Shooting in Las Vegas

[Vash01]

New information:

On "60 Minutes", one of the SWAT team members described the complex electronic "killing set-up" in the room; and said that he believed that he was prepared to kill as many people as possible, for as long as he could.

Segments:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-ve...note-hotel-room-details-of-bullet-trajectory/

The shooter, in a 2013 deposition:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/us/las-vegas-stephen-paddock-deposition/index.html

I saw it. It seems the Las Vegas police force did an amazing job of catching the murderer (though dead) soon enough. They were there, at Mandalay Bay, in 12 minutes after they received the call. Their chief later said that he studied the videos of the massacre in a hotel in Mumbai, India, where hundreds of people were killed. He learned from it and implemented measures in his department.

 

[skatesindreams]

The Las Vegas Chief went to a symposium about the Mumbai massacre; where they learned that the fastest response, by any means possible, is actually more effective in disrupting an attack than planning/waiting before acting.
That's why the group had permission to proceed as soon as they were ready.

 

[made_in_canada]

People should not be "untrained" on how to use guns. Too bad in North America they don't teach military training in school. Gun license must come with x-number of training at the local range with a programme developed according to safety standards and teach proper use of guns and ammunition.

Older kids should also be taught gun/weapon awareness if parents own such. Younger kids are not able to "reach certain places in the house" where a HAND-gun (not a rifle) is stored securely. It takes a minute to get a key or spin a dial to open a safe or a secure drawer placed far out of reach of children.

I see a big difference in knowing how to safely use a gun at a range or in a controlled environment and knowing how to safely use a gun in a high pressure situation where you're trying to kill or hurt someone. That's much more difficult and requires a different skill set. Not everyone is capable of keeping their cool under pressure.

The discussion in USA is NOT only about gun control. There is a movement to ELIMINATE 2ND AMENDMENT and forbid any gun ownership. That is what i object to, elimination of 2nd Amendment.

Is anyone actually talking about eliminating the 2nd amendment? Besides the NRA? I'm sure there's someone, but that's not what seems to be the push from gun control advocates. Getting rid of automatic weapons, guns that can kill many in short order, making it harder for those who shouldn't have guns to get them, that's what I've seen advocated.

 

[WildRose]

I also consider "remote upper middle class suburbs" located up on the hills away from city centres "remote area" and police stations are fairly far away. In Norther California for example, such areas are often targeted by home and car burglars

I wouldn’t consider that remote, but regardless, what kind of people shoot and kill another human being for breaking into their car? I mean seriously. Is this the kind of violent society you want to live in? Where people murder each other over a stupid car? No wonder there are so many mass murders in the US.

 

[once_upon]

I do not know of ANYONE who wants to take away your precious second amendment right. Even if they did, 2/3 of states must ratify it.

I believe what we do want is no assault weapons, limited number of guns that one can purchase, and checks and balances. Keep your damn guns, lock or not locked up, limited rounds of ammuno. Keep your damn guns away from my family.

But if your guns, whether by your hand, your child, your family member, kills then you are held responsible and perhaps tried as an accessory to murder. Because you don't know who is a criminal or not. You are killing, your are making a decision on innocence or guilt. And you do not know.

Do you really know how ffing difficult it is to change/repeal/create a amendment. 1975 comes to mind, trying to do a women's one. Give me a break. I am not that stupid. The NRA thinks you are, which why they instill fear in you. NRA realizes it extremely impossible to accomplish. They think the gun toting shoot 'em citizens are stupid and never studied American History.

Editto to correct...it is 3/4's of states that is 38 must ratify the change, if i did the math correctly.

Keep your damn guns. I just want the ownership be responsible and not the type set to kill hundreds in a matter of minutes.

 

[Tinami Amori]

I see a big difference in knowing how to safely use a gun at a range or in a controlled environment and knowing how to safely use a gun in a high pressure situation where you're trying to kill or hurt someone. That's much more difficult and requires a different skill set. Not everyone is capable of keeping their cool under pressure.

