# Tragedy in Vegas, do you think anything will be done with the gun laws or the same old rhetoric?



## debbie in seattle (Oct 4, 2017)

Personally, I think as in the past tragedies we’ve seen, nothing will be done.   I think the laws/rules need to be tweaked, sure isn’t working as it is.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 4, 2017)

From the sound of it, police assumed rightly that the shooter was using a fully-automatic weapon. Fully-automatic weapons are already illegal. *However*, I heard on the news last night that the shooter modified a semi-automatic weapon so that it would fire like a fully-automatic. The modifying piece is called a "bump stock", and the reporter said they can be obtained legally. That definitely needs to change. But a person could still obtain one from overseas, so we'd have to scan or search every piece of luggage, every purse, and rucksack at our airports. But a person can make one fairly easily, so... :upset:


----------



## GypsyRoadLady (Oct 4, 2017)

IMO no, who knows, but what kind of laws could have prevented this terrible sad event.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 4, 2017)

GypsyRoadLady said:


> IMO no, who knows, but what kind of laws could have prevented this terrible sad event.



Agree.


----------



## Don M. (Oct 4, 2017)

Gun control laws...such as Australia have implemented...are wishful thinking here.  No laws will prevent criminals and lunatics from acquiring weapons...it would just make it a little bit harder to do so, but they will still find ways to steal, or import weapons. After this recent Las Vegas shooting, I, and most others, would probably support a ban on these "modifications" that make it easy to convert a rifle to full auto....there is NO logical reason for a person to need an automatic rifle, IMO.  

Every time one of these mass shootings occur, the rhetoric for gun control rises, but little or nothing ever gets done in that regard.  Any attempt to prevent law abiding people from buying a gun, or any attempt to confiscate existing weapons would probably meet with massive resistance....almost to the point of rebellion.  With some estimates placing the number of privately owned weapons as high as 300 million, trying to reduce that number by any appreciable amount would be futile.  

This LV shooter doesn't seem to fit into any of the "standard" profiles of mass shooters....no history of mental illness, no previous criminal record, no apparent ties to any extremist groups, etc., etc.  Solving this mystery may show us a whole new category of those we need to be wary of.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Oct 4, 2017)

I think we will see some additional training, safety precautions, inspections, screenings, etc... implemented in large hotels and other venues to create the illusion of safety and that will be it.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 4, 2017)

I was listening to a talk radio program - not sure which; I was just pushing the "seek" button and landed on it. A guy phoned in and made an interesting point about the portability of weapons, and how toxic gases or similar weaponized chemicals would be an alternative to large guns for mass murderers. Focusing on guns isn't going to solve the problem, imo. 

"...any attempt to confiscate existing weapons would probably meet with massive resistance..."

I would resist. I agree that there should be limits on semi-automatic weapons, but I believe there are some limitations in the ownership laws already.


----------



## chic (Oct 4, 2017)

I fear things will remain the same. People intent on harming others don't need guns to do it though. For example, in Boston the Tsarnaev brothers killed and maimed using pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line. MA residents were told to shelter in place for days while police conducted a search of the greater Boston area. We were not allowed even to walk our dogs. It was terrible and I lived through it and knew the fear first hand. But people of evil or sick intent will do harm to others with or without guns. It's the people who kill. We need to address this issue before anything else. Maybe then something will change for the better.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Oct 4, 2017)

GypsyRoadLady said:


> IMO no, who knows, but what kind of laws could have prevented this terrible sad event.



I'm pretty doubtful that any law would have prevented what happened in Las Vegas where there was a perfect storm convergence between someone with a resentment or maybe a mental health issue and a large penned-in outdoor crowd of victims.

It's obvious we're not ever going to see gun control legislation because the gun lobby is far too powerful, or it would have happened after Sandy Hook. There's no way to legislate against mental illness or to stop an individual with a grudge. What we're seeing is guys who are upset about something in their lives, sometimes something as trivial as hot girls not wanting them. Apparently they believe going out and shooting a bunch of people is the solution. It's suicide by cop with the added component of killing a bunch of other people on their way out.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 4, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> I'm pretty doubtful that any law would have prevented what happened in Las Vegas where there was a perfect storm convergence between someone with a resentment or maybe a mental health issue and a large penned-in outdoor crowd of victims.
> 
> It's obvious we're not ever going to see gun control legislation because the gun lobby is far too powerful....



Plus, it's a constitutional right (in the US) to bear arms. Congress would have to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and I just don't see that happening. (Personally, I think it would be tragic.)

Wouldn't it be a slap in the FDA's face if we were to find out one day that some food additive or widely used crop insecticide was causing people to become homicidal-suicidal?


----------



## Smiling Jane (Oct 4, 2017)

Cap'nSacto said:


> Wouldn't it be a slap in the FDA's face if we were to find out one day that some food additive or widely used crop insecticide was causing people to become homicidal-suicidal?



Like football players and CTE?


----------



## applecruncher (Oct 4, 2017)

> No laws will prevent criminals and lunatics from acquiring weapons...it would just make it a little bit harder to do so, but they will still find ways to steal, or import weapons.



I agree with what Don M. said here ^^.


----------



## Marie5656 (Oct 4, 2017)

*The whole gun control thing was focused on big time after Newtown. Nothing happened then, and nothing will happen now.  There need to be regulations somewhere, but it is not just guns.  Like someone said, Boston had pipe bombs, Oklahoma city was a truck packed with a fertilizer bomb.  The 9/11 terrorists used knives, and the planes themselves.  
There needs to be bipartisan support in Washington before anything gets done.  And that will never happen.
*


----------



## applecruncher (Oct 4, 2017)

Marie5656 said:


> *The whole gun control thing was focused on big time after Newtown. Nothing happened then, and nothing will happen now.  There need to be regulations somewhere, but it is not just guns.  Like someone said, Boston had pipe bombs, Oklahoma city was a truck packed with a fertilizer bomb.  The 9/11 terrorists used knives, and the planes themselves.
> There needs to be bipartisan support in Washington before anything gets done.  And that will never happen.
> *



But people who commit crimes - the ones you reference and others - _don't follow "regulations_", and bipartisan support in Washington is a non-issue. Criminals and sociopaths couldn't care less about a bunch of people sitting at conference tables flipping thru papers and talking about how terrible a situation is and how people should conduct themselves.


