leicsmac Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 1 hour ago, Merging Cultures said: They've been using the term 'lone wolf'. He's a terrorist. Nah, that's not how it works. He's a white guy, and that makes him a mentally disturbed lone wolf. They don't have overarching ideologies that they share with other people that might have made them do something like this, see. Always got something wrong upstairs and acting on their own. Anyhow...cynicism aside this is horrific...what more can really be said?
goose2010 Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 2 hours ago, FoxesDeb said: Hope you hear from them soon and they are safe and well they are ok, they has been there but left about 2 hours before it happened luckily their jet lag wass kicking in so they headed back to their hotel!
Guest BlueBrett Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 43 minutes ago, Voll Blau said: True, but what other course of action is realistically available to them at the point of contact in instances like this? The bottom line has to be to save further loss of life, which is exactly how the Met dealt with the Borough Market attack. There are plenty of non-lethal ways to incapacitate someone. Sure it's a bit more complicated and that's the excuse the authorities always use but for me it's not good enough when things are this serious to be like 'oh yeh in an ideal world...but that's too hard so let's not bother' 35 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: Agree with the sentiment but with one bullet to the head the rozzers have saved the state of Nevada months or even years of legal wrangling, millions of dollars in incarcerating him for the rest of his life (even if sentenced to death he could have spent 20/30/40 years on death row). This is probably the real reason it always goes this way and if it is all about money then I actually have less of a problem with it than you might imagine. However, it's probably not as pertinent in this particular case, but I feel like this shoot to kill policy often creates a void of information and bewilders the public leading to speculation, conspiracy theories, uncertainty and insecurity which is surely the opposite of what the authorities should want. They must be aware of this so it's difficult not to wonder whether, in some cases at least, they put these people down because they anticipate that they could have some damaging things to say or perhaps they know too much - I mean they put enough bullets in an unarmed, unguarded Bin Laden to make sure nobody ever heard his account of things.. so after a decade of the most high profile manhunt in human history not a single question was ever answered. That shit stank soo bad that even though this latest bout of attacks are clearly an entirely different kettle of fish it still really rankles that we never get to ask these people 'what the **** did you do that for?"
oohaahmustafa Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 10:16 'What are the state's gun laws? The state of Nevada has some of the most permissive gun laws in the US. It is legal to carry an assault rifle and there is no magazine capacity limit. There are no purchase permits and blue cards are no longer required. There is no waiting period mandated for firearm purchases and private gun sales are OK.' Absolutely mental. So theoretically this dude could of checked into his hotel and the staff ask him; what's in your suitcase sir? Oh just my assault rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammo.. Very good sir, have a nice day!
Guest MattP Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 59 minutes ago, BlueBrett said: Awful Really ****s me off as well that whenever something like this happens the perpetrator invariably ends up with a bullet in the head rather than facing a public trial. How are we ever supposed to understand what goes through these peoples' heads if the security services keep spraying their brains against the wall? What else can they do? It's not like you can close enough to taser someone like that and you don't risk one innocent life to do so even if you could.
Jon the Hat Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 9 minutes ago, MattP said: What else can they do? It's not like you can close enough to taser someone like that and you don't risk one innocent life to do so even if you could. Yes exactly, this guys life is not worth a policeman being shot in the arm let alone killed.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 20 minutes ago, MattP said: What else can they do? It's not like you can close enough to taser someone like that and you don't risk one innocent life to do so even if you could. I'm no weapons expert but couldn't they pop him with a tranquilliser dart or something?
Babylon Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 3 minutes ago, BlueBrett said: I'm no weapons expert but couldn't they pop him with a tranquilliser dart or something? It's not the movies, it would take a fair amount of time for that to kick in. During which, he's probably managed to get off another 200 rounds or so.
Guest MattP Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 2 minutes ago, BlueBrett said: I'm no weapons expert but couldn't they pop him with a tranquilliser dart or something? What? While he's firing with just his head showing from the 35th floor of a hotel? Even if they could, those few seconds it would take he could kill numerous innocent people firing a SA.
Kitchandro Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 41 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Nah, that's not how it works. He's a white guy, and that makes him a mentally disturbed lone wolf. They don't have overarching ideologies that they share with other people that might have made them do something like this, see. Always got something wrong upstairs and acting on their own. Anyhow...cynicism aside this is horrific...what more can really be said? The definition of terrorism cites political aims. So the question is, did this guy have a proper motive or is he just a crazy guy who decided to shoot people for a laugh? If it's the latter it isn't terrorism, by definition. Why what it's labelled as is something you consider significant I'm not sure. It's not like people are going 'It's ok if it's not terrorism'.
leicsmac Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Just now, Kitchandro said: The definition of terrorism cites political aims. So the question is, did this guy have a proper motive or is he just a crazy guy who decided to shoot people for a laugh? If it's the latter it isn't terrorism, by definition. Why what it's labelled as is something you consider significant I'm not sure. It's not like people are going 'It's ok if it's not terrorism'. Good question, and perhaps we'll find out more in the days to come. However...I do consider it significant because such demographics are almost always labelled as "lone wolves", and "lone wolves" get sadness and a few days of "thoughts and prayers" until the time it happens again - and don't get outrage, generalisations, and billion-dollar domestic and foreign actions against them. I'm sure people are saying that it's not ok...but the reactions do tend to be wildly different.
