Beaumont67
New member
^^ And I guess I'm not surprised your from San Diego...Duh.
- and a lone senior citizen created the massive carnage, yea right !!
Last edited:
Vegas Shooting
- Thread starter CXS
- Start date
^^ And I guess I'm not surprised your from San Diego...Duh.
- and a lone senior citizen created the massive carnage, yea right !!
JayceeP
New member
He had several guns pre-loaded ready to go. If one malfunctions, pick up the next one. Bump-stocks simulate full-auto.2 open windows likely would have caused a cross-flow sucking-pushing smoke out the window. Having said that, I've fired a Norinco M4 and I don't recall much smoke.
Not hard to see how he could have caused so much damage. In cellphone videos, you can see people huddling and "hiding" in the middle of the concert venue. Completely wide open and unaware that the shots are coming from a high floor at the Mandalay Bay easily visible in the background. It's not really hard to comprehend.
Not hard to see how he could have caused so much damage. In cellphone videos, you can see people huddling and "hiding" in the middle of the concert venue. Completely wide open and unaware that the shots are coming from a high floor at the Mandalay Bay easily visible in the background. It's not really hard to comprehend.
Thai
Elite Member
Canada can keep you! WTF dude! No grown man should believe the shit you just posted!
Thai
Elite Member
I understand that you don’t like our country and the NRA...but give it a rest already. You need to talk to your countryman above first! :bravo:
Off-choader
New member
Jim jeffries is an un funny idiot, now this is propaganda bs. JD you are a troll
Hepar
New member
I'm wondering if it's possible here to have a civil discussion on possible solutions.
First, let me get this out of the way. I am someone who believes in more gun control. I think it's crazy that I can walk into a gun store and walk right out with a gun. Two of the biggest gun-related issues are suicides and accidental shootings. Both I feel can be greatly reduced with a bit more control/education.
Now, that being said I do NOT feel that gun control issues are the answer every time something like this happens. As well as any talk around them never gets anywhere. So let's take that off the table.
So, if we figure that changing our gun control laws will not help, what will? Does anyone have any helpful suggestions? The next fallback seems to be on mental health, but if the early reports are true (and emphasis on early because things can change with time) then this is a shooting by someone with no obvious signs of mental health issues. Someone in fact who doesn't fit the mold at all.
Do we just accept this as the new status quo and adjust to it? Whether that means by increased security or say the reduction of highly vulnerable events (like an outdoor concert in the middle of downtown Las Vegas).
Would love to hear some other viable points of view.
First, let me get this out of the way. I am someone who believes in more gun control. I think it's crazy that I can walk into a gun store and walk right out with a gun. Two of the biggest gun-related issues are suicides and accidental shootings. Both I feel can be greatly reduced with a bit more control/education.
Now, that being said I do NOT feel that gun control issues are the answer every time something like this happens. As well as any talk around them never gets anywhere. So let's take that off the table.
So, if we figure that changing our gun control laws will not help, what will? Does anyone have any helpful suggestions? The next fallback seems to be on mental health, but if the early reports are true (and emphasis on early because things can change with time) then this is a shooting by someone with no obvious signs of mental health issues. Someone in fact who doesn't fit the mold at all.
Do we just accept this as the new status quo and adjust to it? Whether that means by increased security or say the reduction of highly vulnerable events (like an outdoor concert in the middle of downtown Las Vegas).
Would love to hear some other viable points of view.
1engineer
Moderator
I wish we had an answer, but until we know why this guy did it then we can't figure out how to fix it or what to blame. At least with ISIS, we know why... they just f'in hate us and the ground we walk on, plain and simple. With mental illness, we know something in the brain just didn't work right and they went off. With this guy? Who knows. Hopefully we will find out soon.
Beaumont67
New member
Thai - I give you the Nobel Peace Prize, when it comes to Kool-Aid drinking.
I Will || 16 hours ago
Not buying any of it!!! The MSM, the FBI, etc. have been, very clearly, less than credible & this whole thing is covered with holes & inconsistencies! I'm calling deep state/CIA false flag. They will use this to SHREAD the 2nd amendment & to more than likely pass laws that will allow a blanket disarming of thousands, if not millions of Americans.... just watch & see how they end up using this to "infringe" where the constitution specifically says they "Shall NOT Infringe"
mo hawk || 18 hours ago (edited)
Hitting 500-600 human size targets from 500m away, and an elevation of 300 ft, at night time, on moving targets, and in a matter of 9 minutes is 'wildly difficult', and I say this as an experienced shooter, a former infantrymen, and combat veteran. Rifle qualifications during Army basic training involve hitting targets at 50- 300M, with several seconds available per target, during daytime, and with zero elevation, yet still a good many trainees failed to qualify on their first or second attempt. The idea that a 64 year old man, with 64 year old eyes and hand-to-eye coordination, a relatively inexperienced shooter could accomplish what he did is wildly difficult to say the least, some might characterize it as being next to impossible.
^^ Well said...even those with +17,000 posts should refrain from making other opinions, personal.
Last edited:
scanny
Senior Member
I think whoever wrote that has never used a full auto rifle.
Hepar
New member
My question was more of a general one. Not specific to this incident. Was more saying that if anything, this incident adds a new wrinkle to the issue being that it doesn't quite fit the same narrative as previous ones (again, that is going on what we know right now, which isn't a lot).
