Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

[Dr_Doom]

What I want to know is....

An American foundation for having guns is for protecting themselves in times of attack and crisis.

So in this time of attack and crisis when this attack was happening, why didn't all these people that where under attack use their guns to save them...

Most people freeze. Most people who carry guns carry them because it's the cool thing to do these days. Most people who carry are big ol' cowards. That's why the whole "a good guy with a gun beats a bad guy with a gun" is horse shit. Most people won't kill anybody, most people's flight instinct would kick in. Not saying everybody who carries wouldn't do anything of course in a situation where you had to use your weapon. But I would say a fair share wouldn't do anything but run away. Shit in this day and age you would have more people pulling there goddamn phones out and recording it.

So why carry them in the first place. Better to run for cover and call the police who will use them.

58 people died. If we follow the Small Arms Survey 2007 figures for USA gun ownership ( which is probably way below the actual figure),

Per 100 people in the USA, there will be 101 guns, so lets say out of those 58 deaths and 546 injured, Say 20% had guns, which if waaaaay below average. So rounded down to the nearest lethal weapon, 120 guns on the dead and injured people.

And not one hit the gunman.

Take it further.

There where more than 22,000 attendees were at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival on Sunday when the shooting took place.

So using the way below 20% , there where 4400 guns at the festival.

And not one hit the gunman.

So basically 7-9 kids die a day in the USA from family owned guns, and the reason they have those guns in the first place is to protect their family and them selves in times of attack and danger, which at actual times of danger, they don't use and the kids die in vain.

 

[Dr_Doom]

Laura Loomer on Twitter

In a few days, I'll be releasing some unseen footage from inside @MandalayBay that will impact the #LasVegas investigation. Stay tuned!​

 

[Dr_Doom]

Laura Loomer on Twitter

Here is the video.

 

[AlienView]

58 people died. If we follow the Small Arms Survey 2007 figures for USA gun ownership ( which is probably way below the actual figure),

Per 100 people in the USA, there will be 101 guns, so lets say out of those 58 deaths and 546 injured, Say 20% had guns, which if waaaaay below average. So rounded down to the nearest lethal weapon, 120 guns on the dead and injured people.

And not one hit the gunman.

Take it further.

There where more than 22,000 attendees were at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival on Sunday when the shooting took place.

So using the way below 20% , there where 4400 guns at the festival.

And not one hit the gunman.

So basically 7-9 kids die a day in the USA from family owned guns, and the reason they have those guns in the first place is to protect their family and them selves in times of attack and danger, which at actual times of danger, they don't use and the kids die in vain.

You will try to make the world safe for tyrants - The most vocal of gun control advocates
- But you will fail in the United States - You can twist the truth of how gun control will make people safer

BUT HERE ARE SOME HISTORICAL FACTS:

Gun control, followed by genocides

"
Background checks, no problem. Gun registration is a big problem. Every genocide in modern history has started with a gun registration, followed by confiscation, followed by genocide.

1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, 20 million dissidents rounded up and murdered.

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians rounded up and exterminated.

1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and exterminated.

1935: China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20 million political dissidents rounded up and exterminated.

1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1981-1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians rounded up and exterminated.

1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians rounded up and exterminated.

1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people rounded up and exterminated.

In the 20th Century more than 56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated by people using gun control.



The right to keep and bear arms is not about anyone's "hunting rifle"; the right to keep and bear arms is about the right of the people to defend themselves against anyone who would attempt the taking of their rights.

Two hundred and thirty six years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers are still more intelligent and have more common sense than the anti-gun crowd. But then they knew, having suffered the tyranny of King George, that the right to keep and bear arms was imperative to the God-given right of every man, woman and child to be free of evil tyrants who walk among us.

The previous three paragraphs are taken verbatim from the article by Lynn Stuter at Lynn Stuter -- Of despots and sheeple.

See whole article here:
Gun control, followed by genocides

 

[Dr_Doom]

The right to keep and bear arms is not about anyone's "hunting rifle"; the right to keep and bear arms is about the right of the people to defend themselves against anyone who would attempt the taking of their rights.

Indeed...but it didnt work in Vegas, did it.

 

[Dundee]

58 people died. If we follow the Small Arms Survey 2007 figures for USA gun ownership ( which is probably way below the actual figure),

Per 100 people in the USA, there will be 101 guns, so lets say out of those 58 deaths and 546 injured, Say 20% had guns, which if waaaaay below average. So rounded down to the nearest lethal weapon, 120 guns on the dead and injured people.

