Got to love all the predictable racist comments in the mail about “passive Filipino women who are only in it for the money – she took the 100k and ran…she must have known” as well.

Because all the ones I know including my wife have Oxbridge degrees and are either financiers, lawyers, doctors or ambassadors. But no, if a white person marries one – it’s because he’s a loser and brown people are losers/inferior. I’m on close to 40k, which at 29 I don’t think is too bad – but it pales in comparison to what a lot of my Filipino associates are on.

Brits really are deluded, they haven’t cottoned onto how much the rest of the world has caught up with them – instead they still view the world as being inhabited by spear chucking FLIPS (**** little island people). The cognitive dissonance when a bunch of rich Chinese tourists with twice as much money as them, come along with big telephoto lenses taking photos of their pokey little TB infested Victorian shitboxes as if they were monkeys in a zoo – amuses me to no end.

*sigh* people **** me off – is this it guys? Is this what I’ve got to look forward to, another 50 years surrounded by **** cretins that are this way inclined because they are about half a chromosome short of being shit hurling chimpanzees?

Brits really are deluded, they haven’t cottoned onto how much the rest of the world has caught up with them

You reckon? I reckon most Brits are ****ing ourselves at how far the world has caught up. We’ve been trading on our ‘skills’ for decades and now everyone else has those skills as well so what’s the point in us? We haven’t even got land to grow food on for ourselves.

so what’s the point in us?

Exporting low skilled OFW’s to Singapore? (Etonian bankers fnar fnar).

You guys in the right thread?

Is this what I’ve got to look forward to, another 50 years surrounded by **** cretins that are this way inclined because they are about half a chromosome short of being shit hurling chimpanzees?

It’s ONLY 52% of the population though. The rest of us are lovely.

mikewsmith – Member

and there we have it, it’s not the reality it’s the fear of it. Fear sells.
If you want to balance it out, having the guns at home means your more likely to use it on yourself or a family member, there is more chance of an accident with it and more chance of you ending up dead.

Yes but having a shower in your house means your more likely to slip and die in the shower. Having knives means your more likely to die by stabbing. Having a chainsaw, a car…etc. If a man snaps and wants to kill his family he’ll do it with whatever is to hand. Similarly if you want to commit suicide you’ll find a way. Rationally there’s no reason why you can’t buy a gun, store it securely and not kill yourself/others with it.

If you need to be armed to the teeth to defend your home against the worst of humainity (based on resonable probability) you live in a failed state. One that needs the UN to come in probably and fix it.

You can’t have the argument both ways, either thousands of americans are murdered by guns each year or they aren’t. If they are then owning a gun yourself is a rational reaction.

As said way back up the thread if you really want home defense then a small hand gun and a big shotgun do that, the rest is just compensating for something.

Unless you hunt (20 million Americans do apparently), in which case you might well want rifles considerably more powerful than the Las Vegas shooter.

They are locked into a circular argument/catch 22 or their own creation. I’m not sure what the relevance of Oscar Psitorious is, he obviously murdered his girlfriend. Everyone in those gated South African communities is armed to the teeth btw.

slowoldman – Member

It’s ONLY 52% of the population though. The rest of us are lovely.

The Brexit thread is over here, and the white guilt discussion is over there.

Got to love all the predictable racist comments in the mail about “passive Filipino women who are only in it for the money – she took the 100k and ran…she must have known” as well.

Because all the ones I know including my wife have Oxbridge degrees and are either financiers, lawyers, doctors or ambassadors. But no, if a white person marries one – it’s because he’s a loser and brown people are losers/inferior. I’m on close to 40k, which at 29 I don’t think is too bad – but it pales in comparison to what a lot of my Filipino associates are on.

Brits really are deluded, they haven’t cottoned onto how much the rest of the world has caught up with them – instead they still view the world as being inhabited by spear chucking FLIPS (**** little island people). The cognitive dissonance when a bunch of rich Chinese tourists with twice as much money as them, come along with big telephoto lenses taking photos of their pokey little TB infested Victorian shitboxes as if they were monkeys in a zoo – amuses me to no end.

*sigh* people **** me off – is this it guys? Is this what I’ve got to look forward to, another 50 years surrounded by **** cretins that are this way inclined because they are about half a chromosome short of being shit hurling chimpanzees?

What did I miss, where did that come from.

You okay Hun?

