General News Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

Sorry, but the gun vs car comparison is ridiculous for three reasons:

1. This thread is about mourning the loss of the lives/supporting the surviving injured of this tragedy. I hate distracted drivers more than anyone I know, but It's inappropriate to bring them in this kind of topic as It's spitting on the graves of these victims. I get sick of seeing 9/11 threads every time September 11 comes around, but I'm not going to say "Forget about the US being victims of terrorists on this day, we have terrorized multiple countries so we reap what we sow." It would be an inappropriate comment on a thread created to mourn lives.

2. Cars can kill people, but they're not designed to kill people. They have other purposes, such as commuting to other places. Guns on the other hand are created to kill. There is no other purpose. Hunting you say? Well hunting still kills animals, and you don't need a overpowered gun to hunt. Target practice? Even target practice originally existed to make people better at killing/practicing aim. It may be fun, but the intention was still "to get better at killing". And if target practice is really the reason, why not just use rentals? Same with hunting...we are not in Alaska, just buy store meat.

3. Cars are also a poor analogy because they are regulated better than guns are. I got my first license at the age of 26 and it was a huge battle to do this because of the papers I had on mental illness and disability. They made me play a huge waiting game and I had to go through hurdles. I had felt like my rights were being taken away, when I know people in my situation who could have gotten a gun easier at a show. Not only that, but you have to pass a test to get a license, and you have to retake tests multiple times to keep it. It's also not hard to lose your license. When has this ever happened with guns in the US? People would throw a fit if we treated guns the same way. Canada has regulation on guns, yet many still own guns for practical reasons. And yet mass shootings never happen in Canada. I read an attempted school shooting that happened in Canada, but because the gun owner was banned from getting powerful machinery, the death toll was very low.

And on gun control in general, people all misunderstand the 2nd amendment due to cherry picking. For some reason, we overlook the "A well regulated Militia" part of the constitution. Hell, even the 1st amendment is regulated! You can still get in big trouble for saying certain things at certain events, or for bullying others. Having freedom of speech doesn't mean you're allowed to say whatever you want, only that you cannot be arrested for doing so. We understand the regulations of the 1st amendment but for some reason, the 2nd flies over our head.

On topic of gun control, I always hear that "criminals are going to smuggle guns anyway". But if you actually pay attention to these mass shootings, It's always "normal" people who got these guns legally with no effort.

 

Let me just add that the majority of guns in gun violence were legally purchased. Not just that, but a LOT of guns get smuggled into mexico from the United States. People always talk about the black market like it's some underground entity that manufacturers guns. In reality, the black market for guns is the United States

 

On a related tangent, I can 99% guarantee that all that will happen regarding gun control is some heated debates for a few months, and there will be no legislation passed in either direction.

 

There's a difference between sitting in a hotel and killing 100 people, walking into a school or mall with the intent to kill people (in the school shootings that have literally become very common in life in amurica, they walk into schools with the intent of killing as many children as they can.) That is different from reckless driving, and I doubt that everyone who texts and drives (not that I am at all saying this is ok) thinks to themselves 'ok, when I drive to work today, I'll make sure to check my phone alot and kill as many people as I can.'

And, yes, not every gun owner has that intent either, but do hunters really need assailt rifles to 'protect their home' or simply go hunting. I'm not for hunting, but that aside, isn't the point of hunting for the thrill of making the shot, so wouldn't military assault rifles be cheating in your eyes anyway? But in amurica, people love all or nothing. No gun regulations or absolutely no guns. Do you really think there's nothing wrong with handing over a bunch of assault rifles to a damn college kid? What on earth would anyone, especially that young, need with all those types of military rifles and equipment?? That's not just one handgun to keep the family safe.

I am not for guns, but in that argument those types of people love making, they believe in order for family protection, instead of maybe one rifle and/or handgun, they see nothing wrong with handing kids tons of military-grade weapons. That's literally what they did with the movie theatre shooter, a college kid. And this guy had how many assault rifles in his 10 bags?? Who on earth needs that many weapons?? A bit much for the average hunter or protecting family, etc or even a military person. I doubt each individual in the military has THAT many weapons.

And why are people focusing more on the gambling than the 10 bags of weapons he was sitting with?

 

I watched some of the footage. Really heartbreaking... I couldn't help but cry.

I agree the types of weapons he had shouldn't be that accessible.

I was listening to a book that brought up Charles Whitman (1966 shooting in Texas) before I found out about Las Vegas. The book described how officials wanted to understand what happened to prevent it from happening again. They found out he was greatly restricted in childhood by his parents. No room for play or being creative. Apparently there's a connection between rage and a lack of play? I'm not saying that is the case here and of course not all anger/rage comes from lack of play. Just stating that mental health plays such a huge role in violence and rage. Our society as a whole isn't a good place for mental health and having compassion for others or ourselves.

Anger, hate, disgust, bitterness, etc builds over time. If not address, we get to a breaking point.

I've been going to large and small events and staying at hotels in the USA for a decade and I often have cargo with me. Bringing a large amount of fire arms would not be difficult. I am in no way shocked that it went unnoticed. I know why he could do it, but I won't explain why so I dont give "ideas" to the internet. After all, violence at events is something I hope won't become a norm. Hotels may change what they are doing now though.

 

I hate that the 2nd amendment is so protected. I just feel like the other side, the pro-gun side, won't even consider banning assault rifles and putting other gun control measures in place at all. Because there's this belief, i feel like, that we need all of that to rise up against the government if need be because that's why the amendment was made in the first place. But back then guns weren't reliable and powerful, right? SO its a totally different context. Watching the videos of the attack and knowing that in Nevada, what he had was apparently legal (minus possibly the bump stock, not sure on that one), and that he was able to get those guns into his room without any known apparent trouble...we need change.

I know how its probably so easy to hide guns in duffle bags or big suitcases and put them on the trollies up to the hotel room, i've stayed in hotels before. But it shouldn't be that easy. I feel like there's so many things that could have been put in place to protect the people. Hotels could check bags - i mean, most big amusement parks i've been to checked bags and purses, why can't hotels? Especially if the hotel does not allow guns. Which i would be upset if they do. Nevada could have put in laws to limit his ability to buy that many guns and that much ammo and outlaw that type of gun. I mean i know it won't prevent it, but to not make laws because its perceived they won't work is stupid i think. I mean, drugs are illegal. And everyday things like cold medicine, decongestant allergy medicine, cigarettes and alcohol, and sharpies has an age limit where you gotta show ID to buy it. So why can't guns be just as controlled and restricted, for the safety and inconvenience of all like a lot of other things are?

Its heartbreaking and troubling. I hope this changes things, but i don't know that it will. Its ironic and i only realized this the other day reading articles about Las Vegas...but with 9/11 and terror attacks, we will take every security measure that can be thought of it seems, but with gun control we will refuse to do anything. At least that's what it seems like to me. Yet gun violence kills more people and is more of an issue than big terror attacks, is it not? Like day to day, you can realistically fear gun violence but not a terror attack i mean.

And this doesn't even get me started on the 'lone wolf' versus terrorist thing. Note that all of what i'm saying is me venting, my mom's so into all of this coverage and has her opinions and won't let anybody voice an opinion against her...so this is me venting, really. I agree with that...i mean Paddock was characterized immediately as a lone wolf, yet if he had been from the middle east or had parents from there, or practiced Islam, he would have been branded a terrorist and ISIS claiming him would have been taken seriously, i feel like. My mom is going bonkers insisting he's probably really a muslim convert and saying his wife probably was too and that ISIS doesn't claim people that aren't really theirs...ugh. I mean for real mom, there were people that did massacres prior to 9/11 that had absolutely no connection to extremist islam, like Columbine.

Sorry for ranting, i just wanted to get this all off my chest.

