WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Las Vegas Shooting  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Oct 3rd, 2017 03:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
46th Post
WongLee
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Fri Oct 19th, 2007
Location: Bay Shore, New York
Posts: 5992
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: Senile old Pat Robertson has blamed the massacre on "disrespect for Donald Trump" and of course kneeling during the national anthem. 

God I love Pat, he's so consistent and has zero filter. Entertainment at its finest. Of course the down side to that is the entertainment he doles out always comes at the cost of a great tragedy.



____________________
— The Iron Sheik (@the_ironsheik) October 8, 2009
hello @Paula_Deen you have midget pig dick and dead dog tits I hope I see you I break your fucking fat neck bitch
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Oct 3rd, 2017 05:47 pm
  PM Quote Reply
47th Post
Spatulapup

 

Joined: Mon Nov 22nd, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 1357
Status: 
Offline
There are strict gun rules in other countries and this crap does not happen. and if it does its rare. its been proven. in the states its over the top. and after every mass shooting gun lovers say now is not the time to talk about gun control. well when is it? they never want to talk about it. they care more about their guns then the lives lost. The NRA helped get Trump elected. they are part of his base (along with the KKK. Ugh) they are his buddies. Trump is pro gun. nothing is going to change. and the funny thing is they think people want to take their guns away. that's not it. its just insane. the point where it was obvious nothing would change their minds was when all those little kids were shot. that could not even sway them.

Last edited on Tue Oct 3rd, 2017 05:48 pm by Spatulapup

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Oct 3rd, 2017 06:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
48th Post
Franchise



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: D-ville
Posts: 1717
Status: 
Offline
What gun rules would you like to see?



____________________
"Beginning this week, Nitro is going head-to-head with Thunder in Australia" - The Wrestling Observer Newsletter: January 22, 2001
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Oct 3rd, 2017 06:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
49th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 42951
Status: 
Offline
Franchise wrote: What gun rules would you like to see?
My answer is almost always "none" whenever I hear about laws or rules period, but the obvious low-hanging fruit will be simply reinstating the assault weapons ban that was a law and then expired in 1994.  When the Dems get control again, I imagine this will happen.  It's an easy win to restore something that already existed once without having to think too hard or do anything else. 

(P.S. Right around 1994 is when violent crime, and all crime, started to nosedive across the country, where it remains at almost all-time lows, so what this will really do is another story.  But it will make liberals feel good about themselves, and that's important to them because those safe spaces get very crowded when they're all crammed in them together.)

Last edited on Tue Oct 3rd, 2017 06:24 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Oct 3rd, 2017 08:04 pm
  PM Quote Reply
50th Post
DaNkinator



Joined: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 5929
Status: 
Offline
Franchise wrote: What gun rules would you like to see?
- allow semi-auto handguns and hunting rifles. Suppressors that serve a purpose for hunting.

- No mag past 10 bullets.  If you need more than 10 to take down an intruder, you shouldn't be using a gun to begin with.

- Semi-auto purchases legally, but be kept in a safe, at a registered dealer with a range. If You want a slaughter weapon outside of a range, you want to kill people. 

- All owners must carry liability insurance.  People who get shot should not have to bear the cost.

- Reasonable restrictions.  If you want 40 guns, why? Let the insurance company decide what they'll cover.  Let them, since they would be at risk, assess the risk.  As the risk goes up, policy does too. Or it gets denied.

- User authentication technology on all guns.  We've made huge advancements with that in other products/devices.

There's lots of other good to great ideas out there.  Many other countries have implemented them with success.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Oct 4th, 2017 03:53 am
  PM Quote Reply
51st Post
Franchise



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: D-ville
Posts: 1717
Status: 
Offline
Do you think a person that plans to do something terrible would be deterred by liability insurance? Wouldn't find a way around user authentication? or wouldn't modify magazines to carry more than 10 rounds?

Last edited on Wed Oct 4th, 2017 03:54 am by Franchise



____________________
"Beginning this week, Nitro is going head-to-head with Thunder in Australia" - The Wrestling Observer Newsletter: January 22, 2001
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Oct 4th, 2017 05:58 am
  PM Quote Reply
52nd Post
Kriss



Joined: Wed Dec 12th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 5191
Status: 
Offline
Franchise wrote: Do you think a person that plans to do something terrible would be deterred by liability insurance? Wouldn't find a way around user authentication? or wouldn't modify magazines to carry more than 10 rounds?

For a terror attack maybe, but most of these mass shootings seem to made by mentally-unstable Americans. The more hoops you make a mentally unstable person go through, the more chance that they will either stop or be stopped.

Also, this is a terrible argument. "If they want to do it, they will anyway." But if you can stop all but the most determined, you've still stopped a lot of people.



____________________
https://www.facebook.com/AmarilloWrestling
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Oct 4th, 2017 01:20 pm
  PM Quote Reply
53rd Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 42951
Status: 
Offline
Kriss wrote: Franchise wrote: Do you think a person that plans to do something terrible would be deterred by liability insurance? Wouldn't find a way around user authentication? or wouldn't modify magazines to carry more than 10 rounds?

For a terror attack maybe, but most of these mass shootings seem to made by mentally-unstable Americans. The more hoops you make a mentally unstable person go through, the more chance that they will either stop or be stopped.

Also, this is a terrible argument. "If they want to do it, they will anyway." But if you can stop all but the most determined, you've still stopped a lot of people.

We're already stopping all but the most determined.  When you go on a suicide mission, you're pretty damn determined. 

