Shooting Reported at Las Vegas Casino Hotel

Condolences to all of you guys in Vegas. For some odd reason, I never expected to see a mass shooting in Vegas, but now that I think about it, it's unfortunately a viable target since everyone is out all of the time.
 
dont know if it has been said but they found pounds of explosive material at his house
 
No idea. Reports also said house keeping made regular cleaning stops. They didn't notice anything unusual.

From what I read, Las Vegas is a "convention city." So even if a housekeeper was to stumble upon some guns, it wouldn't even be out of the ordinary as firearms conventions occur regularly.
 
Condolences to all of you guys in Vegas. For some odd reason, I never expected to see a mass shooting in Vegas, but now that I think about it, it's unfortunately a viable target since everyone is out all of the time.

Vegas is one of the softest targets in the world, it's nothing but big events and large groups of people.

I always knew something like this would happen here but 32 floors up just spraying for 15 minutes?

Na.

I can't even talk about this crap anymore, honestly, let me log off and go sit at the park or something.

Stay safe, bros.
 
I’m surprised that no casino footage of this guy has been released. Like nothing from check in or even walking thru the casino Vegas is known for the eye in the sky.
They are being analyzed as we speak
 
From what I read, Las Vegas is a "convention city." So even if a housekeeper was to stumble upon some guns, it wouldn't even be out of the ordinary as firearms conventions occur regularly.

I have heard the same. So maybe they thought it was normal.

I don't understand it.

But crazy isn't to be understood.

I feel the same. Absolutely insane 23 guns in the hotel room and 19 more at the house
 
Gun shop owner who sold to Vegas shooter: ‘He was just a normal guy who walks into my door 50,000 times a day’
R4sscj0k

https://t.co/i3wy9UhvW2
 
Alright, getting caught up here-
The 2nd Amendment is not an important freedom, not anymore. It's outdated and unnecessary.

The first half of the 2nd Amendment clearly states "in order to form a well regulated militia..."

1. We are nowhere near well regulated, and the current state of affairs is proof of that.
2. We have the largest army in the world by a huge margin, we don't need a civilian militia.

But people like to ignore the first half of the amendment and focus solely on the latter half.

If people want to own a handgun or hunting rifle that's fine by me, but stop hiding behind a constitutional amendment you don't understand.
1. If you want to argue that, then the states or other non-federal group(s) should have equal firepower and organization to oppose the federal government, if need be. (You knew that's what this Amendment was about, right?) I don't really see the need to go down that road, but if you're pushing that point, that's where you end up.
2. Only if we had zero standing army would we NOT need a civilian milita. I'm not a member of any militia, just pointing out why there's supposed to be one.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't written for personal protection OR hunting, though those are beneficial effects of it. It is there as a check against a tyrannical government. Again, I'm not saying any action needs to be taken like that right now, but if even "all rifles" are sacrificed in the name of "public safety", that would be a significant blow to that vital check/balance incorporated into the foundation of our country.

You're probably about to say "what can a rifle do against a country that has the most powerful military on earth?" I dunno, ask those guys in Afghanistan. They're still there after 9 years fighting the Soviets (also a strong military) and 15 years fighting us, using only rifles and improvised weapons. Obviously I hope it would never come to that, but having armed citizens is a crucial check to help prevent the government from overstepping their bounds, and keeping those kinds of situations from happening.
What's the intended use of a gun?
Protection. Hunting. Recreation. I don't want to ever have to shoot another human being, but it is there to defend me and my family if our lives are ever threatened.