I certainly support training and learning/following safety regulations. Re "keeping cool"... practice (at a range) makes perfect. Also there are survival and defense courses, some of which address handling weapons in extreme set ups.

In our area for example, there is "Tactical Krav Maga Institute of Defense" which includes gun defense.
http://www.kravmagainstitute.com/applied-tactics/courses/applied-tactical-shooting/
http://www.kravmagainstitute.com/locations/santa-clara/

Is anyone actually talking about eliminating the 2nd amendment? Besides the NRA? I'm sure there's someone, but that's not what seems to be the push from gun control advocates. Getting rid of automatic weapons, guns that can kill many in short order, making it harder for those who shouldn't have guns to get them, that's what I've seen advocated.

Oh yes! on the Left/Liberal side there are many such actions. Hillary Clinton is one of them. The Left claim she's been misquoted, but it is not true.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankm...he-second-amendment-meaningless/#30a285c6297c
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435311/hillary-gun-rights-she-wants-abolish-second-amendment

I wouldn’t consider that remote, but regardless, what kind of people shoot and kill another human being for breaking into their car? I mean seriously. Is this the kind of violent society you want to live in? Where people murder each other over a stupid car? No wonder there are so many mass murders in the US.

First: the issue is not "breaking into a car", but "breaking into a house".
Second: Before lecturing those who have a right to protect their property, WHY DON'T YOU LECTURE THE CRIMINALS first and tell them NOT to break into cars and rob houses (and in some cases rape senior citizens)?

http://kron4.com/2016/07/03/a-victim-in-oakland-was-kidnapped-and-rapped-during-an-armed-robbery/

OAKLAND (BCN) — A person was a victim of a rape, kidnapping and armed robbery this morning in Oakland, police said.
The incident was first reported at 11 a.m. in the 8400 block of Edes Avenue, near Interstate Highway 880.
The suspect is known to police and is not in custody, Officer J. O’Reilly said.

You're just proved something for a discussion i had earlier on this board that "yes, people like you do say - you don't need a gun! let the thief have your property!"... good, because there are some people who deny "that anyone can say such a thing".

I do not know of ANYONE who wants to take away your precious second amendment right. Even if they did, 2/3 of states must ratify it.
---
Keep your damn guns. I just want the ownership be responsible and not the type set to kill hundreds in a matter of minutes.

I know someone who disproves your precious misconception about attacks on 2nd Amnd. rights.. Your precious Hillary Clinton (see link above)...

My gun is not "damn", my gun is "precious". But you're welcome to keep your damn defenselessness.. You're missing out on a such a lovely piece of protective device... http://www.tzarmory.com/media/catal...eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/g/l/glock27_3.jpg

 

[once_upon]

Hmmmm...an oped written by someone highly involved with the NRA and a reference from a questionable outlet.

But you did not answer how much you actually know about amendment repeal, especially one imbedded into the Bill of Rights, and what must be accomplished in a specified time limits.

Yes, you are right...I am telling you to keep the guns. I assume you don't have a stockpile of assault weapons with even rounds to kill 100's of people in a matter of minutes.

Even if I had a gun or wanted one to protect myself, I know myself well enough that I know I couldn't squeeze a trigger and my hand would shake so hard I could even get my hand around it.

 

[Tinami Amori]

Hmmmm...an oped written by someone highly involved with the NRA and a reference from a questionable outlet.

But you did not answer how much you actually know about amendment repeal, especially one imbedded into the Bill of Rights, and what must be accomplished in a specified time limits.

Yes, you are right...I am telling you to keep the guns. I assume you don't have a stockpile of assault weapons with even rounds to kill 100's of people in a matter of minutes.

Even if I had a gun or wanted one to protect myself, I know myself well enough that I know I couldn't squeeze a trigger and my hand would shake so hard I could even get my hand around it.

- Forbes is questionable?.....

- It's enough for me to hear that someone is trying to affect 2nd Amnd. Right to be concerned. Once it starts with something "minor" it does not stop.

