Las Vegas Mass Casualty Attack

[smathis30]

Issue with the FBI and youtube comments is predominately due process. Although there is a ton of suspicion, there is only so much you can do before an actual crime is committed. Its a weird blend of trying to maintain people's rights while also trying to restrict people's rights to things they honestly don't deserve. Its easy in hindsight to say where the line betweeen knowing a lot and knowing enough to do something is, but if these people still live with family that has access to weapons, then its a moot point.

I'm honestly most curious about 1. how the uber driver that he got a ride to the school in allowed him to get in with all those bags, guns, and bullet vest and then 2. get past everyone

I would have thought this would be a fairly easy question to answer without having to sidestep.


Guns are already banned from school campuses. Someone tell me if there’s an exception in some state somewhere. Clearly that ban has failed so let’s replace it with a bigger, better ban.

Second question, why would a second bigger, better gun ban be better than the ban we already have that isn’t working because criminals choose not to follow the rules? There are law abiding citizens out there that can follow the rules pretty good & then criminals that don’t seem to be able to follow them at all.

Maybe we should focus on the criminals and not the law abiding citizens for once?

As to this, how many sub machine guns have been used in school shootings since they were banned? Like one?

The biggest issue, going back to what i said above this, is trying to get warrants for people that are suspicious of doing a crime that haven't actually done one yet. Trying to draw the line at where due process exists, as when that line can get erased and people suspciouis of crimes can get arrested. when does it go away? Who is to say that a repbulican government can arrest democrats for calling them idiots on reddit on suspicoun of terrorism or democrats on facebook for saying the republican party should cease to exist on facebook under a republican presidency?

So what do i actually want to see from this

Can we please just open up the doors for the CDC to do research? Universities can do it as well, but it would make sense for a government agency to do it if we want any government action. So many questions that we could get answers to, especially if we believe its a mental health thing and not a gun thing.

Things i want answers to from their research:

Why does Monatana have such a high gun ownership rate but such a low school shooting rate? And vice versa for other states that have lower ownership and higher deaths?
Why are most mass shootings done disproportionately by white people
Why are AR-15's the disproportionate weapon of choice in school shootings? (3% of ownership, 47% of school shootings)
Why are most of the people inbetween the ages of 16-25 and male?
Why is the U.S. the only nation that seems to regularly has school shootings (yes europe has other kinds of shootings/bombs, but rarely at actual schools)
What, if anything, can we do to prevent this?
Would adding retired/unemployed military to act as guards help? or would this encourage mob attacks and access to free guns?
How would we fund that? (or the research to the CDC in general?)

I agree that the FBI has been incompetent in many ways (This trump investigation has been going on way too long (and i might post my other thoughts in the other thread now that i have an ounce of free time), and a forwarded email could have prevented this? Stop sucking at your jobs yall)

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@smathis30

I don’t care what the CDC studies. But that agency, much like the EPA, is left leaning and has used its data in the past to promote a anti 2a agenda.

Folks get irritated when their tax funds are used to steer studies in a less than open minded focus of discovery.

As to many of your other questions you want answers to. The AR15 has only recently become a weapon of choice. As of about 2 years ago handguns were the weapon of choice in 80% of mass shootings.

Why the AR now? In large part due to popularity. It is by far the most popular selling rifle in America. Very likely has something to do with the media attention given to it in the last few years. If the media started giving the same kind of attention to semi-auto shotguns you would probably see more of their use in these things going forward.

Why young white males? More whites own guns for starters than other demographics. I used to dismiss the notion of video games conditioning youth to devalue life. I now have to reassess.

There very well could be unintentional psychological conditioning that occurs from playing first person shooter games. Not dissimilar to some of the training our military and police utilize to prepare trainees to engage targets with lethal force in scenarios. Maybe it’s time to restrict these kinds of games from being played by youth. Parental advisories may be inadequate. Even if changes are made though many parents will continue to allow it.

A lot of societies ills including this one are due to the lack of religious beliefs in our culture also imo. We get what we have been “asking for” unfortunately. But that’s another topic worthy of a separate thread.

 

[smathis30]

@smathis30

I don’t care what the CDC studies. But that agency, much like the EPA, is left leaning and has used its data in the past to promote a anti 2a agenda.

Folks get irritated when their tax funds are used to steer studies in a less than open minded focus of discovery.

