Stephen Paddock: Is he a terrorist? Why or why not?

[Richard-H]

The nature of the weapons does matter. Anyone with machining skills can easily convert semi-automatics to fully automatics.

If this was the case, the public should know about it. It shows that the laws against fully automatics are somewhat moot.

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

Security has evolved since the Oklahoma bombings. It's almost impossible to drive a truck full of explosives into a concert nowadays.

Since when? Have you been to a concert recently? I have not been to a single event like this one that I would say would be difficult to drive a truck into it.

Gotta admit, the only concerts I've been to in recent years have been in Manhattan...there are cement blockades all over the place.

So, lemme guess, your solution for preventing incidents like this is that everyone should have fully automatic weapons, right?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Educated Black men that know who they are

You mean Republicans?

You missed the part about "knowing who they are". Typically Black republicans pretend they are white.

I'm pretty sure you are the one who missed it. Unless of course you like belonging to the party of slavery, racism, segregation and the kkk.

I'm the one that mentioned it so I cant be the one that missed you moron.

Like most uneducated whites you are assuming I belong to the Dems of old or the Repubs of new since the Southern strategy. I belong to neither part.

Nigga please.

 

[Asclepias]

Educated Black men that know who they are

You mean Republicans?

You missed the part about "knowing who they are". Typically Black republicans pretend they are white.

I'm pretty sure you are the one who missed it. Unless of course you like belonging to the party of slavery, racism, segregation and the kkk.

I'm the one that mentioned it so I cant be the one that missed you moron.

Like most uneducated whites you are assuming I belong to the Dems of old or the Repubs of new since the Southern strategy. I belong to neither part.

Nigga please.

Honky please.

 

[Richard-H]

The nature of the weapons does matter. Anyone with machining skills can easily convert semi-automatics to fully automatics.

If this was the case, the public should know about it. It shows that the laws against fully automatics are somewhat moot.

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

The distinction is that this was the largest mass shooting in US history and the poster whittled that down to "mass murder".

The distinction matters. There's a distinct difference between "mass shooting" and "murder". Murder is actually a side effect and not the end goal in either of these cases. McVeigh was out to attack the government, via a symbol, not specifically to kill a list of people personally. The LV shooter, like all mass shooters, isn't out to murder someone personally. Their targets are random, whoever happens to be available. The latter are out specifically for carnage. For the feeling of power over helpless victims running for their lives. Doesn't matter who they are personally, that's not the point. The whole point is the power trip.

That's why mass shooters are virtually always male. It's both a gun culture issue and a masculinity issue. Deadly combination, and yesterday is the latest result.

That's why I point out that for such a shooter, it very much is about the body count. The more bodies you can take down, the more power you had in that final few minutes of your worthless life.

That is about the draw to such weapons but really was not my point. He made a statement that I see over and over again that is, IMHO, terribly incorrect:

"If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people."

Aside from the virtually impossible task of making such weapons impossible for someone like this shooter to acquire, they are also not the most effective means of death. An individual like this will find a way - there are just so many out there. As you touched on earlier, the real problem is what created this individual and his motives. It seems insane that someone would want to create death on this scale without a real reason. The worst part about this would be that even though he had to be insane, he was clearly in control of all his faculties.

What created him is the American gun culture.

 

[Moonglow]

The nature of the weapons does matter. Anyone with machining skills can easily convert semi-automatics to fully automatics.

If this was the case, the public should know about it. It shows that the laws against fully automatics are somewhat moot.

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

The distinction is that this was the largest mass shooting in US history and the poster whittled that down to "mass murder".

The distinction matters. There's a distinct difference between "mass shooting" and "murder". Murder is actually a side effect and not the end goal in either of these cases. McVeigh was out to attack the government, via a symbol, not specifically to kill a list of people personally. The LV shooter, like all mass shooters, isn't out to murder someone personally. Their targets are random, whoever happens to be available. The latter are out specifically for carnage. For the feeling of power over helpless victims running for their lives. Doesn't matter who they are personally, that's not the point. The whole point is the power trip.

That's why mass shooters are virtually always male. It's both a gun culture issue and a masculinity issue. Deadly combination, and yesterday is the latest result.

That's why I point out that for such a shooter, it very much is about the body count. The more bodies you can take down, the more power you had in that final few minutes of your worthless life.

