Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: mikeyw64 on October 02, 2017, 06:04:47 AM
-
50 plus dead
200 plus injured
Looks to be a lone nutter with an automatic weapon
:( :( :(
-
There is neverca "lone wolf". There is always somebody behind them.
-
This horror is becoming too commonplace. I'm turning off the TV and just watch BDF's pussies all day long.
-
Yeah, not sure of the firearm(s) used yet but seeing a couple of videos of this event, it did sound like full- auto gunfire.
Brian
50 plus dead
200 plus injured
Looks to be a lone nutter with an automatic weapon
:( :( :(
-
Well, in that case..... this is the one my neighbor caught and somehow ended up in my living room. But it went back to the neighbor, and she is now being fed with an eye dropper (not weened yet):
(https://i.imgur.com/8d4G0bg.jpg)
At a WAG, I think she is probably 4 weeks old or so; her eyes are still blue and she does not yet have fur, just that baby down that cats and dogs start off with.
Brian
This horror is becoming too commonplace. I'm turning off the TV and just watch BDF's pussies all day long.
-
Yeah, not sure of the firearm(s) used yet but seeing a couple of videos of this event, it did sound like full- auto gunfire.
Brian
Definitely full auto.
-
Ug, such a horrible, horrible tragedy. I tried researching it more and it is amazing how little information is actually released so far. Everyone wants to know WHY. In my mind it is no doubt it was a automatic weapon used, among the other weapons in that hotel room.
I made the mistake of reading comments on Slashdot and without any solid details about the attacker the whole "we have to do something about guns" was in full swing. As if more handgun or other gun type restrictions would have done ANYTHING to prevent this horrible act, despite that legal owners use legal guns 1.5 to 2.5 millions times a year to legally defend themselves in the USA. Obtaining a fully-automatic weapon is one of the most difficult and already restricted things to own in this country. But we have to "do something." Not a single comment I read (which were all at +5 moderation) had anything to offer that would actually do anything to prevent such a crime.
This is not about the weapon, but about the mindset of people who inflict mass murder like this. 86 people were killed in France by someone in a single car attack. 23 people killed and 250 injured in the Manchester bombing. 5 people killed by a car attack two months earlier in Westminster. 12 people killed and 50 injured in a home-made sarin gas attack in Japan. 148 people killed in a single incident of someone intentionally damaging a train track in India. In some ways, I think it is just impossible to prevent some people from going insane or radical and inflicting mass murder on the innocent population.
-
Ug, such a horrible, horrible tragedy. I tried researching it more and it is amazing how little information is actually released so far. Everyone wants to know WHY. In my mind it is no doubt it was a automatic weapon used, among the other weapons in that hotel room.
I made the mistake of reading comments on Slashdot and without any solid details about the attacker the whole "we have to do something about guns" was in full swing. As if more handgun or other gun type restrictions would have done ANYTHING to prevent this horrible act, despite that legal owners use legal guns 1.5 to 2.5 millions times a year to legally defend themselves in the USA. Obtaining a fully-automatic weapon is one of the most difficult and already restricted things to own in this country. But we have to "do something." Not a single comment I read (which were all at +5 moderation) had anything to offer that would actually do anything to prevent such a crime.
This is not about the weapon, but about the mindset of people who inflict mass murder like this. 86 people were killed in France by someone in a single car attack. 23 people killed and 250 injured in the Manchester bombing. 5 people killed by a car attack two months earlier in Westminster. 12 people killed and 50 injured in a home-made sarin gas attack in Japan. 148 people killed in a single incident of someone intentionally damaging a train track in India. In some ways, I think it is just impossible to prevent some people from going insane or radical and inflicting mass murder on the innocent population.
Well said Max!
-
Given that there is 320,000,000 people in the US, 319,999,999 people did not commit mass murder in LasVegas. Yet the left is already crying for gun control. In the famous words of Rahm 'The Fish' Emanuel ....
http://youtu.be/Pb-YuhFWCr4 (http://youtu.be/Pb-YuhFWCr4)
-
Well, Chicago (where top-Rahmen resides) has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States and still managed to see over 4K victims of gun violence last year. Not to mention being the murder capital of the world. But we should pass more gun laws. Instead of facing the real issue, which isn't guns at all.
