Las Vegas shooting: Reports of shooter at Mandalay Bay Casino

[Hutch Starskey]

Vegas shooter wired $100,000 to girlfriend's home country last week

Hopefully this guy left a manifesto or at least a letter explaining all of this.

 

[Auld Phart]

nope

For some. possibly many, it fulfills a dream of handling a fully automatic weapon they would normally never have a chance of handling.

Somewhat like people going to a racetrack, and driving a car that would never be allowed on the street.

I have no problem with people going to licensed ranges and firing as many full auto rounds as they wish. That already exists.
The don't need that capacity got themselves.

The don't need that capacity got themselves.

huh?

Yeah, right. What other three letter word with o in the middle could that possibly be?

thousands

which is why I said 'huh'

Functionally illiterate?

Three letter word. For, maybe?

no, are you?

is 'for' the only 3 letter word with an 'o' in the middle?

But at least I can change my 'huh' for a laugh now that I can read the sentence.

 

[MarkDuffy]

So is a big truck with a snow plow.

Derp!

Which of course has not a fucking thing to do with Paddock.

Thinking only guns are good weapons for mass murder is a bit shallow no?

In this case they are, dope.

And you can't see why using the argument that a particular thing is good for mass murder to support regulation is simplistic?

It's not simplistic. Your argument is. These are guns. Guns designed to kill.
Measures have been taken to mitigate the possibility of attacks in every other way. Cockpit doors are fortified and TSA screens passengers. Cities around the world are working to better protect large gatherings of pedestrians from vehicles. The glaring difference is of course that America has done nothing to address these attacks. Not one thing. In fact, people like you actively fight against it. So when you use arguments like, " ya but...trucks", it is not only simplistic but dumb.

European Cities Add Barriers to Thwart Vehicle Attacks

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws
“Most people would look at this and assume that people in America would be so shocked by this attack that they would want to take some action,” she said.

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws | HuffPost

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I have no problem with people going to licensed ranges and firing as many full auto rounds as they wish. That already exists.
The don't need that capacity got themselves.

The don't need that capacity got themselves.

huh?

Yeah, right. What other three letter word with o in the middle could that possibly be?

thousands

which is why I said 'huh'

Functionally illiterate?

Three letter word. For, maybe?

no, are you?

is 'for' the only 3 letter word with an 'o' in the middle?

But at least I can change my 'huh' for a laugh now that I can read the sentence.

It's the one that makes sense. Are you really that incompetent that you can't work around a typo?

Sure, anything to avoid addressing the point.

 

[Auld Phart]

Neither will the Dimocrats.

They want to ban 'assault' rifles again, like Clinton did, based on the actions of a dozen or so people that misused them, and ignore the millions of other owners that havent' .

(not to mention, they look scary)

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help. It tried to address fire rate. The NRA used loopholes to continue the ever increasing fire rate.

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help.

how did it help?

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

— Robert Farley

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

_______X________ no limit to fire rate?

________X_______ no limit to arsenal size?

________X_______ no limit to magazine/drum size?

_____X_________ yes machine guns should be legal?
(they are, you should look it up)

_______X_______ the more guns the better?


Yes to all of your questions.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Derp!

Which of course has not a fucking thing to do with Paddock.

Thinking only guns are good weapons for mass murder is a bit shallow no?

In this case they are, dope.

And you can't see why using the argument that a particular thing is good for mass murder to support regulation is simplistic?

It's not simplistic. Your argument is. These are guns. Guns designed to kill.
Measures have been taken to mitigate the possibility of attacks in every other way. Cockpit doors are fortified and TSA screens passengers. Cities around the world are working to better protect large gatherings of pedestrians from vehicles. The glaring difference is of course that America has done nothing to address these attacks. Not one thing. In fact, people like you actively fight against it. So when you use arguments like, " ya but...trucks", it is not only simplistic but dumb.

European Cities Add Barriers to Thwart Vehicle Attacks

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws
“Most people would look at this and assume that people in America would be so shocked by this attack that they would want to take some action,” she said.

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws | HuffPost

It's simply madness.

 

[Circe]

Vegas shooter wired $100,000 to girlfriend's home country last week

Yeah, I just read this. Not, note, to her, necessarily: to the Philippines generally, the Philippines being a known hotbed of the worst Islamic terrorism. I want to see that ISIS connection ruled out officially before I discount it. I think it's still live.

 

[Auld Phart]

huh?

Yeah, right. What other three letter word with o in the middle could that possibly be?

thousands

which is why I said 'huh'

Functionally illiterate?

Three letter word. For, maybe?

no, are you?

is 'for' the only 3 letter word with an 'o' in the middle?

But at least I can change my 'huh' for a laugh now that I can read the sentence.

It's the one that makes sense. Are you really that incompetent that you can't work around a typo?