As to many of your other questions you want answers to. The AR15 has only recently become a weapon of choice. As of about 2 years ago handguns were the weapon of choice in 80% of mass shootings.

Why the AR now? In large part due to popularity. It is by far the most popular selling rifle in America. Very likely has something to do with the media attention given to it in the last few years. If the media started giving the same kind of attention to semi-auto shotguns you would probably see more of their use in these things going forward.

Why young white males? More whites own guns for starters than other demographics. I used to dismiss the notion of video games conditioning youth to devalue life. I now have to reassess.

There very well could be unintentional psychological conditioning that occurs from playing first person shooter games. Not dissimilar to some of the training our military and police utilize to prepare trainees to engage targets with lethal force in scenarios. Maybe it’s time to restrict these kinds of games from being played by youth. Parental advisories may be inadequate. Even if changes are made though many parents will continue to allow it.

A lot of societies ills including this one are due to the lack of religious beliefs in our culture also imo. We get what we have been “asking for” unfortunately. But that’s another topic worthy of a separate thread.

countless studies have shown there is no relation to video games and violence FWIW

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

countless studies have shown there is no relation to video games and violence FWIW

I used to discount the notion. Now I wonder. How have the studies you refer to come to their conclusion?

Maybe this Cruz kid never played such games. Maybe he’s a nut. Maybe his family history / family violence conditioned him to disregard human life. Maybe he’s just pure evil.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I used to discount the notion. Now I wonder. How have the studies you refer to come to their conclusion?

Maybe this Cruz kid never played such games. Maybe he’s a nut. Maybe his family history / family violence conditioned him to disregard human life. Maybe he’s just pure evil.

The vast majority of these guys had no father in their life.

I’m not worried about due process (back to another point). If a kid threatens to shoot up a school, but has no guns, no history of violence or previous threats, I don’t think you can send them to prison for terroristic threats, remove their ability to own guns, etc. but a guy like this - where you have an endless history of police interactions, corroborating witnesses, guns, etc, he could have his day in court and I’m comfortable he’d lose. As he should. These people should not be on the street.

The number 1 thing we can do to reduce shootings is just have law enforcement do their jobs. Tons of guys all over the inner cities get convicted of crimes and nobody ever goes to confiscate their guns. Do your damned jobs.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@bwelbo

I hear where you are coming from. But you are ignoring the fact that he may not have actually broken any laws with his statements that alarmed folks. Again, I can say “If I ever see you I will punch your face.” In most states that is a conditional threat that doesn’t violate terroristic threat laws. If I say “I’m going to find you and punch you in the face.” It is a violation.

Point is this. Cops may have wanted to arrest him or have him committed involuntarily. But without probable cause a specific crime was committed they can’t. Not without shredding the Constitution.

Now if he did break laws and cops refused to prosecute or commit involuntarily, then they have some liability. I haven’t seen facts suggesting this was the case yet.

Cops can’t prevent violence typically unless they have a very heavy presence in a particular area. Even then locations outside that area go unprotected. But cops don’t ususllt prevent many crimes, they just clean the messes up after they occur.

 

[MWBATL]

It’s not related to the gun ban. Their decrease in gun murders is commensurate with ours and every other developed country during that time frame. Our gun murders are at THE LOWEST SINCE THE 1800s. And our gun ownership has ballooned. So by your logic then obviously we should have triple the guns we already have to lower the gun murder rate further.

Australia’s violent crime rate is no different than ours. They also have a lot more guns than places like Great Britain. They just bought back a third of them. But they still have a ton of guns. They don’t have a gun ban like much of Europe.

IIRC, Australia's rate of death by guns was dropping even before the firearms buy-backs. (I am speaking from memory here, it is possible I am wrong, but I did go look at the raw data once before and thought I remember it showing that.) The fact that it has continued to decline, at basically the same trend line can be used by both sides to support their argument.
PRO GUN: Australia's rate of gun deaths has declined at a steady rate despite the gun buy back and commensurate with similar declines on most western societies. (True)
ANTI-GUN: Australia's rate of death by guns has declined to its lowest rate in history since the gun buybacks. (Also technically true.)

You should go look at the actual data, not journalist summaries with axes to grind, and try to draw your own conclusions. My opinion is that the buyback did not do much good, but certainly does not appear to have done any harm either (except perhaps financially.)

