Mass Shooting At Las Vegas Music Festival

[toucana]

At least 50 people are dead and another 200 have been injured in a mass shooting at a country music festival in Las Vegas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41466116

A gunman named as local resident Stephen Paddock opened fire from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel in the downtown area on a 40,000 strong sell-out crowd watching the final night of the Route 91 Harvest music festival while headliner Jason Aldean was performing onstage.

Audience members reported hearing bursts of automatic fire that lasted for up to five minutes before a police SWAT team broke down the door of the hotel room and killed the gunman. Police sources say that the gunman was acting alone and that reports of other incidents in different parts of the downtown strip were false.

The heavy casualty toll makes this one of the worst shooting incidents in modern US history. A number of off-duty policemen who were attending the music festival are said to be among the victims.

[TheVat]

2nd amendment!

Price of freedom!

Arm everyone, at all times! Including toddlers!

Anyone seeking to restrict gun ownership hates America! And is a Stalinist fascist monster!

Kevlar vests for everyone!

MAGA!

[BioWizard]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-ma ... 2017-10-02

[TheVat]

Of course. They're scared that Congress might actually rise to Conn. Senator Chris Murphy's challenge to "get off their asses and do something."

Apparently the shooter this time has legal rifles that he had converted to fully automatic (illegally), which greatly upped the mayhem. Better law enforcement against conversion kits, and gunsmiths who will do conversions for customers, might be a good place to start, legislatively.

[toucana]

Nevada state legislature rolled back handgun registration requirements in 2015 in what was touted by lobbyists and gun advocates as a positive move to keep firearm owners from having to fill out additional paperwork.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nevada-gun-laws_us_59d235e4e4b06791bb11d6b8?section=us_politics

Nevada already had some of the laxest "shall issue" gun control laws in the whole of the USA. You can own as many guns (long or short) as you wish. There is no state limitation on carrying weapons in public, nor on owning any quantity of ammunition in any size of magazine you see fit. State laws make no distinction between carrying sem-automatic and fully automatic weapons. In Las Vegas it is entirely legal to stroll down the Strip with a machine gun over your shoulder, although some of the casinos may object if you try to take one into a gaming hall.

The NRA is lobbying lawmakers to ease restrictions on the sale of firearm silencers. You currently have to wait nine months and submit to a fingerprint and ID check in order to obtain one.

The controversial SHARE act sponsored by Rep Jeff Duncan (R-S.C) aimed to ease restrictions on the sale of rifle silencers and was only postponed following the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) in June.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/12/gun-silencer-bill-republican-lawmakers-242595

[TheVat]

Yep, if you don't have regulations consistent throughout all 50 states, then it tends to nullify any state and local initiatives. When Chicago tried their ban, then suddenly there were all these guns turning up that had come from somewhere else.

This piece is probably NSFW, but I think it makes its point really well:

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/things-more-heavily-regulated-than-buying-a-gun-in-the-united-states

[wolfhnd]

Current gun restrictions are already in excess of what the constitution allows so I think congress has done enough. If you don't like the constitution call for constitutional convention, anything else is just loud hand wringing or lack of respect for the concept of legal process.

[toucana]

According to US media reports, the Las Vegas shooter had no fewer than 23 high power weapons in his hotel room, and another 19 assorted firearms were later found at his home in Mesquite. The haul of weapons found at the hotel allegedly include an AK47 on a tripod mount, a number of .223 calibre AR-15 types, and several .308 hunting long guns with scopes.

At least one of the weapons was an automatic rifle that had either been illegally modified from a semi-automatic, or was equipped with a $40 bump-fire recoil trigger device to artificially raise the cyclic firing rate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/10/02/video-from-las-vegas-suggests-automatic-gunfire-heres-what-makes-machine-guns-different/?utm_term=.ea36966f78a3

A number of writers have asked how the shooter managed to get such an enormous arsenal into a hotel room ?

Having recently returned from a vacation on the USA west coast, I can testify from first hand experience that large hotels in America pay no attention to what guests carry onto their premises. One brief check of some photo ID at the reception desk, and the production of a valid credit card, and you could trundle a howitzer up to your room if you could find a case large enough to put it in. Investigators believe that the Mandalay Bay hotel shooter simply made multiple trips with a wheeled golf bag. Hotel staff in Las Vegas would pay little attention, especially if the guest in question is known to be a wealthy high-rolling gambler out on a weekend bender.

https://www.bustle.com/p/how-did-the-las-vegas-shooter-get-guns-into-his-hotel-room-investigators-have-a-theory-2747774

Even if a chambermaid had spotted a fully automatic machine gun in a guest’s room, little would have been said or done in all likelihood. Las Vegas prides itself on offering firing ranges such as ‘Battlefield Las Vegas’ just one block from the Strip where visitors can quite legally blast away with military grade machine guns. '200 Rounds in 1.3 seconds - The fastest gun in Las Vegas’

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/02/machine-guns-have-long-been-las-vegas-draw/725553001/

[TheVat]

Current gun restrictions are already in excess of what the constitution allows so I think congress has done enough. If you don't like the constitution call for constitutional convention, anything else is just loud hand wringing or lack of respect for the concept of legal process.

