Las Vegas Priorities

mtn said:

MadScientistMatt said:

There's a lot of unanswered questions out there right now. Here are some I'd be very interested in getting answers to, that seem to be nowhere near answered right now.

1. The sound clips and descriptions make it appear that he had a fully automatic rifle or a light machine gun. What exactly was he shooting here?
2. If it was a fully automatic weapon, that's not something you can legally buy without a mountain of paperwork. How exactly did he get that thing?
3. Was he a terrorist with a bigger cause, or just a shiny happy person who wanted to set a new record in the Murder Olympics?
4. This guy had to have spent at least five figures' worth of money on guns and ammo. Whose money was it?
5. Why exactly had he hoarded that many guns? If he was collecting them for fun, chances are he'd have gun nut friends who knew about them. If he was collecting them because he planned a mass shooting, he'd have done that as secretly as possible. If they were stockpiled out of paranoia, this might have been done openly or secretively.

For #4, the suspect was retired and described by his brother as "wealthy". His own money. 

 

This. On the surface, he seems like a pretty normal upper-middle class, retired, white guy. He owned 2 planes, lived in a fairly luxurious senior living community and owned 2 vehicles less than 5 years old. Now, that doesn't make him wealthy, he could've been in debt up to his eyeballs and gambling in Vegas would only make that worse. But if he were struggling with gambling debt, you'd think he'd go after a casino and not a crowd of concert goers.

He'd obviously planned this extensively. It's not as if he packed up this cache of weapons/ammo, drove 80 miles, rented a room with the perfect vantage point, and waited a few days before acting on an emotional whim.

In reply to NOHOME :

I'd read it.  I'm trying to picture if Bruce Willis should be the psycho or the detective in the movie.

Edit:  in the beginning of the movie the psycho should try to unload the guns on Pawn Stars and being offered an insultingly low amount is what sets him off.  

MadScientistMatt said:

There's a lot of unanswered questions out there right now. Here are some I'd be very interested in getting answers to, that seem to be nowhere near answered right now.

1. The sound clips and descriptions make it appear that he had a fully automatic rifle or a light machine gun. What exactly was he shooting here?
2. If it was a fully automatic weapon, that's not something you can legally buy without a mountain of paperwork. How exactly did he get that thing?
3. Was he a terrorist with a bigger cause, or just a shiny happy person who wanted to set a new record in the Murder Olympics?
4. This guy had to have spent at least five figures' worth of money on guns and ammo. Whose money was it?
5. Why exactly had he hoarded that many guns? If he was collecting them for fun, chances are he'd have gun nut friends who knew about them. If he was collecting them because he planned a mass shooting, he'd have done that as secretly as possible. If they were stockpiled out of paranoia, this might have been done openly or secretively.

1. Bump stocks or gat cranks.

2. Well, as long as you pass the ATF background check and have a huge wad of cash, you can legally obtain one. Most of the "experts" I've read seem to think it was an AR-15 modified with a gat crank.

3. No idea, that information will hopefully come out as more investigation is done.

4. As mentioned, was described as wealthy. Even had a home in FL that he gave a key to the neighbors and said, "WOuld you keep your eye on it, I won't be here often."

5. No one knows, yet. Why do some people on this board like to collect tons of ill running or non-running turds of automobiles? 

So what is the qualifier for terrorism? This sure seems like it, even if he was working alone. 

Could the fact that his father was a criminal and in prison had any mental effect.  The guy hadn't held a job for years yet he was able to live the good life.   So what set him off ?

Something for the psychiatrists to ponder.

I got that information from the news media.

mtn said:

So what is the qualifier for terrorism? This sure seems like it, even if he was working alone. 

While he was causing terror, technically I believe some 'political motivation' is required to fall under the legal definition.  Realistically though: If you're white, it's assumed to not be 'terrorism' under the legal definition until proven otherwise...If you're middle eastern, it's assumed to be terrorism under the general 'causing terror' definition until proven otherwise under the legal definition.

mtn said:

So what is the qualifier for terrorism? This sure seems like it, even if he was working alone. 

As sad as it is, it is hard to be qualified as 'terrorist' unless you fit a certain religion, nationality, or skin color. But if you do fit one or many of those criteria, it is quite easy.

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists

Nick (Bo) Comstock said:I was taking some fancy pictures of my car for a calendar in a public parking lot near a dam. Three "park rangers" tried to confiscate my camera and held me until there supervisor arrived. The supervisor has some common sense and as we scrolled through the pictures together he could plainly see that there was no detail whatsoever of the structure of the dam and I was able to keep my camera and the pictures. What a hassle.

