Forum menu
The point that I've never heard explained is that Canada has more guns per capita than the US but virtually no shootings.
Almost 4 times as many guns per capita in the US than in Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Canada in between Austria and France.
Not worth discussing IMO,they know why it happens,let them get on with it.
Canada in between Austria and France.
bro, check an atlas.
*whispering
oh . right. yeah i see.
The point that I've never heard explained is that Canada has more guns per capita than the US but virtually no shootings.
Almost 4 times as many guns per capita in the US than in Canada.
That’s probably why nobody has ever explained that point to namastebuzz then 😆
councilof10 - MemberBut do we honestly believe that one man could carry over 20 firearms - large calibre long-barrelled military-grade firearms - plus thousands of rounds of ammunition through the lobby of a modern luxury hotel and up elavators without arousing suspicion?
Yes, very easily. Just stick em in suitcases and walk on in. A nice man'll help you up the stairs. Carry a couple on your back if you like, it's an open carry state, you're just asserting your constitutional right
Now [i]I'm[/i] not a conspiracy theorist but do we honestly believe that one man could have trouble honestly believing that someone could put some guns in suitcases and carry them into a hotel, without it being a feeble deflection away from a truth he doesn't like about mass shootings?
There are indoor and outdoor shooting ranges aplenty in Las Vegas, no one would stand out carrying rifle bags, and in pretty much every hotel I was in, you didn't have to go past security or even check in to get to a room. The hotels are designed to disorientate and distract.
It would not be hard to get that amount of stuff in over a period of a few days.
Stash your hoard of weaponry in the boot of your rental parked in the basement garage. After midnight, take one of the concierge trolleys down to the basement, pile on yer armoury and take the elevator to the 32nd floor - what's the problem?
Anybody any thoughts on what this guys motive may be? Pretty baffling tbh, millionaire(apparently), 65 year old, no military history, no criminal history, no gun nut history, fairly quiet guy, attacked a country gig where most are likely ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment? (That last point stands out as very odd.)
Only thing I can think considering that, is maybe he was making a point about the gun laws? Aye I know that sounds utterly mental, but I'm strugglin to the think of any logical motive beyond him simply being mentally ill, though I do accept that that's more likely, maybe his mental health did take a hit and he was maybe after some kinda notoriety the likes of his father gained(that is the one thing that stands out about the guy).
I'm really just attempting to stimulate debate on the thoughts on the motives tbh.
So many open carry vids on you tube.
seosamh77 - MemberAnybody any thoughts on what this guys motive may be? Pretty baffling tbh,
One rumour that keeps popping up on American forums I vist is that he had lost all his money and/or was involved in some kind of legal acrimony with the casino. It seems plausible at least. It would be the ultimate way to damage the Manadalay bay. I wouldn't be surprised if ssri's factored in there in some way too.
CaptainFlashheart - MemberI'm in the US again this week.
No one is talking about this. Yes, it's on the morning news, but it's not evident in conversations anywhere. Almost as if it didn't happen.
I can't quite put my finger on it but it's very odd to not hear anyone talking about it.
Possibly because it's such a divisive not to mention emotive issue. It seems that most opinion is either very pro or completely anti gun and civil discussion isn't likely to sway either side. Probably just deepen their opinions, pretty much like all politics these days.
There seems to be little to no let up in debate online, at least that I've noticed.
[url= http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/07/the-seven-stages-of-gun-violence.html ]The Seven Stages of Gun Violence[/url]
There was a country and western singer on Ch 4 News earlier: he was performing at the gig. He said he met an off-duty cop, during the attack, who asked him if he carried a gun: He said he has a concealed weapon license and he handed over his gun to the cop who stood guard at the door until the attack was over.
This was his defence of gun ownership in the USA 🙄
Reading the paper just now and am shocked, saddened and amazed that shares in the US's two biggest gun companies rose sharply as investors bet that [i][b]fear[/b][/i] will lead to higher gun sales.....
Anybody any thoughts on what this guys motive may be? Pretty baffling tbh,
Alt-left guy thinks he'll take out a shedload of potential right wingers.
