The shooter and at least 20 of his victims are dead. Some of the more than 100 injured are in critical condition.
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/914770738791321600
Printable View
The shooter and at least 20 of his victims are dead. Some of the more than 100 injured are in critical condition.
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/914770738791321600
Last I heard was 2 dead?
If Titofan was here this would be on the shooting thread.
El Kabong would say it is not the gun but the shooters/authorities fault.
My boss is in vegas at the moment, staying at the Bellagio or something, she was due to fly back today but all the flights have been cancelled at the minute.
If there was an all American bloke standing in the same room as the shooter with an even bigger gun then this obviously wouldn't have happened.
Batman does not even use a gun, he would have taken him down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman
There is a video online of it. A crowd was enjoying a country concert and automatic gun fire breaks out. Horrible for people. It's a small price to pay for diversity and enrichment anywho
50 now reported dead
I feel like I have to ask this to the members from America.
Some of you have been quite vocal on immigration leading to terrorism in the UK, and valid points have been made on that subject (whether everyone agrees with them is another story)
But my question is (obviously) relating to your gun laws, 100 people killed in 2 attacks in the space of 12 months.
Those two attacks (today's one and the one at the gay bar last year) have killed a hell of a lot more than the terrorist attacks in the UK during the same time period.
If you think we should close our borders to attempt to stop future attacks/radicalisation then is it not time the US amends it gun laws to save future attacks like this?
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads...dyssey-2-1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterBatman does not even use a gun, he would have taken him down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman
https://img.purch.com/o/aHR0cDovL3d3...ljczc1LmpwZw==
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...sca7a208ej.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bXrAHAhCvl...tive405-07.jpg
OK
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in America at the moment and 496 people have been shot and killed so far this year. Not by the police, not by 1 gunman, but because of gangland violence that for some reason will not be addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman
The shooter had a fully automatic firearm IF he had it legally then that is likely a bureaucratic fuck up (highly unlikely) or he long walked this plan out, or something happened to him to break him. If he had it illegally (most likely) then he was breaking the law just by having that firearm on him. The problem then becomes how do you police such a thing? In interviews the brother said this guy "just snapped" I wouldn't begin to wonder about why, but he said "there's no political affiliation" with his shooting, but it simply will not matter because this WILL be politicized especially if this guy did not vote for Hillary.
Guns are the great equalizer and innocent people should not have their rights trampled on because some asshole up and decides to do something dumb.
Only an American with an automatic weapon can stop another American with an automatic weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman
If you took away everybody's guns who would stop the man with a gun?
Guns are safe, and they keep people safer. America needs more guns to be safe from people with guns.
WRONG.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabonghttps://static.comicvine.com/uploads...dyssey-2-1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterBatman does not even use a gun, he would have taken him down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman
https://img.purch.com/o/aHR0cDovL3d3...ljczc1LmpwZw==
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...sca7a208ej.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bXrAHAhCvl...tive405-07.jpg
OK
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in America at the moment and 496 people have been shot and killed so far this year. Not by the police, not by 1 gunman, but because of gangland violence that for some reason will not be addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman
The shooter had a fully automatic firearm IF he had it legally then that is likely a bureaucratic fuck up (highly unlikely) or he long walked this plan out, or something happened to him to break him. If he had it illegally (most likely) then he was breaking the law just by having that firearm on him. The problem then becomes how do you police such a thing? In interviews the brother said this guy "just snapped" I wouldn't begin to wonder about why, but he said "there's no political affiliation" with his shooting, but it simply will not matter because this WILL be politicized especially if this guy did not vote for Hillary.
Guns are the great equalizer and innocent people should not have their rights trampled on because some asshole up and decides to do something dumb.
Edward Woodward was the great Equalizer.
Guns DO keep people safe, but I guess you know better what with experience and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless rocco
"If you took away everybody's guns".....yeah, that's not happening any time soon, but keep hoping and dreaming.
