What did you want him to do instead when they didn't even know where the bullets were coming from?
I’m with you, I really do not understand the attention this guy is getting here. He is one guy amongst 20,000 there...All that I can make of it is that people are just trying to make fun of him for not going all Rambo and getting himself killed??
I think it is just a perception thing. This guy has created an online persona that he is a Rambo type. A real hero and tough guy. So when reality hit and he tucked tail while others shielded people with their bodies, immediately helped those around them who were down, etc... it challenged this guys self-created persona. He's no superman. He had a natural urge to flee a dangerous situation, just as many of us would. He isn't the tough, badass as he likes to portray himself in his little youtube vids. Nobody has a problem with normal people who have no self-delusional hero fantasies going into self-preservation mode. I think he's only being called out because he set himself up to be.
So basically you are saying that he was a semi-celebrity that is pulling attention away from the true heroes of the moment? I get accused of pulling the conversation away from the “real issue” of gun control and by encouraging people to be vigilant now we are talking about some dumbass that few had ever even heard about before this week?
That's about right from my point of view. A semi-celebrity glory seeker who didn't live up to his own, self-created persona. I didn't bring him up. I don't care about him at all. If he helped people, then he gets a virtual pat on the back from me. But he didn't live up to his own billing. I'm not looking for him to go Rambo into the casino and single-handedly take out the shooter. I just figured he'd help a few of his fallen concert-goers before he ran. Like I said, I don't fault him for running per se. I fault him for being a douchenozzle in the months and years before this mass shooting. But he really is inconsequential, and the discussion about him is pretty tangential to the real stories of heroism in the midst of chaos. Regular, everyday people with no Rambo complex, putting the lives of loved ones, friends, and complete strangers above their own need for safety.
This and well said, Jeff. And I too don't understand all the side-tracking about this inconsequential figure.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
He is an interesting human being. But I don’t see the point you are trying to make? Guy tried to save his own life first, like most people would, and then the rest is up for debate. He said/she said all over the article. What do you want him to do?
Was there a point I was trying to make? I just posted an article that stated the facts that I found interesting.
So.....thanks for the pointless (by your own admission) post?
The post I was responding to claimed that I was trying to make a point. I shared an article with none of my words attached. Therefore I wasn't expressing a point.
If you want my opinion I will give it to you. The guy was a pretender and was exposed as one. For all the tough guy talk that we need to prepare for these mass shootings, in the end these tough guys like everyone else run and hide. Just like all the tough guys on these forums.
I'm not going to live my life in fear and paranoia, buy guns, dwell on and prepare for mass shootings. I will leave that to the gun nutters. Life is too short.
None of your words attached? Well, thats not true. Your exact words were "What a macho, gun-packing Instagram star did when he was caught in the Las Vegas shooting" when linking the article. You were clearly making fun of a guy who was a victim of a mass shooting. Classy.
that was the title of the article, not his words.
I overlooked that was the title. But doesn't change my opinion, to repeat the title and link it is clearly implying he agrees with the article. How is it acceptable to blame Trump Supporters for this or any and all republicans. Then go on and make fun of a victim for not fighting back during this massacre? I truly just don't get the thoughts behind many on the anti-gun side after events like this. You make fun of him for having guns, then you make fun of him for not shooting back when you don't even know where the shots are coming from? Can't have it both ways.
It's called hypocrisy....not that I should even bother to engage with someone who didn't read the article or anything I have posted, that much is clear.
What did you want him to do instead when they didn't even know where the bullets were coming from?
I’m with you, I really do not understand the attention this guy is getting here. He is one guy amongst 20,000 there...All that I can make of it is that people are just trying to make fun of him for not going all Rambo and getting himself killed??
I think it is just a perception thing. This guy has created an online persona that he is a Rambo type. A real hero and tough guy. So when reality hit and he tucked tail while others shielded people with their bodies, immediately helped those around them who were down, etc... it challenged this guys self-created persona. He's no superman. He had a natural urge to flee a dangerous situation, just as many of us would. He isn't the tough, badass as he likes to portray himself in his little youtube vids. Nobody has a problem with normal people who have no self-delusional hero fantasies going into self-preservation mode. I think he's only being called out because he set himself up to be.
So basically you are saying that he was a semi-celebrity that is pulling attention away from the true heroes of the moment? I get accused of pulling the conversation away from the “real issue” of gun control and by encouraging people to be vigilant now we are talking about some dumbass that few had ever even heard about before this week?
That's about right from my point of view. A semi-celebrity glory seeker who didn't live up to his own, self-created persona. I didn't bring him up. I don't care about him at all. If he helped people, then he gets a virtual pat on the back from me. But he didn't live up to his own billing. I'm not looking for him to go Rambo into the casino and single-handedly take out the shooter. I just figured he'd help a few of his fallen concert-goers before he ran. Like I said, I don't fault him for running per se. I fault him for being a douchenozzle in the months and years before this mass shooting. But he really is inconsequential, and the discussion about him is pretty tangential to the real stories of heroism in the midst of chaos. Regular, everyday people with no Rambo complex, putting the lives of loved ones, friends, and complete strangers above their own need for safety.
This and well said, Jeff. And I too don't understand all the side-tracking about this inconsequential figure.
I agree. And it's a way for the gun nuts to deflect away from the blood on their hands. So they are picking it apart.
I post hundreds of articles on here with barely a peep....but this one sure did get under their skin.
I don’t care about Dan enough to keep talking about him, so I will leave it with one last thought on my end. I don’t think the test of heroism should be what you do when having bullets mercilessly fired upon a crowd from an unknown location. I think his response was normal and he shouldn’t be dinged for it. Especially if he did apparently ‘return’ to the scene to some extent.
Why he feels the need to own the types of guns he has is another thing.
Pittsburgh 2013 Cincinnati 2014 Greenville 2016 (Raleigh 2016) Columbia 2016
He is an interesting human being. But I don’t see the point you are trying to make? Guy tried to save his own life first, like most people would, and then the rest is up for debate. He said/she said all over the article. What do you want him to do?
Was there a point I was trying to make? I just posted an article that stated the facts that I found interesting.
So.....thanks for the pointless (by your own admission) post?
The post I was responding to claimed that I was trying to make a point. I shared an article with none of my words attached. Therefore I wasn't expressing a point.
If you want my opinion I will give it to you. The guy was a pretender and was exposed as one. For all the tough guy talk that we need to prepare for these mass shootings, in the end these tough guys like everyone else run and hide. Just like all the tough guys on these forums.
I'm not going to live my life in fear and paranoia, buy guns, dwell on and prepare for mass shootings. I will leave that to the gun nutters. Life is too short.
he wasn't armed at the time. he claims he went back and got his gun and returned to the scene. whether that's true or not is irrelevant. anyone, Rambo himself, wouldn't stand up with arms open asking to "come and shoot me". that's asinine.
anyone with a brain would run to safety. navy seals included. unless we believe they'd be able to somehow McGyver a gun out of a plastic cup and some string.
Again. Many didn't run. They stayed and saved lives.
And again, I don't blame him for running....just don't pretend you're some hero when you aren't.
Why is this so hard to understand?
the snide question at the end is not necessary. it's not hard to understand. I can disagree with you if I wish.
many of us can think of ourselves and how we would react in a manner that doesn't necessarily line up with reality, but we don't know that until we are faced with that reality.
the person next to him had their brains blown out. every situation is different. maybe the people who stayed may not have witnessed something so traumatic. maybe they did. who knows. But I'm not going to blame anyone for their actions in a situation like that, regardless how they portrayed themselves prior to the event.
he didn't pretend to be a hero. he even stated after the fact that what he did was not heroic.