That is about the draw to such weapons but really was not my point. He made a statement that I see over and over again that is, IMHO, terribly incorrect:

"If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people."

Aside from the virtually impossible task of making such weapons impossible for someone like this shooter to acquire, they are also not the most effective means of death. An individual like this will find a way - there are just so many out there. As you touched on earlier, the real problem is what created this individual and his motives. It seems insane that someone would want to create death on this scale without a real reason. The worst part about this would be that even though he had to be insane, he was clearly in control of all his faculties.

He should have been in the military so he would know how to assemble a bomb...

 

[Clementine]

Pretty straightforward question....just answer it.

Still waiting for facts. ISIS supposedly took credit, claiming he converted to Islam but no confirmation.

Terrorists generally do it because they want politicians to do something. No motive yet. So, hard to say if it was terrorism or a crazy person with no motive. Serial killers or mass shooters don't always have a clear reason for doing what they do.

 

[Pogo]

The nature of the weapons does matter. Anyone with machining skills can easily convert semi-automatics to fully automatics.

If this was the case, the public should know about it. It shows that the laws against fully automatics are somewhat moot.

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

The distinction is that this was the largest mass shooting in US history and the poster whittled that down to "mass murder".

The distinction matters. There's a distinct difference between "mass shooting" and "murder". Murder is actually a side effect and not the end goal in either of these cases. McVeigh was out to attack the government, via a symbol, not specifically to kill a list of people personally. The LV shooter, like all mass shooters, isn't out to murder someone personally. Their targets are random, whoever happens to be available. The latter are out specifically for carnage. For the feeling of power over helpless victims running for their lives. Doesn't matter who they are personally, that's not the point. The whole point is the power trip.

That's why mass shooters are virtually always male. It's both a gun culture issue and a masculinity issue. Deadly combination, and yesterday is the latest result.

That's why I point out that for such a shooter, it very much is about the body count. The more bodies you can take down, the more power you had in that final few minutes of your worthless life.

That is about the draw to such weapons but really was not my point. He made a statement that I see over and over again that is, IMHO, terribly incorrect:

"If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people."

Aside from the virtually impossible task of making such weapons impossible for someone like this shooter to acquire, they are also not the most effective means of death. An individual like this will find a way - there are just so many out there. As you touched on earlier, the real problem is what created this individual and his motives. It seems insane that someone would want to create death on this scale without a real reason. The worst part about this would be that even though he had to be insane, he was clearly in control of all his faculties.

Yes and I agree with your distinction. The poster's basically starting from a false premise, that the perpetrator is out to "kill X number of people". He is, but the method is the whole point of a mass shooter. When Tim McVeigh parked his Ryder truck and set it, he walked away and was out of sight of it. The aural report was his confirmation; his mission was to attack the building. A mass shooter's mission by contrast is sensory input. He can't do that from blocks away without seeing it with his own eyes. It would defeat his whole purpose.

Both result in body counts, but that isn't really their point.

That's why mass shooters use guns. Instant sensory gratification from a safe distance --- which means total control, which is what they're after. You don't get much more of a position of control than sitting in your perch picking people off who are desperately fleeing for safety. And that's their psychological fix.

For this guy, a bomb just wouldn't have served that purpose.

 

[Clementine]

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

The distinction is that this was the largest mass shooting in US history and the poster whittled that down to "mass murder".

The distinction matters. There's a distinct difference between "mass shooting" and "murder". Murder is actually a side effect and not the end goal in either of these cases. McVeigh was out to attack the government, via a symbol, not specifically to kill a list of people personally. The LV shooter, like all mass shooters, isn't out to murder someone personally. Their targets are random, whoever happens to be available. The latter are out specifically for carnage. For the feeling of power over helpless victims running for their lives. Doesn't matter who they are personally, that's not the point. The whole point is the power trip.

That's why mass shooters are virtually always male. It's both a gun culture issue and a masculinity issue. Deadly combination, and yesterday is the latest result.

That's why I point out that for such a shooter, it very much is about the body count. The more bodies you can take down, the more power you had in that final few minutes of your worthless life.

That is about the draw to such weapons but really was not my point. He made a statement that I see over and over again that is, IMHO, terribly incorrect:

"If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people."