Sorry but these are the new numbers and it is only going to climb. I felt the thread title should reflect it more accurately. @Master
This is beyond horrificator stuff and a time of such increased insane danger coming from even harmless places now like a concert. I don't know if I want to go back this is beyond my wildest imagination I really could not believe it and still do not. I am afraid to say this but with over 575 now injured I would not be surprised if 25% of them will eventually succumb to their wounds so we are looking at maybe 200 dead here
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution guarantee that every American has the right to bear and own firearms. But I must say this now. At the time the Bill of Rights in the constitution was written we did not have mental illness we did not have schizophrenia to the extent we have it now we did not have people with intermittent explosive disorder to the extent that we have it now we did not have psychosis and psychotics running in the tens of Millions on psychoactive medication as we have now and people with issues as we have now and people with road rage as we have now. Therefore I believe this has to be the turning point now that since the population is so mentally ill how could they then be responsible enough to own firearms? I have long said that anyone who wants to be a boss or a parent should go through a rigorous psychiatric test so they do not pass on their psychological sickness is to their innocent young fragile children or two there workers in the office but I think I can extend that now to say that anyone who wants to own a firearm should be subject to extremely rigorous batteries and batteries and batteries of psychological and psychiatric tests over the course of twelve months before they can be approved
Full auto costs $10,000+, requires deep FBI check; legal autos used 3 crimes since 1934....and when I say deep FBI check I mean DEEP. Also the ATF show up at your door unannounced every so often and audit your firearms down to how many magazines you have a serial numbers on the firearms. Under Hughes Amendment, only autos made/imported pre-’86 can be transferred. This raises price massively.
But some foreigners just believe you go up to a vending machine and out comes the gun you want.
no guns
no shootings
no brainer
Sure thing, that's exactly how things are working in Chicago :-XQuote:
Originally Posted by ruthless rocco
You DO know that only law abiding citizens (by definition) follow the law? If you would like to invent a time machine and uninvent the gun then go right on ahead.
I don't care if 100,000,000 people are murdered with guns, I'm keeping mine to protect myself and my property as is my God given right. There are a lot of you who either do not understand that concept or are aghast of it....and I really do not give 1 single solitary fuck about it.
God never gave you the right to own a gun. You can be proud that you don't give a shit if 100,000,000 are murdered with guns, but you can't use God as an excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
I don't understand the concept of it, someone breaks into my home they will meet Mr Hammer who sleeps next to my bed, every now and again I use Mr Hammer to hammer nails into stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
If I had a gun it'd be for the soul intention of killing someone, that I can't grasp the concept of.
Having said that if someone was to break into my home the chances of them having a gun are very very very slim, Mr Hammer would most likely be sufficient.
People just going to a music festival and they get mown down by some fucking maniac. Didn't deserve that, did they.
The issue is the maniac, as well as the gun. The gun just makes the crime worse because they can kill more people than they could with a knife or something else.
Gun ownership is hugely politicised in the States, so you seldom get a sensible answer from many people as they are emotionally invested in the question, sometimes for hugely different reasons.
The Japanese have just about eliminated gun crime (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38365729), but then again we have very strict gun laws in the UK, but we still get gun crime.
I don't think it's pragmatic to try and completely ban or regulate guns in America, but then again I don't really buy the argument that everybody should be armed just in case some maniac runs amok.
There is no simple answer to this as you can't un-invent technology.
1. A hammer might work for 1 intruder......what if there are 2, what if you're out numbered, what if you're out muscled? Guns tend to level the playing field in those areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman
2. You mean "sole" as in only. It would depend on what you wanted to use the gun for. If you hunt, then obviously all guns aren't for killing people (though they could be used for that purpose if the need arose). If you wanted something to protect your house then either a tactical shotgun or a pistol/revolver would be used and yeah those are to do away with people who have bad intentions.
3. The likelihood of you being at home when there is a break in attempt is higher for the simple fact that you do not own a gun.
