Las Vegas Shooting Massacre

[Amoeba 576]

I hope if any of your family or friends were there that they are safe. :/

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/stephen-paddock-las-vegas-shooting-suspect-identified-n806471

[Ironic 2277]

One of my favorite teacher’s from High School lives in Las Vegas now (he’s a PE teacher down there), he posted on Facebook this morning that he’s okay.

People are stupid. ISIS is trying to take credit for it, but I’d be surprised if they had any part of it.

[-Sharp- 77]

One of my bestfriends live in Las Vegas and i cant get in contact with him... praying he is okay. Dont understand why people do this like wtf. 

[Lesbian Dad 555]

I think a lot of us are going to be kinda speechless. And a lot of us are wondering what's going to happen next. Details will emerge, people will point fingers and say "I told you you so."

 

Everyone is thinking it and the people on the right probably won't admit it.

[Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV 2291]

Please note that I'm not trying to underemphasis this tragedy. It's a vile thing that this happened in one of the most developed countries in the world. That's another conversation, however. 

 

Somebody help me explain something to a mutual FB friend. I said that the shooter was not labeled a terrorist because he's not brown or Muslim. He's trying to make the point that since the police haven't come to the conclusion that he was acting in some righteous or extremist capacity, it's not a terrorist attack. I listed Sandy Hook, Colorado movie shooting, Virginia Tech, Columbine, ect, and he's asking for one person who committed this sort of crime, and yet that doesn't answer his question. 

 

I firmly believe that this, or any other previous attack, constitutes as terrorism, regardless of politics or race. Preparing, planning, and killing scores of people is a terrorist act. 

[Fugner 1019]

Just now, Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV said:

Please note that I'm not trying to underemphasis this tragedy. It's a vile thing that this happened in one of the most developed countries in the world. That's another conversation, however. 

 

Somebody help me explain something to a mutual FB friend. I said that the shooter was not labeled a terrorist because he's not brown or Muslim. He's trying to make the point that since the police haven't come to the conclusion that he was acting in some righteous or extremist capacity, it's not a terrorist attack. I listed Sandy Hook, Colorado movie shooting, Virginia Tech, Columbine, ect, and he's asking for one person who committed this sort of crime, and yet that doesn't answer his question. 

 

I firmly believe that this, or any other previous attack, constitutes as terrorism, regardless of politics or race. Preparing, planning, and killing scores of people is a terrorist act. 

This is how the state of Nevada defines an act of terrorism:

 

1. "Act of terrorism" means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to:

(A) Cause great bodily harm or death to the general population

(B) Cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment of:

      (1) Any building or infrastructure, communications, transportation, utilities or services; or

      (2) Any natural resource or the environment

2.  As used in this section, “coercion” does not include an act of civil disobedience.

(Added to NRS by 2003, 2947)

 

Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec4415

 

So yes, this is terrorism. 

[Dakka 854]

You know you've hit rock bottom when the first thing to come to mind after a massacre is some form of "I told you so".

 

Fortunately, none of my family were there when it happened. It'd devastate me if I had to go to a funeral just days after I was at a wedding.

[Lesbian Dad 555]

18 hours ago, Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV said:

Please note that I'm not trying to underemphasis this tragedy. It's a vile thing that this happened in one of the most developed countries in the world. That's another conversation, however. 

 

Somebody help me explain something to a mutual FB friend. I said that the shooter was not labeled a terrorist because he's not brown or Muslim. He's trying to make the point that since the police haven't come to the conclusion that he was acting in some righteous or extremist capacity, it's not a terrorist attack. I listed Sandy Hook, Colorado movie shooting, Virginia Tech, Columbine, ect, and he's asking for one person who committed this sort of crime, and yet that doesn't answer his question. 

 

I firmly believe that this, or any other previous attack, constitutes as terrorism, regardless of politics or race. Preparing, planning, and killing scores of people is a terrorist act. 

Well, simply put... he was terrorizing people. It's terrifying being under fire. It's a terrible thing to do. Beyond terrible. It's pretty extreme to bring over a dozen weapons to a hotel and start killing people in a crowd. The definition of terrorism and terrorists is sadly stuck in a specific context for many, explaining what terrorism looks like beyond that context, comparing the motives and imagery might help.

[trav 6834]

What's crazy is the Nevada state laws on gun control. How incredibly easy it is to purchase those weapons and walk out of the store on a whim.