Similarly if you want to commit suicide you’ll find a way

Not true actually. Various studies have shown that those with easy ways to kill themselves (vets & drs with their drugs, farmers with their shotguns, Finnish people with their rifles) are more likely to kill themselves than those without easy access. This is why there are restrictions on buying paracetamol.

Not true actually. Various studies have shown that those with easy ways to kill themselves … are more likely to kill themselves than those without easy access. This is why there are restrictions on buying paracetamol.

I found this out the other day. I thought it was nanny state gone mad but a quick google confirmed it’s fact – there really are people who kill themselves, but only if Boots have a 2 for 3 offer on Paracetamol.

This is why there are restrictions on buying paracetamol.

Which are moronic when someone can go to a few places one after the other and buy a lethal dose. Sort of like Mr Paddock and his 40-gun buying spree.

Studies have show that the vast majority of people will stop and think about what they are doing when presented with any kind of hurdle in that situation.

The suicide rate from over the counter drugs dropped massively when that law was introduced

natrix – Member

Similarly if you want to commit suicide you’ll find a way

Not true actually. Various studies have shown that those with easy ways to kill themselves (vets & drs with their drugs, farmers with their shotguns, Finnish people with their rifles) are more likely to kill themselves than those without easy access. This is why there are restrictions on buying paracetamol.

If there were any truth to that people wouldn’t hang themselves, or jump off bridges or throw themselves in front of trains. And it’s impossible to prove unless you ask postmortem, whether the deceased would have used another method had their first choice not been available.

At any rate socio economic issues and mental health are the causes of suicide, not bridges, trees, drugs or guns.

Which are moronic when someone can go to a few places one after the other and buy a lethal dose.

Not really. The restriction aren’t there to stop some who really really want’s to kill themselves, but they will have in impact on someone who might just be going through a really tough time and when presented with this sort of barrier won’t take it any further. It’s not a perfect solution to the problem but then the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Well this thread derailed.

Similarly if you want to commit suicide you’ll find a way.

Suicides are broken into two main categories. Impulsive and non-impulsive(premeditated).
The latter that statement is true for but for the former any delay in carrying out the action may prevent it happening at all. Hence why, as natrix says, there are restrictions on how much paracetamol you can buy at one time. Although you could go round all the shops in town and pick up enough the time required may be enough for the impulse to pass. Same as suicide nets.
Which is why firearms can increase the suicide rate.

Well this thread derailed.

NEED MORE GUNS

Does that help get it back on track?

The gunman responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history “meticulously” planned the event and spent decades acquiring weapons while living a secret life, Las Vegas police say.

The gunman managed to hit over 500 people in under five minutes nearly 400m away with rifles modified to fire automatically (so potentially unreliable) and without military training. That’s more than 100 people per minute, which is impressive.

Edit: apologies if this has already been done. By page 10 I imagine it has. But hey, if it gets the thread back on track I’ll run that particular gauntlet.

dissonance – Member

Suicides are broken into two main categories. Impulsive and non-impulsive(premeditated).
The latter that statement is true for but for the former any delay in carrying out the action may prevent it happening at all. Hence why, as natrix says, there are restrictions on how much paracetamol you can buy at one time. Although you could go round all the shops in town and pick up enough the time required may be enough for the impulse to pass. Same as suicide nets.
Which is why firearms can increase the suicide rate.

Go down the list of suicide per capita and you’ll see that South Korea is right up at the top and yet they have restrictive gun laws. Same with Poland. Very high suicide rate, very low gun ownership. Same with Japan. Same with Belgium. Tough gun laws and low gun ownership doesn’t equal low suicide. Similarly the U.S has the highest gun ownership per capita in the developed world so it stands to reason the suicide rate should be off the chart?

Truth is if you own a belt and a door you posses the means for a quick death. Impulsively or otherwise. The reason we’re discussing it is my reply to mike who said that by putting a gun in your house you are increasing your risk of gun death. My reply is that there is no reason a rational person can’t buy something dangerous and store it accordingly – you can’t legislate based on the potential mental breakdown of everyone.

Pimpmaster Jazz – Member

The gunman managed to hit over 500 people in under five minutes

I thought a lot of people had crush / trample injuries as opposed to all having been shot? Also I thought it was 11 minutes?

That’s more than 100 people per minute, which is impressive.

I thought it was 500 were injured as opposed to hit.
With injuries covering anything from being hit, being hit by shrapnel or being injured by other members of the crowd trying to escape.
Accuracy doesnt seem to have come into it. Just several guns with dodgy modifications to allow rapid fire into a crowd.

