Shooting in Las Vegas

[ballettmaus]

At this point in the general discussion about guns, both North America and Europe are thrown into the same conversation and used as "examples". One of the arguments is "look at Europe, they have strict gun laws". Reality: mass murders by means other than guns.

They weren't mass murders per definition. They were terrorist attacks. So far, this is not a terrorist attack. It's a mass shooting/mass murder, so if you want to compare, you need to look at all of the non-politically motivated attack which happened in Europe.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Well, well. This is a pleasant surprise.
NRA Calls for ATF review of bump stocks

The National Rifle Association, in its first statement on the Las Vegas shooting and in a rare break from its traditional opposition to gun-related regulations, called Thursday for a federal review of so-called bump stocks and suggested new rules might be needed for the device apparently used by the shooter in Sunday’s massacre.

“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,” the NRA said in a written statement.

Bump stocks can be used to effectively convert semi-automatic rifles to fire so rapidly as to simulate an automatic weapon. The devices were found on guns used by Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock, who killed 59 and injured hundreds Sunday night.

The Obama administration’s ATF gave its seal of approval to selling the devices in 2010 after concluding that they did not violate federal law. On Thursday, the NRA called on the ATF to review that assessment.

 

[AxelAnnie]

They weren't mass murders per definition. They were terrorist attacks. So far, this is not a terrorist attack. It's a mass shooting/mass murder, so if you want to compare, you need to look at all of the non-politically motivated attack which happened in Europe.

Whose definition?

Here is how the FBI defines it:

Mass murder (sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction") is the act of murdering a number of people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time and in close geographic proximity.[1][2] The FBI defines mass murder as murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location where one or more people kill several others.[3][4] Many acts of mass murder end with the perpetrator(s) dying by suicide or suicide by cop.[5]

And, when people drive their cars into groups of people and kill them, I don't hear a "Take Away the Cars" call.
According to the Violence Policy Center, vehicular deaths are higher than gun deaths in the US. Just sayin'

 

[snoopy]

I think it is fair to compare the methods used in acts of terrorism to mass murder. Dead is dead.

The news on bump stocks is good news. Automatic firing can kill a crazy number of people.

 

[Tinami Amori]

They weren't mass murders per definition. They were terrorist attacks. So far, this is not a terrorist attack. It's a mass shooting/mass murder, so if you want to compare, you need to look at all of the non-politically motivated attack which happened in Europe.

Terrorist attacks often are mass murders, most are intended to be such. Nice, London, Paris...
.. and out of curiosity, in the last 5 years, HOW MANY non-politically motivated mass murders took place in Europe?

Well, well. This is a pleasant surprise. NRA Calls for ATF review of bump stocks

Review? if machine guns are illegal, any equipment that turns a weapon into a machine gun should be illegal..... Why the heck do they sell them in the first place. If we have weapons for defense of self and property, machine guns are not required...

 

[missing]

And, when people drive their cars into groups of people and kill them, I don't hear a "Take Away the Cars" call.
According to the [/I]Violence Policy Center, vehicular deaths are higher than gun deaths in the US. Just sayin'

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I own a car and a gun.

With a car I can drive to my book club meeting at the library (and take out a book while I'm at it), buy some picture hangers for my newly remodeled bathroom, go to the post office to mail my friend's birthday present (she lives 3000 miles away), and stop off at the supermarket to pick up fruit, vegetables, and laundry detergent.

With a gun, I can kill something.

Just sayin'.

 

[overedge]

Well, well. This is a pleasant surprise.
NRA Calls for ATF review of bump stocks

This isn't a surprise at all, nor is it pleasant. It gives the NRA an excuse to blame Obama for what happened in Las Vegas, since his administration was the one that approved bump stocks. And I'm pretty damn sure the NRA would not be supporting a review if it thought that the review would actually lead to something happening. By taking this stance, the NRA can pretend that it cares about responsible gun ownership by saying it supports the review - and then it can run around behind the scenes lobbying and to make sure nothing gets changed.

