Las Vegas massacre.

145791013

Comments

  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,705
    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 BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,146
    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. 
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,862
    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.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,862
    edited October 2017
    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
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,705
    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
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,862
    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.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,438
    PJPOWER 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..."
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,429
    PJPOWER 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.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,438
    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..."
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,862
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER 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.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,655
    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...
  • dignindignin Posts: 7,072
    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.
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 20,882
    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_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,369
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER 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
  • JC29856JC29856 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
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,817
    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?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,705
    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
  • JC29856JC29856 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.
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,146
    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. 
  • JC29856JC29856 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.

    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

    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,817
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,146
    JC29856 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

    Is your angle that amt is ignorant or the general public?

  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,438
    This doesn't sound like they are trying to conceal evidence of another individual's involvement.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/las-vegas-massacre-investigators-probing-whether-others-were-gunman-s-n808431

    Investigators are trying to nail down whether anyone else was in the hotel suite reserved by the Las Vegas gunman during the time he was registered there, multiple senior law enforcement officials briefed on the investigation into the shooting told NBC News.

    The investigators are puzzled by two discoveries: First, a charger was found that does not match any of the cell phones that belonged to Stephen Paddock, the man who killed himself inside the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino after sending a barrage of bullets down on a crowd of 22,000 people below.

    And second, garage records show that during a period when Paddock's car left the hotel garage, one of his key cards was used to get into his room.

    There are several possible explanations for these anomalies, the investigators say, but they want to get to the bottom of it.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,429
    rgambs said:
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.
    Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,146
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.
    Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
    Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,369
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.
    Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
    Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia. 
    And in a lack of common sense.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • eddieceddiec Posts: 2,900
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.
    Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
    Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia. 
    Of course they are.
    My friend's brother lives in an upscale area of Connecticut. He is constantly going on about he is a proud NRA member and keeps guns to protect his family. It's nothing less than paranoia.
  • JC29856 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.
    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.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 7,146
    JC29856 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.
    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.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    Maybe if people want to be in a well regulated militia, then they do just that. Regular meetings, gun checks, registration. You would also have to meet psychological and physical citeria to be in the militia. We don't don't want just any yayhoo protecting us. I'm just brainstorming. 
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,655
    JC29856 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.
    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.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    It's a hopeless situation...
145791013
Sign In or Register to comment.