I also think there's a misconception of what "mentally ill" is.  The guys doing these things aren't wandering around the streets in a bathrobe muttering to themselves.  Many of them are fairly intelligent sociopaths who are able to put together a plan and hide it from their loved ones to at least some degree.  They're jumping through hoops.  This is what they want to do and they have some idea how to do it, and a lot of mentally ill people get tunnel vision and are really good at completing a task to the end no matter what, even when  the "sane" would get bored or frustrated and stop. 

The real crazies who are barely coherent but manage to make their thoughts semi-public are the ones who get played by the FBI, entrapped, provided the weapons, and then busted in a sting that only happened because the FBI had to help them every step of the way before arresting them for the photo op and the feel-good "we're doing something" story.  This is a complete waste of time as they're the ones who are 90% more likely to shoot themselves in the dick than to ever successfully execute a plan to hurt someone else.   

Last edited on Wed Oct 4th, 2017 01:23 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Oct 4th, 2017 05:19 pm
  PM Quote Reply
54th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 42951
Status: 
Offline
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.07bb679efa16

Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
After a shooting in Las Vegas left at least 59 people dead and injured hundreds, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Oct. 2 said Congress’s failure to pass gun-control legislation amounts to an “unintentional endorsement” of mass shootings. (U.S. Senate) I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.


When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.
As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?


However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.
By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.
Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.
While the attack on the Las Vegas strip is the deadliest in modern American history, attacks in the 19th and 20th centuries had higher death tolls. Here are two deadly events in American history that you may not have heard about. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post) Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Oct 10th, 2017 04:05 pm
  PM Quote Reply
55th Post
KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 573
Status: 
Offline
From the L.A. Times, the police have now completely upended their original timeline of events.  Originally, they'd said that the first event that put a stop to the slaughter was the arrival of hotel security guard Jesus Campos, which forced Stephen Paddock to turn his attention away from the crowd and back inside the hotel.  Campos was shot by Paddock, but not fatally. 
 
Now, we're told that Campos was shot, non-fatally, several minutes before Paddock began firing on the concert.  Campos did not or was unable to relay the situation down to the ground as police began combing the hotel for the shooter, possibly leading to further carnage. 
 
Is there anyone left who trusts the information law enforcement, both local and FBI, provide to us in the wake of these incidents?  For Christ sakes, how could they fuck up something this integral to the event?  Listen to this Keystone Kop describe the previous timeline, "In a news conference Wednesday, Lombardo said it was his “assumption” that Paddock stopped his shooting spree because the gunman, using his spy cameras, “observed the security guard, and he was in fear that he was about to be breached, so he was doing everything possible to figure out how to escape at that point.”"  Really?  Paddock, who had planned this event very meticulously just happened to forget one minor detail, i.e. how to escape if someone tried to stop him??  Good god.  How stupid do they think we are?  I realize they're generally talking to journalists, some of the most gullible and easily swayed people around, but do cops really think that no one's going to notice their bumbling and obfuscation?   
 
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-20171009-story.html

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Oct 10th, 2017 05:09 pm
  PM Quote Reply
56th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 42951
Status: 
Offline
KGB wrote: but do cops really think that no one's going to notice their bumbling and obfuscation?   


Do you really want that answer?



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Oct 10th, 2017 11:59 pm
  PM Quote Reply
57th Post
WongLee
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Fri Oct 19th, 2007
Location: Bay Shore, New York
Posts: 5992
Status: 
Offline
In this day and age whenever there is a mass shooting or some other kind of high body count tragedy, we are told in no uncertain terms to never question the official version. To do so would show complete disrespect to the dead. Why that is I haven't the slightest idea. The dumbing down of America gets more complete each passing year.



____________________
— The Iron Sheik (@the_ironsheik) October 8, 2009
hello @Paula_Deen you have midget pig dick and dead dog tits I hope I see you I break your fucking fat neck bitch
Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Oct 11th, 2017 02:28 pm
  PM Quote Reply
58th Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 42951
Status: 
Offline
When hard-hitting sources like Newsweek are questioning the official story and wondering what the cops were doing, you know things have gone off the rails.  We're going to find out more about this in the coming weeks and it's going to be very, very bad.  So much for Trump hailing the first responders.  There's a missing 6 minutes and a lot of confusion over where the shooter was that needs to be explained.  If the cops were doing their jobs, it seems like they could've gotten to Paddock before he started firing on the concert.  At the very least, once he started firing, they should've known EXACTLY where he was.  This bizarre story about having to go door-to-door to find him and then a fire alarm finally telling them where he was, that no longer makes ANY sense.  Someone is covering something up.  I won't begin to speculate about the security guard's actions since he was probably an innocent bystander, but something doesn't add up with him either.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jesus-campos-las-vegas-security-223728950.html


Last edited on Wed Oct 11th, 2017 02:31 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.
Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Oct 11th, 2017 04:03 pm
  PM Quote Reply
59th Post
DaNkinator



Joined: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 5929
Status: 
Offline
FBI on high alert in Charlottesville after a post was made on social media threatening to repeat what happened in Vegas on the schools there. Schools are on lockdown.

The shitstains are continuing to come out of the shadows with Trump in charge.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Oct 11th, 2017 04:06 pm
  PM Quote Reply
60th Post
BlueThunder



Joined: Mon Jun 6th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 1861
Status: 
Offline
DaNkinator wrote: FBI on high alert in Charlottesville after a post was made on social media threatening to repeat what happened in Vegas on the schools there. Schools are on lockdown.

The shitstains are continuing to come out of the shadows with Trump in charge.


Yeah, okay. Blame it on Trump. I suppose Vegas was also Trump's fault. How about the Black man who hated whites and sniped 5 Dallas cops? Trump's fault again?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

Current time is 05:32 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  Next Page Last Page    
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > Las Vegas Shooting Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems