War hero wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:Well we'll just have to wait and see, before we just to the all to frequent LRC conclusions, wont we?
but, but, but.... Didn't you already jump to the all to frequent LRC conclusion?
I don't as yet have enough info to jump to any conclusions........about the shooting.
2nd Amendment gone Amuck wrote:
Yikes!
So this is the USA.
This has been the USA since day 1. 50 deaths is the largest mass shooting in US history? You guys are fools if you believe that.
https://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.aspfeldman wrote:
Vivalarepublica wrote:Your insinuation that my definition of terrorism has to include ISIS says more about your assusmptions than it does about mine.
Terrorism doesn't have a strict definition or meaning. A senseless act of violence against peaceful, non-combatants in order to inspire fear and terror meets the criteria of terrorism. Usually, terrorism is defined to further a political, ideological, or religious agenda. But I find that too constrained, considering that non-ideological and ideological mass murderers often have similar psychological profiles that de-humanize targets, victims, and enemies. The terrorism label also is being used loosely by state actors to justify violence against their opposition and make them appear less than human and deserving of death.
So in review, terrorism is a senseless act of violence against peaceful, non combatants in order to inspire fear and terror in the lives of everyday citizens. This is an act of terrorism, plain and simple. You are welcome to only include political or religious motives in your definition, but I find that too constraining and often abused by state actors and others with an agenda to push.
Deepest condolences to all those affected, this is a terrible tragedy and I only hope we can have rational discussion about preventing similar incidents, but we probably won't and just return to screaming at each other.
I've waved my magic wand, he was a terrorist.
What would you like our federal government now to have the power to do to private citizens? I'm all in favor of killing terrorists before they have the chance to kill. So bombing the Taliban and drone strikes in Yemen are fine by me. What are you in favor of doing to an American citizen protected by the constitution?
Or maybe it's just that calling a complete piece of sh/t not just a bad guy, but a really really bad guy, or a terrorist, or whatever term you like, makes you FEEL better. But in reality, it means nothing unless you're willing to violate the law.
You're welcome to make this about you and me, but that's beside the point. You didn't wave a magic wand, this yahoo violated the law and committed an act of terrorism, and that's why it's terrorism.
Our individual rights are actually privileges, not rights, and they are the result of a constant push-pull between the idea of public safety and an individuals right to privacy. I'm familiar with the effects of AUMF. I don't recall an administration that fully respected the individual rights enshrined in the Constitution, it's just a document they wave in our faces when it's convenient. The federal government already collects your information and spies on you when they see fit. They already have killed American citizens that were classified as terrorists.
Also, please know that post-9/11 war on terror includes senseless death of women, children, and other people that have suffered from the collateral damage. When you witness your innocent family dying in a drone bombing, it might make you wonder who is the source of the terror.
I don't feel any better as a result of these labels and conversation. In fact, I feel worse. I'm going outside for lunch.
motive wrote:
Vivalarepublica wrote:Your insinuation that my definition of terrorism has to include ISIS says more about your assusmptions than it does about mine.
Terrorism doesn't have a strict definition or meaning. A senseless act of violence against peaceful, non-combatants in order to inspire fear and terror meets the criteria of terrorism. Usually, terrorism is defined to further a political, ideological, or religious agenda. But I find that too constrained, considering that non-ideological and ideological mass murderers often have similar psychological profiles that de-humanize targets, victims, and enemies. The terrorism label also is being used loosely by state actors to justify violence against their opposition and make them appear less than human and deserving of death.
So in review, terrorism is a senseless act of violence against peaceful, non combatants in order to inspire fear and terror in the lives of everyday citizens. This is an act of terrorism, plain and simple. You are welcome to only include political or religious motives in your definition, but I find that too constraining and often abused by state actors and others with an agenda to push.
Deepest condolences to all those affected, this is a terrible tragedy and I only hope we can have rational discussion about preventing similar incidents, but we probably won't and just return to screaming at each other.
Perhaps he wasn't trying to 'inspire fear and terror'. What if his aim was to kill people?
Is there an alternate universe where killing people does not inspire fear and violence?
I'm not really in favor of increased security in hotels....heck, I might need to pop in and use the bathroom in the lobby ... but it is quite a feat to sneak ten guns into your hotel room, most of them far bigger than handguns. Even if they were in pieces and could be assembled in the room (and I have no idea if that's so),that's a lot of conspicuous hardware to be taking up to the 32nd floor on an elevator.
racket wrote:
Vivalarepublica wrote:Terrorism doesn't have a strict definition or meaning. A senseless act of violence against peaceful, non-combatants in order to inspire fear and terror meets the criteria of terrorism.