 

[Vash01]

Pardon my ignorance but what are bump stocks? I don't want to google it for fear that I may start seeing gun related ads every time I go to the internet.

 

[snoopy]

I think this is being overthought. The NRA normally is beyond stubborn and doesn't give an inch. I think this is a good move on the bump stocks. Do I think it is a signal that the NRA will give on anything else? No. I just thing they are wiling to move on bump stocks.

 

[snoopy]

Pardon my ignorance but what are bump stocks? I don't want to google it for fear that I may start seeing gun related ads every time I go to the internet.

It is a piece of equipment that turns a semi-automatic gun into an automatic gun. Automatic guns are illegal but bump stocks are not.

 

[overedge]

I think this is being overthought. The NRA normally is beyond stubborn and doesn't give an inch. I think this is a good move on the bump stocks. Do I think it is a signal that the NRA will give on anything else? No. I just thing they are wiling to move on bump stocks.

As I said, I don't think the NRA would support a review of anything if they thought the review would lead to changes. The NRA won't move on anything that might even be perceived as the slightest infringement on gun owners' "rights". I am sure they have supporters who think that not being able to increase the firepower of a gun infringes on their "rights".

 

[purple skates]

They weren't mass murders per definition. They were terrorist attacks. So far, this is not a terrorist attack. It's a mass shooting/mass murder, so if you want to compare, you need to look at all of the non-politically motivated attack which happened in Europe.

So I looked up mass murders in Europe and the US since 2010 (randomly picked that year). Got the data from “rampage killers” on Wiki. Terrorism incidents aren’t included on these lists.

In Europe in that time period there were 16 mass murders that killed 102 people and injured 282. In the Americas, before Las Vegas, there were 13 mass murders (10 were in the US) that killed 79 people and injured 128. When you add in Las Vegas it becomes 14 mass murders (11 in the US) with 137 killed and 617 injured, but this guy was particularly horrific in his toll.

 

[Susan1]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I own a car and a gun.

With a car I can drive to my book club meeting at the library (and take out a book while I'm at it), buy some picture hangers for my newly remodeled bathroom, go to the post office to mail my friend's birthday present (she lives 3000 miles away), and stop off at the supermarket to pick up fruit, vegetables, and laundry detergent.

With a gun, I can kill something.

Just sayin'.

Yeah, unless you intentionally run over someone or drive yourself into a brick wall, I don't think normal people use cars as weapons. You don't buy 47 guns just to look at them.

 

[snowbird]

The Trumps in the hospital. (verb in the headliner should be lie, not lay.)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...m-wont-lay-rises-meet-president-donald-trump/

 

[allezfred]

And yet attacks using chemicals take place, rather frequently in Europe as of lately.

They do?

 

[Tinami Amori]

They do?

Here is one you know about....Acid attacks on the rise in the UK..

"A significant rise in acid attacks has prompted calls to restrict the sale of corrosive substances which can be bought easily over the counter."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...s-in-england-leads-to-calls-to-restrict-sales

450 attacks in UK in 2016...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/14/europe/acid-attacks-london-numbers-trnd/index.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/08/06/541209398/acid-attacks-on-the-rise-in-the-u-k
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40559973

Six are burned in an Acid attack in London...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/world/europe/britain-london-acid-attacks.html

Acid attacks at epidemic level in UK
http://www.npr.org/2017/07/29/540214675/acid-attacks-at-epidemic-level-in-u-k

Acid attacks become more common in Europe...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-growing-more-common-across-europe/675461001/

... on another note..
If America’s Scientific Elites have not yet dismissed “biometric graphology” completely, I’d be interested to know how the analysis of the shooter’s handwriting comes out….

There is a copy of the cheque he wrote to a car dealership in August, and the 3 different lettering styles including a signature, and individual letters and numbers proportions and spacing, are yelling “Psychopathology 101”…

(copy of his cheque is at the bottom of this article)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/las-vegas-...ooking-lollapalooza-visited/story?id=50273390

 

[allezfred]

Acid attacks on the rise in the UK..

So one country in Europe then.

 

[Tinami Amori]

So one country in Europe then.