 

[MWBATL]

I think the biggest issue is what do we do with people who seem clearly disturbed and are risks to themselves or to society. I lived in Florida when I had a very emotional 17 year old male son who was doing some very disturbing things. We were worried both that he might harm himself and that he might harm others. We knew, or thought, it was a phase of his life (it turned out to be true) but we went to local authorities and found out that virtually nothing could be done until AFTER a law had been broken. The absolute max that could be done was to retain such a person for 72 hours in a mental health facility for evaluation if you had hard evidence they were a threat to themselves. Such facilities would only then retain those who were the truest of loonies, not a disturbed teenager who could game the system.

My suspicion is that we need to pay MUCH More attention to these complex issues (and they are complex and not easily solved for the constitutional principles involved) rather than the rather simplistic solution of gun control.

Remember that in Norway, one crazed gunman killed almost 70 people in a single day with his rifle. These things may not happen often, but they do happen. And the result there was not more gun control, it was to sack their Minister of Police for not preventing the attack when there were some limited warning signs.

 

[collegeballfan]

Just a thought: from day one health insurance companies refused to cover mental health expenses. Maybe, maybe, as a result the mental health care industry has not developed in this country.
Not even sure this is accurate, just remember over the decades my health insurance did not cover mental health.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

IIRC, Australia's rate of death by guns was dropping even before the firearms buy-backs. (I am speaking from memory here, it is possible I am wrong, but I did go look at the raw data once before and thought I remember it showing that.) The fact that it has continued to decline, at basically the same trend line can be used by both sides to support their argument.
PRO GUN: Australia's rate of gun deaths has declined at a steady rate despite the gun buy back and commensurate with similar declines on most western societies. (True)
ANTI-GUN: Australia's rate of death by guns has declined to its lowest rate in history since the gun buybacks. (Also technically true.)

You should go look at the actual data, not journalist summaries with axes to grind, and try to draw your own conclusions. My opinion is that the buyback did not do much good, but certainly does not appear to have done any harm either (except perhaps financially.)

Our gun murder rate is at an all time low going back to the 1800s, when Dara collection probably wasn’t reliable anyway. According to statistics people, there is no proof Australia’s gun buyback did anything. Which is what you would predict anyway.

If we used just the absolute value of the numbers, wed look at our record gun ownership and conclude we need many more guns.

 

[WreckinGT]

Guns are already banned from school campuses. Someone tell me if there’s an exception in some state somewhere. Clearly that ban has failed so let’s replace it with a bigger, better ban.

Second question, why would a second bigger, better gun ban be better than the ban we already have that isn’t working because criminals choose not to follow the rules? There are law abiding citizens out there that can follow the rules pretty good & then criminals that don’t seem to be able to follow them at all.

Maybe we should focus on the criminals and not the law abiding citizens for once?

The kid who did this shooting was a 19 year old law abiding citizen who was currently expelled from his school, and had been reported to law enforcement dozens of times but had no problem legally obtaining a military style assault rifle and plenty of ammunition. You really don't see a problem there? You don't think maybe if we didn't allow 19 year olds to buy guns that it could have helped here. Maybe if he couldn't obtain a semi automatic rifle that lives might have been saved? Maybe if we had better background checks he might not have been allowed to buy the gun?

Nobody is claiming that we shouldn't study the criminals in these cases. But lets pretend that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. I really don't see what is wrong with trying to keep guns out of the hands of kids and the mentally impaired. I really don't see what is wrong with having better background checks to try to avoid letting guns into the hands of those with a troubled past. I don't see what is wrong with banning some types of guns that have no reasonable use in everyday life other than killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible. The fact that conservatives will fight tooth and nail for the right for a troubled kid to legally buy a semi automatic rifle blows my mind. This really shouldn't be a partisan issue.

 

[WreckinGT]

Our gun murder rate is at an all time low going back to the 1800s

Hey that sounds great. Now we just need to figure out why our gun murder rate is 25 times higher than other high income countries, and why our gun suicide rate is 8 times higher. It obviously can't be the number of guns or the ease of getting a gun here so there must be another explanation.

 

[WreckinGT]

According to statistics people, there is no proof Australia’s gun buyback did anything. Which is what you would predict anyway.

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-con...4/2012/10/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).

The massive Australian gun buyback occurred over two calendar years, 1996-97. Firearm homicide and firearm suicide dropped substantially in both years, for a cumulative two-year drop in firearm homicide of 46% and in firearm suicide of 43%. Never in any two year period, from 1915-2004 had firearm suicide dropped so precipitously.

