Las Vegas Shooting

[Sias]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

IMG_0790.JPG is a very compelling argument.

This isn't just a case of some guy snapping.  He needed time to plan this out.  Hotels tend to be busy during festivals.

Regardless, there was definitely something up with this dude, and I doubt anyone will argue that, politics aside.  A search of his house revealed more firearms.

Ah, maybe my choice of words could have been better. I didn't want to imply that what he did was just him snapping or some kind of other spontaneous decision.
What I meant was that no murderer could really be described as "mentally healthy", which is why a statement about him being mentally ill is only pointing out the obvious.

[peener weener]

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

I think that's attributed to people expecting more gun regulations and buying more guns in the short term which will cause gun stock to go up. 

 

And yea, I'm very interested to hear what his girlfriend has to say.  I am still expecting a mental illness in here somewhere.  I am going to refrain from believing reports from people who claim to have known him for a while.  Not that I don't believe any of it, but I see people lie about this stuff all the time.

the narrative that mass shooters are just "mentally ill" is so detrimental to the image of mental illness and such a huge burden on the advancement of mental health resources in america. it equals mental illness with a total lack of control or judgement and as representing a danger to society. it's not just vague ("mental illness" is a very broad spectrum) but clearly misinformed. it's also prime avoidance. women have high rates of mental illness and yet there are very few mass shootings perpetrated by women. other developed countries have mental illness statistics similar to those of the united states, and yet this is a problem that seems almost exclusive to it.

 

also, you're basically admitting to refusing to believe accounts except where they validate your beliefs. stay classy.

 

edit:

for the record:

https://news.ncsu.edu/2014/02/wms-desmarais-violence2014/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1389236/

http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/visions/trauma-and-victimization-vol3/victimization-of-people-with-mental-illness

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17182626

Edited October 4, 2017 by fartboi

[Zera]

Did anyone else wonder how the bad guy carried 20 suitcases full of guns to the 32nd floor of a massive hotel, and there was no security or metal detectors to stop him? I think there should be a law, like "All hotels with more than 4 floors must have a metal detector at the entrance."

Edited October 4, 2017 by Zera

[Harvey]

You know...after hearing Trumps speech, I do want to take him seriously...but considering that this is the same guy who fired the FBI chief, decided to make a bridge between Mexico and US as a whole and just gave a hard time for some of the immigrants, its hard to take his speech seriously.

As for the incident, completely horrible. This just further proves that more security needs to be had inside hotels and houses in general.

 

[Lushen]

13 hours ago, fartboi said:

<snip>

What???

Saying the shooter could have a mental illness is not 'detrimental' in any way.  The man's father was diagnosed as a Psychopath and it's been studied time and time again that this can be hereditary.  The reason I think the guy had a mental illness is because no other motive has been recovered.  He had no religious, political, personal, etc. reasons to do this which would suggest that he just has violent tendencies.  Saying a mental illness can cause someone to do horrible things is not insulting to people who have mental illnesses, it's a fact...
edit:  Over 1,000 homicides per year attributed to mental illness that was not properly treated
https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html

I have no idea what your "refusing to believe blah" comments were intended for.  The reason I don't believe people who say they knew the shooter off the bat immediately after they say something is because any time someone is charged with sexual abuse a lot of people step up claiming that they were sexually abused.  Then everyone believes them until they are later found out to have lied.  People like to be involved in horror stories.

@ZeraWere there metal detectors?  I think most hotels don't allow their staff to poke through someone's suitcases and if he did it slowly one bag at a time I don't think people would think it's suspicious.

 

It's also important to note he had ammonium nitrate that could have been used as explosives.

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Lushen

[Emeraldfox]

If any sort of gun law was passed America would still have the most lenient gun laws. But with stricter gun laws the shooting would probably still happen. I saw some charts here a few pages back and noted that the murder rates within those charts rose after a gun ban. Well y'see there are other ways to kill someone without a gun.

No one is proposing to outright ban guns here, just stricter laws and ways to prevent criminals and people with mental issues from obtaining them. I may be late in saying this but I wanted to say what was on my mind.

[Res]

41 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The reason I don't believe people who say they knew the shooter off the bat immediately after they say something is because any time someone is charged with sexual abuse a lot of people step up claiming that they were sexually abused.  Then everyone believes them until they are later found out to have lied.  People like to be involved in horror stories.

Not even touching the inaccuracies here, but who mentioned sexual abuse? All the Starbucks baristas said was that he cowed his girlfriend, possibly speaking to a particular mindset. What's not to believe there, and how does it relate to sexual abuse?

5 minutes ago, Emeraldfox said:

If any sort of gun law was passed America would still have the most lenient gun laws. But with stricter gun laws the shooting would probably still happen. I saw some charts here a few pages back and noted that the murder rates within those charts rose after a gun ban.

And we already discussed the whys of that...

Anyway, I feel that at the very least the U.S. could enable gun violence research to be conducted; more facts and insight couldn't hurt. 

[Lushen]

17 minutes ago, Res said:

Not even touching the inaccuracies here, but who mentioned sexual abuse? All the Starbucks baristas said was that he cowed his girlfriend, possibly speaking to a particular mindset. What's not to believe there, and how does it relate to sexual abuse?

It's just a similar situation.  When you see someone in the public eye accused of making sexual comments to people, a bunch of random people claim they are also victims and then it's later determined that some of them lied.  I think the Starbucks comments are likely accurate but until I see actual evidence that he even goes to that Starbucks in the first place I'm not going to consider it a blatant fact.  A little skepticism never hurts anyone.

Also, the dark green font is really hard to read on the dark theme.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

12 hours ago, Zera said:

Did anyone else wonder how the bad guy carried 20 suitcases full of guns to the 32nd floor of a massive hotel, and there was no security or metal detectors to stop him? I think there should be a law, like "All hotels with more than 4 floors must have a metal detector at the entrance."

I think coming in with like 10 suitcases is suspicious in and of itself. No metal detector would solve it so much as a prod at the front desk that says "okay so why do you, one man, have ten suitcases."

Anyway, here's an article on the guy, Stephen Paddock: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/03/new-details-emerge-about-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-and-girlfriend-marilou-danley/?undefined=&utm_term=.cca4caa49b41&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

I have to read it again to decipher it (I only skimmed it earlier) but worth a read.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Lushen]

4 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I think coming in with like 10 suitcases is suspicious in and of itself. No metal detector would solve it so much as a prod at the front desk that says "okay so why do you, one man, have ten suitcases."

Anyway, here's an article on the guy, Stephen Paddock: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/03/new-details-emerge-about-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-and-girlfriend-marilou-danley/?undefined=&utm_term=.cca4caa49b41&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

I have to read it again to decipher it (I only skimmed it earlier) but worth a read.

Yea it's kind of crazy how little we know about him.  I guess we can attribute this to his older age and lack of things like social media.  I would be interest to see what his co-workers at Lockheed martin say about him. Was he an introvert?  Did he have anger issues?  Etc.

[Zera]

11 hours ago, Harvey said:

As for the incident, completely horrible. This just further proves that more security needs to be had inside hotels and houses in general.

I wouldn't say "in general", just buildings with more than a certain number of floors. The reason the shooting was so effective was that the gunman had a serious height advantage.

https://i.imgur.com/gFZVWUS.jpg

In this image, you can see the Mandalay Bay hotel on the left and the back of the concert stage on the right. If he were forced to commit his massacre at ground level, it would've been stopped much sooner.

[eclipse]

39 minutes ago, Zera said:

I wouldn't say "in general", just buildings with more than a certain number of floors. The reason the shooting was so effective was that the gunman had a serious height advantage.

https://i.imgur.com/gFZVWUS.jpg

In this image, you can see the Mandalay Bay hotel on the left and the back of the concert stage on the right. If he were forced to commit his massacre at ground level, it would've been stopped much sooner.

It also makes it a lot harder to figure out where the bullets are coming from.  And even if you do, "somewhere in that tall building" means a sweep of multiple floors.

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Anyway, here's an article on the guy, Stephen Paddock: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/03/new-details-emerge-about-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-and-girlfriend-marilou-danley/?undefined=&utm_term=.cca4caa49b41&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

I have to read it again to decipher it (I only skimmed it earlier) but worth a read.

