Las Vegas massacre.

brianlux said:

lastexitlondon said:

The car seems to be the new gun here in the UK. Some other nut job drives into people today outside history museum central london. Its just complete madness everywhere i fear for my childrens world

I understand no one was killed but the driver was detained.  Do they know why he did that?

Go Beavers said:

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. 

Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.

We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know.  I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. 
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

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. 

Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done.
Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.

We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective.
Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be.
I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know.  I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. 
To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse.
But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.

since Congress has made it effectively illegal to even study the issue by the CDC and the like , to not require certain reporting about shootings, found guns etc.

It shouldnt be that burdensome on federal agenicies , likeatf , to even track individual guns from point of sale onward.

unless a philanthropist is willing to front the money, I dont expect congress to act in the interest of the people within the constitution on this subject.

oftenreading said:

This is an aspect that I was not aware of, not being a fan of country music (or the NRA). Apparently the NRA has a lifestyle "brand" involving country music, is a major sponsor of country artists, and encourages backlash/blackballing against those artists who are not pro-gun. A major country artist even received criticism for playing at a benefit for Sandy Hook victims and others pulled out of the benefit, if you can believe it.

http://vancouversun.com/pmn/entertainment-pmn/many-in-country-music-mum-over-gun-issues-after-vegas-deaths/wcm/eddc6f48-4d4f-4a13-a141-e7cf1399b005

Now that's sick and disgusting. I didn't know I could dislike country music any more than I already did, but this sealed it.

mcgruff10 said:

uh oh:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jesus-campos-las-vegas-security-223728950.html

As questions spiral about a significant shift in the timeline of the Las Vegas shooting, a security guard stands in the middle of the controversy: Jesus Campos.

At first, Campos, a guard at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, was hailed a hero for helping guide police to gunman Stephen Paddock's room on the 32nd floor. Police said Campos was shot in the leg at the end of Paddock's assault on concertgoers—potentially distracting the gunman and causing him to panic and kill himself. 

But now, questions have been raised after Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo revised the timeline and said Campos had actually been shot about 9:59 p.m.—a full six minutes before the mass shooting began at 10:05 p.m.—which means the guard could have instead led Paddock to start opening fire on the crowd for fear of being caught. 

Police have said it was difficult to identify the source of the bullets during the attack, and the confusion added more minutes to their lengthy response. But the revised timeline shows officers would have known where Paddock was before the mass shooting even started. 

Did Campos call 911? What happened during those six minutes? 

Much of Campos's story and background remains a mystery. 

Campos's co-worker Liliana Rodriguez started a GoFundMe account for him on October 3, explaining that he'd been shot while on "random patrol" and it could have been "anyone of us." 

"Funds will be used to provide relief and financial support for him while he gets back on his feet," Rodriguez's online petition says. "This is a young man that I work with day in and day out. Any financial support would be appreciated for the time he would need to recover."

A picture of Campos wasn't displayed as part of the fund because Rodriguez indicated that "due to privacy from the media we do not feel comfortable publishing a photo." 

During a brief phone conversation with ABC News, Campos said, "I'm fine...I was just doing my job." 

Calls and text messages to Campos, Rodriguez and others who might know him were not immediately returned.

Uh oh Lucy, somebody’s got some splainin to do.  Of course hindsight is 20/20, but if the police or any one else are lying to cover their asses, that is a problem. It puts the whole investigation at jeopardy if a simple accurate timeline cannot be derived.

Mandalay Bay is fucked.  Prepare for hundreds of lawsuits saying they didn’t do what was necessary to prevent this.

CM189191 said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Mandalay Bay is fucked.  Prepare for hundreds of lawsuits saying they didn’t do what was necessary to prevent this.

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act should cover most of it....

I dont think MB should be held responsible. They didn't do anything wrong that I've heard of.
But that act might not cover it, are they considering this a terrorist act?
I think the definition of terrorism includes a political gain or motive. Without any motive, he's just a nut job and not a terrorist. Unless the FBI or federal government amends the definition to apply to all mass killings/shootings.

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Mandalay Bay is fucked.  Prepare for hundreds of lawsuits saying they didn’t do what was necessary to prevent this.

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act should cover most of it....

I dont think MB should be held responsible. They didn't do anything wrong that I've heard of.
But that act might not cover it, are they considering this a terrorist act?
I think the definition of terrorism includes a political gain or motive. Without any motive, he's just a nut job and not a terrorist. Unless the FBI or federal government amends the definition to apply to all mass killings/shootings.

For TRIA coverage, they just need it certified:

any act certified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in concurrence with the Secretary of State and Attorney General, to be an act that is dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure and to have resulted in damage within the U.S.

I'm sure the CEO of MGM has already made all the appropriate phone calls and donations to get that moving.

The CEO didn't have to . Adelson was on the phone to the WH, McConnell and Ryan before the cops responded.