 

[BuzzStone]

As a current AR-15 owner, maybe we should look at the thought we don't think a 19 year old is responsible enough to drink alcohol but we will allow them to buy a deadly weapon.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The kid who did this shooting was a 19 year old law abiding citizen who was currently expelled from his school, and had been reported to law enforcement dozens of times but had no problem legally obtaining a military style assault rifle and plenty of ammunition. You really don't see a problem there? You don't think maybe if we didn't allow 19 year olds to buy guns that it could have helped here. Maybe if he couldn't obtain a semi automatic rifle that lives might have been saved? Maybe if we had better background checks he might not have been allowed to buy the gun?

Nobody is claiming that we shouldn't study the criminals in these cases. But lets pretend that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. I really don't see what is wrong with trying to keep guns out of the hands of kids and the mentally impaired. I really don't see what is wrong with having better background checks to try to avoid letting guns into the hands of those with a troubled past. I don't see what is wrong with banning some types of guns that have no reasonable use in everyday life other than killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible. The fact that conservatives will fight tooth and nail for the right for a troubled kid to legally buy a semi automatic rifle blows my mind. This really shouldn't be a partisan issue.

You’re drunk. He was NOT a law abiding citizen. He should have been in prison for making terroristic threats. 39 police visits to his house. Nobody ever entered anything into the background system. The FBI never followed up on reports about his threats. How many of these shootings are 19 year olds? You act like age banning is a no brainer, but this is the only one you can probably think of.

You’re obsessed with our high murder rate from guns, but you never bring up how much better our violent crime rate Is. we also have theb2nd amendment, so we have guns. Other countries have never had guns. I’m sure you know this. We’ve saved their asses in world wars a few times.

The biggest thing we could do to reduce gun murders and suicides is for law enforcement to do their damned jobs. If someone is a threat and making threats, prosecute them. Get those incidents into the background system. If someone is convicted of a felony, CONFISCATE THEIR GUNS. Police don’t do that today. Put an armed resource officer in every school. If we need to change the laws to give someone a gun timeout do to erratic behavior that isn’t quite mental illness, then pass a law to put a 5 year hold on them and revisit their behavior later.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle. A semi-automatic gun is not military style. Repeat after me. LOL. Bullets don’t fly unless you pull the trigger. You don’t pull and hold. 80% of guns are semi-automatic. They are not military style. They are not assault guns. They are murder guns. LOL. The little handgun someone’s wife owns is semi-automatic. She needs 10 shots - what if she misses, what if 3 people are breaking into her house? You will never ban semi-automatic guns. Nobody can protect themselves with a musket. LOL.

 

[WreckinGT]

You’re drunk. He was NOT a law abiding citizen. He should have been in prison for making terroristic threats. 39 police visits to his house. Nobody ever entered anything into the background system. The FBI never followed up on reports about his threats. How many of these shootings are 19 year olds? You act like age banning is a no brainer, but this is the only one you can probably think of.

You’re obsessed with our high murder rate from guns, but you never bring up how much better our violent crime rate Is. we also have theb2nd amendment, so we have guns. Other countries have never had guns. I’m sure you know this. We’ve saved their asses in world wars a few times.

The biggest thing we could do to reduce gun murders and suicides is for law enforcement to do their damned jobs. If someone is a threat and making threats, prosecute them. Get those incidents into the background system. If someone is convicted of a felony, CONFISCATE THEIR GUNS. Police don’t do that today. Put an armed resource officer in every school. If we need to change the laws to give someone a gun timeout do to erratic behavior that isn’t quite mental illness, then pass a law to put a 5 year hold on them and revisit their behavior later.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle. A semi-automatic gun is not military style. Repeat after me. LOL. Bullets don’t fly unless you pull the trigger. You don’t pull and hold. 80% of guns are semi-automatic. They are not military style. They are not assault guns. They are murder guns. LOL. The little handgun someone’s wife owns is semi-automatic. She needs 10 shots - what if she misses, what if 3 people are breaking into her house? You will never ban semi-automatic guns. Nobody can protect themselves with a musket. LOL.