For the conspiracy theorists; the lunatics are clearly out of the asylum.
[quote=alpin ]amazed that shares in the US's two biggest gun companies rose sharply
Amazed? Really? The standard septic response to any gun killing is "we need more guns" - the gun lobby has excellent marketing.
Drunk talk down the pub. Tis North Korea
There is no searchable record of gun owners in the US; no centralised computer system.
Federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986.
https://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns/amp
It's almost as if they are making it as hard as possible to form new regulations...
anyway
President Trump Retweeted
Donald J. Trump?Verified account @realDonaldTrump 11h11 hours ago
More
[b]I am so proud of our great Country. God bless America![/b]
33,915 replies 33,441 retweets 162,989 likes
Reply 34K Retweet 33K Like 163K Direct message
President Trump Retweeted
Donald J. Trump?Verified account @realDonaldTrump Oct 2
More
[b]My warmest condolences and sympathies to the victims and families of the terrible Las Vegas shooting. God bless you![/b]
There must be some conext we are missing here
[img] 
[/img]
frankconway - MemberFor the conspiracy theorists; the lunatics are clearly out of the asylum.
I love this shit. 2 things that prove he wasn't a lone gunman:
1) He had loads of guns, why would he do that if it was just him?
2) Extended firing is hard on your gun and causes overheating, jams, etc.
3) Wait maybe that's why he had lots of guns.
4) But he wasn't a gun guy and he had no criminal background
5) Except we know where he bought many of the guns and the reason we know he had no criminal background is he passed the background checks
6) But her emails
[img] 
[/img]
Good game sir? Yes great game, off again tomorrow.
What this really highlights is that most of STW are not devious enough to get away with anything.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-02-lone-gunman-theory-of-las-vegas-shooter-is-complete-nonsense-stephen-paddock.html
My favorite in that linked article apart from what Northwinds pointed out:
"ISIS has a long track record of only claiming responsibility for events they inspired or planned"
Northwind & stewartc - I have no doubt this sort of deranged perception already has much traction in the US.
Truly lunacy.
Reading the paper just now and am shocked, saddened and amazed that shares in the US's two biggest gun companies rose sharply as investors bet that fear will lead to higher gun sales.....
not exactly. It's thought that the increased sales are driven by people scared of sweeping changes to legislation in the wake of these tragedies - there are spikes in sales whenever there are calls for stricter controls...... it's the equivalent of STW's "I have no useful contribution to make".
Edit: Ha! Even STW more effectively legislates by autocorrecting "in b*fore the l*ck" to "I have no useful contribution to make", awesome! Unfortunately it's about as difficult to work around as US gun control.
Pretty comprehensive explanation:
[url= https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html ]NY times article[/url]
In true US style, the definition of "what is a gun" has been tested continuously by special interest groups and industry lawyers. The "gun" part of an AR15 is now this piece (the lower receiver):
[img] 
[/img]
This is the registered part - everything else is just a component.
People are essentially buying and stockpiling these as a cost effective way (they are about $50) of ensuring that they continue to have access to semi-auto assault riles after any future ban, or simply as a cynical investment (pre '89 ban full-auto guns are now worth a fortune).
To further take the p*ss..... people are selling "unfinished" lower receivers - these are sold as 80% complete, and so don't even need to be registered. Anyone can buy one of these, because it's not technically a firearm - You don't even need a licence to sell them. An hour or so with a drill press, and ta-da.... a completely unregistered semi-automatic assault rifle in the hands of literally anyone.
The whole situation is completely out of control.
Meh, the world is overpopulated. Until the spams figure it out, they're going to have to continue to endure the lottery that is their alternate population control.
depressing stuff there Northwind. Would those shootings get reported "nationally" (assuming there was no las vegas massacre) ? Or like fatal RTAs here so common place considered not "newsworthy" enough for the big press outlets.
Klunk - road deaths in 2015 UK 1732, USA 35092.