“I was pretty calm, all things considered, but I definitely ran to safety,” Bilzerian told People.
He really did see a woman shot in the head, he told the magazine, and took another injured woman to a hospital before returning to the scene — as promised — with his gun.
But the police had things in hand by then, Bilzerian said, so he went home.
“I don’t think it was heroic at all,” he told People of his actions. “I just wanted to do the right thing.”
Nobody says you are a hero so you feel the need to say. “I don’t think it was heroic at all,” he told People of his actions. “I just wanted to do the right thing.”
Anyways, I'm done with the article. I just found it interesting and symbolic of your average blowhard gun nutter and wanted to share.
Time to throw on the tin foil hats guys. Gun nuts couldn't possibly believe that one man could cause that much carnage. It doesn't fit the BS they have been spewing from their mouths for years.
So having a theory on a massacre makes me a gun nut? I never or did anyone on this forum believe that this could not have been done by only one person. What would prove if there was only one shooter as opposed to two? Again just a theory on a case that isn't 48 hours old.
I just find it hard to believe that this man snuck in all those guns and ammo, surveyed the area for who knows how long and no one knew anything about it.
It's a hotel, he was there for 4 days, bring up 2 or 3 suitcases every day and who's going to notice?
Yeah, I have no clue why anyone is questioning that part. It seems to me like it would as easy as bringing groceries up to his hotel room. I'm sure a lot of people carry all kinds of crazy shit up to the Vegas hotel rooms - nobody is going to be paying attention to that (nor should they be).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Nobody says you are a hero so you feel the need to say. “I don’t think it was heroic at all,” he told People of his actions. “I just wanted to do the right thing.”
Anyways, I'm done with the article. I just found it interesting and symbolic of your average blowhard gun nutter and wanted to share.
Again, what did you want this "average blowhard gun nutter" to do? Take a 300 yard shot with a hand gun?!
Nobody says you are a hero so you feel the need to say. “I don’t think it was heroic at all,” he told People of his actions. “I just wanted to do the right thing.”
Anyways, I'm done with the article. I just found it interesting and symbolic of your average blowhard gun nutter and wanted to share.
Again, what did you want this "average blowhard gun nutter" to do? Take a 300 yard shot with a hand gun?!
Again, read my comments. The answer is clearly there.
I don't consider biology because humans are beyond that. We have largely beat nature in this context (in modern developed society). It is no longer fair to be placing humans on the same level as wild animals in this context IMO. It's the same reason you don't just go running up to whatever woman smells right and start reproducing with her on the street. We're not wild animals (anymore). And wild animals are not comparable to domestic livestock either, IMO, just like they aren't comparable to pets. (I am not really trying to convince anyone btw - certainly not hunters; we are WAY too far apart in attitude to ever agree on this issue, lol).
how are humans beyond that? in order to get the nutrients we need, we either need to eat other animals or get them artificially. our nature is, as someone else said, ominivorous. just because we can grow meat out of petri dish doesn't mean we should.
although, i just noticed what thread we're in. maybe we should get back to it. i don't consider hunting for food "america's gun violence". lol
I am talking about stalking prey in the wild. We are already doing more than enough to destroy nature, and if we don't have to go out there and shoot wild animals, then I don't think we should. If we weren't a bunch of parasites destroying Earth and the animals we share it with about as fast as possible, I probably would not be saying this. And if nobody got any pleasure out of hunting whatsoever I wouldn't saying it either, but nobody can claim that in developed countries the vast majority of hunting is about the sport far more than it is the food. I am 100% not saying we shouldn't eat other animals at all, nor that I think steaks need to be made in a lab (although I wouldn't be against that if it was possible and tasted good - that would be insanely beneficial for environmental reasons and humane reasons - meat without the damage raising meat causes and without any death?? Count me in!! I have no idea why anyone would prefer to kill for meat if they could get it without killing. Surely that isn't what you meant).
i know what you are referring to. but hunting on your own and using it for food takes agriculture, a major source of climate change, out of the picture. I don't like sport hunting any more than you do, but if it's for food, then to me it's neither here nor there if the person shooting is "enjoying it" or not. the fact is, they are using their own means and bypassing the "system", which, as I said above, is a major problem.
I am thinking only in terms of the welfare of the wild animals. Anyway, sorry for the huge sidetrack everyone.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Nobody says you are a hero so you feel the need to say. “I don’t think it was heroic at all,” he told People of his actions. “I just wanted to do the right thing.”
Anyways, I'm done with the article. I just found it interesting and symbolic of your average blowhard gun nutter and wanted to share.
Again, what did you want this "average blowhard gun nutter" to do? Take a 300 yard shot with a hand gun?!
Again, read my comments. The answer is clearly there.
So do you claim the fact that he helped someone is flase? Are you also saying that his return to the scene, while minimal in time and good-doing, is also false?
it’s really only his word versus the writer and whatever sources he has. But even he recognizes he could have gone back. So if you believe its false then so be it, can’t debate what you want to be true.
Post edited by drakeheuer14 on
Pittsburgh 2013 Cincinnati 2014 Greenville 2016 (Raleigh 2016) Columbia 2016
Everyone is praising the guy flipping the bird, he's lucky he didn't get the people near him shot to bits. Drunk asshat.
I was pretty fucking shocked to see in many of the videos taken during the shooting that there were people just standing there casually looking around among all the people on the ground, sipping their beers. I'm not sure if they were too drunk to even grasp what was happening, or if they were just too cool to hit the ground during a mass shooting, lol, but either way, I couldn't help but thing that they are idiots, because yes, doing that creates a target for themselves and, worse, for everyone around them. The guy giving the finger I think simply didn't really get the concept of being in imminent danger, and now he and a bunch of people are spinning it into some deliberate and heroic act of rebellion. It's dumb.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Time to throw on the tin foil hats guys. Gun nuts couldn't possibly believe that one man could cause that much carnage. It doesn't fit the BS they have been spewing from their mouths for years.
So having a theory on a massacre makes me a gun nut? I never or did anyone on this forum believe that this could not have been done by only one person. What would prove if there was only one shooter as opposed to two? Again just a theory on a case that isn't 48 hours old.
I just find it hard to believe that this man snuck in all those guns and ammo, surveyed the area for who knows how long and no one knew anything about it.
It's a hotel, he was there for 4 days, bring up 2 or 3 suitcases every day and who's going to notice?
Yeah, I have no clue why anyone is questioning that part. It seems to me like it would as easy as bringing groceries up to his hotel room. I'm sure a lot of people carry all kinds of crazy shit up to the Vegas hotel rooms - nobody is going to be paying attention to that (nor should they be).
I read or watched on CNN today(can't remember if it was an article or video) that he used 10 suitcases to bring the guns in his room. He apparently ordered room service several times and multiple hotel staff had been in his room. Not sure how he hid all the guns from the hotel staff but clearly he did something to where no one noticed anything to cause suspicion. He also had a camera on a cart in the hall and one on the inside of the peephole.
What did you want him to do instead when they didn't even know where the bullets were coming from?
I’m with you, I really do not understand the attention this guy is getting here. He is one guy amongst 20,000 there...All that I can make of it is that people are just trying to make fun of him for not going all Rambo and getting himself killed??