Sure, anything to avoid addressing the point.

your statement:

The don't need that capacity for themselves

it is not a 'need', it is a desire.

Just like people that want a bigger house, a faster car, etc.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help. It tried to address fire rate. The NRA used loopholes to continue the ever increasing fire rate.

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help.

how did it help?

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

— Robert Farley

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

_______X________ no limit to fire rate?

________X_______ no limit to arsenal size?

________X_______ no limit to magazine/drum size?

_____X_________ yes machine guns should be legal?
(they are, you should look it up)

_______X_______ the more guns the better?


Yes to all of your questions.

Nearly six hundred people. Let that sink in.

 

[rightwinger]

My fav is their it is time for mourning, we can talk about gun control later that never happens.

that never happens.

because both sides want what's best for the country, but neither side will put it in a bill

The republican side shirley won't

Neither will the Dimocrats.

They want to ban 'assault' rifles again, like Clinton did, based on the actions of a dozen or so people that misused them, and ignore the millions of other owners that havent' .

(not to mention, they look scary)

If you misuse your toys....the whole class will suffer

yup

that's the standard democrat answer isn't it.

One person screws up, screw everyone for it

That's life
Abuse your privileges and those privileges get taken away

Killing 59 people is an abuse of privileges

 

[Circe]

[QUOTE="MarkDuffy, post: 18277666, member: 55459]
What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?[/QUOTE]



I'd say no cannons or grenades. I'm not wild about the big magazines, nor about the silencers, which I think is simply a way to make more money by the gun manufacturers. I don't think machine guns should be legal, but it doesn't seem to matter if it's as easy to file down the stopper part as people are saying.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yeah, right. What other three letter word with o in the middle could that possibly be?

thousands

which is why I said 'huh'

Functionally illiterate?

Three letter word. For, maybe?

no, are you?

is 'for' the only 3 letter word with an 'o' in the middle?

But at least I can change my 'huh' for a laugh now that I can read the sentence.

It's the one that makes sense. Are you really that incompetent that you can't work around a typo?

Sure, anything to avoid addressing the point.

your statement:

The don't need that capacity for themselves

it is not a 'need', it is a desire.

Just like people that want a bigger house, a faster car, etc.

And they don't NEED a legal way to own it.

Stop being a dick.

 

[MarkDuffy]

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help. It tried to address fire rate. The NRA used loopholes to continue the ever increasing fire rate.

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help.

how did it help?

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

— Robert Farley

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

_______X________ no limit to fire rate?

________X_______ no limit to arsenal size?

________X_______ no limit to magazine/drum size?

_____X_________ yes machine guns should be legal?
(they are, you should look it up)

_______X_______ the more guns the better?


Yes to all of your questions.

LOL "reply to post not found" or something. You were editing

Anyhoo, thought so.

And this is the problem. You want the return of the lawless wild wild west & tommy guns in Chicago

 

[Marion Morrison]

Neither will the Dimocrats.

They want to ban 'assault' rifles again, like Clinton did, based on the actions of a dozen or so people that misused them, and ignore the millions of other owners that havent' .

(not to mention, they look scary)

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help. It tried to address fire rate. The NRA used loopholes to continue the ever increasing fire rate.

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help.

how did it help?

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

— Robert Farley

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

ding! ding! We have a winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Derp!

Which of course has not a fucking thing to do with Paddock.

Thinking only guns are good weapons for mass murder is a bit shallow no?

In this case they are, dope.

And you can't see why using the argument that a particular thing is good for mass murder to support regulation is simplistic?

It's not simplistic. Your argument is. These are guns. Guns designed to kill.
Measures have been taken to mitigate the possibility of attacks in every other way. Cockpit doors are fortified and TSA screens passengers. Cities around the world are working to better protect large gatherings of pedestrians from vehicles. The glaring difference is of course that America has done nothing to address these attacks. Not one thing. In fact, people like you actively fight against it. So when you use arguments like, " ya but...trucks", it is not only simplistic but dumb.

European Cities Add Barriers to Thwart Vehicle Attacks

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws
“Most people would look at this and assume that people in America would be so shocked by this attack that they would want to take some action,” she said.

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws | HuffPost

Oh yeah, let's be like the UK and disarm everybody, then let Muslims in unrestricted so they can murder us with swords, bombs, and illegal guns.

 

[rightwinger]

After a month all of Congress will forget about it...they have a recess coming up

People will forget it by Thursday, never mind a month.

Mass murder is normal life now.

Lets be honest here

Our Republican led Congress could not even repeal Obamacare after ranting for eight years
No way are they going to do a thing about gun control

 

[Auld Phart]

how did it help?