----------



## Falcon (Oct 4, 2017)

Let's face it.   There's  NOTHING  you can do about it.  When these guys make up their minds to cause mayhem  they're  going to find ways
to kill people,  a LOT  of people. 

 SO.........we're going to do everything  to keep  from being  targets  ourselves.

As I've repeated again and again...........*STAY  OUT  OF  CROWDS !!!!*


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 4, 2017)

What will happen now is that innocent people will be inconvenienced as they are when they book flights.

You might see scanners in hotels.  You won't be able to bring anything in with you to a concert.

You won't see too many outside venues with crowds.  

Things of that nature.


----------



## CeeCee (Oct 4, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> What will happen now is that innocent people will be inconvenienced as they are when they book flights.
> 
> You might see scanners in hotels.  You won't be able to bring anything in with you to a concert.
> 
> ...



I think they already check bags and backpacks at concerts and certain venues...don't they?


----------



## Falcon (Oct 4, 2017)

I'd  much rather be inconvenienced  than  dead.


----------



## Manatee (Oct 4, 2017)

Most of the demands by the anti-gun types are more of the same old "scratching where it doesn't itch".


----------



## Falcon (Oct 4, 2017)

CeeCee said:


> I think they already check bags and backpacks at concerts and certain venues...don't they?



It was at a concert  in LV   when  TSHTF !    Maybe  having  "concerts"  in theatres  with comfortable  cushioned  seats  may discourage  the killing

by these misfits.

I'd rather sit there than in a mosh pit.


----------



## CeeCee (Oct 4, 2017)

Falcon said:


> It was at a concert  in LV   when  TSHTF !    Maybe  having  "concerts"  in theatres  with comfortable  cushioned  seats  may discourage  the killing
> 
> by these misfits.
> 
> I'd rather sit there than in a mosh pit.



It was in a theater in Aurora, CO that a crazy person went on a shooting spree.  There's no place where you're really safe, so I'm not going to worry about it.
I will check where exits are and things like that though.

Ive NEVER been in a mosh pit and doubt I ever will...do they even still do that??


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 4, 2017)

> *The gun control debate is so toxic there's no point talking about it.
> 
> *http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-...bout-gun-control-john-barron-analysis/9011844



On top of that there is a serious lack of imagination to even think that things could be made better.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 4, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> On top of that there is a serious lack of imagination to even think that things could be made better.



Only if the suggestion is to change the Constitution and get rid of the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 4, 2017)

Well, thoughts and prayers, candle vigils and flags at half mast don't seen to be working.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 4, 2017)

CeeCee said:


> I think they already check bags and backpacks at concerts and certain venues...don't they?



 But they don't check into your luggage at a hotel.  That's why this guy was able to get guns on the elevator and into his room without arousing suspicion.  The crowd was helpless.  This was a gun free area, so they couldn't even carry a gun in for protection.


----------



## CeeCee (Oct 4, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> But they don't check into your luggage at a hotel.  That's why this guy was able to get guns on the elevator and into his room without arousing suspicion.  The crowd was helpless.  This was a gun free area, so they couldn't even carry a gun in for protection.



They may start doing that now, I don't know.  They might not have checked him anyway even it was a rule.  He was pretty well known there, a high roller.  Not suspicious.

Bringing a couple suitcases in each day isn't even noticed in the crowded lobbies in Vegas hotels..people coming and going 24/7 there.


----------



## Knight (Oct 4, 2017)

I wonder why gun control already in place in various forms can't be consolidated into one uniform reasonable set of laws that all states have to comply with. That might satisfy those that think no gun ownership is the answer.  No gun ownership might sound good until those that want no guns figure out that we have countries bordering our north & south. 

During the Fast and Furious investigation, nearly 2,000 firearms were illegally purchased for $1.5 million, according to a DOJ inspector General report. Hundreds of guns were later recovered in the US and Mexico.

Honest people with good intent buy and don't harm anyone . Our gov. on the other hand in their divine wisdom manage to cause the above.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 4, 2017)

CeeCee said:


> It was in a theater in Aurora, CO that a crazy person went on a shooting spree.  There's no place where you're really safe, so I'm not going to worry about it.
> I will check where exits are and things like that though.
> 
> Ive NEVER been in a mosh pit and doubt I ever will...do they even still do that??


He picked a place where guns are banned by the management.  Save a life; carry a gun.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 4, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> Like football players and CTE?



I had to look up CTE; Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, most often from multiple head injury. I've seen their helmets, held one and it weighed a ton. There are sport regulations re: unnecessary roughness. Still, some of them take some serious hits. I think their legs, ankles, knees are way more vulnerable, but I've never played the game like they do. The use of performance enhancing drugs as a cause for behavioral changes holds more water, imo.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 4, 2017)

Knight said:


> I wonder why gun control already in place in various forms can't be consolidated into one uniform reasonable set of laws that all states have to comply with. That might satisfy those that think no gun ownership is the answer.  No gun ownership might sound good until those that want no guns figure out that we have countries bordering our north & south.
> 
> During the Fast and Furious investigation, nearly 2,000 firearms were illegally purchased for $1.5 million, according to a DOJ inspector General report. Hundreds of guns were later recovered in the US and Mexico.
> 
> Honest people with good intent buy and don't harm anyone . Our gov. on the other hand in their divine wisdom manage to cause the above.



Because the USA is not supposed to have a central government at all; that's in our constitution. Each state is supposed to have the power to make their own laws. That power was intended to prevent the formation of a central, all-powerful government...a federal government, if you will.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 4, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> But they don't check into your luggage at a hotel.  That's why this guy was able to get guns on the elevator and into his room without arousing suspicion.  The crowd was helpless.  This was a gun free area, so they couldn't even carry a gun in for protection.



Perhaps if someone in the crowd had a shoulder fired mortar he might have been able to shoot at the broken window?


----------



## Smiling Jane (Oct 4, 2017)

Cap'nSacto said:


> I had to look up CTE; Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, most often from multiple head injury. I've seen their helmets, held one and it weighed a ton. There are sport regulations re: unnecessary roughness. Still, some of them take some serious hits. I think their legs, ankles, knees are way more vulnerable, but I've never played the game like they do. The use of performance enhancing drugs as a cause for behavioral changes holds more water, imo.



Football players' brains that have been autopsied show an alarming rate of CTE; it's present in 99% of NFL brains. Compare rugby where players also get hit. Rugy players don't wear helmets but there's no line of scrimmage and they don't set out to kill each other or prevent other guys on the field from ever playing again.