I think it is just a perception thing. This guy has created an online persona that he is a Rambo type. A real hero and tough guy. So when reality hit and he tucked tail while others shielded people with their bodies, immediately helped those around them who were down, etc... it challenged this guys self-created persona. He's no superman. He had a natural urge to flee a dangerous situation, just as many of us would. He isn't the tough, badass as he likes to portray himself in his little youtube vids. Nobody has a problem with normal people who have no self-delusional hero fantasies going into self-preservation mode. I think he's only being called out because he set himself up to be.
So the guy was supposed to take a 300 yard shot at a hotel with innocent people in it?
Didn't he claim he was looking for a gun in the midst of the chaos to 'handle the situation' (appear tough)?
I don't blame him for one moment running for his life, but as Jeff stated... he's ultimately trying to preserve his facade which has collapsed. It would have been best to be grateful versus 'tough' (when you weren't).
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,761
I don't consider biology because humans are beyond that. We have largely beat nature in this context (in modern developed society). It is no longer fair to be placing humans on the same level as wild animals in this context IMO. It's the same reason you don't just go running up to whatever woman smells right and start reproducing with her on the street. We're not wild animals (anymore). And wild animals are not comparable to domestic livestock either, IMO, just like they aren't comparable to pets. (I am not really trying to convince anyone btw - certainly not hunters; we are WAY too far apart in attitude to ever agree on this issue, lol).
how are humans beyond that? in order to get the nutrients we need, we either need to eat other animals or get them artificially. our nature is, as someone else said, ominivorous. just because we can grow meat out of petri dish doesn't mean we should.
although, i just noticed what thread we're in. maybe we should get back to it. i don't consider hunting for food "america's gun violence". lol
I am talking about stalking prey in the wild. We are already doing more than enough to destroy nature, and if we don't have to go out there and shoot wild animals, then I don't think we should. If we weren't a bunch of parasites destroying Earth and the animals we share it with about as fast as possible, I probably would not be saying this. And if nobody got any pleasure out of hunting whatsoever I wouldn't saying it either, but nobody can claim that in developed countries the vast majority of hunting is about the sport far more than it is the food. I am 100% not saying we shouldn't eat other animals at all, nor that I think steaks need to be made in a lab (although I wouldn't be against that if it was possible and tasted good - that would be insanely beneficial for environmental reasons and humane reasons - meat without the damage raising meat causes and without any death?? Count me in!! I have no idea why anyone would prefer to kill for meat if they could get it without killing. Surely that isn't what you meant).
i know what you are referring to. but hunting on your own and using it for food takes agriculture, a major source of climate change, out of the picture. I don't like sport hunting any more than you do, but if it's for food, then to me it's neither here nor there if the person shooting is "enjoying it" or not. the fact is, they are using their own means and bypassing the "system", which, as I said above, is a major problem.
I am thinking only in terms of the welfare of the wild animals. Anyway, sorry for the huge sidetrack everyone.
Wild life is dwindling, human population is close to or maybe even over the ecological concept of carrying capacity and people still want to hunt wild animals? Absurd.
I saw our first wild turkey of the year yesterday morning. Those sweet, lovable dumb birds- he was in our driveway and I had to slow down so as not to spook him let alone hit him. I've gotten wild turkeys to eat out of my hand. I know that's not a good idea-- they should be kept wild-- and I don't do that anymore. But I mention this because I've also seen entire books written about how to hunt turkeys. Ridiculous! I could sit on my porch and pick them off if I were that uncaring about wildlife. Besides that, why the heck would anyone do that? They don't even taste good. You can buy a tender one at the market if you eat meat. So why do people kill wild animals. In the 21st century we live in that's just-- I'll say it-- wrong. Just wrong.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don't consider biology because humans are beyond that. We have largely beat nature in this context (in modern developed society). It is no longer fair to be placing humans on the same level as wild animals in this context IMO. It's the same reason you don't just go running up to whatever woman smells right and start reproducing with her on the street. We're not wild animals (anymore). And wild animals are not comparable to domestic livestock either, IMO, just like they aren't comparable to pets. (I am not really trying to convince anyone btw - certainly not hunters; we are WAY too far apart in attitude to ever agree on this issue, lol).
how are humans beyond that? in order to get the nutrients we need, we either need to eat other animals or get them artificially. our nature is, as someone else said, ominivorous. just because we can grow meat out of petri dish doesn't mean we should.
although, i just noticed what thread we're in. maybe we should get back to it. i don't consider hunting for food "america's gun violence". lol
I am talking about stalking prey in the wild. We are already doing more than enough to destroy nature, and if we don't have to go out there and shoot wild animals, then I don't think we should. If we weren't a bunch of parasites destroying Earth and the animals we share it with about as fast as possible, I probably would not be saying this. And if nobody got any pleasure out of hunting whatsoever I wouldn't saying it either, but nobody can claim that in developed countries the vast majority of hunting is about the sport far more than it is the food. I am 100% not saying we shouldn't eat other animals at all, nor that I think steaks need to be made in a lab (although I wouldn't be against that if it was possible and tasted good - that would be insanely beneficial for environmental reasons and humane reasons - meat without the damage raising meat causes and without any death?? Count me in!! I have no idea why anyone would prefer to kill for meat if they could get it without killing. Surely that isn't what you meant).
i know what you are referring to. but hunting on your own and using it for food takes agriculture, a major source of climate change, out of the picture. I don't like sport hunting any more than you do, but if it's for food, then to me it's neither here nor there if the person shooting is "enjoying it" or not. the fact is, they are using their own means and bypassing the "system", which, as I said above, is a major problem.
I am thinking only in terms of the welfare of the wild animals. Anyway, sorry for the huge sidetrack everyone.
Wild life is dwindling, human population is close to or maybe even over the ecological concept of carrying capacity and people still want to hunt wild animals? Absurd.
I saw our first wild turkey of the year yesterday morning. Those sweet, lovable dumb birds- he was in our driveway and I had to slow down so as not to spook him let alone hit him. I've gotten wild turkeys to eat out of my hand. I know that's not a good idea-- they should be kept wild-- and I don't do that anymore. But I mention this because I've also seen entire books written about how to hunt turkeys. Ridiculous! I could sit on my porch and pick them off if I were that uncaring about wildlife. Besides that, why the heck would anyone do that? They don't even taste good. You can buy a tender one at the market if you eat meat. So why do people kill wild animals. In the 21st century we live in that's just-- I'll say it-- wrong. Just wrong.
Wild turkey may taste like shit, but a whitetail deer is quite delicious. Not only that, it is “all natural” and “free roaming”, lol. There is no threat to the population of deer or turkey around here. In fact, the issue as of late has been the overpopulation and eating wheat fields that crest bread for those lovely little supermarkets. Think I will have some back strap fajitas tonight since venison is on the mind.