And not one hit the gunman.

Take it further.

There where more than 22,000 attendees were at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival on Sunday when the shooting took place.

So using the way below 20% , there where 4400 guns at the festival.

And not one hit the gunman.

So basically 7-9 kids die a day in the USA from family owned guns, and the reason they have those guns in the first place is to protect their family and them selves in times of attack and danger, which at actual times of danger, they don't use and the kids die in vain.

I dunno, It all makes no sense to me. It really doesn't seem that complicated to make the connection between the proliferation of guns and the events. But the neigh Sayers are well practiced in their arguments. Reading what you just posted.. Why have a gun. Buggered if I know how to argue this. It just seems so obvious.

 

[Dr_Doom]

I dunno, It all makes no sense to me. It really doesn't seem that complicated to make the connection between the proliferation of guns and the events. But the neigh Sayers are well practiced in their arguments. Reading what you just posted.. Why have a gun. Buggered if I know how to argue this. It just seems so obvious.

 

[AlienView]

Indeed...but it didnt work in Vegas, did it.

True, but against a determined lunatic hell bent on destruction, what would work?

As I said, If Paddock couldn't buy guns - he might have used bombs - Death count might have been highier.

My only point is that historically gun control often leads to a worse situation then the problem with 'loose canons' getting their hands on guns - If not guns th'll use something else - suicide bombers are now common
- Remember the Ariana Grande concert in the UK? - suicide bomber - And aren't most of these bombs homemade?

Casualties of suicide bombings in Iraq, 2003-2010

"Other notable findings include that:
"Suicide bombs have injured no fewer than 30,644 Iraqi civilians."

 

[Dr_Doom]

True, but against a determined lunatic hell bent on destruction, what would work?

Well, If he didn't have to easy ability to get access to weapons, it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.

 

[CasualBystander]

58 people died. If we follow the Small Arms Survey 2007 figures for USA gun ownership ( which is probably way below the actual figure),

Per 100 people in the USA, there will be 101 guns, so lets say out of those 58 deaths and 546 injured, Say 20% had guns, which if waaaaay below average. So rounded down to the nearest lethal weapon, 120 guns on the dead and injured people.

And not one hit the gunman.

Take it further.

There where more than 22,000 attendees were at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival on Sunday when the shooting took place.

So using the way below 20% , there where 4400 guns at the festival.

And not one hit the gunman.

So basically 7-9 kids die a day in the USA from family owned guns, and the reason they have those guns in the first place is to protect their family and them selves in times of attack and danger, which at actual times of danger, they don't use and the kids die in vain.

The Route 91 concert was a gun free zone as is Mandalay Bay. Your analysis is worse than flawed, it is wrong.

This is why Americans (at least the loyal honest normal ones) are disgusted with and despise gun free zones because that is where these attacks happen.

The solution is to not allow gun free zones anywhere in America.

Mandalay Bay Gun Free Zone, CAIR Supporter
Mandalay Bay, the hotel-casino from where the killer fired his shots, is a gun-free zone.

Including the security guards.

Root says that when the facility was acquired by MGM Resorts International one of the first acts by CEO Jim Murren was a gun ban for guests and the disarming of most of the security guards.

 

[dr wu]

I dunno, It all makes no sense to me. It really doesn't seem that complicated to make the connection between the proliferation of guns and the events. But the neigh Sayers are well practiced in their arguments. Reading what you just posted.. Why have a gun. Buggered if I know how to argue this. It just seems so obvious.

No it doesn't make any sense .....this is a psychological issue tied to a form of paranoia. Those that are adamant about the 'bearing of arms' have a mental status (belief system...) where they actually believe the rants about the gubbermint coming to take their guns and enslave them into some kind of 'communist' dictatorship......old post war paranoia. They see themselves as 'patriots' in some misguided fashion defending 'Merica.
The problem is not so much gun ownership (I think people should have that right...though there are far far too many guns now...) but the mental state of these people.

 

[nivek]

I dunno, It all makes no sense to me. It really doesn't seem that complicated to make the connection between the proliferation of guns and the events. But the neigh Sayers are well practiced in their arguments. Reading what you just posted.. Why have a gun. Buggered if I know how to argue this. It just seems so obvious.

Have you read any of the recent above posts? AlienView posted about gun control policies which followed by genocides, completely ignored but quite relevant to this discussion...

People like to quickly jump to the ignorant conclusion something must be mentally wrong with those who own guns and support the right to bear arms...What should be questioned in that regard is the mental stability muslim radicals who believe it's gods will to kill non-believers like you and I and will use your attempts at gun control to kill more innocent people...

