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.
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.
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?
No, we can't, because Slashdot is here to propagandize and capitalize on such events.
"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.
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.'"
The shooter killed HIMSELF.
Please know the facts before you post next time. Thank you.
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
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.........
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
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.
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.
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.
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.........
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.
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.
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.........
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...
The President does not lose his First Amendment rights, when he becomes President.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
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.