- a) i don't need you to tell me to keep my gun. i know i have a right to keep one. b) your comment would be better received with out the "damn" prefix..

- It's up to you if you can or can not pull a trigger. For the record, showing a gun to the robber/s does not mean shooting them in all cases. You can scare them away. You can shoot at the floor or ceiling as a warning. You can shoot the tires of their car and wait for police. You shoot them in the arm if they are pointing a gun at YOU (but drawing on a drawn gun requires special tactic and practice).... There are many options to use a gun for self-protection before killing some-one... just saying...

 

[once_upon]

The Forbes link is the oped written by a person with the NRA.

You claim I and others were trying to take away your guns.

Still no comment about the process to repeal a Constitutional Amendment ?

I'm going to dinner. You have time should you be so inclined to search the process for changing amendments

 

[MacMadame]

Given that there are people who believe the earth is flat, I am sure you can find *someone* out there who thinks no one should be allowed to own guns and there are definitely people who think we should revoke the 2nd Amendment. However, there is no public will, no hidden agenda of politicians and no credible movement afoot to do so. The NRA is run by the gun industry and they have effectively bought Congress. We can't even get sensible gun legislation passed, let alone banning all guns.

The majority of Americans think it's fine to own some handguns for "protection" and some rifles for hunting and have no interest in taking *all* guns away from people. It's the NRA and the gun industry that is keeping that fear alive (They are coming for your guns!) so that they can make even more profit.

 

[Prancer]

- It's enough for me to hear that someone is trying to affect 2nd Amnd. Right to be concerned. Once it starts with something "minor" it does not stop.

Slippery Slope Fallacy.

A fallacy that is, not surprisingly, based on fear response.

 

[Tinami Amori]

Slippery Slope Fallacy.

A fallacy that is, not surprisingly, based on fear response.

Fair enough about "SS Fallacy", and i won't even mention the same "unjustified concerns" on the "Left".

Let me list then official discussions in the mass media promoting repeal of 2nd Amendment.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/what-if-the-second-amendm_b_9121822.html
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/05/m...epeal-the-ancient-and-outdated-2nd-amendment/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html

 

[Prancer]

Fair enough about "SS Fallacy", and i won't even mention the same "unjustified concerns" on the "Left".

Oh, I know they are there. I hear these arguments all the time.

I just happened to see that post (I haven't been reading this thread) and know how you like to be logical.

 

[Tinami Amori]

Oh, I know they are there. I hear these arguments all the time.
I just happened to see that post (I haven't been reading this thread) and know how you like to be logical.

You were right. Drastic reaction to a rumor or an insignificant event is illogical.

But there is a “however”. In the case of 2nd amnd. repeal, the speakers and the media which starting and publishing the conversation are not insignificant, and presenting contra-arguments is not a “drastic reaction”. “Insignificant event/occurrence” is also subjective. There are examples in history when an event or movement, perceived as “insignificant”, became a tragic reality (Nazis, Russian Revolution, etc).

 

[Prancer]

You were right. Drastic reaction to a rumor or an insignificant event is illogical.

But there is a “however”. In the case of 2nd amnd. repeal, the speakers and the media which starting and publishing the conversation are not insignificant, and presenting contra-arguments is not a “drastic reaction”. “Insignificant event/occurrence” is also subjective. There are examples in history when an event or movement, perceived as “insignificant”, became a tragic reality (Nazis, Russian Revolution, etc).

That's true; OTOH, there are people who believe all kinds of things. It takes vast numbers of them to to make anything happen. And repealing the Second Amendment would be a long and monumental effort taken with many steps. Ask people who think that abortion should be illegal. Chipping away relentlessly, however, has not yet made abortion illegal, so restricting gun ownership isn't likely to do so any time soon, either, particularly when we are talking an actual Constitutional Amendment and not an interpretation.

There are absolutely people who think that the Second Amendment should be repealed, however, and it's not just one or two. I am that people think otherwise. OTOH, those people are FAR outnumbered by those who don't think that way and there is no great political will in this country for repealing the Second Amendment.

