Slashdot Mirror


Las Vegas Shooting Leaves at Least 50 Dead, More Than 200 Wounded (wsj.com)

Readers share a report: At least 50 people are dead and more than 200 wounded after a shooting late Sunday at a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternative source). Police said they were first alerted to reports of an incident at 10:08 p.m. and then determined there was a shooter on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino who was targeting the nearby Route 91 Harvest Festival. Joseph Lombardo of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department said in a briefing that officers responded and shot dead the suspect. He said the suspect was a local resident but declined to identify him, citing the ongoing investigation. Police are also trying to locate a female companion, who they named as Marilou Danley, who was traveling with the suspect.

1,219 comments

  1. We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is what happens when you don't have enough guns. If some of those poor people in the crowd had had rifles, they could have taken the shooter out before so many died.

    1. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I truly hope you are joking

    2. Re:We need more guns by Aethedor · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, that's the old way. In a modern world, automated guns are placed at the corner of every street. It will open fire at everything that sounds like a gunshot. The only way to stop shootings like this. And it will make the excuse "guns don't kill people, people do" invalid. Developing, installing and maintaining such automated guns will also create a lot of jobs. It's gonna be great.

      --
      It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    3. Re:We need more guns by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      taking out some shooting from high up on the ground is not easy.

    4. Re:We need more guns by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK Mr Internet Tough Guy ..

      If I was there and I had a gun, I would have stopped this after 6 people died. That's the magic number where I flip to Rambo mode and start randomly spraying bullets in a futile effort to stop the shooter.

      You do know that the shooter wasn't in the crowd and was in fact on the 32nd floor of a hotel a good 300 to 400 yards away? Your puny hand pop gun (if you actually have one) would have done jack shit in this case.

      I think we need to execute Mr Stephen Paddock.

      You're too late.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's what ShotSpotter(TM) was originally designed for - automated urban warfare. ShotSpotter would identify the source of a gunshot and within milliseconds, automated drones or robots could identify and neutralize the source.

      The the pesky Geneva Conventions got in the way, the US Military abandoned the project so ShotSpotter(TM) was instead targeted for US Law Enforcement operations.

    6. Re:We need more guns by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      Pfff you're very out of date.

      The MODERN way (you luddite) is to have guns on drones, controlled with an appy app. Guns are a thing and hence should be part of the IoT.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blaming innocent gun owners is not the answer. Actions against innocents are never the right answer.

    8. Re:We need more guns by gtall · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's assume you aren't joking. How many people would have to be killed before some local with a gun takes out the gunman and you would then consider this a success of more guns? What, maybe 1 or 2. With modern weapons, you can easily kill 10 people before some idiot with his own weapon guns you down and manages to miss all the other people s/he wasn't aiming at.

      The problem for the gun advocates is they campaigning for a minimum level of gun violence, yet they never tell us what that minimum level is, or how to keep normal people from buying guns, losing their minds, and then killing off a bunch of the rest of us. And if you have ever spent time with the mentally ill, you'd realize a good many of them can come off normal for everyday life. There's a percentage that will go all the way down the rat hole. Some will even take their medication on the way down.

      I thought a congress critter getting his ass shot off would change the atmosphere on Capital Hill towards gun control. Nope, it only made the gun nuts stronger.

    9. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize he was shot and killed already.

      You also would know that he openened fire with automatic weapon spray onto a crowd of concert goers 32 floors below him as he shot from inside the hotel. That would be one amazing shoot if you could pick him off form 32 floors below him and across the street.

      What the fuck is wrong with people!

    10. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except everyone is innocent until they're not. It's about prevention. Don't see why having stricter requirements is considered "punishment". I don't want to die because of your silly hobby.

    11. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know he said rifle...do you even know what a rifle is?
      Leave the internet tough guy stuff to the people who have the slightest clue whats going on.

    12. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we let everyone carry a sniper rifle, then it would be no problem.

    13. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      What is wrong with people, is that we respect the right to carry and bear arms that is guaranteed to us in our constitution... the same constitution that gives you the right to speak your mind. The difference between us, is, I respect both.

    14. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lots of guns in Las Vegas...among the locals. Like often in such places it's the tourists who are unarmed and therefore targeted more often.

    15. Re:We need more guns by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He said rifle. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

      No I don't. I also don't make up shit on the internet to sound tough.

      The only type of person capable of taking out that shooter from the crowd at the critical moment would be a fully trained and equipped sniper with combat experience, and who was also expecting the threat and was in already position.

      Now do you want to bullshit some more about how you can shoot into specific hotel room from 400 yards away with a civilian rifle, which you just happened to be carry to a music festival?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    16. Re:We need more guns by clickety6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not just an issue of a well person buying a gun and then developing mental health problems. The US gun lobby doesn't even want to restrict sales to those who already have mental health issues.

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    17. Re: We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except everyone is innocent until they're not. It's about prevention. Don't see why having stricter requirements is considered "punishment". I don't want to die because of your silly hobby.

      That reasoning can be used to justify harming innocent people in any circumstance.

      Your "silly" computing "hobby" was just used to breach Equifax. You're only innocent "until you're not". Stricter requirements on "hackers" anyone?

      Maybe you'd be in favor of banning certain minorities too? Sure they're innocent, but only "until they're not", right? Hmmm?

      No. Wrong. Actions against innocents are never the right answer.

    18. Re: We need more guns by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't want to die because of your silly hobby.

      Silly hobbies like driving vehicles or cooking pot roast with a pressure cooker? That sort of thing? I don't want to die in a crowd of 80 other people because someone who's been allowed to drive has decided today to run down a bunch of pedestrians. Or die because someone who thinks I'm insufficiently obedient to allah has decided to use $50 worth of kitchen tools and hardware store supplies to slaughter a crowd full of people. Prevention is the key. No more passenger vans or pressure cookers, obviously.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    19. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Drunk drivers and otherwise still impaired drivers kill more people every year. There are already laws in place. There are sobriety check points. More laws do not always equate to less occurrence of issue.

    20. Re:We need more guns by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And even if he did have a rifle.. at night, with hotels that are lit up like christmas trees, good luck figuring out which window in a hotel with 43 floors, and almost a hundred rooms per floor, the shooter was firing from. And even then, the security and the police on the ground would have more than likely assumed that you (the good guy with a gun) was actually one of the perpetrators.. so you (again, good misguided idiot with a gun) would likely have been killed.

      The whole good guy with a gun theory is completely asinine, it just adds to the confusion, and rarely if ever has a good outcome.

      But good luck getting the gun nuts to agree with that.. You cannot argue with a stupid person with a big dick.. I mean gun in his hand.

      And for the record, I am not anti gun, I grew up with them, I enjoy shooting them at the range when I get a chance. I am however against stupid and irresponsible people with guns and am for major changes and strengthening of gun control laws.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    21. Re:We need more guns by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      This would be funny.. if not scary that someone out there will read this.. and turn your joke into reality...

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    22. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you starting to realize now how stupid it is to suggest more guns are the answer to every gun problem.
      You still fail at reading by the way. He also already mentioned it would be futile...

    23. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are a fucking moron, aren't you ?

      Wow.......breathtakingly stupid.

    24. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. You are delusional. You think that if you have a gun, then you are safe. In fact, you merely juggle the probability numbers on the various ways that you can die. Your stupid delusion basically makes the mass shootings much more likely to occur.

    25. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone just needs to carry an RPG and then we would all get along

    26. Re:We need more guns by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you starting to realize now how stupid it is to suggest more guns are the answer to every gun problem.

      You still fail at reading by the way. He also already mentioned it would be futile...

      OK Mr Reading Wiz .. care to comment about how I was replying to the AC who said:

      If I was there and I had a gun, I would have stopped this after 6 people died.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    27. Re:We need more guns by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lets face it.. if killing 20 toddlers in a school did not change the laws, nothing will. It's a sad truth, but a reality because in the US, money reigns supreme, and the NRA has a metric shit ton of money that they throw around, not just to prevent changes to gun laws, but even to prevent research being done. Did you know that the CDC is not permitted to research gun violence (they did a study once a few years back by using some weird data gathering mechanism to avoid running afoul of some random rules the NRA has managed to get the Feds to agree to) because the NRA has effectively blocked federal funding into any gun research.

      Yeah.. this country is currently fucked...

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    28. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the biggest threats to drivers is the White Tailed Deer so long guns do make a difference.

    29. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they could find a target. Now, if they had nukes, that would have reliably neutralized the shooter!

    30. Re:We need more guns by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The cure is worse than the disease in America's case. There are three possible treatments:

      1. Stronger controls on guns
      2. Free, high quality mental healthcare
      3. More guns

      Number 3 is the least effective but also hated by fewer people than 1 or 2.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      what wut happen? fireworks go off, people start screaming and falling over ... you pull a gun: voila you are now the shooter!

    32. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! This would have never happened if guns were banned.

      It would have been a truck into the crowd.

    33. Re:We need more guns by Ash-Fox · · Score: 0

      The problem for the gun advocates is they campaigning for a minimum level of gun violence, yet they never tell us what that minimum level is

      They do, they tell you about how situations would have been stopped sooner. So you've been told it would be less than not having it. That's the "minimum level".

      What's so hard to understand?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    34. Re:We need more guns by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, the AC also said "in a futile effort to stop the shooter" which kind of indicates they know it's a ridiculous reaction and that's the point they were making - I don't read the original ACs post as anything other than sarcastic and perhaps lightly trolling.

    35. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make mass shootings great again.

    36. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Original AC here. Obviously I was being ironic; if ever there was a case that makes the absurdity of that argument absolutely clear, it's this one. I can only imagine the chaos that would have ensued if a significant number of that crowd were armed, and started opening fire on where they thought the gunfire was coming from; good luck to the guests staying in those hotels. I thought making the argument ironically would deflect from anyone trying to make the same argument seriously.

    37. Re:We need more guns by fred6666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that now he had two options. Truck and gun. Leaving him only one (like in most sane countries) is a good start.

    38. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be honest, nobody's advocating for #2, even though it would be the most effective at solving this and several other issues.

      Even the people that claim to be for that sort of thing are more interested in propping up political dynasties than actually representing their "core values".

    39. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      taking out some shooting from high up on the ground is not easy.

      If everyone carried a machine gun, some bullet would be bound to hit him. At least, he would likely not dare complete his job. Or need to.

    40. Re:We need more guns by hord · · Score: 0

      And yet somehow when the good guy cops showed up with guns they were able to locate the shooter, shoot him, and end the situation. Completely asinine to assume that people with guns could ever take care of the problem. We need these new bio-engineered "police" and "military" people to do that for us.

    41. Re: We need more guns by slashrio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More than 90% of gun violence is not done with registered guns.
      So leave people, innocent civilians, who register their guns, alone please.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    42. Re:We need more guns by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Did you make this same flippant response after the Bataclan massacre in Paris?

      I believe 89 people died there, and Paris gun laws are plenty strict. It's almost like crazy murderous people don't care about the gun laws.

      --
      -Styopa
    43. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      The shooter killed HIMSELF.

      Please know the facts before you post next time. Thank you.

    44. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and mandatory free shooting classes for us citizens

    45. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The 25-year-old black man accused of a deadly shooting at a church near Nashville had a note in his car that made reference to revenge for the church massacre carried out by a white supremacist in Charleston, S.C., according to a report by The Associated Press.

      The note could help investigators better understand the state of mind of the gunman, identified as Emanuel Kidega Samson, when he fatally shot a woman and left half a dozen wounded as services were ending last Sunday at the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in the Nashville area. The note also suggests a possible motive for the attack.

      Mr. Samson, a legal resident of the United States who immigrated from Sudan in the 1990s, had attended the church in years past but had not been seen there more recently. Police said that four firearms believed to be Mr. Samson’s had been recovered: two pistols from the church and one pistol and one rifle from his vehicle.

      Robert Engle "physically engaged" with the suspected shooter. During the struggle between Engle and Samson, the shooter was shot in the chest, said Metro Nashville Police Chief Steve Anderson. Engle went to his vehicle, got his own weapon and held Samson at gunpoint until police arrived, police said.

    46. Re:We need more guns by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Whatever he is - he doesn't know what he's talking about. I doubt he would know how to load a bolt action rifle; or if he can identify the difference between a bolt action and a semi-automatic without googling it first..

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    47. Re:We need more guns by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2, Informative

      A good guy with a gun is valid in some circumstances. Not this one.

      Case in point is when a Sudanese immigrant shoots up a church in Tennessee and the usher goes to his car and gets his handgun.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    48. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should have read the rest and you know, tried to understand the words.

    49. Re: We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Then don't complain when scores of innocent people are murdered.

    50. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That opportunity creates the situations that "would have been stopped sooner" in the majority of cases. So we are obviously not talking about the minimum level here.

    51. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This. If we were only more like France, mass shootings would never happen, right?

      Dumb ass.

    52. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much simpler. No more religion.

    53. Re:We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 2

      True, but if it's incredibly difficult to get a gun, they won't have one when they want to use one. Look at the difference in numbers of people killed - that tells you the complete story, as opposed to comparing two single events.

    54. Re:We need more guns by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      If I was there and I had a gun, I would have stopped this after 6 people died. That's the magic number where I flip to Rambo mode and start randomly spraying bullets in a futile effort to stop the shooter. I think we need to execute Mr Stephen Paddock.

      - Ben Carson

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    55. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... people in the crowd had had rifles, they could have taken the shooter out ...

      Yeah, that's the outcome when a random group of people start shooting. It's difficult to argue with a 'good guy with a gun' story but reality isn't so tidy, especially when multiple firearms are involved.

      There's like 60 shootings a week in the USA where the wrong target was hit. Subtract the teens and children who snuck away with daddy's loaded gun and the number halves. Take away the real stupidity like the cop who dropped his gun, the mugging victim who shot himself, the too-common cleaning of a loaded gun and it's 20 people a week who are injured by neglect and inattention, and in many states it is declared a blameless accident. If 20 people a week drove their car like that and were declared blameless, there would be riots. Firearms cause the same level of destruction as a car, so why are firearm owners excused?

    56. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is such a stupid statement that you're either 14 or a troll, probably one of Putin's minions.

    57. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    58. Re:We need more guns by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      But who controls the automated turrets?

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    59. Re: We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, as the registration data from that could be used by Zombie Obama to take everyone's guns! The best way is to give everyone as many guns as they can handle, then some more, and never ask any questions of the owner. Ever. Guns are simply too important!!!

    60. Re: We need more guns by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      Why go with a bazooka when you can get a Nuke - a lil 'Un?

    61. Re:We need more guns by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Funny

      Alexa, shoot that guy.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    62. Re:We need more guns by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I think we need to execute Mr Stephen Paddock.

      You're too late.

      And now I know where the phrase "beat a dead horse" comes from. I never imagined it was from people wanting to beat or "execute" a corpse.

    63. Re:We need more guns by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful
      No. It is not the money that gives NRA power.

      It is their members who show up without fail to every election. Especially the low turn out local elections.

      Till Democrats motivate their base to show up in every little election, we will lose. Always.

      It is not money. It is lack of motivation by our base.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    64. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun deaths are only just outnumbered by traffic deaths, which gives a total of twice the number of deaths. Only a fool or a knave would make such an argument.

    65. Re:We need more guns by JudgeFurious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're wrong about the "good guy with a gun" theory being asinine but it is very much misunderstood and people seem to often think it means more than it does. a good guy with a gun stops shit all the time in this country. It happens regularly but it doesn't in some way confer super powers on these people and you can be a good guy with a gun and never have a chance just as easily (if not more often) as you can be one of the first to go down. What didn't happen here is a bunch of concealed carry people didn't go bat shit crazy and start shooting one another trying to find the killer. Good guys with guns wouldn't have made a lick of difference here but they also didn't make the situation worse either. That's better than it could have been.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    66. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was there and I had a gun, I would have stopped this after 6 people died.

      If I were there and I had a nuke I could have stopped hi after he fired the first bullet

    67. Re: We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative

      More than 90% of gun violence is not done with registered guns.

      Err....as far as I know, in most states you do NOT have to register a gun with the state.

      If buying from an FFL dealer, you do go through a background check. But that is not registering the weapon.

      And in many states, a private transaction between two private individuals, of the sale of a firearm, there is no need for a background check, just is pretty much the same as selling a used cell phone between two private parties.

      Things that ARE registered with the Feds....fully automatic weapons. And the Hughes amendment in 1986 pretty much bans the sale of new automatic weapons. The only ones floating around for sale that were manufactured prior to May 19, 1986.

      So, to get a full auto weapon, the supply is limited to what was manufactured prior to this date, AND you have to go through a pretty background check, and the cheapest you can get one usually is north of maybe $16K - $20K on the CHEAP side.

      The audio sounded like he was somehow using a full auto.

      If this were the case, then it would be pretty much the first use of full auto in the US for a crime like this in modern history.

      Oh...and other types of arms that need to have special NFA registration, are SBS, SBR and suppressors....those require background checks by the Feds, and $200 tax stamp too..

      But regular arms other than these, for most states, do not require registration with local, state or federal entities.

      Most gun owners are not criminals.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    68. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Then don't complain when scores of innocent people are murdered.

      Gun ownership is a right, murder isn't.

    69. Re:We need more guns by TimothyHollins · · Score: 3

      So what you're saying is it would take more area-capable firearms to combat this problem. I agree.

      If only Congress would allow concealed missile carry then someone could have launched a Tomahawk towards the general area of the shooter before he managed to kill so many.

    70. Re:We need more guns by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1, Informative

      Odd, /. ate my last comment (or I forgot to hit submit...)

      The sole purpose of a gun is to kill and maim. It has no other purpose. A truck is transportation. I could probably kill you with a spoon too, but again it was not designed as a weapon.

      Your comparison would be valid, say if the truck came from the factory with razor blades attached to the wheels, pikes sticking out all sides, and a big ass meat grinder in the front to munch up people and kick out soylent green hamburgers into the bed of the truck. And then yes, I would be for more regulation on said food trucks.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    71. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The well and truly modern way would be to monetize the drones by having them do Amazon/food/booze/etc deliveries while on patrol. After taking out the source of gunfire, it flies on to drop off your fifth of whiskey and large pizza. Also, advertising on the drones: "Kill Drones, brought to you by Viagra".

    72. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It will open fire at everything that sounds like a gunshot..

      I just look forward to the infinite loop.

    73. Re:We need more guns by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2

      FYI, the shooter in that incident actually shot himself, the usher just went and got his and held the shooter till the police got there.. not the best example, but I will concede it is better than most come up with for a good person with a gun.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    74. Re: We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      Then don't complain when scores of innocent people are murdered.

      There's always reason to complain when people are murdered.

      We complain when people are killed all around the US by drunk drivers don't we?

      Yet, we don't ban alcohol.....we don't ban BARS which by necessity mean people are drinking away from home and have to get home. If we were really serious about that, we'd ban letting bars have parking lots, as that just encourages people to drive there and get drunk....and I guarantee you that empty lot at night when the bar closes, was NOT full of cars driven home by sober people.

      But a gun is simply a tool. As is a car, or a knife, or a pressure cooker....etc.

      Most people do not misuse them or purposefully set out to kill a bunch of people with them.

      If that were the case, we'd have a LOT more dead people daily. That doesn't mean, however, we can't be shocked and complain about the few cases that do happen, and try to concentrate on the causes of the personal problems the limited number of criminals have that cause them to do things like this, rather than try to take away the rights of the VAST majority of grown adults that use adult tools in a responsible manner.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    75. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As he said "futile effort", I don't think it was meant to be taken literally. Or maybe he just doesn't know what the word means.

    76. Re: We need more guns by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Guns are not a silly hobby, they are an enshrined RIGHT. You are asking for something the government does not have the power to do.

      I see plenty of people cheering Trump on for trying to curb the enshrined right of freedom of speech of NFL players protesting. They seem to forget that symbolic speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. And while the government doesn't have the power to completely remove these rights, they do have the power to put reasonable checks on the exercise of those rights (it's ok to protest, but don't block streets; felons can't own firearms; automatic weapons should be heavily regulated, etc). Mandatory initial and annually recurring training (firearm safety, laws, and basic marksmanship) is an obvious control that should be put on firearms and, while it wouldn't stop incidents like this one in Vegas, would certainly reduce the number of accidental gun deaths every year.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    77. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      Essential Liberty != allowing mentally ill people to purchase automatic weapons

    78. Re:We need more guns by hey! · · Score: 2

      We just have to resign ourselves to the fact that this is the trade-off we've chosen. The universe doesn't owe us solutions that make us completely happy. The best you usually get is some kind of utilitarian trade-off.

      Events like this are the price of your enjoyment of your
      being able to enjoy high-power semi-automatic weapons with large, interchangeable magazines. That doesn't make what happened here you fault in any way; given that what happened here is possible you might as well go ahead and enjoy yourself. But where one thing is possible the other is also.

      So here's the trade-off: in return for your being able to indulge responsibly in what is a perfectly innocent hobby, someone you don't know is going to die or be injured in a horrific incident like this.

      And don't give me any good-guy-with-a-gun BS; it's not that it never happens, but it only happens often enough to be worth factoring into policy in fantasies. Both sides of the gun control debate are statistically irrational; your chance of being murdered today is near a historic low. And buying a gun with a 30 round magazine because you might "need" is is like buying the FHM "100 Sexiest Women Alive" issue because you might want to have sex with one of them.

      So it really boils down to philosophy, not security. What we are willing to give up (or force other people to give up) in order to prevent a few rare and horrible events?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    79. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why the sarcasm is obvious.

    80. Re:We need more guns by jacekm · · Score: 1

      We do not know yet if the weapon used in this crime was legal. If it wasn't your "toughening" of the laws would do nothing to stop this particular case. With the upcoming 3D printing technologies it might be easy to print a gun in 10 years or so regardless of the laws. Also any nut case can construct improvised explosive device from pretty much household chemicals. Such device placed in the crowd would take more than 50 lives. We have seen this in Iraq. Coming from opressive communist country I can see certain advantages of public to have a right to be armed.

    81. Re:We need more guns by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Lets face it.. if killing 20 toddlers in a school did not change the laws

      Right. Because it was ALREADY illegal for the crazy person who did that to have the guns, and he killed the person who legally owned them in order to take them and go kill people. You were hoping that the laws on the books that made everything about his actions illegal were made to make his actions MORE illegal? It's hard to make the fact that he murdered the gun owner and took the guns somehow ... more illegal.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    82. Re:We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      The problem for the gun advocates is they campaigning for a minimum level of gun violence, yet they never tell us what that minimum level is,

      Well, there is no way to give that number.

      The ONLY way you will get the number of gun deaths to 0, would be to immediately ban all guns, and ammunition sales, And the confiscate all existing firearms and ammo from the citizenry.

      Now....do you realistically see that ever happening in the US, where private arms ownership is a full amendment to the US Constitution, from which all law is driven?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    83. Re: We need more guns by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      The car argument would be great if it weren't much easier to obtain a gun than a driver's license in most places.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    84. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why everyone should be carrying proper miniguns. There are some excelent videos on YouTube comparing miniguns with e.g. 50cal machine guns. If only 10% of the crowd had been carrying a proper minigun and only 50% of them had started firing in the first minute or so then I very much doubt anybody in the hotel would have been in a state to keep on firing at the crowd.

      (mod +5 informative - there is no +10 sick mod)

    85. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      the fundamental purpose of the right to bear arms, is to resist government tyranny. everything else is nice and all, defense and hunting. but fundamentally, it's to stop government tyranny. that doesn't change regardless of tragedy.

      to paraphrase shapiro, it's because his grandparents didn't think tyranny was possible that they are now ashes.

      the america character was once, and still is for many, that the ultimate guarantor of your liberties is you.

    86. Re: We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 1

      This is the thing, though: It's easy enough to stop cars from running people over. It's also a lot harder to turn a cooker into a bomb than simply picking up the object you already have in your possession. It's a lot harder to make sure crowds of tens of thousands are protected against guns if people have guns everywhere, and any discussion about their inherent danger versus their relative lack of use (compared to cars and cooking pots) if they continue to be fetishized. If we could have a sensible discussion where guns are not elevated above all other utensils, we might get to the bottom of this.

    87. Re: We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 1

      How about we decide not to target innocent people who buy pressure cookers? Or say different prayers? Or have the wrong color? Or own a gun? Or drive a truck? Or are different than us?

      Let's just not send the police after innocent people at all.

    88. Re:We need more guns by eth1 · · Score: 1

      No, that's the old way. In a modern world, automated guns are placed at the corner of every street. It will open fire at everything that sounds like a gunshot. The only way to stop shootings like this. And it will make the excuse "guns don't kill people, people do" invalid. Developing, installing and maintaining such automated guns will also create a lot of jobs. It's gonna be great.

      Lots and lots of jobs... Since firing at "everything that sounds like a gunshot" would, of course, mean they'd decimate each other the first time one of them opened fire, necessitating the replacement of all of them...

      The shareholders of the manufacturer would probably go around trolling the systems with firecrackers.

    89. Re: We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      The car argument would be great if it weren't much easier to obtain a gun than a driver's license in most places.

      Well, there's not laws saying you have to have a license to drive or buy a car if you are only going to be using it on private land.

      You get a drivers license to prove you know how to drive on roads crowded with other folks driving cars.

      I believe it is illegal to discharge a weapon in public in most places (cities, towns, etc) that is not on a private range set up specifically for such activity.

      And it is illegal to use either a gun or a motorized vehicle to murder another human being...both have laws covering both activities with either tool. Fortunately, most people are sane and do not use either to murder people.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    90. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Wrong. Actions against innocents are never the right answer.

      This. I'm an innocent physicist. I demand my right to make nuclear bombs now. Why should I be punished just because the average member of the public doesn't know how to make a bomb?

    91. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, WTF do you do with all those mental health folks with gun, confiscate them? How do you even determine if they are not fit? Who's going to do the determination, and how dangerous of a job is that? Who's going to pay for it? Etc... People just don't think these things through.

    92. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      most gun fatalities are from handguns

    93. Re: We need more guns by msauve · · Score: 1

      You don't need a driver's license to buy a car, and the lack of a driver's license isn't going to stop someone intent on driving into a crowd.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    94. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google 'Democide' before you set about disarming people...

      Oh wait - you're part of the government, and you need to disarm your 'cattle' before they wise up and turn on you, and execute you for enslaving them!

    95. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except your silly idea means we do not take any preventative action over anything. Remove all safeties, remove all controls, remove all regulation, because until someone does something bad, we should never try to stop them first.

    96. Re:We need more guns by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

      Right, because there is no advantage to being far above your target as opposed to being far below your target.

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    97. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      muh guns! dem redcoats might come-a knockin!!

    98. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you one of Putin's buddies? I'm sure I've seen you with him.

    99. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things meant for killing people:
      - Guns
      - Bombs
      - Poisons

      Things not meant for killing people:
      - Vans
      -Pressure Cookers
      -Pencils
      -Bananas

      See the difference? Is there overlap? Could you use a banana to kill someone? Sure. When the number of people killed with bananas approaches the number of people killed with guns, I'll expect action. Until then, anyone who can't/won't see the difference is delusional.

    100. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. My firearms have never been used to kill or maim despite quite heavy use of them. God willing they never will be used for that either, just as god willing my car will never be used to kill or maim either.

      You see, it's called sport shooting. Where you simply shoot to knock down targets or put holes in a piece of paper. A large number of gun owners only interest in guns is to do this. The thing is, in your eyes, you don't see this as legitimate, thus to you, it's not considered a valid purpose. But this is a flaw on you, not on the hobby. I'm sure I could ridicule your hobbies just as you will undoubtedly want to do with mine.

    101. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is wrong with people, is that we respect the right to carry and bear arms that is guaranteed to us in our constitution...

      OK. Everyone has a right to the kind of firearms around during the signing of the Constitution.

    102. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The NRA has fought multiple lawsuits so that blind people could buy guns. And not "legally blind" where they just have very bad eyesight. People who can't even see light and dark.

      On the mental health front, the NRA has fought to prevent any restrictions until the person is institutionalized or legally declared insane. Therapist is concerned about a patient's suicidal ideation and repeated statements that the patient want to "take out" people with their arsenal? The NRA has fought very hard against efforts to do anything with that arsenal. Including fighting against being able to go to a court in an attempt to get that arsenal away from the crazy person.

      The NRA tells a story about keeping guns away from crazy people, and then fights very hard to prevent people from being declared crazy. You've only listened to the first part, and haven't looked at their actions surrounding the second.

    103. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we need less country music.

    104. Re:We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US gun lobby doesn't even want to restrict sales to those who already have mental health issues.

      I think the problem with most laws that have been put forth for removing a person's 2nd amendment right, for reasons of such things as mental illness, spousal abuse, etc....is that they are set up such that it immediately removes the rights from the accused, and leaves little if no rights to due process for that person to either defend themselves against the charges or have those rights restored once remediation steps have been made.

      But they way most of these laws have been written, mere accusation by a disgruntled spouse or any party that may have a grudge against the accused, causes the accused to immediately have their rights revoked and allow to have their property confiscated. Basically they laws proposed have made you guilty until proven innocent.

      We don't like that with any other of the amendments in the constitution, why should we be so willing to allow it for the 2nd?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    105. Re: We need more guns by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      Actually, everyone is guilty. https://kottke.org/13/06/you-c...

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    106. Re:We need more guns by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      If you had taken the time to read some of my other statements, you would note that I am not calling for a ban on guns outright, only meaningful laws and regulation related to gun control. Will that end all gun violence, no, would it reduce it significantly, my guess would be yes, but we will never know till something changes.

      In this particular case, had the owner secured their weapons appropriately, the shooter may not have been able to get a hold of them. Now could the shooter have gone somewhere else, sure, was there any way to prevent this tragedy, as it stood then, no, there were already too may legal firearms out in the open. But with current gun laws, it is difficult to hold the legal owner of a firearm liable when their weapon is taken from them and used in a crime. They just have to report is stolen and they are free of any guilt, even though it was stolen due to their own negligence. In the event they did have it locked up and secured, then yes, they were responsible and the thief was determined, so they are no longer liable, but most stolen weapons are ones that were secured poorly or not at all. Time to start holding those people responsible.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    107. Re: We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except your silly idea means we do not take any preventative action

      Yeah, systems that protect innocent people have that drawback. Totalitarianism is much more straightforward -- you just do whatever you want, prevent anything, without considering innocence or guilt.

    108. Re:We need more guns by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Every industry association, trade group, owners' groups, sporting group ... ALL of them ... call loudly and routinely for the prevention of mentally unfit people obtaining firearms, and for the rigorous prosecution of anybody that participates in knowingly being part of providing a gun to someone like that

      Well, not exactly.

      https://www.usatoday.com/story...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    109. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      t's a sad truth, but a reality because in the US, money reigns supreme, and the NRA has a metric shit ton of money that they throw around

      Actually, the NRA has two things. Money is one of them, as you have said.

      The second is a rabid following who will vote for anything that the NRA says is gun control. No matter what else that particular politician does.

      Politician A fights to keep your industry alive, lower your taxes, rebuild the roads you drive on every day, but wants concealed carry to require a permit.
      Politician B fights to end your job, raise your taxes and destroy all infrastructure, punch you in the face every Tuesday, but wants concealed carry without a permit.

      NRA supporters will always vote for Politician B. No matter how much they are hurt by all the rest of the policies.

    110. Re:We need more guns by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      Yes they are used in sports, and hunting, and what not. But their purpose, intent and design is to kill (note I never said people as the intended target). When they were first invented, sport was not something they had in mind. The framers of the 2nd amendment were not exactly thinking of firearms as a sportsman tool, it was a weapon. And if you saw some of my other comments, I actually stated as much, that I enjoy shooting and grew up with guns. So I am not anti gun. I was just taking apart the OP's comment that I responded to that a trucks initial design is not as a weapon, however a firearms design is, therefore you cannot compare the 2

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    111. Re:We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's a sad truth, but a reality because in the US, money reigns supreme, and the NRA has a metric shit ton of money that they throw around

      And exactly where do you think the NRA gets its money? Yep, you guessed, it, from US citizens that want their interest protected, just like any other lobby for congress.

      That just shows there are plenty of folks in the US that wish to have their 2nd amendment rights protected.

      Did you know that the CDC is not permitted to research gun violence

      Hmm....CDC == Center for Disease Control.....ok, I'm trying to figure out why the CDC would be the organization to study gun violence....I mean, what disease is gun violence caused by?

      Are you saying that gun violence is bacterial or viral or something?

      That would be as silly as having NASA promote Islamic awareness issues.....but...err....wait.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    112. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Attack these infidels by your own means, make France and their souls tremble," he said in a part of the message directed at French Muslims, according to a full translation of the video by MEMRI. "I call upon you to prioritize police officers... I have just killed a police officer and I have just killed his wife. I call upon you to kill policemen, prison guards, journalists, and especially – yes, yes, yes, yes, listen to me well and apply this – attack especially the journalists."

      So say Muzzi-wog ISIS who do not obey gun-laws. White men can be Muzzi-wogs ... praise pig-fucking MuJamuD ... just like this Las Vegas butcher. Next ...?

    113. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that now he had two options. Truck and gun. Leaving him only one (like in most sane countries) is a good start.

      Sane countries like France and their wonderful music festivals. I hear the ones in Paris are quite Nice, but the special effects are a bit too real.

    114. Re:We need more guns by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Exactly.
      "On January 8, 2011, just a week into her third term, Giffords was a victim of an assassination attempt near Tucson" From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      A bystander (A) with a handgun overwhelmed the assassin.
      Another bystander(B), who was not as close, assumed A was the assassin and tried to kill or disarm him.
      The misunderstanding was just resolved at the last moment.

      If you are close to the action, and have the nerves, the skills and the opportunity, you can likely positively interfere.

      As soon as you are more than 30 meters away, you most likely become part of the problem very quickly.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    115. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is one way to get more gun control in the US.

      Hand out assault rifles to Black Lives Matter protesters. Gun control laws would suddenly become very, very important to many of the people who are horrified by gun control today.

    116. Re: We need more guns by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      citation needed :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    117. Re:We need more guns by hey! · · Score: 1

      Especially if you count suicides. But when we're talking mass shootings, long guns with very large magazines are more common, and when we're talking about mass sniping, handguns aren't a factor at all.

      There is really only one radical (and bound to be unpopular) thing you could do to reduce the harm created by mass shootings: ban detachable magazines. It would take a long time to have any measurable effect given the number of guns that use them currently in circulation, but in any case we're talking about rare events, relative to population size.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    118. Re: We need more guns by cb88 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "So, to get a full auto weapon, the supply is limited to what was manufactured prior to this date"

      Its more like to get a LEGAL full auto weapon... illegally is another story and there is basically nothing that can be done to stop people from illegally proliferating full auto weapons as they are pretty low tech to begin with.... even a shoestring can be used as a delay mechanism to make some semi-autos into a full auto (and for a short while a shoestring was classified as a full auto machine gun as retarded as that is).

      The real solution is to stop being afraid of guns, be ready if your time comes... because it's coming someday guns or no, and America wouldn't be what it is without guns, we would have been overthrown by the Communist Japanese 80 years ago... and we probably wouldn't exist and the world certainly wouldn't be as free as it is. The solution is if you are friend of the family of someone that was killed, or injured see if there is anything you can do for them just be a good person and quite trying to change the world into something idealistic... every time someone tries that millions die or end up as essentially slaves to their government, because you can't be idealistic as long as humans are humans, you must have a system of checks and balances and guns in the hands of citizens are one of them.

    119. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
      Veterans deemed âoementally incompetentâ by the VA are no longer placed on the list of individuals who could be denied weapons permits. Passed by the house. Backed by NRA.
      The rule that the Social Security Administration (SSA) must report disability recipients with severe mental disorders to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
      Revoked by the house. Applauded by the NRA.

    120. Re:We need more guns by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The only type of person capable of taking out that shooter from the crowd at the critical moment would be a fully trained and equipped sniper with combat experience"

      Wrong. Hunters regularly pull off 300+ yard shots all the time with a piddly .30-06.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    121. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shooting is still an Olympic sport. Just sayin'

    122. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will open fire at everything that sounds like a gunshot.

      Including the other automated guns.

    123. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you think making possession of firearms illegal matters to a suicidal shooter?

      Tell me, does making possession of illegal drugs prevent people from taking them? Does the consequences of taking hard drugs dissuade people?

      And yet, unlike guns, illegal drugs are generally actually a pain in the ass to manufacture in your basement, especially when you can't get the base components without it being a big pain in the ass.

      Call me back when they successfully limit possession of steel and CNC routers like Ghost Gunner and I'll understand your point of view.

    124. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US gun lobby doesn't even want to restrict sales to those who already have mental health issues.

      That's just simply a lie. And you know it. So the question is, what do you hope to achieve by lying? Who are you thinking is going to be persuaded by you to do what, based on a trivially debunked bit of falsehood like that? Every industry association, trade group, owners' groups, sporting group ... ALL of them ... call loudly and routinely for the prevention of mentally unfit people obtaining firearms, and for the rigorous prosecution of anybody that participates in knowingly being part of providing a gun to someone like that. Which you know, but about which you're lying. So again - why lie? Who are you talking to that you think is so unable to do a little homework and recognize that you're lying?

      http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/513126985/house-votes-to-overturn-obama-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

      http://www.newsweek.com/trump-set-overturn-guns-mental-health-regulation-557237

      http://www.snopes.com/congress-gun-legal-mental/

    125. Re:We need more guns by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't know the difference between a disease and a infection. Gun violence may very well be caused by some mental disease and honestly, mentally ill people should not have access to firearms.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    126. Re: We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's easy enough to stop cars from running people over.

      Tell that to all the dead people in EU that have been victim of being killed by a terrorist using a motorized vehicle as a weapon.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    127. Re:We need more guns by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's controlled by AI, similar to how self-driving cars work.

    128. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 2

      50 dead is 3.5 weeks in chicago.

    129. Re:We need more guns by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I think the idea would be that nobody would control them... they would deterministically respond to any situations that warranted action occurring in the immediate vicinity.

      The question really would be who controls the placement of these guns.

    130. Re:We need more guns by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The storm drains on the street would help a lot, removing the need to mop up a lot of blood.

    131. Re:We need more guns by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 2

      No Alexa, that guy!

    132. Re: We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      wait... that argument seems pretty damn close to racial profiling. i'm not sure if you wanted to go in that direction, but sure. lets look at demographics and paint them all with additional scrutiny and stop and frisk.

    133. Re:We need more guns by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Don't be ridiculous.... they'd run out of ammunition.

    134. Re:We need more guns by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yeah, never mind that pesky 2nd Amendment and all the court decisions holding it up. What we need are more crappy judges who write their own laws arbitrarily abrogating the liberties of the people because the left can't actually get laws passed that make sane sense.

      Filed under the "you have to pass it to see whats in it".

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    135. Re:We need more guns by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The best news article I have seen so far come out of this tragedy is this guy who didn't duck down, and instead drank his beer and looked to spot the shooter, then gave him the finger.

      Brave, stupid, and conveying a message from all of us.

    136. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The problem for the gun advocates is that they are attempting to call a weapon a tool.

      Tools help people make or fix things.

      Weapons help people kill, maim or injure.

      A gun is not a tool, unless you want to use it as a hammer (ha ha).

      A gun is a weapon.

      Stop referring to a gun as if it has any purpose other than killing, maiming or injuring people.

      Never, ever assume you can just point a gun at someone and have them do what you say. There is an implicit threat of death, maiming or injury there and unless you are prepared to follow through on that threat the gun is useless.

      Hunting is still using the gun to kill, maim or injure. Just because the target isn't a person doesn't make the gun less of a weapon.

      If the NRA wants to step up and call a gun a weapon I will listen, but then they must accept that weapons need limits in a civilized nation. Otherwise we are no longer civilized.

    137. Re: We need more guns by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0

      Fantastic job wiggling around the point there, mate. Don't let the real world intrude on your thought experiments. Stay pure!

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    138. Re: We need more guns by DulcetTone · · Score: 1

      Witholding access to firearms from unstable people is too much to ask?

      Perhaps you can outline the issues you have with asking drivers to take a vision test?

      --
      tone
    139. Re:We need more guns by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Those are very rare. If anybody is interested, look up "defensive gun uses". The number of estimated defensive gun uses in the US ranges all the way from 80,000 to 2.4 million per year, to prevent bodily harm or death.

      Don't forget to subtract the numbers for documented harm by firearms from the numbers for allegedly prevented harm.

      More Americans have died from domestic firearms than the total number of American deaths in every war and conflict the US has ever fought, combined. Of the more than 11,500 firearm deaths so far this year, only around 1,500 claim to be defensive.
      Is a seven times higher risk of being killed than of using it for defense a good bargain?

    140. Re:We need more guns by epine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is lack of motivation by our base.

      Consistently high cortisol levels and an overactive amygdala turns people into joiners. It's a safety reflex to run with your own crowd.

      My politics are the politics of less cortisol, and I'm not especially keen to sign up to anyone else's mindless, group-thinking base.

      Fear is a weird thing. Having your gun taken away: soul destroying. Trump negotiating with North Korea: mild anxiety. Not only do you have to whip up fear to mobilize your base, but it also has to be fear of something puny, yet personal.

    141. Re:We need more guns by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      "The NRA has fought multiple lawsuits so that blind people could buy guns. "

      That is another lie. Do you guys even look this stuff up before going off the rails with it?

    142. Re: We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Witholding access to firearms from unstable people is too much to ask?

      As long as there's legal due process, no.

    143. Re:We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Essential Liberty != allowing mentally ill people to purchase automatic weapons

      I seriously doubt a mentally ill person could legally purchase a full auto weapon.

      He'd have to pass the background check by the feds which takes easily 9mos at the shortest, and pay the $200 tax stamp...AND...have no less than about $15-$20K to buy the cheapest of full auto weapons out there on the market. Which I can assure you, would not be really effective a more than say 100 yards...at least not with aiming.

      People like yourself keep conflating "scary" looking semi-automatic weapons, with fully automatic weapons which are very short supply and VERY difficult and expensive to acquire legally.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    144. Re:We need more guns by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It is their members who show up without fail to every election. Especially the low turn out local elections.

      Another group that show up at every election are the old religious people, people that are not uncomfortable with guns being around.

      And for every NRA member there are many other gun owners that are not NRA members.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    145. Re: We need more guns by the_saint1138 · · Score: 2

      As the other poster said, it's not really easy to stop cars from running people over. Happens all the time (usually not intentionally).

      Also, it's not hard to turn a pressure cooker into a bomb as you're claiming.
      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...: "Pressure cooker bombs are relatively easy to construct".
      High explosives (like TNT, C4) are not required and low explosives can be used (gasoline, gunpowder), which is part of the reason for how easy they are to make.

    146. Re:We need more guns by eth1 · · Score: 1

      The problem for the gun advocates is they campaigning for a minimum level of gun violence, yet they never tell us what that minimum level is, or how to keep normal people from buying guns, losing their minds, and then killing off a bunch of the rest of us. And if you have ever spent time with the mentally ill, you'd realize a good many of them can come off normal for everyday life. There's a percentage that will go all the way down the rat hole. Some will even take their medication on the way down.

      If someone has lost their mind, and is intent on killing a bunch of people, whether or not they have access to firearms makes no difference. At that point, there's almost certainly going to be some minimum level of violence that happens before they can be stopped. Don't have guns? Build a bomb. Can't do that? Just call in a fake bomb threat to the local elementary, and drive your car through the crowd when they come out.

      The sad truth is that you can't stop that sort of behavior, no matter what you do, so please don't trample everyone else's rights with futile attempts. Universal access to cheap mental healthcare would probably be the most help, but still won't fix everyone (and remember, if someone thinks that accessing said mental healthcare will force them to give up their own rights, they might not get help).

    147. Re:We need more guns by Solandri · · Score: 1

      He had a helluva lot more options than truck and gun. I won't mention the myriad of other options so as not to give people ideas. But some of them could've easily killed hundreds if not thousands at a concert/gathering like this.

      If the only options you can think of are trucks and guns, then you're still stuck in the good guy obedient citizen mentality. Before 9/11, the Philippines police cracked a terrorist cell which included papers and computer documents about a plot to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings. When I heard that on the news, I dismissed it as the Philippines police grandstanding and trying to exaggerate their bust. I had a good guy obedient citizen mentality back then, and the concept of someone willfully flying an airliner full of people into a building full of people was simply unthinkable to me at the time. "Unthinkable" was a word I didn't truly understand until 9/11, and I realized the Philippines police had been right all along. And I had stupidly refused to see the obvious truth because my good guy obedient citizen blinders made it unthinkable.

      Stop trying to blame the objects. Blame the person for once. Understand that people doing things like this aren't good people who were tempted by the allure of evil objects into committing these heinous acts. They are evil or mentally unstable people, whose sole goal, whose sole driving purpose before committing these acts was to kill as many people as possible. The objects were merely a tool, a means to fulfill that intent. Once you understand that, then you can start thinking like they do about ways to carry out their schemes. And you'll realize that there are a hopelessly endless number of ways for them to carry out their intentions for us to successfully fight them by playing whack-a-mole and simply banning potentially deadly object with legitimate alternate uses.

    148. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, nah.

      It is not easy to stop cars from running over or crashing into people.

      People driving cars have killed more people by accident in the last 50 years than firearms have been used to purposely kill people. Think about that for a minute. Imagine if the sheeple out there realised that most of them drive a fantastic murder weapon, it's just never been labelled as such.

    149. Re:We need more guns by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Those are brown people in Chicago, who the folks on the left don't consider as important. It is necessary to capitalize on incidents like this involving white deaths to prevent people from noticing that a place like Chicago with some of the strictest gun control laws, is where many, many brown people kill each other.

      If you are a young male person-of-color you are much much MUCH more likely to be killed by a fellow young male person-of-color than a police officer.

    150. Re:We need more guns by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking about this on the way into work today. Assuming people in the crowd were armed it would have been with handguns. The shooter was a good city block away up high in a hotel. What are the odds people returning fire would have been able to score a hit on the shooter without hitting people in adjacent hotel rooms? This of course assumes they could figure out where the shooter is in the first place. Snipers are notoriously difficult to spot.

      In my opinion the odds that return fire would have done anything except make the situation worse are extremely remote.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    151. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of his best friends are guns.

    152. Re:We need more guns by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1

      The cure is worse than the disease in America's case. There are three possible treatments:

      1. Stronger controls on guns
      2. Free, high quality mental healthcare

      Sorry but a swift (and rather basic) Google search can point you to a trove of articles that dispel the myth that mental illness is strongly associated with gun crime

      For example:

      Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum, less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness. Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.

      source

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    153. Re: We need more guns by someone1234 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Communist Japanese ??? Are you kidding or I miss something from American history?

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    154. Re:We need more guns by mrbester · · Score: 1

      At night, in a panicked crowd with bright lights dazzling the vision and no clear target or even indication of where the target vaguely is? Yeah, right. They're all Martin Riggs style superhumans. Do me a lemon.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    155. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't like that with any other of the amendments in the constitution, why should we be so willing to allow it for the 2nd?

      Because due process can't bring back the dead. Most gun control measures are little more than feel-good knee-jerk gestures that will have little to no positive impact, but if you have reason to believe that a person with firearms is mentally unstable and has a reason to act (e.g. an abusive spouse being served with divorce papers and a restraining order), there's a very real chance that doing nothing will lead to a pile of bodies. Yes, that's a bunch of "ifs" and "buts" and we only hear about the cases where the abusive spouse murders the divorce-seeking partner and anyone who happens to be nearby. That doesn't mean we should just dismiss the whole thing outright without having a serious discussion to work out how to implement something that respects 2nd Amendment rights while also protecting those who believe that their lives are at risk. Current implementations might need some work, but the basic concept is valid. You can give back guns, you can't give back lives.

    156. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh,

      By "vans" I assume you mean vehicles.

      People driving vehicles have killed more people in the last 50 years by accident than people using firearms to purposely kill other people.

      Just so you don't miss it, vehicles cause more death by accident than guns do on purpose. Vehicles are a fantastic killing machine.

      Additionally, guns are mainly "meant" for sport shooting. That is now their primary purpose. More bullets are fired down range at paper and steel targets than people by many orders of magnitude.

    157. Re:We need more guns by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, that person chose guns. Probably because it's what that person thought would be the most effective, the most deadly, and with the highest chances of success. Why even allow that option in the first place?

      There aren't only less shootings. There are a lot less murders in other comparably rich and developed countries with more restrictive gun laws.

    158. Re: We need more guns by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0, Troll

      The difference is that computers are designed for innocent use, and often have features to prevent misuse. Guns are designed to kill things, and that's pretty much their only use.

      We regulate things based on risk. Cars are medium risk, they can injure or kill but that's not their primary purpose and they have extensive features to make them safer. Even so, you need a licence and some mandatory training/testing to drive one. Interestingly the US has a very low bar for driving, in comparison to other developed nations.

      What seems to have screwed this generally pretty successful system up is the US constitutional right to bare arms. Unfortunately it doesn't specify what kind of arms, but it does seem to recognize the need for some control and training with the "as part of a well organized militia" bit. Emphasis on "well organized", which I'm sure someone will interpret as "keeps at least 10,000 rounds neatly stacked in their basement".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    159. Re:We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't know the difference between a disease and a infection. Gun violence may very well be caused by some mental disease and honestly, mentally ill people should not have access to firearms.

      "Pissed off" isn't a disease as far as I know.

      I"m sure there are *some* mentally ill people that have gone out to kill people like this, but I doubt it is the majority of them. The ones that do likely are quite mentally stable, they just have some religious or political bent that pisses them off, or maybe it is a fit of passion.

      But I doubt most of them are mentally ill. Otherwise we'd have more people innocent by reason of insanity than serving time.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    160. Re:We need more guns by denzacar · · Score: 1

      The question really would be who controls the placement of these guns.

      Placement? Oh come on...
      Put lighter, low caliber ones, on flying drones and heavier ones on a wheeled or tracked platform.

      It's only a temporary measure anyway, until proper humanoid and bird-like hunter-seeker units are developed.
      Sure... early models will be ugly and have rubber skin... but that's a small price to pay for security of our children.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    161. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't wiggle around the point. He showed that your point was off mark.

    162. Re:We need more guns by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's gonna be great.

      Until one of the gun fires and another automated gun that shoots at everything that sounds like a gunshot destroys it, only to be destroyed by another automated gun that shoots at everything that sounds like a gunshot, only to be destroyed by another automated gun that shoots at everything that sounds like a gunshot...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    163. Re:We need more guns by denzacar · · Score: 1

      The one in a hat! THE ONE IN A RED HAT!!!

      Bad Alexa! Bad!

