactical team. I suspect once he strafed the door, the shooter knew he wasn't getting out alive and took his own life.

[scherado]

Rut Roh, I happened to see this article while minding my own business: Troubles in Switzerland, apparently.

Keller-Messahli does not mince words. The relentless spread of jihadist Islam in Switzerland, and the see-no-evil response by Swiss authorities, give her "a tremendous sense of betrayal. We trusted these people, we opened the doors of our country and our institutions. They say they want to be our partners in dialogue. But none of it is true." She reports that some Swiss residents with Muslim backgrounds have thanked her for speaking up and have told her that organized Islam does not speak for them. She is grateful for their support, she says, but she "would prefer it if they did not keep so silent."

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

And yet when I ask you if   something installed in 1790 could not be grossly outdated in 2017, you answer smugly, "that's easy, no". Every decent country in the world has seen the need to change laws, constitutions, governmental procedures, etc as the march of time sees them as outdated. In other words if the cap fits, wear it.

As an aside when the first cars rolled off the assembly lines, did not they have to by law have someone walking in front of them waving a lantern?

I wasn't being smug. I was sincere that I can answer without equivocation as I've examined repeatedly and exhaustively my opinion on the matter, the quite specific question you asked. I should add that I am religiously Agnostic but believe the inalienable rights tenet is precisely the what makes the American Constitution the longest to survive.

[CharonY]

21 minutes ago, scherado said:

Rut Roh, I happened to see this article while minding my own business: Troubles in Switzerland, apparently.

How does it have anything to do with the topic? Not to mention that the Gatestone Institute has a known bias and has a number of times been found to put out entirely false reports for political purposes.  

[scherado]

44 minutes ago, CharonY said:

How does it have anything to do with the topic?

The topic is an act of violence that has yet to be categorized. I have been studying, informally, the subject since September 11, 2001 when, on that day I was living in the New York State County that is the third above NYCity, near the Hudson River over which two of the hijacked jets flew and over my head as headed South towards the Twin Towers. My Sister's husband flew out the exact airport (Boston) on that exact day, that morning, from which two of the planes that hit the Towers were hijacked and we didn't know whether he was on one of them until we spoke to him.

[CharonY]

9 minutes ago, scherado said:

The topic is an act of violence that has yet to be categorized. I have been studying, informally, the subject since September 11, 2001 when, on that day I was living in the New York State County that is the third above NYCity, near the Hudson River over which two of the hijacked jets flew and over my head as headed South towards the Twin Towers. My Sister's husband flew out the exact airport (Boston) on that exact day, that morning, from which two of the planes that hit the Towers were hijacked and we didn't know whether he was on one of them until we spoke to him.

You are not making things any clearer. 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, scherado said:

I wasn't being smug. I was sincere that I can answer without equivocation as I've examined repeatedly and exhaustively my opinion on the matter, the quite specific question you asked. I should add that I am religiously Agnostic but believe the inalienable rights tenet is precisely the what makes the American Constitution the longest to survive.

Weren't you? 

I said and asked, "would you kill to protect some bit of amendment written in 1790, after a bloody war for independence? You don't believe in the year 2017 that such a thing is now grossly outdated"?

You answered as follows.

Quote

That might be the most easy to answer: No.

Let me add that taking into account that self gratuitous remarks and claims are widely ignored and generally count for nought.

Quote

The topic is an act of violence that has yet to be categorized.

So? I mean the simple fact of the matter is how any individual could purchase so many military style weapons and ammunition, is beyond comprehension and reason and highlights how bloody out of date and stupid your second amendment is, and how arrogant and stubborn individuals and politicians must be to religiously support such a constitution.

Quote

I have been studying, informally, the subject since September 11, 2001 when, on that day I was living in the New York State County that is the third above NYCity, near the Hudson River over which two of the hijacked jets flew and over my head as headed South towards the Twin Towers. My Sister's husband flew out the exact airport (Boston) on that exact day, that morning, from which two of the planes that hit the Towers were hijacked and we didn't know whether he was on one of them until we spoke to him.

What has that got to do with anything? It has nothing to do with archaic, crazy gun laws or the non existent of them, nor the macho He type men that believes he needs an AK47 by his bedside for protection. Really, who do believe you are fooling?

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

You are not making things any clearer. 

When you're shown to be short on logic and argument, just muddy the waters a bit. 

Edited October 5, 2017 by beecee

[scherado]

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

I said and asked, "would you kill to protect some bit of amendment written in 1790, after a bloody war for independence? You don't believe in the year 2017 that such a thing is now grossly outdated"?

You answered as follows.

 

5 hours ago, scherado said:

That might be the most easy to answer: No.

 

4 hours ago, scherado said:

I wasn't being smug. I was sincere that I can answer without equivocation as I've examined repeatedly and exhaustively my opinion on the matter, the quite specific question you asked.

I repeat: I have arrived at the answer after careful, extensive consideration over decades. I am at a loss to explain how this is interpreted as smug. Let's be clear and agree the examined opinion is superior to knee-jerk reaction. I can't believe I had to type that.

3 hours ago, scherado said:

The topic is an act of violence that has yet to be categorized.

in this post, I am explicit that this thread is NOT about gun control though others may want to discuss that in the thread dedicated to that EXACT topic ==> That thread

If it turns out that Paddock was NOT radicalized either politically or religiously (as "radical Islamic terrorist") then I will consider discussing "gun control"--but it will be in "da thread" at the link after "EXACT topic".

[beecee]

30 minutes ago, scherado said:

 

 

I repeat: I have arrived at the answer after careful, extensive consideration over decades. I am at a loss to explain how this is interpreted as smug. Let's be clear and agree the examined opinion is superior to knee-jerk reaction. I can't believe I had to type that.

in this post, I am explicit that this thread is NOT about gun control though others may want to discuss that in the thread dedicated to that EXACT topic ==> That thread

If it turns out that Paddock was NOT radicalized either politically or religiously (as "radical Islamic terrorist") then I will consider discussing "gun control"--but it will be in "da thread" at the link after "EXACT topic".

Again in simpler language, firstly  self praise is no recommendation, and of course whether terror related or not, is beside the point, which you keep evading...that point being  the matter is how any individual could purchase so many military style weapons and ammunition, is beyond comprehension and reason and highlights how bloody out of date and stupid your second amendment is, and how arrogant and stubborn individuals and politicians must be to religiously support such a constitution.

[scherado]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again in simpler language, firstly  self praise is no recommendation, and of course whether terror related or not, is beside the point, ...

I am the arbiter of what points are relevant to ME; YOU are the arbiter of YOURS--I can't believe I had TO TYPE THAT SENTENCE. Unbleeping believable!!!!

One more time and you go onto my ignore list for my health..

Edited October 5, 2017 by scherado