France.... is in Europe. You want me to list more?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/17/europe/france-acid-attack-us-tourists/index.html

Italy....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-work-aquarium-horrific-assault-a7808556.html

Berlin....
http://www.dw.com/en/police-investigate-series-of-random-acid-attacks-on-women-in-berlin/a-37750838

Norway..
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/europe/norway-muslim-cleric-sentenced.html

Sweden..
http://www.friatider.se/personer-f-rda-till-sjukhus-fick-v-tska-kastad-i-ansiktet

Belgium....
http://www.brusselstimes.com/rss-fe...-prosecutor-s-office-demands-20-year-sentence

Repeating from previous post:
Acid attacks become more common in Europe...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-growing-more-common-across-europe/675461001/


want more?

 

[snoopy]

It is terrible for the victims but that isn't a weapon that can be used to commit mass murder and it is not comparable to semi automatic weapons.

I thought you were talking about sarin gas.

 

[ballettmaus]

And, when people drive their cars into groups of people and kill them, I don't hear a "Take Away the Cars" call.
According to the Violence Policy Center, vehicular deaths are higher than gun deaths in the US. Just sayin'

What is the relation between vehicular deaths and ownership? Because in order to make accurate arguments that has to be taken into account as well. And, as the link I posted either here or in the other thread showed, vehicular deaths have declined, while gun deaths have risen until 2014, and the link also stated that in 21 states there were more gun deaths than vehicular deaths.

Whose definition?

I think it is fair to compare the methods used in acts of terrorism to mass murder. Dead is dead.

I'd say most every terrorist attack results in mass casualties but not every mass murder is a terrorist attack.
The difference is the motivation behind it. MacMadame (I think) posted a link to the definition of a terrorism in either this or the other gun thread and I believe that, in order to make proper comparison one cannot compare one incident with another in multiple countries. One needs to look at the same medium, the cirumstances and one country at a time.

Knives are easy to come by but I know of few knife-related mass murders simply because it's hard to achieve.

Cars are easy to come by and there has been an uptick in terror attacks since cars have been discovered as a simple means to achieve big damage. There was one incidence I heard of in Heidelberg that investigators said they don't think was a terror attack. I have not heard what the motive was and Google wasn't any help.

Bombs are a difficult medium for various reasons and I don't recall any non-terror related Europeans bombings.

Guns are difficult to come by in Europe but if they weren't, I don't think that terrorists would have waited until one of them had the "genius" idea of using a car. If guns were easily accessible in Europe, terrorists would probably be using guns and who knows how many terror-unrelated mass shootings there would have been.

Yes, cars/trucks are a liability when there are crowds but European countries are doing what they can to take precautions and put safety measures in place to, at least, make it more difficult to access crowds via car/truck and kill. I don't think the same can be said for the US and guns.

So I looked up mass murders in Europe and the US since 2010 (randomly picked that year). Got the data from “rampage killers” on Wiki. Terrorism incidents aren’t included on these lists.

In Europe in that time period there were 16 mass murders that killed 102 people and injured 282. In the Americas, before Las Vegas, there were 13 mass murders (10 were in the US) that killed 79 people and injured 128. When you add in Las Vegas it becomes 14 mass murders (11 in the US) with 137 killed and 617 injured, but this guy was particularly horrific in his toll.

And that is all of Europe combined, compared with only America!
Something else that I think is needed for proper comparison is how many were gun related in the US and how many in Europe, and what weapons were used in Europe and which weapons were used in the US?

 

[ballettmaus]

want more?

As horrible as it is, these are "common crimes" that happen (in big cities). If you include that, you have to include every shooting in the US, too.

 

[Tinami Amori]

It is terrible for the victims but that isn't a weapon that can be used to commit mass murder and it is not comparable to semi automatic weapons.
I thought you were talking about sarin gas.

Re mass effect, well... that depends. If a group of people sets up to use acid, they can find methods to attack multiple victims, for example by using simple hand held fluid dispenser, fits in a back pack... https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41B2ZJ07lgL.jpg... you can ran the sprayer across 5-6 faces in a second. 5 people = 25 faces.