Deaths in RTAs, in vast majority of cases, are not caused deliberately; death by shooting is, almost always, a deliberate act.
Both are covered at local level in both countries but, unless the numbers in an individual incident are deemed 'significant', they do not receive national coverage.
Road deaths in both countries are declining but death by shooting in the US is rising inexorably.
Depressing and deeply concerning.
One of my sons now lives in the US in upstate NY where, thank god, gun laws are amongst the strictest in the country but I can't avoid being concerned.
That Natural new article is nuts, but this
Alt-left guy thinks he'll take out a shedload of potential right wingers.
demonstrates how quickly the rumour mill takes off.
Oh lord. Trumps latest tweet regarding the shootings includes the word 'miracle'
In describing how the police got to him before he killed again.
Having found where he was because the smoke alarm was triggered in the shooters room. By the machine gun fire. Just after he killed himself.
I would say there no words. But there are. 'Better gun control'
What this really highlights is that most of STW are not devious enough to get away with anything.
Wheeled a hard shell bike box up to a hotel room a few weeks back. I could have hidden a sh*t load of guns and ammo in that.
In response to Mr Tomhoward, I too also like guns - I like them because shooting at targets (non-living!) is fun, they're cool things to take apart and play with and Mad Max uses them. Ergo, Awesome.
However, I'd quite happily never touch, use or even see one again if it meant that there would be fewer of these type of events happening. Yes, I'd never get to fire a gun, but I'd happily forgo that if it meant it was harder to get hold of a device which by design is meant to hurt or kill something/someone.
I don't get the car argument. Car's aren't designed to kill someone - yes you CAN kill someone (or at least do them a lot of harm) if you deliberately try to - but by design their purpose is to transport people and goods between places. I could probably club someone to death with the laptop I'm typing this on (it's quite small so it'd take effort) but that's not its main purpose. Guns have only one purpose - to shoot things. That's what they're designed to do. You don't 'need' them.
The self defence line is bollocks. If someone is going to attack you, they already have the element of surprise which is probably worth just as much as having a gun in their hand. I'm asleep in bed and someone breaks in. If they're after the TV, then they have no need to shoot me, a knife would create equal terror and I hand over the goods. If they are actually there to kill me (JJ - 'how many enemies do you have!') then they'll do that whether they have a gun or not. More so, if it's just a break in to nick stuff, they can have it - I'm not going into a prolonged gun battle with an intruder putting my family at risk if all they're after is the Playstation.
The ability to take it to the government is also nonsense. As mentioned, the government has drones. And bombs. And many other devices capable of killing many people without having to put a lot of effort in. Your 'modified' AR15+10 mega gun with a billion extra bullets in a magazine isn't going to cut it against a bloke with an iPad sat 10 miles away controlling a drone.
We know this, because we can look at it objectively and more importantly guns aren't part of our culture. Guns ARE part of American culture. As a nation we're not committed to our history and culture in the same way the Americans are. They love it, they get massively patriotic about most things to do with flags, history and such. I'm proud that my grand parents fought in the war and I always buy a poppy as a sign of respect but I don't hang a flag off my front porch and bang on about who won what in whatever battle happened. There's a fat bloke from Texas works in our NYC office. He is constantly telling me about our history, last time it was the battle of Hastings. I only know it was 1066 because of the Weetabix advert and I live about 30 miles from Hastings. He can't get his head around the fact that it just doesn't mean that much to me.
Countries are a proper bastard to control. A mixture of cultures with different beliefs and values makes it almost impossible for people to all be friends and happily get along. Larger countries are an even bigger bastard because you've got more of the same - the reason Russia was always difficult to rule from the Tsar's/Lenin perspective was because it's so massive and boarders on so many different countries, you're trying to lump together a lot of people who believe different things. Throw guns into the mix and suddenly you've got a lot of armed people who believe different things (and some who massively dislike others) trying to live in the same place.
Removing guns is removing something that many think is their right to have (for whatever nonsense reason). It's like removing our right to free speech, or right to work. We struggle to understand gun ownership because it's never been part of who we are. Coupled with the greed of the NRA and weapons manufacturers and you've got a massively complicated task on your hands. Thank goodness they've got someone in charge who is impartial and level headed...
