Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

[CasualBystander]

Until some can post to this thread, why Paddock decided to plan for several years to kill a large random group of people this thread is pretty academic.

Anders Behring Breivik - Wikipedia

It is pretty obvious that modern progressivism is responsible for the rise in these types of incidents, either through their viewpoint or the medications they dispense.

Progressives are extremely narcissistic. And this is going to inform their approach to psychiatry.

Also note: Breivik, the only person to beat Paddocks numbers, suffered from Narcissistic Personality disorder. And further: Breivik used legal weapons. Bought for on paper legitimate reasons.

One solution is to ban progressives from psychiatry.

 

[Dr_Doom]

So is the only "real" news the news that supports your ideas? Who is to say your sources are "real" news? Not saying CNN is trust worthy, I just find this whole "fake news" thing amusing at times.

 

[Dr_Doom]

I tend to think that people class lots of things 'fake news' if they don't agree with the story.

 

[Dundee]

...............................
One solution is to ban progressives from psychiatry.

Your thought process id frightening CB, it really is. I can think of no other way to describe it. What an incredibly blanket statement to make as a solution. Why is no one latching onto this comment. I make a throw away comment about weekly mass shootings that was meant to illustrate a trend, not be taken literally and am asked to justify it. And while I accept in principle what you say about the fake news concept nivek I think it still worthy of investigation, but in any case. CB posts rubbish that generalities like that and is not taken to task but gets a like!!!!
Their is a hell of a lot of pro gun bias in this thread that is very selective as to what it takes as acceptable comments.

 

[Dundee]

Yes fake news source, CNN wrote All 3 of the news links you posted, not Pew...If you want to just focus on Pew research graphs imbedded within then that is also an extremely small margin of days, years and people on that obviously biased survey...

OK then, for now I will take your word for it as it is 4:00 am here and I just got up to visit the little room.
So what (nivek) do you consider a place to get accurate figures that is not fake news from a neutral reliable source that has figures for gun related deaths in the US.
Please don't point me to the NRA website My mistake (if it really was one) was genuinely accidental. I know where to go in OZ for accurate stats, on things, but not the US. Lets get some real numbers.
Because as caldeth said, it is pretty easy to label anything you disagree with as fake news. Trump does it all the time.

 

[CasualBystander]

Your thought process id frightening CB, it really is. I can think of no other way to describe it. What an incredibly blanket statement to make as a solution. Why is no one latching onto this comment. I make a throw away comment about weekly mass shootings that was meant to illustrate a trend, not be taken literally and am asked to justify it. And while I accept in principle what you say about the fake news concept nivek I think it still worthy of investigation, but in any case. CB posts rubbish that generalities like that and is not taken to task but gets a like!!!!
Their is a hell of a lot of pro gun bias in this thread that is very selective as to what it takes as acceptable comments.

Further, Paddock was on diazapam. Why have we not heard more about his mental health?

Both Breivik and Paddock were the fruit of single female parent households.

In US this would make liberals&progressives directly responsible because they have been attacking the family unit since the 60s.

 

[Dundee]

Further, Paddock was on diazapam. Why have we not heard more about his mental health?

Both Breivik and Paddock were the fruit of single female parent households.

In US this would make liberals&progressives directly responsible because they have been attacking the family unit since the 60s.

You are frightening CB, your thought process is so out of kilter, I am only glad you are not in power. Good luck in your nutty, narrow little world. I am lost for words.

 

[AlienView]

Further, Paddock was on diazapam. Why have we not heard more about his mental health?

Both Breivik and Paddock were the fruit of single female parent households.

In US this would make liberals&progressives directly responsible because they have been attacking the family unit since the 60s.

More important, which has been mentioned but only casually, is the fact that Paddock's father was on the FBIs Ten Most Wanted list and was diagnosed as a psychopath {usually a person with no 'conscience', incapable of feeling remorse}.

Was Paddock, in his own strange and twisted way trying to follow in his fathers footsteps?

Not really a political issue though, is it?

And unless those who keep claiming there was a second shooter can prove it - not neally an event that
is ripe for conspiracy theory.

There was a crime writer, I believe his name was Nash, who wrote some scholarly books on interesting crimes and criminals - One of them was an encyclopedia of crime in the USA - I read the whole book years ago - Amazing how many psycho nut jobs and serial killers, including a few cannibals, the US has produced.

Face it - we were dealing with an intelligent psychopath, who probably always was a psycho, but was intelligent enough to keep his deep anti-social self hidden until he was able to act out his fantasy.

The most dangerous of all criminals you never want to meet - And probably won't until it is too late.

 

[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...

 

[Caeldeth]

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.

 

[Dundee]

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.

 

[CasualBystander]

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...

All they would have had is pistols, and they may have made the venue a no gun zone.

Pistols are good for 14 yards casual shooting.

With practice and no time constraint maybe 100 yards.

Even with rifles, firing back at Paddock would have been a disaster, and much of the glass would have been removed from that side of the hotel, with little likelihood of actually hitting him.

He spent a day in the desert practicing for just that range. And he wasn't even seriously aiming.

First time this has happened. Much like the twin towers this should be a one time thing.

Law enforcement is going to work out a solution and do a better job in the future.

It won't be hard to beat the Las Vegas PD response time.

 

[August]

And again we have an unresponsive word forest.

Do you actually read what I write?

Your viewpoint is so off to the left that I literally don't understand it.

We will take this slow and one point at time.



What is wrong with you? I would never think of putting guns out of the reach of kids. If they can't reach them they can't get them to go out shooting. My dad only put guns in a cabinet (unlocked of course) so they wouldn't fall over or get tripped over.