I'm not saying this out of fear or promoting any fear mongering because realistically your country and Europe has more to worry about in that respect than the US does...I don't own guns, never have and never will and I don't mind my neighbors owning guns, I don't see them, they don't parade their weapons around and my neighbor closest to my property owns 10 or 15 weapons in his home, I don't loose sleep over it...

 

[Dundee]

But my argument has never been don't have guns. jeez I have guns. I love guns. And I am not suggesting there is anything mentally wrong with those that do have guns. But I do question the nature of your laws.
Keep your guns.
But why do you need AK47's and AR15s, god Cannons and flame throwers are legal in your country, god knows what else.
Why do normal people need to own handguns when others have pointed out most wont use one anyway.
Why is is bad to good background checks to keep mentally unbalanced people from owning them.
Why is it bad to require decent regulation and an amount of training before licensing.
Why is it bad to require safer storage.
All things CB has scoffed at, all the while defending...

Leaving loaded weapons around the house accessible to anyone.
Letting little kids play with guns,
Making crazy blanket statements about progressives being the root of all gun evils?

I cannot see why better safety measures is an infringement on your 2nd amendment.
You can't argue a gun locked away safely, out of the reach of an unlicensed person such as an angry teenager can't be used in a fit of madness in a high school if the kid can't get into a locked gun cabinet.
But a loaded gun left lying about in a home such as CB's can easily grabbed in anger and used in a fit of rage.

You cant argue if semi autos etc were no longer available it would lessen the bullets per minute a madman could fire.
This is less deaths. I am not advocating taking away your right to bear arms. Just police it better. Use a modicum of common sense. Guns are bloody dangerous, if your military treats them with respect, if your police force treats them with respect, why does your public get to play Wyatt Earp on the writings of a 200 year old outdated document designed and written in different times. maybe it is time to adjust your 2nd amendment to something a bit more relevant to the 21st century. Or at least the laws.
I just can't fathom how any reasonable gun owner can scoff at increased safety measures.

 

[AlienView]

But my argument has never been don't have guns. jeez I have guns. I love guns. And I am not suggesting there is anything mentally wrong with those that do have guns. But I do question the nature of your laws............................................


You cant argue if semi autos etc were no longer available it would lessen the bullets per minute a madman could fire........................................................................
maybe it is time to adjust your 2nd amendment to something a bit more relevant to the 21st century. Or at least the laws.
I just can't fathom how any reasonable gun owner can scoff at increased safety measures.

Actually we have adjusted the gun laws many times and in many ways - And if anything things get worse
- the concept that "When guns are outlawed - Only outlaws will have guns" has been proven true, especially in inner cities such as Chicago, which at one point had made itself a 'gun free zone' - the gangs loved it
- And Chicago became the homicide capital of America.

I used to deal in used books and came across re-prints of old Sears Roebuck mail order catalogs of the late 1800s and early 20th Century - Name your gun and you could buy it through the mail no question asked.
This is no longer legal - So you can tell me it is still going on covertly and this is probably true

But remember, and I can't stress this enough, the guns Paddock was using in the Vegas massacre where
illegally modified into fully automatic machine guns and this contributed to the high death rate. If he was using a legal semi automatic weapon that required single shot fire, he still would have killed some people but there would be time for..........But then again we are not dealing with a rational person.........

And you can quote me on this: "A nut without guns is a wanna be bomber in the making" - Sure its harder to put together a bomb then fire a gun - but have faith, the true nut job won't be stopped, the'll find a way.

Gun registration in the US has proven to be a complete failure - There are literally millions of guns 'out there' and if you restrict citizens access to them then we're back to "When guns are outlawed - Only outlaws will have guns" {Remember what happened in Australia when they tried to outlaw guns for all?}

So what should America do? - So far nothing helps {assuming you think we need help} - many don't.

But would people accept licensing requirements for gun use, and possibly even ownership - Anyone can
own a motor vehicle but it is not legal to drive one unless licensed to do so.

So I you want an updated 21st Century law for the USA - I'll give it to you:

1. Gun ownership of legal firearms is unrestricted - Except in cases where it can be demonstrated that the owner might be a threat to others or himself and/or has been convicted of a violent felony.

2. Use of guns is regulated by license - And licenses are classified {like with motor vehicles}:

A. Class 1 - Allows complete use of any legal firearm for any legal purpose and gives the 'right to carry'.

B. Class 2 - Allows ownership and use of firearms for home defense.

C. Class 3 - Allows ownership only but restricts all use { This might be good for people who are getting too old to use a gun and/or collectors who really only like the idea of owning guns and are not interested in using them in any case.