Nothing will be done, and the numbers killed will keep going up. But some old rich people will keep getting richer.
How much smoke would there be from 1000+ rounds of large calibre ammunition? Would that not make seeing or breathing difficult in an enclosed hotel room, even with the window shot out?
OK, so he managed to get the guns up there - of course, he had days to do it. And he had days to set up his "sniper's nest"...
What on earth must the maid have thought when she went in to make his bed??
councilof10 - MemberHow much smoke would there be from 1000+ rounds of large calibre ammunition? Would that not make seeing or breathing difficult in an enclosed hotel room, even with the window shot out?
That's what set the smoke alarm off which led police to him. I don't imagine there would have been a huge amount, but then again I haven't fired thousands of rounds indoors.
flange - Member
The self defence line is bollocks. If someone is going to attack you, they already have the element of surprise which is probably worth just as much as having a gun in their hand. I'm asleep in bed and someone breaks in. If they're after the TV, then they have no need to shoot me, a knife would create equal terror and I hand over the goods. If they are actually there to kill me (JJ - 'how many enemies do you have!') then they'll do that whether they have a gun or not. More so, if it's just a break in to nick stuff, they can have it - I'm not going into a prolonged gun battle with an intruder putting my family at risk if all they're after is the Playstation.
If we're discussing it we might as well assume their reality (or at least theoretical reality). IE you are 50 miles from the nearest town, if someone breaks into your house they are probably armed - they know you have a gun, so they'll have a gun. You don't need to wait to see if they just want your playstation. You can legally kill them so you can do so before they take your playstation and/or rape and murder your wife and children. The police will not get there in time to save you.
The ability to take it to the government is also nonsense. As mentioned, the government has drones. And bombs. And many other devices capable of killing many people without having to put a lot of effort in. Your 'modified' AR15+10 mega gun with a billion extra bullets in a magazine isn't going to cut it against a bloke with an iPad sat 10 miles away controlling a drone.
That's also not the point (their point as I understand it). If old Billy Bob has a shit load of guns and [b]THE GOVERNMENT[/b] wants to infringe on his rights like say, taking his guns! well good luck taking his guns....he's got a **** load of guns! So you can't push old billy Bob around unless you want to call in the military, now guess what...all of Billy Bob's buddies are patroling his property with their guns and unless you want to drone strike your own citizens you have a stalemate.
The other scenario is that the government as a whole becomes hostile or somehow fascistic. An armed populace is not going to be easy to suppress or control. Consider the trouble a few disgruntled Irish people caused the British army in an area 1/10th the size of Texas.
What on earth must the maid have thought when she went in to make his bed??
Likely that he set things up, checked they worked then put stuff away. All he then needed to do was replicate the setup. Cleaners aren't/shouldn't be looking in customer bags and suitcases.
That's what set the smoke alarm off which led police to him. I don't imagine there would have been a huge amount, but then again I haven't fired thousands of rounds indoors.
shit does that mean if he hadnt set the smoke alarm off hed have been shooting for even longer?
What on earth must the maid have thought when she went in to make his bed??
“No room service thanks”
If we're discussing it we might as well assume their reality (or at least theoretical reality). IE you are 50 miles from the nearest town, if someone breaks into your house they are probably armed - [b]they know you have a gun, so they'll have a gun.[/b] You don't need to wait to see if they just want your playstation. You can legally kill them so you can do so before they take your playstation and/or rape and murder your wife and children. The police will not get there in time to save you.
If you removed the right to have a gun, would that prevent such a situation occurring. Someone breaks into a house in blighty, it's fair for the crim to assume the owners don't have a gun. So the crim doesn't need one. Additionally, back in the US if they break in and have 'the element of surprise' then surely they have first go at shooting which means you're dead non?
