Las Vegas massacre.

1…78101213…20

Comments

  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    dignin said:
    I'm all for transparency. Release everything.
    I guess I'm not, because the idea of releasing what would basically be a massive snuff film disgusts me, particularly knowing how many people would enjoy it. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,689
    JimmyV said:
    There is no security footage anywhere that will dissuade many conspiracy theorists from believing the conspiracy theory they have already decided is 100% true.
    True. Conspiracy theories can't be disproven because of how they are designed. If there's evidence clearly showing it's wrong, the theory then moves to the next level of bullshit. 
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    tbergs said:
    PJPOWER said:
    It has been reported that the sicko “intended to escape” and most likely had help from others.  Where those conclusions have been drawn from are going to be vague to anyone not directly involved with the investigation.  If true, though, that suggests that this is not an isolated situation where some random madman just “snapped”.  The fact that he had scouted several other locations also supports the theory of a greater agenda.  The pieces are starting to come together and in a scary way.  The information being released so far suggests something larger at play...Know your exits and be aware of your surroundings people.  
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/las-vegas-gunman-stephen-paddock-survive-police
    So basically, be in fear for any large outdoor event. The NY marathon and Macy's Parade will need heavy security this year in that case.
    No, there is a difference in being aware and being in fear.  Being aware actually can mitigate fear.  Being aware of your surroundings is a responsibility that should be shared by everyone, unfortunately that is not the case with most staring at their cell phones all of the time.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited October 2017
    oftenreading said:
    dignin said:
    I'm all for transparency. Release everything.
    I guess I'm not, because the idea of releasing what would basically be a massive snuff film disgusts me, particularly knowing how many people would enjoy it. 
    Thing is, we don’t know if it would be a “snuff film”.  What if the video showed someone else in the room helping to load magazines?  We just do not know, but to say that any video “should definitely not be released” at this point is jumping the gun...no pun intended...It all boils down to the content of said videos (if any actually exists).
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    While I think that releasing any video showing the shooter gearing up still has the potential to glorify the act, I would object somewhat less to that being released. What people are going to want, though, is footage of the shooting, and I'm not on board with that being generally released, ever. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    oftenreading said:
    While I think that releasing any video showing the shooter gearing up still has the potential to glorify the act, I would object somewhat less to that being released. What people are going to want, though, is footage of the shooting, and I'm not on board with that being generally released, ever. 
    I’m with you there.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,620
    PJPOWER said:
    oftenreading said:
    While I think that releasing any video showing the shooter gearing up still has the potential to glorify the act, I would object somewhat less to that being released. What people are going to want, though, is footage of the shooting, and I'm not on board with that being generally released, ever. 
    I’m with you there.
    Agreed.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,072
    PJPOWER said:
    oftenreading said:
    dignin said:
    I'm all for transparency. Release everything.
    I guess I'm not, because the idea of releasing what would basically be a massive snuff film disgusts me, particularly knowing how many people would enjoy it. 
    Thing is, we don’t know if it would be a “snuff film”.  What if the video showed someone else in the room helping to load magazines?  We just do not know, but to say that any video “should definitely not be released” at this point is jumping the gun...no pun intended...It all boils down to the content of said videos (if any actually exists).
    But why would that need to be released? The investigators viewing the film would obviously see it, and if they cant determine who it is probably release a still image of the person.
    I only know this because I recently watched 2 documentaries on it, but they only released the Unabomber's manifest because they hoped by releasing it someone would recognize the language and identify who it was, and it worked. There's no reason to release the footage of this shooting.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,620
    Also, if anyone honestly believes there is video footage of an accomplice in the room with him that is currently being covered up by the government, they are unlikely to trust the validity of any evidence released by the government which contradicts that belief.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    oftenreading said:
    dignin said:
    I'm all for transparency. Release everything.
    I guess I'm not, because the idea of releasing what would basically be a massive snuff film disgusts me, particularly knowing how many people would enjoy it. 
    Thing is, we don’t know if it would be a “snuff film”.  What if the video showed someone else in the room helping to load magazines?  We just do not know, but to say that any video “should definitely not be released” at this point is jumping the gun...no pun intended...It all boils down to the content of said videos (if any actually exists).
    But why would that need to be released? The investigators viewing the film would obviously see it, and if they cant determine who it is probably release a still image of the person.
    I only know this because I recently watched 2 documentaries on it, but they only released the Unabomber's manifest because they hoped by releasing it someone would recognize the language and identify who it was, and it worked. There's no reason to release the footage of this shooting.
    That was just a random hypothetical.  Just stating that “may” be a reason to release a video if one existed.  No more, no less.  As others have mentioned, not the shooting itself, but if there is anything on there that could be used to prevent other attacks or educate the public on what to watch out for, then release away.  We just do not know.
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,513
    JimmyV said:
    Also, if anyone honestly believes there is video footage of an accomplice in the room with him that is currently being covered up by the government, they are unlikely to trust the validity of any evidence released by the government which contradicts that belief.
    Releasing that information would blow Elvis' cover that he has maintained for the last 40 years.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    oftenreading said:
    dignin said:
    I'm all for transparency. Release everything.
    I guess I'm not, because the idea of releasing what would basically be a massive snuff film disgusts me, particularly knowing how many people would enjoy it. 
    There is a documentary that showed the Nairobi mall attack minute by minute from the mall security footage. I think I watched it on CBC's The Passionate Eye. It was very well done but I can understand why some wouldn't have the stomach for it, but it put a lot of the conspiracy theories that surrounded that attack to rest. It included the stories of the survivors and victims and was very compelling.
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,221
    JimmyV said:
    Also, if anyone honestly believes there is video footage of an accomplice in the room with him that is currently being covered up by the government, they are unlikely to trust the validity of any evidence released by the government which contradicts that belief.
    Yep the've swallowed bait & hook ! people are totally insane with the conspiracy theories ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,978
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    oftenreading said:
    dignin said:
    I'm all for transparency. Release everything.
    I guess I'm not, because the idea of releasing what would basically be a massive snuff film disgusts me, particularly knowing how many people would enjoy it. 
    Thing is, we don’t know if it would be a “snuff film”.  What if the video showed someone else in the room helping to load magazines?  We just do not know, but to say that any video “should definitely not be released” at this point is jumping the gun...no pun intended...It all boils down to the content of said videos (if any actually exists).
    But why would that need to be released? The investigators viewing the film would obviously see it, and if they cant determine who it is probably release a still image of the person.
    I only know this because I recently watched 2 documentaries on it, but they only released the Unabomber's manifest because they hoped by releasing it someone would recognize the language and identify who it was, and it worked. There's no reason to release the footage of this shooting.
    An anonymous leak of such footage is always a possibility though. We all know that people would eat it up just because people are darkly fascinated with such things (which I understand, but still wouldn't want it leaked).
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited October 2017
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    Post edited by JC29856 on
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.

    Don't take the bait.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,689
    oftenreading said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.

    Don't take the bait.
    I like to see where he's going, though. 
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Go Beavers said:
    oftenreading said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.

    Don't take the bait.
    I like to see where he's going, though. 
    Simple question I thought.... How many guns are there in the US? Shouldn't that be the first question? Why/how does someone need/acquire 47 guns, however many were semi-auto? Seems like we don't know, we have to rely on polls.
    Im going to guess that most Americans never heard of or knew what a bump stock was on Sunday.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers

Categories