 

[misskarne]

For the record, showing a gun to the robber/s does not mean shooting them in all cases. You can scare them away. You can shoot at the floor or ceiling as a warning. You can shoot the tires of their car and wait for police. You shoot them in the arm if they are pointing a gun at YOU (but drawing on a drawn gun requires special tactic and practice).... There are many options to use a gun for self-protection before killing some-one... just saying...

Or the robber sees that you have a gun and shoots first, when before they may not have been intending to.

Curious, Tinami. How on earth would you fare here in wild Australia? All this land, all these animals, and no guns? Not having a gun for self defence in my house? How on earth could you bear to be so "oppressed"?

 

[gkelly]

You shoot them in the arm if they are pointing a gun at YOU (but drawing on a drawn gun requires special tactic and practice).... There are many options to use a gun for self-protection before killing some-one... just saying...

An arm is a very difficult target to hit, especially if the target is moving (and the shooter is probably also moving). It's probably most likely that you would miss -- and provoke the bad guy to shoot back. It's probably more likely that you would hit the bad guy in a more damaging part of the body than that you would succeed in hitting only his arm.

For that matter, if you shoot the ceiling or the floor it's entirely possible that the bullet will ricochet and hit the bad guy or yourself in a place you can't control, or maybe go through the floor or ceiling hit some other innocent upstairs or downstairs.

If you're going to fire the weapon, you have to be willing to accept the possibility that you will end up killing or maiming someone, not necessarily the bad guy.

 

[MacMadame]

I was taught not to point a gun at a person unless you willing to pull the trigger and kill them. And, when you do that, to aim for the torso. They said shooting at anything else was a recipe for being dead and a fantasy from watching too many Hollywood movies.

(I was taught by former military competitive shooters who are some of the few people who tell me they are responsible gun owners that I believe. They followed all the rules and teach them to others.)

 

[Tinami Amori]

Or the robber sees that you have a gun and shoots first, when before they may not have been intending to.

"What ifs".......

Curious, Tinami. How on earth would you fare here in wild Australia? All this land, all these animals, and no guns? Not having a gun for self defence in my house? How on earth could you bear to be so "oppressed"?

When I move to Australia, I’ll let you know. One thing for sure..... i never had problems with wild animals.

An arm is a very difficult target to hit, especially if the target is moving (and the shooter is probably also moving). It's probably most likely that you would miss -- and provoke the bad guy to shoot back. It's probably more likely that you would hit the bad guy in a more damaging part of the body than that you would succeed in hitting only his arm.

For that matter, if you shoot the ceiling or the floor it's entirely possible that the bullet will ricochet and hit the bad guy or yourself in a place you can't control, or maybe go through the floor or ceiling hit some other innocent upstairs or downstairs.

Another bunch of “what ifs”…

If you're going to fire the weapon, you have to be willing to accept the possibility that you will end up killing or maiming someone, not necessarily the bad guy.

People who rob others are bad guys. Bad guys who rob people should accept a possibility and responsibility of getting shot.

I was taught not to point a gun at a person unless you willing to pull the trigger and kill them. And, when you do that, to aim for the torso. They said shooting at anything else was a recipe for being dead and a fantasy from watching too many Hollywood movies.

(I was taught by former military competitive shooters who are some of the few people who tell me they are responsible gun owners that I believe. They followed all the rules and teach them to others.)

Ok. good. you stick to your practices if such will ever be required (i hope not of course).

You guys are doing well today! done your civil daily duty on behalf of Lefty causes: spoke out against owning guns.. Put a check mark!

 

[Angelskates]

Another bunch of “what ifs”…

Isn't your "having a gun is for protection" based entirely on one giant "what if"?

 

[Tinami Amori]

Isn't your "having a gun is for protection" based entirely on one giant "what if"?

Having gun for protection - statistical set = 2. You are not being robbed (no need to use a gun). You're being robbed - maybe a need to use a gun.
Possible robbery scenarios - statistical set = infinity.