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    164. Re:We need more guns by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      If your laptop or your cellphone was stolen, and the person who stole it used it to hack a bank, and $450,000 was stolen and never recovered, should you be liable because you didn't have the door of your car locked and the windows rolled up?

    165. Re:We need more guns by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Clearly, lasers are the way to go.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    166. Re: We need more guns by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Your "silly" computing "hobby" was just used to breach Equifax.

      I sincerely doubt that any of my computing hobby activities bears any resemblance to what happened at Equifax greater than a gun bears to a hairdryer.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    167. Re:We need more guns by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      Also worth noting here that reportedly the dude set the fire alarm off in his room, which led to him being located.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    168. Re:We need more guns by Arashi256 · · Score: 1

      I am not American but yeah - I thought after Sandy Hook something would be done, that surely, *surely* 20 toddlers being gunned down in cold blood would change american attitudes to guns. But no - all that happened was that a bunch of people thought it was a conspiracy and nobody died at all and that it was a huge government cover-up to take away their guns. To the point where there's hate campaigns against grieving parents of murdered children. You can't fight that kind of fever. I assume it's just too embedded in the society to remove, regardless of the consequences. My sympathies for your next entirely preventable tragedy, America.

    169. Re:We need more guns by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Dear Alexa Support,

      This morning I asked Alexa "Who's that Guy" and it misinterpreted what I said as "shoot that Guy". This is problematic for me because I now have a dead Jehovah's witness on my doorstep. I guess what I'm asking is... can I have a refund for my Alexa?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    170. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a bump stock... a 100% legal alternative to a full auto. It is slightly slower firing, but not by much.

    171. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and just before the Knights season inauguration. ouch.

    172. Re:We need more guns by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Since firing at "everything that sounds like a gunshot" would, of course, mean they'd decimate each other the first time one of them opened fire, necessitating the replacement of all of them...

      That's what frangible ammo is for.
      Saves you a fortune in repair costs on your drones. Just slap a new coat of paint on its metal exterior and it's good to go!

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    173. Re:We need more guns by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      No. A firearm's purpose is to accelerate a projectile to high velocity. I'm not being facetious, this is the actual purpose. The projectile that is fired from the firearm has whatever designated purpose the operator decides it will be used for. So if the operator decides to shoot at a piece of paper or steel then that is the purpose of that projectile.

    174. Re:We need more guns by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      The real problem is this guy was mentally ill or radicalized, but that is a tough problem to solve so instead we get to hear yet again about a wedge issue that politicians can exploit to get money and power.

    175. Re:We need more guns by deadwill69 · · Score: 1

      A few comments:

      A 30-06 is not piddly It has been used to attain confirmed kills past 1000 yds.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Hathcock's second-longest confirmed kill was 1200 yards (1097 m) using a "standard" USMC sniper rifle chambered in .30-06 Springfield

      A few hunters do regularly pull off shots at 300+ yds. This is not the norm. Most hunters rarely fire over 100 yds. They are calm and have every advantage on their side. Now add someone shooting back. It adds a whole level of stress and add the fact you have to find them.

      It you are not "combat experienced" or have a high level of military/SWAT training you will not even be able to find the target, let alone have enough where-with-all to be able to aim and place an accurate shot. Most military and law enforcement train for this. And they usually use a piddly 30-06 or the even more piddly .308 (7.62 x 51mm which has a confirmed kill at 1,367 yds)

    176. Re:We need more guns by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They just have to report is stolen and they are free of any guilt, even though it was stolen due to their own negligence. In the event they did have it locked up and secured, then yes, they were responsible and the thief was determined, so they are no longer liable, but most stolen weapons are ones that were secured poorly or not at all. Time to start holding those people responsible.

      Maybe I'm wrong here, but while reporting the gun stolen may absolve someone of *criminal* liability, I don't think it prevents them from being sued by victims or the victims' families.

      Of course, in the case of Sandy Hook, the idiot mother was killed by her son so she wasn't alive to sue afterwards. Plus, the type of people who own guns usually don't have that much in the way of assets to be sued for: taking the negligent gun owner's trailer home and 1980s-era pickup truck isn't going to even pay for their legal fees, and I'm not sure they'd even be able to collect that much (IANAL, but I don't think you can make someone homeless with a court judgment, even if you wanted to for revenge).

    177. Re: We need more guns by Macthorpe · · Score: 0

      This one attack, by one person, killed and wounded more innocent people than all three major terrorist attacks in the EU in 2017 combined. 8 separate people in Spain carrying out separate attacks in concert failed to kill even half of the people that this one guy did with his easily obtained automatic rifle.

      Americans need to stop dodging culpability for perpetuating the cultural and legal frameworks that enable this to happen over, and over, and over again.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    178. Re:We need more guns by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Some of us would be satisfied with the corpse of the shooter being hung out to dry in the sun, where the crows can pick at it.

    179. Re:We need more guns by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Murdering a load of random strangers is by definition a sign of some sort of psychotic breakdown.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    180. Re:We need more guns by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      If you want to fight tyranny then the biggest thing that you need to prevent is centralised (government, private, or corporate) control over distribution of information. Keeping small arms in circulation doesn't appear to do anything to prevent this.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    181. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont worry, its only dead Americans not anybody important.
      Raises the worlds average IQ, whats not to like.

    182. Re:We need more guns by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I guess the points to consider are:

      - 5% diagnosed with a mental illness. How many undiagnosed? If you don't have free high quality mental healthcare and a culture that finds mental health embarrassing and discourages males in particular from seeking help, you might well find that your diagnosis rate is low.

      - 120,000 gun related killings, but 175,000 gun related suicides. Most suicides are the result of mental illness.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    183. Re:We need more guns by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      People killed, or people killed per capita? People often like to cite the former, as if the US isn't the 3rd most populous country in the world and compare it to, say, France, which has 1/5th the number of people. The US isn't at the top for the latter, countries like Finland and Norway actually lead, and that's even if you ignore terrorist attacks. Mind you, the US definitely does have a problem with gun violence and mass shootings, and a fairly bad one, but not as bad as anti-gun activists would have you believe.

      Also, gun control doesn't do much to stop deliberate pre-meditated attacks, which this one sounds like to me (either that or he really, really hated Kei$ha).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    184. Re:We need more guns by hey! · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Chicago is an enormous city; if you add up the homicides over the course of the year and divide by population, it has nowhere near the top murder rate in the country. In fact it doesn't even crack the top 30.

      This is the problem with people's use of statistics: they still react emotionally to the most provocative arrangement of the facts.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    185. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People driving vehicles have killed more people in the last 50 years by accident than people using firearms to purposely kill other people.

      Just so you don't miss it, vehicles cause more death by accident than guns do on purpose. Vehicles are a fantastic killing machine.

      Additionally, guns are mainly "meant" for sport shooting. That is now their primary purpose. More bullets are fired down range at paper and steel targets than people by many orders of magnitude.

      BTW, I'd take those odds.

    186. Re: We need more guns by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Guns are designed to kill things, and that's pretty much their only use.

      News Flash: killing things is a big part of the process of life.

      In fact, in said process, everything eventually dies.

    187. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so...guns ARENT protecting people, is that what you're inferring?

    188. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most gun owners are not criminals.

      But somehow, almost all criminals seem to be gun owners, which pretty much means the current system isn't working worth a damn -- because "give everyone guns and figure out the criminals later" is a stupid idea.

    189. Re: We need more guns by the_saint1138 · · Score: 0

      Would mod up if I had points...

      Just remember that the yahoos cheering Trump's comments don't speak for all conservatives. While around 3/4 republicans currently "approve" of Trump (a pretty low bar, but it's a disappointing figure nonetheless), there are quite a few conservatives like myself who are vocally opposed to Trump and his attacks on personal freedoms in this country. I hope he gets prosecuted for this.

      I agree that more training for those who want to carry firearms would be good, but gun owners rightfully fear more gun legislation. The government has a history of badly implementing good intentions when it comes to gun law.

    190. Re: We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I sincerely doubt that any of my computing hobby activities bears any resemblance to what happened at Equifax...

      Just as regular gun owners' activities are not like these mass shootings.

    191. Re:We need more guns by clickety6 · · Score: 3, Informative
      They did put out a video advocating that blind people should be allowed to by guns for their own use. Even those without Daredevil like supersenses...:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    192. Re: We need more guns by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The Japanese-Americans in the internment camps did sometimes eat food prepared in communal kitchens.

    193. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All illegal guns were once legal.

    194. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we would have been overthrown by the Communist Japanese 80 years ago."

      dude what?

    195. Re: We need more guns by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      He could have done pretty much the same thing with large magazine semiautomatic rifles though. Firing rate would have been lower, but not stupidly so.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    196. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fear is the ultimate tool. Make people afraid of the alternative and it doesn't matter how bad the choice they are told to make is. If they are afraid of the other, they'll do it. Politicians use this, lobbies use this. Fear also depends on people just believing it rather than doing research on their own to become informed of facts. So you also see a war on truth and facts and those that would report it. Fear depends on ignorance because intelligence shines a light on the darkness fear intends to create. It's a nasty cycle and boy has it been used hardcore in the last few years. Not just on gun control but across the board. That rabid following has no clue how manipulated and controlled they are. Ironically, they are usually the ones spouting off about government conspiracies to control populations.

    197. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communist Japanese ??? Are you kidding or I miss something from American history?

      It was part of the same lecture series by the esteemed Prof. Blutarsky where he explained how the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

    198. Re: We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 2

      The difference is that computers are designed for innocent use

      Self defense is innocent use.

    199. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the Communist Japanese"?

      Christ man, they had a fucking Emperor...

    200. Re:We need more guns by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      Do you see what kind of slippery slope you would create if a therapist's concern could be sufficient to revoke a constitutional right? The problem, if you call it that, is the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and any method to circumvent that could be equally applied to circumvent other rights.

    201. Re:We need more guns by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      t's a sad truth, but a reality because in the US, money reigns supreme, and the NRA has a metric shit ton of money that they throw around

      Actually, the NRA has two things. Money is one of them, as you have said.

      The second is a rabid following who will vote for anything that the NRA says is gun control. No matter what else that particular politician does.

      Politician A fights to keep your industry alive, lower your taxes, rebuild the roads you drive on every day, but wants concealed carry to require a permit. Politician B fights to end your job, raise your taxes and destroy all infrastructure, punch you in the face every Tuesday, but wants concealed carry without a permit.

      NRA supporters will always vote for Politician B. No matter how much they are hurt by all the rest of the policies.

      Then politician A had better changes his stance and accept that it is the collective will will the people.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    202. Re: We need more guns by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      I find that the question isn't "can these things be completely prevented", the question is: "how can we greatly reduce the incidence of mass shootings"? Countries like the UK and New Zealand have low incidences of these kinds of events, whereas America's incidence is very high. Having sensible laws that make it difficult for lone nuts getting hold of large magazine weapons is pretty effective.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    203. Re: We need more guns by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      I hope he gets prosecuted for this.

      I sure hope to hell is never gets prosecuted for it. There are many of us (a large majority?), those who voted for Trump and those opposed to him, who wish he would close his Twitter account. However, nothing he has posted, ever, on his twitter account rises to the level where it should be prosecuted.

      A country where said prosecution could happen isn't America.

      (respondents are encouraged to cite all sorts of cases and instances where my 'America' sentence can be used to ridicule me. There is always a need for more fertilizer.)

    204. Re:We need more guns by WrongMonkey · · Score: 2

      Like that Black Lives Matter supporter who shot 5 cops in Dallas? That was a year ago and still have seen any new support for gun control.

    205. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir/madam are an idiot.
      Laws won't stop madmen or criminals from getting their hands on guns, ever.

    206. Re:We need more guns by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Except in this case, the automatic weapon the shooter used was already illegal. So what laws would have prevented this shooting? Existing gun laws were broken. The NRA even supports the restrictions on automatic weapons, and they are not advocating for having them loosened.

      because the NRA has effectively blocked federal funding into any gun research.

      This is also false. The restriction you're referring to is an advocating restriction. All it says is that federal funding cannot be used to advocate for any political position, including gun rights / restrictions. I think that's a good rule. It also means that the Department of Energy cannot use tax dollars to advocate for more oil wells or gas fracking.

      Pointless rant is pointless.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    207. Re: We need more guns by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It's too late for Obama to end up on the half dollar, much as your scenario might encourage optimism.

    208. Re:We need more guns by hey! · · Score: 1

      Trying to have it both ways, are you? It's the liberals who are racist; you're just someone who sanctimoniously believes that "the blacks" deserve to die because they're doing it to themselves.

      Well, if you are a white person you are much more likely to be killed by white people. "Black on black" crime is a product of the same factors that drive white on white crime: de facto segregation. And while it's true black on black crime is a little more common than white on white crime, the effect disappears if you control by economic class.

      I went to school with a lot of guys from South Boston. Southie has become a kind of a movie cliche; most of the people there are perfectly normal. The kernel of truth in the movie myth, though, is that there are a bunch of guys (white guys) who are disturbingly violent. When I was a kid I used to walk by an auto shop on my way to the MDC pool. Years later it came out the Irish Mob used to chop people up and dissolve them in acid there.

      But nobody says, "Those white people are animals.". They understand the "thugs" are outliers. In fact, those thugs are often held up as folk heroes, which is really no different than what happens on the black side of the house.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    209. Re:We need more guns by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      If this guy had had a gun ready, it's possible only half as many people would have died at the concert.

    210. Re:We need more guns by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "The only type of person capable of taking out that shooter from the crowd at the critical moment would be a fully trained and equipped sniper with combat experience"

      Wrong. Hunters regularly pull off 300+ yard shots all the time with a piddly .30-06.

      Generally the deer aren't firing back and dropping bodies round you.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    211. Re:We need more guns by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Sadly, even that level of arms is illegal to carry in much of the US...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    212. Re:We need more guns by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Plus, the type of people who own guns usually don't have that much in the way of assets to be sued for

      Hilarious.

      Let me guess: you still can't figure out why the Democrats (who talk like that about everyone who doesn't live in NY or CA) have lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House, by association the Supreme Court, and millions of two-time Obama voters who actually finally got tired of that sort of snarky, condescending, patronizing crap that doesn't reflect reality. If you really think that "the type of people who own guns" aren't every bit as likely to own homes, cars, mutual funds, and all the rest as people who don't, then you embody exactly the sort of cluelessness that has been governing lefty politics in this country for long enough to have trashed the left's national political power. Please, keep it up. That sort of ignorant, mocking derision is just going to help even more over the next couple of election cycles. Let me guess, you also use the word "deplorables" when talking about the people who fix your car, grow your food, or build your home, right? Stupid people in flyover country are stupid, right? Regardless, a trip to the range around here will find you mixed in with business owners using $30,000 shotguns, professionals who like to target shoot, real estate agents who carry for self defense, and the like.

      If you're going to remain that ignorant, please don't endanger the rest of us by doing reckless things like voting based on what you think of other people.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    213. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming he had a rifle it wouldn't take a trained sniper. The shots were out of a broken window and so would be easier to locate then say a concealed overlook. The absurd point would be that he goes to a concert with a rifle. Though, if he were in the next room with a gun he might of had a better chance. Either way, one moron shooting back probably would have saved others lives if only to distract the shooter.

    214. Re: We need more guns by ckatko · · Score: 1

      This is really insightful.

      If we were talking about terrorism, people here would NOT be for banning all Muslims. It's not the good Muslims fault the bad ones are blowing people up.

      But guns? All a sudden the logic is reversed and it's okay to take them away from innocents. Unless they're Muslim, then once again it's racist.

      I'd find it easy to vote for a party if they could pick a fucking stance and stick with it.

    215. Re:We need more guns by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      ["The US gun lobby doesn't even want to restrict sales to those who already have mental health issues."]
      That's just simply a lie. And you know it. So the question is, what do you hope to achieve by lying?

      I'm not sure how accusations of lying help this discussion.

      View1: We've seen various mass shootings, and a bunch of individual shootings, from individuals who in retrospect weren't quite right in the head. Maybe they were seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist for something. The current federal laws prevent firearm ownership only for people who have been "adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution" and states have their own spin on it. I think we should draw the line back so more kinds of mental illness would prohibit firearm ownership. This is what Obama did by preventing some people on Social Security disabilities for psychiatric illness from owning firearms -- a move which the NRA called an "unconstitutional gun grab".

      View2: Sure the line has to be drawn somewhere. The line we currently draw is a good one. It really should take an official court ruling that someone is mentally defective before we start taking away their constitutional rights to bear arms. (Likewise, it takes a court ruling to deprive people of their constitutional right to liberty by sending them to jail).

      I can see merit in both views.

      As for the sentence you quoted that "The US gun lobby doesn't even want to restrict sales to those who already have mental health issues"? -- well, the US gun lobby does want to restrict sales to SOME people who have mental health issues, and wants to NOT restrict sales to other people who have mental health issues but haven't yet been committed or adjudicated as mentally defective. So the sentence was literally true, and literally false, according to how you fill in the ambiguities in it. You chose to fill in the ambiguities in such a way to make it false, and then you accused the poster of lying. You could have chosen differently.

    216. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      single-issue voters have been destroying this country for generations.

    217. Re: We need more guns by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Gun ownership is an outdated right because civilised society doesn't have the need for guns everywhere, only at appropriate gun sport venues under lock and key until required for sport. .....

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    218. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, rightfully so. The 2nd amendment is not ambiguous that the people should have the right to keep and bear arms. It is sad that we have already taken that right away from some people. Even if it was just one person that had to give up their right, then we should all be disturbed by this. Nothing says you have to actually keep and bear arms. You can still make your own choice, but don't try to take away someone else's choice.

      If we go down that path, then it opens up the possibility to overturn other key amendments. It is horrible that anyone ever says something racist, and how could you ever defend that? Maybe the first amendment shouldn't apply to hate groups?

      Since you are appear ready to give up the second amendment, then I have to question your mental health. Maybe someone with your mental health issue shouldn't be allowed to comment on the 2nd amendment. Actually, maybe we should limit your speech on other topics that you don't agree on. Did you not consider the person determining who has "mental health issues" may not agree with your viewpoint and may try to push their own agenda?

    219. Re:We need more guns by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The NRA has an annual budget of about $250 million. Michael Bloomberg, a leading anti-gun nut, has a net worth around $47 BILLION. Bloomberg alone can double the spending of the NRA annually with just 1% interest on his net worth. That is just one high-profile anti-gun nut. If the NRA has a metric shit-ton of money to throw around, the anti-gun crowd has 1000 metric shit-tons of money to throw around.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    220. Re: We need more guns by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      as long as those innocent civilian registered gun owners have them locked up when not in use down the range.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    221. Re:We need more guns by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Walk down to your local firearm dealer and try to buy an automatic weapon. Go ahead. Let us know how it goes...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    222. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that now he had two options.

      There are many more than two options to leave a killcount.

      A firearm is very simple chemistry applied to very simple ballistic physics.
      A truck is moderately simple chemistry and extensive engineering.

      Chemistry, physics, engineering, biology, and psychology can all be easily used to kill. Many different ways. There are more I have overlooked, but I leave out the details of those that came to mind because posts like yours show that there are many who have motive but fail to understand the means at their fingertips.

    223. Re: We need more guns by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Guns aren't very good for self defence though, are they? Countries where people generally don't own or carry guns tend to be a lot safer.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    224. Re:We need more guns by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Because if guns are illegal they would automatically disappear in a puff of smoke "poof." Just like that.

      The gun he used was already illegal.

    225. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When selling person to person you still have to keep a record of who you sold it to. And you have to use persona discretion as to if that person should have a gun or not.

    226. Re:We need more guns by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      There is one way to get more gun control in the US.

      Hand out assault rifles to Black Lives Matter protesters. Gun control laws would suddenly become very, very important to many of the people who are horrified by gun control today.

      It's funny you say that, because the first gun control laws were aimed at disarming black people so they couldn't protect themselves from Klan violence.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    227. Re:We need more guns by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Murders per 100,000 puts Chicago at number 6. Now, I guess most of those murders COULD be done with weapons other than firearms, but I'd bet most were firearms. SO it's well into the top 30...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    228. Re: We need more guns by the_saint1138 · · Score: 0

      Trump's comments were potentially illegal given his status as a member of the executive branch of government, and that he was encouraging a private entity to fire an employee based on what might be interpreted as a political stance.

      See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

      IANAL, so I don't know how well such a lawsuit would actually fare, but it seems like a possibility.

    229. Re:We need more guns by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Unless it is considered carrying out the will of your god? I guess we can classify all religion as a psychotic breakdown, but how hard down the path to destroying the 1st Amendment do we want to go in an effort to finish destroying the 2nd?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    230. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK. Everyone has a right to the kind of firearms around during the signing of the Constitution.

      Fine, then you can only read books printed on parchment by a Gutenberg press by candlelight and only travel by horse or wooden sailing ship.

    231. Re:We need more guns by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      The sole purpose of a gun is to kill and maim. It has no other purpose.

      When a small woman is set upon by a large attacker, that gun is also an equalizer. Guns save more lives than they take.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    232. Re:We need more guns by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Hmm....CDC == Center for Disease Control.....ok, I'm trying to figure out why the CDC would be the organization to study gun violence....I mean, what disease is gun violence caused by?

      From their website:
      CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

      And:
      CDC's Role:
      -Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats
      -Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans
      -Putting science and advanced technology into action to prevent disease
      -Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment
      -Developing leaders and training the public health workforce, including disease detectives
      -Taking the health pulse of our nation

      The CDC looks at big public health questions, understanding causes of gun violence is something they'd probably be good at for the same reasons they're looking at the Opiod epidemic.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    233. Re:We need more guns by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      what I heard was that they scuffled and while they were wrestling around he was shot in the abdomen,

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    234. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what happens when you have too many radical Muslims. It's not the guns, it's the fucking terrorists you guys let in.

    235. Re: We need more guns by the_saint1138 · · Score: 1

      I agree that freedom of speech should absolutely be protected, but politically-motivated coercion is not simply "speech".

      If you agree that incitement to violence would be unprotected by the first amendment, then it follows that a public official threatening someone's job over a political statement could fall into a similar category of unprotected speech.

    236. Re: We need more guns by arth1 · · Score: 1

      But guns? All a sudden the logic is reversed and it's okay to take them away from innocents. Unless they're Muslim, then once again it's racist.

      "Muslim" isn't a race; it's a description of a culturally inflicted gullibility, like "Christian" and "republican".

    237. Re: We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Guns aren't very good for self defence though, are they?

      Versus the nothing that you have to offer?

    238. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one fucking died from the Equifax breach. Are you really that fucking retarded?

    239. Re: We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 1

      No one ever died from a hacked system? What about next week or next month when someone does?

    240. Re:We need more guns by cogeek · · Score: 1

      Timothy McVeigh chose a truck, fertilizer and diesel fuel. Why is there no outcry to take those away as an option?
      The Tsarnaev brothers chose pressure cookers and ball bearings. No outcry to take away that option?
      Go do a Google search for mass killings that didn't involve firearms. Educate yourself on how simple it is for an evil person to kill as many people as possible using a variety of methods. We can't outlaw them all and anyone foolish enough to think outlawing a single method will stop this behavior needs to examine the facts, not the feelings.

    241. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the mental health front, the NRA has fought to prevent any restrictions until the person is institutionalized or legally declared insane. Therapist is concerned about a patient's suicidal ideation and repeated statements that the patient want to "take out" people with their arsenal? The NRA has fought very hard against efforts to do anything with that arsenal. Including fighting against being able to go to a court in an attempt to get that arsenal away from the crazy person.

      Well, yes. I actually support this. As a case in point, look at what happened with pedophilia. The law now requires that psychologists report these types of people to law enforcement. So now we have people who have bad impulses, and they can't even seek psychological counseling because that will end up with them being locked in jail. That sounds like a nightmare scenario that makes the problem worse.

      Put another way, which of the following people would you rather have as your neighbor?
      1) Person is homicidal. They talk to professional help.
      2) Person is homicidal. They know if they talk to a psychologist they'll be branded with a scarlet letter. So they keep it in, fight it as best they can, and hope that tomorrow will be better than today.

      I can't comment on the blind case because I don't know the details. I would suspect it is much more nuanced than you are saying, because those "those crazy laws" type stories always are and usually make sense once you know the whole story (e.g. the McDonalds "Hot Coffee" case... and I'll note the whole story here includes the final judgement after everything was done).

    242. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that wouldn't have to be permanent right? The licensed practitioner would declare imminent threat and actions could be taken. After 90 days the case should evaluated by another practitioner or review board, if merit is lacking they get their stuff back. It's not that hard.

      As someone who would prefer to keep the 2nd amendment intact I still have to recognize that there is growing concern over it. I would rather we take smaller steps rather than forcing a not inconsequential number of people to create a referendum and actually change the constitution. The political will isn't there yet, but honestly, it doesn't take too many events like these to change that.

      It also doesn't help with some gun nuts claiming they are buying an AR15 to protect their family. That is absurd. If that was really your goal you would just get a normal shotgun and load it with rock salt or bean bags or plenty of other ammo types that you don't accidentally kill a loved one while shooting.

      Of course the real problem is people not taking gun ownership seriously. Growing up in Vermont where gun ownership is usually taken seriously guns are usually secured. When they are secured there is no worry about a 3 year old getting a hold of it and shooting someone else or him/herself. If you live in an area that dangerous where you feel you need to keep a gun nearby then put your shotgun above your bed at night. It will be readily available and out of reach of children. (A big problem if you have unbalanced teenagers though)

      Far too many people just leave their guns under the seat of their car or in the door, or in the glove box. All places easy for someone else to get to, all they have to do is smash a window.

      It is not an easy problem to solve. We need and should adhere to the principles which got us this far. It seems since 9/11 people on all sides of the political spectrum have chosen to abandon principles. Our currently President says we should torture again despite it being against international law and well below the moral standards we tried to live by historically. We shouldn't kill entire families either as that just makes more terrorists. We should ensure wall street and banks are properly regulated, it's okay to make sure rivers and lakes are so polluted that they catch fire. These are all things that are for the common good and shouldn't be controversial.

      Some limited regulation of gun ownership is probably in order. I'm not sure if we should do a federal licensing program but states would do well I think to enact this. Even if you don't license the gun owner you could license the guns themselves. Then you would have recourse for people that let their guns be stolen.

    243. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are called "cubicles" now days. But they are too expensive so they are switching to "open workspaces"

    244. Re:We need more guns by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The whole good guy with a gun theory is completely asinine, it just adds to the confusion, and rarely if ever has a good outcome.

      If everyone had a gun so they could be the good guy I would probably go a movie premier, throw a smoke bomb in the room and then just fire my gun into the air and walk out. There would be more deaths than James Holmes achieved.

    245. Re: We need more guns by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Silly hobbies like driving vehicles or cooking pot roast with a pressure cooker?

      Both of those hobbies kill almost no one. A rounding error in the number of deaths in the country. Especially the vehicle deaths. Those who drive them as hobbies are statistically among least likely to die compared to those who drive for work or those who commute.

    246. Re: We need more guns by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Err....as far as I know, in most states you do NOT have to register a gun with the state.

      So the GP was right? :-)

    247. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't take too much effort to find kits to convert AR-15 or AK-47 to full auto.

    248. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but a swift (and rather basic) Google search can point you to a trove of articles that dispel the myth that mental illness is strongly associated with gun crime

      Except that they do not dispel such a myth. Note:

      people diagnosed with mental illness

      It says nothing about whether the people actually had a mental illness or not. Only that they were not (at the time) diagnosed with one.

      Which, you know, may (or may not - this is not easy to discern) be related to the lack of access to free and high-quality mental healthcare.

      Reality is complex. Do not be so quick with your dismissals.

    249. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, such a bitch to want health care applicable to more people. Terrible indeed!

    250. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... getting angry enough to go shooting a bunch of people is the very definition of mental illness.

    251. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Security measures that cause attackers to only slightly modify their plans are generally bad security measures"
      - (paraphrased from memory, couldn't find the original) Bruce Schneier

    252. Re:We need more guns by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Hunters aren't shooting at people that are shooting back at them. Kinda fucks with the aim a bit.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    253. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind, that with everyone armed, the shooter has to shoot knowing he's firing into a crowd of armed concert goers that will fire back. That will be prevention enough for some suicidal crazies. Also it's harder to aim with suppressive fire coming it at you. This would reduce the number that end up dead. This does add an additional danger of armed concert goers shooting each other instead of the original shooter. So I don't know how it would balance out. But since we're a country of freedom, and I don't go to country concerts, I say let's try it out and see if it improves things.

    254. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh, that was not a BLM supporter. It was a mentally ill person that hated cops. There are plenty of people out there that hate police that aren't part of BLM.

      I've seen this this assertion more than few times on here. There is a sect out there trying to paint BLM and other leftists as violent. The ironic part is they are the same people that used to make fun of them for being hippy pacifists whiners. These are mostly normal people, I'm sure there are unstable members just like there are many unstable members of the NRA such as their fearless leader.

    255. Re:We need more guns by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Strict gun laws price guns out of the reach of children for the most part.

      But a tragedy like this is unlikely to be limited by them (as shown in Paris).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    256. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.

      While the money can always be offset on both sides, the NRA's real power is in:
      1) The 4-5 million members, who are vocal and show up to vote.
      2) The other 50+ million households in the US that own guns

      I suspect a large portion of #2 and a smaller percentage of #1 are ok with some basic gun control, like we have in place now. Many are probably even ok with expanding them if they were logical and actually looked like they would help. Most are against doing anything that is nothing more than TSA level security theater that is basically just for show with no real improvements.

      Pick what you want to prevent/reduce and target each
      For example---prevent kids from finding a gun and shooting themselves with handguns - force all US government and law enforcement agencies to switch to biometric protected weapons for a decade, then once they are proven make the military transition, once the military has fully deployed them, then make biometric safeties mandatory for all handgun sales....the problem you'll have is the police and military won't want to carry something that could get them killed if it doesn't work.

    257. Re:We need more guns by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Are you saying there are less than 20 car accidents deemed no fault a week?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    258. Re:We need more guns by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      Not at all. I'm saying that you can carry a gun, practice with it, be proficient with it even and you can still not get a chance to use it at all or be in a situation like these people where the shooter is effectively invisible, far out of range, and already killing people before you ever know your in danger. That doesn't mean that the "good guy with a gun" angle isn't real and that they do on a regular basis intervene and stop dangerous people. It just means that it's not guaranteed that will happen. People who think that the idea is "asinine" always point to the things that could go wrong or that a good guy with a gun could not prevent. People who are advocates of it always point to the successful instances of a good guy stopping some violent person, defending themselves, or preventing further loss of life. All those things can happen. It's a mixed bag.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    259. Re: We need more guns by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Pray tell, how many innocent people did the Equifax breach kill?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    260. Re:We need more guns by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      That's quite a lot of unproven conjecture. If the CDC, or any federal agency with resources, were allowed an attempt to study those things we'd be able to turn some of that conjecture into discernible fact. That would at least allow the discussion to move forward instead of in a circle.

    261. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a democrat (slightly independent -- voted once for Perot) and a gun owner. I resent you putting me into the Republic bucket. Plenty of ex-military democrats like me that own guns. Being responsibly able to defend your family is an important part of reality and life. Gun owning is not a race-hating, conservative, country-club old-money thing. The only reason humans rule this planet is because we kill our predators better than everything else. We just need to accept that random members of our own species are one of our predators.

    262. Re:We need more guns by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Simple. Because there are other use to the items you cite. We are not going to ban kitchen knifes either.
      What's the other use for an assault weapon? It's certainly not used for deer hunting.

      More murders happen per capita in the USA compared to every other rich country.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      USA is at 4.88 and nearby Canada is only 1.68. The climate doesn't explain the difference. There is a toxic gun and violence culture in the USA which isn't found elsewhere.

    263. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely. People think the NRA is an obstacle, but just try to start a rational conversation about Angry Old Man Control...

    264. Re: We need more guns by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Don't see why having stricter requirements is considered "punishment"

      Wait, he used an automatic weapon. Those have pretty strict requirements. This is, AFAIK, the first crime where a legal automatic was used. In US History (at least since those requirements were enacted in the... 50's?)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    265. Re: We need more guns by sjames · · Score: 1

      According to the pictures of various cooking failures, apparently for some people it's hard NOT to turn a pressure cooker into a bomb.

    266. Re:We need more guns by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      Someone will need to go around to reload the guns. That will provide lots more jobs right there!

    267. Re: We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 1

      None yet. What about the hack of a critical system next month though? It’s only a matter of time before a hack kills a bunch of people.

      When it does, I'm going to argue we should not take actions against the innocent. What are you going to say? “Targeting innocents was cool last time, but this is different”?

    268. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Do you see what kind of slippery slope you would create if a therapist's concern could be sufficient to revoke a constitutional right?

      You do realize that you can temporarily seize the arsenal until the person gets their day in court, right? Put a time limit on it so "Temporary" can't become permanent, and you save a lot of lives.

      However, you do sell fewer guns, so the NRA will be dead-set against this.

    269. Re:We need more guns by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I am sure. While at the same time parading how civilized they are. It's a family fun event full of decapitations and bodily desecration. Bring the kids out to show them how a civilized people act.

      I get it. The guy is a crazy ass hole that will burn in Hell. But keep your virtue signaling vindictive barbarism to yourself. You don't need to act like a savage just because someone else does.

    270. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Then politician A had better changes his stance and accept that it is the collective will will the people.

      No, it's the collective will of about 20% of the people. However, that 20% will vote only on that one issue.

      The remaining 60-80% (varies based on the poll) want different gun control policy, but they split their vote based on all the other issues in an election.

    271. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to die because of your silly hobby.

      By that logic...

      It might seem unfair for you to die, but your death was necessary in order to prevent something worse.

    272. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being allowed to own a firearm is about not being defenseless in the face of criminals with firearms, knives, or just a stronger physique. They're a symbol of autonomy in US culture for a reason.

    273. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's funny you say that, because the first gun control laws were aimed at disarming black people so they couldn't protect themselves from Klan violence.

      And the wave of gun control laws after that was in response to the Black Panthers.

      Heavily arm dark-skinned people, and suddenly gun control changes from "unthinkable violation of the Constitution" to "sensible idea".

    274. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think this is just about money, you're not paying attention. Many American's consider their second amendment rights to be very important to them, that's why the NRA has so much money in the first place, and it's why I, as a progressive and owner of firearms, would really like to see more liberal politicians drop the issue. It was lost a long time ago and they're just alienating voters now.

    275. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a progressive, I'd rather the Democrats just drop the lost cause. More liberals are firearms owners than they seem to realize, and it is hurting them.

    276. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having sensible laws that make it difficult for lone nuts getting hold of large magazine weapons is pretty effective.

      I agree. The problem is no one is proposing sensible laws. What gets proposed instead are loophole laws that attempt to circumvent the built-in process of amending the constitution.

      Remember, any justification you have for ignoring that process for amendments you dislike, can and will be used against you for amendments you like. Say, your right to choose your own religion?

    277. Re:We need more guns by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      The good guy with a gun angle is pretty silly to think about only when you are considering the people being shot at from a height advantage in an unprotected open area with a big high rise nearby. Don't forget about the people in the room next door or across the hall from where the shots were fired from. An armed person who was proficient with their weapon may well have made a difference from close at hand. Most would not have tried, but someone ex-military or ex-cop might have been brave enough to try if they saw what was happening below. Like the parent says - you just never know.

    278. Re:We need more guns by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      You're going to seize property from a person without evidence that a crime has even been committed? Now you're violating at least two constitutional amendments instead of just one. The slippery slope has already begun...

    279. Re: We need more guns by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      My defence is living somewhere that is less dangerous so I don't need to defend myself from people with guns.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    280. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we will never know till something changes.

      I agree. And step 1 of that change involves amending the constitution. Try to circumvent that process, and you may find that you lose the right to freedom of religion because some nutter thinks your religion is dangerous and manages to get it banned by following the same loophole you used against the 2nd amendment.

    281. Re: We need more guns by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Nothing?! Dude, if you carry a car around under your ass, people will think twice before ever attacking you. Those things are dangerous, and even the most fearless attacker will respect their power.

      The problem with cars is that even if you have a concealed carry permit, it's hard to conceal a car. The best setup I saw was something George Jetson had, but I'm told it was just some Hollywood fakery.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    282. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very easy to prevent cars from running over people, but very expensive.

    283. Re: We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Moving to Luxemborgh isn’t for everyone though, is it?

    284. Re:We need more guns by plague911 · · Score: 1
      "We don't like that with any other of the amendments in the constitution, why should we be so willing to allow it for the 2nd?"

      Simple, the other rights take more time to do damage.

      Now it is a valid philosophical debate whether that time to damage ratio's are worth the reduction in our civil liberties. It is however willful blindness to not recognize that you are presenting a false equivalency.

    285. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh AMI is back with her lying.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

      Go to the table and sort by the rate, The US is alllllllll the way near the bottom at #94.

    286. Re:We need more guns by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ranking you have given Chicago is based on its membership in an arbitrary set of cities chosen for a wikipedia table. If you include *all* municipalities with a population of at least 25,000 (e.g. large enough that a small spate of murders doesn't have a big statistical effect) then Chicago does *not* crack the top 30.

      Here are the top ten using the 25,000 cutoff:

      10 Camden, NJ: 42/100,000
      9 New Orleans, LA 42/100,000
      8 Detroit, MI: 44/100,000
      7 Flint, MI : 47/100,000
      6 Petersburg, VA: 49/100,000
      5 Baltimore, MD: 55/100,000
      4 St. Louis, MO: 60/100,000
      3 Gary, IN: 65/100,000
      2 Chester, PA: 67/100,000
      1 East St. Louis, IL: 71/100,000

      Chicago, at 18 murders / 100,000 population isn't even close. However, while Chester PA is an extremely dangerous place to live, you can't maintain a media narrative of a murder epidemic with a city of only 34,000 people.

      What sets Chicago aside from all the cities on this top ten list is that is larger; not only larger, but massively larger, 2.72 million. If you choose a large enough population it will generate a regular stream of murders, relatively consistently from year to year. It's like comparing the absolute number of murders in California to those in Louisiana; Louisiana is much, much more dangerous, but it has about 10% of the population. Some years will be more murder-y than others there, whereas California is statistically large enough it will produce over 2000 murders/year like clockwork.

      Now Chicago has the highest murder rate among the largest cities in the US, but not by much:

      New York 8.5 million 3/100,000
      Los Angeles 3.97 million 7/100,000
      Chicago pop 2.72 million 15/100,000
      Houston pop 2.29 million, 13/100,000
      Phoenix pop 1.56 million, 7/100,000

      Now the interesting thing here is that the murder rate and absolute number of murders in Houston are very, very close to that of Chicago, but you never hear about the murder epidemic in Houston. It's because this is a narrative being pushed by Fox News, the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, and Houston is in a red state.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    287. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stfu, you dumb ass bastard.

    288. Re:We need more guns by BadTuna · · Score: 1

      How to do you determine a specific number?
      Why not a photo op with your hair and the flag blowing in the breeze looking majestic as fuck.
      Murica!

      --
      Your sig here!
    289. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not true. i support the right of black nationalists to have their second amendment rights. any citizen here has their rights whether i agree with their politics or not. i'm not scared. come and get some motherfuckers.

    290. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your people moved here because of the prosperity that freedom created and now you want to abolish what makes america, america? take your ass back to europe you fucking slave piece of shit.

    291. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one attack, by one person, killed and wounded more innocent people than all three major terrorist attacks in the EU in 2017 combined. 8 separate people in Spain carrying out separate attacks in concert failed to kill even half of the people that this one guy did with his easily obtained automatic rifle.

      OMG but that didn't stop the paris attack where 130 were killed DID IT CHAMP.

      QUIT CHERRY PICKING STATISTICS.

    292. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation please showing that he was shooting a select fire or automatic rifle. I've seen nothing other than claims of him having 10 rifles in his possession. But that alone does not indicate any specific capabilities of the rifles other than to shoot a round that spins due to the rifling, and presumably is effective at longer distances.

    293. Re: We need more guns by sheph · · Score: 1

      That hobby you refer to is constitutionally protected because it's more than a hobby. It's a fundamental right to defend yourself against any potential threat up to and including your own government. The framers were keenly aware of just how bad governments can become over time. Just because some jackass misused his right doesn't mean that everyone else should lose theirs. This guy was unknown to Federal Law Enforcement. Which means he likely acquired his guns legally over a number of years. His family said he seemed perfectly normal. There were no indicators. According to them he just snapped. Stricter laws would not have stopped this. There is a possibility he had been recruited and radicalized by ISIS. What laws would have stopped that? Gangbangers acquire weapons outside the law all the time. Fully automatic weapons which could not be obtained legally. They shoot innocent bystanders all the time. What laws fix that problem? As long as you have people with murderous intent you will have murder. Regardless of how many laws and controls you implement.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    294. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you a 10 for "bare arms". Well done!

    295. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In battlefield4 I once sniped a person over 2500m away with a .50 caliber bolt action sniper rifle.

      He didn't even see it coming.

    296. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're equating computers with rifles, just tell me about all the peaceful uses of rifles. Or tell me about how Nikola Tesla thought he was a rifle.

      Sure, I'll wait while you make up some inflammatory reply that changes the subject and/or misses the point of my rhetoric.

    297. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is patently obvious just from listening to the sound of video recorded ofvthe incident. There were long bursts of rapid fire. About 80 shots in a burst. There isn't a 'legal' weapon that would have accomplished this.

    298. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. I see what you did. Someone mod up.

    299. Re:We need more guns by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You clearly do have reading comprehension problems. Your own reply to the AC exposes it further!

      Gives me the good laff.

    300. Re:We need more guns by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Not as delusional as thinking that making guns illegal will make you safe.

    301. Re: We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      his easily obtained automatic rifle.

      Fully automatic weapons are NOT easily attained.

      They also cost at the low end, $20K or so, and you have to go through a Federal background check that usually takes 9mos minimum. There are no new automatic weapons made for sale since the Hughes amendment in 1986...so, the scarcity of legal full auto weapons makes them VERY $$$, and hard to even find for sale.

      If this guy had full auto, I"m guessing he did some illegal modifications at home to make them full auto, which is a crime in of itself.

      HTH.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    302. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      I am super-ultra-extremely liberal. I'm pro-regulation of industry, pro-solar, pro-legalizing anything recreational, organic, non-gmo, free-health-care for all, with a BS and MS in Engineering (I'm pointing out that I'm not a stoopid).

      I can't back the anti-gun thing! I don't see it as relevant and frankly don't give a shit about it as of right now given my life experiences during my 47+ years on earth. I think we should have more guns, endless guns. Unregulated, unlicensed, unmonitored. I've not been able to absorb any argument that has convinced me that getting rid of guns is feasible, nor that it will help solve any of our endemic problems. Maybe I'm too 'murican! Plus there's the 2nd amendment too.

      P.S.
      Look at what's been happening across the pond even, with terrorists now using vehicles as weapons...

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    303. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      You're going to seize property from a person without evidence that a crime has even been committed?

      :facepalm:

      This thread started with an example of a therapist finding mental health issues in a patient which would indicate they are far more likely than average to use those guns for violence against other people.

      That's a few miles beyond "no evidence". But that doesn't fit nicely with the story you want to tell, so you ignored that.

      Also, might wanna look up asset forfeiture laws if you actually gave a shit about this issue.

    304. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Filed under the "you have to pass it to see whats in it".

      Wasn't that the strategy for ACA repeal that the Repugnicans were trying to use? Twice or was it three times that they tried that? The very last time, they weren't even sure what version they were voting on.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    305. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you need is a cheap lugwrench.

    306. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Pathetically sad and true.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    307. Re:We need more guns by sheph · · Score: 1

      Define mental health issues though. Depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder? All of these diagnoses have degrees of severity. Most of them are controllable by medication. If you can drive a car you should be able to own a firearm (as well as be able to fly an airplane). Both can be used to deadly effect. And then lets talk about power tools, sharp knives, axes, extension cords, rocks, lumber, hammers, propane tanks, pressure cookers... If your intention is to kill someone there are lots of things you could use. Where do we stop in our attempt to bubble wrap society? I believe the intense focus on firearms is largely political and driven by the UN agenda. Most gun owners aren't nuts. By percentage the vast majority of gun owners will never misuse their rights, but they're not the ones who make the news.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    308. Re:We need more guns by sheph · · Score: 1

      In order to find a cure you'd first have to correctly identify the disease. I'll give you a starting hint. It's not the guns.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    309. Re: We need more guns by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      We were talking about the use of cars instead of guns, but you know, keep huffing paint or whatever

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    310. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. If someone is firing at a huge crowd from a hotel room, the chance of anyone hitting the shooter is minuscule compared to the chance of the shooter hitting a crowd-member.
      The only answer is NO GUNS.

    311. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure where you get your info from but you should find a new source. Funding for gun related research at the CDC absolutely was removed. Federal research dollars cannot study the topic anymore. That leaves private research groups to do it, they always have an agenda one way or another so their data is much more suspect than the CDC which never advocated any agenda about guns.

      When you look at statistics and conclude someone is advocating one way or another you are blinding yourself. They are just statistics, the CDC has never played politics. They do real serious work.

    312. Re:We need more guns by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I'm a democrat...Being responsibly able to defend your family is an important part of reality and life.

      But statistics don't bare this out. The innocent deaths caused by excessive guns (both quantity and power) is greater than those saved by home or self protection. We can look at other countries to see this.

      Plus, a simple gun is usually enough to scare off thieves. They don't visit your house for a shoot-out, they just want goods to sell to feed their drug addiction. As soon as they know there's a gun, most leave quickly. Sure, there are exceptions the right quotes over and over, but they ARE rare. Plus, if enough home-owners start shooting back, the thieves will up their arms also. Arms race.

    313. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      However, we now have a tyrannical government and all the guns and all the bullets did nothing to stop that. I support the 2nd amendment but it didn't do shit for us when tyranny arrived.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    314. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked Bernie was advocating exactly that and more in terms of healthcare. He also comes from Vermont where you can take our guns from our cold dead hands. The problem is that is expensive, he knows, we know it too. At a time when we are strangely reducing taxes (without cutting expenses) it is unlikely we'll be able to afford this strategy anytime soon.

      It is funny to me how Republicans always want to cut taxes as if anyone ever hired anyone because of their tax bill. Pretty sure you only hire people to do work you don't want to do or to help you make more money. Taxes don't impact either of those, at not not at the levels we're talking.

    315. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alexa: I will now alert the cops, entering sleep mode.

    316. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that not their purpose already? Gangs of New York lied to me.

    317. Re:We need more guns by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      There's a toxic drug culture in the United States as well. Get people off the illegal drugs, dry up that trade, eliminate the gangs associated with it along with the need to commit other crimes to fund people's habits, and the gun / murder statistics would be much saner in the United States of America.

      Again, fix the people and the problem is drastically reduced. The problem isn't the weapons.

    318. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      taking out some shooting from high up on the ground is not easy.

      *whoosh*

    319. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    320. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Good point. Hadn't thought of that. I guess no one at the "Harvest Country Music Festival" felt a need to carry or like you said, they were aware enough not to go looking for imaginary bad guys.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    321. Re:We need more guns by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Accurate to a degree.

      The NRA is not the bad guy here. They are the punching bag of the gun industry.

      Those who want to affect change regarding guns are going to have to avoid the NRA altogether and go directly after the gun manufacturers.

      Personally, I don't think there's anything that can or will be done.

      I've looked at the ideas put forth and not one of them would have prevented any of the mass shootings in the last few years.

      While this shooting is high-profile, larger problems are suicide and accidental discharge.

      Regarding homicide, the perpetrator is most likely a family member, a friend, or an acquaintance, and of the same ethnic background.

      Death by mass shooting is negligible by comparison.

      Again, I don't think there's any reasonable strategy to address something like this.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    322. Re:We need more guns by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1
      Let me put this very simply: YOU CANNOT PUNISH A PERSON BEFORE A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.

      A therapist's opinion is exactly ZERO evidence. Therapist are not precogs. Depriving people of their constitutional rights because they "are far more likely than average to use those guns" is just one step away from detaining people because they "fit the profile of a criminal".

      Also, might wanna look up asset forfeiture laws if you actually gave a shit about this issue.

      I'm against asset forfeiture laws, too. When you're trying to argue that the government should be handed more power to circumvent the Constitution, it doesn't help to bring up abuses that they already routinely commit.

    323. Re:We need more guns by jsrjsr · · Score: 1

      Google texas tower shooting. Both police and armed citizens are credited with firing back and forcing the shooter to hide behind things so that we was not able to shoot as easily as he would otherwise have been.

    324. Re:We need more guns by mellon · · Score: 1

      Hm. Isn't this one of the ways we take out turrets in Portal?

    325. Re:We need more guns by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Then politician A had better changes his stance and accept that it is the collective will will the people.

      No, it's the collective will of about 20% of the people. However, that 20% will vote only on that one issue.

      The remaining 60-80% (varies based on the poll) want different gun control policy, but they split their vote based on all the other issues in an election.

      Well if they want to trade off gun control policy against something else, it's still the collective will of the people and politician A had better be listening to that collective will if he wants to enact all the other policies.

      Maybe the majority of people who vote aren't really bothered by gun owners?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    326. Re: We need more guns by mellon · · Score: 1

      The great thing about solving that problem is that if you do, you also make the streets safer. The problem is that it's too easy for cars to jump kerbs and hit people. This is a technical problem, not something magically insurmountable.

    327. Re:We need more guns by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you get your info from but you should find a new source. Funding for gun related research at the CDC absolutely was removed. Federal research dollars cannot study the topic anymore. That leaves private research groups to do it, they always have an agenda one way or another so their data is much more suspect than the CDC which never advocated any agenda about guns.

      When you look at statistics and conclude someone is advocating one way or another you are blinding yourself. They are just statistics, the CDC has never played politics. They do real serious work.

      I disagree with you about the CDC, but I don't want to get into that argument here. I will, however, provide this link just for your edification.

      As for my "sources" of information, it's not some organization with an agenda, I just read the bill. Here is the relevant text:

      “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

      I fail to see how that "silences" the CDC, other than telling them they cannot advocate for or against gun control. If they want to do a study and simply report facts, they are completely free to do so. But that's not what they want to do.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    328. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Womp womp. You can't see the trees from the forest.
      Also skeet shooting is peaceful. Target practice, cleaning your gun, modifying your gun, adjusting the scope/beam. Adding accessories. Lots o fun peaceful stuff.

    329. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      I think that upward angle too would add to the difficulty level (hunters don't shoot far upward, do they?), I'm guessing you'd need a stable platform of some sort. The amps would be good if people weren't jostling the equipment in their search for cover.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    330. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that computers are designed for innocent use

      Self defense is innocent use.