I see no disrespect in pointing out that what a 1790 article "allows" is probably in need of revision and amending. Courts can also interpret the existing article in a way that reflects common sense about the world of 2017. We are not a small agrarian 18th century nation. We have professional military and law enforcement agencies, trained to use sophisticated military weaponry. We have densely-packed urban areas, where most of the populace lives. Congress has done nothing in the past few years beyond little statements that repeat the phrase "thoughts and prayers." Stop thinking and praying, start doing something.

[TheVat]

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-57086

[BadgerJelly]

It seems like a very unusual incident. The guy was a millionaire.

I guess what we should be asking is how this doesn't happen more often? Why aren't dozens of people running around shooting down other people. It is incidents like these that help show how well maintained human society is whilst under the surface there is a potential for supreme evil.

[Watson]

I'll go out on a limb and suggest, nothing is going to change.

The NAR is going to do what the NAR wants to do, period. Common sense doesn't enter into it. Conversations immediately become circular, leading to the NAR doing what they want.

Clearly the mantra "More guns, not less" doesn't apply in this case. My guess is they will go with the tried and true, "Guns don't kill people, People kill people."

[zetreque]

Current gun restrictions are already in excess of what the constitution allows so I think congress has done enough. If you don't like the constitution call for constitutional convention, anything else is just loud hand wringing or lack of respect for the concept of legal process.

I see no disrespect in pointing out that what a 1790 article "allows" is probably in need of revision and amending. Courts can also interpret the existing article in a way that reflects common sense about the world of 2017. We are not a small agrarian 18th century nation. We have professional military and law enforcement agencies, trained to use sophisticated military weaponry. We have densely-packed urban areas, where most of the populace lives. Congress has done nothing in the past few years beyond little statements that repeat the phrase "thoughts and prayers." Stop thinking and praying, start doing something.

I'm a believer of cultural change, not more laws whatever those laws are. Things with or without laws will only get worse until people start doing something about existing cultural problems and population growth.

[TheVat]

There's plenty of historical evidence that laws can do good without waiting for culture to change. The people of Chicago were quite happy with the first major gun control legislation, in 1934, which among other things banned the Tommy guns Capone et al. were using to shoot up the town. And started requiring registration and background checks. Those laws had demonstrably good effects. What if the U.S. had not passed civil rights laws in the 50s and 60s, and told black people to just wait for the culture to change down South? Would you be the one to want to offer that advice? For that matter, what about the emancipation law? Or other laws against hate crimes, domestic abuse, discrimination? Just wait a while?

We elect our representatives in government to fix social problems and make better laws to implement positive change. A majority of Americans have wanted a ban on assault weapons (and semiautomatics modified to work as military assault weapons) for years. I would suggest that cultural change is already happening, and Congress should get off their asses and make laws with real teeth and real infrastructure for enforcement of said laws. Do you want to tell the grieving relatives and loved ones of people who died in Las Vegas that we just have to wait for cultural changes?

You say things will get worse until "people start doing something." Well, I would suggest that demanding legislative action from our duly elected representatives IS doing something. It works in almost any other country you could name, where deaths from shootings are a small fraction of the U.S. rate - people did something, they made stiffer laws and enforced them. That's what happened in Australia, and they haven't had a mass shooting since they passed their stronger gun laws.

[zetreque]

I will demand no such action on this topic other than to combat population growth and other problems.

[TheVat]

Well okay. I responded with several points addressing your post, but I would guess that you feel there's no common ground we can reach on legislative action.

At this point, I could mention specific legal loopholes that are an evasion of federal law, like "bump stocks," and if it might be worthwhile to at least try and ban them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/03/ban-bump-stocks-las-vegas-shooter-automatic-fire

Bump stocks, technically legal, allow conversion of semiautomatics to a firing rate that is similar to a fully automatic. Unless you are personally going to war, I'm not sure that there's a great need for such conversion devices.

Also, another question for anyone - why does an ordinary citizen needs 47 weapons? That's the current count for the LV shooter. Would a limit on the number of guns you can own (as exists in pretty much every other nation in the world) really hamper someone's ability to go hunting or fend off a burglar? Where I grew up, 3 was a common number: a deer rifle, a .22 for small vermin, and a sidearm for protection in the house. Just something to chew on.