I've been following the CTE story that was initially covered by PBS and has now gained traction to the point where people are beginning to demand that something be done. It's the reason so many NFL players are crazy by the time they retire and so many commit suicide. It's a long way beyond the damage caused by other injuries and performance enhancing drugs.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/health/cte-nfl-players-brains-study/index.html

Those other vulnerable areas aren't likely to turn players into Aaron Hernandez.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Oct 4, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Perhaps if someone in the crowd had a shoulder fired mortar he might have been able to shoot at the broken window?



I'm laughing because that's pretty much what I was thinking. I have a  pistol that I bought after a series of nearby home invasions. Firing on  the Mandalay Bay with my peashooter would have accomplished exactly  nothing.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 4, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> Football players' brains that have been autopsied show an alarming rate of CTE; it's present in 99% of NFL brains. Compare rugby where players also get hit. Rugy players don't wear helmets but there's no line of scrimmage and they don't set out to kill each other or prevent other guys on the field from ever playing again.
> 
> I've been following the CTE story that was initially covered by PBS and has now gained traction to the point where people are beginning to demand that something be done. It's the reason so many NFL players are crazy by the time they retire and so many commit suicide. It's a long way beyond the damage caused by other injuries and performance enhancing drugs.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link, Jane. 

"Those other vulnerable areas aren't likely to turn players into Aaron Hernandez." That's very true, and I didn't mean to imply that they did. I was just really awed by the type of padding material and stuff in that helmet I got to hold. To really prevent this type of injury, they'd have to totally change the game of football. Unfortunately, there's tons of profit involved, and die-hard fans too.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 4, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> I'm laughing because that's pretty much what I was thinking. I have a  pistol that I bought after a series of nearby home invasions. Firing on  the Mandalay Bay with my peashooter would have accomplished exactly  nothing.



I agree.  I don't think that, in this event, having a weapon would have made any difference; anything you could have carried in wouldn't have done any good at that range.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 4, 2017)

Falcon said:


> I'd  much rather be inconvenienced  than  dead.



Me too, Falcon.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Oct 4, 2017)

Cap'nSacto said:


> Thanks for the link, Jane.
> 
> "Those other vulnerable areas aren't likely to turn players into Aaron Hernandez." That's very true, and I didn't mean to imply that they did. I was just really awed by the type of padding material and stuff in that helmet I got to hold. To really prevent this type of injury, they'd have to totally change the game of football. Unfortunately, there's tons of profit involved, and die-hard fans too.



The problem with the special helmets and all that padding is that it's probably a case of "too little too late." They're seeing kids who have CTE from football, so it seems likely it takes fewer hits than they initially realized, or that concussions are pretty much standard throughout the sport.

The practice of heading in women's soccer is coming to an end for the same reason. It's being reported that women soccer players are especially vulnerable to concussions. They're also beginning to cite rugby injuries although nowhere close to the same prevalence as U.S. football.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 4, 2017)

Cap'nSacto said:


> I was listening to a talk radio program - not sure which; I was just pushing the "seek" button and landed on it. A guy phoned in and made an interesting point about the portability of weapons, and how toxic gases or similar weaponized chemicals would be an alternative to large guns for mass murderers. Focusing on guns isn't going to solve the problem, imo.
> 
> "...any attempt to confiscate existing weapons would probably meet with massive resistance..."
> 
> I would resist. I agree that there should be limits on semi-automatic weapons, but I believe there are some limitations in the ownership laws already.



I'd resist, too.  It would be an impossible task to try to confiscate the weapons in my state -- we are not required to register firearms, and many of us bought our weapons before the background check business became law.  Here, a very large percentage of households have firearms.  I know that just about all my neighbors do, as do I.

I completely agree that semi-auto weapons and of course full auto weapons, should not be in civilians' hands.  I can't imagine how any civilian could justify a need to have one.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 4, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> I'd resist, too.  It would be an impossible task to try to confiscate the weapons in my state -- we are not required to register firearms, and many of us bought our weapons before the background check business became law.  Here, a very large percentage of households have firearms.  I know that just about all my neighbors do, as do I.
> 
> I completely agree that semi-auto weapons and of course full auto weapons, should not be in civilians' hands.  I can't imagine how any civilian could justify a need to have one.



Don't want to get too political, but yeah for sure, weapons confiscation would get ugly here. I imagine the National Guard would have to get involved, and they'd have to use their vow to "..defend [the country] against all enemies foreign and *domestic*.."

The shooting in Vegas is, in my opinion, about the ugliest attack of its kind I've seen, though. Those poor people were fish in a barrel. Just makes you say What the...?? Absolute dismay.


----------



## chic (Oct 5, 2017)

CeeCee said:


> I think they already check bags and backpacks at concerts and certain venues...don't they?


There's a CVS store where I live that no longer allows anyone to bring into the store their backpacks or book bags. You have to leave them in the foyer where anyone could steal them, or not shop in their store. 

I guess safety has a price.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 5, 2017)

chic said:


> There's a CVS store where I live that no longer allows anyone to bring into the store their backpacks or book bags. You have to leave them in the foyer where anyone could steal them, or not shop in their store.
> 
> I guess safety has a price.


Too high a price for me—I'd shop somewhere else.


----------



## RadishRose (Oct 5, 2017)

They were checking women's handbags and everyone's back packs at concerts since the early 80's at least, but were checking for liquor.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 5, 2017)

RadishRose said:


> They were checking women's handbags and everyone's back packs at concerts since the early 80's at least, but were checking for liquor.


I wouldn't tolerate that either.  The store mentioned above is almost certainly just trying to prevent shoplifting, but that doesn't mean that I should suffer.  I wouldn't go anyplace where I had to obey bully boys.


----------



## Falcon (Oct 5, 2017)

After you've checked  into your hotel room,  hardly anybody ever checks  how many times you  go out to your car and back in.

Too many hotel guests doing that  to makes any sense.


----------



## Sunny (Oct 5, 2017)

> The shooting in Vegas is, in my opinion, about the ugliest attack of its  kind I've seen, though. Those poor people were fish in a barrel. Just  makes you say What the...?? Absolute dismay.



They're all fish in a barrel, Cap'n.  People sitting and praying in church?  First graders in a classroom?