-
Yes, and another facet of these things is that the real, true cost is much, much higher than it may seem. Now that this has happened, we know that security and scrutiny of hotels throughout the country will be dramatically increased. In turn, it will take longer for people to get in hotels, bringing luggage with them, and the open foyer type of entrance will just disappear. In five or ten years, the true cost of this particular event will be much more apparent and it will be huge IMO.
Exactly as it happened in 2001; while that very particular event seemed to be isolated to a part of NYC, in reality it changed the way everyone uses air travel. And the costs have been tremendous, and they continue to amass with the ongoing and great security changes.
So unfortunately, one isolated event is not isolated at all and becomes the whole country's problem, if not the whole world's problem. The simple fact is that we (all of us) are actually quite vulnerable, all of the time, and far more-so when gathered together in high density at events such as this one or any public or private place where large numbers of people gather.
A few years ago there was a free concert in Central Park in NYC with the singer Andrea Bocelli. At first glance, it would seem that that would mean people simply wander into the area where the event was taking place and enjoy it but that is not at all what happened. Tickets had to be procured before hand and that was the beginning of the security. Then a security perimeter was established and maintained, and specific entrances to that event established. Finally, people had to enter through these check points and were screened as they entered, as well as being restricted as to what they could bring with them, and any bags or devices were also checked. All this to say that this 'free' event was hugely expensive to put on, all due to the recent wave of terrorism.
And now the really bad news: I do not believe terrorist events such as this one can be stopped or even significantly reduced, at least as far as preventing individuals from attempting them. So that leaves us with the only alternative, which is far more security all over the place, all of the time. I absolutely expect that before too long, virtually all places that people gather, such as shopping malls for example, will be subject to greatly increased security. This will rob all of us of some of our freedom as well as be hugely expensive to the average citizen or resident of communities all over the world. And generally slowing everything down of course. It will become the new 'normal', just as air travel has been hugely slowed down, and made difficult and intrusive for all participating in it. And once these measures and practices go into effect, it is unlikely they will ever be removed, so the cost, inefficiency and overall reduction in these relatively simple tasks will go on forever and just become part of the cost of having these services / events.
So while this recent event in Las Vegas is a tragedy, it is also the starting point of a much, much larger tragedy that will have tentacles that reach around the world and go on forever. It is all kind of depressing to watch the world moving in these new directions.
Brian
Ug, such a horrible, horrible tragedy.
<snip>
In some ways, I think it is just impossible to prevent some people from going insane or radical and inflicting mass murder on the innocent population.
-
I think we should wait a bit and see what comes out of the investigation first.
-
whilst it may not be practical/desirable/publically acceptable to introduce gun controls (& lets be frank, the genie is out of the bottle here in terms of how many firearms you guys have out in the wild) maybe the sale of the ammo will become more restricted/heavily taxed.
Ok wouldn't stop people stockpiling but it might be a start and doesn't take away anybodies "right" to own a firearm.
But Brians right, these sort of events only lead to the intorduction of new measures. s he said its highly likely hotels will start taking more interest in what people are bringing in (hmmm waits for the first person to sue the hotel for letting this nutter check in with 29 firearms and various tripods after all what valid reason is there for that?)
Correction, it was 23 firearms in the hotel room plus 10 suitcases, who travels with 10 suitcases??
-
Correction, it was 23 firearms in the hotel room plus 10 suitcases, who travels with 10 suitcases??
Only need one or two suitcases and a couple 3 trips to the car... In a busy hotel do you think anyone would pay any attention to somebody rolling a suitcase around or actually count how many trips he made out to his car? AR's break down into 2 pieces with simple push pins and fit in a briefcase...
-
Correction, it was 23 firearms in the hotel room plus 10 suitcases, who travels with 10 suitcases??
My wife...no room for weapons. ;)
I had wondered how he got them in but T is right in that no one is x-raying suitcases coming into hotels...............but that may change after this.
-
...no one is x-raying suitcases coming into hotels...............but that may change after this.
Truly a sad thought that you may have to go through a TSA like security check just to get a hotel room... But hey on the brightside a Detroit Councilwoman wants to ban rifles from hotels with outside looking windows! Yeah that should work as well as "Gun Free" signs...
-
All of this is really bad. Not making light of any of it.
Prayers for those lost, wounded, and their families...
Many have questioned his fully automatic weapons.
Just saw photo's of his room on the computer.
If it's on the Computer, it has to be true.. {right}?? :o
Supposedly the automatic conversion he did was "Bump Stocks" on 2 of his weapons.
ie; No internal mods to the guns, and supposedly Bump Stocks are legal modifications?
Ride safe, Ted
-
Some states already do restrict both the amount of ammunition a person can purchase as well as setting limits on how much ammunition an individual can have on hand. The problem with that is while the limits are more than strict enough to totally disrupt a competitive shooter or even those of us who simply shoot a lot, on the other side of the coin, the limits in place really do not do much, if anything, to reduce the potential for a 'shoot 'em up' situation anyway.
For example, let us suppose a state or the federal gov't limits private persons to less than 1,000 rounds of ammunition. That poses a really serious problem for many of us who buy ammunition or especially ammunition components (for reloading) in lots of 1,000 and 5,000 at a time. It would greatly increase shipping costs, as well as the actual ammunition costs buying in, say, lots of only 500 at one time. On the other side of the coin, is there really any safety provided to anyone by limiting a 'wing nut' who is hell- bent on misbehaving with a firearm to limit that person to ONLY 1,000 rounds? Really? Is it OK for said wing- nut to have 900 rounds of ammunition? So there is the basic problem from both sides: the honest, average consumer is not hindered, limited and restricted in his / her behavior while at the same time this type of rule provides absolutely zero safety for the general public, at least as far as I can see. If the amount of ammunition is cut back considerably further to, say, 100 rounds purchased and / or in an individual's possession then it would virtually wipe out many forms of legitimate shooting competition. There are several different types of competition I participate in that cannot be done with 100 rounds of ammunition. And again, is society really safe given the 'wing nut' in, say, a school with ONLY 100 rounds of ammunition?
To the best of my knowledge, the only country that has had what appears to be some success in limiting access to firearms and ammunition in recent times is Australia. They did this by virtually banning the private ownership and possession of almost all firearms. Many of us do not believe that could ever work in the US for several reasons: 1) as Mike pointed out, the US is awash in firearms already so getting them just cannot happen, at least the majority of them. 2) Many Americans feel it is a right to own / posses firearms and will not yield them to any law(s) banning them; all it would do is make many (the majority?) of the population criminals, exactly as Prohibition did nearly 100 years ago. 3) the technology now exists to manufacture the critical part of a firearm pretty easily while the great majority of a firearm can be purchased freely as those parts are merely 'machine parts', not a firearm per se. An entire industry would crop up to supply the equipment if not the actual receivers to make firearms as a cottage industry and finally, a really huge problem 4) Australia used a 'buy back' program to remove many or most of the firearms from the public. I do not believe the gov't of the US could even begin to afford such a thing simply due to the sheer value of the firearms in the public's hands.
So now I would love to propose something that would actually work and still allow us to enjoy the rights we now have but I cannot because I just cannot think of anything that I believe would work.
That leaves us with exactly what we have in the entire world today, ever- increasing security and an ever- more repressive society. As some have speculated, I absolutely believe there will now be layers of security in hotels throughout the US and it will simply be more difficult for the average, law- abiding population to use them. New security measures <may> stop some misadventure from hotel room windows for example but how about office buildings..... better throw some security around them before someone shoots up NYC from the Empire State Building. How about Central Park where people gather, should we put security around that and screen everyone entering?
One of the things that really struck me as odd when the Sandy Hook event took place was the fact that the school was on "lock down". As an old man, I could not even think of what "lock down" might be for an elementary school. ?? ?? ?? When I went to elementary school, and later when my children went to elementary school, there was no status such as "lock down"; one entered by pulling on the door handle. So the world is quickly changing and each one of these unfortunate events spurs on those changes to happen faster, in new and unexpected places, and some places where it should not even be needed at all in the first place (such as hotels and public schools IMO).
Brian
whilst it may not be practical/desirable/publically acceptable to introduce gun controls (& lets be frank, the genie is out of the bottle here in terms of how many firearms you guys have out in the wild) maybe the sale of the ammo will become more restricted/heavily taxed.
Ok wouldn't stop people stockpiling but it might be a start and doesn't take away anybodies "right" to own a firearm.
But Brians right, these sort of events only lead to the intorduction of new measures. s he said its highly likely hotels will start taking more interest in what people are bringing in (hmmm waits for the first person to sue the hotel for letting this nutter check in with 29 firearms and various tripods after all what valid reason is there for that?)
Correction, it was 23 firearms in the hotel room plus 10 suitcases, who travels with 10 suitcases??
-
Yes, they are legal because they do not modify the firearm in any way. What they do is to effectively make the firearm 'dance' in the user's hands so that the trigger is pulled repeatedly at the end of each recoil stroke.
Another device that used to be available was a wind- up, spring loaded triangle device that mounted to the trigger guard. The device had an operating lever that hung down below and effectively provided a 'trigger mechanism' to activate the device. So the way it worked was that the triangle would become a rotating cam that would in turn repeatedly press the firearm's trigger. Again legal because it was not the firearm that was being made automatic or even modified, it was an external device (as is a bump stock) and nothing about it was illegal.
I suppose laws could be written to make these devices illegal but if they were marketed as a kid's wind- up toy.....
One range I belong to specifically prohibits "automatic fire" to prevent devices exactly such as this from being used. So it does not matter how one achieves rapid, repeated firing, it is not permitted and those doing it (no one has even tried to the best of my knowledge) would be ejected. Some ranges specify a certain number of shots per unit of time not be exceeded to regulate the same thing, the actual or simulation of automatic firearms firing. But this only works because others actually enforce and regulate this; it just would not work in the public sector at large, at least as far as I can tell.
The underlying problem is the misadventure of some individuals, not the tools he / she is using. What we are starting to see is the government providing easier paths for anyone to call or contact some agency or other to report suspicious behavior but in the end, I just do not see that being effective. And it is extremely dangerous IMO to have the general public pointing out those who should be selected for special treatment by any gov't agency. Joseph Stalin did that and it was really, really hard on the Soviet people.
Brian
All of this is really bad. Not making light of any of it.
Prayers for those lost, wounded, and their families...
Many have questioned his fully automatic weapons.
Just saw photo's of his room on the computer.
If it's on the Computer, it has to be true.. {right}?? :o
Supposedly the automatic conversion he did was "Bump Stocks" on 2 of his weapons.
ie; No internal mods to the guns, and supposedly Bump Stocks are legal modifications?
Ride safe, Ted
-
Look up the BMF Activator on Youtube. Tons of fun right there. Had one on my 10-22 for years.
-
maybe the sale of the ammo will become more restricted/heavily taxed. Ok wouldn't stop people stockpiling but it might be a start and doesn't take away anybodies "right" to own a firearm.
And it wouldn't do anything, anyway. That is simply more "security theater." It is common when practicing to use one or two boxes of ammo. A single $12 box of 9mm is 50 rounds. That means I could buy a SINGLE box, just once, and walk into a concert and kill 50 people. It is simply not practical or sensible. It doesn't matter that much if you had 100 rounds or 100,000 rounds.
But Brians right, these sort of events only lead to the interdiction of new measures. s he said its highly likely hotels will start taking more interest in what people are bringing in (hmmm waits for the first person to sue the hotel for letting this nutter check in with 29 firearms and various tripods after all what valid reason is there for that?)
What it really means, is that good people, who are licensed to carry, are going to be endlessly harassed everywhere they go. The concert example is a perfect one. So they set up "security" which will NOT stop someone who really wants to get in, or who stays outside and shoots in. But it does mean that GOOD people who refuse to be disarmed the whole way there, during, and the whole way back are punished- they can't go at all. And that leaves a "soft target" area of thousands of unarmed people just ripe for the picking. In the Sunset Strip shooting, it is true that having armed good people at the concert would have done nothing to help, that is the 1 in 1,000,000 case. In most cases the shooting is from within (within the workplace, within the concert, within the store, etc). And holding the hotel somehow responsible is insane.