The assumption that the purpose of all guns is to be used offensively is asinine. It is estimated that there are ~300 million guns in this country. There were 11,623 homicides in 2012. That means that 0.0039% of guns in this country were used in homicides in 2012. But yeah, let's go ahead and make sweeping changes that could have unintended affects (see the first spoiler tag) so we all feel warm and fuzzy about it.
Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...icides-than-homicides/?utm_term=.8e1fbf9ceabc
If Trump did that without any bias, I'd be 100% for it. Unfortunately he's a racist pig, so I don't trust him with the task of going into people's homes to confiscate weapons.
"Oh, he resisted, so we had to shoot him... " :smh: Did y'all forget about BLM? You remember that police departments are governmental agencies, too, right?
This is actually piss poor considering I doubt anyone is speaking of a ban, just brainstorming better regulation, and the legal, regulated industry is positively booming.
False. People have specifically listed various bans in this thread, either for all guns, limiting civilians to "only pistols and shotguns" (aka rifle ban), etc etc. Obv most people wanting more gun control want increased limitations rather than an outright ban, but you can't say some aren't wanting a ban.
 
And that's the thing America is looking to hide, that murderous animal looks JUST LIKE a regular American.
The majority of this country looks just like him

look like what, a Real American?



EDIT: I would like to see some security footage of something pretty soon...I don't wanna do this whole thing, but in other scenarios videotape--even unrelated footage--was available much more quickly.
 
Remember how quickly the media was blaming an innocent brown man for the Boston Marathon bombing.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...d-boston-bombing-suspects-sunil-tripathi.html

I get people don't want to politicize this, but everyone has been politicizing this issue for years by knowingly or unknowingly spreading false information, and trying so desperately to feed a narrative that Muslim extremists are more of a threat to us than white male American citizens. And I find it hard to believe that the urge to jump the gun on these stories doesn't have a lot more to do with the background of the individual than it does anything else. The sooner we acknowledge this, the sooner people can try to hold the media accountable.
 
So anyone think there was more than one shooter? There are videos that show what looks like a muzzle going off from 4th or 5th floor.
 
Alright, getting caught up here-
1. If you want to argue that, then the states or other non-federal group(s) should have equal firepower and organization to oppose the federal government, if need be. (You knew that's what this Amendment was about, right?) I don't really see the need to go down that road, but if you're pushing that point, that's where you end up.
2. Only if we had zero standing army would we NOT need a civilian milita. I'm not a member of any militia, just pointing out why there's supposed to be one.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't written for personal protection OR hunting, though those are beneficial effects of it. It is there as a check against a tyrannical government. Again, I'm not saying any action needs to be taken like that right now, but if even "all rifles" are sacrificed in the name of "public safety", that would be a significant blow to that vital check/balance incorporated into the foundation of our country.

You're probably about to say "what can a rifle do against a country that has the most powerful military on earth?" I dunno, ask those guys in Afghanistan. They're still there after 9 years fighting the Soviets (also a strong military) and 15 years fighting us, using only rifles and improvised weapons. Obviously I hope it would never come to that, but having armed citizens is a crucial check to help prevent the government from overstepping their bounds, and keeping those kinds of situations from happening.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say you're a Libertarian.

I'm only saying that because most Libertarians I know think "the tyrannical government is going to enslave us and take away all of our rights and freedoms". Just stop. It's not 1789, it's 2017.

Stop with the irrational fear that the government wants to take all your guns away so they can bully the American people. That's just silly nonsense.

I understand and totally agree with the need for check and balances between the people and government, but that's not accomplished with guns. It's accomplished with words and democracy. To think otherwise is just ignorant.

And the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, was left for interpretation for future generations. And if we, the future generation, see the 2nd Amendment as doing more harm then good, we have the Constitutional right to rewrite or repeal the amendment.

I'll leave you with one question. I think we can all agree on one thing: these types of mass shootings are a complete tragedy and something must be done to stop them. We are offering possible solutions and ideas that could improve the status quo.

So what is your solution?
 
I understand and totally agree with the need for check and balances between the people and government, but that's not accomplished with guns. It's accomplished with words and democracy. To think otherwise is just ignorant.

And the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, was left for interpretation for future generations. And if we, the future generation, see the 2nd Amendment as doing more harm then good, we have the Constitutional right to rewrite or repeal the amendment.

Exactly.

All democracies evolve.

The USA is the only country in the world that still operates with an 18th century approach to laws, and it's failing us.
 
Back
Top Bottom