Aside from the virtually impossible task of making such weapons impossible for someone like this shooter to acquire, they are also not the most effective means of death. An individual like this will find a way - there are just so many out there. As you touched on earlier, the real problem is what created this individual and his motives. It seems insane that someone would want to create death on this scale without a real reason. The worst part about this would be that even though he had to be insane, he was clearly in control of all his faculties.

What created him is the American gun culture.

No, the existence of guns does not cause this. Guns were always prevalent in America but these mass shootings were not a thing years ago. Some people's mindsets have changed. There are far more dangerous medications and other factors that cause people to be mentally ill. That is the problem, not the tool they choose. The left doesn't get riled when it's a bomb, arson or vehicles being used to take people out.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

Security has evolved since the Oklahoma bombings. It's almost impossible to drive a truck full of explosives into a concert nowadays.

Since when? Have you been to a concert recently? I have not been to a single event like this one that I would say would be difficult to drive a truck into it.

Gotta admit, the only concerts I've been to in recent years have been in Manhattan...there are cement blockades all over the place.

So, lemme guess, your solution for preventing incidents like this is that everyone should have fully automatic weapons, right?

No. Why would you make such a silly statement?

 

[FA_Q2]

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

The distinction is that this was the largest mass shooting in US history and the poster whittled that down to "mass murder".

The distinction matters. There's a distinct difference between "mass shooting" and "murder". Murder is actually a side effect and not the end goal in either of these cases. McVeigh was out to attack the government, via a symbol, not specifically to kill a list of people personally. The LV shooter, like all mass shooters, isn't out to murder someone personally. Their targets are random, whoever happens to be available. The latter are out specifically for carnage. For the feeling of power over helpless victims running for their lives. Doesn't matter who they are personally, that's not the point. The whole point is the power trip.

That's why mass shooters are virtually always male. It's both a gun culture issue and a masculinity issue. Deadly combination, and yesterday is the latest result.

That's why I point out that for such a shooter, it very much is about the body count. The more bodies you can take down, the more power you had in that final few minutes of your worthless life.

That is about the draw to such weapons but really was not my point. He made a statement that I see over and over again that is, IMHO, terribly incorrect:

"If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people."

Aside from the virtually impossible task of making such weapons impossible for someone like this shooter to acquire, they are also not the most effective means of death. An individual like this will find a way - there are just so many out there. As you touched on earlier, the real problem is what created this individual and his motives. It seems insane that someone would want to create death on this scale without a real reason. The worst part about this would be that even though he had to be insane, he was clearly in control of all his faculties.

Yes and I agree with your distinction. The poster's basically starting from a false premise, that the perpetrator is out to "kill X number of people". He is, but the method is the whole point of a mass shooter. When Tim McVeigh parked his Ryder truck and set it, he walked away and was out of sight of it. The aural report was his confirmation; his mission was to attack the building. A mass shooter's mission by contrast is sensory input. He can't do that from blocks away without seeing it with his own eyes. It would defeat his whole purpose.

Both result in body counts, but that isn't really their point.

That's why mass shooters use guns. Instant sensory gratification from a safe distance --- which means total control, which is what they're after. You don't get much more of a position of control than sitting in your perch picking people off who are desperately fleeing for safety. And that's their psychological fix.

For this guy, a bomb just wouldn't have served that purpose.

That is a good point. Destruction vs control.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.

What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

The distinction is that this was the largest mass shooting in US history and the poster whittled that down to "mass murder".

The distinction matters. There's a distinct difference between "mass shooting" and "murder". Murder is actually a side effect and not the end goal in either of these cases. McVeigh was out to attack the government, via a symbol, not specifically to kill a list of people personally. The LV shooter, like all mass shooters, isn't out to murder someone personally. Their targets are random, whoever happens to be available. The latter are out specifically for carnage. For the feeling of power over helpless victims running for their lives. Doesn't matter who they are personally, that's not the point. The whole point is the power trip.

That's why mass shooters are virtually always male. It's both a gun culture issue and a masculinity issue. Deadly combination, and yesterday is the latest result.

That's why I point out that for such a shooter, it very much is about the body count. The more bodies you can take down, the more power you had in that final few minutes of your worthless life.

That is about the draw to such weapons but really was not my point. He made a statement that I see over and over again that is, IMHO, terribly incorrect:

"If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people."

Aside from the virtually impossible task of making such weapons impossible for someone like this shooter to acquire, they are also not the most effective means of death. An individual like this will find a way - there are just so many out there. As you touched on earlier, the real problem is what created this individual and his motives. It seems insane that someone would want to create death on this scale without a real reason. The worst part about this would be that even though he had to be insane, he was clearly in control of all his faculties.