I thought a lot of people had crush / trample injuries as opposed to all having been shot? Also I thought it was 11 minutes?

Crushing/trampling would make a lot of sense.

About 4 1/2 mins was what I read the police’s estimate of firing time was. Let me check.

Accuracy doesnt seem to have come into it. Just several guns with dodgy modifications to allow rapid fire into a crowd.

It does. He’s firing from a high point at a target nearly 400m away. His weapon – at a guess – has a range of about 800m. It’s a big target, but the round will drop and the wind could blow it off target, and if he sneezes at that range he’s going to miss it. A few mm movement by the shooter will result in metres difference in the target area.

This is before going into the weapon: how it rises when firing on fully automatic, the barrel heating up, reloading – there’s a huge amount of variables.

Which are moronic when someone can go to a few places one after the other and buy a lethal dose.

Which means more effort required, and more time to think about what you’re actually doing, more opportunity for getting help/someone stepping in, just like all the other attempted/failed/bailed suicides.

snap decision with a gun = dead
snap decision with large quantity of meds = dead (probably)

snap decision but actually need to go to Tescos, then to Boots, then to Sainsburys, Then to… = maybe not so dead

You won’t stop people who are really intent on killing themselves, but you might stop all the ones who aren’t so sure, make bad decisions, having a really low moment that might pass, or are just in need of help, you know the people who sit on ledges/bridges and get talked down instead of jumping 5 seconds after arriving, or the people that take overdoses and then call for help. You can’t do that with a gun…

I get that propensity for suicide is related to social issues etc. And that you can kill yourself in many other ways, but there’s no reason to make it easier now is there?

Similarly the U.S has the highest gun ownership per capita in the developed world so it stands to reason the suicide rate should be off the chart?

No it really doesnt. Since no one is proposing such a simplistic model. Of course cultural factors will impact as well.
If we take just the USA though. There is an correlation between increased suicide rates and gun ownership. Could there be other factors involved. Probably but the evidence indicates a link.

My reply is that there is no reason a rational person can’t buy something dangerous and store it accordingly

The counter point is we know people lose their rationality from time to time and the evidence points towards an increased risk at those times.

Whether they were hit or injured in another way, there were still as many as a thousand rounds fired in that time (according to articles/theories) I have read. That is an awful lot of ammo to get through by one person in that time considering none of the weapons were belt fed. Also, one of the videos in one of the links previously shared has the distinct sound of 2 different weapons being fired at the same time, having listened to it several times I do not believe it to be the sound of one gun bouncing off the buildings to create the effect of it being 2 guns, I believe it is definitely a second weapon firing.
Questions I would like answering are:
How did he manage to break those 2 reinforced glass windows without anyone hearing and reporting it?
Where did the broken glass fall to, did no-one see/hear it as it hit the balconies on the way down or the when it hit the ground?
How many people called 911 from the hotel? That amount of gunfire couldn’t go unnoticed by people in rooms around the one that was used.
If, as the internet is spouting, there is some sort of conspiracy involved, who, what and how would benefit?

there’s a huge amount of variables..

Those matter if you are using aimed shots at a specific target.
Whereas this arsehole seems to have just been shooting into a large crowd. So careful aiming wasnt really a factor.

Questions I would like answering are:

Do you really need someone else to give you answers? Can you not think a bit rationally and come up with reasonable answers yourself?

okay then how about this

How did he manage to break those 2 reinforced glass windows without anyone hearing and reporting it?

Why do you think no-one heard what was going on? Who said there was anyone around to hear anyway?

Where did the broken glass fall to, did no-one see/hear it as it hit the balconies on the way down or the when it hit the ground?

I’m going to go with it fell to the ground and I’m going to guess that people did both hear an see it.

How many people called 911 from the hotel?

In what way is that relevant? The entire event only took a few minutes, he wasn’t holed up for hours with the police bumbling around like the keystone cops.

If, as the internet is spouting, there is some sort of conspiracy involved, who, what and how would benefit?

The internet is full of idiots who spout idiotic things. Anyone running a conspiracy website with advertising and stuff for sale would benefit from spouting conspiracy nonsense.

I believe it is definitely a second weapon firing.

I suspect it would be rather hard to tell. Although, of course, it could easily be answered by a tripod and firing two at the same time (if you aint fussed about accuracy it would work).

How did he manage to break those 2 reinforced glass windows without anyone hearing and reporting it?

