All He Does Is Win wrote:
Gotta bee wrote:I heard ISIS claimed responsibility but idk if that's confirmed
We need to confirm whether he was a Muslim convert before we know if it's terrorism.
Nice one, Donald.
All He Does Is Win wrote:
Gotta bee wrote:I heard ISIS claimed responsibility but idk if that's confirmed
We need to confirm whether he was a Muslim convert before we know if it's terrorism.
Nice one, Donald.
these violent whites must be stopped. who will stop being politically correct and call this problem by name??
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
gunguy wrote:I am a gun enthusiast, NRA member and 2nd amendment supporter. Let me tell you very simply, more guns would NOT have helped. If every person at the concert were armed more people would be dead, not less.
There is only one solution: Paid private snipers. Just like every flight with more than 300 people requires a US Marshall, every event with more than 10,000 people should require a sniper. Events covering larger areas or with more people may need multiple snipers.
We need highly trained individuals with high power weapons. I'm would support the US banning all civilians from having anything but hunting rifles if they also allowed for fully automatic weapons in the hands of the trained and vetted.
I'm not quite sure of the logic behind your reasoning, especially as it relates to more people being dead if everyone was armed. Since the guy appears to gave been on the 32nd floor of the hotel next to the venue, neither more, nor less firearms would have made any difference at all. I'm also a bit fuzzy on the statement about banning all but hunting rifles, also the sniper idea seems a bit "out there". Can you explain your reasoning in more detail?
I said more people would be killed because if you have 30,000 country music fans with loaded weapons in a situation of chaos, someone is getting accidentally shot.
I said banning all but hunting rifles because that's what I hear my lib friends say we should do and I was just saying I would concede that if qualified people were allowed the high powered weapons that criminals have.
If the concert had hired a sniper some people would still have died, but it's highly unlikely that the shooting would have gone on for 10 minutes. It would not take a trained sniper long to spot and eliminate the target.
feldman wrote:
Vivalarepublica wrote:I just hope that we can call this what it is, which is an act of terrorism and senseless mass murder.
If it's terrorism by definition, what political motive was at work here? Are you telling me you believe he actually was part of ISIS?
Damn people are stupid when crap like this happens.
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.
Vivalarepublica wrote:
feldman wrote:If it's terrorism by definition, what political motive was at work here? Are you telling me you believe he actually was part of ISIS?
Damn people are stupid when crap like this happens.
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.
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"
gunguy wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:I'm not quite sure of the logic behind your reasoning, especially as it relates to more people being dead if everyone was armed. Since the guy appears to gave been on the 32nd floor of the hotel next to the venue, neither more, nor less firearms would have made any difference at all. I'm also a bit fuzzy on the statement about banning all but hunting rifles, also the sniper idea seems a bit "out there". Can you explain your reasoning in more detail?
I said more people would be killed because if you have 30,000 country music fans with loaded weapons in a situation of chaos, someone is getting accidentally shot.
I said banning all but hunting rifles because that's what I hear my lib friends say we should do and I was just saying I would concede that if qualified people were allowed the high powered weapons that criminals have.
If the concert had hired a sniper some people would still have died, but it's highly unlikely that the shooting would have gone on for 10 minutes. It would not take a trained sniper long to spot and eliminate the target.
stop posting, a$$wipe, or stop lying. you know DAMN well there's nothing that could be done and that you're muzzle-sucking "gun culture" is one of the reasons.
Live with it and stop rationalizing; these are the wages of freedom, in fact: REJOICE!
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?
My Answers wrote:
WesTC wrote:He's a religious man, you know that. He's praying and asking God for answers
Trump already knows all the answers. He said so himself.
I feel so assured now that I know Donald and Melania are quoting scripture and looking to God, instead of grabbing pu**ies and shoving world leaders. Truly a good man, so genuine.
Most wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:Well................not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. So are you inferring that all mass shootings, firearm related murders etc are done by NRA members? And if so, what data do you have that would support even a shred of that as a premise?
Most? LOL ... Most whites are bigots by your definition.
Hardly. But most terrorists in this day and age are indeed, Muslim. But that really has nothing to do with the matters at hand, does it?
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Ultradude wrote:Unlike most other countries, the US chooses to have the freedom to own firearms with virtually no regulation at the risk of periodic mass shootings like this one. We have made this choice since the first mass shootings in the 60s like the Univ. of Texas bell tower shooting and we will continue to make this choice for the foreseeable future. It will take something MUCH worse than this for anything to change with respect to US gun laws.
No regulation? You obviously no nothing about firearm laws. The existing regulations are numerous, however not aggressively enough enforced in most jurisdictions. Chicago, case in point..........also the shots I heard in the news feed of the incident indicated a fully automatic weapon. Illegal. Now if it does turn out it was fully automatic, how did he either obtain it or modify a firearm to go into full auto mode? The latter requires significant gunsmith skills.
You can buy a permit to purchase a fully automatic weapon. It is expensive and requires a more extensive background by the ATF. I have friends that own fully automatic rifles, legally.
gunguy wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:I'm not quite sure of the logic behind your reasoning, especially as it relates to more people being dead if everyone was armed. Since the guy appears to gave been on the 32nd floor of the hotel next to the venue, neither more, nor less firearms would have made any difference at all. I'm also a bit fuzzy on the statement about banning all but hunting rifles, also the sniper idea seems a bit "out there". Can you explain your reasoning in more detail?
I said more people would be killed because if you have 30,000 country music fans with loaded weapons in a situation of chaos, someone is getting accidentally shot.
I said banning all but hunting rifles because that's what I hear my lib friends say we should do and I was just saying I would concede that if qualified people were allowed the high powered weapons that criminals have.
If the concert had hired a sniper some people would still have died, but it's highly unlikely that the shooting would have gone on for 10 minutes. It would not take a trained sniper long to spot and eliminate the target.
Sorry I don't agree with your premise. And having snipers situated at every major event I don't think is achievable, or desirable for that matter. So before i pontificate about what did, and should happen, and what were the causes, I'll wait till all the information is in.
War hero wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:No regulation? You obviously no nothing about firearm laws. The existing regulations are numerous, however not aggressively enough enforced in most jurisdictions. Chicago, case in point..........also the shots I heard in the news feed of the incident indicated a fully automatic weapon. Illegal. Now if it does turn out it was fully automatic, how did he either obtain it or modify a firearm to go into full auto mode? The latter requires significant gunsmith skills.
You can buy a permit to purchase a fully automatic weapon. It is expensive and requires a more extensive background by the ATF. I have friends that own fully automatic rifles, legally.
And if it was owned prior to 1986 it was grandfathered in.
feldman wrote:
War hero wrote:You can buy a permit to purchase a fully automatic weapon. It is expensive and requires a more extensive background by the ATF. I have friends that own fully automatic rifles, legally.
And if it was owned prior to 1986 it was grandfathered in.
Well we'll just have to wait and see, before we just to the all to frequent LRC conclusions, wont we?
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
feldman wrote:And if it was owned prior to 1986 it was grandfathered in.
Well we'll just have to wait and see, before we just to the all to frequent LRC conclusions, wont we?
Correct, and I'm here to flame anyone who does otherwise.
Shooters name is Stephen?
At least it wasn't a terrorist attack.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
feldman wrote:And if it was owned prior to 1986 it was grandfathered in.
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?
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
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
Hero:
https://twitter.com/LawyerRussell/status/914881874031292416If only people had prayed for Vegas a day earlier, none of this would have happened.