----------



## Linda W. (Oct 5, 2017)

There's no place safe in this country, because we're all just targets in games where shooters try to kill the most people. Myself, I avoid large gatherings of people. The odds are better that way. There will be better laws someday to protect people a bit. In the meantime, avoid large crowds and learn how to stay as safe as you can.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 5, 2017)

Sunny said:


> They're all fish in a barrel, Cap'n.  People sitting and praying in church?  First graders in a classroom?



I don't mean to sound insensitive, but that's kind of like saying fish-in-a-barrel ~vs~ whack-a-mole. One mass murder is no less appalling than the other, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.


----------



## exwisehe (Oct 5, 2017)

But I can't stay out of crowds! And I'm not going to.

I regularly go to the symphony (my daughter is a member), go to a large church (usually 1000+ in attendance), summer music festival at Wintergreen, Va. and other places, the Lime Kilm theater in Lexington, va, such places as the university auditorium where my daughter works and they have special programs, talks, concerts, etc. Also, I'm a member of an international group of men and women who meet once a year in a large city such as Atlanta to hold a convention where there are thousands of people.

We can't stop living just because some deranged individual commits a horrible deed such as he did.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 5, 2017)

The people were in a gun-free zone.  They had no way to defend themselves.  If just a few had had even handguns, they could have pinned the shooter at worst, killed him at best.

We must get rid of gun-free zones AKA criminal comfort zones.


----------



## NancyNGA (Oct 5, 2017)

I would consider the odds.  Still think driving is more dangerous, and I *have* to do that almost every day.   Would not hesitate to go to a concert, if I really liked concerts. Might think twice if I knew a lot of patrons were carrying handguns.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 5, 2017)

I must admit that I have little or no interest in attending public events.  The only one that I considered to be stupendous was the Chicago Railroad Fair of 1948-9.  If I do wish to hear music, my local coyotes can satisfy me.  I read plays sometimes; that's far more enjoyable than watching them performed.

The aforesaid notwithstanding,  I'm far more comfortable with armed men and women.  Criminals don't obey laws, but law-abiding citizens do whenever the law is reasonable.  We may assume, therefore, that when we are in a place where weapons are restricted, a good percentage of those carrying are criminals, but, where people may freely carry arms, the vast majority of those folks are good citizens.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 5, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> The people were in a gun-free zone.  They had no way to defend themselves.  If just a few had had even handguns, they could have pinned the shooter at worst, killed him at best.
> 
> We must get rid of gun-free zones AKA criminal comfort zones.



Sorry. From that distance a handgun would be useless.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 5, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Sorry. From that distance a handgun would be useless.


You must either be joking or you  know nothing about handguns.

For anyone who wonders about this, I recommend the following:

https://www.amazon.com/Sixguns-1961...&qid=1507255881&sr=1-2&keywords=Keith+sixguns

https://www.amazon.com/McGiverns-Bo...1-1&keywords=mcgivern+fast+and+fancy+shooting


----------



## Don M. (Oct 5, 2017)

NancyNGA said:


> I would consider the odds.  Still think driving is more dangerous, and I *have* to do that almost every day.   Would not hesitate to go to a concert, if I really liked concerts. Might think twice if I knew a lot of patrons were carrying handguns.



I Agree.  I'm far more concerned about getting hit by some driver playing with his/her cell phone on the highway, than getting shot.  And...I wouldn't want to attend a concert, or any public venue where gobs of people were carrying weapons....it only takes one Drunk with a firearm to start shooting up the place....that's a good reason to stay away from the bars anymore.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 5, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> The people were in a gun-free zone.  They had no way to defend themselves.  If just a few had had even handguns, they could have pinned the shooter at worst, killed him at best.
> 
> We must get rid of gun-free zones AKA criminal comfort zones.



This shooter was some 400+ yards  away from the concert and  way above them.  I do not believe that any normal handgun would be anywhere near effective at that range.  I think 100 yards is about the max effective range, and that presumes you are an expert and can actually SEE the shooter or at least know where he is.

These victims weren't even sure where the gunfire was coming from and it was dark.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 6, 2017)

Your link is to a book?

If you can be accurate at 500 yards with a handgun you are a better man than me. Also.  You would have to be in the line of fire. If he saw a flash you would be next.

The thought I have is that someone is out there already planning the same type of massacre.


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 6, 2017)

GypsyRoadLady said:


> IMO no, who knows, but what kind of laws could have prevented this terrible sad event.



I agree.


----------



## Linda W. (Oct 6, 2017)

Yep, a handgun would have done absolutely no good, even if they knew where the shooter was. Even the police had trouble figuring out where he was in the dark. And after they did know, they chose not to shoot at that long distance because they might hit innocent people. I still wonder what he was going to do with the bomb materials in his car. I'd call him a domestic terrorist.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 6, 2017)

The bomb materials in his car were probably for another event.

He planned to escape according to the Las Vegas sheriff..

I dread the thought of someone out there who will be a copy cat seeing at how successful this guy was in 10 minutes of shooting.


----------



## oldman (Oct 8, 2017)

chic said:


> I fear things will remain the same. People intent on harming others don't need guns to do it though. For example, in Boston the Tsarnaev brothers killed and maimed using pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line. MA residents were told to shelter in place for days while police conducted a search of the greater Boston area. We were not allowed even to walk our dogs. It was terrible and I lived through it and knew the fear first hand. But people of evil or sick intent will do harm to others with or without guns. It's the people who kill. We need to address this issue before anything else. Maybe then something will change for the better.



You're exactly correct. When I was in the Marines and before I was sent to Vietnam, I was taught how to kill and not necessairily by using guns. Some of the methods taught would make your skin cringe. Then, while I was over there, we were given further instructions, in case we were taken prisoner and needed to kill, but had no weapons available. It's kind of like going to prison. A person can go to jail with a limited amount of knowledge on how to be a bad guy and after spending time in the joint, come out better educated at being a really bad guy.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 8, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> You must either be joking or you  know nothing about handguns.
> 
> For anyone who wonders about this, I recommend the following:
> 
> ...



There were people at the event that had guns. Members of the band entourage.  They were afraid to use their weapons for fear of being mistaken as part of the shooting.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 8, 2017)

oldman said:


> You're exactly correct. When I was in the Marines and before I was sent to Vietnam, I was taught how to kill and not necessairily by using guns. Some of the methods taught would make your skin cringe. Then, while I was over there, we were given further instructions, in case we were taken prisoner and needed to kill, but had no weapons available. It's kind of like going to prison. A person can go to jail with a limited amount of knowledge on how to be a bad guy and after spending time in the joint, come out better educated at being a really bad guy.