I suspect a glasscutter would do the job nicely. Or, indeed, just putting several rounds through them.

Where did the broken glass fall to, did no-one see/hear it as it hit the balconies on the way down or the when it hit the ground?

a)we dont know they werent notice but b)people were probably distracted by the shouts and screams coming from across the way in rather short order.
Think about the time involved in it. By the time you saw some glass fall and either called the cops or popped into reception the first reports of shooting would be following swiftly.

How many people called 911 from the hotel? That amount of gunfire couldn’t go unnoticed by people in rooms around the one that was used.

Who knows. Although depending on sound proofing might not be immediately noticable. Especially since the fire alarms apparently went off.

If, as the internet is spouting, there is some sort of conspiracy involved, who, what and how would benefit?

The question is who benefits from spreading the rumours of a conspiracy?
I suspect they go roughly into two categories.
The proper fruitcakes who blame the new world order or whatever for everything.
Those who dont really want to accept that one person since they had easy access to lots of weapons could do so much damage. Its better to blame a conspiracy.

Just listening to lbc while out and they quoted 78% of Americans don’t own a gun but 3% of the population own half of all the guns.

About 4 1/2 mins was what I read the police’s estimate of firing time was. Let me check.

Apologies: can’t back this up from any reputable source. Saying that, I also can’t find any other more conclusive suggestion of a duration, other than when it started and when the police stormed the room.

Those matter if you are using aimed shots at a specific target.
Whereas this arsehole seems to have just been shooting into a large crowd. So careful aiming wasnt really a factor.

Yes, and no. It’s still a target 400m away with obstacles in the way at elevation, firing rapidly. He would have to prepare for it, and factor those elements in. My point is it’s not easy to be as effective (for lack of a better word) as he was which actually makes the whole thing more worrying.

Not a particularly great article, but worth a read: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-the-trigonometry-of-terror-why-the-las-1507085772-htmlstory.html

Tough gun laws and low gun ownership doesn’t equal low suicide

If everything else is kept the same, studies show that it does. For example,the introduction of gun controls in Australia led to a drop in suicides, see http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

But they were falling since the late 60s and spiked a year after the ban.

Is jimjam’s name another to add to the list?

But they were falling since the late 60s and spiked a year after the ban.

I love the way people Google information, and then just present it as some offhand knowledge they had stored in their brains.

Not having a dig at jimjam, just something I notice a lot on STW.

Interesting link about the phenomena here:

YANSS 109 – How search engines inflate your intellectual confidence

you okay hun

Gunmans wife was filipino.

This is an important topic over at the mail.

votchy
Questions I would like answering are:

votchy
How did he manage to break those 2 reinforced glass windows without anyone hearing and reporting it?

By firing a gun through them. And i’m sure someone heard or saw the glass fall (although it was at night, and the glass was falling from a significant height) But so what? What would you do if you saw a window in a hotel break? Chances are you wouldn’t call in a swat team, because you have no idea what is happening!

votchy
How many people called 911 from the hotel? That amount of gunfire couldn’t go unnoticed by people in rooms around the one that was used.

Have to been to Vegas? (or any big city?) Not only are they very noisy, but in a large hotel, surrounded by walls, echo’s and other distractions it’s extremely hard to tell where a shot has come from. I would say, impossible in fact.

The simple fact is that he bought a load of guns and ammo, transported them to a hotel room (easily done due to no baggage checks) then fired a lot of rounds from high velocity weapons, indiscriminately into a large crowd of people several hundred meters away. With weapons of the power he was using, no doubt one bullet injured several people, passing through it’s first impact point and spinning out into further victims.

He didn’t need to aim

He didn’t need to be some sort of sniper expert

He didn’t need help (imo)

He just pointed the gun(s) and pulled the trigger(s)

Holy Shit.

Sense seems to breaking out in the US. The NRA has called for legislation to control ‘bump fire’ devices (google it, the make semi-autos full-autos whilst still classified as semi-autos on a technicality).

It might not seem much, but for the NRA not only to not fight ANY sort of gun restrictions, but to actually call for it is remarkable and should be considered an olive branch of sorts.

I’d call it a token gesture.

The NRA also said

“banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks”

So it’s a token gesture so they don’t lose their toys.

Also, how exactly would stopping the madman from buying these guns not prevent the crime?

And law abiding Americans can go on to suffer a break down of sorts and then go on to go postal.