      The data says otherwise. First, if you're carrying a gun, you're more likely to be harmed:

      Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

      Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

      * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

      Second, the idea of a good guy taking out a bad guy with a gun is also a myth:

      The majority of the 160 incidents (90 [56.3%]) ended on the shooter’s initiative—
      sometimes when the shooter committed suicide or stopped shooting, and other times when
      the shooter fled the scene.

      * http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

      If you want to keep your kids safe, don't have guns in your house:

      * http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1416

      Seriously: statistically speaking guns cause more problems than they solve. You're safer, both at home and on the street, by not having one.

    331. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're telling me that you can hit a partially obscured elevated target at 300+ yards with a handgun, in utter chaos with hundreds of people screaming and running in every direction, including running into you? And you also don't think that someone is going to mistake you for the shooter when you pull your piece in a crowded public place with shots fired?

      You're the best handgun shot in the universe, or you're completely fucking stupid.

    332. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Lol. Go back to class, your can't milk your bathroom pass for "intestinal distress" the whole day.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    333. Re:We need more guns by shanen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so let's ignore the problems and hope they go away. Problems like too many guns too easily obtained by too many people who shouldn't have the guns, whether or not those people also have drones.

      I remember that someone wrote a supposedly purely fictional book BEFORE 9/11 that speculated on hijacked planes used as flying bombs. Maybe if the big dick Cheney had read that book and taken it a bit seriously then airport security could have been improved before 9/11 happened. Or maybe not.

      I don't know if any of the actual 9/11 terrorists did read that book and got the idea that way. Doesn't actually matter, since the possibility existed and they certainly could have come up with the same idea on their own. In that case the book is only the existence proof that the idea was possible for someone to come up with.

      So now we should start ignoring he problem of genetically engineered bioweapons. We could make a bet, but the problem is that neither of us will be around to collect or pay up after that idea gets properly instantiated.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    334. Re:We need more guns by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      How is the drug culture anymore toxic in the US compared to say, Canada or the EU?
      There are drug addicts everywhere. Only the USA has the second amendment.

    335. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the one comparing the two tho.

    336. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if any of the actual 9/11 terrorists did read that book and got the idea that way.

      I'd be rather surprised if Bin Laden hadn't read at least some Tom Clancy.

    337. Re:We need more guns by shanen · · Score: 0

      As usual, the moderation system is broken. Insightful, not funny. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a proper moderation system would penalize the karma of anyone who moderated your comment funny.

      However, a perfect moderation system would allow for a taste of no-penalty funny mods after sufficient insight. From the way Slashdot reports it, I'm guessing you actually got two funny mods, one insightful, and one offtopic mod from some troll whose negative karma should have eliminated his mod points long ago.

      We now return you to your irregularly scheduled American tragedy.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    338. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I don't want to get run over if you are too busy texting to pay attention to the road. So let's ban both cars and text messaging.

      Irresponsible people will still be irresponsible. And psychopathic deranged mass murderers will still be psychopathic deranged mass murderers. Besides, the reports are that he was using an automatic weapon that are already banned. I guess gun control laws really do work?

    339. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      along with dozens of other people in the hotel you idiot.

    340. Re: We need more guns by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Both of those hobbies kill almost no one.

      Thank you for making my point. And just like cooking and driving, the hobby of shooting is amazingly safe. There are millions and millions of people who shoot guns for fun (or use them for self defense, putting dinner on the table, etc), and relative to those numbers, they are safer than DOCTORS when it comes to deaths at their hands. And guys like this monster in LV are, statistically, less of an issue when it comes to deaths and murder than are people with baseball bats and even bare hands, compared to bad guys with rifles.

      The issue is the incredibly tiny number of people who mis-use guns, pressure cookers, trucks, kitchen knives, etc.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    341. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know there were people in that hotel as well, right? I mean, for them, it would have sounded very very much more like the gunfire it actually was. Plus there was that whole hotel security thing, police on the strip below, etc.

      But you know, tooooootally not relevant, the only people who could possibly have reacted were those being actually shot at, for everyone else its just another day in the USA shooting guns at the sky and driving pick up trucks while hollering "YEEHAW!" constantly as we all are wont to do.

      Sarcasm aside, you're right but not for the reasons you think you are. Most hotels in Vegas have anti-firearms policies and require them to be checked and stored in the hotel vault.

    342. Re:We need more guns by shanen · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Assuming he aimed in roughly the right direction the bullet might well have killed someone in the crowd or in some random room of the hotel. I'm assuming that the victim crowd's guns had deliberately been taken away, but it sickens me to imagine the carnage if the lone gunman had been able to trigger a shooting spree among the victims shooting every which way at each other because everyone else is shooting a gun, too.

      Cue the insane laughter from the 32nd floor wafting over the carnage.

      Rather amusing that what actually stopped the gunman was the smoke detector. So now we have to expect the next madman with guns to make sure he starts shooting from someplace without a smoke detector.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    343. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I put a bump stock on a semi auto AK47. It went thru a 30 round clip in about 3-4 seconds. 10 Bullets a second damn near.

    344. Re: We need more guns by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about this, then? Allow the CDC to study gun violence in the US? Currently, they are prevented from doing so. This leads to any gun control legislation being well intentioned but reactionary at best. If the CDC were allowed to study the issue and issue a report, that could be used to craft gun control laws that wouldn't impact the vast majority of law abiding gun owners while decreasing the incidence of mass shootings like these. Or the report might show that no amount of gun control law would solve this, in which case, we could move on to other possible solutions.

      To use your Equifax example, we don't just shout "Put up more firewalls" if a company is hacked. We examine how the hack occurred. Did software not get patched? Did employees fall for phishing scams? Was a laptop with passwords left in an employee's car? Once we figure out how the hack happened, we can take measures to prevent future hacks. In fact, oftentimes companies will pay people to "hack" into their systems. These intrusion detection companies will find the holes in your computer defenses so you can address them before a hacker exploits them just as the CDC could find the "holes" that are allowing mass shootings to happen so that we can fix it.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    345. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The New York Times is reporting that at least one automatic weapon was used. Those have been severely restricted since 1945. Clearly gun laws made no difference to this guy if he had an illegal gun as it stands - why would more laws have prevented this tragedy? It's very likely he would have ignored those laws too.

      Now you've curtailed the constitutional rights of millions to accomplish nothing.

    346. Re: We need more guns by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      If we could have a sensible discussion where guns are not elevated above all other utensils, we might get to the bottom of this.

      Which is why the CDC must be allowed to study the issue. Currently, they are prevented from doing so which results in both sides shouting rhetoric and circumstantial evidence back and forth. We need to study the issue and get some hard facts on what we could do to curtail the epidemic of gun violence with minimal impact on law abiding gun owners.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    347. Re:We need more guns by shanen · · Score: 1

      Certainly deserved the insightful mod, but what the hell does this report of your moderation mean?

      Moderation +2 30% Insightful 30% Interesting 10% Flamebait

      If it were 5 mod points divided 2-2-1, then the percentages should be 40-40-20, so it must mean something else. Maybe it's just the fundamental brokenness of the moderation system that is driving Slashdot down?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    348. Re: We need more guns by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you're confusing the idiot - you're discussing FACTS, not feel good opinions.

    349. Re:We need more guns by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      And wave a magic wand and prevent all smuggling of guns and ammo into the US.

    350. Re:We need more guns by wyHunter · · Score: 1
    351. Re:We need more guns by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're discussing Democrats here. The first gun control laws in the USA were in South Carolina, to keep freed slaves from owning firearms. And every other gun control law in the nation typically comes from Democrat led states, who are afraid of brown people owning firearms.

    352. Re:We need more guns by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Phew! I thought you were going to say corporate America... I am relieved!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    353. Re: We need more guns by pax+humana · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute, I'm intrigued. Are you also in favor of banning muslims from the US? Are you also in favor of Prohibition? "Except everyone is innocent until they're not. It's about prevention." And one other thing - the freedom to keep and bear arms is built into the Constitution (Bill of Rights) not to protect a hobby nor so much to protect themselves from each other, but to allow the people a chance to protect themselves from the government. It was all about protection from a potentially tyrannical government.

    354. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly hobbies like driving vehicles or cooking pot roast with a pressure cooker? That sort of thing?

      No, not that sort of thing.

    355. Re: We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      just tell me about all the peaceful uses of rifles.

      Hmm...to date, all of my firearms, handguns, rifles and shotguns ALL have had peaceful use time. In fact, at least once a week , a subset of them gets used peacefully at the range, or at friends' homes that have land where we can go shoot.

      In fact, I'd dare say that MOST use of the guns in the US, by gun owners are peacefully used.

      Think about it, with as many guns as we have in the US and as many gun owners, if the vast majority of uses were not peaceful, we'd have a lot of trouble here and that simply is not the case.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    356. Re:We need more guns by ausekilis · · Score: 0

      Normally when we say "NRA" we think "Republican" and, at least for me, "old stuffy gun-toting white guy". That ignores the appeal that Republicans are having with the disenfranchised younger generation. Not only is there the "old rich folk" Republicans, but the younger "If you vote with us you'll be like us when you're older" Republicans. You know, those late teen and 20-somethings that came into a Democratic-led economy and were unable to get jobs due all kinds of reasons - such as H1B's.

      So now the Democrats are scraping by with the liberal-minded middle-management level people that were fortunate enough to get a well-paying job before the curve. And, like you said, those people don't show up in droves to voice an opinion.

      Of course, there's many more factors at play, but I wanted to point out it's not all the out-of-touch rich people passing the laws.

    357. Re: We need more guns by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      It's a mixed bag of 30,000 dead people every year.

    358. Re: We need more guns by udachny · · Score: 0

      America's incidence is very high

      - actually I disagree, I think the incidence of having a mass shooting or two a day in a country of over 300 million people is extremely low.

    359. Re:We need more guns by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yup. It wasn't passed. Hypocrites on both sides. Just as hypocritical of Pelosi saying that her argument was suddenly wrong.

      I can't defend (R) and I am not even going to try. I am neither (D) or (R). But there are hypocrites in all parties.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    360. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Zealand actually has quite lax gun laws. They are looser than those of the UK, Australia, and even Canada. Perhaps they don't have population density issues, overmedication of mental health patients, or whatever else.

    361. Re:We need more guns by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Firearms are essentially banned in Chicago and much harder to acquire in IL and its surrounding States as comapred to Houston. Perhaps it's not the presence or absence of an inert object that dictates violence, but the culture of the city itself?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    362. Re: We need more guns by pax+humana · · Score: 1

      Also this weekend, an ISIS supporter in Edmonton, Canada ran over a police officer with a truck and then jumped out of the vehicle stabbing the officer with a knife after which he ran off and managed to injure four more bystanders. https://www.rt.com/news/405221...

    363. Re: We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Gun ownership is an outdated right because civilised society doesn't have the need for guns everywhere

      Hmm..sure, just tell that to the criminals that are doing home invasions.

      Frankly, if someone kicks down my door, I'd rather meet them with a firearm and blow their ass away, rather than shouting "BOO" at them.

      And too, the right to bear arms in the US constitution was also put in there, as a protection from the tyranny of government. And even in these modern times, that could still happen.

      IF nothing else, when things go bad, I'd rather be able to protect myself. What happens when the power grid goes down, either through hacking or maybe a sun flare.

      Cities and life can turn real nasty when power is out and the police aren't a force. Just see what happens on a small scale in areas with hurricanes, with people looting, etc.

      Self defense is a viable reason to have them. Even in the best of times, the police are NOT there to prevent crimes. They just usually get there in time to investigate and cart away the bodies.

      In many areas, you can get a pizza delivered faster than you can get a cop to respond, so, you have to provide for your own defense until they can get there.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    364. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern weapons like what? Those made after 1910? Semi-auto weapons have been around for over 100 years.

    365. Re: We need more guns by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      as long as those innocent civilian registered gun owners have them locked up when not in use down the range.

      Err..that doesn't do you much good when you have someone breaking into your home late at night when you are there.

      The most useless thing in the world is an unloaded gun...the second most useless thing is one locked up that you cannot readily access in an emergency.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    366. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHAT THE FUCK you American's have no humanity left do you?

    367. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      I am neither also. However, the repugnicans were howling mad making all sorts of "closed door" meetings claims which were provably false while they were the minority party. Crying about how no one would tell them what was in proposed bills which were clearly available to them. Now that they are in power, the strategy they were gnashing their teeth complaining about is what they decided would be their go-to in order to push through their inhumane and even inhuman agenda. I don't buy the false equivalency that you are putting forth. The dems might be incompetent and unfortunately are also corporatists, however, the repugs take reprehensible to a wholly new levels as they plumb for new depths of corporatist fuckery.

      Repugnicans are way beyond hypocrites, they are actively evil and aren't even credibly trying to hide it.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    368. Re:We need more guns by pax+humana · · Score: 1

      If you are having trouble buying a gun legally, you should go to the CIA for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (aka Fast and Furious) The 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves from the government.

    369. Re:We need more guns by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      It does make it worse. In a panic situation, a good guy with a gun will be viewed as the bad guy by those whom can't see or know where the bad guy is. Cops might even shoot the good guy and ask questions later in the mayhem.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    370. Re:We need more guns by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      I think it's to do with meta moderation. A lot of my posts get trolls modding them down, and it's 50/50 if the genuine mods win out.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    371. Re:We need more guns by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well, I think it's pretty certain that if you could magically make all the guns in a city disappear, the homicide and the suicide rates would go down.

      But legally proscribing the sale of a thing in a narrow geographic area doesn't do much, particularly when you can go over the state line and have someone without a felony conviction make a straw purchase for you.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    372. Re:We need more guns by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Let me put this very simply: YOU CANNOT PUNISH A PERSON BEFORE A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.

      Will keep that principle in mind next time I hear talk of "pre-emptive strikes" on other countries.

    373. Re:We need more guns by deadwill69 · · Score: 1

      Yes. Lots of other variables. It appears that dude was firing from 1200 yards away using what is referred to as plunging fire. It also appears he may have had a full auto. Bad situation all around for those in the beaten zone. 280 bullets in 31 seconds is a hell of count.

      Quick breakdown:
      http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

    374. Re:We need more guns by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Lets face it.. if killing 20 toddlers in a school did not change the laws, nothing will.

      Yes. Today is just another example of the country most Americans apparently want.

      Makes me profoundly glad I don't live there

    375. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Let me put this very simply: YOU CANNOT PUNISH A PERSON BEFORE A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.

      So, you're white then.

      A therapist's opinion is exactly ZERO evidence.

      Again, this evidence would be used to kick off a process where the guns are impounded until the person can have their day in court.

      This sort of seizing of private property happens all the time. For example, a gun which the police think might be evidence of a crime is routinely seized, impounded and tested. Frequently with less evidence than "my patient told me he wants to shoot people".

      I'm against asset forfeiture laws, too.

      Yet you don't seem nearly so concerned about those.

    376. Re:We need more guns by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      As of this writing I don't believe I've heard any details as to why the shooter did this. We might never know, given that he offed himself.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    377. Re:We need more guns by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      That's fine by me. But go easy on that strawman you're beating up.

    378. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're discussing Democrats here

      And if the political parties still had the same alignment as that era, you'd have a point.

      And every other gun control law in the nation typically comes from Democrat led states, who are afraid of brown people owning firearms.

      Sure, like Colorado enacting some regulations after the Aurora theater shooting...oh wait, white guy, white state, state government split roughly 50/50.

    379. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      If you want to try and factually argue that "this is what the people really want", then you need something more like a referendum where there are no other issues.

      Btw, the NRA is vehemently against such efforts - they routinely try to shut down ballot initiatives and other referenda-like situations before a vote can be taken. Kinda indicates what the will of the people would actually show.

    380. Re:We need more guns by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Having a carry permit does not make you safer if you are black.

      Just ask Philando Castile.........

    381. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. Guns are only for killing. Computers are not.

    382. Re:We need more guns by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine a bunch of people in the crowd firing randomly in panic?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    383. Re: We need more guns by kqs · · Score: 1

      Silly hobbies like driving vehicles or cooking pot roast with a pressure cooker?

      Driving vehicles is an excellent comparison. Vehicles are crazy dangerous; therefore we have many regulations involving registering, inspecting and insuring those dangerous devices. Also licensing and testing the drivers. I agree with you, we should have similar regulations for firearms.

      Pressure cookers, though... I'm a poor cook but the most likely terrible result with a pressure cooker is a ceiling covered in strained gravy and veggies. Also, unlike vehicles and firearms, I'm not likely to be killed by your incompetence with a pressure cooker unless you tie me up next to your stove.

    384. Re: We need more guns by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      The audio sounded like he was somehow using a full auto.

      If this were the case, then it would be pretty much the first use of full auto in the US for a crime like this in modern history.

      And (unless I missed one in the last few years) the second killing committed, by its owner, with a privately-owned machine gun under the regulation of the GCA '34, in the 83 years since its passage.

      It's a bit early, so news items are notoriously unreliable (even when they're really trying to get it right). Nevertheless I've already heard:
        - CNN: Claim that the guns were converted semi-autos. (That's also illegal.)
        - CNN: Claim by a relative that the shooter "was not a gun guy".
        - New York Post (paraphrasing an article in the Daily Mail and a tweet from NBC News): Claim that the shooter was the son of a multiple felon bank robber, prison escapee, attempted cop killer, with a diagnosis of psychopathy and a history of using firearms in his crimes.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    385. Re:We need more guns by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Well said sir, well thought out.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    386. Re:We need more guns by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      It's not the drugs that are the problem. It isn't the drug culture either. It's the "war on drugs", criminalization, and incarceration that is the problem in the US. It's been just as effective as the prohibition and had all the same baggage that came along with it. I can't say about Canada, but there seem to be some areas in the EU at least that have laxer attitudes about drugs than here. If it isn't criminal and is cheaper and easier to obtain, there would be less criminal involvement, less fights for territory control, fewer gang related deaths. There would undoubtedly be more drug related deaths, but that is another problem that again needs to be addressed at the people level rather than the gun/drug/alcohol level.

    387. Re:We need more guns by cogeek · · Score: 1

      You're right, it is simple. Do nothing to resolve the underlying issue, just do something, anything, that feels good and makes it feel like you're making a difference. Think of the children!

    388. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So anything which speeds up the killing or makes it easier is OK?

    389. Re: We need more guns by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Currently, they are prevented from doing so.

      Because it’s not a disease and it's not their mission. When all the diseases are cured and the budget is running a huge surplus so there’s tons of extra money and none of the scientists have anything to work on, then maybe.

    390. Re:We need more guns by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Canada is just as hard on drug as the US, and so is the EU overall. Even though some countries are tolerant towards cannabis, so are some US states.
      So no, the war on drug doesn't explain the huge difference in murder rate.

    391. Re:We need more guns by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Kinda indicates what the will of the people would actually show.

      We don't need a third variable to indicate what the will of the people is with regard to gun-control - we already know from their voting patterns that they don't care enough!

      It is not enough of a problem to anyone who has a vote to spend. The danger represented by gun ownership is smaller than many of the other routine dangers families face.

      For example, guns kill fewer children than swimming pools. More children are killed by parents carelessly backing over them in the driveway than by guns.

      Is it any wonder that a voter will not want to waste their vote on the anti-gun politician? Sure, it's important to you to reduce the number of gun-deaths, but society has indicated thus far that it finds other things that are more important.

      It's important to me that governments use open file-formats and not force me to purchase a copy of MS Office to do business with them, but I am hardly going to castigate voters who support a politician who wants to standardise on MS Office.

      Just because an issue is important to you, doesn't mean that it is actually important at all.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    392. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this is a good use for laser pointers. Especially the 200mW and up ones. No problems with different elevations - just aim at the muzzle flash. If he can't see, he can't shoot effectively - not even at a dense but distant crowd.

    393. Re:We need more guns by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And thereby make a pair of felons via straw purchase. You will NEVER be able to halt all firearm homicides. Most of the EU is highly restrictive relative to the US and even then, they have 65-70% number of mass shootings as we have in the US. It's the culture, not the presence/absence of weapons.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    394. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alexa, shoot that stupid bitch and then shoot yourself, bitch.

    395. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been on this site for well over 10 years and have been reading that as ANI . Thanks for clearing that up.

    396. Re:We need more guns by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Or even better, do as we always do, nothing. The murder rate will keep staying twice as high in the USA. But at least you'll keep your 2nd amendment, right?

      What's the underlying issue? There are probably many causes but the number of available non-hunting guns (and the ease of getting one) is definitely one of them. The gun loving culture is another. As long as you don't get this, you won't solve the issue.

      It's not with hand guns that you are going to defeat your tyrannic government anyways. You'd need tanks, jet fighters and nukes do to so. Therefore since the 2nd amendment serves no purpose, why not repeal it?

    397. Re:We need more guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There is really only one radical (and bound to be unpopular) thing you could do to reduce the harm created by mass shootings: ban detachable magazines.

      I own a tube-fed .22 caliber semi-automatic winchester. The rate of fire with repeated trigger pulls is more than fast enough for any reasonable purpose, and with a little trivial fiddling, you can make vinyl hose reloaders that will reload the 13-14 rounds of .22lr that it will carry in the tube just about as quickly as you can insert a magazine. It will slow you down to a walking pace, as you probably can't reasonably manage it while running. It's legal in California, which is nice because I owned it before this last rules change here which made a bunch of firearms illegal, and I'd have hated to have had to get rid of it. I got it from my father.

      You're also going to have to ban any firearms which can feasibly be speed loaded if you want your rule to have any effect. That also means most revolvers.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    398. Re:We need more guns by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      I think we need to execute Mr Stephen Paddock.

      You're too late.

      And now I know where the phrase "beat a dead horse" comes from. I never imagined it was from people wanting to beat or "execute" a corpse.

      Wrong. It is not about trying to execute a corpse. The phrase comes about from the idea of getting a dead horse to move. No matter how much you may whip/beat the dead horse, it isn't going anywhere. In general use it means you're talking about a subject that isn't going to change, e.g. "If you want to get gun control laws changed, you're beating a dead horse; the NRA and Republicans have that all tied up."

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    399. Re:We need more guns by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Do blind people lose their right to freedom of speech? Or freedom of the press? What Constitutional rights other than the right to self defense should blind people give up?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    400. Re:We need more guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt a mentally ill person could legally purchase a full auto weapon.

      I know where to go to purchase a full auto weapon without having to go through any background checks. I don't want one, nor think one would particularly benefit me; if I'm in a situation where a fully automatic weapon would help me more than the battle rifle and semi-automatic pistol I've got already, I'm probably well-fucked and I ought to get on with the business of getting my head between my legs so that I can kiss my own ass goodbye.

      People like yourself keep conflating "scary" looking semi-automatic weapons, with fully automatic weapons which are very short supply and VERY difficult and expensive to acquire legally.

      But not, in fact, very difficult to acquire illegally — though still plenty expensive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    401. Re:We need more guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      On the mental health front, the NRA has fought to prevent any restrictions until the person is institutionalized or legally declared insane.

      I know someone whose parents had her institutionalized because she came out as bisexual. They told some lies about her, and even though she was an adult, they were accepted as sufficient evidence to lock her up in a facility on the basis that she might harm herself. I don't think the NRA gives one tenth of one shit about queers' right to bear arms, but I do share their distaste for depriving citizens of rights on specious bases. Given that the science of psychoanalysis is borderline fraud anyway, I think it's reasonable to be skeptical about depriving the mentally ill (who are in fact not generally dangerous to others) of their constitutional rights.

      If we could reasonably identify only the people who were clearly dangerously clinically mentally ill, and bar them from firearms purchases, that might be reasonable. But there really is a dangerous slippery slope there. Who's deciding? The latest DSM makes questioning your doctor a sign of a disorder.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    402. Re:We need more guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The ONLY way you will get the number of gun deaths to 0, would be to immediately ban all guns, and ammunition sales, And the confiscate all existing firearms and ammo from the citizenry.

      Not only couldn't you do that even if you tried and all the people tried in good faith to comply, because of all the hidden guns that nobody knows the location of right now, but it wouldn't stop people smuggling in guns, and it wouldn't stop people making guns. Even if you could reasonably try to do it and wanted to do it, you couldn't actually do it even if you changed the constitution.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    403. Re: We need more guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Countries where people generally don't own or carry guns tend to be a lot safer.

      Countries where people are safer tend to inspire less gun ownership. Countries where people aren't permitted to own guns run the gamut from very safe to very, very unsafe.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    404. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 3 times the rate of Canada, 5 times that of the UK and 8 times that of Ireland -
        you must be so proud.

      Those numbers of course don't include the suicides of those who've had enough of the American Dream or all the little kiddies accidentally shooting their gun-lovin' mommas.

    405. Re: We need more guns by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Thank you for making my point. And just like cooking and driving, the hobby of shooting is amazingly safe.

      LOL.

    406. Re: We need more guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Err....as far as I know, in most states you do NOT have to register a gun with the state.

      Most of the population of the country lives somewhere in which firearms are controlled and have registration requirements.

      If buying from an FFL dealer, you do go through a background check. But that is not registering the weapon.

      That's a form of registration! When you're forced to go through a FFL dealer, it's specifically for the purpose of generating records of sales.

      Here in California (the most populous state) you're required to register ownership of handguns, but not long guns. I have some unregistered long guns, which were given to me by my father — thus the transfer didn't have to go through a dealer. I own one handgun, and I made the sale through an actual gun store within the last decade, and obviously had to jump through the usual hoops including taking a class and a test and getting a background check. Residents of New York (the fourth most populous state) need a permit to own a handgun, not just to buy one (as in California) and there is mandatory registration for all firearms. Florida and Texas are in between them, though they have less combined population. They're pretty free about firearms ownership. But Illinois (#5) requires firearms owners to get a card, so they don't require registration of firearms but they do require registration of firearm owners.

      I got tired of going down the list, but it looks to me like registration requirements are in fact not uncommon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    407. Re:We need more guns by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > fictional book BEFORE 9/11 that speculated on hijacked planes
        Tom Clancy "Debt of Honor"; was reported to be based on real foiled or changed terrorist plots. The 911 commission report also talked about the many times the government had intercepted plans to do this exact thing, before and after the book was published. So it wasn't anything brand new, by the author. It just wasn't presented to the right people at the right time in the right way to counter.

      Also we do have to measure the costs vs the risks of something happening, you cannot realistically secure every risk, and still have free productive lives, many risks are worth taking.

    408. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun nuts. Obsessing over technical details to hide their death worship since 1867.

    409. Re: We need more guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My defence is living somewhere that is less dangerous so I don't need to defend myself from people with guns.

      All of those places are either defended with weather so poor nobody else wants to live in them, or with lots and lots of guns (and bombs, and...) or both. In every case, lots of people have to suffer for the people living in those places to enjoy their particular lifestyles.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    410. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pathetic.

    411. Re:We need more guns by green1 · · Score: 1

      It's worked in every other civilized country....

    412. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He ducked quickly enough when the shots started. And if you look at the pictures further down in the article it shows a picture of him and with the description of how people were cowering the from the shots.

    413. Re: We need more guns by green1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should start wondering why your country is the least safe first world country in existence then, and try to resolve that issue. Because there isn't any other first world country where so many people get shot.

    414. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget about everyone having guns, everyone needs nukes, that way if anyone shoots anyone, their personal nuke will go off. MAD for all.

    415. Re: We need more guns by green1 · · Score: 1

      And the funny part is that any rational person would say that this incident IS terrorism. But unless it happens to come out that the shooter was Muslim we're going to somehow pretend it wasn't?

    416. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liking guns is death worship in the same way that liking shaved vaginas is pedophilia. Dumbass.

    417. Re: We need more guns by green1 · · Score: 1

      And both of those are far less likely to get you killed than a loaded one, even if an armed robber breaks in to your home.

      The most commonly killed person by firearms in the USA is a family member of the owner of said firearm.

    418. Re: We need more guns by green1 · · Score: 1

      A mass shooting in France made news around the world because it's completely unheard of.

      So many mass shootings happen in the USA that most of them barely make the local news.

      I think the rest of the world might be on to something here.

    419. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You laugh, but you shot your own agenda in the ass. Poor baby.

    420. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to what? Two masshotings a day among 300 million is little compared to what? Lets compare 1 masshooting in USA to UK and say their population is only 50 million (it's closer to 65 million), that would be 1 masshooting in the UK a week. There are masshootings in the UK on average in modern history loosely calculated like every 15 years or more. Just a couple the last 40-50 years. USA is extreme (negative) in many ways, this is just another one. A country of imbeciles run by imbeciles. You dream, eat and shit propaganda. You are the hamster in the running wheel...you live crap and eat crap...you don't even have freedom...

    421. Re: We need more guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should start wondering why your country is the least safe first world country in existence then, and try to resolve that issue.

      Yeah, we are trying. Problem is, people are still stupid. They vote for shitheels even when they have other options, and they vote for the greater of evils and pat themselves on the backs.

      Because there isn't any other first world country where so many people get shot.

      So what? The relevant statistic is the murder rate, not the shooting rate. We don't fare all that well there either; the only nations worth comparing to on that list who actually have a worse rate are Russia and China.

      I agree readily that we should work on reducing our homicide rate. I don't know that reducing gun ownership at this point would make things better, though. I think it would just lead to more killings by cops.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    422. Re: We need more guns by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Guns are absolutly not designed for self defense, they are designed to kill. The fact that they do this pretty well is why they are used for self defens.

      It is also why a lot of people see a difference between regulating guns versus more regulations on cars or computers. They are tools that are very different in nature.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    423. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as hypocritical of Pelosi saying that her argument was suddenly wrong.

      But that wasn't Pelosi's argument.

      Her argument was that Republicans were obfuscating the contents of the Affordable Care Act. That they were spreading a fog of deceptions around the law. Thus the assertion that only real experience would dispel their falsehoods. You, of course, misrepresent it in a fallacious attempt to portray it as an unrelated statement. Repeating the initial act.

      Now since we recall how Republicans were falsely complaining about the transparency in the process, revealed when their laws went through multiple steps with no such public input, we can see the problem here is consistently with those who mouth GOP arguments.

      Sorry dude, the fraud and liar here is you, for fomenting a deliberately deceitful argument.

    424. Re:We need more guns by green1 · · Score: 1

      And this here is the real problem.

      Getting ANY form of sensible gun control passed in the USA would be basically impossible. But even if you did, it wouldn't solve the underlying problem. The underlying problem is, why on earth do Americans think they need so many guns???? It's the culture. There are so many guns already in circulation, that even if you banned all gun ownership overnight, nothing would change. How do you change that culture though?

      Evidence doesn't work. We have hundreds and hundreds of studies that show that Americans are more likely to be shot than citizens of any other first world country. We have tons of studies that show that the most likely person to be killed by any gun is a family member of that gun's owner. We have research showing that if you are confronted with an armed assailant you are far more likely to be hurt or killed if you have a gun than if you do not. And yet Americans still want more and more guns.

      How do you fix such a messed up mindset in an entire country's population?

    425. Re:We need more guns by green1 · · Score: 1

      Overnight, no.
      Long term? absolutely.

      And even illegal guns are less common in countries where there are fewer legal guns.

    426. Re: We need more guns by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That doesn't sound like Europe at all. Full range of weather to suit any taste, strong gun control and very low gun crime rates.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    427. Re:We need more guns by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      Bugger rifles, a howitzer would have guaranteed a kill, then a drone could take out the howitzer, then a jet fighter could take out the drone, then a battleship could have taken out the jet then.... a f*ck it, let the nukes fly.

    428. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Now do you want to bullshit some more about how you can shoot into specific hotel room from 400 yards away with a civilian rifle, which you just happened to be carry to a music festival? You make 2 points: "civilian" rifles can't shoot accurately at 400 yards toward a target that is brightly illuminated by muzzle flash, and people don't currently carry long arms to music festivals. See ahref=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_rifle%23Accuracyrel=url2html-27866https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_rifle#Accuracy for a comparison of the accuracy of a "civilian" competition target rifle (0.15-0.3 MOA), a standard military sniper rifle (1-3 MOA), and a military-issue assault rifle (3-6 MOA). Admittedly, you would not bring a competition target rifle to a concert, but a well-tuned semi-automatic AR15 would not be worse than its military full-automatic equivalent. And, the suppressive effect of return fire would have saved lives by keeping the gunman's head down even if it didn't hit him (immediately). So, should we carry long arms to places where we currently only carry handguns? This event is making me think we should. See also the shooting of the Republican congressmen: even one long gun would have slowed the attacker considerably.

    429. Re: We need more guns by skam240 · · Score: 1

      So a bunch of things that can be used as a weapon are the same as a weapon? Guns are designed specifically to kill. It's impractile to ban everything that can be used to kill but limiting the tools whose only purpose is to kill (and do it easily and efficiently) is moving towards a safer society.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    430. Re:We need more guns by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't a good guy with a gun. I'm pro gun, and agree anyone with a weapon in the crowd could have done nothing.
      The problem is we're moving into a time when we will no longer be safe in any group larger than five.
      no gun, then truck. no truck, then poison. Hell, a drone with nerve toxin could have killed everyone. and is that sort of thing getting easier or harder to manufacture?
      Scary times...

    431. Re: We need more guns by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      that's the one thing I haven't heard about the shooter. Was he a follower of one of these Religious Fundamentalist (regardless of brand) that view Las Vegas as "the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah"?

    432. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now do you want to bullshit some more about how you can shoot into specific hotel room from 400 yards away with a civilian rifle, which you just happened to be carry to a music festival?

      You make 2 points: "civilian" rifles can't shoot accurately at 400 yards toward a target that is brightly illuminated by muzzle flash, and people don't currently carry long arms to music festivals.

      See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_rifle#Accuracy for a comparison of the accuracy of a "civilian" competition target rifle (0.15-0.3 MOA), a standard military sniper rifle (1-3 MOA), and a military-issue assault rifle (3-6 MOA). Admittedly, you would not bring a competition target rifle to a concert, but a well-tuned semi-automatic AR15 with a reasonable scope would not be worse than its military full-automatic equivalent and should deliver rounds into the window used by the shooter. And, the suppressive effect of return fire would have saved lives by keeping the gunman's head down even if it didn't hit him (immediately).

      So, should we carry long arms to places where we currently only carry handguns? This event is making me think we should. See also the shooting of the Republican congressmen: even one long gun would have slowed the attacker considerably.

    433. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah blah blah, more 'conservatives are racist' garbage. Actually no, the Second Amendment would be important regardless. You'll never get your precious gun control because you don't understand the other side.

    434. Re: We need more guns by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Witholding access to firearms from unstable people is too much to ask?

      That sounds good in theory, but there was no reason to believe that this guy was "unstable". Stephen Paddock had no criminal record, was not diagnosed with any mental disorder, did not express politically extreme views. There was no reason to believe that he would do something like this.

      Mass shootings of strangers are only about 0.1% of shootings in America. It might make more sense to focus on the other 99.9% that don't often make the headlines. Mass shootings are very different, and are the most difficult to prevent. They tend to be committed by people with no prior record of violence, they are meticulously planned, and they tend to use rifles. The other 99.9% are 55% suicides, 5% accidents, and the other 40% tend to be committed by people with violent records, are spur-of-the-moment and driven by emotion, and are mostly done with handguns.

    435. Re:We need more guns by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      It's automated turrets, all the way down.

    436. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because itâ(TM)s not a disease and it's not their mission.

      Actually, it is a disease, and within the auspices of their mission. You can read their charter, it includes any and all health threats, no longer are they limited to mosquito control and prevention.

      Sorry, but you need to educate yourself to cure your ignorance.

      Also a disease, and part of the CDC's mission.

      When all the diseases are cured and the budget is running a huge surplus so thereâ(TM)s tons of extra money and none of the scientists have anything to work on, then maybe.

      There is no shortage of money or available scientists to work on that either. Sorry, Kohath, your fallacious refusal to admit the problem only highlights the flaws in your dishonest position.

      Mostly because you are scared of the truth. You much prefer to stare at the walls of the cave, pretending the shadows are real.

    437. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, robot gun place u

    438. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      instead of this, simply write "insert stupid over the top poor taste gun joke here".

    439. Re: We need more guns by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      If I hear one more person rattle on about "a gun's only purpose is to kill people", I will simply be upset and not shoot anyone.
      Because I recognize: 1) Killing people is bad , and 2) morons exist.

    440. Re: We need more guns by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Countries like the UK and New Zealand have low incidences of these kinds of events, whereas America's incidence is very high

      Well, the UK yes. But other industrial countries exceed the US in mass shooting deaths (per capita; obviously the US will have more total, with more people.) Specifically, Norway, Finland and Switzerland in Europe. (Based on data 2003-2014)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    441. Re:We need more guns by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      What laws would you want to change? Because, AFAIK, even manufacturing these guns (for civilians) was already outlawed in 1986.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    442. Re:We need more guns by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      Exactly right. Someone closer maybe has an opportunity to intervene. People down in the "kill box" might as well have been getting hit by lightning bolts thrown by Zeus. They never had a chance so pointing to them and saying "Where's your good guy with a gun now?" would be stupid and pointless. I am a former police officer and I carry concealed legally every day. If everyone in that audience had been carrying it wouldn't have mattered. If a few people near the room were armed that might have helped.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    443. Re: We need more guns by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, that's about right. 10-11 thousand people are killed by others, around 18 thousand or so kill themselves. In a country with 323 million people in it and almost 43 thousand suicides a year that sounds about right.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    444. Re: We need more guns by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You know how I can tell I'm right and struck a nerve? Because you resort to a childish laugh instead of admitting that you've spent a moment and researched the topic and know you'll sound silly if try to actually talk about the reality and substance of the matter.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    445. Re:We need more guns by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Politician A fights to keep your industry alive, lower your taxes, rebuild the roads you drive on every day, but wants concealed carry to require a permit.
      Politician B fights to end your job, raise your taxes and destroy all infrastructure, punch you in the face every Tuesday, but wants concealed carry without a permit.

      NRA supporters will always vote for Politician B. No matter how much they are hurt by all the rest of the policies.

      Have you thought about why that is?

      Choice "B" means getting a law repealed that once gone has not yet been replaced. In 1986 there was a single state that allowed for concealed carry without a permit, Vermont. Now that number is something like 10 or 12, depending on how "strong" of protection one sets the line to consider this "without a permit". 30 years ago only 10 states guaranteed people's right to self defense with a firearm, through either no permit or the government was required to issue a permit unless the applicant was prohibited from owning a firearm. Today that number is around 40 states with "shall issue" permits or no permit required. Taxes change every year, industries boom and bust, and the infrastructure in the USA is still very good no matter who is in charge. So long as voters see the government get just a little bit smaller, such as with gun law repeals, they will see a very real improvement in their freedoms and quality of life.

      Choice "A" likes to lie to people. They'll promise the world to get elected and then taxes still go up, regulations still kill industries, the roads continue to deteriorate, but they'll be honest about those gun control laws. I've seen the polls, and people have gotten wise to this. Gun control is just another tax by another name through fees and such. Gun control kills jobs as firearm manufacturers close up factories and move to another state, the guns are still made and sold but the jobs in that state just went somewhere else.

      Oh, and the face punching tends to stop when people are carrying guns.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    446. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Muslim" isn't a race; it's a description of a culturally inflicted gullibility, like "Christian" and "republican".

      While you're at it, don't forget to include Democrats.

    447. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again a mass casuality shooting in a gun free zone.
      If people in the audience had had automatic weapons of their own they could have laid down suppressive fire on the hotel long enough for the crowd to evac.

    448. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like hobbyists either, especially car owners, since cars are more effective weapons. In fact we should outlaw all vehicles and go back to horses and walking. It might be more dangerous, but at least I'll feel safer.

    449. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said rifle. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

      No I don't. I also don't make up shit on the internet to sound tough.

      The only type of person capable of taking out that shooter from the crowd at the critical moment would be a fully trained and equipped sniper with combat experience, and who was also expecting the threat and was in already position.

      Now do you want to bullshit some more about how you can shoot into specific hotel room from 400 yards away with a civilian rifle, which you just happened to be carry to a music festival?

      I get that a (different) AC was replying to you & misunderstanding your position. I completely agree with the last two paragraphs you wrote above.

      However, I'd like to make a comment wrt

      ... on the internet to sound tough.

      which I believe was referring to the (stupid) AC threatening fire back.

      My comment is that threatening to take out a gun is not tough. Any idiot, or lunatic can do it. Small children can do it (and have done it). Actually, using firearms to kill or injure people is pretty much the opposite of tough.

      Resolving issues peacefully is tough. Supporting a family is tough. Using a gun is for weaklings.

    450. Re: We need more guns by green1 · · Score: 1

      I don't know that reducing gun ownership at this point would make things better, though. I think it would just lead to more killings by cops.

      If there were fewer guns around, you think MORE people would be killed by police????

      I don't think I've ever heard a cop say he would have shot the suspect if only they hadn't been armed...

    451. Re:We need more guns by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      Well, you can then just as well hand automatic weapons to any racist violent organization .. and use that as an excuse.

    452. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a huge difference between the populations of New Zealand and the United Kingdom and the United States. Crime frequently stems from the criminalization of drugs, alcohol, and other draconian laws. Legalize everything short of theft and violence itself and we'd have a much safer world. Mass shootings are also rare to begin with in the United States. The UK and Europe in general in comparison also have a "problem" with terrorists in spite of such harsh laws against gun ownership. In comparison the United States has had very little in the way of major terrorist incidents outside of 9/11. There are high gun states with no mass shootings to speak of as well. What comes off to you as "sensible" laws are draconian and the rest of us should not be punished for the actions of a tiny tiny tiny few. Thousands of people die every day and almost none of them are from "gun violence".

    453. Re:We need more guns by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The sole purpose of a gun is to kill and maim."

      Tell that to my RAMSet rivet gun.

      Tell that to my pre-charged pneumatic cartridge gun that helps me thread cable through pipe.

      Tell that to my Nailgun.

      Fuckwit.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    454. Re:We need more guns by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "hunters don't shoot far upward, do they"

      Any bird hunter pretty much has a 30-45 degree upwards aim, and they're after stuff almost 500-60 yards up.

      A regular shotgun-style wall of lead, even from handguns from the crowd below, would've likely hit the shooter. Sure the hotel/casino would be fucked, but hey, their fault for not catching the guy sneaking in a score or so of firearms in day after day...

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    455. Re: We need more guns by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If there were fewer guns around, you think MORE people would be killed by police????

      Well, you can read, so you've got that going for you.

      I don't think I've ever heard a cop say he would have shot the suspect if only they hadn't been armed...

      The cops are constantly shooting people that they definitely don't think are armed, as well as people they should definitely be able to tell are not armed. You can't blame that shit on guns in civilian hands. If you are telling me you want to take guns out of the hands of cops, that makes sense to me. They clearly have shit emotional, trigger, and muzzle control, as a group. They are constantly wrongfully and/or accidentally shooting people.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    456. Re: We need more guns by SixMinutes · · Score: 1

      Guns are not a silly hobby, they are an enshrined RIGHT.

      Only in the US. Guns are tools for killing things. As tools, shotguns and long rifles have lots of legitimate uses in the countryside. But the only animals you can hunt with a handgun are other human beings, and the only purpose for a fully automatic weapon is to kill lots of humans at high efficiency.

      These are tools that have no place in modern society, the rest of the first world has figured this out. But the US has been ensnared by an irrational culture of gun fear: fear for personal safety, fear of state and police, fear of vanishingly rare incidents of terror. It is a fear that says: the only way to be safe is to wrap your hands around a rifle. It a fear fostered by the makers of weapons and their ideological friends, and they make millions off of it.

      For the US to recover from its plague of shootings large and small, it needs to recover from that fear first. A good next step after that would be a repeal of the Second Amendment.

    457. Re:We need more guns by Gussington · · Score: 1

      a good guy with a gun stops shit all the time in this country.

      Citation?
      I only ask because comparing American good guys with guns to other western Democracries' good guys without guns, seems to point toward less guns having a better net result overall.

    458. Re:We need more guns by Gussington · · Score: 1

      "The only type of person capable of taking out that shooter from the crowd at the critical moment would be a fully trained and equipped sniper with combat experience"

      Wrong. Hunters regularly pull off 300+ yard shots all the time with a piddly .30-06.

      So let's play out this scenario. Gun shots fired into a crowded area, thousands of armed hunters pull out their rifles that they brought to a concert for rapid response. How do you identify the shooter rather than another hunter now that everyone is waving a gun around? Is the furry hat?
      Let's say one hunter works out where the shooter is (400 yards away in the dark) and fires successfully, the other 999 hunters see that guy firing and someone shoots him thinking he was the original shooter (because he forgot to wear his furry shooter hat that announces that he is fact a hunter and not a criminal).
      But of course these are hunters so they never get it wrong...

    459. Re:We need more guns by SixMinutes · · Score: 1

      Guns are only tools, but it's important to consider what they are useful for. Handguns and assault rifles are only useful for hunting one kind of animal: humans.

      In my town, the worst mass killing we ever experienced occurred a few years ago. A young man became mentally disturbed, and killed five people, with a knife. I can only imagine what he might have been able to do with greater access to more efficient tools for killing people, but I live in Canada, where there is no legal path to obtain an automatic weapon, and where even obtaining a handgun requires two licenses, two safety courses, and two cumulative months of cooling off after obtaining those permits.

      We will likely always have mentally ill and malicious people with us, but we should make it as hard as possible for them to do harm. Tightly restricting ownership of weapons designed for killing only human beings is a reasonable way to do this.

    460. Re:We need more guns by SixMinutes · · Score: 1

      There was once a time in the US where you could reasonably make the case that armed militia were a useful way to keep the government in check, but no longer. Look at the equipment, weapons, numbers, and discipline that the police and national guard possesss these days. Any individual or small group (or even large group) taking armed action against the state is committing suicide.

      Further, what kind of collapse would the country have to suffer before some sort of armed confrontation with the state becomes anything like a reasonable choice? The US may be up against many crises, but it is still a functioning country and (nearly) a functioning democracy.

      I think, if you want to guard your governments against tyranny, your time is much better spent reading good journalism and being engaged with local and state politics, rather than arming yourself for some imagined doomsday.

    461. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, in Australia, there have been 23 murders from a population of 23 million people.
      That's a 0.1/100,000 murder rate for the entire country.
      We have 5 cities with populations over 1 million people. Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. Nearly 50 percent of the entire country's population lives in the three largest cities.
      What is different between Australia and the United States? If this can be answered, perhaps things can be learned by the US to help them bring their murder rates down.

    462. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bird hunter shooting at flying target 500-600 yds away, with a shotgun, shooting birdshot... thats awesomely funny!

      50-60 yards more like it, max.

      You've seen trap or skeet shooting, right?

    463. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to be honest, been to Vegas? seen Mandalay Bay tower, and the reflective windows on it? And the two black windows he was shooting from?

      Theres enough ambient light that those two missing windows wouldve been obvious black holes, even from the ground. Unless the lights are on in the room, those gold windows are still gold at night.

    464. Re:We need more guns by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      If I was there and I had a gun, I would have stopped this after 6 people died.

      Shortly after you would be shot by the police and then your name would be on the front page of every website about how this anonymous nobody, who spent too much time masturbating, suddenly snapped and killed 7 people.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    465. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they did. cannot buy straight ammonium nittate in the US. It's cut with a chemical to make it not work in an anfo bomb.
      Except for the ammonium nitrate slurry that mining companies use.

      But no one would break into a mine supply building or truck and steal the good stuff, no...

    466. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how they're from all the different states, it's not just one area of the U.S. that's completely fucked.
       
        That said this is a very sad event and I wish the U.S. would institute tighter gun laws.

    467. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well for many years the terrorists using car bombs in Europe were funded and armed by the US. US money went to Libya to buy explosives and guns. Then upwards of 3000 Irishmen were murdered with them.

    468. Re:We need more guns by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      So you're going to focus on banning cars first then?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    469. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But other industrial countries exceed the US in mass shooting deaths

      [citation needed]

    470. Re: We need more guns by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      The truth hurts, but you'll get over it.

    471. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Vehicles are crazy dangerous"

      Yes they are.

      But the regulations don't stop any random person (could be crazy, criminal, or truly incompetent) from walking into a car yard and buying a vehicle. Nor do they force you to secure your vehicle. Nor do they restrict the size of vehicle you can buy (larger vehicles are more dangerous).

    472. Re: We need more guns by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Here you go Check out the table as an embedded image halfway down. Fair warning, I was wrong. It was 2000-2014, not 2003-2014

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    473. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point of jokes is to force people to think at the risk of being laughed at. The refusal by many to actually acknowledge the stupidity of the position that "more guns will make us safer" can only be tackled by laughing at them, no matter how sick the jokes.

    474. Re:We need more guns by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      The NRA has fought multiple lawsuits so that blind people could buy guns. And not "legally blind" where they just have very bad eyesight. People who can't even see light and dark.

      Why wouldn't they be allowed to buy guns? Isn't this the demographic least likely to go out and use guns to kill someone? I searched google news and couldn't find any incidents of any person being shot by a blind person. So there is zero public health concern, someone is just cruelly picking on the disabled in the hopes that it sets some groundwork for eroding gun rights more generally. It has all the moral legitimacy of banning blind people from owning anti-government artwork.

    475. Re: We need more guns by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Gun violence is not a disease. Don't be silly.

    476. Re:We need more guns by dywolf · · Score: 1

      still spouting falsehoods I see

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    477. Re:We need more guns by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Deer don't shoot back.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    478. Re:We need more guns by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The problem for the gun advocates is they campaigning for a minimum level of gun violence

      The only people I've seen campaigning for violence tend to be extremists - of the religious, racial or political kind. Those aren't "gun advocates", they're extremists.

      Societal freedoms don't come for free. You don't get the tremendous personal empowerment and mobility provided by cars without an associated death rate. Sharp cutting tools built civilisation but continue to maim and kill.

      People that value the role of firearms in society similarly accept that there are related challenges.

    479. Re:We need more guns by Cederic · · Score: 1

      That's strange. You've quoted two different numbers for the murder rate in Chicago.

    480. Re:We need more guns by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Snipers are notoriously difficult to spot.

      Yes, because they wait for hours, take one shot, mask the flash, smoke and other effects of firing, move as soon as possible and relocate.

      Someone sat in one place for ten minutes shooting automatic weapons at night is easy to spot, which is why people rapidly pinpointed his location and the police knew which hotel room to breach.

    481. Re:We need more guns by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I don't think the laws would allow citizens to break down doors to find the correct room. The laws are there so that you can protect yourself in the event of imminent danger. The Colt was called "the great equalizer" because 120 pound women could use it to defend themselves against 240 pound men.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    482. Re: We need more guns by dywolf · · Score: 1

      this

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    483. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, all the while making himself a target and endangering everybody who was ducking around him. Way to go.