Sarin gas and other stuff is coming... if not prevented.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/isis-plotting-chemical-attack-on-uk-x7xz7xdkk
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...cal-attack-in-Europe/articleshow/55603887.cms

 

[Tinami Amori]

As horrible as it is, these are "common crimes" that happen (in big cities). If you include that, you have to include every shooting in the US, too.

Not quite. Take a look at the articles, quite few are linked to religion (muslim man switched to christianity), to "ethnic hate", some kind of "ideology difference", "get Americans/westerners" etc..

 

[purple skates]

And that is all of Europe combined, compared with only America!
Something else that I think is needed for proper comparison is how many were gun related in the US and how many in Europe, and what weapons were used in Europe and which weapons were used in the US?

No, that’s all of Europe compared to the Americas - south, central and north. More land mass, more people.

Point being, y’all aren’t all sunshine and roses over there on the other side of the Pond. So please stop acting superior.

ETA: Most of the European incidents were gun related. Including in countries like Belgium.

 

[AxelAnnie]

What happened in Las Vegas was horrific. No doubt about it. The shooter was evil. Everyone is talking about the gun problem in America. But the guns are not shooting killing anyone....people are killing people.

There is a lot to be outraged about:
In 2016 nearly three times more people were stabbed to death than were killed by handguns and rifles combined.
In 2016 over 59,000 people here died of drug overdoses.
In 2016 an estimated 88,000 People (62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol
In 2016 an estimated 29,000 people died in car accidents.

I don't see people taking away the knives, drugs, booze or cars.
I don't even hear people screaming about the horror of it all.

We have a lot of problems here......but the vast majority of the problems do not reside in who does or does not have a gun.

And, if you want to do something about guns, fix Chicago. More than 700 people were killed by guns there last year.

When did people stop being responsible for their actions? We will never be able to stop one maniac from creating havoc somewhere. These other things we should be able to work on.

 

[ballettmaus]

Point being, y’all aren’t all sunshine and roses over there on the other side of the Pond. So please stop acting superior.

No one's saying it's all sunshine and roses, at least, I'm not. You haven't answered my question though. How many of the murders were committed with guns, and how many with other weapons and what variety of weapons was used? Because, as far as I'm concerned, that is the point. If Europeans have to use a variety of weapons to achieve what Americans can achieve with guns then that is prove that gun control (more difficult access to guns) has a chance to lower the number of deaths in the US. Maybe only temporarily. Maybe the Las Vegas guy would have used a car had he not had access to a gun. But would he have been able to use a car considering the location? Would his attack have been as devastating? To me, this is what it is all about.

No one will ever prevent violence completely. It's the world that we live in. People will kill. But I think we should make it as difficult as possible for killers/mass murders/terrorists to get the means to kills and if we cannot prevent the killing then we should strive to limit the means a killer has so that the number of casualties will turn out as low as possible.

I really don't get the problem with gun control. Because, as far as I know, no one is talking repealing the 2nd amendment as I think we all know that it's not going to happen. So, this is about safety measures, making access to guns more difficult. Why fight it? Why fight the chance of maybe making the world a safer place and or lowering casualties?

Not quite. Take a look at the articles, quite few are linked to religion (muslim man switched to christianity), to "ethnic hate", some kind of "ideology difference", "get Americans/westerners" etc..

Every crime has a motive. A hate crime is still a "common crime" (for the lack of a better word) or a crime that police deal with regularly.

 

[ballettmaus]

And, if you want to do something about guns, fix Chicago. More than 700 people were killed by guns there last year.

I don't think it's Chicago itself which needs "fixing"

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

It's important to remember here that Chicago is very close to two states that have relatively weak gun laws: Wisconsin and Indiana. So while it's easy to pick on Chicago (or any other high-crime city) for its ugly statistics, says one expert, taking bordering states into account weakens this gun-advocacy talking point.

...

Neither Wisconsin nor Indiana requires licenses or permits to purchase a gun, for example, nor do they require waiting periods. While Illinois has that B+ rating from the law center, Wisconsin has a C- and Indiana a D-.