[BadgerJelly]

Even if guns were illegal I am sure he'd have been able to get hold of one ... he was not exactly poor.

[toucana]

Bump-fire stocks are basically a type of strap-on used by 'ammo-sexuals' who get aroused by blazing off rounds in a totally uncontrollable way. The same sort of guys who wear a heat-proof mitten so they can unlatch and replace the red-hot gun barrels they just burned out with an endless supply of new ones.

It's almost impossible to aim and fire a gun fitted with a bump stock in any controlled way. The fact that the LV gunman had semi-automatic rifles fitted with both bump stocks and telescopic sights tells you almost all you need to know about his mentality and objectives.

[Watson]

Three guns?? What if someone 'wants' more than three? It is not about a common sense need for hunting, or protection. It is about the irrational interpretation of the constitutional right to unlimited gun ownership.

[zetreque]

Also, another question for anyone - why does an ordinary citizen needs 47 weapons?

Easy, to fight when our ridiculous govt institutes martial law. Short response because i'm sitting in an airline terminal.

[BadgerJelly]

Also, another question for anyone - why does an ordinary citizen needs 47 weapons?

Easy, to fight when our ridiculous govt institutes martial law. Short response because i'm sitting in an airline terminal.

This is a strangely good point about the benefits of freedom in the US. If people are able to oppose the government with armed force, and they don't, then this bodes well for US society.

Of course I am not so naïve as to think the government doesn't guard against any such action happening. Nevertheless it is a very good reason for allowing people to have firearms.

And to repeat, this incident was not about allowing people to have firearms. He was wealthy and capable enough to get what he needed even if firearms were illegal. True, it would have been more difficult, but I doubt it would have stopped his intent.

Freedom means more danger. Accept freedom and accept danger. This does not mean we have to live in fear only that we should understand that the world can be, and often is, a dangerous place. That is not a bad thing considering the age we live in is so much safer that any other time in history.

[TheVat]

Also, another question for anyone - why does an ordinary citizen needs 47 weapons?

Easy, to fight when our ridiculous govt institutes martial law. Short response because i'm sitting in an airline terminal.

Short response is fine, but when you have time, I'm tryiing to understand how I'm going to fend off the government which has a professional army with tanks, APCs, artillery, bazookas, RPGs, armor-piercing automatic machine guns, mortars, grenades, gas, concussion grenades, etc. How will 47, or any number of guns, really help me against flak-jacketed soldiers with advanced weapons technology? And the man with 47 guns, in my example, didn't exactly use them for the sake of freedom from tyranny and fighting off a rogue army.

Even if we could fight a guerrilla war against a government here, should we ask if there are better methods than guns? Gandhi sent the British packing with nonviolent resistance.

Maybe another way to put this, that your scientific mind will relate to, is what are the data points showing us - what are the people with big gun stockpiles using them for?

Badger, in other countries where there are rich people, the stricter gun laws do correlate with far fewer gun murders, so it's clear that many would-be shooters are not rich and are prevented from acting on their "going postal" impulses. Rapid-fire guns make killing much easier. Harder to do a mass clubbing or a mass knifing.

[zetreque]

Also, another question for anyone - why does an ordinary citizen needs 47 weapons?

Easy, to fight when our ridiculous govt institutes martial law. Short response because i'm sitting in an airline terminal.

Short response is fine, but when you have time, I'm tryiing to understand how I'm going to fend off the government which has a professional army with tanks, APCs, artillery, bazookas, RPGs, armor-piercing automatic machine guns, mortars, grenades, gas, concussion grenades, etc. How will 47, or any number of guns, really help me against flak-jacketed soldiers with advanced weapons technology? And the man with 47 guns, in my example, didn't exactly use them for the sake of freedom from tyranny and fighting off a rogue army.

Even if we could fight a guerrilla war against a government here, should we ask if there are better methods than guns? Gandhi sent the British packing with nonviolent resistance.

Maybe another way to put this, that your scientific mind will relate to, is what are the data points showing us - what are the people with big gun stockpiles using them for?

Badger, in other countries where there are rich people, the stricter gun laws do correlate with far fewer gun murders, so it's clear that many would-be shooters are not rich and are prevented from acting on their "going postal" impulses. Rapid-fire guns make killing much easier. Harder to do a mass clubbing or a mass knifing.

I'm going to be stubborn on this for unsaid reasons. Let me ask another question. Should we outlaw gasoline because someone can create horrendous bombs with it? Do people just not like guns because they fear sick minded people will use them over gasoline just because of the "cool" factor?

[BadgerJelly]

Biv -

Badger, in other countries where there are rich people, the stricter gun laws do correlate with far fewer gun murders, so it's clear that many would-be shooters are not rich and are prevented from acting on their "going postal" impulses. Rapid-fire guns make killing much easier. Harder to do a mass clubbing or a mass knifing.