    484. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how you turned the entire one thousand plus responses into an issue of "Gun Control". Well done. Nothing intelligent can be discussed here anymore.

      Do you feel proud that you have led people astray from logical reasoning and coherent discussion?

      I am disgusted.

    485. Re:We need more guns by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The only type of person capable of taking out that shooter from the crowd at the critical moment would be a fully trained and equipped sniper with combat experience, and who was also expecting the threat and was in already position.

      Even then he'd need a support team to spot the target, and probably multiple shots to neutralise. Rampaging nutcases aren't known for standing still like a paper target at the range.

      Not sure if you've seen the Mandalay Bay hotel, but it's bright fucking gold and highly reflective in a town in with a love affair with neon lights. Practically the best camouflage a maniac or bond villain could ask for.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    486. Re: We need more guns by werepants · · Score: 1

      Only about 9% of guns are registered. So, what you're telling us is that owners of registered guns commit crimes just as often, proportionally, as owners of unregistered guns.

    487. Re: We need more guns by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never gone duck or goose hunting. Nor used tungsten shot in a 3 1/2" shell.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    488. Re:We need more guns by cogeek · · Score: 1

      To quote Charles Babbage: "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

      By that logic you could say that the Mainstream Media no longer does any investigative journalism, they just spout off their talking points, so we might as well repeal the 1st amendment.
      The 4th Amendment has been garbage ever since the Patriot Act was passed, so we might as well get rid of that one as well.
      Any part of the Bill of Rights you think still applies or just so much toilet paper?
      Just in case you haven't actually read it over any time recently, here you go: https://nccs.net/online-resour...

    489. Re:We need more guns by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      It is also worth noting the population density differences between the few large Canadian cities and most major cities in the US. Someone said Vancouver was one of the most dense with something like 800 or so people per sq. km. Looks like many of the areas of NYC are are over 10,000. People density and the friction that causes also plays a large part in violence ends to disputes.

    490. Re:We need more guns by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Most democracies don't have the 2nd amendment and are doing just fine. They have strong protection for free speech and other basic rights, however. Having a gun is not a basic right and has nothing to do in a constitution.

    491. Re:We need more guns by kaybee · · Score: 1

      There are situations where a good guy with a gun can help, would help, and have helped. This is not one of them.

      Conversely, I don't think fewer guns would have stopped this either. I mean he had 20, but he only needed one. And even if he had zero, he could have used explosives which likely would have caused more casualties.

      And I don't think more laws would have helped. It was highly illegal to modify a weapon to make it fully auto. It was illegal to break the glass in his hotel room. It was illegal to discharge a firearm in city limits. And it was illegal to murder 50+ people. What's the law this guy would have actually followed and avoided this?

      As much as people from "both sides" are going to try to use this to push their agenda, it was just a crazy guy who wanted to kill people for some unknown reason. There are not realistic changes that would have avoided this incident.

    492. Re:We need more guns by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Population density in Canadian and US cities is comparable.
      It always depend how large you consider the territory of the city, of course.
      Murder rate is high even in low-density US cities, compared to similar Canadian cities.

    493. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Houston is not a state, it's a city, and it's blue.

      http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/texas/

    494. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry to hear about your friend. It reminded me of the Rosenhan experiment.

    495. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Handguns? At 600 yards? It was 400 yards horizontally, afaik, so 500 yards seems about right for the 32nd floor. I don't think the accuracy would be there with the barrel length of a typical handgun. I am pretty sure no one was rocking either a rifle or shotgun and/or weren't willing to go brandishing in the middle of a live shooter situation even if they had them in their camper or tour bus. So I think your wall of bullets would have hit the Mandalay from the first to the top floor and other adjacent buildings as well. At that point things might devolve into the gangsters that run LV thinking that they're under attack from the country folk and we'd have ended up with an all out war. Even if that amusing turn didn't evolve, the carnage from the country folk "defending" themselves would have probably multiplied the death toll several times.

      Thanks for the clarification on distance, I wasn't thinking about duck and goose hunters as you mention in your response to the AC below.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    496. Re:We need more guns by Radiophobic · · Score: 1

      This. In this circumstance, it looks like democracy is working exactly as intended. Complaining about an issue on facebook and slashdot does nothing if you don't back up that complaint with a vote during the next election.

    497. Re: We need more guns by suutar · · Score: 1

      the problem is that fear is also useful to the government, and it's going to be difficult to not be afraid for personal safety while still being afraid of terrorists.

    498. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best news article I have seen so far come out of this tragedy is this guy who didn't duck down, and instead drank his beer and looked to spot the shooter, then gave him the finger.

      Brave, stupid, and conveying a message from all of us.

      Most importantly... can anyone identify what kind of beer that was?

    499. Re: We need more guns by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      I had a course in shooting safety as part of my Hunter's Safety class.

      I felt was a horrible waste of my time and rolled my eyes mightily at some of the videos (the kid pulling his loaded gun out of the front sea muzzle first was the best), but the shooting courses were instructive enough.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    500. Re:We need more guns by bungo · · Score: 1

      This is an honest question. You probably won't be reading this, as I'm posting long after the article came up, but ....

      Why do you feel you need the 2nd amendment?

      It's not 1766, you're not going to defeat a modern army unless you get some serious firepower - more than what you're currently allowed.

      Do you think it's needed for personal safety? Sports shooting. No worries, I can accept that. But if that's the case, then some restrictions could be ok. No full auto maybe?

      --
      "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
    501. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not money. It is lack of motivation by our base.

      Or ya know... you are just plain wrong to try and take away law abiding people's liberty because of the actions of a few. If you are afraid a thug is going to come to your home, your business and just beat you up without any realistic chance of being deterred by the police... as it is in many many communities, then your other rights are meaningless. The right to self defense should have been in first amendment.

    502. Re: We need more guns by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      > Gun ownership is an outdated right because civilised > society doesn't have the need for guns everywhere, only > at appropriate gun sport venues under lock and key until > required for sport. .....

      I'm curious how did you decide that? I don't recall a vote, and I would not agree with your assertion in any case whatsoever. If you tried to take them, I suspect you'd use men and women with guns--obvious hypocrisy is obvious--to enforce your will.

      How 'bout you have a gun if you want one (or not), and I'll do the same eh?

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    503. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this, then? Allow the CDC to study gun violence in the US? Currently, they are prevented from doing so. This leads to any gun control legislation being well intentioned but reactionary at best. If the CDC were allowed to study the issue and issue a report, that could be used to craft gun control laws that wouldn't impact the vast majority of law abiding gun owners while decreasing the incidence of mass shootings like these. Or the report might show that no amount of gun control law would solve this, in which case, we could move on to other possible solutions.

      So should we also let the CDC write laws abridging the Freedom of Speech? What if 80% of gun violence could be prevented by simply suppressing the news media from reporting on any violence, from preventing any portrayals of violence in mass media such as movies, tv and video games? Make even conversation about violence illegal.

      We know from some studies that violence creates more violence... people see violence, they hear about it, they experience it and they emulate the behavior, it becomes part of their thinking... so theoretically we could just tell everyone that people don't die from violence at the hands of other people... every death becomes just an accidental death. Nobody is prosecuted for violent crime... they just disappear. Everyone is just happy to everyone else and if you aren't then you go away silently. If someone takes from you, then just accept it and move on and "let" the system work it out.

    504. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, systems that protect innocent people have that drawback. Totalitarianism is much more straightforward -- you just do whatever you want, prevent anything, without considering innocence or guilt.

      Innocence is guilt.

    505. Re:We need more guns by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      >I believe 89 people died there, and Paris gun laws are plenty strict. It's almost > like crazy murderous people don't care about the gun laws.

      Well said.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    506. Re:We need more guns by leretard · · Score: 0

      I am however against stupid and irresponsible people with guns and am for major changes and strengthening of gun control laws.

      WOW WHAT A REASONABLE MODERATE YOU ARE
      Everyone reward this guy with mod points for his virtue signalling.

      ONE PROBLEM, ASSHOLE:
      How do you decide who is stupid? You are literally advocating thought crime laws and you have zero realization that you are doing so.

      Maybe you should drop your guns off at the nearest Government Safety Center.

    507. Re: We need more guns by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Only about 9% of guns are registered.

      In that case I recommend to improve the registration process.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    508. Re: We need more guns by werepants · · Score: 1

      In that case I recommend to improve the registration process.

      Sure, let's make it mandatory, the way we do with motor vehicles and other technologies that are expensive and/or potentially dangerous.

    509. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you have referenda on the specific issues?

    510. Re:We need more guns by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      The innocent will be compensated as in paid off.

    511. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's emphatically wrong. Gun advocates simply ask for unfettered access to weapons with the least amount of government intrusion to exercise their 2A rights unhindered. People who do not like the 2A or guns are not being forced to have a gun put into their hands, but would rather see others who support the 2A see those rights taken away. I'm am an owner of guns and I'm a law-abiding citizen. I don't have a criminal record, nor do I pose a danger to myself or anyway, yet I and 10's of millions of other gun owners are viewed as weapons unto ourselves waiting to kill at the drop of a hat.

      Yet one guy, who planned the massacre in Vegas is somehow representative of me or those other 10's of millions of others? Come on. This guy planned the attack, chose the venue, picked the room, staged everything, and executed his attack, yet I'm called a gun nut because the call to gun control if not outright bans and confiscations are a direct attack on my rights. My rights don't end at the tragic of someone committing an evil act and I'll never roll over to your fear. That's the risk of living in a modern society where our rights DO NOT COME from the government. If you want to live in a safety bubble, then may I suggest other countries you deem to be safer for you.

    512. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because even people with mental health issues still have rights. You are missing that critical component in this discussion.

    513. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering it was democrats who instituted said gun control laws against blacks, it's only consistent that democrats now expand gun control laws to anyone who isn't of their ilk or ideology. That's what we have now.

    514. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also do stuff like this:
      https://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

    515. Re:We need more guns by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      A good guy with a gun is _always_ what ultimately stops those that don't commit suicide first. The good guy with a gun may be a civilian, or a soldier, or a cop, but these are all good guys with guns.

    516. Re:We need more guns by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Well, if we did restrict the mentally ill from buying firearms, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. The person in question would find another way to get it - buy it used from someone that doesn't give a F about background checks, steal it himself, buy it from a criminal that stole it from someone else, etc.

      Gun control laws, all of them, are 100% ineffective. You can pass all such laws you want and not make a damned bit of difference.

      Want to protect those people at the concert? You hire a sniper. You build a sandbag blockhouse on the venue where everyone can see it, and then you put your sniper on the roof of an adjacent building where he can scan the entire elevated area from which an attack may occur. The moment the asshole breaks a window, this guy is "on it", and the moment he aims a rifle out the window, this guy puts his baseball hat backwards, squints through a telscopic sight, says, "Goodbye, asshole," and puts a .308 into said asshole's brain. End of attack, possibly before the 1st shot in this case. But that's how you protect those people, the same way the Secret Service protects the President. Oh, and this doesn't abridge anyone's 2nd Amendment Rights (but the left won't like that...)

    517. Re:We need more guns by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Its because we don't want to do something that has 0% chance of working. Gun control laws 100% don't work.

    518. Re:We need more guns by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      #1 absolutely won't work, never has worked in this country, and never will work in this country.

      #2 works, it did back in the 60's when the men in white coats would roll up on the crazy SOB, scoop him up into straight jacket, and haul is ass off to the booby hatch. Then some judge said he has rights, so now he camps out in homeless tent cities, and every now and then shoots up a bunch of people.

      #3 absolutely will work, if you get the right gun in the right hands to produce counterfire to a mass shooting. Shooter takes a shot, counterfire puts a .308 into his brain. Yep, that works too.

    519. Re:We need more guns by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If people has been armed in Vegas it would have made the situation worse. Unless one was carrying a sniper rifle there would be no way they could have hit the guy. Too far away and high up for hand guns... Maybe someone really skilled with a hunting rifle might have got lucky.

      More likely people would have started shooting where they suspected the shots were coming from, so now as well as the criminal you have paniced people sending bullets all over the place.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    520. Re: We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That's poor logic. They might not be able to counter your argument, but that says nothing about whether your argument is sound or not.

    521. Re: We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The difference is in each of those countries gun control was discussed afterwards, and progress made. The US seems hell-bent on not learning less someone's centuries-old document gets offended.

    522. Re:We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 1

      If you think the only form of self defense is a gun you are beyond help. Hint: they can get a dog. A blind person waving a gun around isn't defending themselves even though they have a gun.

    523. Re:We need more guns by BrianMahoney1357 · · Score: 1

      It's the tail wagging the dog. The NRA has only 5 million members. I get that as roughly 1.5% of the population. How is that tiny percentage of people affecting gun controls? Are the famous 1% and that 1.5% one and the same? Why do people think the NRA is so powerful? Is there another group as small as the NRA that gives an impression of being so powerful?

    524. Re:We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You do realise you can't fight the US military with the weapons you're allowed to own, right? That means if the armed forces are fighting for the people you don't need to do anything, and if the armed forces are fighting against the people your guns won't help. They're an anachronism - a lot has changed since the late 1700s, strangely enough.

    525. Re: We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Your absurd appraisal of the discussion is the most painful thing here. You're not going to learn anything if you can't even accurately portray the reality of the discussion.

    526. Re:We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 1

      A big fucking dog helps with home defense, and doesn't take time off to get drunk or otherwise incapacitated to the point defending the home becomes dangerous. It also doesn't kill your family when you lose your job, and most certainly won't go to Las Vegas to shoot the ever-loving-fuck out of innocent people.

    527. Re:We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 1

      If the laptop/cellphone had one single button which, when pressed, hacked whatever it was pointed at and stole $450,000 from it, you might see how leaving it unsecured isn't as innocent as you portray it...

    528. Re:We need more guns by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I can't take you seriously with your lack-of-virtue signalling signature. It only serves to make you look like a racist desperately trying to not look like a racist. It's not very effective.

    529. Re:We need more guns by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. That's so true, I was limiting my "good guy" to bystanders.

      Bystanders at the concert cannot take out a machine gun 300 yards away and 30 floors high with a handgun.

      Do we know yet what he was using?

      Of course dipsh!t Hillary is talking about "silencers". It's crazy how willfully ignorant people are.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    530. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      First, lots of people who are not members of the NRA vote on the NRA's recommendations and propaganda.

      Second, the people who vote against gun control only vote against gun control. It overrides any other issue in the race. That is not true of the pro-gun-control side - the pro-gun-control side are willing to vote for someone they oppose on gun control as long as they agree on other issues.

      That means the roughly 20-30% of the population who are against any gun control have far more political power than their raw numbers would indicate.

    531. Re:We need more guns by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't they be allowed to buy guns?

      Because being able to see what you are shooting at, and more importantly what is behind what you are shooting at, is necessary to use a gun safely.

    532. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern computing arose from the need to decode NAZI messages, to simulate atomic bombs, to help design aircraft and other weapons systems. The internet arose from a military research project, with the goal of designing a fault tolerant computer network that could survive atomic strikes.

      You are using military assault computers on a high capacity military assault network, which would enable military men to perform military actions, like napalming babies halfway around the world, and you have the gall to say firearms have no peaceful use...

    533. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you count economic impact of wasted man hours, and of the identity theft which is sure to come in the following years, I wouldn't be surprised if many more lifetimes worth of time were silently affected by the Equifax breech.

    534. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that when my car insurance provider raises my rates every year, they cite the statistic that my city has a high incidence of unlicensed, uninsured drivers, and higher than average incidence of hit and runs. So, don'tcha reckon people are kinda ignoring the law there, champ?

    535. Re: We need more guns by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      I call BULLSHIT on that, Norway is solely because of Anders Brevik!

      The only other ones are Finland, magazine capacity is completely unrestricted there, and Switzerland. Switzerland is another case where they're awash with guns, they've only JUST in 2017 restricted magazine capacity there.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    536. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shall not be infringed. What part about this is ambiguous? Want to change it? There is an amendment process to the Constitution.

    537. Re:We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it was a good thing that guns were prohibited in Ireland in the '70s, because if they had been readily available, the IRA would have shot and killed a lot of people, as it was, they couldn't shoot them, so nobody died.

      Oh.

      Wait.

      People DID die. From explosions. Because bombs and other explosive devices are incredibly easy to make.

      I'd rather avoid a shooter than a bomber, any day.

    538. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      yeah, and a bunch of farmers with AKs can't fight the military might of the US armed forces.

      presumably, control is about controlling people... and it defeats the purpose if you bomb all the people to hell. if the armed forces are fighting against the people...

      you have 1.5 million active military right now... and 100 million guns in the US among 300 million us citizens. as we see time and time again, boots on the ground is still a vital part of war.

    539. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      last refuge, other factors are also very important.

    540. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      venezuela

    541. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      tyranny isn't here. the president is not a king.

    542. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1
      --
      Only I can judge you.
    543. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i don't think that word means what you think it means. please point to something tyrannical as enacted by the current government.

    544. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      read the link, trump may have the classic 'traits' seen in a tyrant. but that does not make this government tyrannical nor trump a tyrant. please again, point me to something tyrannical that has happened. having the impulse, is very different from having the follow through.

    545. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      You didn't read the article led to by the link I so carefully pasted in? Are you proposing that the orange tyrant literally has to declare himself king before you'll agree that tyranny is upon us? I sure hope we don't get there for all our sakes. Especially being that we are such sheep that we'd just bleat about it on the internet while watching "I Love Lucy" reruns.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    546. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      The article to me says, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... They are making the argument by induction that the unhealthy obese moronic orangutan *president is a tyrant. If you choose to not make the connection then I guess you're going to need yet another trait checked. For me, enough are in place, clearly your standard of proof is higher. Then again I always loathed that guy, well not really during the TV show, I liked the show. Since learning more about what a vile creature he and his family are I have come to much firmer and better informed beliefs about the mendacious orange occupier of the White House. If you on the other hand like him, clearly it will take much more evidence to see that he is indeed a tyrant, though I'd grant he hasn't fully reached his goals.

      P.S. If a person exhibits enough traits of a psychopath, that person is a psychopath. If a person exhibits 3 or more symptoms of metabolic syndrome, that person has metabolic syndrome. In my mind, drumPft has passed the tyrant threshold, in yours he hasn't. You are free to continue with your opinion, wrong as it may be ;-).

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    547. Re:We need more guns by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Trust me, the Denver/Boulder metro area is pretty heavily 'D" and all decisions in Colorado come from the festering fools there. I lived there for a decade, and am glad to be out.

    548. Re:We need more guns by dywolf · · Score: 1

      it's what ive said before: "he was a law abiding owner....until he wasn't."

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    549. Re: We need more guns by dywolf · · Score: 1

      first they would have to admit that those countries exist, that its possible we can learn from them, and that this isn't the first time these problems have ever been encountered in the history of humanity.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    550. Re:We need more guns by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      There would have been plenty of muzzle flash to easily identify what room the shooter was firing from. The estimates I've seen put him at about 1100 feet from the crowd. That's easily within range for a marksman with a decent rifle.

      I haven't tried to find the answers to this yet, but have read that police first arrived at the room door 12 minutes after the start of the shooting, and yet didn't breech the door for nearly 75 minutes. Why was that?...had he already shot himself?...had the shooting stopped?...were they waiting to clear adjacent rooms? As with many investigations, we'll learn more as all of this unfolds, but in the meantime we'll hear lots of speculation from the media to keep the revenue stream hot.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    551. Re:We need more guns by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The sole purpose of a gun is to kill and maim. It has no other purpose

      As a gun owner for over forty years, I've put thousands of rounds through them, and never killed nor maimed. Clearly, they have no other purpose in your eyes. That said, if someone were to threaten me or my family, I wouldn't hesitate to use them to defend us. If that isn't justifiable to you, then I can't help you, and am simply glad that you aren't king.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    552. Re:We need more guns by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      If 20 people a week drove their car like that and were declared blameless, there would be riots.

      You're clearly unaware of actual accident statistics. Try looking them up before making baseless comments.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    553. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun violence is not a disease. Don't be silly.

      It is a disease. You just labor under the misapprehension that "disease" is limited to say, an infection or other bodily function.

      However, if you review the various dictionary meanings, you will find that the word is not so limited as you believe:

      "any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society"

      "A particular quality or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people."

      "(by extension) Any abnormal or harmful condition, as of society, people's attitudes, way of living etc."

      "Lack of ease; uneasiness; trouble; vexation; disquiet."

      "a harmful development (as in a social institution) sees the city's crime as a disease"

      No matter how much you claim that you are troubled by it, the fact is that the word is not so limited as you believe, even the origin of the word does not support your desire to limit its meaning.

      Furthermore, any attempt at pedantry is undermined by a severe lack of integrity on your part, or any of the other protesters, since all you're showing is a lack of comprehension of the entire scope of the agency, which among other things, has offices concerned with workplace hazards (NIOSH) and general injuries (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control), thereby making your protest non-meritorious since you aren't objecting to those entities which already exist.

      Really, you should know better than to engage in any act which is endorsed by such a disingenuous and fraudulent person as Kohath, his lack of integrity is a corrupting influence.

      Either way, you lose. It's a fool's game.

    554. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      the issue isn't that he doesn't fit the mold of a tyrant, it's whether or not he is one. and tyranny, like murder, has one or two 'traits' that must be met.

      according to wikipedia "Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as a person who rules without law, using extreme and cruel methods against both his own people and others." and further along, defines it as someone that 'usurps sovereign power'.

      you're saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.. i'm saying... it's not even a bird you loon.

      in essence, he fits the 'psychological profile' of a tyrant... but he hasn't actually done anything tyrannical.

    555. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      no, i just need him to enact something NOT SPECIFICALLY delegated to him in his capacity as president of the United States.

      for example, when obama unilaterally declared a moratorium on prosecution of dreamers... that's not really in the purview of his office to do, to pick and choose which laws to enforce. partial enforcement is of course acceptable, but he declared a categorical stop on enforcement. if you want amnesty, pass a bill. but that power is relegated to congress and our political process.

      if the president plays within the rules of game as defined, he is not tyrannical. breaking the rules of the game is tyranny. if you want to change the rules of the game, the rules of the game allow for that too. if we want to delegate those powers to the presidency. pass a bill. sign it into law... or ratify an amendment.

    556. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      My argument against what you are saying is already captured in the Time article I linked, I don't feel that further discussion is warranted, you penguin.
      And yes, he has done tyrannical things.
      Enjoy your blissful existence.

      Article pasted here for posterity in case linked version disappears:

      Donald Trump, president and chief executive of Trump Organization Inc. and 2016 Republican presidential candidate, smiles while speaking during a news conference at the Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., on March 15, 2016.
      Donald Trump, president and chief executive of Trump Organization Inc. and 2016 Republican presidential candidate, smiles while speaking during a news conference at the Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., on March 15, 2016. Bloomberg via Getty Images
      History
      This Is What Ancient Greeks Would Have Called Donald Trump
      Devin Singh
      Mar 18, 2016
      Ideas
      Devin Singh is Assistant Professor of Religion at Dartmouth College and is a Public Voices Fellow with the OpEd Project.

      Is Donald Trump a tyrant?

      This is not a question of character. It’s even less a matter of likability. Rather it goes to the heart of who we are and who we want to be: Does the Donald pose a fundamental threat to American democracy?

      The ancient Greeks thought long and hard about such issues. While we’ve come to associate the word tyrant with someone of foul temperament who abuses power—all traits with which Trump has been linked—Greece had a fairly technical definition. Though coming in many forms, the tyrannos is a figure who, usually through great personal wealth, circumvents established political processes to attain power. Often an outsider or one of the wealthy elite, the tyrant flouts conventions of discourse and forums for debate. The tyrant ignores traditions of deliberation and steamrolls opposition. Ultimately, a tyrant rises to power in ways that undermine democratic structures, leaving the ruler unaccountable to those ruled or to the checks and balances of the system.

      Centuries later, on another continent, these ideas still matter. It’s from such thinkers that we derive the political concepts that undergird our democracy. The ancient Greeks understood what qualities might destroy the democratic model they developed and that we’ve inherited.
      Related
      US-POLITICS-TRUMP
      politics
      Charles J. Sykes: Where the Right Went Wrong

      Central among these tyrannical characteristics is a voracious pursuit of wealth with no attendant commitment to public service. For Aristotle in his Politics, money serves as a tyrant’s ultimate means and ends. He cautioned that the tyrant, while claiming to care for the public good, will use the city’s treasury for personal enrichment. Even a tyrant’s gift for rhetoric, and use of flattery and insult, is calculated to provide access to more wealth.

      The classical tyrants tended to be notoriously big spenders and conspicuous consumers. They often undertook massive building projects, erecting structures as monuments to their name, trying to increase their notoriety. As Thucydides was forced to acknowledge of tyrants: “They adorn the city beautifully.”

      So important is money to tyrants' aims that they may exaggerate their wealth to gain support. Thus, in Aristophanes’ satirical play, The Wasps, a would-be tyrant’s net worth comes under scrutiny. His opponents attempt to set him straight by reminding him that he’s not as wealthy as he claims and that his aspirations are misguided.

      The tyrant also typically capitalizes on popular unrest and dissatisfaction, and mobilizes the people, often violently, against the political elite. Yet because the tyrant comes to power outside the conventions of democracy designed to curb power, and has demonstrated contempt of ideals like rational debate and discourse, he is left unaccountable. He ends up betraying the people who helped install him.

      Anything sound familiar?

      To be sure, the tyrant label onl

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    557. Re:We need more guns by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Read up on "Executive Orders" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It is exactly within his purview to direct members and staff which are under the executive branch in how to behave in specific situations. With the obstructionist morons he was always running into, this was all he could do. And just to be clear, it is specifically, exactly and well within his roles and responsibilities to do so.

          Since you are clearly anti-Obama and think he invented executive orders, here is an excerpt for you on their modern history and use from the same wikipedia page:
      First column, is the president in question (*president in dRumpFt's case),
      second column is the number issued by that president,
      last column is the number E.O. that president started at (what numbered ones existed before their term).
      Gerald R. Ford 169 11798
      Jimmy Carter 320 11967
      Ronald Reagan 381 12287
      George H. W. Bush 166 12668
      Bill Clinton [16] 308 12834
      George W. Bush [16] 291 13198
      Barack Obama [16] 276 13489
      Donald Trump (as of September 29, 2017) [16] [17] 49 13765

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    558. Re: We need more guns by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      No true knave would make such an argument.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    559. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *in old man voice* In my days, they came that way from the factory. No pressure relief valves to prevent blowing up your kitchen - safety features are for sissies! (Joking, obviously, but check out the statistics for exploding boilers before they made those mandatory on everything from water heaters to pressure cookers)

      And yes, steam scares me at LEAST as much as black powder or some synthetic explosive. Coal plants being one of the most dangerous places to work is a fact.

    560. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i'm well aware of executive orders, just don't like them when they're used to bypass the legislative process. executive orders are incredibly easy to reverse. and we grant too much power to the presidency. regardless of the president in power. my issue with obama's use in daca is that it acted blatantly to contravene existing immigration law.

      if you want to reform immigration, convince congress to pass reform. if you can't do that, work to change the makeup of congress. i don't like it when public policy swings wildly.

    561. Re:We need more guns by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      never heard penguin before. kudos on that whimsical insults.

      enjoy your stress.

    562. Re: We need more guns by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      Lol, you're funny.

      How is accurately stating the purpose of a firearm and projectile absurd?

      How is accurately stating the reality of the situation not conducive to learning?

      Why is this accurate representation bothersome to you?

      If I'm incorrect (hint: I'm not) then please state the real purpose for a firearm and the real purpose for a projectile.

    563. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please state the real purpose for a firearm and the real purpose for a projectile.

      A firearms' purpose is to accelerate a projectile to deal damage to whatever the projectile hits

      Your inaccuracy is in leaving out the purpose of accelerating that projectile. An incomplete picture of reality is not an accurate picture of reality.

      Now, if MY description is incorrect, why don't you stand in front of real firearm shooting off real projectiles and show us how you won't be damaged at all?

    564. Re: We need more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except your silly idea means we do not take any preventative action

      Yeah, systems that protect innocent people have that drawback. Totalitarianism is much more straightforward -- you just do whatever you want, prevent anything, without considering innocence or guilt.

      See, that's rubbish. It's like arguing locking switchblades should not be regulated since we need to "protect innocent people" who want to put butter on their bread.

      Instead, you are talking about "systems that do not impact innocent people have that drawback". But the problem is that innocent people _are_ already impacted by being killed. So we have more than one consideration to balance here. We have laws against murder and we have an army. We have laws against theft and we have the IRS. And so on. At some point of time you have to stop fantasizing about an ideal world unaffected by government and have to see where intervening causes less damage than not intervening.

      Anarchy is great in theory but needs different humans to work in the long haul in practice.

  2. So is this called Terrorism? by houghi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So is this called Terrorism? Will people of the same skin color now be targeted? Because that would be bad.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I do hope there is a travel ban on every white male over the age of 50! That will stop any future terrorist attacks right!

    2. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, this is not terrorism (yet). There is no ideological or political separation for discriminating between the victims and the perpetrator(s). If the shooter has left some manifesto or similar behind it may be classified as an act of terrorism later, but nothing of that sort has as of yet been discovered.

      Why would you call this terrorism? Why is it relevant?

    3. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is this called Terrorism? Will people of the same skin color now be targeted? Because that would be bad.

      Skin colour? Like basement dwellers vs. outdoor lovers?

    4. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Blaming innocents based on skin color is not the answer. Actions against innocents are never the right answer.

    5. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is not terrorism (yet). There is no ideological or political separation for discriminating between the victims and the perpetrator(s).

      Sex offender with an Indonesian girlfriend shooting attendees at a country music show? No ideological or political separation between this sociopath and the group he was shooting at? Uh-huh?

    6. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, this is not terrorism (yet). There is no ideological or political separation for discriminating between the victims and the perpetrator(s). If the shooter has left some manifesto or similar behind it may be classified as an act of terrorism later, but nothing of that sort has as of yet been discovered.

      Why would you call this terrorism? Why is it relevant?

      If Trump can call anything terrorism without waiting for any facts showing it to be so, why can't we? Because the perpetrator is white? As a white gun owner myself (also a freely admitted anti-Trumper since the birther days), Trump's (relative) silence on this attack speaks volumes. He's sent out what, 2-3 condolence tweets? No stream of tweets decrying terror and how we have to act now, how great the first responders are, etc.

      This attack can cause big trouble for Trump. If he takes steps to prevent acts like this he angers his base (even though we sorely need some practical gun control), if he does nothing then he shows the rest of the country and the world he cares only about his base, in which case his ability to govern and compromise, already damaged, ends up beyond repair. Best case for Trump at this point is the shooter turns out to be a registered Democrat, in which case the right-wing media plays up their favorite talking point of how Democrats have been violent since Lincoln was assassinated, conveniently forgetting the ideological shift in the mid 20th Century.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody's calling this terrorism dipshit.

    8. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actions against innocents are never the right answer.

      Actions against innocents are quite often the rightest of all answers.

      For example, keeping innocent people from driving drunk, prevents them from committing a crime while driving. Keeping innocent people from having firearms, prevents them from using those guns for crimes. Inoculating innocent people prevents them from spreading disease.

      And of course, putting babes in arms in diapers, prevents their poop from making a mess. Truly the rightest answer of them all.

    9. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by andydread · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If he takes steps to prevent acts like this he angers his base (even though we sorely need some practical gun control),

      what gun control that you are advocating for would have stopped this particular incident? The guy had a machine gun. Machine guns are banned i.e. illegal. We don't know where the gun was obtained and in this case it doesn't matter because the machine gun in and of itself was illegal. It is not legal to transfer a machine gun anywhere, gun show or not. Obviously this guy does not obey gun laws. I honestly would like to hear your suggestion on what "practical" gun control would have stopped this situation.

      Also.. Trump is fucking moron.

    10. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you call this terrorism?

      Screw the textbook definition of terrorism. In my book, terrorism is committing a violent act with the goal of making the general population afraid to live their lives. This definitely qualifies. And I also think that the news media is guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists when they sensationalize and over-report violence, because all it does is make people more deathly afraid of terror events that are less likely to happen to you than you dieing of random natural causes on a given day.

      Consider: There are over 30,000 auto fatalities every year. How many have died to terrorists (including domestic terrrorists, whether you call them terrorists or not) in the past 20? 30? 40 years in the US? Hint: Fewer than 30,000.

    11. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Nobody's calling this terrorism dipshit.

      Why not? If you are spraying a crowd of 30,000 people at a concert with an automatic weapon (and listening to the video that's been released, he is using a fully automatic firearm of some type) from the 32nd floor of a hotel, how is that anything but terrorism?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    12. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      [Blaming innocents based on skin color is not the answer. ] Actions against innocents are never the right answer.

      Actions against innocents are quite often the rightest of all answers.

      So you're in favor of police actions targeting innocent minorities then. Because they're different than you.

    13. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Traditionally, "terrorism" was violence or threats of violence intended to change nation-state policy. For example, an eco-terrorist attempts to change laws around deforestation by planting metal spikes, which halts deforestation and raises awareness of the issue. Middle east "you know what" terrorists try to alter policies around involvement in the middle east. The key is how the action relates to nation-state policy and public sentiment. So if for say the 9/11 hijackers had merely wanted a thrill ride, then the "exact" same act wouldn't be *terrorism.* Of course, the modern word has been thrown around so much, it has basically turned into a catch-all for violent acts.

    14. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      They support gun control because gun owners are the other -- people not like them.

      It's a common reaction to things like this to blame minorities and people who are different than you in some way. It's based on ignorance and fear.

    15. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's terrorism if there is a goal of creating fear. We don't know yet if the guy just went nuts. It can't be called terrorism yet.

    16. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you call this terrorism?

      Dedicated Democrat member of many anti-Trump groups on social media shoots up country music event (traditionally not associated with Democrats). Looks like pure political hostility, which is often called terrorism.

      Why is it relevant?

      It isn't. He is a murderer, and anyone who assisted him with knowledge of his motives is an accomplice. Anyone who encouraged this course of action is a conspirator.

    17. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      They support gun control because gun owners are the other -- people not like them.

      Did you miss the 3rd sentence of my post where I said I'm a gun owner? I'm just not a card carrying member of the NRA, "they gunna take our gunz!" crowd.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    18. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're in favor of police actions targeting innocent minorities then.

      I would think that the innocent are a majority, not a minority.

      What makes you say they're not?

    19. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If he takes steps to prevent acts like this he angers his base (even though we sorely need some practical gun control),

      what gun control that you are advocating for would have stopped this particular incident? The guy had a machine gun. Machine guns are banned i.e. illegal. We don't know where the gun was obtained and in this case it doesn't matter because the machine gun in and of itself was illegal. It is not legal to transfer a machine gun anywhere, gun show or not. Obviously this guy does not obey gun laws. I honestly would like to hear your suggestion on what "practical" gun control would have stopped this situation.

      Also.. Trump is fucking moron.

      It wouldn't stop this one. There are plenty of cases (Norway, Australia, etc) that show that even very strong gun control, even to the point of an almost complete ban cannot prevent attacks. But just because no solution is 100% effective, it does not mean the only option is the status quo. Mandatory training classes (focusing on firearm safety, laws, and basic marksmanship) for firearm ownership is a logical first step. And, while it's not directly related to gun control, improvements in the mental health system in our country would go a long way as well, as most mass shooters in the US tend to have psychological issues that have been unaddressed, or at least inadequately addressed. The problem is the NRA and others have equated any form of checks on gun ownership as the first step to completely ban guns which, given the amount of guns already in circulation in the US, is an incredibly unlikely scenario. But it gets them more money from membership dues and gets more donations for affiliated politicians and PACs.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    20. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the 3rd sentence of my post where I said I'm a gun owner?

      You didn't tell the truth about Trump's "silence" on this issue. It's not even light out this morning and he already made a statement. Why should we believe anything else you have to say?

      Also, the dead aren't even cold yet and all you can think about is some political calculation? Show some humanity.

    21. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was a white guy. So he was a lone wolf with a mental disorder that we should have seen coming. You have to learn how to profile better.

      He isn't a thug, or a terrorist, just a lone wolf, because reasons.

    22. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Why not? If you are spraying a crowd of 30,000 people at a concert with an automatic weapon (and listening to the video that's been released, he is using a fully automatic firearm of some type) from the 32nd floor of a hotel, how is that anything but terrorism?

      Terrorism is seemingly random violence meant to further a political goal.

      This is seemingly random violence but there's not [yet?] a clear political goal.

      So you can't call it terrorism at the present time. Not every incidence of random violence is terrorism. They may be "terrifying" but that's not what the word means.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    23. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 25-year-old black man accused of a deadly shooting at a church near Nashville had a note in his car that made reference to revenge for the church massacre carried out by a white supremacist in Charleston, S.C., according to a report by The Associated Press.

      The note could help investigators better understand the state of mind of the gunman, identified as Emanuel Kidega Samson, when he fatally shot a woman and left half a dozen wounded as services were ending last Sunday at the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in the Nashville area. The note also suggests a possible motive for the attack.

      “I was worried about a lot of things, and that event was so horrific that I really didn’t know what effect it was going to have on the community,” said William N. Nettles, who was the United States attorney for the District of South Carolina when the attack happened. “But at the time, my hunch was that I needed to be worried about a white nationalist’s copycat crime.”

      Mr. Nettles, recalling the public expressions of forgiveness by some relatives of Mr. Roof’s victims, said he had been less fearful about a black person seeking race-based revenge “because of the enormous grace that was shown by the congregation and the community as a whole.”

      Although the church that Mr. Roof targeted was predominantly black, the church in last Sunday’s attack had a mixed congregation.

    24. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Can we collectively agree that blaming innocents is wrong then?

      Actions against innocent people are never the right answer.

    25. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the 3rd sentence of my post where I said I'm a gun owner?

      You didn't tell the truth about Trump's "silence" on this issue. It's not even light out this morning and he already made a statement. Why should we believe anything else you have to say?

      Also, the dead aren't even cold yet and all you can think about is some political calculation? Show some humanity.

      Did you read my post at all? I specifically mentioned he sent out a few condolence tweets, but they were nothing like what he has traditionally sent out during attacks in Europe. Hell, he hasn't even called the shooter a "loser" yet! That's his favorite insult for terrorists.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    26. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, this happened in a ghetto reserved for old white males, so a travel ban is not viable. Sadly, it had somewhat less strict rules than Guantanamo.

    27. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Your book means very little, and until the guy's motive is discovered, it's impossible to say whether it's terrorism or not. The guy might have been tripping and thought he was killing aliens for all we know. There is a reason the police engage in investigations and not just cast a cursory glance over a crime scene and decide on the spot what happened.

    28. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I specifically mentioned he sent out a few condolence tweets

      So he showed some humanity then.

    29. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      terrorism
      terrizm/
      noun
      noun: terrorism

              The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

      So if you have some insight into the political views of the perpetrator we'd love to hear it. In the absence of clear political aims this is just criminal violence. You see the difference between a guy who shoots up crowds because he's pissed at country music, his girl friend or mankind in general and someone who follows a political ideology or religion with the purpose of destroying a civilization is the difference between a strictly criminal act and terrorism. And the failure of certain people to be able to make the distinction for their own political and ideological purposes is downright disgusting.

    30. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he takes steps to prevent acts like this he angers his base (even though we sorely need some practical gun control),

      what gun control that you are advocating for would have stopped this particular incident? The guy had a machine gun. Machine guns are banned i.e. illegal. We don't know where the gun was obtained and in this case it doesn't matter because the machine gun in and of itself was illegal.

      The best place for hiding illegal guns is legal guns. If you ask a baby clothes store owner for under-the-counter ware, he is not going to pull out a machine gun. Not even in the U.S. They have the wrong smell to keep in such places.

    31. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia the idea that you're going to get gunned down on the way to work, or going to a football game, or picking the kids up from school is about the same as being hit by a meteor. It's *possible* but so unlikely it never even occurs to people.

      In the USA it's an everyday occurrence.

      One of the main reasons is because nut cases in Australia find it exceptionally difficult to obtain (or keep if they already have them) firearms. Criminals get them (as they do everywhere) but even then it's either easily concealable handguns or the old 12 gauge chopped down with a hacksaw. Even criminals find it hard to get something like an AR-15 or AK. Why ?, because after the gun buyback and laws changed they're just not around anymore. There's hardly any left to actually get hold of. Even the criminals balk at selling guns to some psycho they don't know. It's bad for business.

      In the US there are literally tens of millions of AR's and AK's floating around. State based gun laws are totally ineffective because if you want a AR-15 you can get one, no matter where you are. Live in DC ?..can't buy an AR ?...no problemo !! Simply drive 30 fucking minutes over the border into MD or WV and stock up ol buddy! Got a friend in Ohio ?....drive there for a weekend and go shopping ! Come monday you're safely back in DC with enough weaponry to start a war.

      So, in the USA you can be absolutely raving batshit insane, and hearing voices telling you to kill everyone, and you're going to be able to get guns, and lots of them, and no-one's really going to stop you.

    32. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it isn't to support some political agenda. The guy probably lost all his pension, or had only one item to tick off his bucket list. He wanted to go out of this world with a bang.

    33. Re: So is this called Terrorism? by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Trump has already offered his "warmest condolences" and Pence has offered prayers. What more do you expect them to do?

    34. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read my post at all?

      You're talking with Kohath, one of Slashdot's many pathetic trolls, so no, your post was not read for understanding or comprehension, just for bits and pieces to twist out of context for his own malignant purposes.

    35. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      In Australia the idea that you're going to get gunned down on the way to work, or going to a football game, or picking the kids up from school ...

      In the USA it's an everyday occurrence.

      False.

    36. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      If Trump can call anything terrorism without waiting for any facts showing it to be so, why can't we?

      You can. Of course, you'll be just as wrong as he is. Is that what you're after?

    37. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Did you read my post at all?

      You're talking with Kohath, one of Slashdot's many pathetic trolls, so no, your post was not read for understanding or comprehension, just for bits and pieces to twist out of context for his own malignant purposes.

      Yeah, that Kohath guy doesn't want innocent people targeted by police. What's up with people like that? I guess Kohath can't see how sending the police after innocent people is cool sometimes.

    38. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      He's expected to remark on the situation. It happened at 10:00pm... WTF is he supposed to do? Jump out in his MLP PJ's and make a State of the Union address at 3:00 in the morning?

      can you get over Trump plz?

    39. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Oh, everyone will agree to that.

      What you'll never get anyone to do is stop blaming people who look guilty to them.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    40. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      I think we will find that there were "bad things done on both sides" as far as Trump is concerned.....

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    41. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      What you'll never get anyone to do is stop blaming people who look guilty to them.

      So anyone that's different then.

      We should be able to get at least a few good people to agree not to target innocents, even when they're different.

    42. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I'd say action speaks louder than words, even if the "manifesto" only existed in the guy's mind he certainly seemed to have some sort of plan or meaning behind it, it wasn't a fit of rage, psychosis, for any personal gain or to take revenge on any particular individual(s). It doesn't have to be a direct relation to the concert, like when terrorist groups in Africa attack tourist destinations it's not really about the tourists but to cripple the economy and threaten the government. It's possible he was too far gone for anyone else to understand what kind of "message" he was sending, but none the less I'm willing to call anyone opening up fire on random concert goers for acts of terrorism. Maybe it can't be legally proven, but you can also have a murder without a convicted murderer. Same way I'd say these people were killed in a terror attack, even if nobody is convicted of terrorism.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    43. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that Kohath guy doesn't want innocent people targeted by police. What's up with people like that? I guess Kohath can't see how sending the police after innocent people is cool sometimes.

      Oh Kohath, don't lie so baldly, we know you don't care about Sureshbhai Patel, Miguel Feliz, Ismael Lopez, or Dustin Evans. Nor Margie Carranza or Emma Hernandez. Not Madgiel Sanchez. Not Charles Kinsey. Not Justine Damond (née Ruszczyk).

      Kohath, it is pointless for you to lie and troll in such a pathetic manner, when we know you don't care, that you're just spewing whatever bullshit you want to sputter that day, and tomorrow it'll be something else. The only people that suffer from your conduct, are the naive and innocent who don't know what you are.

    44. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You forgot Philando Castile and Tamir Rice. And Chad Chadwick. Yeah, I actually do care.

    45. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I do hope there is a travel ban on every white male over the age of 50! That will stop any future terrorist attacks right!

      But how would President Trump get from the White House to his vacation home in Florida?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    46. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total number of gun murders Australia 2015: 28 or basically one every two weeks on average.

      Total number of gun murders USA 2015 : 12,942 or basically one every 40 minutes on average.

      Controlling for population 323/24 millions X time still means Australia would have to have a murder every 8 hours to equal the US rate.

      So,

      TRUE.

         

    47. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Na, I guess it is enough to restrict them to rooms in hotels on floors they can reach via the stairs.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    48. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is doubtful that banning guns would stop shootings, much less a planned terror attack. Even if the attacker couldn't get a gun (an in this case it seemed he used a highly regulated gun and most likely broke the law to obtain it) they will resort to use pressure cookers, trucks, throw acid in people's faces, etc.

    49. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      Machine guns are not banned.

      There are multiple shooting ranges in Las Vegas that specifically advertise a machine gun "experience", you can go rent a fully automatic gun and blast away.

      For specifics with regard to gun laws, ban the sort of magazines he was using. They were likely 80+ round magazines. I'm sure hunters wouldn't object and being about to fire 80 rounds without reloading doesn't seem to be a home defense issue. So ban them, and not as in your imaginary machine gun ban, but an actual ban on them.

    50. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all the soldiers who died in WW2 were also just on their way to the office or picking their kids up from school.

    51. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      isis just claimed him, but that's up in the air

    52. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Machine guns are banned i.e. illegal.

      New ones are, manufacture red after 1986 are illegal to register to a civilian... yes.

      We don't know where the gun was obtained and in this case it doesn't matter because the machine gun in and of itself was illegal.

      If it was manufactured & registered to a civilian prior to 1986, then yes... it may be a legal weapon for later transfers.

      It is not legal to transfer a machine gun anywhere, gun show or not.

      Yes it is, though the ATF is involved in the transferring of any Class 3 NFA item... which for an item like this takes a check for $200 (on top of the already high cost of a fully automatic weapon), and a 9+ month long wait for them to get to your paperwork.

      Obviously this guy does not obey gun laws. I honestly would like to hear your suggestion on what "practical" gun control would have stopped this situation.

      He also didn't obey murder laws, but that is a separate thing from your lack of facts.

    53. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't tell the truth about Trump's "silence" on this issue. It's not even light out this morning and he already made a statement.

      Obama would have released a statement blaming guns before the bodies were even cold. Never miss an opportunity.

    54. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The logic fallacy with this line of thinking is that because stricter gun control cannot prevent 100% of these incidents, then we should do absolutely nothing in regards to gun control.

    55. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a report about a man and woman shortly before the shooting being escorted from the venue because they were going around telling people that they were about to die. I certainly wouldn't rule out terrorism (possibly with a religious angle).

    56. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I actually do care.

      About yourself?

      No, I don't think you care about yourself either. The evidence indicates otherwise. You just flip from trolling topic to trolling topic, without demonstrating the slightest concern or care in the world. But at least you lie so badly, anybody who might be fooled is quickly disabused of you being genuine anyway, so at least they don't suffer long.

    57. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with strong gun control laws Norway has more than 30 guns per 100 residents ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country ) and outside of one worthless bag of feces who is as despiced as Quisling there are very few gun murders in Norway. About 1 gun murder per million residents pr year whereas the number for the US is 36

    58. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Trump can call anything terrorism without waiting for any facts showing it to be so, why can't we?

      Ok, you can, but if you do it, then you sound like an idiot.

      Guess which idiot.

      if he does nothing then he shows the rest of the country and the world he cares only about his base, in which case his ability to govern and compromise, already damaged, ends up beyond repair.

      This is the correct strategy for Trump to use. What you're missing (and I'm surprised you haven't figured this out as late as October 2017!) is that it does not damage anything beyond repair. 100.0% of US voters already know that he only cares about his base. His reputation simply cannot possibly be any lower. Had the shooter himself been Trump, or if Trump starts a nuclear war with NK, etc, his approval rating isn't going to fall any lower.

      Trump has nothing to lose, except his base. Serving his base is all upsides without any downsides.

      Trump's position will be whatever the Nazis, KKK, etc think is the best position to take. Just wait for them to issue a statement, and you'll know the president's new position.

    59. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by andydread · · Score: 1

      I said it was illegal to transfer machine guns. it is illegal to posses a machine gun manufactured after 1986 therefore they are effectively banned.

    60. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't speak about things you're clueless about. Machine guns are not illegal in the slightest, they're just expensive and hard to get because they're in limited supply (they can't sell new ones to civilians, so you're limited to ones manufactured before sometime in the 80s, so you have to convince someone to sell one of theirs to you, and you have to pay the ATF $200 for a tax stamp and they'll do some kind of background check on you).

      In addition to that, it's not *that* hard to make your own using a readily-available assault rifle (usually an AR-15). It's illegal, of course, but information isn't and the information is available on the internet somewhere. You're probably right that this guy doesn't obey gun laws (it's much more likely he illegally converted an AR-15 or AK47 to full-auto than he bought a legal one), but having easily-converted rifles so readily available to civilians makes it easy for nutjobs like this to do these kinds of things. It's not so easy to convert a wooden-stock single-shot bolt-action hunting rifle to full-auto, for instance. "Practical" gun control is always about making it more difficult for people to get guns (esp. mentally unstable people), and part of that is about making it more difficult to get guns that make it easy to be more destructive. So, if for instance, AR-15s and other magazine-fed rifles were banned, but magazine-fed .22LR handguns were still readily available, we wouldn't be seeing massacres like this.

    61. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      And, while it's not directly related to gun control, improvements in the mental health system in our country would go a long way as well, as most mass shooters in the US tend to have psychological issues that have been unaddressed, or at least inadequately addressed.

      Honestly, I'm not sure how that would help any. At least half the US population believes the government staged the 9/11 attacks, after all. This population is under nothing less than a mass delusion. I can't imagine how you'd fix that with some counselors; it's self-reinforcing.

    62. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      what gun control that you are advocating for would have stopped this particular incident?

      How about "no guns in casinos"? By police accounts, the guy carried at least 10 guns into the place. That doesn't raise any red flags? "Oh, it's just another white man with 10 guns. He's probably just a Second Amendment enthusiast"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    63. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're saying that people with Indonesian girlfriends don't like country music - or people who like country music don't have Indonesian girlfriends - or both?

      Well, whatever it is, I have learned something new today on Slashdot.

    64. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Nobody with any sense is calling this terrorism.