I don't consider biology because humans are beyond that. We have largely beat nature in this context (in modern developed society). It is no longer fair to be placing humans on the same level as wild animals in this context IMO. It's the same reason you don't just go running up to whatever woman smells right and start reproducing with her on the street. We're not wild animals (anymore). And wild animals are not comparable to domestic livestock either, IMO, just like they aren't comparable to pets. (I am not really trying to convince anyone btw - certainly not hunters; we are WAY too far apart in attitude to ever agree on this issue, lol).
how are humans beyond that? in order to get the nutrients we need, we either need to eat other animals or get them artificially. our nature is, as someone else said, ominivorous. just because we can grow meat out of petri dish doesn't mean we should.
although, i just noticed what thread we're in. maybe we should get back to it. i don't consider hunting for food "america's gun violence". lol
I am talking about stalking prey in the wild. We are already doing more than enough to destroy nature, and if we don't have to go out there and shoot wild animals, then I don't think we should. If we weren't a bunch of parasites destroying Earth and the animals we share it with about as fast as possible, I probably would not be saying this. And if nobody got any pleasure out of hunting whatsoever I wouldn't saying it either, but nobody can claim that in developed countries the vast majority of hunting is about the sport far more than it is the food. I am 100% not saying we shouldn't eat other animals at all, nor that I think steaks need to be made in a lab (although I wouldn't be against that if it was possible and tasted good - that would be insanely beneficial for environmental reasons and humane reasons - meat without the damage raising meat causes and without any death?? Count me in!! I have no idea why anyone would prefer to kill for meat if they could get it without killing. Surely that isn't what you meant).
i know what you are referring to. but hunting on your own and using it for food takes agriculture, a major source of climate change, out of the picture. I don't like sport hunting any more than you do, but if it's for food, then to me it's neither here nor there if the person shooting is "enjoying it" or not. the fact is, they are using their own means and bypassing the "system", which, as I said above, is a major problem.
I am thinking only in terms of the welfare of the wild animals. Anyway, sorry for the huge sidetrack everyone.
Wild life is dwindling, human population is close to or maybe even over the ecological concept of carrying capacity and people still want to hunt wild animals? Absurd.
I saw our first wild turkey of the year yesterday morning. Those sweet, lovable dumb birds- he was in our driveway and I had to slow down so as not to spook him let alone hit him. I've gotten wild turkeys to eat out of my hand. I know that's not a good idea-- they should be kept wild-- and I don't do that anymore. But I mention this because I've also seen entire books written about how to hunt turkeys. Ridiculous! I could sit on my porch and pick them off if I were that uncaring about wildlife. Besides that, why the heck would anyone do that? They don't even taste good. You can buy a tender one at the market if you eat meat. So why do people kill wild animals. In the 21st century we live in that's just-- I'll say it-- wrong. Just wrong.
Finally someone agrees with me on this. I guess it must be about how we feel about wild animals as free, sentient beings Brian, compared to the others? I don't know how anyone can be so relaxed and uncaring and even jovial when talking about gunning down free, wild animals and eating them when they don't even have the need for the food these deaths are justified by. Alright, sorry again - derailment not intended.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
He is an interesting human being. But I don’t see the point you are trying to make? Guy tried to save his own life first, like most people would, and then the rest is up for debate. He said/she said all over the article. What do you want him to do?
Was there a point I was trying to make? I just posted an article that stated the facts that I found interesting.
So.....thanks for the pointless (by your own admission) post?
The post I was responding to claimed that I was trying to make a point. I shared an article with none of my words attached. Therefore I wasn't expressing a point.
If you want my opinion I will give it to you. The guy was a pretender and was exposed as one. For all the tough guy talk that we need to prepare for these mass shootings, in the end these tough guys like everyone else run and hide. Just like all the tough guys on these forums.
I'm not going to live my life in fear and paranoia, buy guns, dwell on and prepare for mass shootings. I will leave that to the gun nutters. Life is too short.
None of your words attached? Well, thats not true. Your exact words were "What a macho, gun-packing Instagram star did when he was caught in the Las Vegas shooting" when linking the article. You were clearly making fun of a guy who was a victim of a mass shooting. Classy.
that was the title of the article, not his words.
I overlooked that was the title. But doesn't change my opinion, to repeat the title and link it is clearly implying he agrees with the article. How is it acceptable to blame Trump Supporters for this or any and all republicans. Then go on and make fun of a victim for not fighting back during this massacre? I truly just don't get the thoughts behind many on the anti-gun side after events like this. You make fun of him for having guns, then you make fun of him for not shooting back when you don't even know where the shots are coming from? Can't have it both ways.
It's called hypocrisy....not that I should even bother to engage with someone who didn't read the article or anything I have posted, that much is clear.
I read the article. It clearly puts him down as you do for not fighting back.
Time to throw on the tin foil hats guys. Gun nuts couldn't possibly believe that one man could cause that much carnage. It doesn't fit the BS they have been spewing from their mouths for years.
So having a theory on a massacre makes me a gun nut? I never or did anyone on this forum believe that this could not have been done by only one person. What would prove if there was only one shooter as opposed to two? Again just a theory on a case that isn't 48 hours old.
I just find it hard to believe that this man snuck in all those guns and ammo, surveyed the area for who knows how long and no one knew anything about it.
It's a hotel, he was there for 4 days, bring up 2 or 3 suitcases every day and who's going to notice?
Yeah, I have no clue why anyone is questioning that part. It seems to me like it would as easy as bringing groceries up to his hotel room. I'm sure a lot of people carry all kinds of crazy shit up to the Vegas hotel rooms - nobody is going to be paying attention to that (nor should they be).
I read or watched on CNN today(can't remember if it was an article or video) that he used 10 suitcases to bring the guns in his room. He apparently ordered room service several times and multiple hotel staff had been in his room. Not sure how he hid all the guns from the hotel staff but clearly he did something to where no one noticed anything to cause suspicion. He also had a camera on a cart in the hall and one on the inside of the peephole.
He was in a suite, right? Likely had more closet space than an average hotel room. Stack the guns and pile the suitcases. He'd run the risk that a curious housekeeper may open a closet but they are probably instructed not to.
He might have just had a do not disturb thing on his door. Room service doesn't come in and inspect the place, lol. They just wheel a cart in and out of the main area and leave. There is literally no mystery here IMO.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,761
I don't consider biology because humans are beyond that. We have largely beat nature in this context (in modern developed society). It is no longer fair to be placing humans on the same level as wild animals in this context IMO. It's the same reason you don't just go running up to whatever woman smells right and start reproducing with her on the street. We're not wild animals (anymore). And wild animals are not comparable to domestic livestock either, IMO, just like they aren't comparable to pets. (I am not really trying to convince anyone btw - certainly not hunters; we are WAY too far apart in attitude to ever agree on this issue, lol).
how are humans beyond that? in order to get the nutrients we need, we either need to eat other animals or get them artificially. our nature is, as someone else said, ominivorous. just because we can grow meat out of petri dish doesn't mean we should.
although, i just noticed what thread we're in. maybe we should get back to it. i don't consider hunting for food "america's gun violence". lol
I am talking about stalking prey in the wild. We are already doing more than enough to destroy nature, and if we don't have to go out there and shoot wild animals, then I don't think we should. If we weren't a bunch of parasites destroying Earth and the animals we share it with about as fast as possible, I probably would not be saying this. And if nobody got any pleasure out of hunting whatsoever I wouldn't saying it either, but nobody can claim that in developed countries the vast majority of hunting is about the sport far more than it is the food. I am 100% not saying we shouldn't eat other animals at all, nor that I think steaks need to be made in a lab (although I wouldn't be against that if it was possible and tasted good - that would be insanely beneficial for environmental reasons and humane reasons - meat without the damage raising meat causes and without any death?? Count me in!! I have no idea why anyone would prefer to kill for meat if they could get it without killing. Surely that isn't what you meant).
i know what you are referring to. but hunting on your own and using it for food takes agriculture, a major source of climate change, out of the picture. I don't like sport hunting any more than you do, but if it's for food, then to me it's neither here nor there if the person shooting is "enjoying it" or not. the fact is, they are using their own means and bypassing the "system", which, as I said above, is a major problem.
I am thinking only in terms of the welfare of the wild animals. Anyway, sorry for the huge sidetrack everyone.
