At least 59 dead, 100 injured in Las Vegas shooting

[Master]

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.

[Batman]

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.

[Master]

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.

[walrus]

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

[GaMo]

50 now reported dead

[Batman]

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?

[El Kabong]

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.

OK

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?

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.

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.

[ruthless rocco]

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?

Only an American with an automatic weapon can stop another American with an automatic weapon.
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.

[TitoFan]

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.

I was unaware of this thread at the time @Master , as I was weeks removed from getting smashed by Hurricane Maria... and off the air for months.

Had I been here, yeah... I would've put it on the Shooting Spree thread, where it belonged.

Now it has been bumped with a photoshopped image, presumably pushing yet another Conspiracy Theory narrative.

I'm surprised Alex Jones didn't jump on this one when it happened. He's apparently the U.S. resident moron expert on these things.

[TIC]

anyone who is familiar with guns can hear the difference in the fire rates on the videos from this story to what you hear in reality

[TitoFan]

anyone who is familiar with guns can hear the difference in the fire rates on the videos from this story to what you hear in reality

So what does that mean? Fake? No shooting? Nobody died? Elaborate government coverup to further some cause? What.

[TIC]

anyone who is familiar with guns can hear the difference in the fire rates on the videos from this story to what you hear in reality

So what does that mean? Fake? No shooting? Nobody died? Elaborate government coverup to further some cause? What.

it means they are not the type of weapons that are claimed to have been used. therefore a lie. so this part of the story is not true. please test it for yourself so you can prove to yourself what i am saying is true. fire the same weapons that were claimed to be used in this story. record the sound of fire for over a minute, then play your recorded audio beside the audio from the story footage. it won't match

[TitoFan]

anyone who is familiar with guns can hear the difference in the fire rates on the videos from this story to what you hear in reality

So what does that mean? Fake? No shooting? Nobody died? Elaborate government coverup to further some cause? What.

it means they are not the type of weapons that are claimed to have been used. therefore a lie. so this part of the story is not true. please test it for yourself so you can prove to yourself what i am saying is true. fire the same weapons that were claimed to be used in this story. record the sound of fire for over a minute, then play your recorded audio beside the audio from the story footage. it won't match

"Audio from the story footage." You mean, "audio CLAIMED to be from the story footage", don't you?

Don't they teach this in Conspiracy Theory school? Don't take anything for granted? Seems like that's Conspiracy Theory 101... surprised you missed it.

CLAIMED audio from the story footage.

Were you there when this video was recorded? Can you prove a different audio wasn't subsequently attached to video, rendering it unbelievable?

Amateurish mistake, and one that could cost you your Conspiracy Theorist badge for sure.

[TitoFan]

By the way, I owe Trumpeteers an apology.

Here I thought Trump didn't have a good bone in his body... and then there's this:





Obviously I had Trump pegged wrong. Here he is helping rescue a man from flooding from Hurricane Florence.

At least this Facebooker saw fit to spread the good news about his fearless leader.

[TIC]

anyone who is familiar with guns can hear the difference in the fire rates on the videos from this story to what you hear in reality

So what does that mean? Fake? No shooting? Nobody died? Elaborate government coverup to further some cause? What.

it means they are not the type of weapons that are claimed to have been used. therefore a lie. so this part of the story is not true. please test it for yourself so you can prove to yourself what i am saying is true. fire the same weapons that were claimed to be used in this story. record the sound of fire for over a minute, then play your recorded audio beside the audio from the story footage. it won't match

"Audio from the story footage." You mean, "audio CLAIMED to be from the story footage", don't you?

Don't they teach this in Conspiracy Theory school? Don't take anything for granted? Seems like that's Conspiracy Theory 101... surprised you missed it.

CLAIMED audio from the story footage.

Were you there when this video was recorded? Can you prove a different audio wasn't subsequently attached to video, rendering it unbelievable?

Amateurish mistake, and one that could cost you your Conspiracy Theorist badge for sure.

once you have verified what i say to be true then you will be able to confirm that all the footage that has audio of gun fire does not match what you hear in reality. so why is there a difference in fire rate between the audio on all the footage shown & what you hear in reality & why are no journalists asking that question?