      In deference to what many seem to think: not every act of violence is terrorism.

    65. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what gun control that you are advocating for would have stopped this particular incident? The guy had a machine gun. Machine guns are banned i.e. illegal.

      More laws making them even more illegal would help. If we, as I heard Rachel Madcow say a few years ago, required those gun owners to go to the police station once a month to have them interview with doctors to determine if they have mental or health problems that should cause the police to raid their homes to search and take all weapons, then we be safer. Instead, the police are not allowed to search the homes of gun owners which means they can just simmer in their craziness so then they just go shooting crowds of people constantly. They are constantly murdering us because we let them not talk to doctors and not be interviewed by the police. The police want to protect us, but by not allowing the police to do random searches, we have destroyed this country.

    66. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but a tragedy isn’t the time for politics. Show some humanity.

      Also, you should give up the backward-looking “but Obama” stuff pretty soon. He’s gone.

    67. Re: So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better to ask, is there anything less they could do?

      As useless acts go, they're managing so far, Trump's words on it seemed forced and inarticulate, not at all genuine.

    68. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ask, why not call it terrorism? Because it does not fit the definition.

      Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
      http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism

      What point was this person trying to push? What change in public policy? Without this it is simply reckless killing.

      I suspect because of the overuse of the word terrorism, some people equate anything that is terrorizing as terrorism. Perhaps in time the definition will change given enough misuse.

    69. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by andydread · · Score: 1

      if you think that casinos allow people to come into them armed with illegal machine guns you are a moron. Also the machine gun the guy used is likely illegal so the guy already broke current gun laws. So what gun law you think this guy would have obeyed? Current reports are that the shooter rented a room in the hotel and sneaked the guns into the room in a golf bag. Obviously you haven't been following the reports.

    70. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Current reports are that the shooter rented a room in the hotel and sneaked the guns into the room in a golf bag.

      Ten rifles, and enough ammo to kill or wound over 500 people. That was one heavy motherfucking golf bag.

      How do you even fit 10 rifles in a golf bag?

      So what gun law you think this guy would have obeyed?

      "Nothing can be done about mass shootings", says the only country where these things regularly happen.

      Today is the 275th day of 2017. We have had 273 mass shootings so far this year. What the fuck is so wrong with America that we have to have one of these every day? There hasn't been a mass shooting in Australia since 1996. What laws do they have there that keep this from happening?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    71. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but a tragedy isn't the time for politics.

      Tragedy is entirely the time for politics. As usual, you're completely wrong about everything.

    72. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was he wrong?

    73. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      unfortunately we're never going to know the reason he did it, since he's dead

    74. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Trump can call anything terrorism without waiting for any facts showing it to be so, why can't we?

      Because we are better than his is.

      (I know, not a particularly high bar.)

    75. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by driblio · · Score: 1

      1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days
      https://www.theguardian.com/us...

      Learn something.

    76. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks at gun murders by population density...and not by country, you'll see that there are a few highly populated areas that "drag" the US up (LA, Chicago, Baltimore, New York, New Orleans, Detroit, St Louis, etc.)

      Then you can break it down by poverty/ethnicity/overall crimerate/broken families/drug use/graduation rates/etc. Just pick one, they all pretty much line up on the same boundaries and beats the hell out of me if anyone can actually identify the root cause.

    77. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      If Trump can call anything terrorism without waiting for any facts showing it to be so, why can't we?

      You do realize that the countries listed in Trump's original proposal were listed by Obama's administration. He's still a moron, but maybe you could deal with facts instead of agenda.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    78. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The guy had a machine gun

      No, he had semi-automatic weapons. Not a single one was fully automatic (machine gun). Machine guns are not illegal, they are licensed, and in fact you can go shot one any day of the week in Las Vegas...it's advertised frequently. What the shooter did have were bump stocks, which subvert the spirit of the law on automatic weapons, and I hope that Congress bans them.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    79. Re:So is this called Terrorism? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Rules are made all the time that affect innocents because of criminals or idiots. We wouldn't have speed limits, TSA, or employers monitoring our surfing at work, if it wasn't for the idiocy of a few.

      So, which makes more sense and is less costly? Patting down every grandma in a wheelchair, and every five year old's teddy coming through an airport, or focusing the efforts on a demographic with a history of that? Yes, it's not fair, and neither is life...I've personally been profiled more than once (airports and local cops), and it sucked, and was inconvenient, but whatever.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  3. News for Nerds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuff that matters...

    Or, just the opposite..

  4. It was a country music show! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Half the audience was carrying! Why didn't they turn around and all point BOOM! right between the eyes!

    Right! - Right!

    1. Re:It was a country music show! by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Half the audience was carrying! Why didn't they turn around and all point BOOM! right between the eyes!

      Right! - Right!

      what? Do you mean commit mass suicide?

      Because its sounds like you haven't even read where the shooter was.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:It was a country music show! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because its sounds like you haven't even read where the shooter was.

      Bystanders recorded video sufficient to count muzzle flashes from the shooter. If literally half of everyone in the crowd were actually armed, they possibly could have poured enough fire into his position to destroy his cover and get some rounds into him. Of course, they would have absolutely obliterated the side of the hotel in the process... But that's war.

      Granted, we don't really want war in our streets, except it's already here; the police are making war on us. They're killing us at accelerating rates, even though it's becoming safer and safer to be a cop. And they have more of us in prison per capita in this country than anywhere else in the world, and literally the only nation which executes more people than we do per capita on a regular basis is China. There are other nations with bigger problems (post-coup purges, for example) but this stuff is inexcusable for a nation which wants to claim to be the greatest on the planet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Blame Reagan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When Reagan was negotiating the Machine Gun Ban of 1986, he refused to allow Congress to confiscate existing machine guns in circulation. So, existing machine guns were grandfathered in.

    1. Re: Blame Reagan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I highly doubt you could pick a machine gun, or a vagina for that matter, out of a Police line up.

    2. Re:Blame Reagan by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      When Reagan was negotiating the Machine Gun Ban of 1986, he refused to allow Congress to confiscate existing machine guns in circulation. So, existing machine guns were grandfathered in.

      Yea I'd bet this wasn't one of those. Pre-ban full auto weapons go for quite a lot of money ($10K and up) and require a bunch of paperwork. Odds are this is an illegally converted semi-auto. We have an unfortunate loop-hole in the law that allows conversion parts to be sold legally, as long as you do not posses the weapon they can be used to convert. It requires some modification to the AR-15 lower but from what I understand it's not hard to do. Note that doing this, or even possessing both, is very illegal. I really don't get the purpose of allowing the parts to be sold at all. There is no real legit reason to purchase them unless you also own a registered M16.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    3. Re:Blame Reagan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How hard would it be for someone with access to a machine shop (and plans) to fabricate the necessary parts to convert semi-auto to fully automatic?

    4. Re:Blame Reagan by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      How hard would it be for someone with access to a machine shop (and plans) to fabricate the necessary parts to convert semi-auto to fully automatic?

      No idea, but it would be a lot harder than just buying them at a gun show and converting an existing AR15 lower.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    5. Re:Blame Reagan by Train0987 · · Score: 2

      "We have an unfortunate loop-hole in the law that allows conversion parts to be sold legally, as long as you do not posses the weapon they can be used to convert. "

      That is not true either. Anything that can be used to convert a weapon to full-auto falls under the NFA and must be registered as well. A full-auto seer, for example is a trivial $2 part that now sells for $20k if properly registered.

    6. Re:Blame Reagan by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      "but it would be a lot harder than just buying them at a gun show and converting an existing AR15 lower."

      It's actually very simple, except doing it will put you in prison for a minimum of 10 years. The ATF does not F around with these laws.

    7. Re:Blame Reagan by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      "We have an unfortunate loop-hole in the law that allows conversion parts to be sold legally, as long as you do not posses the weapon they can be used to convert. "

      That is not true either. Anything that can be used to convert a weapon to full-auto falls under the NFA and must be registered as well. A full-auto seer, for example is a trivial $2 part that now sells for $20k if properly registered.

      Nope. You can buy a full auto kit for under $100. Seriously, just go search around for M16 full auto fire control group. For example, here is one for about $90:
      Fire Control Group Only
      1- OEM M16 Full Auto Trigger
      1- OEM Full Auto Hammer
      1- OEM Full Auto Selector
      1- OEM Full Auto Disconnector
      1- OEM Auto Sear With Pin Set


      From their FAQ:
      Q: Are there any special requirements to purchase the F.A.lower receiver parts?Tax Stamp or Form 4 paperwork? Or is it just cash and order?
      A: This is not a transferable item. Nothing is required to purchase it. Thank you Was this answer helpful?

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    8. Re:Blame Reagan by sheph · · Score: 1

      From what I read it wasn't a machine gun anyway. It had a bump fire stock where the "automation" is performed by the recoil. Those aren't illegal (and shouldn't be).

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    9. Re:Blame Reagan by green1 · · Score: 1

      Gotta love that type of "gun control"

      The parts and instructions are freely available and easy to obtain legally. but don't worry, we'll try to catch you and punish you after you've killed a few dozen people....

      No wonder you guys are so screwed....

    10. Re:Blame Reagan by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Are you shitting me? I could manufacture an automatic firearm inside of a week, starting from a wallet full of cash and no equipment or raw materials. This isn't hard.

      Reliable ammunition would be substantially harder, as I'm in the UK, but I'm confident I could get something that'll at least give me human target level accuracy to a couple of hundred yards.

      The only reason people in the UK don't do this is because of the UK law, or as you put it, "gun control". So just what the fuck is different about the US here?

    11. Re:Blame Reagan by Cederic · · Score: 1

      First time I've heard about bump stocks. They're.. a bit sad really.

    12. Re:Blame Reagan by green1 · · Score: 1

      The fact that in the USA you don't have to make it from scratch, you can legally buy a kit to convert a legally acquired firearm to a fully automatic one that feeds from large capacity, completely legal, magazines, and you don't even need to pass any form of background check for any of it. It's only illegal if someone happens to notice that you have the end product.
      In most of the rest of the world the base firearm (an assault rifle) is probably illegal, the conversion kit is definitely illegal, as are the high capacity magazines, and to even own a firearm you need to pass basic background checks, and often a firearms handling and safety course.

      Nothing will make it impossible for a determined person to make or obtain a deadly weapon, but these laws have been well proven in most of the civilized world to make the occurrence of such things MUCH less common.

  6. Perhaps finally we can put an end to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We can put an end to this controversy once and for all.

    They said not to ban it. They said we needed more of it. They said not to limit our rights for the sake of a few.

    Now look where we are.

    It's finally time, once and for all, to put an end to country music.

    1. Re:Perhaps finally we can put an end to this by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      Too soon man.. too soon (but yes I did get a chuckle out of that...)

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    2. Re:Perhaps finally we can put an end to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right! Ban alcohol!

    3. Re:Perhaps finally we can put an end to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fully auto is already illegal. More laws ? The problem is deeper.

    4. Re:Perhaps finally we can put an end to this by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      Man, what if they did find that the shooter was a rabid anti-country music fanatic.

    5. Re:Perhaps finally we can put an end to this by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Fuck you.

      I was going to post this:

      "It's obviously terrorism because the guy was heavy metal."

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  7. still relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  8. If the crowd was armed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could have shot back and only some of the people would have died.

    1. Re:If the crowd was armed by famebait · · Score: 1

      You need to add in all the other people in the hotel that would get hit.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
  9. I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a first responder, this is the kind of stuff we train for and pray we'll never have to respond to. I was doing active shooter training at my town elementary school just last month, and our typical gallows humor was on wide display, the only way we can deal with what would be a horror show in the best possible circumstances and only goes downhill from there.
    This kind of thing never happened when I was a kid. How have we as a society come to this? And more importantly what's the answer. Ban guns? I don't personally own a gun and have little thoughts about them one way or the other, but with millions of guns on the street would this ever make a difference? If you ban automatic weapons, are not many regular weapons relatively easy to modify? And much like the war on drugs, I can't help but feel that a war on guns would have much the same effect - people who want them can still readily get them and our prisons are filled to bursting with low-level offenders. Maybe we ban all brown people from coming into the country, except this guy in Vegas wasn't brown, has lived here all his life, and from his profile it seems unlikely he is a jihadist (further information pending). Perhaps this is the fault of our frayed medical safety net which leaves people with serious mental illnesses more or less to fend for themselves, but you can't force people to get mental help or take their medication regularly when they do - as a guy with a bipolar sister, I can swear to that.
    Meanwhile politicians will go on TV and spew whatever talking points support whatever their tracking polling tells them, and people out for a night on the town will continue be shot en mass. Anyone have any new ideas, or can convince me that something old will sound somehow new and fresh this time around?

    1. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This kind of thing never happened when I was a kid. How have we as a society come to this?

      When were you a kid? This kind of thing has been happening since the 1700s in loose similarities, with more specific similarities coming all throughout the 1900s with more horrific examples available. And those are just the US.

      I agree with the vast majority of your points, but I feel that the fact that these things are more apparent is more due to the connectivity of everyone. There has been an uptick, (in my opinion) easily attributed to population density growths as well as the aforementioned connectivity.

      Whereas, 50 years ago, I probably wouldn't know any more than the fact that there was a shooting until I watch the news this afternoon (not a morning person) and even then, I wouldn't have much in the way of details, today, I can find out a ton of information about the incident in 5 minutes or less. If I were of unscrupulous intent and was trying to figure out a way to make my mark, this information could be what pushes me over the edge.

    2. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by buddyglass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Recently looked at a list of top mass shootings in the U.S. by # of casualties. 7 of 13 happened in the last 10 years. 12 of thirteen happened since 1983, the only exception being Charles Whitman in 1966.

    3. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not trying to discount what you are saying, and thank you for working as a first responder, but I do have to point out the flaw in statements like "This kind of thing never happened when I was a kid". May I ask how old you are? Was Oklahoma city when you were a kid? How about the UT shooter? 9/11? DC Sniper? WTC 1993? Fort Hood? I could go on. Society isn't suddenly changing.

      Terrorism isn't new, but a fact of life that we have to deal with. Don't let it cripple you otherwise the terrorists win, because their end goal isn't the deaths, but instead the fear that it causes in the survivors. Instead, lets live our lives to the fullest and try to identify and correct the problems that create these terrorists in the first place (and that's not guns, because plenty of attacks happened without guns).

    4. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of thing never happened when I was a kid.

      You must be very old, because this has been happening for a long time.

    5. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Mascot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      tl;dr: I don't have the answer either.

      It seems like a tricky area to do reliable research on. It's not like you have two virtually identical countries and can ban guns in one and not the other and see how it all pans out. Australia's changes to gun laws following their Port Arthur massacre might be cited to show restrictive legislation can work, but then again it's very difficult to control for other influences (IIRC gun related violence was already on a downward trend, but with the trend seeming to accelerate after the new legislation).

      Then there are nations with both restrictive legislation _and_ high rate of gun ownership, that do not have these issues. So one could argue that might be the way to go. For example, in my own nation (Norway) we have a high rate of gun ownership, but "for protection" is simply not a valid reason to buy a firearm. You buy one for hunting, or for sports. For handguns you need to pass a safety course and be an active member of a club for a minimum of six months, at which point you can buy a safe approved for firearms storage (requirements being designed to prevent the firearm from being stolen) and then _apply_ for a permit to purchase a handgun. Typically you'll get approved, but the police does check with your club so if you've been behaving like an idiot and ignored safety protocols and such, they'll let the police know. In other words, this serves to instill a mindset of safety with regards to firearms.

      Do I think that's the holy grail of how to sort out gun violence? To be honest, no. It works for us, because we are us. We're a society where people do not in general view firearms as something you need for protection. We don't sit on our back porch taking potshots at bottles (hey, I'm entitled to at least one stereotype here, I figured). Where police are still not generally armed. How can what works here be expected to work in a nation like the US, where the primary argument for gun ownership seems to be protection from your neighbors and your own government? Where there's a very real risk of a traffic stop turning into a shootout?

      Now, I do think the US legislation and culture when it comes to gun ownership is nothing short of bonkers. That doesn't mean I can claim to know what might work to help solve it. Although I don't see many ways of making it worse, so just about anything seems worth trying.

    6. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the population is vastly higher now. It makes sense to normalize based on how many people there are. If one out of N people is a loony who will go on a murderous rampage, then the chance of it happening is population / N. The more population, the bigger the chance.

    7. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      2017 population is roughly 325 million. Population in 1945 was roughly 140 million. Seems strange that there was exactly 1 "top" mass shooting during the 37 years from 1945 to 1982, then 12 in the 35 years from 1982 to 2017. Given the differences in population I'd expect there to be approximately half as many during the 1945-1982 period as in the 1983-2017 period.

    8. Re: I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, on the other hand, love the answer to this. The answer is: positive relationships with other people. Who could have stopped this? His friend. But his friend needs to exist, and that's where we (you, the reader, and me) can start to fix this. Not by ignoring the mentally ill, not by advocating for more federal funds for health care (though it wouldn't hurt), not by isolation through political division (calling them versus us). Get to know your neighbor and show them some love by getting involved in their messy, broken lives.

      The idea of requiring membership in a gun club, I think, is an excellent attempt at formally regulating this idea: sometime knows the gun owner and cares enough for the guy to speak up before things go too far.

      I think the opposite is already true and should be directly responded to and not ignored: Being a member of an evil social group (gang, terrorist cell) advocates exactly the opposite. They are made up of close friends (yes, terrorists have friends too) that speak lies to mentally unstable gun owners.

      Imagine the opposite existing: groups of gun owners encouraging their friends to seek mental health care. Sounds kind of perfect, right?

    9. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This was about the time that mental health practices changed from long-term care to just using pills and weekly counseling.

    10. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The gun industry had a problem: Fewer and fewer people were buying guns. The number of households with at least one gun went from about 60-75% in the 1950s to about 33% today.

      That a lot less guns sold, and a lot less profits.

      So they did the sensible thing, and started a marketing campaign. They worked very hard at stoking the fears of gun owners so that they would buy more guns. During the 1950s, most of those households had one gun. Today, most gun owners own 3 or more guns. Ca-ching, baby!

      Now, there may be some side effects but we can't possibly let that get in the way of profit.

      As for solutions, well the only one really is for people to stop being cowards terrified of boogeymen everywhere.

    11. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Careful there buddy, you're getting mighty close to analyzing gun related behavior.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    12. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of thing never happened when I was a kid. How have we as a society come to this?

      Improved media. When people went apeshit when you were a kid, the news spread more slowly. Now when someone goes apeshit, you'll know within a few hours at most.

      We're all synced up now.

    13. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A person in the 21st century, who wishes to harm or kill several people, will find means to do so."

      I don't know how to prevent the above. And unless you do, Vegas is repeatable.

      The crux is that you can't uninvent technology. This nagged me when I watched Dollhouse, which featured a mind-control weapon dramatically destroyed by protagonists. So what? The tech exists; it won't unexist. You can work on countermeasures that address the continued existence of it, which means you realize it's not going anywhere.

      We're only fortunate that these edgy* ragers are more interested in attention and theatrics than being practical. Fucking with the water supply is a less flashy move but, depending on your means, has victims on the range of "neighborhood" to "city population".

      I have no remarks to make on guns, I figure The Problem mentioned at the top uses my efforts more closely to the root.

      * reducing their loud gestures to a dismissive "edgy" is a chemotherapy+deterrent for fear tactics

    14. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For example, in my own nation (Norway) we have a high rate of gun ownership, but "for protection" is simply not a valid reason to buy a firearm.

      The pattern I've noticed in the U.S. is that densely populated areas with relatively fast police response times (a few minutes) generally favor gun control. Sparsely populated areas with slow police response times (15+ minutes) generally favor individual gun ownership. The "you don't own a gun so you call someone with a gun (police) to protect you" argument has very different connotations depending on which type of area you live in.

      I'm not sure what sort of solution this suggests, if any. Increased police presence in rural areas (to maintain the same number of cops per square mile and thus the same response time) is probably unfeasible. Just pointing out the pattern I've noticed and why some of the pro/anti gun control arguments which ring true in one location may sound like total nonsense in another.

    15. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Assuming the GP is over the age of 40 (like me - I am two score and 9) - then none of what you listed happened when he was a kid. The world consists of more than those in their 20s and 30s...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    16. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of thing never happened when I was a kid. How have we as a society come to this?

      This is the question everyone should be asking.

      The answer is pretty simple: The same thing is happening to the common people in the US as has happened everywhere else in the world. They're being put under stress from every angle. Financial stress, emotional stress, mental stress, and physical stress are caused by many interdependent factors. There's widespread poverty, increasing crime, record incarceration rates, and a lack of sympathy for those affected. Good food is expensive, so there's a lack of proper nutrition, an obesity epidemic, poor healthcare, crushing healthcare debt, poverty, crime, incarceration, lack of sympathy. Jobs that pay a livable wage are hard to find, so there's stress, drug abuse, mental disease, poor healthcare, debt, poverty, crime, incarceration, lack of sympathy. The pattern is obvious. These all lead down the same rabbit hole. And not everybody resorts to crime and gets incarcerated along the way. But there's a deep-rooted issue with sociopathic elites trampling on the rest of society. They're the problem.

      This person, who killed all of these people, was a person. Never forget that. He did what he did because, to him, it made sense to do so. He has splattered his intentions on the walls of that hotel room according to the reports on TV, probably so he wouldn't be captured by the police. We may never know the full thought process that led him to commit this atrocity. But he had a reason. Nobody does anything for "no reason", despite what some may claim. There's always a reason. Not a good or well-thought-out one always, but certainly a reason. It's very likely that this shooter was a mentally disturbed individual with latent violent tendencies, and it's also quite likely that he agreed with an extremist ideology of some sort, then acted on his views of the world in a destructive way.

      Extremist views don't form when people are comfortable and healthy. They form when someone is unhappy, uncomfortable, unhealthy, and then is ignored by those around them, who should know them best and be able to help them the most. There's a reason the Romans kept "panem et circenses" as a priority. Violent uprisings were a common thing in the Roman empire, but were reduced as long as the government kept most of the people mollified with enough simple luxuries to keep them comfortable and reasonably healthy. The same applies today. But what you're seeing is that the overall level of comfort of the population is lowering, with predictable results.

      Government regulation forcing private entities to stop abusing the citizenry would go a long way toward making these things not happen anymore. It's not about gun control, that's a mere sideshow. It's about money control, and the government has been very "hands-off" for a very long time. This happens when money buys influence with regulators.

      But I doubt there's anyone with any political will to push for the sort of wealth redistribution that would be necessary to head off further catastrophes like this one. If there's anything we've learned from the decades of conflict in the middle east, it's that governments don't care how oppressed the common people are unless it provides them an excuse to declare war and line someone's pockets with ill-gotten gains. It's literally to the level of blood-money now. The guilt is widespread due to complacency. If you ever wondered what the "mark of the beast" is, this is it. You can't engage in commerce without somehow investing your money into the endeavors of those with blood on their hands.

      The only winning move is to not play.

    17. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much of the US is geographically different from Norway as well. While Norway is such a small country that police may never be but so far away, there are places in the US where you might easily be hours from the nearest police. What do you do in those situations? There is also the argument of the overwhelming majority of firearm owners in the US being entirely law abiding. Why is it just in the unique case of guns that everyone is swift to try to ban and remove them but so many other things are far more dangerous and have nobody clamoring to remove them? Why is gun ownership way up in this country but crimes committed with guns is way down? There is also a very real situation of people being disarmed as a form of control. I'd rather err on the side of freedom than "security". From all of the stabbings, bombings, and trucks killing people, it's clear that not having firearms does nothing to inhibit people who wish to kill.

      I also note that nearly every person I have ever met (I'd say absolutely every but you can't tell sometimes if someone is lying to support their position) that is so anti-gun knows next to nothing about them. They have a fear of the unknown. This is why a plain semi-automatic rifle is called an "assault rifle", and a .22LR becomes "high-powered".

    18. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Mascot · · Score: 1

      I don't have the numbers to give an objective comment, but I cannot remember this type of divide around here. We have rural areas the police literally only routinely visits on a weekly basis, with response times in the area of "45 minutes in 80% of urgent cases", and I don't recall hearing the locals argue for larger degrees of gun ownership. What they do tend to complain about, is the response time for medical aid.

      My speculation would be that in a society with low crime and levels of violence, priorities are skewed in comparison to high crime nations. It seems logical. Adding to that, in case you missed it in my original response, if you call the cops here they will by default show up unarmed. They'll only arm themselves if the situation is judged to warrant it, and central approval having been given.

      If all (or most) of this holds true, a cultural shift would do wonders to the US. But I don't see that happening without significant political upheaval. A major driver for reduction of crime seems to be financial equality, and redistribution of wealth is in the US almost synonymous with communism which is again a euphemism for to many Americans.

    19. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Mascot · · Score: 1

      ...a euphemism for (insert name for ultimate evil) to many Americans.

      I used less-than/more-than instead of parens originally, which 1) vanished on preview and, 2) caused the message to not appear when trying to edit, so I had no way of fixing it.

    20. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by sexconker · · Score: 1

      325/140 chance of said nut / patsy * 325/140 amount of pressure causing said said nut / patsy to crack * 325/140 targets.

      That second 2 factors would actually be much greater since populations have shifted into cities (density not scaling linearly with population).

    21. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know what I say won't be popular with some people, and I'm not going to subject myself to the karma police so I'll post anonymously. But I sincerely believe the problem is not new, however it has become more frequent since the 60s. Right around the time we started telling kids they evolved from primordial slime rather than being created by a loving Creator with a purpose. That we're all part of a cosmic accident rather than divinely and intelligently designed. When it became taboo to pray in public, or even teach kids that creationism is a possibility. That morals are fluid and subject to no one other than ourselves. That you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody (by whatever definition of hurt you choose up to and including willful ignorance). The 60s produced some great music, and things that were very beneficial to society like civil rights. However, they also introduced the systemic removal of Christianity from our country. I don't think we're better off for it, and incidents like this are an indicator of the consequence. Just my opinion.

    22. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by pax+humana · · Score: 1

      Sir, I decry your use of a stereotype! We do not shoot at bottles since plastic bottles are much cheaper and more prevalent. Besides, nothing beats popping a shotgun slug into a watermelon (except a black powder rifle!).

    23. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you ban automatic weapons,

      If by "automatic weapon" you mean "capable of fully automatic or burst fire", those are already banned by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.
      (There is a grandfather clause for weapons made before 1986, but those are *heavily* regulated and, due to scarcity, *very* expensive.)

      Or maybe you mean to include semi-automatics in which case only one bullet is shot per pull of the trigger.

    24. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of thing never happened when I was a kid. How have we as a society come to this?

      If you were a kid before 1990, people suffering from obvious mental disorders were not sent to jail, but sent to a mental health facility. After observation, if there weren't people available to make arrangements, and the psychiatrist felt institutionalization was necessary, they were sent involuntarily to the regional psychiatric center. Turns out, state institutions were rife with abuse (as are prisons), and more important, Republicans wanted to cut taxes, so nationally, these psychiatric centers got shutdown. Now if you're crazy, if you commit a crime, you go to prison, except you're treated as a criminal; not medically treated. This is where a significant portion of the mentally ill are now "housed". If you're crazy, and can avoid committing a crime, you are usually homeless.

      Correlation is not causality, but before 1980, there "seemed" to be less of these violent shootings by mentally ill people. After 1980, psychiatric centers were shutdown, and it became harder to involuntarily admit people. And now, even when they're voluntary (and the overwhelming majority of them were), there are no facilities available to provide them ongoing mental health care help (except throwing them into jail, which doesn't help them). Now, much more of them are out, and its easier for them to purchase firearms. Yay, we're respecting people rights, even when they're crazy and incontrovertibly dangerous. /s

      Would the guy who shot up the elementary school had been able to do so, if he had been getting mental health care, and restricted from handling guns? Would the guy who shot up Virginia Tech been able to do so, if he had been getting mental health care, and restricted from handling guns? If Shrub didn't start an invasion in Iraq, and then not enlisted enough ground troops to properly occupy the country, and then didn't treat mental health standards and care as bullshit to be ignored (and thus designate soldiers as "cleared for duty"), would that medical doctor shot up that army base? And on, and on, and on. (The non-mass shootings by the mentally ill are too numerous to list.) And people still don't realize that the kill rate by gun suicide overwhelms the amount of people killed in a mass shooting.

      This is a country that voted Trump for PotUS, and he doesn't even realize that a human genocide by neglect awaits Puerto Rico. Infrastructure like dams, sewer systems and the electrical grids have been wiped out. And duh, PR can't pay to rebuild it; its been in bankruptcy before the hurricane hit. All Congress needs to do is authorize a huge aid package to cover the minimal reconstruction of essential infrastructure, to keep the destroyed sanitation systems from spreading disease throughout the 3.5 million population of American citizens (and quickly settle the bankruptcy issues with PR; wall street "investors" are going to have to get fucked). You think Republicans have a clue?

      People with a little bit of money will hop a boat to America, (say all 1 million of them), the ones too broke to do so, will eventually catch some disease (cholera, dysentery, whatever's endemic to the island) and die (say 200K dead, mostly elderly, babies, & children). Its going to get real "embarrassing" when the UN declares Puerto Rico a health crisis, and blame America for allowing the death camp created by Hurricane Maria.

      My point is, "why do people even bother thinking Trump and the Republicans are finally going to do something about gun access or mental health?" Republicans weren't doing anything about the mass shootings under Obama's administration. But letting Puerto Rico become an island death camp due to incompetence just staggers me. But this could only come about by voters who think Trump (and the current crop of Republicans in Congress) are doing an adequate job.

    25. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was Oklahoma city when you were a kid?

      Oklahoma City doesn't count. It was a terrorist attack conducted by a militia member trained by the US Army. Gun control wouldn't stop McVeigh. McVeigh certainly didn't fit the profile of a mass shooter (by virtue of the fact he didn't use firearms to do his killing).

      Instead, lets live our lives to the fullest and try to identify and correct the problems that create these terrorists in the first place (and that's not guns, because plenty of attacks happened without guns).

      Anonymous cowards pretends to provides lip service to reason, without even attempting to address the issue the paramedic brought up (the despicable lack of resources allocated to mental health care).

    26. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're a society where people do not in general view firearms as something you need for protection.

      You're American? Then you are wrong to think people believe they do not "need" firearms for protection. Its the very reason its "enshrined" (2nd Amendment) in the CotUS. Its why there are more guns in American than people. Are there gun owners who leave their home every day unarmed? Sure. But they're adamant they can freely obtain access to firearms for the home. Its about being able to kill someone you perceive as a threat, who has no business in your domicile. (Its also about preparation for civil disorder, where one cannot count on the police to "keep" you safe.)

    27. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true if you only count the deaths of privileged white people, taken by single shooters, using automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

      Californian city dwellers used to get likkered up and hunt American Indians. Hundreds of Black Americans were murdered during the New York City draft riots.

      Massacres have been going on in this country at least as long as we've been keeping records. Today we just fetishize the ones committed by guns against white people and ignore the rest... probably so we can pretend guns are the problem, and not our culture or economy.

    28. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Gussington · · Score: 1

      And more importantly what's the answer. Ban guns?

      This is what is confusing the debate. I don't think anyone is seriously considering a universal ban on all guns, except the NRA that uses it as a FUD device.
      Even here in Australia where we are the world's leading example of effective gun control, I can still get a gun license and go buy a gun. I even have a pistol range up the road from my house that I can go to if I want. But we have very little gun violence because now it's only gun enthusiasts and hunters/farmers who go to the trouble of trying to get one.

    29. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by quantaman · · Score: 1

      For example, in my own nation (Norway) we have a high rate of gun ownership, but "for protection" is simply not a valid reason to buy a firearm.

      The pattern I've noticed in the U.S. is that densely populated areas with relatively fast police response times (a few minutes) generally favor gun control. Sparsely populated areas with slow police response times (15+ minutes) generally favor individual gun ownership. The "you don't own a gun so you call someone with a gun (police) to protect you" argument has very different connotations depending on which type of area you live in.

      I'm not sure what sort of solution this suggests, if any. Increased police presence in rural areas (to maintain the same number of cops per square mile and thus the same response time) is probably unfeasible. Just pointing out the pattern I've noticed and why some of the pro/anti gun control arguments which ring true in one location may sound like total nonsense in another.

      Possibly, though the urban/rural divide covers more things than gun.

      I think another part is that hunting is a lot more feasible in rural areas, and guns may be useful for ranchers to protect livestock. In urban areas they're really only useful for shooting other people.

      Urbanites also tend to see more value in communal goods, and the idea of having a lot of guns around doesn't feel very safe in a city.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    30. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Cederic · · Score: 1

      While Norway is such a small country that police may never be but so far away, there are places in the US where you might easily be hours from the nearest police.

      So small you can drive from one end to the other in just 28 hours - if you take a shortcut via two other countries.

      Also only 5 million population too - population density is under half that of the US. Sure, in Alaska you can be entirely isolated in a way that Norway can't match, but on average Norway was a shoddy example for you to use.

    31. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to the points raised by you and the grandparent post, I think game theory is a big part of it. Consider Philando Castile. That's a case where we the world at large have video showing a gun owner getting killed by the police without provocation. How many more of these cases are out there that the cops have successfully lied about to us that local families know are bunk? If gun ownership gets you killed, and other people's gun ownership gets you killed, gun control and gun bans start looking really good. If the NRA and the Republicans want to defend their gun rights, the best thing to do would be to prevent, or at minimum punish, events like that one to reassure urban people that exercising their 2nd amendment rights won't get them killed, and their family condemned. Guns must have an upside for these people.

    32. Re:I don't the answer to this... I really don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, in my own nation (Norway) we have a high rate of gun ownership, but "for protection" is simply not a valid reason to buy a firearm.

      The pattern I've noticed in the U.S. is that densely populated areas with relatively fast police response times (a few minutes) generally favor gun control. Sparsely populated areas with slow police response times (15+ minutes) generally favor individual gun ownership. The "you don't own a gun so you call someone with a gun (police) to protect you" argument has very different connotations depending on which type of area you live in.

      Yup, since Federal Laws have to apply to the entire US, then this one of the factors in the debate (distance to help). If you live in the really empty southeastern part of Oregon, if you call for help, it won't arrive for 2 hours, because the nearest police station is a 2 hour drive (100 miles+) away.

      Another factor in the debate is having dangerous animals around (or not), in parts of the lower US, feral pigs are a problem, so people there talk about having a 'pig' gun. And Alaska is the only place telecom companies allow employees to have handguns on the company's properties (because according to a certain company's handbook, they have to go into the wilderness to service company equipment, and there's polar bears out there).

  10. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess it was a "technical" shooting? !

    The selection of of articles has slipped badly over the last few years. This is supposed to be a feed for tech news that we won't see on a national feed or that is delivered here days or weeks before it hits any big media.

  11. Lack of information doesn't matter by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's amazing (but not surprising) how little the lack of meaningful background/facts on this dead guy, his act, his purported "companion" and his motivations matters to those who are already spinning up complex narratives to serve whatever agenda they're usually selling. Doesn't matter who we're talking about or which ax they're grinding. It's just remarkable how consistently the early period following something like this is full of what turns out to be misleading, or outright fictional information. But the speculation and misinformation (it's not even misinformation, it's something else ... just fabrications in the absence of anything solid to go on) now fills in all of the social and traditional media cracks so early and so thoroughly that whenever real information emerges, it can never shake off some of the "facts" that circulated early on.

    That indelible quality to whatever gets said first (see, for example, the perfectly incorrect Ferguson story that's still impervious to reality) is well understood now, and creates a sort of awful race to get into that "first mover" narrative position because that's now all that matters. It's not a new observation to say that the 24 hour news cycle generates endless blathering by talking heads looking to fill broadcast time, but the social media frosting on that cake has added an even worse and in many ways far more toxic new layer.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are absolutely correct, so I'll make a stab at an indelible fact....

      The guy was crazy.

      There, I said it. Crazy dude gonna do crazy dude stuff. The fact that he was a big fan of "Blood Drive" on SyFy might sidetrack some folks, but I'm gonna put my chit down on uncontrolled schizophrenia. Others might dig into his political affiliations. But even if he's been to see Milo and has a Bernie T-shirt with a white power pin, I'm still going with crazy. Everything else is a symptom.

      I can tell because the "not crazy" bucket includes "people who don't shoot at large crowds". And the "people who shoot at large crowds" bucket doesn't really include "not crazy".

      I'll also make a prediction: nobody cares. HuffPo is already on record calling for gun control and talking politics. (that was when the death toll was 20, BTW) Remember the "bath salts" guy who ate the dude's face in Miami? Yeah, nobody remembers that he wasn't on any sort of drugs. He was crazy. Crazy dude gonna do crazy dude stuff. That's how they roll.

      So you are right. And nobody cares..... because they have an ax, and they intend to grind it.

    2. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't really matter much who that guy was or believed. What matters is that he had the opportunity to get a gun and that he considered his objectives served by using it, and that's what the pro-gun advocates lend their support to. The ratio of criminally insane people will never be zero, and freely handing them guns and teaching them that they are the solution for their problems will exact a proportionate price.

      If that's a price worth to pay, it's the gun advocates' job to explain what values offset that price. Instead they are eager to deny that there is a price to pay.

    3. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So it doesn't bother you that the fact that no, nobody legally "freely hands guns to" criminally insane people kind of contradicts your point?

      Regardless, gun advocates routinely point out that:

      1) The number of people killed by ANY means (including murders with guns) has been doing down nationwide for decades, even when you include crazy mass murder attacks like this.

      2) That guns are used hundreds of thousands of times every year to prevent, halt, or lessen the impact of violent crimes by other people. That's the "value" part you're asking about.

      The vast majority of murders in the country that happen to involve guns are intra/inter-gang murders in a handful of specific cities that haven't acted on their gang problems.

      In cases like this, where the crazy guy appears to have used rifles of some sort (we have no details about them or their provenance yet), it's worth noting that the FBI says that far more people are killed every year with knives, clubs and bare hands that are killed by ANY sort of murder involving a rifle or shotgun. That long and larger trail of death and injury is just a constant dull roar, so nobody pays attention to it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the post above says... he has an ax, and he intends to grind it.

      Or as other people say: We have a crisis..... don't let it go to waste.

    5. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are absolutely correct, so I'll make a stab at an indelible fact....

      The guy was crazy.

      There, I said it. Crazy dude gonna do crazy dude stuff. T

      It is probably worth remembering that one of the first (and only) things this Congress did was to overturn Obama-era rules that restricted gun sales to people with certain severe mental illnesses. Now granted those rules wouldn't have caught this guy, because they only applied to people with very severe and obvious delusions. Statistically your likelihood of running into one of these people toting a gun is practically nil, but eventually someone is going to.

      Congress did this in the same act that repealed the rule that required coal mines to monitor water quality in adjacent streams.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The guy was crazy.

      If he wasn't white, you'd be using a different word for him today.

      because they have an ax, and they intend to grind it.

      Nope. This is America, goddamit. We don't have axes, we have Bushmaster gas-piston driven AR-15s, with 5IT AAC flash suppressors and 30-round mags, as is our natural-born God-given right, bestowed on us by a loving white Christian God who meant for every crazy white man to have access to weapons. It's right in Bible, you can look it up.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by chiefcrash · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is probably worth remembering that one of the first (and only) things this Congress did was to overturn Obama-era rules that restricted gun sales to people with certain severe mental illnesses.

      Not quite. The repeal does not change any actual firearm regulations; there have been (and still are) laws on the books that prohibit the sale of guns to some groups of people based on mental illness. All they did was remove a questionable reporting requirement from the Social Security Administration that tried to equate "has trouble handling finances" with "potentially dangerous mental defect"

      When the ACLU agrees with the NRA on something, it might be worth digging deeper...

      --
      Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
    8. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it doesn't bother you that the fact that no, nobody legally "freely hands guns to" criminally insane people kind of contradicts your point?

      Oh, so because they charge money for the guns, it isn't a problem? After all, if the guns aren't free, it's commerce, and commerce must be allowed to flow!

      Regardless, gun advocates routinely point out that:

      Gun advocates routinely make up hysterical statistics like the number of "self-defense incidents" and "rising crime rates" to justify their continued actions.

      1) The number of people killed by ANY means (including murders with guns) has been doing down nationwide for decades, even when you include crazy mass murder attacks like this.

      Now factor in advanced medical care. And explain why you keep chiming up about how crime is rising, how homicides are UP! UP! UP! in your constant blandishments of the growing threat of crime!

      2) That guns are used hundreds of thousands of times every year to prevent, halt, or lessen the impact of violent crimes by other people. That's the "value" part you're asking about.

      Oh, that's the other thing you lie about. I'm surprised you didn't say millions like you usually do.

      The vast majority of murders in the country that happen to involve guns are intra/inter-gang murders in a handful of specific cities that haven't acted on their gang problems.

      You mean the handful of specific cities that constitute the vast majority of the country's population?

      Yes, that's right, the vast majority of people live in a few cities, as people who continually fail to grasp the concept of uneven distribution of population applies.

      On the other hand, rural areas are rife with all sorts of other abuses, including child and elder neglect, animal abuse, and police corruption.

      In cases like this, where the crazy guy appears to have used rifles of some sort (we have no details about them or their provenance yet), it's worth noting that the FBI says that far more people are killed every year with knives, clubs and bare hands that are killed by ANY sort of murder involving a rifle or shotgun. That long and larger trail of death and injury is just a constant dull roar, so nobody pays attention to it.

      What are you talking about? There's tons of attention paid to it, including the death of Freddie Gray, who was justly arrested and executed by the Baltimore PD for his ILLEGAL SWITCHBLADE KILLER MURDER KNIFE.

      Just because you ignored it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

      But keep grinding your axe over this, and swinging it around like a crazy man, it doesn't matter that the last tree was cut down 100 years ago, you have to keep it sharp.

    9. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      it's worth noting that the FBI says that far more people are killed every year with knives, clubs and bare hands that are killed by ANY sort of murder involving a rifle or shotgun.

      I've noticed that you don't include handguns in that neat little NRA talking point. Why is that? Why do you compare "knives, clubs and bare hands" to a number that doesn't include the most deadly type of firearm in the United States? Far more people are killed with handguns than all the "knives, clubs, and bare hands", so why did you leave them out?

      That long and larger trail of death and injury is just a constant dull roar, so nobody pays attention to it.

      The longest and largest trail of death and injury leads back to the all-American handgun. By far. My question is, why did your statement above choose to not pay attention to it?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by swb · · Score: 1

      The confounding problem with the "crazy" analysis is how much planning and effort a shooting like this requires. Usually (but not always) people with serious mental illnesses are lacking in executive functioning and don't do a very good job of creating plans or following through on them.

      At the same time, it's hard to understand any motivation to shoot hundreds of rounds at a massed crowd that doesn't seem like the byproduct of a deranged mind.

    11. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that you don't include handguns

      Because the murderer in question didn't use handguns (again, based on what the police have said so far). Which you know, but are trying to deflect. Because your next stop is going to be to tell us (without knowing anything about the rifles used, if they were legally owned/modified, etc) that mass murders in the US would be stopped if only he couldn't have bought the rifle(s) he used. And if he'd used something else entirely (like a truck, or an IED), then you'd be focusing some completely different aspect of his lunacy, but probably not on whether we should take away trucks or pressure cookers.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Because the murderer in question didn't use handguns

      He also didn't use "knives, clubs and bare hands", yet you felt it was important to mention those.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Given that the MSM reported Major Hassan was committing "workplace violence" when he was shouting "Allah Akbar!", I'll lean on Drudge saying the guy was a muslim.

    14. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by pax+humana · · Score: 1

      Good point. Let's look at the 2017 data. http://marginalrevolution.com/... (Note, I did not check on MarginalRevolution's political leanings.) PopeRatzo, your point handguns being the weapon of choice for US murders is correct. However, your comment is off base. In fact ScentCone DID mention handguns in the very sentence before the one you quote. So my question back to you, PopeRatzo, is why YOU chose to ignore ScentCone's statement? As you yourself pointed out, that is not an NRA talking point but an FBI talking point. I dislike hypocrites. And another thing - the tragic event in Las Vegas did not involve hand guns, so you are the one who is off topic (or at least on the edge).

    15. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno. This event didn't seem to include much planning besides renting a room and bringing guns and ammo up to it. On the other hand, the Charles Whitman shooting involved some serious planning and is a pretty horrifying story.

    16. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      In fact ScentCone DID mention handguns in the very sentence before the one you quote.

      Please show us where ScentCone mentioned handguns.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more likely he was a raging piece of shit rather than crazy. Probably got taken for everything at the casino and decided to get his revenge on the world.

    18. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Usually (but not always) people with serious mental illnesses are lacking in executive functioning and don't do a very good job of creating plans or following through on them.

      That doesn't explain the gang of psychopaths (ok, some of them might only be sociopaths) running our government, does it? Willfully maintaining a harmful, unsustainable status quo is a sign of a disconnection from reality. And really, most of us are complicit to some degree.

      it's hard to understand any motivation to shoot hundreds of rounds at a massed crowd that doesn't seem like the byproduct of a deranged mind.

      There's just no shortage of deranged minds out there. Our system seems almost purpose-made to create them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is something deeply wrong with you.

    20. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by swb · · Score: 1

      I think "running government" is one of those kinds of job environments where you are so disconnected from the day-day outcomes of your policies that it's possible to rationally advocate for policies which you think actually have some kind altruistic outcome. I don't think it's personal mental derangement, it's the unreal nature of structure of the work and environment.

      I don't know if its a mental illness or just extremely flawed thinking, but I do think there is a kind of delusional behavior caused by an excess of confirmation bias. I overheard people are work with in their early 30s with at best low-end college degree griping about unions (none are members or have worked in union shops), and I think they believe that because they have been lucky enough to stumble into half-decent IT jobs they are over-invested in the idea of benevolent employers, their own skill and the nature of the job market to supply good-paying jobs.

      I do agree that in many ways modern life has turned some corner that is actively creating deranged people. Unfortunately, the guy accused of this particular mass shooting doesn't appear to be a victim of the usual modern life traps -- not in financial crisis, not suffering from an obvious illness (pilot's licenses require medical certifications), basically successfully self-employed for years, so none of the embitterment that comes from suffering at a bad job, no apparent political alignment of any kind and nobody that knew him seems to think he evidenced any kind of problems.

    21. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      no apparent political alignment of any kind and nobody that knew him seems to think he evidenced any kind of problems.

      I have heard some snarky comments about how the white supremacists in Vegas thought he was a good guy, but no more details so it's probably a red herring. Regardless, if nobody that knew him thought he had any problems, then everybody that knew him was some kind of idiot, and/or nobody was actually close enough to him to know him.

      I am a bit annoyed by people trying to call this terrorism already, though. Terrorism against who? All Americans? Country music fans? Country music singers? It seems more like a psychotic break than an act of terrorism, so far. Maybe the cops will find a note that turns it into terrorism, but so far it's just an act of savagery. He was on his way to commit a terrorist act, but the music woke him up :p

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by swb · · Score: 1

      It's obviously a conspiracy theory, but the accused shooter's total lack of obvious warning signs and general life success *almost* make me wonder if he could have somehow been an unintentional victim of an actual third party conspiracy. Some group of shooters who identified him as being alone and in a high vantage point room and saw a vulnerability they could exploit.

      And yes, this is a conspiracy theory and I don't think it will pan out, but over time it would be great to see some or all of the following:

      1) Surveillance footage showing him bringing in a large number of suitcases or packages to contain the 23 firearms found in his room and the large amount of ammunition.

      2) Room cleaning records & staff interviews of people who had access to the room -- did they notice a lot of suitcases for a single patron? Was there a large gap in staff access to the room, giving him time to unwrap/assemble a bunch of guns, like no cleaning service for 24-48 hours?

      3) The exterior photos and NY Times hotel diagram show TWO rooms in use. Did he actually check into two rooms? Does anyone remember asking him why a solo traveler and single patron would want a suite AND an additional room? He was known as a high stakes gambler, not there for a convention or some other purpose where a second room would have an obvious explanation.

      4) Can they forensically link all the guns to him? Serial number traces, finger prints, including traces of accessories or third party attachments demonstrating he was the buyer or could reasonably be demonstrated to be the owner. Some gaps may be expected, as I'm sure Nevada or other places he lives have no transfer requirements for in-state private party sales, but even these might be reasonably traced to original buyers in states where he lived.

      5) Some material evidence from his life that provides a substantial psychological motivation for doing this. That's my biggest issue now -- this guy was living a kind of everyman's fantasy, independently wealthy (brother quoted in the Times as saying he'd made at least $2 million in real estate) and living a life leisure. Even if everything else checks out to indicate he was the guy that did this (and I'm pretty sure it will), it will be pretty weird if they can't come up with some evidence of a motive.

    23. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, it doesn't take long to set up your guns. They're designed to be easy to set up. But all the rest of that stuff, for sure.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Lack of information doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is probably worth remembering that one of the first (and only) things this Congress did was to overturn Obama-era rules that restricted gun sales to people with certain severe mental illnesses.

      No they didn't you liar.

  12. Re: News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this technology news?

  13. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I could mod your comment into the depths of hell I would. You are making assumptions where there is no information to make such, and showing your own political bias and agenda. And not a very hard attempt either, because the other side of the political spectrum could make the same assumption that he is a Trump support right wing second amendment loving nutjob, since we all know the left is anti gun and this guy had numerious firearms. We also know who he was, a 68 year old native resident of Nevada, which more than likely also makes him a Republican..

    But unlike you, I won't jump to conclusions yet to, otherwise I would be a total dick... You should probably do the same else everyone will think you are a total dick.

    And yes, while this is not exactly news for nerds, it is still an important event that should be covered.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  14. So Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know old angry white guy just screams liberal.

    1. Re:So Republican by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Bernie Sanders anyone?

      Michael Moore?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:So Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      James Thomas Hodgkinson? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting#Perpetrator

    3. Re: So Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Odd all of the angry old white men I know are racist right wing ultra conservatives. The old liberals are more laid back. Probably has to do with living in a rural area where education and income levels are low. Just how Trump likes them, dumb, poor and easy to manipulate.

    4. Re:So Republican by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Just solving the problem By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  15. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a 68 year old native resident of Nevada, which more than likely also makes him a Republican..

    Right, all those Nevada Republicans who kept voting Harry Reid in year after year.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  16. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by BoHD · · Score: 0

    Exactly, shut it up yo.

    He probably voted for known Republican Notsy from Nevada, Hairy Reed.

  17. Follow the flowchart by Pseudonym · · Score: 0
    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    1. Re:Follow the flowchart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sooooo happy I still had a mod point to give you for the chart.