Of couse this would have to tweaked to make it work right - It could be done.
And I believe it would not interfere with the intent and meaning of the Second Amendment {the right to bear arms] but would only be an updated adjustment for the modern World.

- AlienView

 

[CasualBystander]

Well, If he didn't have to easy ability to get access to weapons, it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.

This statement is "unwise". I'm going to be charitable today.

Given the level of planning and the hundred pounds or so of explosive mix he had (there were 50 pounds in his car alone) he could have used other means and done more damage.

He planned a mass murder at an arbitrary venue for years. The preparation for the Oklahoma city bombing only took about 5 months.

Truck bombs in the US and Iraq have killed over 100. A truck bomb driven into the concert could have killed 1000+.

Automated vehicle systems are going to make this sort of thing just to easy, since you can do bombings by remote control.

 

[Dundee]

Actually we have adjusted the gun laws many times and in many ways - And if anything things get worse
- the concept that "When guns are outlawed - Only outlaws will have guns" has been proven true, especially in inner cities such as Chicago, which at one point had made itself a 'gun free zone' - the gangs loved it
- And Chicago became the homicide capital of America.................................

Again I guess it comes back to an earlier comment I made about having gone past the point of no return in the US.
All I can tell you is this, and I am going to keep away from figures because each time I try it gets labeled fake news.
Often we see in the US news a mass shooting in say a school, where a student has been unstable, gone home, grabbed dads gun and gone to school and killed a bunch of people. With gun laws as they exist now in the US, semi auto weapons legal, as CB has said its apparently legal and even considered normal to have loaded guns lying around the house. This situation in the US can happen easily, and appears often does. To me it is pretty easy to see the reason is, the gun was easily accessible, and of a semi automatic nature.
While I wont say this can't happen in Australia, it would be a lot more difficult. As I said earlier. My guns are in a locked thick metal gun safe, bolted to the wall and floor. You would need a 9" angle grinder and quite some time to gain access, to get at them, then, you would have to start the process again to get at the ammunition which is also locked in a separate safe. My kids DO NOT have access to my guns, or the keys. Until such time as they are licensed to use them. So while not impossible, it would be a hell of a lot harder in an Australian home to have a kid come home, grab a gun, and take it on a rampage. And, supposing he did, supposing he had time to get the angle grinder out and break into my gun locker. he is going to find only 2 Historic 303's with a 5 shot magazine and one in the barrel. No semi Autos.

Really, other than better background checks, this is the only point I am making. The evidence of success can be seen in Australia. Of course we still have gun crimes, of course criminals still have guns. But touch wood, we so far don't have kids going home, grabbing dads loaded semi auto off the mantle piece and mowing down his school mates. this is because of tighter laws. I cannot see how this does not ring true with you folks. It seems so obvious. But perhaps I am missing something here.

 

[Dundee]

Also while CB quoted in another post there being 120,000 handguns in Australia, I don't know where they all are. It is a separate category of license, you need to be in either law enforcement or a shooting club. It is absolutely not a mainstream habit for Australian citizens to have a handgun. I believe you can own a cap and ball, historic handgun without a license but I would have to check on that. But break into 100 houses here in OZ and I am betting your not going to find a handgun in one of them. And, if you did, as per our strict gun laws they will be in a locked gun safe etc etc. I have grown up with guns my whole life and only seen a handful of handguns in that time, and that was before our laws changed and I had a mate who was a collector. I don't know anyone with a handgun So again the argument rings true (to me) a kid is not going to come home in an Australian home in a fit of rage and grab dads 38, because we just don''t own them or have them lying around.

 

[AlienView]

Inevitably in the USA a gun crime by a nut will stir up the totalitarian soul lurking inside of every Liberals soul.

But they are always behind the eight ball when great leaders of totalitarianism are still out there to out do them.

For example:

"N. Korea enacts rules on regulating firearms"

"SEOUL, Aug. 6 (Yonhap) -- North Korea has had a gun control law since 2009, recently obtained data showed Monday, in what was seen as an effort to tighten control over the society at a time of power succession.

North Korea's new leader Kim Jong-un was groomed as the successor to his ailing father Kim Jong-il, with the hereditary succession plan becoming official for the first time in 2010 when the young Kim was named as a four-star general in the military.