 

[misskarne]

Having gun for protection - statistical set = 2. You are not being robbed (no need to use a gun). You're being robbed - maybe a need to use a gun.
Possible robbery scenarios - statistical set = infinity.

You're digressing from the point, as gun psychos normally do.

How many mass shootings has Australia had in the last 20 years, Tinami? If, as you claim, a "good guy" with a gun is required to stop a "bad guy", then why is it that there are very few shootings here?

 

[Tinami Amori]

You're digressing from the point, as gun psychos normally do.

How many mass shootings has Australia had in the last 20 years, Tinami? If, as you claim, a "good guy" with a gun is required to stop a "bad guy", then why is it that there are very few shootings here?

i dun'know...... because there are more kangaroos than people? ... quite hanging out with gun psychos, it's helping you.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Having gun for protection - statistical set = 2. You are not being robbed (no need to use a gun). You're being robbed - maybe a need to use a gun.
Possible robbery scenarios - statistical set = infinity.

I set my alarm tonight and went down stairs to my room. Cleaned the cat litter (I know..everyone is now jealous of my life]. I popped the top back on the litter box and my alarm went off. I have an alarm pad down here so I turned it off. But then what was I supposed to do? Go upstairs and see who broke in? Hide in my room? Send my 9 lb puppy upstairs? I would have loved to have had a gun.

I am all by myself and if someone is in my foyer I'm gonna shoot and ask questions later. Turns out I must have rattled the glass patio door when I robustly put the lid back on the litter box.

I would really love to have a gun here...but I won't. I have young grandchildren.

But I think me having a gun is reasonable.

I don t think an inanimate object is eville.

 

[Tinami Amori]

But I think me having a gun is reasonable.
I don t think an inanimate object is eville.

I don't think we would need a gun if the government guaranteed us complete safety. Or if an invention was made, some kind of "dome" which prevents unwanted entry (security systems are good but not enough, plus police response time is not always sufficient).

What amazes me in people who say "you don't need a gun even at home", they
- a) don't give you an acceptable solution,
- b) care more about safety of intruders than yours.

My conclusion is that they think we should let the thieves have our property, risk rape or injury, as long as the thugs don't get shot... (i am not going to make assumptions this time why some feel sorry for thugs and not us)..

 

[Angelskates]

How many people have been killed by intruders in a situation where they had access to a gun then and there that would have saved them (which actually would rarely happen, unless people are always carrying) versus the hundreds killed and injured by guns either accidentally (like playing with it) or deliberately when not committing a crime, as the 58 concert goers in Los Vegas?

It's not caring more about the safety of intruders, it's putting the value of a life over the value of things, AND recognising that having guns - easily accessible "in case" there is an intruder - is dangerous itself. It is more common to have accidents with guns than it is for intruders/burglars to kill. Most intruders want to steal your stuff, not kill you. I don't care about any thing I own more than any one person, even a stranger. Life is the most valuable thing there is to me. It is rare that the choice is "I (or someone I love) die or I kill someone".

 

[misskarne]

i dun'know...... because there are more kangaroos than people? ... quite hanging out with gun psychos, it's helping you.

Answer the question, Tinami. How many mass shootings has Australia had in the last 20 years?

 

[Tinami Amori]

Answer the question, Tinami. How many mass shootings has Australia had in the last 20 years?

how about you shove your tone up your anal track...

 

[misskarne]

how about you shove your tone up your anal track...

How about you shove your gun up yours since you love it so damn much?

Your supposed "right" to own a lethal weapon should not infringe on people's right to be alive. To go around without fear that some random asshole will start shooting. For children to go to school in safety and peace and not have to fear that someone will walk through the door and start murdering them.

And since you refuse to answer the question (presumably because you know what the answer is and it doesn't fit your narrative), the answer? Zero. Zero mass shootings in 20 years. Because what happened 21 years ago? Port Arthur, and a country sufficiently horrified that we actually did something about it.

 

[attyfan]

Kudos to Australia; I wish the US would imitate it!