 

Hope the survivors have health insurance...

 

 

[Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV 2291]

6 minutes ago, Lesbian Dad said:

Well, simply put... he was terrorizing people. It's terrifying being under fire. It's a terrible thing to do. Beyond terrible. It's pretty extreme to bring over a dozen weapons to a hotel and start killing people in a crowd. The definition of terrorism and terrorists is sadly stuck in a specific context for many, explaining what terrorism looks like beyond that context, comparing the motives and imagery might help.

My argument exactly and he kept retorting with dictionary definitions of the word "BUT YOURE COMPLETELY MISSING THE POLITICAL REASON THAT MAKES IT A TERRORIST ATTACK"

 

Honestly, I feel like I've grown used to this headline. I've read "MOST DEADLY MASS SHOOTING IN THE HISTORY OF THE US" three times in my lifetime. Virginia Tech, Orlando, and Vegas. I'm 22. It was after Sandy Hook that this gun debate wasn't going to result in anything fruitful, because if people aren't going to make change happen after kids are killed, then what else is there? 

[water.exe 725]

37 minutes ago, Travesty said:

What's crazy is the Nevada state laws on gun control. How incredibly easy it is to purchase those weapons and walk out of the store on a whim.

 

Hope the survivors have health insurance...

 

 

I mean most states have similar laws and depending on the firearm you will have to wait 1-3 days before you are able to legally receive it after purchase.

[sushi 19]

I know gun control is a really hot topic, and I'm going against the flow here, but in this particular instance, I don't think harsher laws in some states would have mattered. He was planning this attack for a very long time, enough to stockpile, equip, and train with that much firepower and ammunition. The average gun control laws are to prevent on-the-fly purchase and purchase of firearms by threatening or unstable individuals, or those who do not have the right to purchase a gun (not full citizen, underage, convicted felon, etc.). I don't think any of these would have applied to him, and he could still have obtained the weapons (albeit over a longer period) by registering them in separate states.

 

I don't mean to sound centrist and PC about this, but there has been some pretty clear I told you so hail coming from some proponents of both political perspectives. For example, I watched Anderson Cooper on CNN interview a Democratic representative who (at the time I was watching) was speaking solely about how 'this tragedy of gun violence' could have 'been avoided with proper gun control legislation.' (This was the very next day, when little information about the nature of the offensive firearms was made public)

I later changed the channel to Fox News, and saw Sean Hannity citing the interview as evidence of how 'gun-control-crazy the Democrats are, and how biased the liberal mainstream media is,' etc. My impression was that he was attacking the majority of mainstream Democrats - i.e. those with power, strong convictions, or those seeking the spotlight - for how they were using this as propaganda for gun control before a single day had passed. In doing so, he was committing a similar offense himself (albeit less grievous): making their whole argument into a massive I-told-you-so about the Democratic party, and how their argument stems from emotional manipulation. Similar arguments have been made much of the mainstream Republican platform (haven't heard anything from the President about the Democrats' response. it may exist, or he may have been dissuaded from commenting by aides)

 

With regards to terrorism, I do not refer to the federal or Nevada state legal definitions of terrorism, nor to the cultural one of stereotyped origin, but to the social one: to terrorize and intimidate a population unified, or perceived to be unified, by a single idea or identity, by displays of force or aggression, or threats of such, violence, or attacks on symbols of that idea or identity in a physical or physically threatening manner. 

Put simply, it does not need to have political motivation in the sense we usually consider it - Jihadism, racism, religious bigotry, etc. It nearly needs to attack any peoples the attacker perceives as a group, in a manner meant to intimidate or compel them.

Evidence of his other bookings suggests that he was open to attacking a variety of people in several locations, disqualifying many terrorist motivations outright. It does truly seem that he was simply endeavoring to create a situation where he could kill the most people possible in one sitting, as it were. The lack of a suggestive death note strengthens the argument against terrorism. If it was an act of terrorism, it could only be against the something as broad as the United States as a whole, or broader; or, perhaps, it was something he (in his hell-warped mind) considered to be an obvious group. Perhaps he engineered it so we wouldn't know his motivations, with the express intent of promoting future gun control laws. Anything is possible. At this point, declaring it either way is fallacious. 

[willy (wilson) 11]

Hopefully, there is never another shooting like this. Mass shootings have escalated tremendously in the last 10 years.