Kim Jong-un took the helm of the communist country after the death of his father last December.
The permanent committee of the North's Supreme People's Assembly, its rubber-stamp parliament, established a firearms control act in November 2009, which stipulates rules on the supply, transport, storage and usage of guns and their instruction system, according to the data obtained by Yonhap News Agency.

The law, which comprises of five chapters and 42 articles, "aims to contribute to the guarantee of social safety and the protection of the people's lives and property by setting up the strict system" on registering, storing and using firearms, the North states in its legislation.

Under the regulations, guns are allowed only for its "primary purposes" including executing official duties such as keeping guard and training.

Institutions, businesses, groups and the public are prohibited from possessing or transacting firearms according to the law, which also banned lending, smuggling, destroying and self-producing firearms.

Those who violate the rules, resulting in "stern consequences," are subject to administrative and criminal liabilities, the North says in the law.

Experts say the establishment of such acts is part of Kim Jong-il's efforts to tighten control of the society and maintain strict order following his nomination of his third and youngest son Kim Jong-un to be his successor in early 2009.

"North Korea appeared to have tried to strictly regulate firearms under the circumstances where former leader Kim's stroke in 2008 could lead to a chaos in the society," said Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies.

graceoh@yna.co.kr
(END)
See whole article here:
N. Korea enacts rules on regulating firearms | YONHAP NEWS

So you see how a nation {North Korea} is way ahead of you wimpy public safety advocates in the West - When "aims to contribute to the guarantee of social safety and the protection of the people's lives and property by setting up the strict system" is now the rule of law?

You see why the esteemed leader is so loved by his starving people?

Why let individual rights interfere with the 'public good of the people'?

Safety first and rights last - right?

 

[Dundee]

I am sorry AV, I am not sure what your getting at there. I am not all that good at dissecting political arguments of that nature. If it answered my question I sort of missed the point I think. Nth Korea,is a bit of a wild example to use. It is not exactly a normal democratic environment like our countries.
Sorry for repeating myself, but back to my post #196, cant you see a connection between the availability of guns and the ease of mass shootings in a lax environment like the US with readily available semi autos sitting on gun shelves, and pistols in side drawers by comparison to strict gun laws like in Australia where it really isn't that easy for a kid to or anyone for that matter to go home and grab a gun and go nuts. I realize it wont stop all, but if strict gun laws save a few lives surely the idea has merit. Excuse my ignorance but your last post lost me in relevance to my point.

 

[AlienView]

I am sorry AV, I am not sure what your getting at there. I am not all that good at dissecting political arguments of that nature. If it answered my question I sort of missed the point I think. Nth Korea,is a bit of a wild example to use. It is not exactly a normal democratic environment like our countries.
Sorry for repeating myself, but back to my post #196, cant you see a connection between the availability of guns and the ease of mass shootings in a lax environment like the US with readily available semi autos sitting on gun shelves, and pistols in side drawers by comparison to strict gun laws like in Australia where it really isn't that easy for a kid to or anyone for that matter to go home and grab a gun and go nuts. I realize it wont stop all, but if strict gun laws save a few lives surely the idea has merit. Excuse my ignorance but your last post lost me in relevance to my point.

That point is understood and is worth some merit - But what you are forgetting is that in most places {depends on local law], if your toddler picks up a loaded gun you have it lying around and he accidentally kills himself or someone else you could and probably will be charged with a crime.

Nobody, not even the fiercest pro Second Amendment advocate can legitimately argue with personal responsibility when it comes to firearms.

As far as getting into the type of gun that one can own - This is a value judgement - No gun is safe
- But for that matter neither is a steak knife - If someone you are with'looses it' and goes nuts over dinner,
they could suddenly take the steak enough and...........No weapons law will protect you from this.
- Of course they could outlaw steel knives and only allow plastic but then again there are some pretty strong plastic out there.

The main point is, in all those genocides I mentioned, and in places like NK today - Public safety is
always the excuse.

If I remember correctly, and leading up to the American Revolution, King George was trying to do the same thing to the American colonists - One reason, and to this day, the Second Amendment is defended so
fiercely by many Americans.

The draconian gun laws in England might have some logic to them - But at one point didn't Australia
also try to ban the public owning guns? - And didn't the crime rate go up so high they had to recend that law? And wasn't the excuse a loan nut {like Paddock] that your leaders used to attempt to outlaw guns?

Liberal reactionary thinking {some might say exploitation of events} is dangerous, more dangerous than any gun - And the end result is countries like North Korea.

Democracy too can become quite totalitarian - Guns will not completely prevent this - but totalitarian
despots fear that "Well armed militia......" mentioned in the US Second Amendment.