What created him is the American gun culture.

That is a nice one liner talking point but on the whole such a statement means virtually nothing.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Pretty straightforward question....just answer it.

Can't 'just answer it'. Depends on which definition of terrorism you want to use.

Well, inform us of the definition to which you ascribe and answer the question in accordance with it.

 

[HenryBHough]

Not a terrorist.

Simply misguided.

Somebody told him the crowd was a Planned Parenthood rally.

I mean, isn't (in responsible states) the punishment for murder death?

 

[Darkwind]

Until the motive and mens rea can be determined, any definition is inapplicable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pretty straightforward question....just answer it.

Can't 'just answer it'. Depends on which definition of terrorism you want to use.

Well, inform us of the definition to which you ascribe and answer the question in accordance with it.

I ascribe to the definition of terrorism being acts of violence against innocent people for the advancement of a political/ideological agenda.

So, since the police at this point are saying that they don't have a motive in this mass shooting, that would mean at this point he cannot be considered a terrorist.

 

[Rustic]

Maybe he was pissed that NFL players were kneeling during the National Anthem and he'd finally had enough.

Maybe he was waiting for the Russian connection

 

[NYcarbineer]

But then again the RW proclamations on USMB have so far been...

1. He's a Muslim terrorist
2. He's an anti-Trump terrorist
3. He's an anti-conservative country music fans terrorist.

Am I missing any??

 

[Asclepias]

But then again the RW proclamations on USMB have so far been...

1. He's a Muslim terrorist
2. He's an anti-Trump terrorist
3. He's an anti-conservative country music fans terrorist.

Am I missing any??

He was part of BLM

 

[Meathead]

I ascribe to the definition of terrorism being acts of violence against innocent people for the advancement of a political/ideological agenda.

So, since the police at this point are saying that they don't have a motive in this mass shooting, that would mean at this point he cannot be considered a terrorist.

You don't "ascribe" to anything idiot.Don't use words you don't understand to make yourself look smart. Backfires too easily.

 

[Pogo]

There's no doubt that his motives are relevant, but his method is what made it possible to easily commit this level of murders. There IS a relationship between his method - the guns he used - and the fact that this is the largest mass murder in U.S. history.

If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people.

False.

It is easily forgotten that even with the terrible death count here it is still not the worst tragedy committed here by a lone wolf. Had he driven that same bomb to the concert you would have far more carnage.

The distinction is that this was the largest mass shooting in US history and the poster whittled that down to "mass murder".

The distinction matters. There's a distinct difference between "mass shooting" and "murder". Murder is actually a side effect and not the end goal in either of these cases. McVeigh was out to attack the government, via a symbol, not specifically to kill a list of people personally. The LV shooter, like all mass shooters, isn't out to murder someone personally. Their targets are random, whoever happens to be available. The latter are out specifically for carnage. For the feeling of power over helpless victims running for their lives. Doesn't matter who they are personally, that's not the point. The whole point is the power trip.

That's why mass shooters are virtually always male. It's both a gun culture issue and a masculinity issue. Deadly combination, and yesterday is the latest result.

That's why I point out that for such a shooter, it very much is about the body count. The more bodies you can take down, the more power you had in that final few minutes of your worthless life.

That is about the draw to such weapons but really was not my point. He made a statement that I see over and over again that is, IMHO, terribly incorrect:

"If he didn't have fully automatic rifles, whatever alternative would most likely not have killed as many people."

Aside from the virtually impossible task of making such weapons impossible for someone like this shooter to acquire, they are also not the most effective means of death. An individual like this will find a way - there are just so many out there. As you touched on earlier, the real problem is what created this individual and his motives. It seems insane that someone would want to create death on this scale without a real reason. The worst part about this would be that even though he had to be insane, he was clearly in control of all his faculties.

What created him is the American gun culture.

That is a nice one liner talking point but on the whole such a statement means virtually nothing.

He's right though. This is very much a cultural disease, both the worship of Almighty Gun and the masculinity/power issue I just described --- that's what drives this madness. And I for one point this out every time it happens.

That's what's going on in this thread.
As noted there, when none of us can flip through our TV dial at any moment without encountering somebody somewhere being shot ---- that's a disease.