I was taking pictures of my building (it's downtown) and had a police officer come up and grill me about how he had reports of someone taking pictures of the AEP building (nearby high rise). I told him what I was doing and showed him my business card. Later I thought about it and realized - so what if I was taking pictures of the AEP building? That's perfectly legal. All public photography is. And it's not like the AEP building is some high value target or has had threats against it. Jesus. Some people are so weird. Both the police officer and especially the people that would report someone taking photos.

Read this and remember this. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights

mad_machine said:

I have to say I was disappointed with MGM today. Mandalay Bay is a Sister property to where I work, it took them most of the day to put out a form letter reminding us not to talk to the press and a simple "our hearts and prayers" letter for those less fortunate. Seems to me both of those should have been by 9am at the latest, not 4pm in the afternoon

That's nothing....The NRA is still giving this the silent treatment.

In reply to Robbie :

You mean like the Fort Hood shooter or the San Bernardino shooters? Those were both somehow classified as workplace violence and not terrorism.  I think your premise is false.

Skin color, religion, or nationality officially have nothing to do with it. Motive is what matters for the FBI to say whether it is terrorism or not in theory, but at least in the two cases I mentioned above, you may get a pass based on your religion and skin color.

In the 60's our country created NASA, spent billions and created a lot of good things - along with some bad things. I am ready in the 2020's for our country to create the NASA of mental health - because nothing else we're doing is working. Gun control won't solve it. Background checks won't solve it. Fox News isn't going to solve it (and probably doesn't want to). Yes I know that the idea of big government messing with our brains is scary. But let's face it - our brains have some design or manufacturing flaws that are causing (and have caused) countless amounts of suffering every day all over the world. End of rant.

mtn said:

So what is the qualifier for terrorism? This sure seems like it, even if he was working alone. 

I would say that that in order to qualify as "Terrorism" the act has to be part of an effort to influence policy. So, unless this is a deliberately ironic attempt to bring  gun control to America, I cant see it as an act of terrorism. Just a guy who's timing chain slipped a cog in spectacular fashion; maybe he brought all the guns along to sell at the pawn shop and just got fed up with the racket from the loud party outside.

In reply to alfadriver :

That anti photo nonsense is ridiculous. After 9-11 there was a big push to bring tourists back to New York. The route I worked went from LaGuardia Airport to a number of hotels and the subway so I was lucky to meet many of them.  On one occasion I was going to the airport with a couple from Oklahoma that had taken my bus a few times that week.  We got to their terminal and they asked for a photo. I leaned out from my seat, they snapped one and to cops in armor swooped in to take their film.  We started arguing and they finally had to get supervisors to break up the pd and me.  It was insane that they were going to confiscate someone's vacation pics because they somehow felt a picture of a bus driver was going to compromise national security.

Some combination of gun control and mental health improvements would be ideal, but you can make good gains with gun control alone. Australia is a testament to that.

By me we have very tight gun control (and even tight control on individual bullets), and we recently had our worst mass shooting where 1 person was killed and 20 were injured from a gangster doing a really E36 M3ty job of trying to shoot someone else in a dense crowd. And our mental health care system is nothing to brag about. When unregulated and irresponsible gun ownership is illegal, it means that it's very hard for criminals and maniacs to get their hands on guns, especially full-auto rifles. Any ol' plain-jane pistol will go for at least $2.5k on the black market here.

Just FYI, on the AR chassis it's not particularly difficult to modify the sear to allow full auto firing.  There are 100 round drums available (for no good reason except to put 100 rounds downrange without pausing to reload).  But for a reasonably well-to-do individual without a record getting a class 3 license and legally purchasing fully automatic weapons isn't all that difficult. 

I'm honestly glad that he was all the way up on the 32nd floor, anyone paying attention to tactics and ballistics would have done even more damage from something in the 5-12 range.

T.J. said:

In reply to Robbie :

You mean like the Fort Hood shooter or the San Bernardino shooters? Those were both somehow classified as workplace violence and not terrorism.  I think your premise is false.

Skin color, religion, or nationality officially have nothing to do with it. Motive is what matters for the FBI to say whether it is terrorism or not in theory, but at least in the two cases I mentioned above, you may get a pass based on your religion and skin color.

Officially, I think you are probably right. However, I just now searched san Bernardino shooter, and this came up. I suppose this is an example of how our media is being really REALLY clear that these two folks are not terrorists...