If old Billy Bob has a shit load of guns and THE GOVERNMENT wants to infringe on his rights like say, taking his guns! well good luck taking his guns....he's got a **** load of guns! So you can't push old billy Bob around unless you want to call in the military, now guess what...all of Billy Bob's buddies are patroling his property with their guns and unless you want to drone strike your own citizens you have a stalemate.
I'd say it very much is as shown by [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege ]Waco[/url]. They clearly don't have an issue shooting their own. Only rather than the ATF losing a few men, this time it'll be done remotely via drone by a bloke having a break from candy crush...
flange - MemberIf you removed the right to have a gun, would that prevent such a situation occurring. Someone breaks into a house in blighty, it's fair for the crim to assume the owners don't have a gun. So the crim doesn't need one.
Devils advocate argument is that criminals won't give up their guns.
Additionally, back in the US if they break in and have 'the element of surprise' then surely they have first go at shooting which means you're dead non?
Too many variables to discuss really. Bottom line is I think a lot of Americans see it as their responsibility to secure their family and their children - Europeans see it as the police or state's job /genralisation.
I'd say it very much is as shown by Waco. They clearly don't have an issue shooting their own. Only rather than the ATF losing a few men, this time it'll be done remotely via drone by a bloke having a break from candy crush...
There were two recent standoffs involving armed militias and state agents. I think one was about hunting, another was polygamy maybe? Gotta go here. Will post later .
[quote=jimjam ]If we're discussing it we might as well assume their reality (or at least theoretical reality). IE you are 50 miles from the nearest town, if someone breaks into your house they are probably armed - they know you have a gun, so they'll have a gun. You don't need to wait to see if they just want your playstation. You can legally kill them so you can do so before they take your playstation and/or rape and murder your wife and children. The police will not get there in time to save you.
So let's think another move ahead. The person breaking into your house knows you have a gun, they also know that you know they have a gun (and they know that you know that they know you have a gun...). So do you wait around to see if they'll legally kill you (which you know that they'll do...)?
Which part of that thought process are people missing that they think having lots of guns makes them safer? The trouble is it's then a game theory thing - unilaterally giving up your gun doesn't make you safer, you need everybody to give up their guns...
Devils advocate argument is that criminals won't give up their guns.
That doesn't actually matter - given the logical process above, if householders don't have guns then everybody is safer even if the criminals still do.
I am against guns but could there not be a middle ground, yes you can have a gun BUT it can only be a handgun, neither semi nor fully automatic, max calibre 9mm, max 2 magazines and max 10 rounds per magazine. Yes people will still get shot and killed but nothing comparable to Vegas, each shot will require a deliberate trigger pull etc, mass shootings more difficult/impossible but American constitution maintained. Just a (hopefully) sensible thought that is a middle ground.
aracer - MemberSo let's think another move ahead. The person breaking into your house knows you have a gun, they also know that you know they have a gun (and they know that you know that they know you have a gun...). So do you wait around to see if they'll legally kill you (which you know that they'll do...)?
Yes but they have to get past your fence and your lights and your locks and your alarm and your dog and blah blah blah...by which time you've gotten all of your family into the panic room, strapped on your body armour and you're locked and loaded. Again I think you have to view if through the lens of people who believe it's their responsibility to defend themselves.
If you've got some Richard Ramirez type of chracter breaking into your house he's not going to quietly take your Playstation and be gone. it's up to you to stop him.....
A lot of these arguments make zero sense, especially for people in built up urban areas. But that doesn't mean there aren't people in rural areas who really believe these things.
Been posted ?
According to the shooter's (kind of) brother in law he was
[i]He said Paddock was a highly intelligent, strategic though “guarded” individual who won a fortune applying algorithms to gambling, and studied arguments for his right to own weapons under the US constitution.[/i]
[i]“Yes, I was familiar with him,” the man, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Guardian at his Brisbane home on Wednesday. “He was extremely intelligent, methodical, conservative – guarded – and strategic. A planning, thinking type of guy.”But nothing at the time, including their “robust” discussions about US gun laws, rang alarm bells to suggest that he was capable of “such an inhumane, terrible, vicious act”.[/i]