  18. Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun love. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
    The guns the guy used were illegal.
    Gun laws won't stop crazies.
    Psycho gun killers are Democrats or on antidepressants.
    Guns stop zillions of other attacks.
    99.9% of gun owners don't massacre anyone.
    They still kill each other in DC (or gun free zone of your choice).
    We need guns to protect ourselves against New Hitler

    We've all heard them a million times before.

    The fact is, whenever the news of a "active shooter killing spree" comes out the very FIRST thought people have is "Oh, where in the US is it this time??".
    Trying to argue for a bit of sanity there is like trying to convince North Koreans that Dear Leader does actually poo, it's an almost impossible task.

    Hey, a whole classroom of kids got slaughtered at Sandy Hook and they did NOTHING. This won't be any different.
    The cannon fodder have been conditioned far too well. Not only do they willingly walk to the slaughterhouse, they protest the rights of the slaughterman to kill them.

    Just like their second rate healthcare system, and their lack of a social safety net, the ones at the top in the US are only interested in profit. Guns are big business, like healthcare and private prisons. Lots of money to be made, and votes to be had. It's only the little people that carry the burden, so that's ok.

    There's no point in rebutting the same old points they raise over and over again. It's just water off a ducks back.

    So, now it's time for more "thoughts and prayers", no meaningful action, and some collective amnesia until we read about the next American mass murder obscenity in a week, or months time.

  19. Re: Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    White guy in his 60's, living in Nevada, with guns. Yep, classic liberal demographic.

  20. Re:Racial profiling by Kohath · · Score: 1

    We don't know yet. But we know people like you are jerks with zero humanity. You just told us.

  21. Not an off the shelf weapon by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The weapon was fully automatic, which is very tightly regulated. It is likely the shooter either modified a weapon illegally or obtained one on the black market. That is no normal "assault rifle".

    I slowed down one of the eyewitness videos and used a tap-counter to count how many rounds were fired. I counted 80 rounds in a single burst. He was either using a belt-fed automatic weapon, or some specialized extremely high capacity magazine. The standard magazine you can buy for an assault rifle is 30 rounds.

    For all of the commentators saying this is what America gets for guns being legalized, I would like to point out that in Europe there have been far more attacks using fully automatic, illegal weapons like what just happened in Las Vegas, than in the USA. In fact, Europe still holds the record for the most people killed in mass incidents of this kind. This was a premeditated attack using specialized weapons by someone so incredibly deranged and unhinged that they would obtain several thousands of dollars of gear ahead of time, then open fire on a crowd of innocent people over and over with a fully automatic weapon.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      For all of the commentators saying this is what America gets for guns being legalized, I would like to point out that in Europe

      Guns are legal in Europe too, this argument is invalid.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We already know guns are at fault and must be banned, you're just supposed to be snarky and contemptuous about it, stop posting this crap and start making jokes about "gun nuts" and how you hope the people killed were Trump supporters, or how you're glad the shooter is white. Don't you want to be on the right side of history?

    4. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

      We already know guns are at fault and must be banned

      They were banned from that area; didn't work.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Europe" is a continent made up of many countries - many European countries ban guns.

      Many non-Europeans seem to have a problem understanding that Europe is not a single political entity - not even the European Union spans the entirety of Europe, and the EU doesn't regulate guns, that's down to member states at an individual level.

    6. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      The weapon was fully automatic, which is very tightly regulated. It is likely the shooter either modified a weapon illegally or obtained one on the black market. That is no normal "assault rifle".

      You can buy a fully automatic weapon for the price of a less than mid-level new car, perfectly legally. You only have to get certain licenses and stamps and follow certain regulations related to storage, but really anyone can get if you can find one. Hell, I know one person that has one and I know of at least one local gun range that allows you to rent one (it's a ripoff though, an MP5 but you can only use their pre-loaded magazines that they charge $50 each for). The recent legalization of silencers is kind of concerning as well. I'm surprised someone hasn't used any of those in a mass shooting yet-a couple silenced pistols in a loud venue means you can shoot for a lot longer before people notice what's going on.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      many European countries ban guns

      They bad mass murder too. It's just that psychopathic criminals don't pay attention to such things, so some of these things will always happen no matter what is banned.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      I didn't say annual gun deaths. I said "killed in mass incidents of this kind", which is when a person using illegal military weapons (full auto) attacks an large innocent group of people. Like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    9. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It exactly a normal assault rifle. Semi-automatic weapons are not assault rifles.

    10. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      The recent legalization of silencers is kind of concerning as well. I'm surprised someone hasn't used any of those in a mass shooting yet-a couple silenced pistols in a loud venue means you can shoot for a lot longer before people notice what's going on.

      So, you've never actually used a gun with a silencer? They don't go "PEW! PEW!" like in the movies. There is no way a pistol with a "silencer" would not be heard very distinctly in a large and crowded venue. The primary use of "silencers" is for hearing protection and to minimize impact on neighbors.

      Please don't base public policy arguments on fictional works.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A legal full-auto firearm is $25,000+ to buy, if you can find one, and can take months of paperwork and background investigations to get approval for. To date, I'm not aware of any crimes ever being committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon.

      Modifying a semi-auto to fire in full auto can sometimes be done but is extremely illegal.

      It would be interesting to find out exactly what the shooter was using and how he obtained it, but I doubt those details will ever come out accurately.

    12. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      The weapon was fully automatic, which is very tightly regulated. It is likely the shooter either modified a weapon illegally or obtained one on the black market. That is no normal "assault rifle".

      You can buy a fully automatic weapon for the price of a less than mid-level new car, perfectly legally.

      2 years ago I was hiking in some mountains near Salt Lake City. The base of these mountains was a popular spot for people to come out on weekends and setup targets and shoot at them (the places was littered with shell casings of various types - why the fuck they couldn't clean up after themselves I don't know). So I am hearing a collection of semi-automatic pistol and rifle fire. OK thats not unexpected. Then all of a sudden someone lights up a fully automatic machine gun. Totally different sound. I never saw who was firing this gun, but it seems that taking it out into the desert and shooting at things was a relaxing thing for them to do.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    13. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For all of the commentators saying this is what America gets for guns being legalized, I would like to point out that in Europe there have been far more attacks using fully automatic, illegal weapons like what just happened in Las Vegas, than in the USA. In fact, Europe still holds the record for the most people killed in mass incidents of this kind. This was a premeditated attack using specialized weapons by someone so incredibly deranged and unhinged that they would obtain several thousands of dollars of gear ahead of time, then open fire on a crowd of innocent people over and over with a fully automatic weapon.

      As a European I fully agree with your core point, which is that people who're motivated to do harm will go to great lengths to achieve their goals. However, one slight thing to point out: in Europe getting any kind of gun is a lot more difficult than in the US, which means if someone planning an attack, they pretty much have to get their weapons illegally, and if one's already about to go to the black market to get a gun illegally, might as well make it an automatic.

      That being said, the US still has numerically a lot more (mass) shootings than Europe because the abundance of (legal) guns means that acquiring a gun of some description even illegally is far easier than in Europe. Thus you have a higher rate of gun crime and homicide than countries within the EU. That is, someone just wanting to get their hands on any kind of gun to go shoot up their school/workplace/etc. will have a much hgiher chance of success in the US than in here. Most mass shooters are mentally unstable, often depressed, so the difficulty of getting a gun illegally in here means the rates of mass shootings are much lower.

      However, it should be noted that it's not about the plain amount of guns. There are plenty of countries in Europe that have high amounts of firearms, we (Finland) among them, Switzerland is another famous example where everyone that goes through the army keeps the rifle in their home, yet we both have several times smaller homicide rates as well as rates of mass shootings. Why then is this? Well it's because we do have regulations about how the guns must be kept and transported. And in Switzerland the ammo for the rifles provided by the army is strictly controlled. In here to get a hunting rifle you actually need to be part of a hunting club for a while and pass a psych exam, and it's illegal to transport the weapon in public without it being disassembled.

      My point here is this: gun regulations do affect the amount of deaths by guns, but these regulations are too often thought of in the black and white mindset of 'less vs. more guns'. However, as I said we're both in agreement that even the most sensible regulation cannot stop all mass shootings or acts of terror. We've had a handful of mass shootings in the 2000s, all of them with the exception of a single case committed using stolen/illegal weaponry (and that case itself went to court that determined the police were guylty of dereliction of duty when they did not confiscate the weapon/license even though the perpetrator had been investigated based on his online writings idolizing violence). However, the only terror attack we've had which happened earlier this summer was done with a knife and the death toll was only 2 because of that.

      So while you're right that this incident especially could not probably have been affected by more regulations, it's still good to keep in mind that the kind of regulations in place do affect the overall number of gun crimes and homicides significantly. One thing that is also a factor and I feel is too often sidelined in the american gun discussion is the availability of mental health services. Obviously it's too early to say what role if any that played here before knowing if he even tried to seek help, though it's rather that the guy was a nut of some description.

      My heart goes out to anyone here with friends or family in Vegas, stay strong people!

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    14. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EU does regulate guns. Right now they are trying to get rid of even semi-automatic guns.
      "Dutch EU Presidency proposed banning all semi-automatic pistols, most semi-automatic rifles. Netherlands further proposed making muzzle loading firearms subject to same rules as modern firearms."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Firearms_Directive

    15. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silencers were invented so that farmers can shoot rats in the barn while not scaring the livestock.

    16. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all of the commentators saying this is what America gets for guns being legalized, I would like to point out that in Europe there have been far more attacks using fully automatic, illegal weapons like what just happened in Las Vegas, than in the USA.

      I myself as an European would like to see your sources as I can't trace these insane amounts of automatic gun use. It's almost like the reports on sweden the failed socialist state.

      In fact, Europe still holds the record for the most people killed in mass incidents of this kind. This was a premeditated attack using specialized weapons by someone so incredibly deranged and unhinged that they would obtain several thousands of dollars of gear ahead of time, then open fire on a crowd of innocent people over and over with a fully automatic weapon.

      I guess you refer to Anders Breivik who was as unhinged as you described and killed most in a youth camp just to prove you could. Despite that gun deaths per capita is still a lot lower over here.

    17. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Can you name a European country which has banned all guns? Maybe your argument needs some tweaking as at the moment it's a bit all over the place.

    18. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by swillden · · Score: 1

      Silencers were invented so that farmers can shoot rats in the barn while not scaring the livestock.

      Then the inventors failed, because unless you're shooting a silenced .22 rifle (long barrel) with .22 shorts or a very low-energy .22LR round, the livestock are going to get scared. Cartridge with a more power? Gonna be noisy. Shorter barrel (e.g. handgun)? Gonna be noisy. Suppressors lower the volume to a point where it won't damage your hearing, but it's still loud.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, i didn't read the 80 rounds thing. Sounds more like a machine gun then.

    20. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention how they overheat very quickly. You won't be able to kill 50 and insure 200 before you silenced weapon is no longer usable unless you spread it out over a very long time period.

    21. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That's what happens when you have porous, heavily-crossed borders between areas of different levels of gun control. Correctly-implemented (read: national) gun control would help this massively, but is unpalatable to many it seems.

    22. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were banned from that area? Are you kidding me? The country is awash with firearms and you want to claim a no pissing section in your pool would ever work?

    23. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      My point here is this: gun regulations do affect the amount of deaths by guns

      Maybe. I think there's also a significant cultural aspect. One telling statistic: There are more knife murders per capita in Chicago than in Toronto. That can't be blamed on guns, and neither city has any knife restrictions.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Except for the magazine capacity, you are correct, which is why I placed "assault rifle" in quotes. Mainstream media has redefined (to the general public) that an "assault rifle" is a semi-automatic rifle that looks scary (like having a pistol grip and an adjustable stock). The point I was trying to make is the weapon used in Las Vegas was not something you could buy from Walmart or your normal gun store, and it requires special permits that take many months to acquire and are very expensive.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    25. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you have like eight fucking guns but only a nutjob would do that.

    26. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I slowed down one of the eyewitness videos and used a tap-counter to count how many rounds were fired. I counted 80 rounds in a single burst. He was either using a belt-fed automatic weapon, or some specialized extremely high capacity magazine. The standard magazine you can buy for an assault rifle is 30 rounds.

      Echoes can do all kinds of crazy stuff with gunshots, especially in built-up areas. The real number of shots may have been significantly fewer than the number of bangs heard in the video.

    27. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The kind of nutjob that is going to do this no matter what is illegal. So why take them away from everyone?

      Murder is already illegal.

    28. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      This is the first attack in the USA I'm aware of using a fully automatic military weapon. The specific incident I'm aware of that (to this point) has claimed far more lives in Europe is the 2015 Paris attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    29. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't FA. It was using a hand crank.

    30. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, semi-automatics are much more limiting which is why this American hero was able to break the Orlando shooter's frankly pathetic total of 49 dead.

    31. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Modifying a semi-auto to fire in full auto can sometimes be done but is extremely illegal."

      Extremely illegal? Well obviously no-one would do that then. Is it more or less illegal than shooting hundreds of people?

    32. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what happens when you have porous, heavily-crossed borders between areas of different levels of gun control. Correctly-implemented (read: national) gun control would help this massively, but is unpalatable to many it seems.

      Two things:

      1.. Then you'd have to build that wall. Tough call for a Trump detractor.

      2. Unless you want to do things unlawfully, you'll need a constitutional amendment. The constitution is clear on this front. The federal government cannot restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I know, we ignore the constitution all the time, but it is pretty explicit on the matter. So if you want to do it right, go get a constitutional amendment passed.

    33. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Words fail me.

    34. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under a Republican administration? Just how paranoid are you?

    35. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Just an fyi:

      You can get 90 round drum magazines though they are prone to jamming in my experience, thus to be avoided.
      You can simply have more than one rifle ready to go when one runs out.

      There is a device called a " Slide Fire " which will get the weapon up to full-auto rates of fire, but has a tendency to wreak havoc on accuracy.
      ( Google it )

    36. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silencers on guns still allow a bit of noise, but I'd wager up against a PA system pumping out 120db, there's a fair chance that not everyone in a venue the size that was attacked last night would hear what was happening until the blood was on them. And if you're removed from the stage far enough, there's a better than zero chance the playing would continue until the bodies started dropping because they simply wouldn't notice the additional noise.

      Or have you never been to a large-scale concert?

    37. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Maltheus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some Europeans have trouble understanding this same fact about the United STATES of America.

    38. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      An update to my post after watching the video.

      The first thing that came to mind was that silly hand-crank you can attach to your gun to get automatic fire rates. Whatever it is he is shooting, it's not a common setup. The initial burst is very long which isn't usually very common as automatic fire has a tendency to lift your muzzle in a hurry. Thus, burst shooting is a thing.
      ( or heavier belt-fed weapons designed for it, though extremely difficult for civilians to own )

      Also odd he elected for a spray-and-pray solution vs aimed shooting, though certainly can't argue with his results :|

    39. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I would like to point out that in Europe there have been far more attacks using fully automatic, illegal weapons like what just happened in Las Vegas, than in the USA. In fact, Europe still holds the record for the most people killed in mass incidents of this kind.
      That is wrong on all accounts.
      Except you want to write: In fact, Europe still holds the record for the most people killed in a single mass incident(no s) of this kind.
      So: how many incidents like this did we have in Europe the last 30 years? One? Two?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    40. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all of the commentators saying this is what America gets for guns being legalized, I would like to point out that in Europe there have been far more attacks using fully automatic, illegal weapons like what just happened in Las Vegas, than in the USA.

      [citation needed]

      In fact, Europe still holds the record for the most people killed in mass incidents of this kind

      [citation needed]

    41. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So by limiting the discussion to a very specific type of firearm you are trying to make it look as though one is not multiple orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by gun violence in the USA than in Europe. Interesting.

    42. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      The EU is only a part of Europe, it is not Europe.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    43. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    44. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      That's what happens when you have porous, heavily-crossed borders between areas of different levels of gun control. Correctly-implemented (read: national) gun control would help this massively, but is unpalatable to many it seems.

      You can't even keep drugs or mobile phones out of high security prisons in the US, what realistic hope do you have to even accomplish this goal? Even in North Korea, American movies are traded and watched despite being highly prohibited content in a country that operates under a strict regime.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    45. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      The country is awash with firearms and you want to claim a no pissing section in your pool would ever work?

      I would argue it just doesn't work, no matter how much you scale it up.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    46. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There is no way a pistol with a "silencer" would not be heard very distinctly in a large and crowded venue.

      At a crowded Las Vegas concert, the sound level can hit 155 decibels, with average levels of over 120 decibels. A silenced pistol hits maybe 110 decibels, mostly in the higher frequencies which tend to be less noticeable.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    47. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please...the French Newspaper attack was AK47's and RPGs for pete sake. Since when are RPGs legal?

    48. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 2

      My point here is this: gun regulations do affect the amount of deaths by guns

      Maybe. I think there's also a significant cultural aspect. One telling statistic: There are more knife murders per capita in Chicago than in Toronto. That can't be blamed on guns, and neither city has any knife restrictions.

      Toronto is in Canada, which does have knife restrictions. See also some of the better knife forums where this question comes up a lot.

      --
      A recursive sig
      Can impart wisdom and truth
      Call proc signature()
    49. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Since when are RPGs legal?

      An RPG would be legal under a category A license in France.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    50. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, everyone dies. The only thing that actually affects the amount of deaths is the amount of births. The question is, do we die free, or in servitude to a government that wants to decide what it thinks is best for us.

      So, think about protecting the children. Specifically, protecting their freedom.

    51. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was 30-round magazines. You were likely counting echoes.

    52. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree. Americans are just more violent people on average than most civilized nations' populations. No laws will change that.

    53. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by swillden · · Score: 1

      My point here is this: gun regulations do affect the amount of deaths by guns

      Maybe. I think there's also a significant cultural aspect. One telling statistic: There are more knife murders per capita in Chicago than in Toronto. That can't be blamed on guns, and neither city has any knife restrictions.

      Toronto is in Canada, which does have knife restrictions. See also some of the better knife forums where this question comes up a lot.

      Bah. Okay, I should have said "no knife restrictions that matter". Lots of places regulate switchblades, gravity-assisted opening blades, long folding knives, etc. In fact Chicago's regulations are roughly the same as Toronto's in that respect. But your average kitchen knife is a perfectly-serviceable weapon, and in many ways superior to the banned knives.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    54. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Silencers were invented so that farmers can shoot rats in the barn while not scaring the livestock.

      Then the inventors failed, because unless you're shooting a silenced .22 rifle (long barrel) with .22 shorts or a very low-energy .22LR round, the livestock are going to get scared. Cartridge with a more power? Gonna be noisy. Shorter barrel (e.g. handgun)? Gonna be noisy. Suppressors lower the volume to a point where it won't damage your hearing, but it's still loud.

      Well if you're shooting rats in a barn, why would you use anything but a .22 rifle with .22 shorts?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    55. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by swillden · · Score: 1

      Agree. Americans are just more violent people on average than most civilized nations' populations. No laws will change that.

      I'd really like to disagree with this, but I can't. One thing I can say, though, is that the culture of violence is not homogenous throughout the United States. Violence is rare in lots of places, on par with Europe, and in some cases even below many European countries. New Hampshire, for example, has a homicide rate of 0.9 per 100K, on the same order as Denmark, Germany and the UK. Maine, Minnesota and Vermont are on par with France.

      It's also worth pointing out that though when you said "Americans" you meant "people in the United States", the fact is that the more literal definition of "Americans" as "people in the Americas" makes your statement even more true. The homicide rate in the Americas (16.3 per 100K) is higher even than the homicide rate in Africa (12.5 per 100K) and this is true even in American countries with strong gun restrictions.

      (Aside: Note that total homicide rate is the right measure when trying to estimate the effects of gun control. Measurements of gun homicides put a heavy thumb on the scale and are really quite silly since the tool used doesn't matter all that much to the murder victim.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    56. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The European Firearms Directive overrides the members of the EU. And the EU does regulate firearms down to the member states. Even Switzerland and Norway participate in the EU Firearms Directive.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    57. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      Not quite - there is a law in Chicago limiting the length of a knife blade. https://chicagocode.org/8-24-0...

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    58. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by swillden · · Score: 1

      Fair point. As history, though, the claim doesn't stand up in any case.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    59. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by swillden · · Score: 1

      Not quite - there is a law in Chicago limiting the length of a knife blade. https://chicagocode.org/8-24-0...

      Also state laws banning switchblades, etc.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    60. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Not even close to realistic on your volume levels for concerts. You're off by 20+ dB. The loudest ever was around 135+ dB for peaks, and average was closer to 110. I know a LOT of FOH engineers and they almost to a person push for 90-100 dB SPL average with peaks to 120. That's really loud - but orders of magnitude less power than you claim.

      Source: I design and build high-power speakers for a living, for a wide variety of brands.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    61. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Here's a list and if we limit mass-shootings to those with 5 or more killed, there have been about 26 in the last 30 years, in Europe.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    62. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      They found 10 rifles in the room. How did they find the guy anyway, was it by sound or because they saw the muzzle flash.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    63. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You're right. Loud concerts can hit nearly 130 dB, but improvements in sound engineering have brought the average down quite a bit. Still louder than a suppressed pistol, though.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    64. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Not sure about what qualifies as a "mass shooting", however the murder rate is much higher in the USA compared to the EU.

    65. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Authorities had been alerted to his location thanks to a smoke alarm that went off in the room, presumably triggered as a result of the shots fired.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    66. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      New Hampshire has about as many inhabitants as a large city, but a population density lower than a village. It is difficult to shoot somebody if there is nobody around. Homicide rates of similarly populated areas in Europe (which are seriously difficult to find) are barely above zero. Germany, on the other hand, has an average population density similar to the state of Maryland which has a homicide rate of 8.6, almost 10x higher.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    67. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And the US have about 30 every year ... so what is your point?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    68. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Actually, I suspect that FInland and Switzerland have fewer mass shootings because you have social consensus. You know, like 'This is not a good idea.'

    69. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      My point is you said there was like one or two in the last 30 years. You are off by an order of magnitude. If you look at the record for the US, we've had 37 mass shooting with 5 more killed, in the last 30 years. So it's not that different. And again, an order of magnitude different than you state.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    70. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      In testing, most of the suppressors reduced the volume to between 130 and 145 dB. That's louder than a concert. A few suppressors can be quieter, and use of subsonic ammunition helps, but even suppressed a firearm is still a very loud thing.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    71. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada does not restrict knives based on length, unlike many places in USA. Other than the "switchblade" ban, Canadian knife laws for possession and carry are quite lax.

    72. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by udachny · · Score: 0

      There is no way a pistol with a "silencer" would not be heard very distinctly in a large and crowded venue

      - maybe not a 'pistol with a silencer' but a silenced pistol is actually extremely quiet.

    73. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      In testing, most of the suppressors reduced the volume to between 130 and 145 dB

      Suppressed .22 and 9 millimeter is less than 115 dB.

      The problematic thing about suppressors is that they change the sound of gunfire enough that most people wouldn't recognize it as such. That's why the military used those Qual-A-Tec type suppressors to dispatch dogs when they're approaching a hostile village.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    74. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they do.

      http://www.knifeup.com/illinois-knife-law/

    75. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Then you missed my point.
      The parent claimed Europe had more mass shootings with higher death toll than the US.
      We don't have many mass shootings, and we only had 2 or 3 with a similar or higher death toll than the worst american ones.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    76. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "silenced" gun is about as loud as a jackhammer - you'll receive hearing damage from being near one for too long.

      If you failed to hear a "silenced" gunshot, it's because you were already deaf.

    77. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, it should be noted that it's not about the plain amount of guns. [Finland and Switzerland] have high amounts of firearms [... but] both have several times smaller homicide rates [...] it's because we do have regulations about how the guns must be kept and transported.

      That cannot be the sole explanation, because the non-gun homicide rate in the US is higher than the non-gun homicide rate in most European countries. At least part - and possibly all - of the difference must be due to some cultural factor, rather than to guns.

    78. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by s122604 · · Score: 1

      You don't know that it was true full auto

      It could have been that the shooter modified the gun with a bump fire stock or binary trigger.
      Both of the items are available over the counter, for less than 500$, with zero paperwork.
      Both will give near full auto rates of fire, albeit with less accuracy, but when you are spraying bullets into a crowd, that probably doesn't matter.

    79. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty to turn a semi-auto into full-auto, you just file the firing pin down a bit... anyone with a nail file could do it.

    80. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA is a continent made up of many countries?

    81. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Parent was wrong, and you were quite wrong yourself in your rebuttal. I guess that doesn't matter, though?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    82. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, from the 32nd floor across the street - .22 and 9mm wouldn't be used... ;) They will still be quite loud. And 9mm, unless it's subsonic, is still extremely loud - well above 115 dB (that's why .45 is used more often, it is a barely-supersonic load when it's hot-loaded, typically it is subsonic in most loadings as compared to 9mm).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    83. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, from the 32nd floor across the street - .22 and 9mm wouldn't be used... ;)

      You're right. From the 32nd floor across the street, a suppressor wouldn't have made much difference with the sound of the rifles.

      Their main function would have been making the rifles more stable, allowing the gunman to have better aim when murdering 58 people and wounding over 500.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    84. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by pax+humana · · Score: 1
      Data from 2015: Europe as defined by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which includes Russia and Ukraine

      Europe homicides 23477, population 831 million

      USA homicides 12996, population 321 million

      Mexico homicides 25757+, population 126 million

      IMHO, Mexico is much more like the USA than Europe.

      Kiuas, thank you for the interesting perspective.

    85. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA is a continent made up of many countries?

      Europe is only a "continent" because it's full of racists who don't want to be associated with Asians. By the European definition of continent, the USA may as well be its own continent, too.

    86. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Maryland has a higher homicide rate than 48 other states and double the average homicide rate of the entire US. It just happens to have the same overall density as Germany. The two more violent states have 1/10 the population density of Germany and 1/2 to 1/4 the population density of New Hampshire. The states that have a higher population density than Maryland have a small fraction of the homicide rates.

      Finland and Sweden have higher homicide rates than New Hampshire, despite having half or less the population density. That's not even getting to Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, with similar rates as the whole US and much lower densities.

      There are certainly cultural differences in the US that lead to higher homicide rates but they are not homogenous or directly correlated with state population density.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    87. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by chihowa · · Score: 1

      By homicide rates alone (who gives a shit about 'gun violence' in particular), you are nearly 1.6 times as likely to be a victim of homicide in the US as compared to Europe (3.0 to 4.9 / 100000).

      Automatic weapons haven't previously been used for crime in the US since the 1930's, which is an interesting bit of trivia. They have more recently been used in Europe, which is also an interesting bit of trivia. You, or another AC, expressed disbelief about this ("I myself as an European would like to see your sources as I can't trace these insane amounts of automatic gun use."). Do try to keep up.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    88. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you missed my point.

      Your point seems to be making up numbers and then, when called on it, moving the goalposts and making up more numbers.

      Why don't you guys go start another World War or take up that old ethnic cleansing hobby that you used to enjoy so much. Less than a century ago, and for all of recorded history before that, you seemed to revel in the higher death toll. It's only a matter of time before that interest piques again.

    89. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Well if you're shooting rats in a barn, why would you use anything but a .22 rifle with .22 shorts?

      I've shot critters in a barn before with .22 shorts and I doubt the report was even audible a fair distance from the building. I've got an especially long barrel bolt action rifle, which reduces the noise as there's no cycling of a semi-automatic bolt and the gas pressures have reduced with the longer barrel. Inside the barn it sounds like someone popping an inflated paper bag.

      I've tested the penetration of the bullets and in the unlikely event that I miss my target the wooden barn walls will stop the bullet. I prefer it over my air rifle. The air rifle makes more noise, is not as accurate, is more likely to wound than kill, and takes longer to load for the next target.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    90. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Some Europeans have trouble understanding this same fact about the United STATES of America.

      Because the USA is a single country, Europe isn't.
      In other news, Americans are terrible at geography

    91. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an European, we never hear what legislation a state of yours is proposing. We do hear about every thing your federal government does though.

      So it is a bit difficult making sense of you when the individual states' affairs never feature in the news. Assuming they even are important, as you suggest.

    92. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I was not wrong ing my rebuttal.
      In the last 30 years we had in Europe 3 mass shootings that are comparable with the current one in the US.

      And you pointed out with your wiki link that we had about 30 mass shootings over 30 years if you count mass as involved greater than 4 or 5.

      In the US you have a mass shooting with 4 or 5 involved nearly every week.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    93. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With around 22,000 ppl below, he was shooting fish in a barrel so to say. He didn't HAVE to aim.

    94. Re: Not an off the shelf weapon by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Archers own multiple bows.
      Chefs own multiple knives.
      Musicians own multiple instruments.
      Golfers own multiple clubs.

      I could go on, but I think the point is clear: Just what the fuck makes people that own guns different from people that own other tools, toys and weapons?

    95. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US you have a mass shooting with 4 or 5 involved nearly every week.

      Do you have any sources to support that claim? The person that you're arguing with posted a source that indicates that you're wrong.

      "If you look at the record for the US, we've had 37 mass shooting with 5 more killed, in the last 30 years."

    96. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The current one in the US is the largest ever. We've had ONE comparable in the last 30 years. In the last 30 years, there's been TWO shootings in the US with over 40 fatalities - this one and the Miami gay bar attack. On-par with the EU. You are wrong.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    97. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of 'deep state'?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    98. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I lost track.
      About what am I wrong?

      The parent claimed the EU had more shootings and more devastating shootings and implied had more killed people by guns than the US. Did he not?

      In the last 30 years less people died in the EU to gun fire than in the US in a single year.

      Turn it how you want ... As far as I have the discussion in mind: I'm right. The parent is wrong. And you are a nitpicker who is not able to point out what he thinks I actually might have said wrong.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    99. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Apples and oranges. Finland and Sweden both are settled differently from New Hampshire - there are basicaly a few cities where the population density is very high and a whole lot of empty spaces. New Hampshire is settled much more uniformly in comparison. The largest city in New Hampshire - Manchester - is more or less comparable to Turku. It is difficult to find the statistics for Turku - my Finnish is simpy not good enough for that, has been too long ago and I never have learned the language properly, but given the 70 murders for the whole country and Turku's population, it would be around 3.

      In regards to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia you are absolutely right. These three and Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Croatia have been a big mistake. They are third world shitholes that don't belong in the EU. And yes, I have visited all of them except Bulgaria so I can judge.

      Oh, by the way, the three countries you have mentioned have several other interesting things in common
      1) Their firearm laws are very lax compared to the more civilised EU members
      2) They consider USA being a closer friend than the EU
      3) They have a large chunk of their population that is considered second class citizens, actually mostly not even citizens, but stateless persons who often have no legal chance to get a citizenship despite being born there, have difficulties to get jobs and are actively discriminated against - not quite to the point of Jim Crow laws, but still quite a lot. Sounds familiar?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    100. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, it should be noted that it's not about the plain amount of guns. There are plenty of countries in Europe that have high amounts of firearms, we (Finland) among them, Switzerland is another famous example where everyone that goes through the army keeps the rifle in their home, yet we both have several times smaller homicide rates as well as rates of mass shootings. Why then is this? Well it's because we do have regulations about how the guns must be kept and transported. And in Switzerland the ammo for the rifles provided by the army is strictly controlled. In here to get a hunting rifle you actually need to be part of a hunting club for a while and pass a psych exam, and it's illegal to transport the weapon in public without it being disassembled.

      My point here is this: gun regulations do affect the amount of deaths by guns, but these regulations are too often thought of in the black and white mindset of 'less vs. more guns'.

      You are comparing apples and oranges. I strongly suspect that both Finland and Switzerland
      a) are far more ethnically homogeneous than the USA, and
      b) have far better social welfare programs.

      With respect to (b), all three nations are probably best described as capitalist welfare states, not as socialist - the workers do not generally own the means of production in any of these nations.

      My impression of Europe in general is that there is less stress between different social groups (because of the relatively homogeneous populations there just aren't that many big differences to cause stress, though modern trends in EU immigration may change that), and the welfare and social support systems are far better run, with the two factors resulting in a generally happier and saner population.

      A third potential issue is the drug trade. I suspect the USA has a lot more problems than most EU nations. Not sure how much of this was the result of Cold War attempts to undermine the USA versus other factors - including the cultural ones.

      Yet another problem in the USA is the perception that both major political parties are thoroughly and equally corrupt, that government in the US at all level is violating the Bill of Rights on a daily basis and routinely engaging in illegal conduct, that the US legal profession is thoroughly unethical, and that the entrenched corruption is now impossible to remove. This perception doubtless has all kinds of negative influence on people - without hope for things to get better, it is hard for people to stay sane.

      These are all factors that likely affect the relative amount of homicides when comparing one nation to another, far more than differences in gun regulations.

    101. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the fact that those States aren't particularly united?

    102. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, think of the silencer as the "I'm not an a-hole" accessory since it really only dampens the shockwaves, but not "silence" like Hollywood would have you believe. Another beef about the glorifiers of abusing weapons being the big callers for banning said weapons. :/

    103. Re:Not an off the shelf weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some Europeans have trouble understanding this same fact about the United STATES of America.

      Hell, 99% of "Americans" have trouble understanding this.

      The "modern" "pledge" of course is "one nation" "indivisible"....so they told everyone no more "states" but few people comprehend..... ...once they went "us citizens" and "civil war" and "no more common law citizenship or anything else" and "martial law war bonds" ........all those "states" pretty much went out the window (at least on paper)....if you don't object, they just assume you are in the "one nation" nowadays.

      actual states have actual citizens, birthright or otherwise.

      they have "state of x" (Territorial and municipal) nowadays...rewrote the state "constitutions" long ago....

      start with www.annavonreitz.com
      to see what is left of the actual states (unincorporated, real people, real money) .........and not at constant "war" for 150 years.

  22. Flood a country with untracable guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...and have effectively no barriers to mentally deranged people getting hold of enough weaponry to start a small war !

    What could possibly go wrong ???

    Oh, wait.....

    1. Re:Flood a country with untracable guns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that this was full auto and those are illegal to almost everybody within the US. They require a lot of special permits to be able to get legally. And if he had those permits and these were legal firearms in the US, then their system failed. My guess is these firearms were acquired illegally though, as having once looked into the permits to get a full auto weapon, it is not an easy process.

      *Insert statement about laws only keep honest people honest and do nothing to thwart a sufficiently determined criminal, as the firearms this guy was using were almost certainly illegal in the US already*

  23. Re: Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In certain parts of the country, gun ownership is as good a political indicator as fishing rod ownership.

  24. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "which more than likely also makes him a Republican" and then " I won't jump to conclusions yet"

    Sounds like you already did, bro.

  25. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Ogive17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Less than 12 hours and the political blame game already well underway.

    Can we all just agree the guy was a fucked up human.... I just wish people that miserable would just use one bullet into their brain instead of killing innocent people as well.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  26. Here come the regulatory loonies by nctritech · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Expect swarms of people to demand that our freedoms be curtailed so that "this can never happen again!" Expect the same swarms of people to be just as stupid and reaction-driven as they were every other time a bad thing has happened in the United States. Let's not address the source of the problem, let's make sure they just have to do the bad deeds in a slightly different manner with the same degree of success.

    1. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, the same swarms of people that cheered when the orange clown declared that the solution the all the U.S.'s terrorism problems was to ban all muslims.

      And yet, somehow, I'm 99% convinced that you voted for him.

    2. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by nctritech · · Score: 0

      Nope. Didn't vote for Trump. Nice red herring you got there though. Any other stupid labels you want to try to slap on me instead of refuting my actual point?

    3. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not address the source of the problem,

      And what pray tell would that be?

      You fucking gun rights assholes are clearly winning. 20 schoolchildren murdered by the son of an unstable "prepper" aaaaaaaannnd...nothing. Do you even remember when/where 49 people were killed in a mass shooting between now and then? Whats your endgame? We all have to be strapped to go outside (and armored because a gun won't stop a bulled fired at my back...or front)? To me that's not a happy existence but hell, what do I know. Whatever you do, don't study any data. Just use these events to shoot your preconceptions from the hip.

    4. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 2

      I quite honestly can't see any reason why civilians should have access to assault rifles, fully automatic or not, in a country like the U.S. We're not talking about a warzone like Iraq or a country with a semi-militia army like Switzerland. Weapons like bolt lock hunting rifles and sports rifles have legitimate uses they're specifically designed for. Assault rifles however are designed for warfare and in any other uses lose to weapons actually designed for these tasks.

      However I have a feeling any response I'm going to get will be the usual mix of insults, claiming that people need their assault rifles so that they can overthrow the government, that a handgun or something less effective isn't enough for personal defense or some half-assed attempt to prove that assault rifles make for good sports rifles.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    5. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Well, you could always wear protection. Oh, wait, government forbids that...

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    6. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by nctritech · · Score: 1

      I don't want to get into the "assault rifle" discussion partly because the whole concept of "assault rifles" is nebulous at best and it's completely irrelevant to this story. This shooter had a fully automatic weapon which is already quite illegal in the USA for normal people. It seems that comments assume I refer to reactionary gun control legislation when my actual thoughts run more along the lines of reactionary legislation forcing hotels in urban areas to perform intrusive security searches a la TSA airport screenings on patrons and have metal detectors at all of the doors. That's not quite the same thing that responses to my original comment seem to be reading into it.

    7. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The guy curtailed the ever-loving shit out of 50 peoples' rights. If he had to use a car, do you think he'd have been as successful? Both the source and the symptoms need addressing at the same time.

    8. Re: Here come the regulatory loonies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People die of heart attacks all the time. We would have to be insane to ever leave the house without a little bottle with nitroglycerine tablets in it on a string around our necks.

      People die in car accidents all the time. We would be nuts to ever get in a car and use it for travel.

      People are motivated to become terrorists all the time by websites. Clearly the Huffington Post and Breihtbart and any site that ever expresses a strong political opinion needs to be shut down.

    9. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Ah! Here you go, making assumptions based on your own prejudices. "You fucking gun rights assholes." Nice label-slapping. Here, I'll copy-paste what I just wrote to another respondent that wasn't nearly as much of an angry agenda-fueled lunatic as you:

      This shooter had a fully automatic weapon which is already quite illegal in the USA for normal people. It seems that comments assume I refer to reactionary gun control legislation when my actual thoughts run more along the lines of reactionary legislation forcing hotels in urban areas to perform intrusive security searches a la TSA airport screenings on patrons and have metal detectors at all of the doors. That's not quite the same thing that responses to my original comment seem to be reading into it.

      I'm more of a "fucking don't want to live in a police state asshole" than a "fucking gun rights asshole." But hey, enjoy your fantasy world, Anon.

    10. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Source? You mean the already-illegal fully automatic weapon he used? That is already illegal to own in the United States. Easily made from non-automatic weapons though, so what's your solution there? Ban all guns? Not the best time to mention that anyone can buy machining equipment to make such a gun themselves, I suppose. Force registration of all machining equipment capable of building a firearm? Where's "address the source" going? Please elaborate.

    11. Re: Here come the regulatory loonies by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about contraception to prevent more Americans being born? Because the Republicans are against that.

      Or perhaps you mean the freedom to wear body armor when going about your daily lives? That would indeed be another step closer to the ideal society.

    12. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      What is the source of the problem? I'm seriously asking, because I come from a country that until 20 years ago gave free M16s to most 18 year olds (israeli forced conscription) and yet we barely had shootings. Admittedly, guns are becoming more limited now and we did have at least one shooting spree already.

    13. Re: Here come the regulatory loonies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the great questions is what the cause of these shootings is. It seems like many of them are "going out in a blaze of glory" shootings where the shooter is mentally unbalanced. Why do they get to that point? That's what we need to address. It's not normal to mastermind something like this and kill yourself when you've run out of steam.

    14. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want to live in a police state ? Fine, neither do I. Then why don't you, and any other decent human being out there, start to fight the prevalent culture of violence that runs rampant in the U.S. ?

      Because there lies the problem: American culture, as a whole, is a culture of violence glorification and presenting violence as the only solution to all problems. Jack Bauer, The Avengers, etc. Virtually every fictional hero in America is basically a violent murdering bastard.

      Children are litteraly brainwashed from birth with this discusting, horrible culture of yours. And groups that try to change that, that try to instill notions of tolerance, empathy, and conflict solving based on negotiation and compromise in children are labeled "snowflakes" and "fucking liberals".

      As a whole, the entire U.S. was built on the concept of fierce, cut-throat, merciless individualism. That's not a fucking society, that's just a bunch of angry individuals with a gun in each hand shouting to his neighbors "I'll blow your fucking brains out if you step on my lawn !"

      Americans are not civilized. They are just a bunch of highly educated, rich, technologically advanced barbarians.

      THAT'S the fucking root of the problem. THAT'S what needs to be adressed.

    15. Re: Here come the regulatory loonies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you watched US movies and television shows? We fucking idolize the lone gunman who goes on a rampage against the bad guys. We idolize them to the point where a significant part of the population has taken to hoarding guns and ammunition so they'll be ready when the day comes that they'll need them.

      Every one of those people is one mental breakdown from going on a killing spree and what do we do about it? Nothing because that same part of the population freaks out at any thought of gun regulation as "the gubmint is takin' our guns" and refuses to consider that maybe, just maybe, the 300 million guns that are out there in the US are enough and we don't need more.

    16. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should you be allowed to decide what I can or can't own?

    17. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Let's not address the source of the problem,

      And what pray tell would that be?

      You fucking gun rights assholes are clearly winning. 20 schoolchildren murdered by the son of an unstable "prepper" aaaaaaaannnd...nothing. Do you even remember when/where 49 people were killed in a mass shooting between now and then? Whats your endgame? We all have to be strapped to go outside (and armored because a gun won't stop a bulled fired at my back...or front)? To me that's not a happy existence but hell, what do I know. Whatever you do, don't study any data. Just use these events to shoot your preconceptions from the hip.

      If you really study all the data on mass shootings in the US, you'd be advocating for banning SSRIs, not guns./p.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    18. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Culture of violence? Something tells me you don't live in America. Fantasy violence is very different from actual violence. Violent crime in the US peaked in the early 1990s and has been on a mostly steady decline ever since. Most of what you've posted is clearly a greatly exaggerated fantasy based on what you read on the internet and has little basis in reality. Contrary to what you seem to think, people are not punching each other in the streets with reckless abandon and slashing their neighbors' throats to get ahead. I wonder where you have been getting these crazy notions. When I walk outside every day, I'm vastly more likely to run into someone who is friendly or at least agreeable to deal with than someone who will stab me in the face. Doesn't jive with whatever strange novel you've been reading.

    19. Re: Here come the regulatory loonies by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Sure, I've watched plenty of US movies and television shows. I also know that Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkeesian were both proven wrong by scientific studies several times over: the fantasies you indulge in don't become your reality. If they did, I'd have some serious concerns about Italians after having seen Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma.

    20. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the source of the problem? I'm seriously asking, because I come from a country that until 20 years ago gave free M16s to most 18 year olds (israeli forced conscription) and yet we barely had shootings. Admittedly, guns are becoming more limited now and we did have at least one shooting spree already.

      It's not the guns, or the gun regulations - there are other countries with high rates of access to firearms. It's cultural and social factors:

      A. Corrupt government that routinely violates the law.
      B. Unethical legal profession that sustains corrupt government. Broken legal system.
      C. Inhomogeneous population, long term unresolved issues.
      D. Big ethics problems in business. Big problems with concentration of power and wealth in executive positions, many of which are occupied by sociopaths.
      E. Too much concentration of wealth.
      F. Incompetent welfare state and social services.
      G. Broken health care.
      H. Corrupt political parties (both).
      I. Over emphasis on commercialism, destructive and harmful effects of marketing.
      J. Well meaning but broken laws and precedents that harm the people most in need of help - the existence of which prevents effective policies from being implemented.
      K. Broken education system.
      L. Broken credit system. Lots of abuses.
      M. Fundamental rights being violated by businesses, government, and legal profession - on a daily basis. Lots of abuse of people in lots of different ways.
      N. Huge amounts of propaganda from both the left and the right, distracting people and causing people to misunderstand the key issues. Divide and conquer.
      O. Lack of hope that things will get better.

      Basically, ordinary people are getting screwed every day by the sociopaths that control most of the wealth and power - and it leads to lots of mental health problems. Gun violence is just one of the more visible mental health problems.

      It's likely that third parties are playing a role as well, deliberately destabilizing things - that's probably been true since the Cold War, but likely different groups are involved now. Lots of unprincipled people around the world have wealth and are willing to spend it in nefarious ways to attack or undermine the USA.

    21. Re:Here come the regulatory loonies by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      No, the shooter had bump stocks which are legal, though that won't last long now that even the NRA has come out in favor of doing something about them. Fully automatic weapons are also not illegal, you simply need a license. You can shoot one any day of the week at many locations across the country.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  27. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by RAID+Roach+Killer · · Score: 0, Informative

    No, we can't, because Slashdot is here to propagandize and capitalize on such events.

  28. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Megol · · Score: 1

    Statistics. Learn about them. But always remember that statistics aren't truth _for_a_subset_ of what the statistics measure.

  29. Country music is thug music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It needs to be banned until we can figure out what's going on.

  30. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2

    You are picking an choosing statements from a sentence and taking them out of context. That's a no no.

    That particular aspect of course, I should have backed up, which say a link. https://www.nytimes.com/electi...
    You will note that the majority of the state is red, so that backs up my statement "which more than likely", which is a guess based on statistical data. Then again, at the same time the individual was from Misquite NV, which is in Clark County, same county as Las Vegas, which went blue. But like most counties that have major metro areas, the city typically goes blue, where as the surrounding areas are usually a solid red, but the number of city votes beats the rural ones (very similar to Virginia in which Northern Virginia is solidly blue, but the rest is solid red).

    The point being, I made a supposition to support my original statement "because the other side of the political spectrum could make the same assumption" showing the OP that I could do the same thing and go in the opposite direction, providing the same guess work, and coming up with an opposite ideological conclusion.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  31. This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by adosch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a whole new level of insanity I just cannot wrap my head around. I just don't understand the mentality or whacked-out level of disgruntlement, depression and motive it takes to want to walk into a concert and mow human beings down with an assault rifle (I presume), then have your own life taken. That in itself, minus the news-fed death toll that's rising as I type this, is a tragedy.

    It's just downright scary as fuck anymore to go to any public event. I look at the school shootings from the late 1990's and 2000's, that 'joker' impersonator who took lives at the Batman movie premiere, Boston marathon bombings, the Ariana Grande concert in London as of late, and now at a fucking Country music concert at Las Vegas? Talk about wanting to just stay at home anymore. Living in the United States or not, I think anyone is going to start second-guessing

    Point I'm getting at is, one life or a million lives, this insider-thread-homeland or organization-led terrorism shit happens every day on scales that blow my mind. I wish that it all made headlines so we'd, as a world of people, would figure out how to handle it. Because it's not right or just, and even though this is making huge headlines, we sure don't blink more than once at headlines for any war-torn country where a car bomb erases hundreds of lives --- and that's just as terrorism-led and tragic. We need to stop minimizing it and come together to end this type of behavior.

    It's honestly sad and I'd be the first one to say, the more and more this happens, the less and less I seem to find an answer to any of it.

    1. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Life is risky. Life is scary. Grow a pair of balls.

    2. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mass murder on this scale happens rarely in civilised nations.

      Occasionally well motivated, financed and organised groups such as Islamic terrorists strike at soft targets in Europe. These attacks are rare, even the Norway psycho's attack was unprecedented and probably won't happen again for decades.

      The US has a major killing event every saturday night.

      The FACT is that if you wish to start mowing people down in the US, an efficient killing device designed for that very purpose is never far away as the country is flooded with them and hardly anyone will make any real effort to stop you getting your hands on one.

      The numbers speak for themselves. The level of gun violence in the US absolutely dwarfs any other peer nation, even accounting for population differences.

      A poor healthcare system, a pressure cooker economic environment, a deification and glorification of guns and violence, easy access to almost any firearm you could think of no matter where you are in the US, and enormous social inequity have created a perfect storm that results in tens of thousands of gun murders each year.

      Insane gun violence is a problem for Third and Second World nations.....and the USA. What wonderful company you keep.

       

    3. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by MinaInerz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's just downright scary as fuck anymore to go to any public event. I look at the school shootings from the late 1990's and 2000's, that 'joker' impersonator who took lives at the Batman movie premiere, Boston marathon bombings, the Ariana Grande concert in London as of late, and now at a fucking Country music concert at Las Vegas? Talk about wanting to just stay at home anymore. Living in the United States or not, I think anyone is going to start second-guessing

      It isn't even remotely that scary. Your odds of dying while driving to a public event far exceed your chance of getting shot there. If you're afraid of going to a public event, then you probably shouldn't go anywhere near your automobile.

    4. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by dave420 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Changing your behaviour or beliefs is letting terrorists win. The secret is to figure out why a terrorist is terrorising, and tackle their grievances (perceived or otherwise). This is how the Brits severely curtailed the IRA, for example.

      For the home of the brave, there seem to be a fantastic amount of scaredy cats in the US.

    5. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Ariana Grande concert in London

      That was in Manchester.

      Contrary to what many Americans appear to believe, there is more than one city in the UK.

    6. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the venue or event of your choice. If you are so risk adverse that you wont go anywhere because of the potential terrorists then you need to seek mental health counseling.

    7. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      There is no answer because life is meaningless. When a man who has decided to expedite his own death kills others first it's because his thinking is still too "sane" to accept that no one's life matters. Well maybe there is your answer: "senseless violence" is caused consciousness, which only exists because the universe is senseless

    8. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1

      Oi! That Ariana Grande concert was in Manchester. Nothing will unite Mancs like the claim that "that filthy London" has better terrorists than us.

    9. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Ariana Grande concert in London as of late

      Point of order - it was in Manchester, not London.

    10. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by sfled · · Score: 1

      The insanity goes even further back than the shootings you cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
    11. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Maybe this will seem callous, but at 7.5 billion of anything, a few hundred of that thing don't objectively matter much to the whole.

      --
      -Styopa
    12. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by cb88 · · Score: 0

      It isn't a "whole new level" of anything... massacres have happened since FOREVER literally. There is no time in history where they did not.

      On the contrary relative to current population levels we have extremely low levels of violence.

      Just be glad that due to our current right to own firearms we don't really have to worry about organized violence coming from our government. Like Brazilian death squads that go into slums and shoot kids that *might* turn out bad. Or the Nazi's or communists in China or what have you. If you are indeed an American you have it REALLY GOOD a large part of that is owned to citizen gun ownership.

    13. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Says the guy posting as an anonymous coward.

    14. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      That's why nobody cared about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, right?

    15. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the global trend for both deaths by terrorism and gun violence has been on a downward trend for decades. The difference now is that we can scare ourselves by searching for global news stories on a single topic, and subsequently skew our echo chamber personalized newsfeed toward scare stories of that sort. Whereas a couple of decades ago, we heard only about the news our local editors thought would be newsworthy enough to their local audience.