Merging Cultures Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Given the current political climate, the chances are the he did have some overarching political motive. I guess we will find out either was soon, even if he is dead and can't give his story now, he'll have an internet trail and his partner should be able to shed some light on what went down. Obviously, when a 'jihadist' shouts 'allu akbar' at people before killing them it is easier to identify them as a terrorist. Maybe he shouted 'God is great', before shooting but no one heard.
MikeyT Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/first-picture-gunman-stephen-paddock-11274144
foxy boxing Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 what can you say about another massacre that hasn't already been said time and time after every massacre in America. obviously my condolences to the families of those killed and and hope those injured can get allthe help they need but this is a continuation of violence and atrocities that is now part and parcel of everyday life in America where you can get a gun as easily as a pint of milk. the lessons won't be learned, nothing will change and more massacres will follow because Americans care more about their rights to bare arms than the right to live in peace and to walk down the street not fearing if someone is going to pull out a gun and kill you.
Fox92 Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Just watched a video where a woman who was at the concert said "a woman shouted you're going to die.... about 45 mins before the shooting"
Babylon Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 21 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Good question, and perhaps we'll find out more in the days to come. However...I do consider it significant because such demographics are almost always labelled as "lone wolves", and "lone wolves" get sadness and a few days of "thoughts and prayers" until the time it happens again - and don't get outrage, generalisations, and billion-dollar domestic and foreign actions against them. I'm sure people are saying that it's not ok...but the reactions do tend to be wildly different. Perhaps because they generally are? How often are these guys actually going after other religions, or following some ideology. It tends to be some sad case blowing up his old place of work, or classmates etc. As for not getting outraged, there is always outrage after and the usual debate on guns that gets nowhere because half the country and gun toting oddities.
Innovindil Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Do we even know if it was the police that killed this guy? Usually these cowardly ****s pop themselves off before being caught. Rip victims, awful stuff.
AKCJ Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 47 minutes ago, Kitchandro said: The definition of terrorism cites political aims. So the question is, did this guy have a proper motive or is he just a crazy guy who decided to shoot people for a laugh? If it's the latter it isn't terrorism, by definition. Why what it's labelled as is something you consider significant I'm not sure. It's not like people are going 'It's ok if it's not terrorism'. Absolutely, but we don't know if he had political aim yet. His point is that if the bloke wasn't a white American the media would have jumped to that conclusion for sure.
Voll Blau Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 1 hour ago, Innovindil said: Do we even know if it was the police that killed this guy? Usually these cowardly ****s pop themselves off before being caught. Rip victims, awful stuff. Was reported as police earlier, just now being reported he shot himself.
David Guiza Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Reading that Mirror article posted above and the quote from Dan Blizerian stood out, something along the lines of wishing he was armed and regretting not going to festival armed. God only knows what would have happened if every Tom, Dick and Harry had their weapons on them too.
lifted*fox Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 Awful news. Unfortunately Americans leave themselves wide open to this sort of shit by continuing to lawfully allow every man the right to bear arms. I wonder how many people in the crowd are pro-gun - considering it's a country music event I'd imagine a large proportion. America on the brink of destroying itself tbh.
MikeyT Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 The Associated PressVerified account @AP 12s13 seconds ago More Officials: More than 400 hospitalized in Las Vegas shooting, suspect was dead when police entered his hotel room.
lgfualol Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 6 minutes ago, David Guiza said: Reading that Mirror article posted above and the quote from Dan Blizerian stood out, something along the lines of wishing he was armed and regretting not going to festival armed. God only knows what would have happened if every Tom, Dick and Harry had their weapons on them too. Can you imagine, everyone whipping out their guns and shooting at the hotel, then people shooting at the people shooting at the hotel, then people shooting at the people shooting at the people shooting at the hotel, etc. Along with better gun laws, America needs proper mental health care. Trump acts like their biggest enemy is refugees and NK, meanwhile their own citizens do mass-shootings and gun crime is rampant in some parts.
leicsmac Posted 2 October 2017 Posted 2 October 2017 58 minutes ago, Babylon said: Perhaps because they generally are? How often are these guys actually going after other religions, or following some ideology. It tends to be some sad case blowing up his old place of work, or classmates etc. As for not getting outraged, there is always outrage after and the usual debate on guns that gets nowhere because half the country and gun toting oddities. Exactly what does it matter to those killed exactly what the killer believed in? That's sort of my point, really - there's different definitions and different reactions based on the demographic of the killer, when dead is dead. 38 minutes ago, AKCJ said: Absolutely, but we don't know if he had political aim yet. His point is that if the bloke wasn't a white American the media would have jumped to that conclusion for sure. Yeah, pretty much this.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.