That has nothing to do with my point. Everyone seems obsessed with reducing this to a debate about gun ownership. I was more interested in why the hell a millionaire suddenly decided to give up his life and take others down with him.

What drives an apparently successful man to commit such a hideous act? The lack of motivation is the strange thing for me.

[TheVat]

Biv -

Badger, in other countries where there are rich people, the stricter gun laws do correlate with far fewer gun murders, so it's clear that many would-be shooters are not rich and are prevented from acting on their "going postal" impulses. Rapid-fire guns make killing much easier. Harder to do a mass clubbing or a mass knifing.

That has nothing to do with my point. Everyone seems obsessed with reducing this to a debate about gun ownership. I was more interested in why the hell a millionaire suddenly decided to give up his life and take others down with him.

What drives an apparently successful man to commit such a hideous act? The lack of motivation is the strange thing for me.

I agree: this one was bizarre. The rich tend to enjoy social ease, mobility, and a power and control over their affairs that, usually, doesn't predispose them towards being deranged angry loners. This Paddock guy is, statistically speaking, a true outlier. I think there's a strong possbility of a profound mental illness that money could not help. Perhaps his ego attached such a stigma and shame to mental illness, that he couldn't bring himself to admit the need for help, and tried to "buy" himself a social circle at all these casinos. When he realized that being a high-rolling gambler still wasn't going to buy him genuine social connections, something....snapped inside him and he became a true misanthrope. Just speculating, at this point.

[TheVat]

I'm going to be stubborn on this for unsaid reasons. Let me ask another question. Should we outlaw gasoline because someone can create horrendous bombs with it? Do people just not like guns because they fear sick minded people will use them over gasoline just because of the "cool" factor?

- Z.

I am guessing that the rarity of gasoline bomb massacres is related to our presently mild regulation of gasoline distribution. As with many things, we try to respond to problems rationally, as they develop. If gasoline bomb massacres became common, it seems likely that there would be tighter controls -- no more self-serve pumps, car gas tanks that can only be opened or drained by certified techs with special tools, etc. People are often willing to sacrifice some conveniences for the sake of public safety.

Many chemicals are now very hard to buy, because of their use in making harmful things - pseudoephedrine-based decongestants (it used to be commonly used by meth makers), for example. Or chemicals that make high-yield explosives. Even sales of ammonium nitrate are far more carefully tracked, after the OKC bombing used a crude ANFO device.

Societies generally manage by crisis, it seems like. If I knew better what your "unsaid reasons" are, I would perhaps have more understanding of your advocacy of not regulating what seems like a very dangerous device.

[zetreque]

Slightly related. I am not happy sacrificing my convenience of having to go through TSA when flying and it doesn't make me feel any safer. The terrorists won that one IMO. Millions of pocket knives and multitools have been needlessly wasted.

[zetreque]

I am guessing that the rarity of gasoline bomb massacres is related to our presently mild regulation of gasoline distribution. As with many things, we try to respond to problems rationally, as they develop. If gasoline bomb massacres became common, it seems likely that there would be tighter controls -- no more self-serve pumps, car gas tanks that can only be opened or drained by certified techs with special tools, etc. People are often willing to sacrifice some conveniences for the sake of public safety.

I wouldn't go so far as to say mass shootings with machine guns are that common either. Most of these on this list I wouldn't say are "mass". When put into context of all the other ways people die, it's actually quite small. Increase the difficulty of getting a drivers license and you will probably save millions of lives and then maybe I would feel much safer. http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest- ... -rampages/

[TheVat]

As David Brooks notes in this excellent article, risk assessment is not really what people focus on in regards to the gun issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/guns-soul-of-america.html

(posted this over in the politics forum, too, in case anyone wants to address those issue)

Each side sees things in a way strongly influenced by the psychological impact of guns. We know cars are dangerous, they are a highly visible threat for which we can take precautions. We add seatbelts and airbags and impact-absorbing frames. We have, culturally, accepted the risk. Where I live, there is no choice, because personal vehicles are the only way to get much of anywhere. Shootings by strangers OTOH has a bigger emotional effect on public order and the sense of security in public places, than its actual statistical risk would first indicate. It has a quality of randomness and madness that is unsettling.

On the pro-gun side, gun owners gain a much greater degree of cultural identity (see Brooks article) and a much greater sense of security and self-reliance than the gun may actually provide. As Brooks says, "Guns are a proxy for larger issues." I think he nailed it, right there.

[zetreque]

Need stricter background checks and control for truck rentals now? I didn't even know you could rent a truck at Home Depot.

Truck attack in Manhattan kills 8; mayor calls it act of terror
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/us/new-yo ... index.html