Well it doesn't matter. The weapon of choice is a gun and much easier to conceal than a bomb. Law enforcement is now taking precautions at public events against bombs. Trump has a good idea. Don't import trouble from foreign countries with religious fanatics.


----------



## RiversideSue (Oct 8, 2017)

Hi everyone,

I'm interested in people's feedback on the idea of requiring liability insurance to buy a gun:

When a gun is purchased, the purchaser should be required to provide proof of owning liability insurance. This does nothing to limit the rights of gun owners but does provide a path toward supporting the victims of gun violence, who currently are lost in the shadows of gun owner Second Amendment claims.

Gun liability insurance is a market-based alternative. Many conceal carry gun owners already have liability insurance, so it’s a path already being willingly followed. The NRA sells liability insurance, so how can they object?

Insurance is an accepted economic vehicle that is the normal way our society deals with dangerous activities that affect the public.

When a dealer is required to match a liability policy to an owner, there is a chance that this could affect straw sales of guns, which is a route to illegal gun sales.

But mainly, requiring liability insurance to buy a gun provides a path toward support for the victims of gun violence.


----------



## RadishRose (Oct 8, 2017)

Check with your homeowner's policy if you have one, and see if liability for accidental gunshot is excluded. I've just never come across it and don't remember it from learning the personal home policy.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 9, 2017)

And just precisely how are you going to force violent street gangs, drug dealers, etc., to buy gun liability insurance for their (mostly) illegally acquired weapons??

Setting aside Las Vegas, most of the horrific damage done by firearms is not perpetrated by law-abiding firearms owners, anyway; at least around here it isn't.

As to Las Vegas,  since that man was apparently wealthy and had purchased his weapons legally, he probably would have purchased the insurance, but it wouldn't have done a thing to prevent him doing what he did.  I doubt you'd ever get any insurance company to insure against an intentional wrongdoing such as that perpetrated by the Las Vegas shooter.  Most, if not all, gun insurance out there now insures for acts of self-defense, or accidental gunshot, and specifically exclude acts of intentional wrongdoing.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 10, 2017)

Having to buy insurance would be an infringement would it not?


----------



## RiversideSue (Oct 10, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> And just precisely how are you going to force violent street gangs, drug dealers, etc., to buy gun liability insurance for their (mostly) illegally acquired weapons??



No, you're right. Criminals aren't going to show proof of insurance to buy guns! 

But if proof of gun liability insurance is required to purchase a gun, that link between the gun and the insurance policy could help prevent straw sales-- someone buying a guy for someone else-- which is a route to illegal gun sales.


----------



## RiversideSue (Oct 10, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Having to buy insurance would be an infringement would it not?



Remington raising the price of their products could also be seen as an infringement, but gun owners don't view it that way. They swallow and pay more for the gun. 

The cost of gun liability insurance adds to the price of a gun-- correct. Gun violence is a huge societal cost that we're not allowed to talk about.


----------



## RiversideSue (Oct 10, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> I doubt you'd ever get any insurance company to insure against an intentional wrongdoing such as that perpetrated by the Las Vegas shooter.  Most, if not all, gun insurance out there now insures for acts of self-defense, or accidental gunshot, and specifically exclude acts of intentional wrongdoing.



Thank you! A new area of research for me.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 10, 2017)

RiversideSue said:


> No, you're right. Criminals aren't going to show proof of insurance to buy guns!
> 
> But if proof of gun liability insurance is required to purchase a gun, that link between the gun and the insurance policy could help prevent straw sales-- someone buying a guy for someone else-- which is a route to illegal gun sales.



Well, I'd bet the straw man purchasers would find a way to get around that requirement, too.  I also don't think straw man purchases are as big a problem as many people think.  Around here, it is easier to just buy a gun from "a guy who knows a guy" than mess with the straw man thing, which would still require a background check of the straw man and tie HIM to the gun.  Why mess with that when you could just buy a gun out of the seemingly endless supply of illegal weapons flowing in from outside the country?


----------



## Smiling Jane (Oct 10, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> Well, I'd bet the straw man purchasers would find a way to get around that requirement, too.



Not only that, the NRA and its many powerful supporters, both in Congress and out, would fight any proposal of that nature.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 10, 2017)

RiversideSue said:


> Thank you! A new area of research for me.



Also, as I understand it, regarding the gun insurance that it out there, I think the most any will insure for is $1 million, which is not even a drop in the bucket of the losses suffered by those in Vegas.  

I don't mean to be a party pooper, I just don't see insurance as being the answer.  Auto insurance is mandatory here in my state, and you have to show proof of insurance to tag a vehicle, but there are so many uninsured drivers on the roads here that I carry very high limits of uninsured/underinsured coverage, which steps in when the other driver has no or not enough insurance.  

People buy insurance to get the car tagged, and let it lapse after a month or so, or find other ways around the requirement, or have fake insurance cards, or whatever.


----------



## grahamg (Oct 13, 2017)

You can bring in restrictions on the types of weapons that can be purchased by US citizens. You can legislate for strong background checks. and deny certain classes of people from owning guns.you can require weapons to be secured when not in use, you can limit weapons to specific functions, hunting, sports shooting, employment etc., you can require the creation of a gun and gun owner registry, you can require regular inspections of weapons by authorities, you can require notification of transfers of weapons by sale, inheritance or other legal avenues, you can require weapons to be surrendered if the licensees requirement for them or their circumstances changes, you can require gun shops and others to notify authorities of unusually large purchase, and authorities can also monitor these from the registry, you can record ammunition sales and highlight purchases out of normal patterns.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 13, 2017)

grahamg said:


> You can bring in restrictions on the types of weapons that can be purchased by US citizens. You can legislate for strong background checks. and deny certain classes of people from owning guns.you can require weapons to be secured when not in use, you can limit weapons to specific functions, hunting, sports shooting, employment etc., you can require the creation of a gun and gun owner registry, you can require regular inspections of weapons by authorities, you can require notification of transfers of weapons by sale, inheritance or other legal avenues, you can require weapons to be surrendered if the licensees requirement for them or their circumstances changes, you can require gun shops and others to notify authorities of unusually large purchase, and authorities can also monitor these from the registry, you can record ammunition sales and highlight purchases out of normal patterns.