4. People do not have gun ownership FORCED upon them, in America you may decide whether or not you would like a gun and should you be a law abiding citizen the government allows for it. Why is MY right so upsetting to people in England....I could aim any of my firearms in the direction of England....they don't have the range to do you any harm ;)
1. At the same time if there was more than one then I would be contending with more than one gun being aimed and fired at me, in the UK I'd probably take a bit of a kicking (mind you that isn't taking into account knife crime around here)Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong1. A hammer might work for 1 intruder......what if there are 2, what if you're out numbered, what if you're out muscled? Guns tend to level the playing field in those areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman
2. You mean "sole" as in only. It would depend on what you wanted to use the gun for. If you hunt, then obviously all guns aren't for killing people (though they could be used for that purpose if the need arose). If you wanted something to protect your house then either a tactical shotgun or a pistol/revolver would be used and yeah those are to do away with people who have bad intentions.
3. The likelihood of you being at home when there is a break in attempt is higher for the simple fact that you do not own a gun.
4. People do not have gun ownership FORCED upon them, in America you may decide whether or not you would like a gun and should you be a law abiding citizen the government allows for it. Why is MY right so upsetting to people in England....I could aim any of my firearms in the direction of England....they don't have the range to do you any harm ;)
2. Yeah blame my phones auto correct on that bit.
3. In the UK the chances of being at home in the UK when there is a break in attempt is extremely low I would imagine.
4. I don't find it upsetting, I just said I don't understand it, given the fact that I've never even held a gun in my life I think that kind of makes sense.
Las Vegas update:
• 58 people killed
• 515 injured
One guy did all that? Shooting down from the 32nd floor?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
@El Kabong
You seem to be the resident gun expert, whats the crack with this business about silencers?
What difference would it make if they were legalized?
I see that Hill Dogs statement has annoyed some people.
I always thought that the ''put put' noise that you get from silencers in the films is pure fiction and that real silencers don't make much of a difference to the volume at all so what are the arguments for and against.
It is very difficult to shoot downhill unless you are quite good at shooting. Plus, automatic weapons tend to ride up as they fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterYes.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
]I'm against taking guns away from law-abiding citizens but there has to be some kind of a rigorous stepped-up extreme vetting psychological and psychiatric evaluation which should be conducted over about a 12-month period once every 90 days to make sure that someone is not going to snap. This guy seemed like a law-abiding citizen was 64 years old with a half a million dollar house for crying out loud who the hell would think you would do something like this?
1. People may not enjoy being hit with a hammer....but it's better than being shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman
2. Well there you go
3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...0-minutes.html vs http://www.jsu.edu/police/docs/Schoolsafety.pdf
4. Well the long and short of it is: Here in America you're allowed to protect yourself and your property SPECIFICALLY with firearms as stated in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is NOT a list of things Government can/should do, it's a list of things Government cannot/should not do. These Rights are not granted by the Government, they are granted by our Creator. That being the case they are "inalienable" meaning "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."....I don't need the Government's permission to protect my property from unlawful intruders, I don't have to ask permission. Likewise, if somebody is robbing me in the city or attempting to steal my car or what have you, yes I can defend my property. It's REALLY simple.
Of course, it's now been revealed that the shooter was an accountant. What a fucking surprise. The so-called 'profession of peace'. The image of the grey haired, bespectacled accountant is just complete urban media brainwashing.
All they are employed to do is count stuff, for fucks sake. I could count to infinity before I was ten years old, so why do we need them.
Round the fuckers up and deport them, I say.
1. It's a suppressor not a silencer as it suppresses the sound coming out of a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman
2. They are for hearing safety not much else. If you hunt big game or if you just shoot a lot then you need either a suppressor or ear protection. I have ear protection. The thing about ear protection is not only does it protect your ears, you cannot hear anything else you might want to hear while hunting/shooting.....like for example, somebody warning you they are approaching. I'll use a suppressor if it's available if for nothing other than convenience and safety.
3. If you want to actually learn about firearms do not waste time listening to Democrats because they know fuck all about them.