As far as I know, the shooter was not a convicted felon and did not obtain his killing machines illegally. Therefore by definition he was a law abiding citizen. Im not obsessed with violent crime rates because they are a lot more complicated than firearm homicide rates and mass shootings which are what are directly related to the topic we are discussing. Can you prove that an increase in rape is because of tougher gun laws? Can you prove the same about sexual assault? Most of the crimes committed as "violent crimes" have nothing to do with guns. The attempted correlation is ridiculous. Now, showing a decrease in firearm homicides that happened after enacting tougher gun laws seems a little more relevant. If you would like to have a separate conversation about improving sexual assault rates, robberies, simple battery, etc. then I am glad to have it. It is an important discussion. It just has little relevance here as much as you want it to.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

As far as I know, the shooter was not a convicted felon and did not obtain his killing machines illegally. Therefore by definition he was a law abiding citizen. Im not obsessed with violent crime rates because they are a lot more complicated than firearm homicide rates and mass shootings which are what are directly related to the topic we are discussing. Can you prove that an increase in rape is because of tougher gun laws? Can you prove the same about sexual assault? Most of the crimes committed as "violent crimes" have nothing to do with guns. The attempted correlation is ridiculous. Now, showing a decrease in firearm homicides that happened after enacting tougher gun laws seems a little more relevant. If you would like to have a separate conversation about improving sexual assault rates, robberies, simple battery, etc. then I am glad to have it. It is an important discussion. It just has little relevance here as much as you want it to.

Did you read what I wrote? I said that law-enforcement needs to do their job. He should have been arrested and should have been in prison and should not have been allowed to have a gun. But law-enforcement did not do their job.

Most violent crimes have nothing to do with guns? That’s exactly the point. You can’t prevent yourself from being a victim if you can’t fight back. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. People are less likely to commit a violent crime if they think there’s a reasonable chance that they will end up dead. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

As a current AR-15 owner, maybe we should look at the thought we don't think a 19 year old is responsible enough to drink alcohol but we will allow them to buy a deadly weapon.

They are old enough to be drafted. Old enough to leave home and live independently. 99.99999% of 19 year olds are not threats to do this kind of thing.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

As far as I know, the shooter was not a convicted felon and did not obtain his killing machines illegally. Therefore by definition he was a law abiding citizen. Im not obsessed with violent crime rates because they are a lot more complicated than firearm homicide rates and mass shootings which are what are directly related to the topic we are discussing. Can you prove that an increase in rape is because of tougher gun laws? Can you prove the same about sexual assault? Most of the crimes committed as "violent crimes" have nothing to do with guns. The attempted correlation is ridiculous. Now, showing a decrease in firearm homicides that happened after enacting tougher gun laws seems a little more relevant. If you would like to have a separate conversation about improving sexual assault rates, robberies, simple battery, etc. then I am glad to have it. It is an important discussion. It just has little relevance here as much as you want it to.

If a murderer wants to commit murder he will find a means. Guns or otherwise. If a mass murderer wants to commit mass murder he will find a means. Guns or otherwise. See vehicle attacks, IEDS, VBIEDS.

You want to ban guns and shred 2A. Most Americans disagree. AR15s are just the first target in a long list of firearms gun grabbers want to ban / confiscate.

ARs are popular because the design is one of, if not the most, versatile and ergonomic firearms designs today. Which is a large reason why they are so prized by gun grabbers to ban. But they are not more inherently lethal than many other types of firearms.

Even if you got your way and a ban was instituted, nothing would change to decrease mass casualty attacks. There are hundreds of thousands of ARs currently owned in America. You can’t make them disappear without confiscating them.

Even if you could wave a magic wand and make them disappear, other models of rifles or shotguns would be used. Wave the magic wand and make all firearms disappear and you will see more bombings and such instead.

Guns aren’t the problem. Murderers are. But the same libs who want to disarm law abiding citizens will not condone increasing prison terms of violent felons, mandate convicted murderer never be allowed parole, or allow capital punishment for murderers.

We are a violent society and we are not very serious about deterring violent crime. That being the case I will not stand for being disarmed.

2A is a deterrent for violence. And also government tyranny.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I’m not a fan of bump stocks, or trigger cranks. I think they are gimmicky and reduce the effectiveness in rifles equipped with them. So I never plan to own either.

Having said that, this MA law violates 2 amendments of our Bill of Rights. Just goes to show where the gun grabbers plan to start, but we know they won’t stop here. AR15s are next. Then any firearms that feed ammo via detachable mag (starting with “high capacity”). Maybe they would allow black powder flint lock muskets....until one is used in a school shooting anyway.