Wild life is dwindling, human population is close to or maybe even over the ecological concept of carrying capacity and people still want to hunt wild animals? Absurd.
I saw our first wild turkey of the year yesterday morning. Those sweet, lovable dumb birds- he was in our driveway and I had to slow down so as not to spook him let alone hit him. I've gotten wild turkeys to eat out of my hand. I know that's not a good idea-- they should be kept wild-- and I don't do that anymore. But I mention this because I've also seen entire books written about how to hunt turkeys. Ridiculous! I could sit on my porch and pick them off if I were that uncaring about wildlife. Besides that, why the heck would anyone do that? They don't even taste good. You can buy a tender one at the market if you eat meat. So why do people kill wild animals. In the 21st century we live in that's just-- I'll say it-- wrong. Just wrong.
Wild turkey may taste like shit, but a whitetail deer is quite delicious. Not only that, it is “all natural” and “free roaming”, lol. There is no threat to the population of deer or turkey around here. In fact, the issue as of late has been the overpopulation and eating wheat fields that crest bread for those lovely little supermarkets. Think I will have some back strap fajitas tonight since venison is on the mind.
You called me a troll and "some eccentric on AMT" (weak laughter) and said it would be best to ignore me. That was short lived. But OK, I'll respond.
Yes, the populations of deer are out of balance in many places, I'm well aware of that. Shooting more animals is an anthropocentric solution to a biological problem. If natural predators were allowed more natural habitat, these issues would not be occurring. But you already indicated that doesn't work for you.
Are we done?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don't consider biology because humans are beyond that. We have largely beat nature in this context (in modern developed society). It is no longer fair to be placing humans on the same level as wild animals in this context IMO. It's the same reason you don't just go running up to whatever woman smells right and start reproducing with her on the street. We're not wild animals (anymore). And wild animals are not comparable to domestic livestock either, IMO, just like they aren't comparable to pets. (I am not really trying to convince anyone btw - certainly not hunters; we are WAY too far apart in attitude to ever agree on this issue, lol).
how are humans beyond that? in order to get the nutrients we need, we either need to eat other animals or get them artificially. our nature is, as someone else said, ominivorous. just because we can grow meat out of petri dish doesn't mean we should.
although, i just noticed what thread we're in. maybe we should get back to it. i don't consider hunting for food "america's gun violence". lol
I am talking about stalking prey in the wild. We are already doing more than enough to destroy nature, and if we don't have to go out there and shoot wild animals, then I don't think we should. If we weren't a bunch of parasites destroying Earth and the animals we share it with about as fast as possible, I probably would not be saying this. And if nobody got any pleasure out of hunting whatsoever I wouldn't saying it either, but nobody can claim that in developed countries the vast majority of hunting is about the sport far more than it is the food. I am 100% not saying we shouldn't eat other animals at all, nor that I think steaks need to be made in a lab (although I wouldn't be against that if it was possible and tasted good - that would be insanely beneficial for environmental reasons and humane reasons - meat without the damage raising meat causes and without any death?? Count me in!! I have no idea why anyone would prefer to kill for meat if they could get it without killing. Surely that isn't what you meant).
i know what you are referring to. but hunting on your own and using it for food takes agriculture, a major source of climate change, out of the picture. I don't like sport hunting any more than you do, but if it's for food, then to me it's neither here nor there if the person shooting is "enjoying it" or not. the fact is, they are using their own means and bypassing the "system", which, as I said above, is a major problem.
I am thinking only in terms of the welfare of the wild animals. Anyway, sorry for the huge sidetrack everyone.
Wild life is dwindling, human population is close to or maybe even over the ecological concept of carrying capacity and people still want to hunt wild animals? Absurd.
I saw our first wild turkey of the year yesterday morning. Those sweet, lovable dumb birds- he was in our driveway and I had to slow down so as not to spook him let alone hit him. I've gotten wild turkeys to eat out of my hand. I know that's not a good idea-- they should be kept wild-- and I don't do that anymore. But I mention this because I've also seen entire books written about how to hunt turkeys. Ridiculous! I could sit on my porch and pick them off if I were that uncaring about wildlife. Besides that, why the heck would anyone do that? They don't even taste good. You can buy a tender one at the market if you eat meat. So why do people kill wild animals. In the 21st century we live in that's just-- I'll say it-- wrong. Just wrong.
Finally someone agrees with me on this. I guess it must be about how we feel about wild animals as free, sentient beings Brian, compared to the others?
I love wild animals. I would never harm a hair on their bodies. I once killed a bee that wasn't bothering me, and I felt bad afterwards. that was about 20 years ago, and I still remember it. You can love and respect the animal kingdom and still hold the following belief:
There is a natural order to things. Humans being part of the food chain is part of that. What we do now is not natural. Breeding animals for slaughter, pumping them full of chemicals to fatten them up, is not good. It would make more sense if we still hunted, as opposed to ruining the earth with cattle raising.
I don't consider biology because humans are beyond that. We have largely beat nature in this context (in modern developed society). It is no longer fair to be placing humans on the same level as wild animals in this context IMO. It's the same reason you don't just go running up to whatever woman smells right and start reproducing with her on the street. We're not wild animals (anymore). And wild animals are not comparable to domestic livestock either, IMO, just like they aren't comparable to pets. (I am not really trying to convince anyone btw - certainly not hunters; we are WAY too far apart in attitude to ever agree on this issue, lol).
how are humans beyond that? in order to get the nutrients we need, we either need to eat other animals or get them artificially. our nature is, as someone else said, ominivorous. just because we can grow meat out of petri dish doesn't mean we should.
although, i just noticed what thread we're in. maybe we should get back to it. i don't consider hunting for food "america's gun violence". lol
I am talking about stalking prey in the wild. We are already doing more than enough to destroy nature, and if we don't have to go out there and shoot wild animals, then I don't think we should. If we weren't a bunch of parasites destroying Earth and the animals we share it with about as fast as possible, I probably would not be saying this. And if nobody got any pleasure out of hunting whatsoever I wouldn't saying it either, but nobody can claim that in developed countries the vast majority of hunting is about the sport far more than it is the food. I am 100% not saying we shouldn't eat other animals at all, nor that I think steaks need to be made in a lab (although I wouldn't be against that if it was possible and tasted good - that would be insanely beneficial for environmental reasons and humane reasons - meat without the damage raising meat causes and without any death?? Count me in!! I have no idea why anyone would prefer to kill for meat if they could get it without killing. Surely that isn't what you meant).
i know what you are referring to. but hunting on your own and using it for food takes agriculture, a major source of climate change, out of the picture. I don't like sport hunting any more than you do, but if it's for food, then to me it's neither here nor there if the person shooting is "enjoying it" or not. the fact is, they are using their own means and bypassing the "system", which, as I said above, is a major problem.
I am thinking only in terms of the welfare of the wild animals. Anyway, sorry for the huge sidetrack everyone.
Wild life is dwindling, human population is close to or maybe even over the ecological concept of carrying capacity and people still want to hunt wild animals? Absurd.
I saw our first wild turkey of the year yesterday morning. Those sweet, lovable dumb birds- he was in our driveway and I had to slow down so as not to spook him let alone hit him. I've gotten wild turkeys to eat out of my hand. I know that's not a good idea-- they should be kept wild-- and I don't do that anymore. But I mention this because I've also seen entire books written about how to hunt turkeys. Ridiculous! I could sit on my porch and pick them off if I were that uncaring about wildlife. Besides that, why the heck would anyone do that? They don't even taste good. You can buy a tender one at the market if you eat meat. So why do people kill wild animals. In the 21st century we live in that's just-- I'll say it-- wrong. Just wrong.