You could have said that in one short sentence: "You can turn America into a police state."


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 13, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> You could have said that in one short sentence: "You can turn America into a police state."


fff: You are there already. The police are so rattled by an armed citizenry that they shoot first and justify later.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Oct 13, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> fff: You are there already. The police are so rattled by an armed citizenry that they shoot first and justify later.



That might be one of their excuses but it doesn't explain why they kill unarmed people.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 13, 2017)

US might not be a police state but your police are very scary  and I would not blame them for being scared of the general population.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 13, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> The people were in a gun-free zone.  They had no way to defend themselves.  If just a few had had even handguns, they could have pinned the shooter at worst, killed him at best.
> 
> We must get rid of gun-free zones AKA criminal comfort zones.



Too far away for a handgun and not too many carry AR-15's with them.

The gun free zone had nothing to do with it.

With the confusion, anyone shooting might have been shot themselves.

Paddocks neighbor was being interviewed by a news reporter.  He was asked why he need guns.  And for the first time I saw an honest answer.

He said.  "It's in our culture". 

I will add my own comment to that.  "By males".


----------



## Cap'n Mike (Oct 13, 2017)

My wife went to a great concert here on Monday, with our son, Lady Antebellum in Birmingham. Thoroughly enjoyed it, great atmosphere and a great performance. Never had any concerns for her safety.

Oh sorry, not allowed to post on this thread am I?
Admin please delete if considered inappropriate.


----------



## BobF (Oct 13, 2017)

Cap'n Mike said:


> My wife went to a great concert here on Monday, with our son, Lady Antebellum in Birmingham. Thoroughly enjoyed it, great atmosphere and a great performance. Never had any concerns for her safety.
> 
> Oh sorry, not allowed to post on this thread am I?
> Admin please delete if considered inappropriate.



For the most part there is no problem with great programs at all in the US.    We have over 326,835,205 so it will take more than the Vegas mess to make a big difference.

We do have plenty of killings by guns.   Some are accidental or hunting problems.   Many are just gang fights and not of the regular shootings by killers or robbers or personal ways.   Many of the postings I read were a bit confusing but I do remember reading about 40 killings per 100,000.   I don't know what 2017 will turn up to be as that likely won't be available till next spring.

So I guess we will see about 1,200 or so.


----------



## chic (Oct 13, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Too far away for a handgun and not too many carry AR-15's with them.
> 
> The gun free zone had nothing to do with it.
> 
> ...



I don't think it's in our culture to own 40+ assault weapons. Maybe when we were a blossoming country fighting for our independence and needing to arm a militia. But to do this presently isn't normal behavior. IMHO.


----------



## grahamg (Oct 13, 2017)

*Howmany weapons to avoid feeling like a slave?*



Big Horn said:


> Originally Posted by *grahamg*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The obvious question is how many weapons do you feel an individual citizen might need in order for them not to feel they might be living in a police state?


----------



## BobF (Oct 13, 2017)

chic said:


> I don't think it's in our culture to own 40+ assault weapons. Maybe when we were a blossoming country fighting for our independence and needing to arm a militia. But to do this presently isn't normal behavior. IMHO.



True, but then most folks agree this was not a normal shooting nor were the guns legal and normal as they were used.

The regular non automatic rifle doing 60 or so shots per minute is much less than those made to shoot as if they were automatic at 800 per minute.


----------



## AZ Jim (Oct 13, 2017)

Cap'nSacto said:


> From the sound of it, police assumed rightly that the shooter was using a fully-automatic weapon. Fully-automatic weapons are already illegal. *However*, I heard on the news last night that the shooter modified a semi-automatic weapon so that it would fire like a fully-automatic. The modifying piece is called a "bump stock", and the reporter said they can be obtained legally. That definitely needs to change. But a person could still obtain one from overseas, so we'd have to scan or search every piece of luggage, every purse, and rucksack at our airports. But a person can make one fairly easily, so... :upset:


You don't even need a bump stock to make the weapon work like a full automatic.  If you simply hold the trigger down and let the gun float while recoiling it fires continuously. A bump stock just makes it easier.


----------



## Don M. (Oct 13, 2017)

The Most important thing that needs to be determined is WHY did this shooter commit this act.  If the WHY can be determined, perhaps some action can be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.  Towards that goal, the LV sheriff announced today that Paddocks brain has been removed during the autopsy, and send to a "undisclosed location" for a microscopic analysis.  Hopefully, they can find some anomaly that will offer a meaningful clue.  It is pretty obvious that this shooter planned to commit this act for quite some time...there Must have been something substantially wrong with his thought processes.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 13, 2017)

BobF said:


> True, but then most folks agree this was not a normal shooting nor were the guns legal and normal as they were used.
> 
> The regular non automatic rifle doing 60 or so shots per minute is much less than those made to shoot as if they were automatic at 800 per minute.



Wait.  I think everything Paddock purchased was legal stuff even the bump stocks.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 13, 2017)

Don M. said:


> The Most important thing that needs to be determined is WHY did this shooter commit this act.  If the WHY can be determined, perhaps some action can be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.  Towards that goal, the LV sheriff announced today that Paddocks brain has been removed during the autopsy, and send to a "undisclosed location" for a microscopic analysis.  Hopefully, they can find some anomaly that will offer a meaningful clue.  It is pretty obvious that this shooter planned to commit this act for quite some time...there Must have been something substantially wrong with his thought processes.



You may never find out why this shooter committed this act.

My own thinking on this and mine only.   Somewhere along the line he was wronged and carried a grudge to make it right.

It's like a person who has been fired from his job and he feels he was wronged.

So he gets a gun and shoots his employer.  If his employer isn't there, he shoots whoever happens to be there.

And then he was a gambler.  I can tell you from experience that gambling and losing causes depression and this guy didn't gamble for fun.  He gambled almost as a living and heavy duty.

Vegas will want to keep all that stuff secret if they can.


----------



## Manatee (Oct 13, 2017)

I just read a piece that states that more people die from drugs than firearms, yet some folks want legalized drugs.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 13, 2017)

chic said:


> I don't think it's in our culture to own 40+ assault weapons. Maybe when we were a blossoming country fighting for our independence and needing to arm a militia. But to do this presently isn't normal behavior. IMHO.