    16. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The secret is to figure out why a terrorist is terrorising, and tackle their grievances (perceived or otherwise). This is how the Brits severely curtailed the IRA, for example.

      The IRA was largely curtailed by a huge effort from the intelligence services to compromise members of IRA cells. The extent of this is only now being declassified: huge numbers of IRA members were caught and then released as moles, reporting back on the actions of the other members. The IRA was vulnerable to this kind of attack because it was a fairly well organised group. The current crop of terrorists seem to mostly be people who read something on the Internet and decided to go on a killing spree. That's far harder to combat.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >implying you shouldn't take reasonable precautions with your identity in a post-Obama era of thought crime
      It's like you want to get V&.

    18. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      It isn't even remotely that scary. Your odds of dying while driving to a public event far exceed your chance of getting shot there. If you're afraid of going to a public event, then you probably shouldn't go anywhere near your automobile.

      Indeed. We need to stop putting hundreds of billions into a massive military force to fight a tiny enemy which would be better addressed with common-sense gun regulation which wouldn't even cost the government a penny.

      There are ways to curb the automobile injuries/death but it's off the topic.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    19. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Chart of odds of dying to back this up (2017 publication).

      1 in 95 - Suicide
      1 in 96 - Poisoning / overdoes (this is the new big one, courtesy of the opioid epidemic, but the press has mostly ignored it).*
      1 in 114 - Motor vehicle crash
      1 in 127 - Fall
      1 in 370 - Assault by firearm
      1 in 645 - Car occupant
      1 in 647 - Pedestrian incident (mostly hit by cars)
      1 in 948 - Motorcycle rider incident

      Do note that these are overall odds of dying for the country as a whole. Not everyone participates in all of these activities so your individual risk may be higher. For example, the motorcyclist death rate for the country as a whole is 1 in 948. But there are approximately 30x as many cars as motorcycles, suggesting only about 1 in 30 people rides a motorcycle. So the fatality rate for an individual motorcyclist is probably closer to 1 in 32. (Yes, about 1 in every 100 people you know who rides in a car is fated to die in a car accident. About 1 in every 30 people you know who rides a motorcycle is fated to die in a motorcycle accident.)

      * You remember that shooting at UCLA last year which resulted in 2 dead (murder/suicide)? That made national headlines with all the major networks carrying live coverage, because the press loves stories about gun violence. The exact same day a drug overdose incident at a concert in Florida killed 2 and hospitalized 57. But that story barely made it out of local news.

      And just for completeness, there were 225 people killed by terrorists from 2001 (post-9/11) to 2016, or 15 per year. With a population of 323 million and an average lifespan of 79 years, that works out to a chance of dying of:

      1 in 161,856 - Lightning strike
      1 in 272,574 - Terrorism

    20. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically they were machine-gunned from an elevated vantage point across the street, not gunned down by an assault-rifle by someone who walked in shooting.

    21. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or anyone else's automobile.

    22. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. Democrats certainly aren't afraid of Muslims, Blacks and Hispanics. Don't point the finger at us.

    23. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      This didn't happen when I was a kid.

      When everyone I knew went to church.

      People need to hear about Jesus, and the ones who don't have some hard lives with special needs.

    24. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and what wonderful country are you from, fuckhead?

    25. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuckhead

      Lovely. Just lovely.

    26. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Brits severely curtailed the IRA by talking to the ones who felt that violence wasn't achieving their aims, so it took an act of will on both "sides". The earliest stages of these talks were done in secret as both parties - the British state and the IRA - would have been crucified by their supporters - and the tabloid press in the case of the British state - for even contemplating talking to "the enemy". The first party of government to hold talks with the IRA? That would be the Conservatives, the same party that keep trying to smear Labour as a "friend of terrorists" for suggesting that few of these groups commit violence for the sake of it and, as you say, have specific grievances that need to be discussed and addressed. Obviously there are some - Daesh, for example - who claim to have a grievance but seem solely to exist for the act of attempted domination and violence in achieving that. There's no talking with them, but discussion with those who are not yet fully radicalised is likely to be more effective in the long term than a never-ending guerrilla war.

    27. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The English (not the British) did very little to stop republican terrorism. They spent most of the troubles attempting to out terrorise them and took decades to accept they couldn't win the resulting stalemate. Only when the IRA started successfully destroying English city centres and strengthening international terror networks did the cost of the stalemate force the English to allow outside help to do what they spent hundreds of years refusing to do.

    28. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Tom · · Score: 1

      It's actually quite simple. but not many want to hear it:

      If you put pressure on a system, the weak parts start to blow.

      Since the end of the Cold War, and thus the disappearance of a real, available, other way of life, however inferior and more poor it was, has made the western way of life a monopoly, and if you paid attention in Economics 101, you know what monopolies do - extract monopoly rent. This takes the form of pressure on the social systems to extract money from the lower classes to give to the already rich. The pressure comes in the form of higher taxes, less real-money wages, financial crises, falling pensions - the exact way in which it manifests varies slightly from country to country, but everywhere in the west today the current generation has less social security, more work hours, more "flexibility" (and thus uncertainty) and in general more stressors than the last generation.

      People are starting to blow and we're only seing the beginning of that. A few years ago, a depressed airline pilot in Europe steered a passenger plane into a mountain. After some initial scandal, no actual actions were taken to ensure that pilots are in a good mental state. Additional checking was briefly discussed, but no steps to actually improve the mental health of people who do a stressful job full of overtime.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    29. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Japan doesn't have shooting sprees, but America, so far, hasn't had nerve gas released into subway systems.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    30. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For the home of the brave, there seem to be a fantastic amount of scaredy cats in the US." Source? Not one person I know has changed the way they live, but i will say this. The above poster had it right. I'm damn sure more scared of getting killed by a drunk/or/speeding/or/texting/or/negligent driver than about anyone bombing or shooting me.

      But do you think any politician on the left or any anti-gun internet poster gives a shit about the 30k+ deaths each year in this country by automobile "accidents"? I just don't get it, but maybe someone can explain it to me. I'd love to debate with anyone that the need for driving safety/laws is of a much greater concern than gun laws.

    31. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by ideadman · · Score: 1

      +1 I hear this all the time and make the same argument. I wish my fellow American's understood this.

    32. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we do have a lot of liberals who wet their pants at the sight of a firearm so...

    33. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      If you can't tell the difference between "actual care" and "politically useful excuse", I can't explain it to you.

      --
      -Styopa
    34. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by leretard · · Score: 0

      Their grievances are not addressable without compromising the western economy to the point of collapse.

      If you adapt to terrorism, the terrorists win!

      What is this game that we are winning or losing exactly?
      Either way they are going to get something they want. Revenge or social change. So by making an infantile model of this being a game about winning or losing, you have already precluded any solution.

      So let me get this straight, we can't change our behavior or beliefs and we have to "tackle their grievances"....without changing our behavior or beliefs...as though appeasing their grievances wouldn't entail a change of our behavior....

      We are not the problem, we have no responsibility for wronging anyone else, everyone else is going to have to change because we say so

      You, sir, are a talking ass-hole, and an idiot

    35. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US govt statistics indicate that over 80% of firearms deaths are related to drug crime (mostly criminal gang activities). Which means the rates can be adjusted as follows for those who are not involved in drug trafficking:

      1 in 95 - Suicide
      1 in 96 - Poisoning / overdoes (this is the new big one, courtesy of the opioid epidemic, but the press has mostly ignored it).*
      1 in 114 - Motor vehicle crash
      1 in 127 - Fall
      1 in 645 - Car occupant
      1 in 647 - Pedestrian incident (mostly hit by cars)
      1 in 948 - Motorcycle rider incident
      1 in 1850 - Assault by firearm

      Admittedly, for the analysis to be complete the other categories could need to be adjusted for the drug trafficking issue - but there doesn't seem to be much reason to expect a large (or even noticeable) adjustment.

      So, yes, the odds of being killed while driving to a public event are vastly higher than the odds of being killed by a firearm. For every 16 people you know that are killed on the road, you will on average know 1 person that gets killed by a firearm for other than drug-crime-related reasons.

      I know one person that was killed driving (on a motorcycle). That's it. Don't ever expect to know anybody that will be killed by gun violence.

      Having said that, it's pretty clear that
      a) the War on Drugs is a complete and utter disaster, doing far more harm to society than good, and
      b) we need to fix the problems of the inner city poor - who have to live with the drug related crime, and who lose family members as a result.

      There's a need for massive reform of both the legal system, the educational system, the health care system and social services - and it needs to be effective reform, not the current approaches (many of which do more harm than good to the people most in need).

    36. Re:This stuff needs to END - whats wrong with ppl? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      yes, and while i agree people are bad at diagnosing risk, there are other factors that contribute to our perception of relative danger.
      such as the ability of us to fight back or otherwise react to a developing situation, or the scale of potential harm.

      air travel is safer than driving.
      yet air travel is far far more tightly regulated and controlled in terms of safety, both because as a passenger theres very little we can do in event of a accident, and because the number of people exposed to harm in any one event. car mishaps are also more survivable than aircraft, even if the aircraft relative rate of mishaps is lower. ie, more likely to walk away from a car mishap than airliner.

      you mention a mass drug overdose (or possible poisoning by the sound). again, that's far more survivable than a gunshot wound.
      again, while the odds of firearm involvement are lower, the odds of irrecoverable harm when they are involved, is far higher.

      we can even consider this on things as simple as the idea of locking our doors at night.
      its all a part of risk management and preventive caution.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  32. Re:Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Healthier than you, wealthier than you, happier than you, freer than you, longer living than you, better educated than you, safer than you.

    And no, not European.

    Now, go carry my bags boy, there's a nice shiny new nickel in it for you !

    There's a good lad !

  33. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "A white conservative killed people, its Trumps fault!!!"

    "Actually he was a hardcore liberal"

    "Umm...can we all agree not to talk about political affiliations"

  34. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    yeah i mean they ALWAYS shoot up country concerns.....

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  35. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

    Funny, I read your source material.. while a heavily right leaning site... no where in that article is there a reference to any political leanings, right or left.. Not sure if I would call that publication a more reliable source since it appears a good chunk of what they are reporting on came from the AP newswire.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  36. Re:Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe is a continent, dickwad, not a political idea

  37. Re:No legal guns, no crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe has relatively stringent gun laws. AKs aren't legal.

    There are places in Europe where it's fully legal.

  38. Re:Racial profiling by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We don't know yet.

    Yes we do. 64 years old, lived in Mesquite, no currently known political affiliation despite what some AC trolls on here are saying. Over 400 sent to hospitals, roughly 10 firearms found in his hotel room, apparently killed himself before police arrived.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  39. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wut?

    Other half - "Stuff that matters".

  40. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You bring up a very poor example and demonstrate your lack of knowledge by using NOVA. Its proximity to Washington DC and the politicians that work in DC but live in NOVA are the reason that this area is blue. I have family that has lived in NOVA since the 70's, and let me tell you, they're red as hell. As in, red-neck. And pulling the (R) lever at the polls.

  41. Re:Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm posting anonymously, so I'm pretty sure not one single claim of yours can be substantiated, especially since you're also posting anonymously and didn't reveal your magical unicorn location.

  42. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Left, right, get everyone riled up?

    New account? Are you an American or one of those Russian propagandists out to sow discord we were told about only a few days ago? My money's on the latter.

  43. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure this falls under the "stuff that matters" part of the site.

    Otherwise, take your whataboutisms and go to hell, scum.

  44. Re:News for nerds? by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 2

    The reason stories like this make it to the front page is because we give it a hell of a lot of comments and even more views. As of this response the story has been on the page for nearly an hour and a half has already broken more than 135 comments while the actual tech story about a backdoor in Cisco's Umbrella platform has been up nearly two hours and....there's 10. 10 comments.

    The Slashdot editors are simply responding to the communities actions as to what stories to pull to the front page and ignoring our denouncements. Actions speak louder that words. If we actually responded to the tech stories more than this trash...we'd see more of those. But... judging by the comment volumes alone, tech stories just don't interest the community much.

  45. Re:Racial profiling by slashrio · · Score: 0

    200 bucks this was a white on anti-depression medicines.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  46. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Talderas · · Score: 1

    If the shooter was shooting from a hotel room in the Mandalay Bay (shooting came from the 37th floor of MB which I assume are hotel rooms), and is known to be a guest of the hotel, why would you assume the shooter was a Nevada resident?

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  47. Re: Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You conservatives getting all riled up and ready to pin it on a liberal on this one.

    I was hinting at the last liberal that shot up a baseball practice and that this probably wasn't a muslim.

  48. Re: Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being vegan is political, man. We want to save the world.

  49. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by bestweasel · · Score: 1

    Right, because trying to decide how a deranged lone gunman voted and ascribing standard political motives makes so much sense. "On the one hand the right stand for individual and corporate freedom while the left tend to prefer social cohesion and fairer redistribution of wealth so on balance I'm going to get a bunch of guns and kill as many strangers as i can."

  50. Re:No legal guns, no crime by slashrio · · Score: 1

    False? False flag you mean.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  51. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Helps with mankinds carbon footprint after the media furore passes (on a simplistic basis - taking out USAians - actually wondering how much extra electricity/fuel would be used as a result of this, how many flights affected, etc, etc - net impacts).

  52. Charles Whitman by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    He was usmc and showed what can be done from up high.
    lee harvey oswald also usmc got off a lot of rounds with that old gun as well.

  53. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Nite_Hawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can we all just agree the guy was a fucked up human.... I just wish people that miserable would just use one bullet into their brain instead of killing innocent people as well.

    Despite how divisive politics is these days, once you make the jump to go on a killing rampage the only real allegiance you have is to violent authoritarianism. Whatever perceived injustices that led one to commit that kind of atrocity is more like the window dressings that surround a deranged mind. People like James Hodgkinson, Stephen Paddock, and even Timothy McVeigh have a lot more in common than they do separating them apart. It's really important that we stop trying to project these people as extensions of the left or right. It makes it too easy for people to start demonizing anyone that doesn't agree with them.

  54. But is it terrorism? by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's pretty obvious if Stephen Paddock's name was something like Abdul Fatah, the entire right would be screaming "Terrorist!" (which is how Breitbart started their coverage). It looks like it was an old white guy with an Anglo name, though, which complicates things. If it turns out Paddock was a lefty...Terrorism!!! If Paddock was a conservative, the blame will fall on mental health issues which weren't addressed because Obamacare.

    I'm betting on a different motive: the guy was a music lover.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:But is it terrorism? by chiefcrash · · Score: 1

      ISIS is claiming responsibility now...

      For whatever *that's* worth...

      --
      Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
    2. Re:But is it terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's pretty obvious if Stephen Paddock's name was something like Abdul Fatah

      He was a recent (within 3-4 months) convert to Islam.

    3. Re:But is it terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's terrorism if the intent was to advance a political agenda. Throwing a rock during a protest in order to keep the speaker from expressing their political views is terrorism. Killing a large number of people because the devil told you too is just mass murder.

    4. Re:But is it terrorism? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      It's also terrorism, terrorism doesn't have to have a political motive attached to it, some people are just psychopaths.

      And obviously there are people making a political statement about it (Clinton regards the NRA) but we've had all sorts of presidents and lawmakers and incidents in all sorts of states and other countries with or without all sorts of gun laws.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:But is it terrorism? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's pretty obvious if Stephen Paddock's name was something like Abdul Fatah, the entire right would be screaming "Terrorist!" (which is how Breitbart started their coverage). It looks like it was an old white guy with an Anglo name, though, which complicates things. If it turns out Paddock was a lefty...Terrorism!!! If Paddock was a conservative, the blame will fall on mental health issues which weren't addressed because Obamacare.

      I'm betting on a different motive: the guy was a music lover.

      You have it exactly the wrong way round. We heard almost instantly that he was a white male (and will surely keep hearing it, endlessly, unless he turns out to also have been a member of some protected group).

      While if his name had been Abdul Fatah, and he had been screaming the usual stuff, all the main news sources would still be scratching their heads, puzzled as can be.

    6. Re:But is it terrorism? by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      There are exactly 3 Democratic left-leaning individuals living in Mesquite, NV. At last check, all 3 are still there. No way this guy is left-leaning anything.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    7. Re:But is it terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty obvious if Stephen Paddock's name was something like Abdul Fatah, the entire right would be screaming "Terrorist!" . . .

      1. Provided he wasn't mentally ill, it's terrorism by definition. Any time someone kills many random people in a public place, that's terrorism. The reason is it's intended to strike fear and anguish in those who are left living, which is the motivation of any terrorist.

      2. If this terrorist had a middle-eastern name, it would be natural for anyone with the least bit of intellect to suspect Islamic terrorism based on past experience, both in the US and around the world. Humans notice patterns. It's part of what allows us to learn and become intelligent.

      It looks like it was an old white guy with an Anglo name, though, which complicates things. If it turns out Paddock was a lefty...Terrorism!!! If Paddock was a conservative, the blame will fall on mental health issues which weren't addressed because Obamacare.

      You mean, if it turns out he isn't crazy, it's terrorism.

      Let's not forget, Loughner (Gifford's shooter) had a long history of mental illness, whereas Hodgkinson (Scalice's shooter) did not (unless you count the mental illness that is liberalism).

      The mental history of the Vegas shooter is still unknown.

    8. Re:But is it terrorism? by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      There have been previous instances when a convert had changed his name to, say, 'Abdul Fatah', committed some act of violence, and then the media reported his name as 'Stephen Paddock' knowing full well of his previous legal name change. (I have no reason to believe, at this time, any media outlet is doing this routine for this particular story.)

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    9. Re:But is it terrorism? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      But is it terrorism

      If the shooter did this for ideological or political reasons then it's terrorism. If he did it because he thought it was a gathering of demons that rose from hell to kill everyone (or something like that) then it's mental illness.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    10. Re:But is it terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It wasn't terrorism. It was mass murder.

      That's all that really needs to be said. Beyond murder, there is no political agenda here beyond this heinous act.

    11. Re:But is it terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is your comment even supposed to mean? Nobody is claiming to have insight on *why* the shooter did it. If he had a muslim-sounding name, the major news sources would not withhold his identity simply because they weren't able to shoehorn it into a left-wing narrative. If you really think they would I posit you're completely out-of-touch with American media. Nobody is claiming this guy was a member of the KKK, or a certain Christian denomination, or anything else. This is exactly what they would be doing if he didn't have a "middle-aged-white-guy" appearance - this is the "scratching their heads, puzzled as can be", because truly everyone *is* puzzled. If you aren't, I suggest you contact the FBI ASAP so you can help with the investigation.

    12. Re:But is it terrorism? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Except the US leads the world in incidents like this by such a wide margin, nobody's even in second place.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    13. Re:But is it terrorism? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just like Oklahoma City, right?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    14. Re:But is it terrorism? by LostInTaiwan · · Score: 1

      You mean the conservative media kept mentioning the shooter is white? None of the main stream media is stressing the ethnicity of the shooter, just his name. just like they don't stress the ethnicity of the shooter had he/she been name "Abdul Fatah."

    15. Re:But is it terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It wasn't terrorism. It was mass murder.

      That's all that really needs to be said. Beyond murder, there is no political agenda here beyond this heinous act.

      Terrorism doesn't require a political agenda. It simply requires people to be terrorized by the given act. Unless the man was mentally ill and unaware of what he was actually doing, this was terrorism.

      You can't randomly shoot people in a public setting and call it anything other than terrorism -- it's the very definition.

      The question is, what do you have to gain by denying this simple and obvious fact?

    16. Re:But is it terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun nut white guy with a muslim girlfriend 1/3rd of his age.

      whos pictures are being scrubbed from the net. heck even the tv channels are blurring her out of photos.

      totally normal.

    17. Re:But is it terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, describes the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror, or fear, to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence against peacetime targets or in war against non-combatants."

      If he was screaming "allahu akbar" while carrying out the mass murder, it would clearly be terrorism as he would be faithfully following what his religion teaches.

      If he was doing it to kill "right wingers" it would be terrorism.

      If he was doing it to kill "left wingers" it would be terrorism.

      If he was doing it because he was hopped up on SSRI's or just had a psychotic break, it would not be terrorism, just a mass murder.

    18. Re:But is it terrorism? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You've never been to India or Middle East then, if you're talking about massacres, the average massacre kills 9000 people, not 50.

      ISIS massacred a few hundred Yasidi, with guns, in a single night. I don't think the US leads anything in that matter, it only leads when you only look at US media.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  55. Wisdom follows, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you believe that a 68 year old lone pensioner single-handedly killed 50+ people, you are delusional and the media controls your brain. That feat would take a belt-fed machine gun, i.e. Rambo himself brandishing an M60 or two and wrapped in ammunition toe-to-chin like a mexican highwayman from the gang of Pancho Villa.

    Can you imagine the power of recoil from firing hundreds of full rifle caliber bullets, not some puny, reduced power load "assault" cartridges of the M16 / AK47 types? There is no way a 68 year old can take that beating while maintaining an aim good enough to reliably hit even a stadium. His shoulder blade would be broken quickly, since osteo-porosis is one of the foremost side effects of aging.

    To summarize, this event was as much a lone perp incident as JFK was. I mean Oswald of the schoolbook warehouse fame supposedly fired 3 accurate shots against a moving target in under two seconds with a telescoped bolt-action rifle. That was some grassy knoll for sure!

    1. Re: Wisdom follows, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another Putin troll or a graduate of the US education system?

  56. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is an equal opportunity partisan forum though.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  57. Re: Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have a source?

  58. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    because media is here to propagandize and capitalize on such events.

    FTFY. It's not just /.. It's everywhere. On NPR a guy was advocating for pre-crime.

  59. Let's assume we outlaw guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like Baltimore and Chicago.

    Works well, doesn't it?

    Why do gun grabbers always seem to also deride the "War on Drugs" for not being realistic?

    1. Re:Let's assume we outlaw guns by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Outlawing guns in an area that has wide open borders with no customs or other security checks and is directly adjacent to areas where guns are readily available makes no sense. You might want to compare areas of Europe rather than making an argument that's akin to saying 'look, we made a no-pissing end of the swimming pool, but it's still full of piss, non-pissing swimming pools can't possibly work!'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Let's assume we outlaw guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outlawing guns in an area that has wide open borders with no customs or other security checks and is directly adjacent to areas where guns are readily available makes no sense. You might want to compare areas of Europe rather than making an argument that's akin to saying 'look, we made a no-pissing end of the swimming pool, but it's still full of piss, non-pissing swimming pools can't possibly work!'

      It's like you don't even know America is demographically challenged.

  60. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    In the game of chicken, (and political agenda) being rational like you is a vulnerability. The pipe-bomb posting guy has already won and left the scene.

    The greatest danger to democracy is not enemies external and internal, it is the apathy and ignorance of the voting public. Sadly our voters are misinformed, and are apathetic. So the irrational guys keep winning.

    Still we should continue to be rational and sane, and pray and hope someday the adage "you can't fool all the people all the time" will come true.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  61. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    duh, another old white man goes on a rampage killing innocent men, women and children. Probably a huge supporter of MAGA too.

  62. Re:News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you describe is exactly why MTV and SCIFI and History channels turned into complete and utter crap. Pandering to the lowest common denominator ruins everything good. I don't give a fuck if 50 people died hundreds of miles away. I don't care. GROW SOME BALLS you pansy fairy fucks. People die every fucking day. You might die tomorrow. I might die tomorrow. Death is a part of life that you need to accept as an adult.

  63. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points because that's a damn fine comment right there. There is a subset of people in this world who for whatever reason are capable of this kind of thing. They might be looking for an excuse to do it but where they get their excuse isn't the point of the problem. They can find it on the left or on the right just as easily. They can find it in the morning traffic. When they find it that's when people start dying. The same thing that sets them off might just spoil my morning or put you in a bad mood all day. At worst it might make you or I more active on some issue or topic but the people who can do this are a whole other cut of cloth entirely.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  64. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Who gives a damn what his political affiliation was? He's not a shining example of any ideal other than psychopathic self-obsession and hatred of his own life.

    I'm so sick of the idea that someone who believes something and does something bad makes that belief bad - it's not even remotely the case because if the belief were bad everyone who holds it would be doing the bad things.

    The issue about guns is simple: we have them so we have less government-induced oppression, if we lack them we have more government-induced oppression.

    History has shown that governments oppressing people lead to far more deaths than even if you gave every mass shooter in history a nuke and assumed they dropped it on the most populated city remaining.

    If we lost 99% of the population through the course of their lives to mass shooters it would still be better than taking everyone's guns and in turn letting the corrupt politicians steamroll over everyone else at a whim, at least mass shooters are random so it doesn't change the demographics for the worse.

  65. Slashdot is on it again... by sTERNKERN · · Score: 1

    What the hell is this site turning into? Don't we have enough other news portals to cover these stories? Anybody knows another site which is more like slashdot when it was about news for nerds..?

    1. Re:Slashdot is on it again... by ledow · · Score: 1

      Good luck. I've looked for a "real news" site for years that actually lets you filter this kind of thing out.

      If I want news, I go on a news site.
      If I want tech news, I go on a tech news site.

      Unfortunately, "number of eyeballs" always wins and they all creep into current affairs, actions of presidents of countries that I have little interest in, and terrorist attacks etc. as well as the soapboxing of any vaguely relevant celebrity (Musk, etc.).

      Personally, I want a news search engine that lets me filter:

      -terrorism
      -ISIS
      -Trump
      -Brexit
      -Musk ... ...

      All the ones I see end up with either junk creeping through or such sparse pages after you do that that it's just not worth it.

      Like the TV show The Newsroom: I'd really like it to exist in real life, a channel that only reports REAL NEWS and not the tripe, but while "what's popular" dictates revenue, you don't stand a chance.

    2. Re:Slashdot is on it again... by rylyeh · · Score: 1

      SoylentNews?

      --
      Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
  66. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Naw, they ran off the people who had brains. The userbase here now is approximately 87.4% zombies.
     
    You saw what happened to the "unsinkable" Digg, didn't you?

  67. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 3

    Because they already identified the shooter, there is no assumption. The guys name is Stephan Paddock from Misquite NV.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  68. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

    Last I checked.. I'm pretty well aware of the area's political makeup.. considering in the last 20 years, I have lived in Fairfax (VA), Arlington (VA), Alexandria (VA), DC proper, Bowie (MD) and Annapolis (MD). Regardless of why the area is blue, it is a fact that NOVA is blue, and the rest of the state is red. That however does not mean that every person in NOVA is blue, and every person in the rest of the state is red. So no, there is nothing wrong with my example.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  69. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Speaking as an outsider, these days it feels as if all discourse in the USA exists only within the narrative of Red Team vs. Blue Team –and it doesn't actually matter what those teams represent or what they do. Even things like the well-being of the country are secondary to the question of which team "wins". That is deeply troubling –especially since the USA have nuclear weapons and a propensity to project their power wherever they want. An unstable USA is in nobody's interest.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  70. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

    Read my original statement above, that was the point I was trying to make (and apparently failing.. maybe I need to use smaller words...). The OP I responded to automatically called the shooter a left wing extremist without providing any information. My response was that I could use the same thought process and come up with the opposite result.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  71. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like you already did, bro.

    Then you need to clean your ears, bro.

  72. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    We need to stop looking so hard at the "left vs. right" paradigm, and start looking at the "asshole vs. great person" paradigm.

    This guy falls strongly on the asshole side of the spectrum. I guarantee it.

  73. My name is Jon Katz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My name is Jon Katz, and I approve this message.

  74. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why would you assume the shooter was a Nevada resident?

    They know who he is (was). No need to assume.

  75. We need more thoughts and prayers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

  76. History is informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    History is informative here. Despots for hundreds of years have used "mental health" to strip rights from political opponents. There are plenty of progressives who view the desire to own a gun a sign of mental health issues and would use that to strip people of their rights.

  77. A decent into chaos by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Since this story involves guns, this will be one of those submissions with 1000+ comments before the day is out.

    There will be everything from both sides, lots of hate, shit slinging and probably even a few conspiracy theories and / or how it's Trumps or Russia's fault. Democrats and the anti-gun crowd will blame it on lax gun laws and the ability to buy / own guns, Republicans and the pro-gun folks will blame the guys mental health. Responsible gun owners will just sit at home and :facepalm: at all the stupidity that will be forthcoming. The Social Justice Armies will be out in full strength on both sides.

    One things for certain, there will be lots of hate and blame over the next month or so. Knee jerk legislation will be forthcoming from a few of the idiots in Congress to ban everything under the sun. It will probably go nowhere, which will generate even more hate for the current administration for " doing nothing ". There will probably be someone who will start a movement and give it some silly name prefixed with a hashtag.

    In the end, we'll learn the guy was probably on LE radar for quite a long time before he finally snapped and took out his anger on the world. Folks will want to know why nothing was done and we'll probably end up with fewer rights down the road than we have today because of it. ( As they say in politics, never let a tragedy go to waste. )

    What strikes me odd is the guy's age ( 64 ) and what possibly could have caused a melt-down like this that created the anger necessary to randomly kill as many people as he could.

    1. Re:A decent into chaos by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Knee jerk legislation will be forthcoming from a few of the idiots in Congress to ban everything under the sun

      You haven't been paying much attention. There will be no legislation. Just like there was no legislation after Sandy Hook or Pulse.

      The NRA voters vote only on NRA issues. That means going strongly against the NRA ends your political career.

      You will lose no rights. Instead, we'll just pile up more dead bodies so you can bleat about how important your rights are.

    2. Re:A decent into chaos by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      Dementia and Fox News.

      We had to make my mom quit watching Fox before she passed, because it would rile her up so much.

      Do that to a Marine with Dementia, and Charlie is running for cover, whoever he thinks is Charlie. :(

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    3. Re:A decent into chaos by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Well, to counter your point:

      The guns aren't the issue. Never really have been. There are a dozen of them in my safe whose record of violence consists solely of putting holes in paper from varying distances. I can load one and set it on the table and absolutely nothing will happen. It will simply rust away if left there long enough.

      However, if you can tell me how guns are at fault here without taking into account whose hands the weapon is in, you'll impress a whole lot of folks. If you can explain why a gun is completely evil in the hands of X vs the hands of Y, AND still convince the world that the problem is the gun, you'll probably win the Nobel Prize.

      To point out the elephant in the room, the problem is people. There has never been a mass killing in history without a human mind to think it up and / or put it into motion. Regardless of the tool used ( guns, bombs, vehicles, whatever ) they all have the same common denominator.

      People.

      However, it's easier to blame and control a tool than it is to identify / profile and control people. Thus, we arrive to where we are today.

    4. Re:A decent into chaos by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      Well, to counter your point:

      The guns aren't the issue

      This is more clearly phrased as "to completely change the subject because the previous tactic was blowing up in my face...."

      However, if you can tell me how guns are at fault here without taking into account whose hands the weapon is in, you'll impress a whole lot of folks

      Gun control is about reducing the general availability of guns, so that crazy people have a harder time getting them. That doesn't mean crazy people will never get one, because the definition of "harder" does not change to suit your political objective of protecting your precious.

      Gun control is also about making the actual mass shooting slower and less efficient, so that fewer people are killed before an organized response can deal with it. And again, the definition of those words does not change to suit your political objective.

      Gun control has always been a damage mitigation strategy. Not a damage elimination strategy. But again, that nuance doesn't suit your political goals.

      To point out the elephant in the room, the problem is people. There has never been a mass killing in history without a human mind to think it up and / or put it into motion. Regardless of the tool used ( guns, bombs, vehicles, whatever ) they all have the same common denominator.

      Feel free to propose how to eliminate all crazy people.

      While doing so, keep in mind the NRA has fought all efforts to take guns away from crazy people via making it very difficult to have a gun owner considered legally insane until after the bodies have been piled up.

    5. Re:A decent into chaos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many people would have been killed if he had simply rented a large truck and drove it into the crowd? WE NEED TO BAN ALL TRUCKS NOW!!!!

    6. Re:A decent into chaos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Gun control is also about making the actual mass shooting slower and less efficient, so that fewer people are killed before an organized response can deal with it. And again, the definition of those words does not change to suit your political objective."

      With a rifle at the distances in this situation, shooting slower increases the hit rate, consequentially increasing the efficiency of the firearm. This is from a well known phenomenon called "aiming".

  78. New record! by smchris · · Score: 1

    All I can add because American _culture_ is insane. This is a dead society just waiting for Uncle Sam's corpse to hit the ground. No sanity from the Republicans. No sanity from the Democrats. No groundswell of citizens rising up to say "Enough!" So, whatever. Nihilism reigns. "New record!"

  79. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    It is too bad we now live in a world, where the crazy actions of a Madman where we must assume that such actions are politically motivated. He may be a Republican, but his actions may not be politically motivated.

    In terms of politics Country Music Fans are a diverse bunch. So it wouldn't be a good venue to make any sort of statement.

    The thing that I fear the most, is how divided we are politically where the actual divide isn't that far. However we are so on edge, that one bad spark, could have disastrous consequences.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  80. Another crackpot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem we have in America is a lack of tolerance for anything. We can't just agree to disagree, we have to invoke violence to take out our aggressions. It's going to take a while to figure out why this guy did what he did. But whatever it is it won't justify this. The fact the gun he used hasn't been legal in decades in the US only proves its very hard to control a crackpot who wants to kill. Gun's don't kill alone, you need a wacko with a will to kill to pull the trigger.

    1. Re:Another crackpot by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You obviously have never been outside of America. If you want to talk about lack of tolerance, go to Africa or Asia, people that share the same language, country and culture kill each other over feuds that sometimes have been running for so long, nobody even remembers why they started.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  81. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2

    No one is calling for an outright ban... okay some are... fine a good majority are, but in many cases that is a knee jerk reaction to a heinous crime like this. Many sane people that are anti gun in their own homes (like my wife), are more for better control, and meaningful regulations. Would that eliminate all gun violence, of course not, but it would cut down on it to a major extent, and make those who are too stupid (read: irresponsible) to own guns more liable to the damage and death caused by them. Laws, and for that matter, the Constitution itself, really do need to catch up with the times. Not saying radical changes, but what the framers had in mind when it was written, is not how we exist today. Things change, and as a country and a populace, we need to change appropriately, which means, time to rethink some laws and Constitutional elements.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  82. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The important thing is we all take a minute to realize that while lives have been lost, this is not the time to bring up gun safety. Just as hurricanes are not the time to bring up global warming, climate change or any of that.

    The real problem America faces is the pansy assed disrespectful overpaid so called athletes playing football without giving a seig heil to the flag.

  83. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    I think we as a nation is generally on edge, about the people who have different politics then you. Where Russian Fake news, had more or less successfully radicalized both political spectrum, to destabilize our country. So we are all fearful that the other guy in a fit or rage will attack us.

    I myself who drives a Prius, tend to be weary of the people driving Pickup trucks especially ones with conservative bumper stickers, as the Car that I bought mostly to save money on Gasoline may see my Car as a Far left political statement, and may try to run me off the road. I have never actually had any problems with these trucks, but because of the political climate it became a fear that I never had before.

    Trump whether or not if you like him, has not done anything to help bridge these gaps and fears, and for the most part had made it worse. To be fair Obama, didn't do enough to bridge the gap as well, and he started the wedge.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  84. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by k2r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > Even things like the well-being of the country are secondary to the question of which team "wins".

    This is the thing that irritates me the most about US-American politics. Where I live we just had a general election and though the party I voted for did not win the majority and will be in opposition I'm fine with other parties trying to form a (3-party) coalition. They will try to govern all of our country in a way that they perceive as possible optimum for all of the people. Even if I will disagree with some of those decisions they will be justifiable.

    I guess my friends voted for at least 5 different parties in these elections, one even was the head of the local election campaign for a party I decidedly did not vote for.
    Yet we don't beat each other up but have passionate discussions over beer and dinner.

    What is wrong with "you" in the US?

  85. Re:Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Healthier than you :
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-17/australian-healthcare-ranked-second-best-in-developed-world/8716326

    Wealthier than you :
    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-10-countries-with-the-highest-average-wealth-2016-11

    Happier than you:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/20/norway-ranked-worlds-happiest-country-as-the-us-gets-sadder.html

    Freer than you:
    https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

    Longer living than you:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

    Better educated than you:
    http://www.oecd.org/edu/education-at-a-glance-19991487.htm (results are mixed though, education spending per student is higher than the US, about the same number of tertiary educated professionals, but costs per degree lower than the US....not a clear winner but overall ahead as university doesn't leave Australian grads with US levels of crippling student debt).

    Safer than you:
    http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime

    Wow...US has 57 the murder rate than Australia.....who knew ?

    I don't blame you though. Having lived in both countries it's always amusing to see that moment when the light bulb goes off in Americans heads when they finally work out they've been lied to for a very long time. Of course, it's a self confirming sample but a straw poll of my American friends currently here in OZ would reveal their thoughts on going back permanently to the US "Fuck no, go back to that mental asylum?..are you crazy?"..

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go water my Unicorn.

  86. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by jcr · · Score: 1

    he was a radical leftist nutjob.

    Got a source on that? I haven't seen any indication of his motives at all so far.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  87. Re:Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because hurr hurr durr statistics matter in determining individual characteristics.

    So much for better educated... amirite? Retard.

  88. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

    Till we know for sure, we cannot really make any assumptions, I agree with that (although apparently my prior statement did not come across as such as I was responding to someone who made an assumption that it was one side, and I posted an attempt to show that I could just as easily show the opposite, and was not actually making that assertion in earnest).

    You are right that country music fans are a diverse bunch, in fact, I would say that for many genres, music brings people from all backgrounds together.

    It may have just been a target of opportunity at the time. LV is full of people at all times of the day and night. I have been there for more than 10 years of Blackhat and Defcons (I generally don't like LV). Last week or the week before was an even bigger music festival (the I Heart Radio one).. I dunno.. I'm just rambling now...... I'd like to say it could have been worse had it not been for the quick response by law enforcement, but with more than 50 dead and 400 injured now... but that just seems hollow...

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  89. Ban the guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do it! But no, you love to shoot people.

  90. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Ogive17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem in the US right now is that many people on both sides of the political spectrum pick one issue they care about and choose a candidate simply because of that. There's a large subset of Americans that only care about the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms (own guns). They don't give a shit about the rest of our Bill of Rights as long as they keep their guns. On the other side, there are people that want open borders hell or high water.

    These people are lost to reason. There can be no compromise.

    I'm stuck in the middle, however we're such a minority now and also relatively soft spoken that our opinions are washed out. The talking heads want controversy.. if the people are too busy fighting with each other we'll never see how terrible our elected officials are. If Trump wants to drain the swamp, term limits are needed for Congress.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  91. Re:News for nerds? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Wut?

    Do you know the difference between a guarantee and a tagline?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  92. Does he carry the rifle loaded on the streets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because if not, owning a gun means fuck all. A handgun is sometimes carried in the streets of a US city, as long as you're not black or arguing with a cop, but nope, not rifles. Except as an NRA protest or similar arranged situation. As a normal everyday thing? Nope. Owning a rifle that is 14 miles away really doesn't mean jack or shit.

  93. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by wickedsteve · · Score: 1

    Instead of showing some empathy for victims and families you think about how you could have killed more people? A tragedy just happened and you start pointing fingers and playing victim. Shame on you. Shame on whomever raised you. We need to come together when shit hits the fan, not politics.

  94. Re:News for nerds? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    What you describe is exactly why MTV and SCIFI and History channels turned into complete and utter crap. Pandering to the lowest common denominator ruins everything good. I don't give a fuck if 50 people died hundreds of miles away. I don't care. GROW SOME BALLS you pansy fairy fucks. People die every fucking day. You might die tomorrow. I might die tomorrow. Death is a part of life that you need to accept as an adult.

    So don't click on it and go add to the comments on the actual tech articles. It's not fucking difficult.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  95. Actually most would prefer 1 and 2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But those against 2 are highly motivated and armed and will refuse to let anyone in who would enact #2, whilst the donors are against #1.

    1. Re:Actually most would prefer 1 and 2. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      But those against 2 are highly motivated and armed and will refuse to let anyone in who would enact #2,

      I many would support #2 IF there were put in sufficient provisions for due legal process for the person accused of such, before that person lost their rights and their property was confiscated.

      There are an awful lot of jilted spouses/significant others out there that would use laws like this to hassle someone they had a grudge against.

      Most of the laws for taking away ones 2nd amendment rights have the accused as guilty till proven innocent and make it awful tough for someone wrongfully accused/labeled to defend themselves and yet, their property and rights have already been trampled upon.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  96. Free speech of NFL players by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    curb the enshrined right of freedom of speech of NFL players protesting.

    This is bullshit. There is no such right. The 1st Amendment protects them from government prosecution — one can not be jailed for making a statement. It does not protect them — nor anyone else — from the disgust of their fellow citizens. Private employers may fire assholes — indeed, just the other day y'all were celebrating firings of the folks (accused of) taking parts in KKK marches...

    Consistency much?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Free speech of NFL players by coinreturn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've missed the point entirely. The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is advocating for FIRING people for exercising their first amendment rights. That is government suppression of free speech.

    2. Re:Free speech of NFL players by mi · · Score: 1, Informative

      The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is advocating for FIRING people for exercising their first amendment rights.

      The President does not lose his First Amendment rights, when he becomes President.

      That is government suppression of free speech.

      Nope. As long as he is not doing anything about it in his official capacity, it is not.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Free speech of NFL players by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      You've missed the point entirely. The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is advocating for FIRING people for exercising their first amendment rights. That is government suppression of free speech.

      Well, his advocacy for such firings, has NO POWER OF LAW...in the case of his advocacy for this, he was just publishing his views like any other private US citizen. I don't think he loses that right when he becomes president does he?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      its in poor taste, but he's not taking direct action. unless someone makes the case that he's trying to sway the NFL leadership with threat of governmental reprisal if they don't comply.

    5. Re:Free speech of NFL players by coinreturn · · Score: 0

      The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is advocating for FIRING people for exercising their first amendment rights.

      The President does not lose his First Amendment rights, when he becomes President.

      That is government suppression of free speech.

      Nope. As long as he is not doing anything about it in his official capacity, it is not.

      That may by YOUR opinion, but a legal case can EASILY be made that he is using his OFFICE to suppress speech.

    6. Re:Free speech of NFL players by mi · · Score: 1

      a legal case can EASILY be made

      Ha! Is that your standard for winning arguments? Not much, not much...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Free speech of NFL players by coinreturn · · Score: 0

      a legal case can EASILY be made

      Ha! Is that your standard for winning arguments? Not much, not much...

      It's not always about winning an argument, it's about understanding others' POVs. You should try it some time.

    8. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The 1st Amendment protects them from government prosecution "

      The *President of the United States of America* saying that the owners of the teams should fire players for kneeling steps right on the line of government persecution of citizens for their speech.

    9. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1st Amendment protects them from government prosecution

      and last i checked the president was a big part of the us government. when the president says that you should be fired because of your speech, that's a first fucking amendment issue.

    10. Re: Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he loses that right when he becomes president does he?

      He does. Once he becomes President, he becomes severely restricted in the advocacy he can make, and since he used what he claims is an official White House communications tool, he can't even claim the distinction of operating as a private citizen.

      Sorry, but the President, like almost all federal employees is severely restricted in their rights, the only exception being members of Congress in speaking on the floor of Congress, and even then, they can punish their own members.

      Sorry, but the President should now be impeached, for misuse of office, and oppression under color of authority, so go tell your Congressional Representative to do their duty.

      Unless, of course, you don't respect the rule of law.

    11. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ you are a fucking moron. Try reading the Constitution for once. The President is trying to persecute people over their freedom of speech. THAT IS WHAT THE WHOLE FUCKING AMENDMENT IS THERE FOR!

    12. Re:Free speech of NFL players by mishehu · · Score: 1

      Is the POTUS ever off-the-clock? Is there a time of day that he can't be taking a massive crap in a White House toilet and simultaneously order the nukes to strike North Korea? If the answer to this is "no, no such time exists as long as he is the POTUS", then he effectively is extremely limited in his ability to express political speech as a private citizen, for he is the least private of all citizens in the country. And it doesn't matter if he *legally* can force the firings of the players, the fact that he is speaking from his position as POTUS is already enough to consider it an abuse of power in violation of the 1A.

    13. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the amendment whose first five words are "Congress shall make no law"? What does that have to do with the President?

    14. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing Free Speech and the First Amendment.

    15. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no it isn't. Who is being jailed? Who is being fined by the government?

      The President spoke his opinion. His words have ZERO legal force behind them, same as your words. If the players are not fired, there will be no consequences. If the players are fired, the owners will need to justify it under the existing labor laws, just as if they were fired for any other reason.

      The President's comments are no more meaningful than when a President suggests employers should hire more people, or that people should spend more money... or that people should vote for him.

    16. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and of course dingleberry mi did not reply to you. Probably moved on to Breitbart for some new orders.

    17. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've missed the point entirely. The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is advocating for FIRING people for exercising their first amendment rights. That is government suppression of free speech.

      No, they didn't, you did!

      1. Advocating isn't legal action, which is what would be required for him to actually suppress a right, such as the right to free speech.

      2. While the constitution guarantees government won't limit your freedom of speech, it says nothing about agreements between private parties.

      Trump is simply advocating what many of us are advocating -- that NFL owners hold their players accountable for disrespecting the flag and our country.

      Contrary to your false claims, Trump is not advocating any action on the part of government to curtail any citizen's freedom of speech. What a joke . . .

    18. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever the president says does not have the force of law. No law, no government suppression. Do you or the people that modded you up really think whatever Trump says goes?

      Where is the wall?
      Why are there still Muslims in the US?

      Trump can say whatever he wants like anyone else and his words have no more official force than anyone else's despite how hard he tries.

    19. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. That's called having an opinion. Wake me when he pushes a law or an executive order to do it.

    20. Re: Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Sorry, but the President should now be impeached

      Name the "High Crime or Misdemeanor."

    21. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't. If the president started jailing (or threatening to jail) NFL team owners for failure to fire kneeling players, that would be government suppression if free speech. -PCP

    22. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

      When the POTUS is calling on NFL owners to fire these players, one can understandable interpret that as government persecution. The owners seem to have no intention of disciplining players for this so Trump should STFU.

    23. Re:Free speech of NFL players by dywolf · · Score: 1

      this is where you prove once again that you don't know what youre talking about

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    24. Re:Free speech of NFL players by werepants · · Score: 1

      Except that the idiot in office regularly DOES describe official policy from twitter - the transgender ban, for instance. Thanks to the extraordinary lack of discipline in the oval office it means that the distinctions between executive policy and the insomniac ramblings of an incoherent narcissist no longer exist. "It's just twitter" isn't a defense.

      Plus, Trump campaigned on his promise to violate constitutional rights and has continually attempted to make good on those promises. He's no friend of free speech or freedom of religion, except to the extent that they protect him and his followers.

    25. Re: Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abuse of authority.

      You might want to look up the term "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". It includes a whole bunch of things that would be legal if anybody but a high government official did it.

    26. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, I agree that this is probably not a criminal violation of the first amendment, but let's not be naive. This is absolutely different from saying employers should hire more people -- that is not abridging free speech. It's not the same as a private citizen's words. When he says this on stage behind the presidential field he is making a suggestion from a position of governmental authority that people be fired for their speech.

      On that stage he said something like "wouldn't you love [if the NFL] fired...". He didn't say "the NFL should fire...". However, his twitter on his official account directly called for them to be fired or suspended.

      He's not sending in the army or the police to make them fire players, but it is at minimum questionable. It's your supposition that there will be no consequences, and clearly he's saying it in order to drum up consequences at minimum from his fanbase. He was very explicitly asking people to walk out when they saw kneeling. Whether that's appropriate or not is a legitimate question.

    27. Re:Free speech of NFL players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump can say whatever he wants like anyone else and his words have no more official force than anyone else's despite how hard he tries.

      This is literally wrong. His words have more official force than almost anyone's.

      Maybe an analogy would be helpful. If you're wearing the McDonald's uniform, it doesn't matter if you're in a Home Depot when you start ranting about how you'd like to put soap in people's hamburgers, you're getting fired from McDonald's -- but you're probably cool to joke with your friends about it, even in public at home depot, if you're not identifiable as an employee. Doesn't matter whether you'd actually spit in the hamburger.

      If you work at a tech company, and constantly tell people not to buy your company's product between every weekend and weeknight, you'll get fired even though that wasn't your tune on company time.

      If you're a well-known CEO of a well-known company and you go off on a weird racist rant, the board replaces you whether or not your views on race affect day to day operation, and whether or not you meant it for public consumption.

      Trump is president at all times for probably 4 years and can't pretend that anybody doesn't know it. Short of leaving anonymous astroturf comments, everything he says is the government doing it, and if he says to fire people who are expressing themselves, it at the very least flirts with government suppression of free speech.

      *and external turmoil, but to be fair, I put it on somebody else that it got leaked outside the company.

    28. Re:Free speech of NFL players by dywolf · · Score: 1

      everything he does is in his official capacity because unlike many political positions the office of the presidency rests in his person.
      again you prove you know nothing

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  97. Crazy does not mean dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand the inclination to never let a good disaster go to waste for an agenda, but
    Given someone chooses to do this, there are many tools to choose from.
    Guns are just one option in one subcategory.
    Eliminating them would cause the crazy to pick another tool.
    Eliminating thru a law is problematic because the automatic weapons used are likely already illegal.

    To fix this problem you need to understand and address what would make a person want to kill this many innocent folks and then themselves.

    What is this guy's background.
    Were there any recent events in his life which might have pushed him over the edge.
    Who was he in contact with before and during the incident.
    Has this always been a problem, or has society changed to make this more likely now.

  98. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    You're citing a source in the attempt to use geographical area to make conclusions about distribution of political disposition. You do know that population density is not equal throughout the State of Nevada, right? Or really any other state, for that matter. You know that there are vast deserts and tracts of highly restricted land in Nevada where they used to actually detonate nuclear weapons because literally nobody is there? It's over 1,200 square miles of nobody.

    In your own source, 9 out of 15 of those "red" counties had less than 10,000 total voters in a Presidential election, where the two "blue" counties each had well over 100,000 votes tallied, with Clark County having over 500,000 votes recorded. Are you saying that Eureka County is just as populous as Clark County (2.115 million people per the US Census Bureau), but only had 0.038% voter turnout (798 total votes - your linked source)? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.

    You would probably look at the county election results in Oregon and come to the same conclusion, because of the same basic mistake: Oregon is filled with Republicans because the majority of the counties are red! Except that Hillary carried the state 50 to 40, and the State Legislature is made up of 52 Democrats to 38 Republicans [Senate: 17(D)-13(R); House: 35(D) - 25(R)]. And this isn't an abberation - it's been that way in Oregon for a long time.