So, then like I said above, it just becomes part of the status quo? Accept that it is just a part of the current state of the world?
scanny
Senior Member
He was shooting at about 2 acres target with closely packed few thousands people, it's a bit different than targets on fire range. As I see it he wasn't hitting "moving targets" he just was shooting at about 2 acres target, it doesn't require any marksmanship skills. Besides I would guess that some of the 500 injured people was injured trying to run for cover. I think that we would probably know more details as investigation goes on, but I don't see it impossible.
scanny
Senior Member
I think we should wait for more details of this investigation. Anything could happen of course, but I still can't believe that successful 64 year old man without any political or religious issues will do a mass shooting and kill himself after. There got to be something more in this story. Maybe he was on medications, or ISIL somehow got him or maybe he was just a decoy, after all nobody seen him shooting people, media says that police found him shot with a gun beside him. When we find his motives or find what exactly happened we will be able do something to prevent it. If our leaders of course for once will try to fix the problem instead of pushing their political agendas.
1engineer
Moderator
My opinion: The reason we are in this current state is A)Media and B)Changes.
How is the media to blame? Both types, social and news, give a normal person an opportunity to reach a lot of people. If you do something crazy or amazing (jump off a cliff, kill a lot of people, do something heroic, have a great idea, etc) then you quickly can go "viral," bot with the news and on social media. You now don't have to be famous or a rock or sports star to get your 15 minutes of fame to millions of people.
The "change" part is simply the world population and old ideas are changing. For the good? For the worse? I don't know the answer because for some, it might be changing for the better, and for some, it might be changing for the worse. Medical advances keep people alive longer. Technology makes our lives much easier. We don't go into a saloon and settle our scores in a gunfight any more. Drunk driving is bad. Jobs are much less dangerous. Seatbelts, crumple zones and airbags. These are just a fraction of changes that have happened. In fact, I think some changes are just too much and fast for some people to keep up. My father in law at 90 years old just cannot comprehend having the answers to almost every question in your pocket!
Bottom line, I think the fringes of society (and this guy qualifies even though there is no blatant prior knowledge) see doing something like this as their big moment. Just like a suicide bomber, they get a posthumous award, even if it's just a bunch of likes on Facebook. To some that's really important apparently.
I also think this will become more commonplace as long as the media and we, the media's customers, continue to make a big deal out of it. Do you think that ISIS or this guy or that guy in Canada who killed those girls would do this stuff if the media didn't cover it? Just ignored it? I don't. So yes, we need to be prepared for more stupid stuff to happen. I also get you on the gun thing. That gun is just a tool. He could have rented a truck and killed just as many. The truck, guns, explosives and everything else don't kill people, the person wielding the trigger or steering wheel are the ones doing it.
Hepar
New member
Do you think it's really the media? Or is it more access to the media (as well as other things). Because I may argue that the media is doing the same thing they would have done 20+ years ago had something like this happened. The difference today is the access to the information. In the past when something big happened, if you didn't read the paper or watch the evening news, there was a good chance you wouldn't know something happened. Now you are inundated with it from every corner be it tv, social media, etc etc. As well as you have instant access in your palm.
1engineer
Moderator
Again, my opinion.
The media's ONLY job (and most people are way to altruistic or are wearing rose colored glasses) is to sell advertising. That's it. And, it's a very competitive world trying to get ad dollars. If they don't sell ad space, they don't get paid. It really is that simple. Now, if you listen to journalists, they will tell you that they do it "to report the truth" or some such nonsense. Take away any salary or grant money or notoriety and see how many still want to report the truth! The media will report the truth... if it sells ad space. If it does not, then they won't report it. Some of that falls back to us, the consumers, in the fact that we just like hearing about bad stuff instead of good stuff. Makes us feel better about ourselves I guess.
So back to the story. Since ad dollars are hard to come by, the media starts doing things to differentiate themselves from the competition and instead of reporting just factual stories, they also start offering opinions on why something is the way it is. Basically whatever thy can do to attract the ad dollars, because more viewers mean more advertisers. Hire a sports star, a beautiful woman or a comedian is one simple tact media does. If a journalist wins an award and gains some notoriety then that helps too.
My point is media has gradually been shaping messages for years and the real truth gets lost in the shuffle. A story such as the Vegas shooter is something everyone wants to know about, so they constantly try to one-up the competition. The deranged guy out there reads all this stuff and thinks it's cool how much fame that guy got, or how his demented message could go out to the world if he does horrific things. Again, I don't think we would have this crap if it weren't for the media sensationalizing it.
IMO, the media doesn't care about anything. They don't care who won, who shot who, who was born, who died or anything else. They only care about making sure they get their ad dollars.
Last edited:
nevada
Senior Member
I don't think they are doing the same thing. 20 years ago, they had to wait until their next news session to put anything out. within that timeframe, more facts would come out. by the time they were ready to broadcast(in whatever form, tv/radio/newspaper) they have a much more accurate picture of what happened.
now, they can, within minutes, or even seconds have something put out. far before there are any facts.
which makes things much worse. as no matter how many retractions they run, the first story gets the most traction.
so people then react to the first bit of news(which usually turns out wrong) and ignore the rest of the facts as they come in.
Hepar
New member
While I would agree that sales is one of their most important goals, I would argue that it is their only job. I would like to think that journalistic integrity is up there with some of them. Otherwise, what would the difference be between The National Enquirer and The NY Times? Even though many are trying to push that there is no difference.
But do you think that is them being proactive or reactive? Meaning, is it more a result of the current state of information? I would say it is.