 

The reason this isn't labeled as terrorism is because it doesn't fit the textbook definition of terrorism. Political or ideological motive is needed, and so far the FBI hasn't come up with one. This definition is pretty much set by the government, and if media claims it's terrorism when it's really not, they could get in trouble. That's why you don't see any mainstream media, both left and right, calling this an act of terrorism. In the end, I don't see why people think being labeled a mass murderer is any better than being labeled a terrorist. They're both bad, and the only real difference is just the motivation. Dylan Roof would be a terrorist because of his motives, whereas the Columbine shooters weren't terrorists because they didn't have an intent to make some type of political or ideological statement.

Honestly, if the FBI couldn't even confirm that he had connections to ISIS, then chances are, he didn't.

 

Yeah i know. That's not what i was trying to say...i meant it the other way around. I totally agree that he's a lone wolf. I just think that if he had been of middle eastern appearance, that if he'd been a muslim, then the at the very least the word would have been thrown around. B/c there's already ppl on twitter and ppl like my mom who think his attack should be called terrorism and are angry that they are only calling him a lone wolf and think that that is what it is when it isn't. Its a massacre. Terrorism is associated with muslim extremists. Ppl in the sheriff's first press briefing were asking questions about his association with terrorists and muslims and it was only a few hours at best after the attack, they not yet released his name just the make/plates of 2 cars and 1 person of interest.

 

Agreeing with this. Had this man been a Muslim, there definitely would be more people more willing to label him a terrorist despite not fitting the textbook definition. Sadly, Islamic extremism is in fact the first thought many people get when a mass murder of this scale is committed in a western country.


My only real issue is that some people are assuming that the only reason he's not being labeled a terrorist is because he's not Muslim, which just simply isn't the case. There's definitely bias when it comes to religion, but this is simply a case based on technicalities. Quite frankly, whether or not he's called a terrorist doesn't make much of a difference. It's just an arbitrary term used to describe a type of violence. I just wish people would look at the bigger picture instead of focusing on such a trivial detail :/

 

Terrorist, in my book, is when someone wants to inflict terror on people, political or not, and whether Middle Eastern motivated or not. This guy clearly wanted to terrorize the crap out og as many people as possible, whether related to isis or not (which I don't think he was.) Yes, usually in this day, terrorism equates to Middle East, etc, but anyone for whatever reason, as long as they just want to raise terror in others is a terrorist. The movie theatre guy didn't do it in isis' name or to try to impress them or whatever, he was doing that on his own. But no doubt he intended to scare the sh*t out of alot of the people in the meantime, in which case you could say he was terrorizing them.

But, yes in terms of how the government defines terrorism, no this wasn't an act of terrorism, and last I heard they hadn't found the motive yet or who that woman was in the crowd beforehand who was saying those things and escorted out.

 

I am from the country that has very strict gun laws and grateful that I can meet random people without having to worry whether they carry a gun or not. I am disheartened that these things are still happening.

 

It keeps happening, again and again... It pains me to say, but I'm becoming numb to the feeling in all honesty.

And as usual per our standard, no lessons will be learned. A sad truth.

 

Same. It's happening every day udually at least once a day here. After a couple years of virtually every day hearing about a new one, I've become numb to it as well. And for the statistics, while it is surprising at first when you see the numbers, after a second, it kind of isn't because you realize it's an rvery day occurance. But thry make laws that make schools no longer a gun-free zone. SCHOOLS aren't even allowed to be a safe place where there are at least rules against guns. Yes, the bad apple will bring a gun anyway, but don't you think it's insanity to make it officially no longer a gun-free zone?? While those gun enthusiasts are at it, make murder legal? Murders are happening all the time anyway even with the laws, so what's the point in having those laws?? And these guns lead to murder most of thr time, do you're saying guns are fine, but murder is terrible?!

 

Shoot, I realize I was saying you in my post, I didn't mean you Kira, I meant the gun enthusiasts and sympathizers/orange voters