I think it's rather tasteless to dox everything about his girlfriend - what the hell do her sisters have to do with this?

If their meeting story is true, it sounds like he also had issues with gambling.  Interesting.

[Captain Karnage]

15 hours ago, Zera said:

Did anyone else wonder how the bad guy carried 20 suitcases full of guns to the 32nd floor of a massive hotel, and there was no security or metal detectors to stop him? I think there should be a law, like "All hotels with more than 4 floors must have a metal detector at the entrance."

that won't work because alomost everyone has some ammount of metal on them when they travel

then we would be violating peoples' privacy by having people check through their luggage

and then we have people who go to gun shows, and comeback to their room with more guns (on a side note, as much as I care about gun rights I think gunshows need to be banned if selling is being done due to the lack of background checks that need to be done)

 

[Lushen]

16 hours ago, Zera said:

Did anyone else wonder how the bad guy carried 20 suitcases full of guns to the 32nd floor of a massive hotel, and there was no security or metal detectors to stop him? I think there should be a law, like "All hotels with more than 4 floors must have a metal detector at the entrance."

Installing metal detectors at all Drury hotels in the middle of nowhere would be a little silly. 

[Acacia Sgt]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

It also makes it a lot harder to figure out where the bullets are coming from.  And even if you do, "somewhere in that tall building" means a sweep of multiple floors.

Well, in this case, was he not found due to the smoke detectors of his room? I don't think finding his exact location was actually a problem, since there was that and people outside saw the muzzle flashes whenever he shot.

[eclipse]

11 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Well, in this case, was he not found due to the smoke detectors of his room? I don't think finding his exact location was actually a problem, since there was that and people outside saw the muzzle flashes whenever he shot.

Mandalay Bay is a relatively large building.  IIRC police had some issues finding his room until the smoke detectors went off.

From the outside, could you identify which floor it was?  It looks like "somewhere high up" from my PoV, which is multiple floors.

[Lushen]

Story not over.

The gunman is believed to have been aiming at aviation fuel tanks.  The bullet holes ended up not penetrating fuel tanks thankfully.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/las-vegas-strip-shooter-targeted-aviation-fuel-tanks-source-says/

Note this news comes from an anonymous source so take it with a grain of salt.  Lots of conjecture going on, but some are suggesting not only would the 52 deaths look like nothing if they had exploded but also that he may have planned to escape.  Personally I think people are drawing some hasty conclusions, but we'll see.

edit:  This is also particularly horrifying.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/las-vegas-strip-shooter-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-in-june/

Edited October 5, 2017 by Lushen

[Captain Karnage]

I know quite a few of you here don't like Paul, but I think he made a good video on what we don't know

and he does debunk the multiple shooter conspiracy

the only thing I can comment on is the lights being off, being in emergency management that's on okay thing to do as it makes it a lot harder for a shooter, shooting from a long distance, to hit anything, and the EMTs would be a big target, who would draw attention to survivors, and the EMTs to themselves

[Lushen]

14 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

and he does debunk the multiple shooter conspiracy

There's a multiple shooter conspiracy?  People and their conspiracies...

A lot of people are saying "There's no way he could have acted alone".  I've kind of been saying, "why not?".  As difficult as it is to imagine, it is not that hard for a multi-millionaire to do these things.  They cite things like how could he know the perfect angles to shoot at people from.  Well, I mean he could have just drove by or looked at the venue on google maps.  As for getting the weapons, yea some people obviously helped him get some weapons but there's no reason to suspect that these people knew what he was doing.  If anything, I think the fact that no one knew anything suggests he was acting alone, because the more people you involve in your plots the more people there are looking suspicious.

I think he's just got some undiagnosed mental health problems that causes him to have violent tendencies (basically psychopath).  I think he loved this girl he sent to the Philippines and realized that he was losing control of his emotions so he sent her away with $100k.  I don't think it was hush money, I don't think anyone would take 100k as hush money for someone about to commit mass murder, 100k is not a lot of money. 

[Lord Raven]

On 10/4/2017 at 2:30 PM, Captain Karnage said:

and then we have people who go to gun shows, and comeback to their room with more guns (on a side note, as much as I care about gun rights I think gunshows need to be banned if selling is being done due to the lack of background checks that need to be done)

I would like to point out that the gun show loophole is a feature, not a loophole, and it is not restricted to gun shows.