What isn't insane is this- I will grudgingly disarm myself for an event if:
1) They provide ACTUAL tight security with adequate ARMED protection.
2) They search EVERYONE with ACTUAL searches, like at the airport.
3) They have an insured, secured place to STORE my weapon, on-site.
4) They can be held responsible for my security.
And that will never happen. What they want to do is token security (AKA "security theater") which makes the situation worse than none at all. It makes the ignorant "feel safe" when it actually does the exact opposite.
-
And holding the hotel somehow responsible is insane.
Stranger things have happened, all it takes is someone of the right (or wrong) mindset (and possibly a large bank balance)
"In 2008, an Illinois woman Gayane Zokhrabov, 58, tried to sue the estate of Hiroyuki Joho, 18, an unfortunate victim of a train accident. While attempting to catch an inbound Metra train, Joho ran across the tracks and was struck by an Amtrak train traveling 70 mph. Portions of the victim’s deceased body struck Zokhrabov as she waited on a nearby train platform, injuring her shoulder, wrist and leg. The lower court judge dismissed the morbidly bizarre case, stating that the young man could not have predicted where his body would strike because he was dead. An appeals court later disagreed and said that it was “reasonably foreseeable” that a high-speed [train] could kill Joho and send his flying body parts into crowds of waiting passengers."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-29/news/ct-met-train-fatality-suit-20111229_1_amtrak-train-high-speed-train-metra-train (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-29/news/ct-met-train-fatality-suit-20111229_1_amtrak-train-high-speed-train-metra-train)
-
"In 2008, an Illinois woman Gayane Zokhrabov, 58, tried to sue the estate of Hiroyuki Joho, 18,
Not to sound insensitive, but sometimes S*** just happens. "Deal with it". It is like a cancer growing ever stronger in modern society that someone else is always at fault and responsible for everything that happens. Life isn't perfectly safe and any attempt to make it so will lead to a complete and utter lack of freedom, choice, innovation, will, privacy, interest..... pretty much anything that makes life worth living. :(
-
Not to sound insensitive, but sometimes S*** just happens. "Deal with it". It is like a cancer growing ever stronger in modern society that someone else is always at fault and responsible for everything that happens. Life isn't perfectly safe and any attempt to make it so will lead to a complete and utter lack of freedom, choice, innovation, will, privacy, interest..... pretty much anything that makes life worth living. :(
I don't necessarily disagree with you , but a State Appeals court judge did and found in her favor
-
Perhaps it will be easier to limit unsecurable event sizes so there can't be so many victims.
Legislating people's (even sane ones) behavior will not/has not ever worked.
Unfortunately there is and never will be a way to keep such things from happening until/unless the mental condition of all people everywhere can comprehend and want to be good citizens. What are the chances?? Exactly.
-
until/unless the mental condition of all people everywhere can comprehend and want to be good citizens. What are the chances?? Exactly.
Mind control...
-
Mind control...
http://youtu.be/8eqKKi6RNy8 (http://youtu.be/8eqKKi6RNy8)
-
I'd really like to know about what drugs - particularly anti-depressants or mood leveler drugs these killers may be taking. There's more to this than just "sh*t happens". Steve
-
I'd really like to know about what drugs - particularly anti-depressants or mood leveler drugs these killers may be taking. There's more to this than just "sh*t happens". Steve
Please note that when I said "S*** Happens" I wasn't dismissing culpability of a murder/attacker/etc, it was in reference to the posting I was replying to- someone was hit by parts of a dead body and then suing the family of the dead person, as if there was some actual intent or fault in the accident.
It might not have been your intention to be referencing what I said, but I wanted to cover that possibility of misunderstanding. That aside, I agree with your curiosity if such an attacker was on any type of legal or illegal psychotropic drugs (or even perhaps should have been).