When we needed to kill something we would grab a gun and go kill it.

As soon as we were able to pick up a gun Dad taught us how to shoot, like any responsible parent.

I get the feeling that Oztralian parents simply aren't responsible, or are "too busy" to teach their kids the basics of life.


Your joking right ??

 

[Dundee]

CB, lets assume for one moment you are a responsible gun owner, which in my opinion is very debatable.
How does your gun laws cater for the following.

I city person who has no background in guns, no prior parental or peer training, decides its a dangerous worrld. i better carry a gun.
Your background checks are lax, and as I understand it easy to circumvent.
You are not required to have and training before owning a gun.
And your new gun owner is not restricted in any way as to what he can purchase, by comparison to you with years of experience.
SO basically you have a new gun owner who is likely a big danger to himself, let alone his neighbors.
So while you have adequate training to hopefully do the right thing, he clearly does not.
How is that a good thing. Guns are not a real good thing to learn about by trial and error are they.

However in Australia with our strict gun laws.
Background checks are thorough.
Training is mandatory.
Use, Storage purchasing and licensing are all policed.

So, how is this a bad thing?
Honest answer, would you rather the city slicker with absolutely no prior experience with guns as a neighbor.
Or would you rather me, with all your disdain, you would know I have had experience, training, licensing, correct and safe storage, and regular visits to check compliance.
Which do you think is the safer situation for you.

 

[CasualBystander]

...

Thanks for the reminder... I dug through that Dundee post trying to find something to respond to and it is all baseless opinion and factoids.

Like the chart that the US has about 1 gun per person. So what?

That the US has the most guns per capita is an achievement to be proud of.

Oztralia only has 1% of the legal guns of the US.

Since the US has about 100,000,000 rifles I suspect the rate of misuse per rifle is much higher in Oztralia, But you don't have an FBI and your statistics are inferior so I can't prove it. Whoops, that might not be right.

Guns in Australia — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Now that is interesting. About 50% of homicides in Oztralia are with long guns (Oztralians don't know how to say "rifle").

Rifles are used in less than 2% of US homicides. In fact Oztralia has about 80% of the rifle murders per capita of the US.


Desperate to find something else to respond to in all the chaff, ah:

So I am far more likely to have said gun pointed at me in the US than here. Not something I think many, if any Australian thinks about. Just almost never happens here.

I haven't ever had a gun pointed at me. Well, not intentionally. I don't go shooting with people that are incompetent. Would be curious if any US poster has had a gun pointed at them.

...my opinion is very debatable.

Yup, your opinion is very debatable.

 

[CasualBystander]

A correction to my previous post.

Oztralians do know what a rifle is but can't tell if someone was shot with a rifle or shotgun.

 

[Dundee]

Now your just being i dick head. I don't need to respond, your posts themselves respond for me. Thanks CB fr making my point. Thank you for the education. I hope your fellow Americans here are just as disturbed by your redneck attitude as I am. You can't possibly be a representative sample of the good folks in the US. God help the world f you are.

 

[AlienView]

Now your just being i dick head. I don't need to respond, your posts themselves respond for me. Thanks CB fr making my point. Thank you for the education. I hope your fellow Americans here are just as disturbed by your redneck attitude as I am. You can't possibly be a representative sample of the good folks in the US. God help the world f you are.

Actually CasualBystander is being moderate - A small but sizable number of Americans are fanatics when it
comes to the Second Amendment {the right to bear arms} - One reason why Republicans have gained control of both the House and Senate and now the Presidency.

What the Liberals don't understand, that even accepting the philosophy that less casual gun ownership would make the public safer - 'WE' would rather accept the risks - Anything buy ending up in totalitarian a dictatorship like North Korea.

Is reasonable gun control possible in the US? - Some say we already have reasonable gun control - And what
gun owners and the NRA fear is that more gun control will lead to a situation like they have in the UK
- much less gun crimes and more knife crimes and home invasions. But I don't want to get in to a gun control
debate - The US Constitution comes first - In the USA certain rights, even if they are dangerous come first
- The individuals rights take precedence.

And as far as this last act in Las Vegas with a nut case - His gun alterations were illegal to begin with
- Had gun laws been stricter with his money he could have easily gotten around them
- Worse comes to worse, say he could buy no guns - Imagine if he launched a few bombs from those
windows? - Death tolls would have been much worse.

See:

"
More Guns, Less Crime
UNDERSTANDING CRIME AND GUN CONTROL LAWS, THIRD EDITION"

"
JOHN R. LOTT, JR.

472 pages | 87 line drawings, 77 tables | 6 x 9 | © 1998, 2000, 2010
Studies in Law and Economics
On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention.

 

[CasualBystander]

A correction to my previous post.

Oztralians do know what a rifle is but can't tell if someone was shot with a rifle or shotgun.

Some further information:

1. Only a small fraction of guns used in crime/homicide in the US are legal guns.

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: Tiny fraction of crimes committed with legal guns

2. There are about 150,000,000 pistols in the US. There are about 120,000 pistols in Australia.
There are about 5500 handgun homicides in the US vs 24 for Oztralia.
A pistol in Oztralia is 5.4 times as likely to be used for homicide. Further, a rifle is about 3.5 times as likely to be used for homicide.

3. #1 underlines another truism. If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

 

[Dundee]

You win Wyatt, clearly there is no connection between the proliferation of weapons in the US and gun deaths. I just hunted up all those stats and so on from fake news sites. You win, great debate. Cheers. ​