Edit: Interestingly, this screenshot is a pretty good example of basically the entire sentence I quoted earlier:

The success of fear-based news relies on presenting dramatic anecdotes in place of scientific evidence (Farook built pipe bombs as hobby), promoting isolated events as trends (what explains biggest terror attack since 9/11), depicting categories of people as dangerous (ISIS, ISIS, Shooters, Shooters, Assault Rifle, etc) and replacing optimism with fatalistic thinking (heck, even a doctor with an assault rifle responded before SWAT could).

GameboyRMH said:

Some combination of gun control and mental health improvements would be ideal, but you can make good gains with gun control alone. Australia is a testament to that.

By me we have very tight gun control (and even tight control on individual bullets), and we recently had our worst mass shooting where 1 person was killed and 20 were injured from a gangster doing a really E36 M3ty job of trying to shoot someone else in a dense crowd. And our mental health care system is nothing to brag about. When unregulated and irresponsible gun ownership is illegal, it means that it's very hard for criminals and maniacs to get their hands on guns, especially full-auto rifles. Any ol' plain-jane pistol will go for at least $2.5k on the black market here.

Which is why we're seeing the rise of vehicle based attacks.  Imagine the carnage someone could inflict driving a Peterbuilt into a crowd of 22,000 (or a plane into a building).  The tool these wackjobs use isn't really the point, if someone has evil intent they will find a way.

In reply to Sparkydog :

It's also been happening for millennia. Long before the time of firearms man has found ways to to wreak havoc and destruction. Mass genocides have occurred since the beginning of recorded time. 

I usually reserve this statment for stupid, but crazy has no limitations. 

KyAllroad said:

GameboyRMH said:

Some combination of gun control and mental health improvements would be ideal, but you can make good gains with gun control alone. Australia is a testament to that.

By me we have very tight gun control (and even tight control on individual bullets), and we recently had our worst mass shooting where 1 person was killed and 20 were injured from a gangster doing a really E36 M3ty job of trying to shoot someone else in a dense crowd. And our mental health care system is nothing to brag about. When unregulated and irresponsible gun ownership is illegal, it means that it's very hard for criminals and maniacs to get their hands on guns, especially full-auto rifles. Any ol' plain-jane pistol will go for at least $2.5k on the black market here.

Which is why we're seeing the rise of vehicle based attacks.  Imagine the carnage someone could inflict driving a Peterbuilt into a crowd of 22,000 (or a plane into a building).  The tool these wackjobs use isn't really the point, if someone has evil intent they will find a way.

Well vehicle attacks are fairly easy to prevent: just use bollards (or parked dump trucks used as bollards) around the area you want to protect...and soon enough, there will be semi-autonomous or fully-autonomous cars that won't allow the driver to mow down a crowd, without modifications at least. Vehicles are already designed to be as ineffective as possible in the role of a weapon.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Legal full auto M16's are $25k and take 6 months to purchase. Didn't really stop anything. Before this I believe the FBI statistic was that since 1934 FA weapons had been used in crimes 3 times. Chicago has the strictest gun control measures in the country, yet they've had 2200 people shot this year. 

You can blame the tool all you want, it will not fix the problem. 

Bobzilla said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Legal full auto M16's are $25k and take 6 months to purchase. Didn't really stop anything. Before this I believe the FBI statistic was that since 1934 FA weapons had been used in crimes 3 times. Chicago has the strictest gun control measures in the country, yet they've had 2200 people shot this year. 

You can blame the tool all you want, it will not fix the problem. 

Chicago has the strictest, and Indiana touches Chicago. How are the gun control laws in Indiana again? 

It is a stupid point to bring up. Its like saying that people in Indiana don't drink on Sundays because you can't buy alcohol on Sundays in Indiana. 

Note that I'm not making an argument for or against gun control, just pointing out that your argument doesn't work. 

GameboyRMH said:

.

     When unregulated and irresponsible gun ownership is illegal, it means that it's very hard for criminals and maniacs to get their hands on guns, especially full-auto rifles. .

Just pointing out that unregulated and irresponsible gun ownership is very illegal here.

In reply to mtn :

If the point is stupid, than Indiana would also have similarly high crime rates, yet it doesn't. 

Nick (Bo) Comstock said:

GameboyRMH said:

.

     When unregulated and irresponsible gun ownership is illegal, it means that it's very hard for criminals and maniacs to get their hands on guns, especially full-auto rifles. .

Just pointing out that unregulated and irresponsible gun ownership is very illegal here.

Facts hold no value in emotional arguments.