Wild turkey may taste like shit, but a whitetail deer is quite delicious. Not only that, it is “all natural” and “free roaming”, lol. There is no threat to the population of deer or turkey around here. In fact, the issue as of late has been the overpopulation and eating wheat fields that crest bread for those lovely little supermarkets. Think I will have some back strap fajitas tonight since venison is on the mind.
You called me a troll and "some eccentric on AMT" (weak laughter) and said it would be best to ignore me. That was short lived. But OK, I'll respond.
Yes, the populations of deer are out of balance in many places, I'm well aware of that. Shooting more animals is an anthropocentric solution to a biological problem. If natural predators were allowed more natural habitat, these issues would not be occurring. But you already indicated that doesn't work for you.
Are we done?
You are evidently looking at this from a strictly vegetarian point of view and I look at it from a meat eater view. Kind of a catch because if you allow the natural predators to overpopulate, then you have problems with them killing your livestock too. I have no issue shooting a coyote that is eating a calf as it is being born or any wild boar for that matter. If that makes a person a crazy blood thirsty killer in your eyes, then yes, I would still consider you to be an eccentric...but that’s just my opinion.
Time to throw on the tin foil hats guys. Gun nuts couldn't possibly believe that one man could cause that much carnage. It doesn't fit the BS they have been spewing from their mouths for years.
So having a theory on a massacre makes me a gun nut? I never or did anyone on this forum believe that this could not have been done by only one person. What would prove if there was only one shooter as opposed to two? Again just a theory on a case that isn't 48 hours old.
I just find it hard to believe that this man snuck in all those guns and ammo, surveyed the area for who knows how long and no one knew anything about it.
It's a hotel, he was there for 4 days, bring up 2 or 3 suitcases every day and who's going to notice?
Yeah, I have no clue why anyone is questioning that part. It seems to me like it would as easy as bringing groceries up to his hotel room. I'm sure a lot of people carry all kinds of crazy shit up to the Vegas hotel rooms - nobody is going to be paying attention to that (nor should they be).
I read or watched on CNN today(can't remember if it was an article or video) that he used 10 suitcases to bring the guns in his room. He apparently ordered room service several times and multiple hotel staff had been in his room. Not sure how he hid all the guns from the hotel staff but clearly he did something to where no one noticed anything to cause suspicion. He also had a camera on a cart in the hall and one on the inside of the peephole.
He was in a suite, right? Likely had more closet space than an average hotel room. Stack the guns and pile the suitcases. He'd run the risk that a curious housekeeper may open a closet but they are probably instructed not to.
He might have just had a do not disturb thing on his door. Room service doesn't come in and inspect the place, lol. They just wheel a cart in and out of the main area and leave. There is literally no mystery here IMO.
Yes he was in a suite. I don't think there's any mystery here either I just find it interesting that he was able to do all that he did in and to the room without raising any suspicion.
I don't consider biology because humans are beyond that. We have largely beat nature in this context (in modern developed society). It is no longer fair to be placing humans on the same level as wild animals in this context IMO. It's the same reason you don't just go running up to whatever woman smells right and start reproducing with her on the street. We're not wild animals (anymore). And wild animals are not comparable to domestic livestock either, IMO, just like they aren't comparable to pets. (I am not really trying to convince anyone btw - certainly not hunters; we are WAY too far apart in attitude to ever agree on this issue, lol).
how are humans beyond that? in order to get the nutrients we need, we either need to eat other animals or get them artificially. our nature is, as someone else said, ominivorous. just because we can grow meat out of petri dish doesn't mean we should.
although, i just noticed what thread we're in. maybe we should get back to it. i don't consider hunting for food "america's gun violence". lol
I am talking about stalking prey in the wild. We are already doing more than enough to destroy nature, and if we don't have to go out there and shoot wild animals, then I don't think we should. If we weren't a bunch of parasites destroying Earth and the animals we share it with about as fast as possible, I probably would not be saying this. And if nobody got any pleasure out of hunting whatsoever I wouldn't saying it either, but nobody can claim that in developed countries the vast majority of hunting is about the sport far more than it is the food. I am 100% not saying we shouldn't eat other animals at all, nor that I think steaks need to be made in a lab (although I wouldn't be against that if it was possible and tasted good - that would be insanely beneficial for environmental reasons and humane reasons - meat without the damage raising meat causes and without any death?? Count me in!! I have no idea why anyone would prefer to kill for meat if they could get it without killing. Surely that isn't what you meant).
i know what you are referring to. but hunting on your own and using it for food takes agriculture, a major source of climate change, out of the picture. I don't like sport hunting any more than you do, but if it's for food, then to me it's neither here nor there if the person shooting is "enjoying it" or not. the fact is, they are using their own means and bypassing the "system", which, as I said above, is a major problem.
I am thinking only in terms of the welfare of the wild animals. Anyway, sorry for the huge sidetrack everyone.
Wild life is dwindling, human population is close to or maybe even over the ecological concept of carrying capacity and people still want to hunt wild animals? Absurd.
I saw our first wild turkey of the year yesterday morning. Those sweet, lovable dumb birds- he was in our driveway and I had to slow down so as not to spook him let alone hit him. I've gotten wild turkeys to eat out of my hand. I know that's not a good idea-- they should be kept wild-- and I don't do that anymore. But I mention this because I've also seen entire books written about how to hunt turkeys. Ridiculous! I could sit on my porch and pick them off if I were that uncaring about wildlife. Besides that, why the heck would anyone do that? They don't even taste good. You can buy a tender one at the market if you eat meat. So why do people kill wild animals. In the 21st century we live in that's just-- I'll say it-- wrong. Just wrong.
Finally someone agrees with me on this. I guess it must be about how we feel about wild animals as free, sentient beings Brian, compared to the others?
I love wild animals. I would never harm a hair on their bodies. I once killed a bee that wasn't bothering me, and I felt bad afterwards. that was about 20 years ago, and I still remember it. You can love and respect the animal kingdom and still hold the following belief:
There is a natural order to things. Humans being part of the food chain is part of that. What we do now is not natural. Breeding animals for slaughter, pumping them full of chemicals to fatten them up, is not good. It would make more sense if we still hunted, as opposed to ruining the earth with cattle raising.
I get what you're saying, HFD and the planet probably did well with hunter gatherers 10 to 13 thousand years ago but I'm not so sure the earth would do well today with 7,571,911,922* (and counting) hunter-gatherers.
Time to throw on the tin foil hats guys. Gun nuts couldn't possibly believe that one man could cause that much carnage. It doesn't fit the BS they have been spewing from their mouths for years.
So having a theory on a massacre makes me a gun nut? I never or did anyone on this forum believe that this could not have been done by only one person. What would prove if there was only one shooter as opposed to two? Again just a theory on a case that isn't 48 hours old.
I just find it hard to believe that this man snuck in all those guns and ammo, surveyed the area for who knows how long and no one knew anything about it.
It's a hotel, he was there for 4 days, bring up 2 or 3 suitcases every day and who's going to notice?
Yeah, I have no clue why anyone is questioning that part. It seems to me like it would as easy as bringing groceries up to his hotel room. I'm sure a lot of people carry all kinds of crazy shit up to the Vegas hotel rooms - nobody is going to be paying attention to that (nor should they be).
I read or watched on CNN today(can't remember if it was an article or video) that he used 10 suitcases to bring the guns in his room. He apparently ordered room service several times and multiple hotel staff had been in his room. Not sure how he hid all the guns from the hotel staff but clearly he did something to where no one noticed anything to cause suspicion. He also had a camera on a cart in the hall and one on the inside of the peephole.
He was in a suite, right? Likely had more closet space than an average hotel room. Stack the guns and pile the suitcases. He'd run the risk that a curious housekeeper may open a closet but they are probably instructed not to.
He might have just had a do not disturb thing on his door. Room service doesn't come in and inspect the place, lol. They just wheel a cart in and out of the main area and leave. There is literally no mystery here IMO.
Yes he was in a suite. I don't think there's any mystery here either I just find it interesting that he was able to do all that he did in and to the room without raising any suspicion.
Especially at a place that probably has more security cameras watching your movements than anywhere. I’m not in disbelief that he did it, just surprised his movements didn’t trigger any security personnel.
I don't consider biology because humans are beyond that. We have largely beat nature in this context (in modern developed society). It is no longer fair to be placing humans on the same level as wild animals in this context IMO. It's the same reason you don't just go running up to whatever woman smells right and start reproducing with her on the street. We're not wild animals (anymore). And wild animals are not comparable to domestic livestock either, IMO, just like they aren't comparable to pets. (I am not really trying to convince anyone btw - certainly not hunters; we are WAY too far apart in attitude to ever agree on this issue, lol).
how are humans beyond that? in order to get the nutrients we need, we either need to eat other animals or get them artificially. our nature is, as someone else said, ominivorous. just because we can grow meat out of petri dish doesn't mean we should.
although, i just noticed what thread we're in. maybe we should get back to it. i don't consider hunting for food "america's gun violence". lol
I am talking about stalking prey in the wild. We are already doing more than enough to destroy nature, and if we don't have to go out there and shoot wild animals, then I don't think we should. If we weren't a bunch of parasites destroying Earth and the animals we share it with about as fast as possible, I probably would not be saying this. And if nobody got any pleasure out of hunting whatsoever I wouldn't saying it either, but nobody can claim that in developed countries the vast majority of hunting is about the sport far more than it is the food. I am 100% not saying we shouldn't eat other animals at all, nor that I think steaks need to be made in a lab (although I wouldn't be against that if it was possible and tasted good - that would be insanely beneficial for environmental reasons and humane reasons - meat without the damage raising meat causes and without any death?? Count me in!! I have no idea why anyone would prefer to kill for meat if they could get it without killing. Surely that isn't what you meant).
i know what you are referring to. but hunting on your own and using it for food takes agriculture, a major source of climate change, out of the picture. I don't like sport hunting any more than you do, but if it's for food, then to me it's neither here nor there if the person shooting is "enjoying it" or not. the fact is, they are using their own means and bypassing the "system", which, as I said above, is a major problem.
I am thinking only in terms of the welfare of the wild animals. Anyway, sorry for the huge sidetrack everyone.
Wild life is dwindling, human population is close to or maybe even over the ecological concept of carrying capacity and people still want to hunt wild animals? Absurd.
I saw our first wild turkey of the year yesterday morning. Those sweet, lovable dumb birds- he was in our driveway and I had to slow down so as not to spook him let alone hit him. I've gotten wild turkeys to eat out of my hand. I know that's not a good idea-- they should be kept wild-- and I don't do that anymore. But I mention this because I've also seen entire books written about how to hunt turkeys. Ridiculous! I could sit on my porch and pick them off if I were that uncaring about wildlife. Besides that, why the heck would anyone do that? They don't even taste good. You can buy a tender one at the market if you eat meat. So why do people kill wild animals. In the 21st century we live in that's just-- I'll say it-- wrong. Just wrong.
Finally someone agrees with me on this. I guess it must be about how we feel about wild animals as free, sentient beings Brian, compared to the others?
I love wild animals. I would never harm a hair on their bodies. I once killed a bee that wasn't bothering me, and I felt bad afterwards. that was about 20 years ago, and I still remember it. You can love and respect the animal kingdom and still hold the following belief:
There is a natural order to things. Humans being part of the food chain is part of that. What we do now is not natural. Breeding animals for slaughter, pumping them full of chemicals to fatten them up, is not good. It would make more sense if we still hunted, as opposed to ruining the earth with cattle raising.
I don't think there is anything wrong with raising domesticated cattle for food assuming it's done humanely (it often isn't, and I have huge issues with that too), but I agree that filling them up with chemicals is bad. But seriously, don't you think we're all way far gone from being "natural" anyway?? I mean, what in the hell is natural about using a telescopic sight on a fancy rifle and shooting animals from a quarter of a mile away?? Nothing. If you were talking about stalking the animals with a spear or something I might see your point. Humans have already stepped out of any natural place in the food chain, and putting on a fluorescent vest and some camo gear and tromping through the woods with a hunting rifle is no more natural than raising a cow on a farm at this point in human history. And they way humans have plundered the Earth, I think talking about what's natural and wild animals has no relation to reality anymore, at least not in developed nations.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Time to throw on the tin foil hats guys. Gun nuts couldn't possibly believe that one man could cause that much carnage. It doesn't fit the BS they have been spewing from their mouths for years.
So having a theory on a massacre makes me a gun nut? I never or did anyone on this forum believe that this could not have been done by only one person. What would prove if there was only one shooter as opposed to two? Again just a theory on a case that isn't 48 hours old.
I just find it hard to believe that this man snuck in all those guns and ammo, surveyed the area for who knows how long and no one knew anything about it.
It's a hotel, he was there for 4 days, bring up 2 or 3 suitcases every day and who's going to notice?
Yeah, I have no clue why anyone is questioning that part. It seems to me like it would as easy as bringing groceries up to his hotel room. I'm sure a lot of people carry all kinds of crazy shit up to the Vegas hotel rooms - nobody is going to be paying attention to that (nor should they be).
I read or watched on CNN today(can't remember if it was an article or video) that he used 10 suitcases to bring the guns in his room. He apparently ordered room service several times and multiple hotel staff had been in his room. Not sure how he hid all the guns from the hotel staff but clearly he did something to where no one noticed anything to cause suspicion. He also had a camera on a cart in the hall and one on the inside of the peephole.
He was in a suite, right? Likely had more closet space than an average hotel room. Stack the guns and pile the suitcases. He'd run the risk that a curious housekeeper may open a closet but they are probably instructed not to.
He might have just had a do not disturb thing on his door. Room service doesn't come in and inspect the place, lol. They just wheel a cart in and out of the main area and leave. There is literally no mystery here IMO.
Yes he was in a suite. I don't think there's any mystery here either I just find it interesting that he was able to do all that he did in and to the room without raising any suspicion.
Especially at a place that probably has more security cameras watching your movements than anywhere. I’m not in disbelief that he did it, just surprised his movements didn’t trigger any security personnel.
He was probably just one more guest with a suitcase in a sea of thousands. Unless he acted irrationally or had some other incident, there wouldn't necessarily be anything that stood out for security to notice.
I don't consider biology because humans are beyond that. We have largely beat nature in this context (in modern developed society). It is no longer fair to be placing humans on the same level as wild animals in this context IMO. It's the same reason you don't just go running up to whatever woman smells right and start reproducing with her on the street. We're not wild animals (anymore). And wild animals are not comparable to domestic livestock either, IMO, just like they aren't comparable to pets. (I am not really trying to convince anyone btw - certainly not hunters; we are WAY too far apart in attitude to ever agree on this issue, lol).
how are humans beyond that? in order to get the nutrients we need, we either need to eat other animals or get them artificially. our nature is, as someone else said, ominivorous. just because we can grow meat out of petri dish doesn't mean we should.
although, i just noticed what thread we're in. maybe we should get back to it. i don't consider hunting for food "america's gun violence". lol
I am talking about stalking prey in the wild. We are already doing more than enough to destroy nature, and if we don't have to go out there and shoot wild animals, then I don't think we should. If we weren't a bunch of parasites destroying Earth and the animals we share it with about as fast as possible, I probably would not be saying this. And if nobody got any pleasure out of hunting whatsoever I wouldn't saying it either, but nobody can claim that in developed countries the vast majority of hunting is about the sport far more than it is the food. I am 100% not saying we shouldn't eat other animals at all, nor that I think steaks need to be made in a lab (although I wouldn't be against that if it was possible and tasted good - that would be insanely beneficial for environmental reasons and humane reasons - meat without the damage raising meat causes and without any death?? Count me in!! I have no idea why anyone would prefer to kill for meat if they could get it without killing. Surely that isn't what you meant).
i know what you are referring to. but hunting on your own and using it for food takes agriculture, a major source of climate change, out of the picture. I don't like sport hunting any more than you do, but if it's for food, then to me it's neither here nor there if the person shooting is "enjoying it" or not. the fact is, they are using their own means and bypassing the "system", which, as I said above, is a major problem.
I am thinking only in terms of the welfare of the wild animals. Anyway, sorry for the huge sidetrack everyone.
Wild life is dwindling, human population is close to or maybe even over the ecological concept of carrying capacity and people still want to hunt wild animals? Absurd.
I saw our first wild turkey of the year yesterday morning. Those sweet, lovable dumb birds- he was in our driveway and I had to slow down so as not to spook him let alone hit him. I've gotten wild turkeys to eat out of my hand. I know that's not a good idea-- they should be kept wild-- and I don't do that anymore. But I mention this because I've also seen entire books written about how to hunt turkeys. Ridiculous! I could sit on my porch and pick them off if I were that uncaring about wildlife. Besides that, why the heck would anyone do that? They don't even taste good. You can buy a tender one at the market if you eat meat. So why do people kill wild animals. In the 21st century we live in that's just-- I'll say it-- wrong. Just wrong.
Finally someone agrees with me on this. I guess it must be about how we feel about wild animals as free, sentient beings Brian, compared to the others?
I love wild animals. I would never harm a hair on their bodies. I once killed a bee that wasn't bothering me, and I felt bad afterwards. that was about 20 years ago, and I still remember it. You can love and respect the animal kingdom and still hold the following belief:
There is a natural order to things. Humans being part of the food chain is part of that. What we do now is not natural. Breeding animals for slaughter, pumping them full of chemicals to fatten them up, is not good. It would make more sense if we still hunted, as opposed to ruining the earth with cattle raising.
I don't think there is anything wrong with raising cattle for food assuming it's done humanely (it often isn't, and I have huge issues with that too), but I agree that filling them up with chemicals is bad. But seriously, don't you think we're all way far gone from being "natural" anyway?? I mean, what in the hell is natural about using a telescopic sight on a fancy rifle and shooting animals from a quarter of a mile away?? Nothing. If you were talking about stalking the animals with a spear or something I might see your point. Humans have already stepped out of any natural place in the food chain, and putting on a fluorescent vest and some camo gear and tromping through the woods with a hunting rifle is no more natural than raising a cow on a farm.
all species evolve in their hunting practices. humans are no different.
I would like to start a new thread about what is natural and what isn't. I find that fascinating.
what I find interesting is that you seem to caught up in not that people still hunt, but the methods they use. It would ok if someone was hunting with a spear instead of a high powered rifle? Why? what difference does that make if your concern is for the animals and their sentient spot in nature?
I also find it interesting that you are ok with raising animals for mass slaughter and mass consumption, not to mention massive amounts of waste, but not ok with someone hunting one deer for the same purpose and using almost all of the animal.
Comments
I post hundreds of articles on here with barely a peep....but this one sure did get under their skin.
Why he feels the need to own the types of guns he has is another thing.
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
many of us can think of ourselves and how we would react in a manner that doesn't necessarily line up with reality, but we don't know that until we are faced with that reality.
the person next to him had their brains blown out. every situation is different. maybe the people who stayed may not have witnessed something so traumatic. maybe they did. who knows. But I'm not going to blame anyone for their actions in a situation like that, regardless how they portrayed themselves prior to the event.
he didn't pretend to be a hero. he even stated after the fact that what he did was not heroic.
“I was pretty calm, all things considered, but I definitely ran to safety,” Bilzerian told People.
He really did see a woman shot in the head, he told the magazine, and took another injured woman to a hospital before returning to the scene — as promised — with his gun.
But the police had things in hand by then, Bilzerian said, so he went home.
“I don’t think it was heroic at all,” he told People of his actions. “I just wanted to do the right thing.”
www.headstonesband.com
Anyways, I'm done with the article. I just found it interesting and symbolic of your average blowhard gun nutter and wanted to share.
it’s really only his word versus the writer and whatever sources he has. But even he recognizes he could have gone back. So if you believe its false then so be it, can’t debate what you want to be true.
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
Columbus-2003
Cincinnati-2006
Columbus-2010
Wrigley-2013
Cincinnati-2014
Lexington-2016
Wrigley 1 & 2-2018
I don't blame him for one moment running for his life, but as Jeff stated... he's ultimately trying to preserve his facade which has collapsed. It would have been best to be grateful versus 'tough' (when you weren't).
I saw our first wild turkey of the year yesterday morning. Those sweet, lovable dumb birds- he was in our driveway and I had to slow down so as not to spook him let alone hit him. I've gotten wild turkeys to eat out of my hand. I know that's not a good idea-- they should be kept wild-- and I don't do that anymore. But I mention this because I've also seen entire books written about how to hunt turkeys. Ridiculous! I could sit on my porch and pick them off if I were that uncaring about wildlife. Besides that, why the heck would anyone do that? They don't even taste good. You can buy a tender one at the market if you eat meat. So why do people kill wild animals. In the 21st century we live in that's just-- I'll say it-- wrong. Just wrong.
Alright, sorry again - derailment not intended.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Yes, the populations of deer are out of balance in many places, I'm well aware of that. Shooting more animals is an anthropocentric solution to a biological problem. If natural predators were allowed more natural habitat, these issues would not be occurring. But you already indicated that doesn't work for you.
Are we done?
There is a natural order to things. Humans being part of the food chain is part of that. What we do now is not natural. Breeding animals for slaughter, pumping them full of chemicals to fatten them up, is not good. It would make more sense if we still hunted, as opposed to ruining the earth with cattle raising.
www.headstonesband.com
Columbus-2003
Cincinnati-2006
Columbus-2010
Wrigley-2013
Cincinnati-2014
Lexington-2016
Wrigley 1 & 2-2018
*Check this out and see how much the world has changed in just these few moments! http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I would like to start a new thread about what is natural and what isn't. I find that fascinating.
what I find interesting is that you seem to caught up in not that people still hunt, but the methods they use. It would ok if someone was hunting with a spear instead of a high powered rifle? Why? what difference does that make if your concern is for the animals and their sentient spot in nature?
I also find it interesting that you are ok with raising animals for mass slaughter and mass consumption, not to mention massive amounts of waste, but not ok with someone hunting one deer for the same purpose and using almost all of the animal.
www.headstonesband.com