And there's good evidence that being next-door to those states keeps Chicago criminals well-supplied with guns. A 2015 study of guns in Chicago, co-authored by Cook, found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns.

New firearms trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released last week likewise shows that Illinois as a whole faces a massive influx of guns. Of around 8,700 firearms recovered in Illinois and for which the bureau found a source state, more than half came from out of state — 1,366, nearly 16 percent, came from Indiana alone.

By comparison, 82 percent of guns recovered in Indiana and traced were from within Indiana, suggesting that criminals in that state don't have to cross state lines, like those in Illinois, to get their weapons.

 

[purple skates]

@ballettmaus this is the link I looked at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_(Europe). I’m on my phone now do I can’t sort it - but IIRC the majority (like all but two or three) were guns. I read the bio of one of them - the Belgian guy - and it was just as disturbing as anything you read about for the US psychos.

Personally, I agree with sensible gun control. I’m not a fan of them, but I married into a hunting family so there are guns in my house. Even my very conservative gun owning husband doesn’t see the use for assault rifle, but will fight to the death for his right to be a gun owner.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I don't think it's Chicago itself which needs "fixing"

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

Yep. It is the cause of the violence and glorification of it that need to be fixed.

 

[MacMadame]

As I said, I don't think the NRA would support a review of anything if they thought the review would lead to changes. The NRA won't move on anything that might even be perceived as the slightest infringement on gun owners' "rights". I am sure they have supporters who think that not being able to increase the firepower of a gun infringes on their "rights".

What the gun owners I've seen are saying is that it's stupid to band bump stocks because anyone can make a semi-automatic fire as fast as an automatic just by bumping the gun against their leg. Or some other twaddle. They aren't saying that we shouldn't ban them because of "rights" though probably because they know that won't fly.

IME, when you get into arguments with gun nuts (vs. all gun owners), everything you suggest is "stupid" and "proves you don't know anything about guns". At one point they were saying it's stupid to ban certain guns. If you want to stop gun violence you should limit ammo! they said. So then there was a bill to limit ammo and suddenly that was stupid too.

MacMadame (I think) posted a link to the definition of a terrorism in either this or the other gun thread and I believe that, in order to make proper comparison one cannot compare one incident with another in multiple countries. One needs to look at the same medium, the cirumstances and one country at a time.

Since then I've read that that definition, while the most common and accepted, is not as universal as I thought. However, that doesn't matter because I actually think terrorism is a subset of mass murder. I do think you can compare them at least some of the time. Maybe not things like 9/11 but when a small group goes after a crowd, then, yes, these things are more alike than different. The only difference in that case is motive.

However, I think this focus on mass murder and terrorism is, in some ways, unfortunate because that is such a small part of America's gun problem. We have so many more deaths than other countries from guns. As much as 10x as many. And it's not because we have 10x as many mass murders or terrorism incidents or that ours are more deadly. It's because having guns everywhere means there are more deaths due to suicide, accidents, domestic violence, and murder. Easy access to guns makes it more likely to die via gun.

What happened in Las Vegas was horrific. No doubt about it. The shooter was evil. Everyone is talking about the gun problem in America. But the guns are not shooting killing anyone....people are killing people.

Do you know how stupid you sound when you spout that nonsense off? In particular:

I don't see people taking away the knives, drugs, booze or cars.
I don't even hear people screaming about the horror of it all.

You do realize the all those things are regulated, don't you? You have to have a license to sell booze or drive a car. Your car has to be registered. Drugs are either illegal or need a prescription. You have to be a certain age to drink or drive. Even knives are regulated to some extent. Certain kinds are illegal in certain places. You can't bring them airplanes, for example.

And people scream about drunk driving, the opioid epidemic, distracted driving, etc. all the time.

Not to mention, we don't say "we have a problem with opioids so we shouldn't worry about distracted driving" either. But somehow, if there is any other problem in the world we haven't fixed and we can't come up with a solution to fix 100% of the problem with guns, we shouldn't do anything. And that's somehow logical. Or something.