Wouldn't that make school bullies and most people in middle management terrorists? I think you need to set some clear and concrete definitions or else a lot of people are "terrorists"
All the people you mentioned can create terror and trauma in your minds, so it could be a form of minor terror in the school or workplace. But I wouldn't call it a form of deadly terrorism that we are discussing here.
Life is an endless stream of nuanced grey areas, we humans just create clear and concrete definitions to make the world easier for us to understand and navigate.
Who Do They Think wrote:
I'm not really in favor of increased security in hotels....heck, I might need to pop in and use the bathroom in the lobby ... but it is quite a feat to sneak ten guns into your hotel room, most of them far bigger than handguns. Even if they were in pieces and could be assembled in the room (and I have no idea if that's so),that's a lot of conspicuous hardware to be taking up to the 32nd floor on an elevator.
With the staggering number of cameras at Vegas hotels this will be a major part of the story.
Pray for Vegas wrote:
If only people had prayed for Vegas a day earlier, none of this would have happened.
Probably the best post on this thread. What a shame an all-powerful god couldn't have stopped this incident.
beantown bob wrote:
anybody else see the film of the people still carrying their drinks as they tried to run away? Drop the beer you white trash twat and RUN
Actually, I think booze would help numb the pain, if wounded.
Let's not judge their behavior in a moment of absolute fear and panic. Don't even know what I would do if in this type of situation.
Who Do They Think wrote:
I'm not really in favor of increased security in hotels....heck, I might need to pop in and use the bathroom in the lobby ... but it is quite a feat to sneak ten guns into your hotel room, most of them far bigger than handguns. Even if they were in pieces and could be assembled in the room (and I have no idea if that's so),that's a lot of conspicuous hardware to be taking up to the 32nd floor on an elevator.
He checked into the hotel on Thursday.
Fukthisc***ry wrote:
The US is such a joke when it comes to guns. Stuff like this happens, then you have bills that will make it easier to get suppressors and armor piercing bullets.
As long as nothing changes, expect more of this. It wasn't even a surprise.
Then you'll have gun nuts saying 50 out of 325 million isn't worth giving up guns. Seriously thinking of moving to Canada.
Not 100% sure that they will want you in Canada. Should there be a immigration ban of US citizens in Canada until the US culture of violence is resolved?
Pray for Vegas wrote:
If only people had prayed for Vegas a day earlier, none of this would have happened.
Did the Vegas oddsmakers have a betting line on something like this happening?
Bean town Bob, said "white trash" therefore he is a hateful bigot Liberal Democrat.
Feldman, a girly man for taking pride in a finger.
A finger
Dead bodies and you "like" a finger on social media
DRINK F*** FIGHT wrote:
2nd Amendment gone Amuck wrote:Yikes!
So this is the USA.
NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE DEADLIEST MASSACRE IN U.S. HISTORY!
At "Wounded Knee" The Federal Government gunned down 300 Men, Women, and Children without provocation.
Oh yeah they made sure to "disarm" them first.
It was mutual "Custards last Stand"
People die hard
Unless Democrats (Commies, Marxists, Socialists, totalitarians) disarm people first.
Who Do They Think wrote:
I'm not really in favor of increased security in hotels....heck, I might need to pop in and use the bathroom in the lobby ... but it is quite a feat to sneak ten guns into your hotel room, most of them far bigger than handguns. Even if they were in pieces and could be assembled in the room (and I have no idea if that's so),that's a lot of conspicuous hardware to be taking up to the 32nd floor on an elevator.
Not really. If they were all AR type weapons they could easily be broken down and carried in a single suitcase.
Will be interesting to see if he used all 10 or not.
CapnPerv wrote:
Muslims have said before Vegas is a target of hate for them.
I hope you feel as foolish as you sound.
Democrat_girly_men wrote:
DRINK F*** FIGHT wrote:NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE DEADLIEST MASSACRE IN U.S. HISTORY!
At "Wounded Knee" The Federal Government gunned down 300 Men, Women, and Children without provocation.
Oh yeah they made sure to "disarm" them first.
It was mutual "Custards last Stand"
Brain dead post. Custer had been sent to exterminate the people who killed him. It's not at all comparable to a massacre.
Regardless of what happens regarding future gun sales, what do people propose doing about the hundreds of millions of guns already out there?
I own many and do not like the idea of being forced to surrender them, but would if that was the legal thing to do. I'm sure there are many that wouldn't. And in fact would react violently. Plus there is no way every firearm would ever be gathered, then we are back to "only criminals have guns."
Some in this thread and in the news have tried to poke fun at the idea that if there were no guns, then people would find another way.
Isn't that exactly what we see in Europe with all of the vans running into crowds?
I feel if we end up with sweeping gun reform and we are like Australia, then sick or criminally minded people WILL find other ways, and they'll end up way more creative than we can currently imagine, AND we will have went so far down the anti-gun hole that there is no going back.
Very informative thread.