Not according to the NRA and the gun owners.  They want no restriction on military style weapons.   The AR-15 is a legal weapon.

They get all upset if you would call that an assault weapon.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 13, 2017)

Manatee said:


> I just read a piece that states that more people die from drugs than firearms, yet some folks want legalized drugs.



Manatee.  I do not call that a logical argument. There is no cause and effect.

One has nothing to do with the other.  All the legalized drugs will not reduce the death from firearms and all the legalized firearms will not reduce the deaths from legalized drugs.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 13, 2017)

grahamg said:


> The obvious question is how many weapons do you feel an individual citizen might need in order for them not to feel they might be living in a police state?


Need has nothing to do with this.  Free men and women own what they wish without being required to show need.  Any government that requires a citizen to show need to be able to make a purchase of anything is a tyranny.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 14, 2017)

grahamg said:


> You can bring in restrictions on the types of weapons that can be purchased by US citizens. You can legislate for strong background checks. and *deny certain classes of people from owning guns*.you can *require weapons to be secured when not in use*, you can limit weapons to specific functions, hunting, sports shooting, employment etc., you can require the creation of a gun and gun owner registry, *you can require regular inspections of weapons by authorities,* you can require notification of transfers of weapons by sale, inheritance or other legal avenues, *you can require weapons to be surrendered if the licensees requirement for them or their circumstances changes,* you can require gun shops and others to notify authorities of unusually large purchase, and *authorities can also monitor these from the registry,* you can record ammunition sales and highlight purchases out of normal patterns.





Exactly what "classes" of people would be disallowed from owning weapons?  If you mean those with mental illness, I would agree.  Problem there is that many of our craziest have no history of mental illness because they either have no access to treatment or don't think they need treatment.  Felons are already prohibited from owning firearms.  If you attach any other "class" requirement to purchasing, you would run seriously afoul of our constitution.  

We're already expected to secure our weapons, particularly if there are children in the home.  That requirement comes into play when someone is accidentally shot.  Otherwise, that requirement would prevent me from having quick access to my weapon if I need it because bad guys are coming down my back hall in the middle of the night to do me harm.

I do not like the idea of a federal gun owner registry, and neither do most gun owners.  I strongly believe is would be in contradiction of the reason for the 2nd amendment.  I don't know how you'd do that anyway, because of the differing requirements for firearms purchases by the individual states.

As to requiring "regular inspections of weapons by authorities," exactly how would that work?  Police entering my home to "inspect" my weapon?  Unconsitutional as all get-out in the first place, and would not be tolerated by most Americans.  We have a huge body of law about when and whether police can enter your home, invasion of privacy law, and so on.

Regarding requiring "weapons to be surrendered if the licensees requirement for them or their circumstances changes," we do not have to demonstrate a requirement for having a firearm, and I don't know how anyone would know if the purchaser's circumstances had changed.  Here where I live, you do not have to have a license for a firearm unless you want to concealed carry.  You have to pass a background check to purchase one, that's all.  I do not know about other states' requirements for licensure.  

If someone came around and asked me to surrender my firearm, I would suddenly discover it had been stolen months ago, or that it had gone down with the Titanic.


----------



## Cap'n Mike (Oct 14, 2017)

Finding out why he did what he did you'll probably never know as the only person who has the answer is dead, but as an outsider, and most people over here on the other side of the pond I suspect, have to say that if he couldn't have got hold of all those guns, it couldn't have happened.
You can stop all these horrors.


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 14, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> US might not be a police state but your police are very scary  and I would not blame them for being scared of the general population.



I do not find the police to be scary, but then, if asked to stop or whatever, I do so, and I do not make threatening moves against them nor do I run from them.  There have been times in my life when I have been VERY glad to see police officers.  I wouldn't do their job for all the money in the world.


----------



## grahamg (Oct 14, 2017)

*What do you feel you "need"*



Big Horn said:


> Originally Posted by *grahamg*
> 
> "The obvious question is how many weapons do you feel an individual citizen might need in order for them not to feel they might be living in a police state?"
> 
> ...




I think if you read my question above you will see I was asking how many weapons "you feel" you might need in order not to fear the US was becoming a police state (_or any other US citizen might need in order to not feel that way?).
_
I didn't mean to suggest at all that your government requires you to show a need, or at least that was not the purpose of my question.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 14, 2017)

Cap'n Mike said:


> We, (non Americans) obviously have to tread very carefully on this sort of topic as the site Admin do not like us commenting. The other "Vagus" thread was closed down with the comment "*I strongly suggest non-US members stay out of gun related discussions, it never ends well."
> *
> Correctly me if I'm wrong but I thought this was an open forum and as such open to all points of view?



Cap'nMike, it is an open forum. But, honestly, after a while the seemingly endless questions regarding gun ownership begin to feel like badgering, or like someone is trying to trip somebody up or something. And some of the questions do indeed sound off-handed. 

The US constitution and bill of rights are rules set down by the people that the government must adhere to. It's not the other way around. These are rules the government cannot infringe upon, and are sworn to up-hold and protect, and they include the right to bear arms - to ensure we are able to protect ourselves against tyranny... _any_ tyranny. That isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. And, personally, I just don't see where the how many's and what if's have any relevance regarding our right to bear arms.

The majority of us agree that laws prohibiting fully-automatic weapons are good laws. If we, the people, could stop them coming into the country, the majority of us would. But they get here. And some of us are clever enough to invent ways to modify semi-automatic to fully-automatic weapons with or without purchasing a bump-stock. It wouldn't surprise me if an American figures out a way to make a lethal rapid-fire BB gun. It's the government's job to handle the problem, but they must do it without infringing on our rights.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 14, 2017)

One way or the other this topic has run its race. Until next time.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 14, 2017)

I belong to another forum politics only. It's a very touchy subject in the U.S. My family lives in the U.S. 

Therefore I feel I am qualified to comment on the subject whether my comments are acceptable or not.

And I do get a lot of favourable notifications from readers.

Ill give you an example of the difference in thinking.

Opening of fishing season on a river in Canada.  The river was overflowing and running very swiftly. The Ministry of Lands and Forests decided it was too dangerous to launch boats so they decided to close the launch area down.

The Canadians just took their boats and turned around and went elsewhere or they went home.

The Americans however complained that their rights were being violated and it was up to them if they wanted to launch their boats no matter how dangerous.