-
I'd really like to know about what drugs - particularly anti-depressants or mood leveler drugs these killers may be taking. There's more to this than just "sh*t happens". Steve
For starters....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-04/vegas-gunman-was-prescribed-drugs-can-lead-violent-behavior (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-04/vegas-gunman-was-prescribed-drugs-can-lead-violent-behavior)
As police continue to hunt for a credible motive to explain why 64-year-old millionaire, real-estate investor Stephen Paddock sprayed a crowd of country music fans with bullets – a suicide mission that police say was the result of meticulous planning – the Las Vegas Review Journal reports that Paddock was recently prescribed anti-anxiety medication that studies have shown can lead to violent, impulsive behavior.
The suggests that the characterization of events offered by Paddock’s brother that the gunman, who killed 59 people and wounded more than 500 more Sunday in night in the worst mass shooting in modern US history, "simply snapped" may be accurate.
According to records from the Nevada Prescription Monitoring Program obtained by the paper on Tuesday, Paddock was prescribed 50 10-milligram diazepam tablets on June 21 by Henderson, Nevada physician Dr. Steven Winkler. Diazepam – better known by its brand name, Valium – is a sedative and muscle relaxer in the class of drugs known as benzodiazepines, which studies have shown can cause aggressive behavior in some patients. Chronic use has also been linked to psychotic episodes.
-
Please note that when I said "S*** Happens" I wasn't dismissing culpability of a murder/attacker/etc, it was in reference to the posting I was replying to- someone was hit by parts of a dead body and then suing the family of the dead person, as if there was some actual intent or fault in the accident.
It might not have been your intention to be referencing what I said, but I wanted to cover that possibility of misunderstanding. That aside, I agree with your curiosity if such an attacker was on any type of legal or illegal psychotropic drugs (or even perhaps should have been).
Not a reference to your post Max. There is a semi-common response I've been hearing that if you live in a free society, then sometimes "sh*t happens". Well we've been a free society for a long time, and this didn't happen with this regularity until somewhat recently.
If we were to look at the medications we're all taking I think we'd see for one that a significant percentage of society is on antidepressants or mood levelers. They work great for most folks, but here and there, they have terrible consequences. Just look at the suicide rate amongst returning combat veterans. I know of one in my extended family family (my Brother in Law's nephew) who was put on an anti-anxiety drug. After a few days on the drug he was acting very weird, his wife and mother begged the VA psychiatrist to take him off the drug, but the doctor refused, saying once the medication was stabilized in his body all would be fine. The next day the veteran stabbed himself in the heart, and died. Just tragic.
In the past couple years I've developed high blood pressure. None of the common drugs seems to have much effect, so the doctor keeps changing the script, looking for the right drug. He prescribed a drug called "Clonidine". Clonidine worked best of all to lower my blood pressure, but it did something to my head, too... I nicknamed it "clonidine suppression". I really couldn't think. I can generally work problems from point A to point B... but I spent the majority of my time on Clonidine useless and confused, Until I refused to take it. THEN the doctor tells me "oh yeah, Clonidine was first used in people with psychiatric issues, but when they started passing out from low blood pressure we started using it as a BP medicine. Some folks get depressed and suicidal " . So if I hadn't been able to tie the Clonidine to my brain confusion and kept taking it, how could that have worked out?
I've never been a person who takes or wants to take drugs (well, at least since adulthood) so I'm generally ignorant of experiencing side effects. So it makes me wonder, how often does this happen? Doctors prescribe drugs like skittles. Consider the opioid problem we have. Something's different about us now from even 40 years ago. We had plenty of guns and yeah there was the Texas university shooter, but that was a huge rarity in that time. Now it's every couple months. Guns didn't change... we have. Let's look at the side effects of these drugs, because I really feel there's something going on there. Steve
-
Thanks for posting that, GPink
From the article GPinks linked to :
"Winkler had previously prescribed Paddock 50 10-milligram tablets in 2016, advising him to take two pills a day. Questions about the role that psychiatric medication plays in mass shootings have been percolating for decades, though no definitive link has ever been found, the LVRJ pointed out. There’s also the danger that, by publicizing unscientific linkages in the media, that patients who require the drug to manage moderate to severe anxiety might be unfairly stigmatized for using it."
Odd how we work... fear of stigmatizing patients who take psychyatric drugs, but no fear of stigmatizing 40% of the population that owns guns, but has never been violent with them. Things that make me go "hmmm". Steve