4. Suppressors depend on the kind of bullet used as well. I've shot suppressed target pistol .22's (very small caliber rounds and very small gun...think the Duck Hunt gun from NES) with subsonic (slower than the speed of sound) ammunition and those are pretty whisper quiet. I have shot a suppressed MP5 fully automatic and that's a little louder because it was using (.45 acp [Automatic Colt Pistol] subsonic rounds). Now the SAW which apparently the Vegas gunman was using......that would MELT a suppressor pretty damned quick...also it's not really tactically sound to limit the best thing about your weapon. The SAW can spit out PLENTY of bullets very rapidly, having a suppressor to worry about would just slow the gunman down which in turn would give authorities looking for a shooter more time to look and the gunman less time to fire so to answer Hillary's 'Er muh Gerd what if he had uh silencer?' question "Actually it may have saved lives had the shooter had to deal with a suppressor because although it would be harder to hear it would cause overheating a lot quicker than NOT having a suppressor"
The movies (Hollywood run by faaaaar lefties) often get guns very VERY wrong and they'll lead people to believe that you wouldn't be able to hear anything at all from a suppressor the "put put" sound you mentioned, also there's that pesky reloading you come across every so often which isn't cool enough to show in movies. Some movies, like Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down do a good job being real, but there are a lot where it's spray & pray (holding the trigger down moving the gun back and forth and hoping you hit somebody) and no reloading
Yeah I get all that, I think I'm happier here in the UK without the guns, its 2 completely different cultures, I'm not going to pretend to understand yours because it is a completely alien mentality to me, just as I'm sure mine is to youQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
back on topic, its just came out that the dudes dad was on the FBI's most wanted list back in 1969
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experi...4111ac159a.jpg
Quote:
The brother of the Las Vegas attacker has told US media that their father had for a time been on the infamous FBI Most Wanted List.
Patrick Benjamin Paddock had been "diagnosed as psychopathic, has carried firearms in commission of bank robberies" and "reportedly has suicidal tendencies and should be considered armed and very dangerous," according to the FBI bulletin from 1969.
Yes, it is 2 different cultures and that is OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by BatmanYeah I get all that, I think I'm happier here in the UK without the guns, its 2 completely different cultures, I'm not going to pretend to understand yours because it is a completely alien mentality to me, just as I'm sure mine is to youQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
back on topic, its just came out that the dudes dad was on the FBI's most wanted list back in 1969
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experi...4111ac159a.jpg
Quote:
The brother of the Las Vegas attacker has told US media that their father had for a time been on the infamous FBI Most Wanted List.
Patrick Benjamin Paddock had been "diagnosed as psychopathic, has carried firearms in commission of bank robberies" and "reportedly has suicidal tendencies and should be considered armed and very dangerous," according to the FBI bulletin from 1969.
Yeah that is pretty freaky about his Dad...I would imagine that would have thrown red flags up to the FBI and ATF had he gone through the procedure of obtaining a Class 3 license. His brother said he wasn't a big gun nut either and then there's ISIS claiming responsibility and that the guy is a new convert.....very odd indeed
Maybe he is a great shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsooldIt is very difficult to shoot downhill unless you are quite good at shooting. Plus, automatic weapons tend to ride up as they fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterYes.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
WasQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterMaybe he is a great shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsooldIt is very difficult to shoot downhill unless you are quite good at shooting. Plus, automatic weapons tend to ride up as they fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterYes.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
You obviously have not seen the film Accountant starring Ben Affleck.Quote:
Originally Posted by X
CIA did this, goverment did this, same with the 9/11
What happens in Vegas doesn't stays in vegas
The CREATOR!!!!!!
Hahahhahahaaaaa!
:vd:Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless rocco
Yes you simp even if you do not believe in God at all, you STILL have inalienable rights which are not provided to you by Daddy government.....but if you would like to place all faith in government and believe that they have the very best intentions for you I'd point you in a couple different directions: USSR, Nazi Germany, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Kim Jong Un's North Korea, etc.
Not all of the Founding Fathers of America, nor all of Classical Liberals in general are religious people. Some are Atheists and that is fine for them, those people still understand that a power higher than government has bestowed on them the rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness/property, the right to defend those things, and so on.
But you were laughing......perhaps you would like to expound on what Daddy government has given you? Anything government gives is taken from elsewhere, and government takes at the point of a gun whether you have one or not ergo the importance of the Bill of Rights and Constitution.