The idea is that you do have to do a background check -- if your company's primary function is to sell firearms. People and places who do not have firearm sales as their primary source of income do not have to conduct background checks.

I really hate that it's called the gun show loophole, but it's much much broader than a gun show loophole. Not everyone can afford to go to a gun show.

[Res]

I found this fascinating - I had no idea how hard it was to trace guns, or that computers were forbidden in the keeping of records.

"I get e-mails even from police saying, ‘Can you type in the serial number and tell me who the gun is registered to?’ Every week. They think it's like a VIN number on a car. Even police. Police from everywhere. ‘Hey, can you guys hurry up and type that number in?’ ”

So here's a news flash, from Charlie: “We ain't got a registration system. Ain't nobody registering no damn guns.”

There is no national database of guns. We have no centralized record of who owns all the firearms we so vigorously debate, no hard data regarding how many people own them, how many of them are bought or sold, or how many even exist.

That's been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America's gun owners. So people here have to use paper, sort through enormous stacks of forms and record books that gun stores are required to keep and to eventually turn over to the feds when requested. It's kind of like a library in the old days—but without the card catalog.

 

[Raven]

No digital database of guns? Of course not.

[Moblin Major General]

3 hours ago, Raven said:

No digital database of guns? Of course not.

What do you think could be exploited if the Federal government did implement a total weapons ban? That's why. Cops need to stop watching police procedurals, because they know the truth about how long it takes for evidence to be collected.

[Lord Raven]

17 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

What do you think could be exploited if the Federal government did implement a total weapons ban? That's why. Cops need to stop watching police procedurals, because they know the truth about how long it takes for evidence to be collected.

the federal government is unable to do a federal weapons ban and in no way would they get enough votes for the next 80 years to do it. you need a 2/3 vote for a constitutional amendment or something to that effect

if they get enough votes to do this kind of ban, then it's highly likely it's something the majority of the population (a high majority of the population) is in favor of it. as seen by the people who vote strictly republican based on the fact that if a politician says "background check" they instantly lose votes

even Obama's VP made the comment that if obama banned guns then he'd have to respond to his glock

regardless the implication is that we *could* have a digital database, but instead we just have paper trails. it's literally just forced inefficiency

Edited October 7, 2017 by Lord Raven

[peener weener]

On 4/10/2017 at 1:21 PM, Lushen said:

What???

Saying the shooter could have a mental illness is not 'detrimental' in any way.  The man's father was diagnosed as a Psychopath and it's been studied time and time again that this can be hereditary.  The reason I think the guy had a mental illness is because no other motive has been recovered.  He had no religious, political, personal, etc. reasons to do this which would suggest that he just has violent tendencies.  Saying a mental illness can cause someone to do horrible things is not insulting to people who have mental illnesses, it's a fact...
edit:  Over 1,000 homicides per year attributed to mental illness that was not properly treated
https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html

I have no idea what your "refusing to believe blah" comments were intended for.  The reason I don't believe people who say they knew the shooter off the bat immediately after they say something is because any time someone is charged with sexual abuse a lot of people step up claiming that they were sexually abused.  Then everyone believes them until they are later found out to have lied.  People like to be involved in horror stories.

@ZeraWere there metal detectors?  I think most hotels don't allow their staff to poke through someone's suitcases and if he did it slowly one bag at a time I don't think people would think it's suspicious.

 

It's also important to note he had ammonium nitrate that could have been used as explosives.

 

1. psychopathy is not a formal diagnosis. i've actually told you this in another thread.

2. assuming "there's a mental illness in here somewhere" (do you not see how dismissive that wording is?) with barebones knowledge of mental illness is absolutely detrimental to the conversation about mental health in america, especially because when the motive isn't immediately apparent the assumption is immediately that he was "just mentally ill." was it PTSD? was it BPD? what would you say? why do you not think he had a motive (i guess because he wasn't a muslim)? why would you say that other acts of terrorism involve mentally healthy people? what is the point of bringing up mental illness, in this conversation?

3. it is still absolutely untrue that the mentally ill are more prone to violent than those who are not.

4. who would you believe?