I didn't make this up.

Warrigal.I'm laughing. It's not up to you to decide the thread has run its course.


----------



## grahamg (Oct 14, 2017)

*Public opinion*



Cap'nSacto said:


> Cap'nMike, it is an open forum. But, honestly, after a while the seemingly endless questions regarding gun ownership begin to feel like badgering, or like someone is trying to trip somebody up or something. And some of the questions do indeed sound off-handed.
> 
> The US constitution and bill of rights are rules set down by the people that the government must adhere to. It's not the other way around. These are rules the government cannot infringe upon, and are sworn to up-hold and protect, and they include the right to bear arms - to ensure we are able to protect ourselves against tyranny... _any_ tyranny. That isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. And, personally, I just don't see where the how many's and what if's have any relevance regarding our right to bear arms.
> 
> The majority of us agree that laws prohibiting fully-automatic weapons are good laws. If we, the people, could stop them coming into the country, the majority of us would. But they get here. And some of us are clever enough to invent ways to modify semi-automatic to fully-automatic weapons with or without purchasing a bump-stock. It wouldn't surprise me if an American figures out a way to make a lethal rapid-fire BB gun. It's the government's job to handle the problem, but they must do it without infringing on our rights.




Public opinion in the US may come to bear on the "how many's" question, to decide if it has any relevance to your right to bear arms, because no one would expect elected officials to ignore the views of the US citizens.


----------



## chic (Oct 14, 2017)

Don M. said:


> The Most important thing that needs to be determined is WHY did this shooter commit this act.  If the WHY can be determined, perhaps some action can be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.  Towards that goal, the LV sheriff announced today that Paddocks brain has been removed during the autopsy, and send to a "undisclosed location" for a microscopic analysis.  Hopefully, they can find some anomaly that will offer a meaningful clue.  It is pretty obvious that this shooter planned to commit this act for quite some time...there Must have been something substantially wrong with his thought processes.



I agree totally. I heard about the brain autopsy which revealed nothing abnormal by sight, so it was sent for further analysis. But this was a twisted though well planned attack and a long planned attack. He started purchasing guns for this last October which should set off alarm bells, and perhaps will do so in the future. 

There is nothing we can do for those slain in this terrible event except to honor them by learning everything we can to prevent a similar attack in the future.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 14, 2017)

> Free men and women own what they wish without being required to show need.



Within reason of course.  You may want to own biological weapons or nuclear weapons?


----------



## RadishRose (Oct 14, 2017)

Does anyone believe the shooter was mentally ill?


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Oct 14, 2017)

Unfortunately, I think nothing will be done (still). I think the lawmakers (many, not just one) would have to be personally affected by a tragedy such as this for them to realize something really needs to be done. And then, I don't know how much they can really do.


----------



## Don M. (Oct 14, 2017)

RadishRose said:


> Does anyone believe the shooter was mentally ill?



For Sure!  No rational person would go to the lengths this lunatic did in planning and executing this tragedy.  IMO, virtually Anyone who commits an act of violence is unbalanced...and Paddock took things to a new level.  He may not have had a "traditional" mental illness, but he was most certainly Nuts.  Perhaps this reported analysis of his brain will show some medical issue...but most certainly, he was Not normal.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 14, 2017)

On the contrary. Anyone going through that without arousing suspicion has to be clever.


----------



## Don M. (Oct 14, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> On the contrary. Anyone going through that without arousing suspicion has to be clever.



What's that old saying....something about being "Crazy like a Fox"???


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 14, 2017)

Usually a person doing this has been wronged somewhere along the line or feels wronged and carries that grudge silently.

Also gamblers have bad streaks and get depressed.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 14, 2017)

RadishRose said:


> Does anyone believe the shooter was mentally ill?


 
I do believe that he was seriously warped in his thought processes but whether there was a physiological condition I do not know. I think it would be hard to hide something like schizophrenia or bipolar for any length of time.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 14, 2017)

Psychopaths see the world differently than the rest of us. While most never resort to this level of atrocity, the potentiality is always there. Yet, they are currently not classed as mentally ill, their brains are just wired differently. Some believe it is an atavistic trait perpetuated in the survival of the species from the brutal caveman era. A clever person without empathy is often the ultimate survivor, their focus is totally on their self interest. Unfortunately, lacking  the inhibitors which restrain most of us, they can erupt, just as this monster did.


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 14, 2017)

RadishRose said:


> Does anyone believe the shooter was mentally ill?



Uh, I do!


----------



## chic (Oct 15, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> On the contrary. Anyone going through that without arousing suspicion has to be clever.



Or Lucky. Many serial killers display this ability to elude capture, for a time.


----------



## chic (Oct 15, 2017)

RadishRose said:


> Does anyone believe the shooter was mentally ill?



I hope so. The alternative is too frightening.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 15, 2017)

chic said:


> I hope so. The alternative is too frightening.



Like revenge?


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 16, 2017)

So then. Just keep repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.

Mistake number one.

Guns don't kill people. They do. By the thousands.


----------



## Cap'n Mike (Oct 16, 2017)

On average 90,000 a year in the USofA


----------



## CeeCee (Oct 16, 2017)

Cap'n Mike said:


> On average 90,000 a year in the USofA



We are a big country and unless you live in the gang infested parts of a city or state, I bet you don't even hear of any shootings.

Ive lived in 4 different states and in 66 years Ive not known one person who was killed by a gun.

I'm not counting the shooting sprees that make the headlines.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 16, 2017)

CeeCee said:


> We are a big country and unless you live in the gang infested parts of a city or state, I bet you don't even hear of any shootings.
> 
> Ive lived in 4 different states and in 66 years Ive not known one person who was killed by a gun.
> 
> I'm not counting the shooting sprees that make the headlines.


The highest murder rates are in prisons.  Guards shoot a few, but prisoners find other ways.  I guess it's not considered a problem because it's not gun violence.

Shooting sprees account for only a tiny fraction of murders.


----------



## Cap'n Mike (Oct 16, 2017)

If a big tree falls in a forest nobody hears it, but it still makes a noise.


----------



## CeeCee (Oct 16, 2017)

Cap'n Mike said:


> If a big tree falls in a forest nobody hears it, but it still makes a noise.



Yes, bombs for one make a lot of noise.   I'm just saying if somebody wants to do harm, they will.


----------