    Population distribution is not equal across counties, therefore a map showing county election results as "blue" or "red" is not useful for statistically determining anything about the population's political disposition. When you add in the other information on the page you linked, it tells a completely different story - and that story is that you are wrong.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  99. Bill of Rights by mi · · Score: 1

    These may all be arguments for abolishing the Second Amendment. But, so long as it remains the law of the land, it must be obeyed and all the laws limiting weapon-owning and carrying are just that: unconstitutional. And I'm not talking about just guns either — in NJ, for example, it is illegal to possess even a slingshot!

    And, no, "licensing" requirements are not constitutional either: because it is not a right, if exercising it requires a government's permission.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  100. News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters. by Jack9 · · Score: 1

    Wut?

    This is not stuff that matters. It's a political story for views. I don't have modpoints for the FPoster, so I will repeat the message.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
    1. Re:News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than tech news, /. also posts stories that are ads and brainwashing propaganda -- this story is the latter.

  101. WTF LVPD?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What were the police doing during this?
    Why couldn't they at least return fire?

    Above and beyond all arguments this tragedy will create, to me, this is the number one talking point.
    WTF were the cops doing?!?

  102. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by dryeo · · Score: 1

    The issue about guns is simple: we have them so we have less government-induced oppression, if we lack them we have more government-induced oppression.

    The problem is that Americans have forgot the other half of the equation, namely that a large standing army leads to oppression. That's the reason that the militia was mentioned in the 2nd and the Army had to be refinanced regularly, unlike the Navy, in the main part of the Constitution.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  103. ISIS Takes Credit by TheAngryCat · · Score: 1

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/... Much sadness as the war against humanity continues.

  104. The gun god demands blood! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    The tree of low-paperwork gun ownership must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of innocent bystanders and law enforcement officers. Is it safe to assume the country folk at this concert would've been happy to sacrifice their lives for the cause?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:The gun god demands blood! by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      In America, everything's to blame except the actual guns. Some of the stats collected in this link tell a different story.

      https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  105. Re: News for nerds? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    It's not. It's "Stuff That Matters." Please pay attention.

  106. 2nd Amendment by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    We were intended to have a militia as opposed to a standing army. We re-thought that idea after the militia failed to prevent the Capitol from being burned, but did not revise the Constitution. One of the problems with starting the first modern democracy was that we didn't know what that would look like, and the Founders had somewhat romantic ideals there. It was envisioned that we would be a nation of citizen-farmers, self-sufficient men defending their own soil. This is still a popular idea, but in practice not everyone is capable or interested in living off their own land, and there isn't really a good substitute for the professional soldier. The consequences of 1814 seem to have been the 2nd Amendment dying the death of a thousand cuts, and the creation of the most powerful military in history.

    Supporters of the 2nd Amendment tend to ignore these inconsistencies. I think we should try to resolve them. Either "shall not be infringed" should be interpreted more literally, and the military disbanded, or we should revise the Constitution to reflect the current state of affairs.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:2nd Amendment by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      No, in spite of all your flowery language and your complicated scenarios, the Second Amendment was added so that we could rise up and shoot the politicians if the need were to ever occur.

      'The professional soldier' idea is scary as hell. Do you want to be ruled by those who can best afford to hire men with guns to take command?

    2. Re:2nd Amendment by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The milita was understood to be ALL citizens.

    3. Re:2nd Amendment by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      I have to assume you only read half my comment. You've certainly proved my point about ignoring the issue of the militia, but you should probably note that suggesting that the military be disbanded is inconsistent with your last sentence. Also, whatever your opinions are about professional soldiers, [1] we do have them, and [2] it is hopefully not controversial to suggest that trained professionals will outperform amateurs. It should be especially uncontroversial given the events of 1814, but there are a number of examples throughout history to suggest that an effective fighting force is not a thing of improvisation.

      Generally, I think the idea of defending a country with a militia is probably not optimal, and if there is going to be some country with the ability to project force around the globe, I'd rather it be this one. I'm completely fine with people arguing otherwise, and I could even find some arguments for that position myself. What I don't particularly agree with is doing an end-run around "shall not be infringed". Since that is liable to be a point of common ground, maybe you should find some more intelligent reply to my post.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    4. Re:2nd Amendment by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Not only did I not contradict that idea, but it is actually central to my argument.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    5. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Second Amendment was added so that we could rise up and shoot the politicians if the need were to ever occur.

      Shirley you aren't serious! And talk about "flowery language", my god! And considering the politicians you elect now, I'd rather prop up Reagan's zombie corpse in their place.

      'The professional soldier' idea is scary as hell. Do you want to be ruled by those who can best afford to hire men with guns to take command?

      The commonly accepted solution is to hire more men with bigger guns and make them swear on a stack of bibles/qurans/flags/banderas, but you really are at the mercy of their loyalties, no matter the badge/hat/helmet they wear. Even the ISIS guys get paid in U.S. dollars

      Who do you trust?

    6. Re: 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our brave military? They'd never turn against their people if they were ordered to. That never happens.

  107. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair, the shooters social media account is riddled with the evidence you say doesn't exist.

    No this doesn't need to be on Slashdot. If you want to read about people getting shot you would go to a normal news website not a site for nerd news. Unless the article talks about technical aspects of this event it does not belong here.

    I come here because I don't want to see this type of shit.

  108. When guns are illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only the rich will have guns. Kinda like drugs. Is this really what we want?

  109. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Decline and Fall of The American Empire.

  110. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    "If we lost 99% of the population through the course of their lives to mass shooters it would still be better than taking everyone's guns and in turn letting the corrupt politicians steamroll over everyone else at a whim, at least mass shooters are random so it doesn't change the demographics for the worse."

    You seem to be a conspiracy theory enthusiast of the largest order. I just want to laugh at your reasoning in this quote of yours but its scary you can think thats a smart rationale.

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  111. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    I agree, militas are horribly under-equipped - they were supposed to have the same firepower as the military to avoid any possibility of oppression. As it stands we have enough guns to ensure the government can't get away with rounding people up en mass, but not enough to have politicians perpetually living in fear of the consequences of fucking up and thereby acting in our interests.

  112. Re:News for nerds? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Slashdot could stop pandering to the likes of you by getting rid of AC postings

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  113. Re: Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you repeat that 1000 times, does that make it true?

  114. Re:Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you think Americans are brainwashed into being gun lovers?
    Like our Founding Fathers, who believed that the only way to keep this Country free is to enshrine the Right to keep and bear arms in our Constitution, so that people could defend themselves from any threat.

    But let's ignore the fact that it Is our Right.

    You are obviously against the idea of Americans being able to defend themselves. so, in your own words, what do you feel should be done to prevent this kind of tragedy, and how do you envision actually enforcing this in such a way that would actually prevent this.
    And, while you're at it, what do you propose to keep people safe that doesn't have them sitting around for minutes or hours waiting for SOMEONE WITH A GUN to show up to defend them from a bad guy?
    And, again, while you're at it, what method do you propose that would protect the Rights of the People from not only invading forces, but from their own government? A government that is ALREADY attempting to usurp (and in some States HAS infringed!) not only our Second Amendment Rights, but many others.

  115. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found the site to be pretty objective actually and I'm glad he linked to it. I think though he is referring to a link shared in one of the comments. It basically shows that some guy is left leaning and is also a friend of the same chick he was (kinda dumb association but its a comment)? I don't know, the comments seem to be crack pot on that site but the blog itself seemed to be pretty factual.

  116. Read the constitution you idot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the constitution, don't get your talking points from MSNBC

    You wrote
    ""as part of a well organized militia" bit. Emphasis on "well organized","

    The wording is well regulated militia. Back in the days of the founders, well regulated meant working or functional.

    The bill of rights were meant to prevent the over reach of a tyrannical government (king George whom they just defeated at great cost).
    "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. "

  117. This is a terror attack not a shooting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A shooting is when some asshole intentionally shoots a target.

    A terrorist attack is killing many people at random with whatever means necessary.

  118. Re:Racial profiling by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    We don't know yet.

    Yes we do. 64 years old, lived in Mesquite, no currently known political affiliation despite what some AC trolls on here are saying. Over 400 sent to hospitals, roughly 10 firearms found in his hotel room, apparently killed himself before police arrived.

    A converted Muslim, recruited by ISIS.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  119. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by pots · · Score: 1

    once you make the jump to go on a killing rampage the only real allegiance you have is to violent authoritarianism

    Where'd you get this idea? Someone like this could just as easily be an anarchist. Or a nihilist, who doesn't fall anywhere on the left-right political spectrum. This sort of thing doesn't have to be motivated by ideals or mental illness. Disillusionment is enough, in some cases.

    I guess that's most of the point that you were making. And that's a fine point.

  120. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I own a tiny hybrid and a HUGE pickup truck. I worry about not seeing small vehicles sometimes while driving the truck. I don't worry much about trucks seeing me.

    You worry too much about political statements. We're not all on edge, but you are. Step away from the media. They make money by glueing you to themselves for profit. Rob them of the profit and have a more relaxed life.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  121. For some perspective by sremick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know it's going to be pointless debating anyone online/here about this, but I just wanted to drop some points for thought.

    Not all liberals are anti-gun. This liberal owns several. But that's because I also own fire-extinguishers, and not because I'm trying to play fireman/cop. I own them because I recognize and accept that it's my personal responsibility to control an immediate emergency as best I can until the pros arrive. Which can be 30-45 mins in rural areas. I hope I never have to use either.

    I also recognize that I have a 1-in 110,000 chance of dying in a mass shooting, as terrible and sad as events like this are. Meanwhile I have a 1-in-113 chance of dying in a car accident. So I try to live my life with some perspective and control my fear/paranoia.

    1. Re:For some perspective by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      No, if there was a one in a 110,000 chance of dying from a particular type of yoghurt, how long do you think it would remain on the market???

      The usual cut-off is generally around one in a million for things you voluntarily do; but for things that get inflicted on you, 1 in 110,000 is pretty high. You may have a 1 in 113 chance of dying in a car crash, but at least YOU get the advantage of traveling around until YOUR untimely demise.

      In this case, some git just blows your bloody brains out, and he gets to do this, and you get no advantage at all; it is inflicted on YOU by others.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:For some perspective by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, if there was a one in a 110,000 chance of dying from a particular type of yoghurt, how long do you think it would remain on the market???

      Of the 323M people in the USA, 3,000 people a year die of food poisoning. So eating anything is already more dangerous than that. Yet, we have extremely lax controls on food safety. Most places, restaurants aren't even required to post the results in their front window. You actually have to go inside and ask to read the health report. The truth is that No Lives Matter.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:For some perspective by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Yes, below one in a million nobody cares, and food poisoning is a factor of ten above that, so people do care, and there's people whose job it is to try to minimize that. And so you can actually ask them for their health report.

      And note that that's about ONE TENTH of the number of people killed by guns in America. And there's more people killed by guns than cars in America, but a car is something that is actually useful.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    4. Re:For some perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a funny Primus song Natural Joe...

  122. The tech... by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    This was a concert? The 'goers already had phones out taking video. I bet there will be hundreds of shaky videos of this event surfacing in the next few hours. Some Quite graphic.

    This ones going to be viewed from every angle for months.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  123. According to ISIS, he was a recent convert by schwit1 · · Score: 2
    1. Re:According to ISIS, he was a recent convert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've claimed responsibility for a number of attacks for which they provided no proof or was debunked.

    2. Re:According to ISIS, he was a recent convert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, and according to /. you deserved to be modded up for that. On a different topic, what other isis propaganda do you deem worthy of blindly spreading around the internet? I can't tell if you're pro-isis for spreading their propaganda or an anti-Muslim xenophobe...

  124. VEGAS Hoax videos deleted is terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgocq5mq-36QwAOo964SFhZuufIcVxX0S

    nothing to sea here, move along.

  125. Re:No legal guns, no crime by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Where would that be? Category A weapons - used in this shooting - are essentially banned in all of the EU. Norway and Switzerland also recognize and follow the EU firearms directive.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  126. False equivalence much? by denzacar · · Score: 2

    One can't take a well defensible, higher ground, position, lock himself up there and keep lobbing cars or pressure cookers at thousands of people half a mile or more in the distance.
    Nor can one ambush those thousands of people with a car. Or keep running over people once they realize that the driver of said car is running people over.
    Purely based on a fact that a car is a lot more visible and avoidable than a bullet.
    One can dodge a Dodge but one can't bullet a bullet.

    And while one CAN ambush people with a pressure cooker... Constructing one, then hauling it and placing it without blowing oneself up IS a tiny-winy bit trickier than point and click effort of using a gun.
    One can't just bang-bang-bang at a crowd outside one's window with a car or a pressure cooker cause one is suddenly and gravely disappointed in the effectiveness of those pills which promised that penis enlargement OR cause one is annoyed with loud music those pesky kids are playing.
    One can't do either on whim - the way someone with a gun can.

    Plus... Neither cars nor weaponized pressure cookers grow on trees, and it is easier to find a gun store in US of A than a store selling... well... anything other than gasoline.
    There 14146 McDonald's restaurants in the US, 16708 franchised car dealers, 36536 grocery stores and 143849 gas stations... but 51438 gun retailers.
    129817 gun dealers if you count in "collectors" (61,562), pawn shops (7,356), and importers and manufacturers.
    And WE KNOW that Americans have a McDonald's problem.

    But even if cars and cooker did grow on trees - one still has to find the said tree, pick the car, drive it to where people are, get enough traction...

    I mean... look at that cunt in Charleston.
    He had to drive AAAALLL the way from Ohio to South Carolina, only to be able to run over a single person.
    It took planning. And work. And driving. And finding his way around a foreign town.
    You can't just type in "People to run over with a car" in your GPS, you know?

    Also, fenced venues such as open air concerts tend not to allow one to take cars OR weaponized pressure cookers inside.
    But you can still squeeze off a couple of shots inside.
    Just get yourself some high ground and... bang-bang-bang your way to that penis enlargement! Show the world you're NOT firing blanks!

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  127. Re:Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A converted Muslim, recruited by ISIS.

    From your own article:

    Yet the FBI later said it determined the shooter has "no connection with an international terrorist group."

    The initial claim was based on a report from SITE Intel Group, which said the terror organization claimed responsibility through its Amaq news agency, although ISIS has yet to offer proof of its claim.

    ISIS has falsely claimed responsibility for attacks in the past, including a June attack at a casino in the Philippines that left 37 people dead. Police denied the incident was terror-related despite ISIS's claim, and said it was instead perpetrated by a 42-year-old man who had a gambling problem and was in debt.

    Sorry dude, you got nothing.

  128. Re:Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A converted Muslim, recruited by ISIS.

    When my grandmother died peacefully in her bed surrounded by loved ones, I got a letter from ISIS the following day claiming both responsibility for her death and the hope that those of us within a 10 meter radius of her died of mourning.

  129. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    You seem to be a conspiracy theory enthusiast of the largest order. I just want to laugh at your reasoning in this quote of yours but its scary you can think thats a smart rationale.

    The first move of every single repressive regime in history has been to confiscate weapons from the people they aim to oppress. That's not conspiracy, it's history.

  130. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by lactose99 · · Score: 1

    He's from Clark County, nary a more nutty collection of righty-liberty types in the nation.

    --
    Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  131. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

    What the framers of the Constitution had in mind was that the people should be permitted to have military grade fully functional weapons at their immediate disposal to keep the government from getting out of hand. Even then, not everyone could afford their own cannon or warship, but the framers had in mind that anyone who could, should be permitted to do so.

    A news story says that some neighbors are getting bent out of shape down south by a man with a fully operational WWII tank parked in front of his house. The framers would have been OK with this, although they would have considered it a relic and would have preferred a modern variant.

    The problem isn't the weapons. The problem is the people's morals. When everyone has a proper fear and reverence for God again, you won't have to worry about who has a fully automatic pistol on their hip. And even the crazy people who don't have any business with a fully automatic pistol on their hip would be far less likely to actually use one if there were no gun free zones and the probability was 100% that at least a few people where they were intending to cause mayhem were armed and knew how to use their weapons - it's why gun free zones are so popular as a target environment today.

    You can argue we have an Department of Defense today, with all that entails along with a National Guard. The debate on which model would be better - the one the framers of the Constitution championed or the one we have now actually makes us safer (when including the debt and animosity caused by all of our wars) could go on for pages. I hope it doesn't. But have no doubt about what the framers intended.

  132. Thanks, Trump!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Less than 12 hours and the political blame game already well underway.

    Thanks, Trump!!

  133. Re:Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, we do know his political affiliation: registered Democrat, Rachel Madow fan, had ties to antifa. All confirmed. Except that because that doesn't fall into the "gun nut" profile, the MSM is burying it, but you can find it out there if you look.

  134. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But have no doubt about what the framers intended.

    Why? Must we think that they would march in lockstep with whatever ideology you claim they'd support, or can we not see some indications otherwise, including their own suppression of rebellions, conduct in office, and more?

    And that's leaving aside whether they'd think differently today, with an entirely different set of circumstances as well as some significant evidence of their more obvious errors. Who knows, they might think otherwise, knowing what they wrought.

    But it hardly matters, they're dead, they don't have a vote, let alone controlling influence. I'd respect you more if you weren't so devoted to enshrining them in support of your own cause, but sadly, you have fallen for the mistake of idolization.

    Me, I'd hope that they'd be disgusted as your devotion, even if I'm a bit uncertain. Some people do find worship of themselves to be appealing.

  135. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by sheph · · Score: 1

    Actually, his family said he had no political affiliation that they knew of. Not everything is political. It's also worth mentioning that ISIS is taking credit saying he was radicalized months ago. That hasn't been confirmed, but in light of the number of people and lack of explanation it makes sense.

    --
    I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
  136. Tackle a less controversial topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment continues to be debated. Why not instead turn to addressing a non-Constitutionally-protected activity that killed at least 10000 people in 2015, an activity for which over a million people were arrested that same year?

            https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

    If we can't "fix the gun problem," maybe we can figure out how to agree on something less controversial.

  137. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about divide and conquer. If the media and their foreign investors can keep the u.s. citizens hating each other it is easy for the Mexicans, Chinese and Russians, all of whom have a heavy investment in cnn, fox, MSNBC, etc. To swoop in and gather up the remains of the usa for the lowest bidder. This was done very successfully by the Europeans to the Indians, the Romans to the garlic tribes, and is being done to the citizens of the USA today.

    The greatest trick the devil ever played is to convince the world he does not exist. Wake up America. You are being played. The enemy is not the liberal or conservative next door, it is those who want you to believe that liberals or conservative citizens are subhuman. let's have a United States.

  138. Re:Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, why won't the media cover this completely-not-bullshit-I-promise story that even the fucking Gateway Pundit had to delete? Fucking troll.

  139. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This. It's highly covered everywhere else. Slashdot should put up a donation or memorial page and that's it. I don't want to discuss this with other nerds. No point.

  140. Terrorist or Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess this guy was not a terrorist but some mentally unstable individual with issues. Call it like it is ppl.

  141. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Nite_Hawk · · Score: 2

    once you make the jump to go on a killing rampage the only real allegiance you have is to violent authoritarianism

    Where'd you get this idea? Someone like this could just as easily be an anarchist.

    You are thinking of authoritarianism and anarchism in terms of political views (which at least for anarchism can be pretty nebulous depending on who you ask), but I am thinking of it more in terms of psychology:

    "Authoritarian personality is a state of mind or attitude characterized by belief in absolute obedience or submission to one's own authority, as well as the administration of that belief through the oppression of one's subordinates. It usually applies to individuals who are known or viewed as having an authoritative, strict, or oppressive personality towards subordinates."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    I would argue that murder is sort of an absolute means of forced submission to one's own authority. If not of mind, it certainly is of body. The murderer imposes their will and once it's happened the victim is powerless to overcome it (at least in so far as the mortal world is concerned).

    Or a nihilist, who doesn't fall anywhere on the left-right political spectrum. This sort of thing doesn't have to be motivated by ideals or mental illness. Disillusionment is enough, in some cases.

    I guess that's most of the point that you were making. And that's a fine point.

    Ultimately it really comes to "might makes right".

  142. Re:News for nerds? by sexconker · · Score: 1

    The Cisco story was pointless, though:

    Here's How Cisco Fixed A Backdoor
    They released an update which turns it off by default.

    There's literally nothing of substance and certainly nothing to discuss. Typical Cisco incompetence. Obvious fix for a backdoor. Everyone already knows you can't really trust them but you're fucked because you have to use somebody's products. There's simply nothing to discuss. It was also posted before much of the US was awake and bored at work.

  143. Re:Racial profiling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting, the preliminary profile doesn't appear to point towards the outcome.

    I know of nothing to indicate he didn't do it, but this profile almost makes me think that this guy didn't do the shooting and somebody else managed to get away.
    Was there any possible path out of the room that wasn't covered by the cops?
    Is there conclusive evidence that he was actually doing the firing?

    No doubt the investigation will leave no stone unturned.

  144. Liberal media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't the article mentions the race of the attacker? What is with all this political correctness. MAGA - we need extreme vetting for these people that commit all that mass killing in our country. I say we stop with being afraid of the cries of racsim and round all these people up and subject them to extreme vetting. There is a reason that people of certain races commit such violent acts.

  145. Rural Logic [Re:We need more guns] by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    There's another element. Rural people often have a great fear of the Federal Government turning heavily liberal and ruining their rural and/or religious way of life. They see guns as one of the few insurance policies protecting them from a run-away "Big Govt". The loss of life from mass shootings is not big enough to justify losing this "insurance policy" in their mind.

    They do the math and conclude that sometimes "freedom is better than life". It is rational to THEM: the cost of the insurance policy (a lost % of life) is less than the perceived danger of the Big Gov't taking over. They are willing to sacrifice a few percent of the population to events like this to prevent 100% of everybody they know from being ruled by Big Gov't. Nobody can accurately calculate the odds of their "socialist doomsday" scenario, so their guess is as good as yours or mine.

    It's similar to what you often see in the middle east: protecting their "way of life" is more important to many than (current) peace. They are willing to die to protect their way of life. NRA thinking is just a variation on this theme.

  146. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is that you Ivan?

  147. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many of the gun nuts that were on the receiving end of this white male, still think that that having guns like you can, is a good idea.

    It would not surprise me if the shooter wanted to prove exactly this point. Sadly he clearly went about it completely the wrong way.

    Even more sad is that many on the receiving end will probably want even more guns because they are that thick in the head.

    Only in America... Another sad day.

  148. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by bestweasel · · Score: 1

    "and in turn letting the corrupt politicians steamroll over everyone else at a whim"

    Because guns have done such a good job preventing that.

  149. Re:He had full auto by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

    Did you listen to the audio of the shootings Multiple bursts of full auto fire. These are illegal

    Fully automatic weapons, up to and including machine guns are legal in Nevada. Some require registration, but just like the recently legislated checks, no law enforcement agency wants to be responsible (even the FBI passed) and no one is enforcing even the super permissive laws.

    Please educate yourself before you post authoritatively.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished...
  150. Re:Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lov by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
    The guns the guy used were illegal.
    Gun laws won't stop crazies.
    Psycho gun killers are Democrats or on antidepressants.
    Guns stop zillions of other attacks.
    99.9% of gun owners don't massacre anyone.
    They still kill each other in DC (or gun free zone of your choice).
    We need guns to protect ourselves against New Hitler

    We've all heard them a million times before.

    And you can't refute a single one.

    Further, even if they were all objectively false, that wouldn't change a thing. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The government cannot legally infringe upon that right. I don't care how many people are killed, that right is fundamentally more important than whatever safety you imagine to be traded for it.

  151. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The talking heads want controversy.. if the people are too busy fighting with each other we'll never see how terrible our elected officials are. If Trump wants to drain the swamp, term limits are needed for Congress.

    The Russians want controversy and division in the USA, too.
    If Trump truly wants to drain the swamp, he can start with the most corrupt modern president, himself.

  152. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think he was asserting that the shooter was a Republican, then it sounds like you completely missed his point, bro.

  153. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really. In Soviet Russia, new guns were hard to buy in stores (always out of stock, just like everything else), but POSSESSION wasn't much more regulated than it is today in Britain or Germany. In rural areas, they were pretty common.

    It's not like angry housewives were going to rise up & start shooting government officials because stores were sold out of potatoes & tampons. Or angry students who wanted to watch "Dallas" to find out who shot J.R. Or factory workers dissatisfied with their cafeteria's food. And if they WERE crazy enough to try, Soviet law-enforcement officers, the KGB, and the military would have defeated them in about 17 minutes.

    Let it sink in: in the US, law enforcement officers feel entitled to shoot deaf people in the back for failing to comply with verbal orders. A mob of Americans with guns stand ZERO chance of prevailing over a SWAT team with a few grenade-carrying robots and/or drones & blanket orders to "neutralize them". They'd probably have BETTER odds against the military, because most soldiers still have consciences & feel bonds with Americans in general. To SWAT, everyone who's not SWAT (including firefighters, paramedics, and pesky journalists) is a potential threat requiring immediate neutralization.

  154. Re:He had full auto by jsrjsr · · Score: 1

    Legal automatic firearms were manufactured before 1986 and cost over ten thousand dollars each because of the limited supply. You don't seem to understand the law any better than the guy who said they were illegal.

  155. Re: News for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would make our jobs much harder but likely kill the site.

    Your Friends in Savushkina Street.

  156. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first move of every single repressive regime in history has been to confiscate weapons from the people they aim to oppress.

    Nope. First thing a repressive regime does is justify its repressions.

    That's not conspiracy, it's history.

    Nope, even aside from the mistake, it's just rhetoric.

    Not even especially persuasive, you might as well argue that Hitler ate sugar. Really, you could point to ANYTHING and say some repellent group did it, used it, or embraced it, and that wouldn't mean as much as you might think.

    This especially includes portraying history to set up their preferred narrative.

    Therefore, you're guilty of their methods yourself.

  157. The sounds of air passing rapidly overhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, that "whoosh" noise. I'm not the OP, but anyone can see he was being facetious.

    I mean, we could argue back and forth by what the OP meant by "if I was there" for instance. Did he mean down at the music festival? Or did he mean in the hotel the shots were being fired from? Maybe he meant right in the room, standing idly by "Well Stephen, I'm not gonna be an oppressor, so you do you boo. But if you kill more than 6, and I'll be counting!, i'm gonna flip Rambo on you and take you out, aight bro? We cool?"

    I mean, come on, people want to go over this like the ONLY people who could possibly have reacted to this incident were those at the music festival.... instead of maybe right next door hearing a ton of rapid firearms reports suddenly. I mean, at the very least someone should have called Concierge to complain about the noise! "Yes, YES! I KNOW RIGHT, I CAN'T HEAR YOU EITHER! WELL GET THE NIGHT MANAGER UP HERE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT OR I AM LEAVING A VERY SCATHING NEGATIVE REVIEW ON YELP!" "OF COURSE , SIR, OF COURSE! WE'RE SENDING UP A BELLHOP TO ASK THEM TURN IT DOWN NOW, SIR!"

    I mean, really...

  158. Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy had to be amazing with the gun. I mean 50 USians is a pretty good body count. You at least have to admire the guy for that. I know the media is going to survey the political or racial affiliations of the dead and declare that he is a either a hero or a villain based on whether or not he killed more liberal or conservatives. On the other hand what is wrong with those 50 people for allowing themselves to get shot in such a sad manner. One thing we need to to is to start teaching kids and apparently adults how to move and shoot. No one should just go around walking unarmed. At the very least they should be carrying a sword. You never know when you are going to walk into a gunfight. There is no such thing as an innocent victim. There are only people who failed to adequately prepare for their defense.

    We need to have mandatory weapons and martial arts training for all children starting at the age of 11. Why the fuck are we worrying about trigonometry, when some kids, especially on the east coast have never even held a gun. To me it is the height of irresponsibility. I know our schools can do more. I know some of you are going to be complaining about the lead in the bullets and how it is hurting the environment, but first things first. Let's keep an eye on the big picture and first realize that out children are not prepared to defend themselves. When we have all out children adequately trained in small unit tactics can we start worrying about replacing the led in bullets with something more environmentally friendly.

  159. Hicks killing Hicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing see here folks... Just another case of "Hicks killing hicks"...

  160. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by pots · · Score: 1

    Well, huh. I have never heard that definition of authoritarian. Okay, fair enough.

  161. Re:Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lov by sheph · · Score: 1

    For being supposedly so well educated you display an astounding amount of ignorance. All of those things are often stated. Which doesn't make them untrue. Gun laws are so strict in New York it's almost impossible to own a firearm. A state with close to the highest incidence of gun crime in the country dwarfed only by Chicago another shining example of the effectiveness of gun control. You could completely outlaw guns and you will still have this problem.

    --
    I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
  162. But who controls the automated turrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SkyNet. What could possibly go wrong?

  163. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean the "everyone with whom i disagree or otherwise make me feel somewhat uncomfortable" side?

  164. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    What I meant to imply is we drove out the middle ground and just kept the fringes.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  165. A referendum on removing the 2nd amendment by DMJC · · Score: 1

    The US Government always has the option to vote/call for a referendum on repealing the 2nd amendment. Sure it might not pass, but there is always the option for it. The US Government acting alone cannot take away the right to bear arms, but the people of the United States can have the option to choose to do so if their leadership took it to the people in a vote.

    1. Re:A referendum on removing the 2nd amendment by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Technically you could vote on such a thing, but those rights did not come from the government and hence cannot be taken away by the government. They are [re-existing and hence inalienable.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  166. Re:He had full auto by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

    It depends on your definition of 'legal'. If by 'legal' you mean weapons with the proper paperwork, so that no law enforcement agency will ever bother you, you can get a fully automatic AK47 for less than $3000, which includes the paperwork. AK74 are for some reason cheaper, don't ask me why. Yes, they will be manufactured before 1986, but I would not bet on how long they have actually been in the US.

    As for what you can buy at gun shows, and be able to say with a straight face that you believed that the transaction was legal... How good are you at controlling your expressions?

    I have personally seen weapons that I know 100% are violating multiple laws for sale, and not from a car trunk behind a 'private club'. At gun shows, I have seen people sell AR15s and the parts to make them fully automatic on the same stand, for a lot less than $10000 combined. Sure, the vendors were, *wink* *wink* unaffiliated.

    When law enforcement ignores blatant violation to the spirit of the law, when you cannot tell whether a gun is legal or not without an arrest, and knowing that the gun cannot physically be legal is not probable cause, when no agency will bother enforcing existing laws...

    So yes, I am 100% sure some of the weapons used in the shooting were illegal. I am also sure that yesterday, no law enforcement officer would have bothered with any of them. I am also sure that if the shooter had cared, he could have gone through the trouble of making the guns very hard to object to, legally.

    Basically, the best way to hide a stick is to drop it on forest floor (the English idiom escapes me). Nevada has so many legal automatic weapons, and so many automatic weapons with defensible paperwork, and so many automatic weapons which are hard to challenge, that law enforcement does not bother with them unless there is a good reason. Well, ~60 dead is a good reason, so we will probably hear that the weapons involved were illegal. I also bet that the parts which went into them were purchased completely legally.

    -----------

    By the way, I like guns, I own quite a few, and they are all 100% legal, even my old service CZ... But I went to a lot of trouble to do so, and if I had not been financially comfortable and single, I would have never bothered. If a guy wants to acquire a fully automatic rifle in California, it is a lot more work than it is in Nevada. Not that either is very difficult with someone with as much money as the shooter had, at least a few months ago.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished...
  167. Bad gun! Not the nutjob's fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bad, bad, bad guns! Now let the bashing begin. Let us create a monument to the fucktards that shoot, blow up or run over innocent people. Because with out guns, cars, trucks and chemicals to make bombs with, there would not be any innocent people killed!

    Now the real question: How do we modify / fix society so that stupid / fucktard people do not kill innocent people? I applaud and support the assholes that want to kill themselves, but ffs do it on your own and leave the innocent folks alone!

  168. Doesn't belong on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was waiting for this article to show up. Gotta get that clickbait.

  169. Very Sad Indeed by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    I hope we can find out motivations and such....and I definitely hope he burns in hell for his actions.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  170. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is wrong with "you" in the US?

    One party wants to tax the poor to fund the rich and to impose the death penalty on women who have abortions, the other party openly celebrates terrorism and wants to round up and exterminate whoever does not follow their ever-changing party line directed from Doha and Beijing. Asking everyone to calm the fuck down gets you called a white supremacist and you will be fired from your job for "making your employer look bad."

  171. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Brockmire · · Score: 1

    Of course, a God believer has nonsensical beliefs that everyone should carry a gun but not use them because of God morals or some shit. I hope you are on a list and monitored. That's some crazy stupid shit.

  172. CBS legal exec "not even sympathetic" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hayley Geftman-Gold, a legal executive at CBS, wrote on Facebook,

    If they wouldn't do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that the Repugs will ever do the right thing. I'm actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are republican gun toters.

    "not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are republican gun toters"? What kind of ethics are taught at law school these days?

    I'm happy to say that CBS fired her.

  173. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The wedge goes at least as far back as the Powell Memorandum. The thing that changed everything was Watergate. It's just taken this long to realise it.

  174. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

    I'm not currently a gun owner or shooter.

  175. A short letter from an outsider by nyri · · Score: 2

    Hi US people,

    I noticed that you are a) trying to guess which party the gunman voted for and b) discussing the merits or either better or worse availability of guns as a solutions.

    As per gunman's voting record, I would suggest to you that it is irrelevant: Your political side won't score any points nor get any additional votes, even if it turns out that the gunman voted for the other party.

    As per the availability of gun: It is not viable solution. It has been studies and the gun laws do not correlate in any manner with the number of deaths in these types of events. So there, gun laws are not a working solution. Hence, I would recommend that you look in to something that might work: Having better availability of mental health services.

    Finally, I have a sad observation to make. You are not interested in discussing the merits (or the lack there of) of mental health approach because it does not involve political divide. You have forsaken your country. Petty political point scoring reigns supreme.

    Sincerely yours,
    A guy from Finland

    1. Re:A short letter from an outsider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Fin guy,

      Must be nice to live in a place with a population smaller than many of our cities where everyone's skin color is like yours.

    2. Re:A short letter from an outsider by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Post of the day. Thanks.

  176. Third world country by CrybabiesArePeople · · Score: 0

    It's terrible what happened to the banana republic of north america today. I guess the answer, courtesy of the NRA, and helped by all brain-deprived muricans, will be moar guuuns! As the ahole in chief would say, sad.

  177. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

    What I'm saying is that if you live up to the tenets of your religion - and you can insert a great many religions as an example - you aren't supposed to kill, you aren't supposed to hate people. Christianity espouses love to all. We may not do it right all the time, but the ideals of many religions are designed to have a society that lives and behaves well toward one another as one of the primary goals. The fact that the nation has gotten so far away from God and respect for His creation is the problem. Guns won't solve it, but trying to solve the gun issue without solving the human issue is pointless. There are too many other ways to cause mayhem.

  178. Re: Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lo by CrybabiesArePeople · · Score: 0

    Perfectly explained.

  179. Re:Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lov by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    And yet for all your blather my rights are greater than your feelz.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  180. Depends on the "mental health issue" by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    It's not just an issue of a well person buying a gun and then developing mental health problems. The US gun lobby doesn't even want to restrict sales to those who already have mental health issues.

    That depends on the mental health issue.

    I don't know of anyone - even the most extreme gun-rights advocates - who has a problem with disarming a person who has been adjudicated by a court of appropriate jurisdiction to being a danger to others by reason of mental problems.

    But many "mental health issues" are not associated with an increase in risk of attacks on others - and many are actually associated with a DEcrease.

    For instance: Depressives are drastically LESS dangerous to the general population than the average person. Meanwhile, disarming anyone who has ever been treated for depression would disarm over half the adult women in the United States.

    Psychiatrists are some of the strongest lobbyists AGAINST such laws. This is because they both make it less likely that people needing treatment for mental issues will seek it and open confidential patient records to perusal by government functionaries and law enforcement.

    Another recent trend is treating anyone who is a crime victim - rape, assault, robbery, stalking, etc. - for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Whether they want such "treatment" or not. Guess who is most likely to NEED a gun for self-defense? Guess when they are likely to get off their tails and go buy one?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  181. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine you had 3 choices in every election outside of the local level:

    1) Vote for the candidate for party A whose policies you are mostly ok with (even if you don't really like them all)
    2) Vote for the candidate for party B whose policies you are mostly not ok with (and some you think could be downright disastrous if enacted)
    3) Vote for a different candidate, knowing that candidate is statistically guaranteed to not get enough votes to come close enough to make parties A or B even flinch. Or don't vote. The outcome is the same.

    Now, for months or years after the election, be prepared to either deal with the following outcomes:

    1) You voted for a major party candidate and they won. A vociferous portion of those who voted for the other candidate will now point out everything they feel your candidate is doing wrong, deserved or not.
    2) You voted for a major party candidate and they lost. A vociferous portion of those who voted for the other candidate will now point out that that candidate's party's policies are all the correct thing to do because they won the election.
    3) You did not vote for a major candidate or did not vote. Fight the existential ennui as those who did vote for the major party candidates try to shoehorn you into what side they think you *would* have been on.

    Welcome to national politics in the United States. It won't change because the two parties have a vested interest in being the only two choices and acting as opposing sides on wedge issues.

  182. Re:Racial profiling by pax+humana · · Score: 1

    Nah, Chuck Norris killed him before the police could get there.

  183. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad dog.

    If you think only "the other guys" can be assholes, then you might be an asshole.

  184. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay, more dead Americans, guns are natures way of culling the herd of stupid.

  185. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that for the past 20 years the democrats have jumped up and played the blame game, not matter what the crisis, I'm not shocked at all that we have a divided country.

  186. Australias Experience with Guns by labnet · · Score: 1

    Being from Australia, I can at least comment on the cultural impact of guns.

    In the early 80's KMART were still selling rifles. There were heaps of guns around.... but, the primary use for our weapons was for taming wildlife, not seeing them as object of personal protection. In the USA I believe it is the reverse.

    Australia was also becoming very urbanised and after the Port Arthur massacre, semi automatic weapons were banned. Now you can still buy guns, and every farmer has several, but:
    - They must be kept in gun safes
    - All guns are licensed
    - Police do come and check your serial numbers against their records
    - You have to be a member of a gun club or be on a rural property.
    - You have to do a firearms safety course before being issued a license that must be annually renewed.
    - There are strict background checks.

    What I have noticed, is
    - I never hear about kids accidentally shooting themselves anymore
    - Rarely hear about gun suicides.
    - Never see guns in public, except on Police
    - No one here worries about getting shot, because generally when it rarely happens, its criminals shooting each other.

    The USA will never change their gun culture in my lifetime: so massacres like this will just be the price of that culture.

    --
    46137
  187. Re: Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good post Bruce/Sheila.

  188. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Maybe he just didn't like country music. Maybe he loved country music but didn't like what it has become. Maybe he was so deep in debt because of his gambling that he just snapped. We really don't have a clue yet.

    Everybody is closer to becoming insane than they realize. All it takes is something or somebody flipping the switch. We're all capable of doing horrendous things.

    There will be plenty of time later to throw political bombs. Save it until then.

  189. FBI angle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what do you know? there's a FBI angle with this shooter too. nothing to see here. it was only his dad... 19 guns, full auto and tripods, rumors of other shooters, locked exit doors, i would think that if someone went to this extreme just to kill people that they would leave a manifesto/letter. if we never get a reason i find that suspicious, because then the motive may live elsewhere. like the baby killing feds for instance.

  190. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

    Well, I'd have thought that was obvious.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  191. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guns don't kill people, Americans do.

  192. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except he wasn't, the usual alt-right douchebags are trying to politicise the shootings by falsely claiming the shooter was somehow democrat or left wing affiliated, all false, and merely shows what dregs those people are.

  193. It's not that tricky an area to do research on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not that tricky. Read "More Guns, Less Crime," written by a competent statistician, John Lott.

    And as you know, Norway is not very ethnically diverse. In the U.S., some ethnic groups commit crime at much higher rates than others. If the least-violent ethnic group was as prevalent in the U.S. as it is in Norway, the U.S. would have a world-class low crime rate.

  194. Why impose a solution where there's no problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure what sort of solution this suggests, if any. Increased police presence in rural areas (to maintain the same number of cops per square mile and thus the same response time) is probably unfeasible.

    Why seek a solution, given that gun violence is not a problem in rural areas? As a previous poster pointed out, the worst per-capita murder rates are in these urban areas:

    10 Camden, NJ: 42/100,000
    9 New Orleans, LA 42/100,000
    8 Detroit, MI: 44/100,000
    7 Flint, MI : 47/100,000
    6 Petersburg, VA: 49/100,000
    5 Baltimore, MD: 55/100,000
    4 St. Louis, MO: 60/100,000
    3 Gary, IN: 65/100,000
    2 Chester, PA: 67/100,000
    1 East St. Louis, IL: 71/100,000

  195. Re:Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lov by quantaman · · Score: 1

    The fact is, whenever the news of a "active shooter killing spree" comes out the very FIRST thought people have is "Oh, where in the US is it this time??".

    Actually it's "what's the ethnicity, religion, and political affiliation of the shooter(s)?"

    It's distasteful, but they want to know because it's a really important question.

    If the shooter is an Arab Muslim you're going to see a push for more Muslim bans, racial profiling, deportations, not to mention a jump in hate crimes.

    If the shooter is a Mexican illegal you're going to see the end of DACA and a bunch of people getting deported from the only country they've ever known.

    As it is, the shooter is white, his political affiliation and even religion don't really matter. His tribe, white people, is strong enough that they're at no risk of discrimination in the US. Thankfully we'll be able to spend more time mourning the victims this time around.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  196. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, bullshit. Soviet Union did not allow possession of guns beyond even modern UK standards of gun control.

  197. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

    If he were a left wing nutjob you'll never hear anything about his motives in any MSM outlet. They'd bring it up once, in the middle of the night, and only then because there's a non-zero chance that Fox would report it.

  198. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Because guns have done such a good job preventing that.

    I know that's sarcasm, but they have. As far as corrupt governments go measured over a historical scale, ours is relatively nice.

  199. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As another "outsider" I agree with your sentiments about American politics.

    In my office, in Singapore, I am the only one who voted for the ruling party and the other 3 regulars in my office voted for the opposition party.

    We joke about it occasionally, but otherwise, it doesnt really come up. Furthermore am willing to vote for the opposition if I think they have something better to offer. Am no party loyalist and I decide at each election who to vote for.

  200. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we lost 99% of the population through the course of their lives to mass shooters it would still be better than taking everyone's guns and in turn letting the corrupt politicians steamroll over everyone else at a whim

    What a hypocritical stance! you would be OK with mass murder on an unprecedented scale in order to preserve your pipe dream of guns protecting your precious freedom (or whatever is left), as long as you and your family are in the surviving 1%.

  201. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet we don't beat each other up but have passionate discussions over beer and dinner.

    Wouldn't you rather have easier access to guns?

  202. Amendment 2, Ratified in 1791 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  203. Re:Cue the brainwashed Americans and their gun lov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, we American value our freedom to own firearms more than we value other people's lives. And I'm okay with that.

  204. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    This comment makes me want to subscribe to Jesus' blog, and I'm not even religious. Bravo sir.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  205. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your comment about the Democrats taking orders from Beijing is a perfect example of the duplicitous nature if shitbag conservative thinking that is spoiling the commons like a fresh pile of dogshit on the White House lawn.

  206. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Hard to throw a pipe bomb nearly a mile, but I suppose you could design them with model rocket engines. Good thing that leftwing nut jobs aren't quite that smart. The body count could have been limited if hotel security had responded quicker though- over 70 minutes of bullets raining out the window and people complaining of the sound of gun shots to the front desk, and nobody did anything?

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  207. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    *Ahem*

    Your left is showing

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  208. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    It can also come to "right and wrong are meaningless, other people are just my playthings to do with what I wish"

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  209. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    That is part of the reason why my prius is covered in right wing bumper stickers.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  210. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Used to be. Under the new regime, there is zero chance that Fox would do anything different from the rest of the MSM.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  211. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1
    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  212. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    https://www.mediaite.com/online/a-theory-on-what-motivated-stephan-paddock-and-why-therell-be-more-of-him-in-the-future//
    Thus, exactly right- since nobody has any morals anymore, the toys have to be taken away from the babies.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  213. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by leslie.satenstein · · Score: 1

    Was the shooting an anti-political act, or as ISIS claims, an anti-American revenge act? It will take years before we know. My condolences go out to the victims. The NRA should be praying for forgiveness, along with the Congress people responsible for allowing AK47 and similar automatic repeat shooters to be sold. The USA is not facing a civil war. Why are killing machines allowed to be sold? It's OK to sell defense weapons, but not attack ones.

  214. No Glass Break Sensors... until now by AlejandroTejadaC · · Score: 1

    Tell me if I am wrong, but from now on, every building in USA would require by law that Glass Break Sensors are installed in every window... at least that is what I want to believe: https://buythetop10.com/top-10...

  215. Local vs Remote and Clueless links... by MercTech · · Score: 1

    I get tired of a tragedy happening and getting a flood of stories and commentaries from talking heads far removed from what is actually happening.

        Instead of the cited CNN link from the initial post; how about links to local to Las Vegas news sources that are not skewing the report to fit an ideological doctrine.

    http://www.fox5vegas.com/

    http://news3lv.com/news/nation-world/former-fbi-profiler-brad-garrett-what-we-know-so-far-about-las-vegas-sniper

    --
    NRRPT/RCT
  216. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by leretard · · Score: 0

    violent authoritarianism

    that's not a political ideology that you can have an allegiance to

    authoritarianism is an archetypical descriptor of ideology

    violence is a tool used by all forms of life, and of course is used by every political ideology

    You're trying invent some catch-all to "stabilize" your concept of the situation. Stop being so fucking crazy. If you really care about this you're going to have to disentangle the causes and effects instead of making a boogeyman.

    It makes it too easy for people to start demonizing anyone that doesn't agree with them.

    So let's ignore reality so we can make less effort in educating people?

    God you're fucking crazy.

  217. Re:News for nerds? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    "Stuff That Matters"

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  218. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He was a hardcore liberal! Only leftie communists have caches of assault rifles!"
    "No he clearly identified as Right-wing based on this numerous evidence. Besides why do you have to politicize everything?"
    "He was a leftie! Trump and Alex Jones said so! Lalalalalalalala I can't hear you"

  219. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not currently a gun owner or shooter.

    And this makes you any less a devout worshiper of the Sainted Founding Fathers in what way?

  220. So when is it time? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Obviously the gun nuts are out in force, but let us ask "When is it time to talk about removing weapons of war from our streets"?
    My answer is: Every single time someone dies in the name of the NRA profits!

  221. Fuck Slashdot by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    This is exactly the kind of story that I hope to avoid by reading slashdot, news about nerdy stuff, computers, internet, video games. Unless they're planning to take away our video games because of this, or they're planning to make a video game about it, it doesn't belong here. There's other websites to talk about normal news.

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  222. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

    There's a large subset of Americans that only care about the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms (own guns). They don't give a shit about the rest of our Bill of Rights as long as they keep their guns. On the other side, there are people that want open borders hell or high water.

    These people are lost to reason. There can be no compromise.

    But that's not necessarily an unreasonable position. With a two party system such as yours, and especially given the current political climate, it could be argued that it doesn't really matter which of the two you vote for. You'll end up in the same place anyway.

    This is of course supported by the observations of the low voter turnout, liberal usage of terms such as "republicrats" etc.

    These larger questions are also not necessarily in the hands of the politicians in any case; questions regarding the economy etc.

    However the question of whether, and how, people should be allowed to own and shoot guns, is one of those few questions that is solely within the political domain. So if you feel that your vote doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things anyway, voting single issue becomes the rational choice. If you feel you'll be shafted anyway, you might as well use your vote for something you care about.

    And then you of course also have to take into account that laws regarding weapons ownership is only a very small piece of the puzzle. We have traditionally had much stricter gun control laws in Sweden, and also a lot less violent crime than the US. However, that has recently changed significantly. When it comes to firearms violence we have to now go to southern Italy to find similar figures (and if we compare explosive/grenade violence, we have to go to Mexico).

    Our firearm laws have not changed one iota during this period. The changes in violence are all due to social ills, with criminal gangs gaining a foothold (for lots of reasons) and illegal arms being smuggled here from south east Europe. (It's also the first time that firearms violence hasn't given rise to yet shriller cries for more strict licensing laws, as the AKMs and hand grenades that are used, obviously were never legally owned here in Sweden to begin with.) So restricting licensing further, would obviously not do anything to help the problem. Legally owned guns simply does not figure into this particular equation.

    --
    Stefan Axelsson
  223. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Term limits meant we had to pick between Hillary and Trump, rather than Obama and Trump. Care to reconsider the point? All term limits do is keep people that the people want in office out of office, so lobbyists have malleable newcomers to influence.

  224. modded ar by nten · · Score: 1

    It was an ar with a holosight, super high capacity magazine, and a bump stock to enable high fire rates. There was a picture in the telegraph. All purchaseble legally in my state at least. The ATF has specifically stated bump stocks are not fully auto parts because you are still pulling the trigger multiple times. I doubt they will revisit that decision, that would be admitting error. And in any case a shoe string and a keychain can make many rifles fully auto so it would be difficult to enforce. Full auto isn't even particularly lethal. Unless there is a huge crowd and you have no particular target and a high vantage point...

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
  225. Re: He had full auto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do not get legal, papered full auto AK47s out of the back of someone's truck in the gun show parking lot in the US for $3000.

    Start at $30,000, and transfer paperwork that takes about a year.

  226. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aww, you poor wittle butthurt snowflake, thank you for proving my point. The special little snowflake was diagnosed with the fake condition commonly known as autism, and he was losing everything so he went into apeshit meltdown mode, much like every other whiny demoncrat snowflake due to your collective hatred of America and its freedom. Socialism is not freedom except to moochers like you and the shooter. You can mod me down all you want but it doesn't make my words any less true while making you special snowflakes melt.

  227. Re: Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An unstable USA is in nobody's interest.

    Sure does seem like it's in somebody's interest.

  228. Re:Pipe bombs would have killed thousands. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    I've lived in the area since '82 as well. You might want to check your history on NOVA voting though. For example Fairfax county went Red for governor in '93, '97 and as recently as '09, and Senate in 2000. Six of the Nine Loudoun Co. board of supervisors are Republican, and two of their four state representatives. Prior to '08, Loudoun had a long history of straight Red presidential vote majorities, dating back to 1912 according to their wiki page.

    Additionally, you might want to look at the Richmond and VA Beach areas, which have become much more blue.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise