America's Gun Violence

PJ_Soul

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.

brianlux

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

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?

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

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. 

PJPOWER

brianlux said:

PJPOWER said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.  

KC138045

JimmyV said:

KC138045 said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

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.

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

*Check this out and see how much the world has changed in just these few moments!  http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

PJPOWER

KC138045 said:

JimmyV said:

KC138045 said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

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.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

JimmyV

PJPOWER said:

KC138045 said:

JimmyV said:

KC138045 said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

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.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

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. 

PJ_Soul

No, I'm not caught up in that. I have already made it clear that I don't agree with any unnecessary hunting of wild animals. I only meant that it's not "natural" hunting on the part of humans unless they aren't using modern technology to do it. That doesn't mean I think it's okay for someone this day and age to go out and do it. That would still be the unnecessary killing of the animals because of the times we live in.
Also, I already FULLY acknowledged and described by hypocrisies when it comes to this subject, as well as my thoughts on the environmental impact of agriculture. 
I am pretty sure I have literally left no stone uncovered while I've been discussing this topic. If you've forgotten and still give a shit, maybe read them again.

Kat

omg it's like they're just throwing their hands in the air and giving up...like it's impossible to do anything at all. I'm stunned. This can't be happening. 

We Asked GOP Senators What Congress Can Do To Prevent Mass Shootings
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shootings-las-vegas-gop_us_59d3ef64e4b04b9f9205baf4?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

chadwick

there's a video out that a passerby recorded of the hotel, it shows gunfire (w/ audio) coming out of the 4th floor. a dispatcher says into her mic "there's possibly another shooter on the 4th floor" 

KC138045

chadwick said:

there's a video out that a passerby recorded of the hotel, it shows gunfire (w/ audio) coming out of the 4th floor. a dispatcher says into her mic "there's possibly another shooter on the 4th floor" 

I saw a post about this on Facebook this morning.  Personally I don't believe it.  One there were no windows blown out on the 4th floor and the video i saw it looked like a reflection of the actual gunfire.

chadwick

i don't know

rgambs

Flashing lights aren't exactly a rarity on the Vegas strip.

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

Flashing lights aren't exactly a rarity on the Vegas strip.

Yeah, the hotel is one big mirror, and only one window was broken. This little facebook theory seems impossible.

KC138045

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

Flashing lights aren't exactly a rarity on the Vegas strip.

Yeah, the hotel is one big mirror, and only one window was broken. This little facebook theory seems impossible.

Actually he broke out two windows in his room but again nothing on the 4th floor.  Agreed that it seems like just another FB conspiracy theory.

pjhawks

Kat said:

omg it's like they're just throwing their hands in the air and giving up...like it's impossible to do anything at all. I'm stunned. This can't be happening. 

We Asked GOP Senators What Congress Can Do To Prevent Mass Shootings
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shootings-las-vegas-gop_us_59d3ef64e4b04b9f9205baf4?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

instead of asking them if there should be metal detectors at casino entrances maybe the question should have been you know 'why do we allow guns made for war to be sold to private citizens?"

second question should have been to quote Masters of War "is your money that good?'" when referring to how much they take from the NRA.

Kat

Rosanne Cash says that the “N.R.A. funds domestic terrorism.”
I hope more activists join her.