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

— Robert Farley

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

_______X________ no limit to fire rate?

________X_______ no limit to arsenal size?

________X_______ no limit to magazine/drum size?

_____X_________ yes machine guns should be legal?
(they are, you should look it up)

_______X_______ the more guns the better?


Yes to all of your questions.

Nearly six hundred people. Let that sink in.

one person out of hundreds of millions of people that own guns...

Let THAT sink in

 

[MarkDuffy]

Thinking only guns are good weapons for mass murder is a bit shallow no?

In this case they are, dope.

And you can't see why using the argument that a particular thing is good for mass murder to support regulation is simplistic?

It's not simplistic. Your argument is. These are guns. Guns designed to kill.
Measures have been taken to mitigate the possibility of attacks in every other way. Cockpit doors are fortified and TSA screens passengers. Cities around the world are working to better protect large gatherings of pedestrians from vehicles. The glaring difference is of course that America has done nothing to address these attacks. Not one thing. In fact, people like you actively fight against it. So when you use arguments like, " ya but...trucks", it is not only simplistic but dumb.

European Cities Add Barriers to Thwart Vehicle Attacks

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws
“Most people would look at this and assume that people in America would be so shocked by this attack that they would want to take some action,” she said.

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws | HuffPost

It's simply madness.

Yes it is

 

[rightwinger]

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help. It tried to address fire rate. The NRA used loopholes to continue the ever increasing fire rate.

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help.

how did it help?

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

— Robert Farley

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

ding! ding! We have a winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Thinking only guns are good weapons for mass murder is a bit shallow no?

In this case they are, dope.

And you can't see why using the argument that a particular thing is good for mass murder to support regulation is simplistic?

It's not simplistic. Your argument is. These are guns. Guns designed to kill.
Measures have been taken to mitigate the possibility of attacks in every other way. Cockpit doors are fortified and TSA screens passengers. Cities around the world are working to better protect large gatherings of pedestrians from vehicles. The glaring difference is of course that America has done nothing to address these attacks. Not one thing. In fact, people like you actively fight against it. So when you use arguments like, " ya but...trucks", it is not only simplistic but dumb.

European Cities Add Barriers to Thwart Vehicle Attacks

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws
“Most people would look at this and assume that people in America would be so shocked by this attack that they would want to take some action,” she said.

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws | HuffPost

Oh yeah, let's be like the UK and disarm everybody and let Muslims in unrestricted so they can murder us with swords, bombs, and illegal guns.

If we take away your machine guns, Muslims are going to murder you in your sleep?

 

[Auld Phart]

because both sides want what's best for the country, but neither side will put it in a bill

The republican side shirley won't

Neither will the Dimocrats.

They want to ban 'assault' rifles again, like Clinton did, based on the actions of a dozen or so people that misused them, and ignore the millions of other owners that havent' .

(not to mention, they look scary)

If you misuse your toys....the whole class will suffer

yup

that's the standard democrat answer isn't it.

One person screws up, screw everyone for it

That's life
Abuse your privileges and those privileges get taken away

Killing 59 people is an abuse of privileges

Killing 59 people is an abuse of privileges

I didn't shoot them.

Why do you want to abuse MY privileges?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help. It tried to address fire rate. The NRA used loopholes to continue the ever increasing fire rate.

That was the best bill that could pass at the time and it did help.

how did it help?

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

— Robert Farley

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

the effect of the 'assault weapon ban' was minimal, because 'assault weapons' were rarely used in crimes, even murders.

You have offered nothing to the discussion, just poking at our posts.

What is your solution?

_______________ no limit to fire rate?

_______________ no limit to arsenal size?

_______________ no limit to magazine/drum size?

______________ yes machine guns should be legal?

______________ the more guns the better?

ding! ding! We have a winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Thinking only guns are good weapons for mass murder is a bit shallow no?

In this case they are, dope.

And you can't see why using the argument that a particular thing is good for mass murder to support regulation is simplistic?

It's not simplistic. Your argument is. These are guns. Guns designed to kill.
Measures have been taken to mitigate the possibility of attacks in every other way. Cockpit doors are fortified and TSA screens passengers. Cities around the world are working to better protect large gatherings of pedestrians from vehicles. The glaring difference is of course that America has done nothing to address these attacks. Not one thing. In fact, people like you actively fight against it. So when you use arguments like, " ya but...trucks", it is not only simplistic but dumb.

European Cities Add Barriers to Thwart Vehicle Attacks

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws
“Most people would look at this and assume that people in America would be so shocked by this attack that they would want to take some action,” she said.

Theresa May Sums Up A Sobering Reality About U.S. Gun Laws | HuffPost

Oh yeah, let's be like the UK and disarm everybody, then let Muslims in unrestricted so they can murder us with swords, bombs, and illegal guns.

Except it's white gun nuts doing all of the mass killing.