Active Shooter Las Vegas, Mandalay Bay

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I watched the video a few post back.
That was not an AR15 semi auto rifle.
That was a full auto weapon.
He did not purchase that at the corner sporting goods store.
Can't wait to hear what the police say the weapons are. Will they tell the truth?

can you fire an uzi from that distance of the hotel??

I'm no expert on guns but if it's just some random guy swinging an uzi about??

Or is the distance too far?

Too far for an uzi to hit something aimed at, at that distance, especially pedal to the metal.

I think I heard it's like 1200 ft distance.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Possibly, but a 60+-year-old with a full auto spraying bullets down into a country concert is a weird one to fit domestic terrorism to at the moment. Maybe they'll catch the guy's companion and we'll get a better picture.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
It depends on a lot of factors and if it meets the legal definition for terrorism.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

Sub-chapter (i) can be applied rather broadly. Depending on whether documentation of his motivations are discovered sub-chapter (ii) can also apply.

I couldn't believe coming back to the house and now seeing 50 people have died as well as the injured, my thoughts to all you people stateside.

In edit, I'm just hearing another video taken from near the front of the stage, and I could nearly swear there is at least another weapon being fired, although it could be return fire...that I don't know.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: BlackSkinhead

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BlackSkinhead

Like more laws?

Sorry does that piss you off more than people dying. My bad

Not at all. Pretty sure murder is illegal as well as automatic weapons in most states. I'm not sure how you figure more laws will solve the issue.

Same way the solved it in most of Europe and Australia.


Mad how blind Americans are to the options of loosing their weapons over Saftey of the general public.

Something odd about this event. To structured, planned and executed for just a random nut job.

The motive is the question. Interesting background of the shooter....

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: ARM1968

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: ARM1968

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ARM1968

For all those who died, your blood is on the hands of everyone of your countrymen who support the right to carry arms.

I'm pretty sure the the guns used here were probably illegal..
and most of us in the US support the right to carry guns of one kind of another...
it's just how far we should go when it comes to those guns that are for military purposes than they are for hunting purposes.
but, it's quite unfair to say that we all have blood on our hands.
and if you took the guns away from everyone, the crazies would just find another way to kill. when it comes to killing it seems that people have no problem finding new and more effective ways to do it.

this is what?? the third attack in the past three or so day, and I believe they may have all been on the No. American Continent, although I could be wrong about one of them????

YES the crazies WOULD find a way, but it would be so much harder for them. A nut with a knife is not going to kill 50+ people at a concert.

I am always amazed that those of us who see the sickness you cling to as wrong are immediately cast as haters or deluded. Come on. How many, this year alone, have been killed by firearms in the USA. It’s thousands. Is that a price you continually wish to pay?

see this is a common misconception. it is not hard to find a vast majority of ways to kill a large amount of people in the blink of an eye or very subtly without anyone even noticing until its too late. if a person is willing to die to carry out horrific acts like this, a whole slew of options become available. just imagine if he had made himself an explosive vest and blew himself up at the event. could have easily killed and injured just as many people. the act is just the sympton of a deeper rooted problem

Yeah mate. Very cerebral. How often does that actually happen? To you and ALL your right to carry brothers and sisters, how many have died in the USA as a result of firearms so far this year. Look at the numbers and then we can talk.

see the thing is those people are going to commit a crime. if u want to talk about automatic weapons that are highly illegal like this which is very uncommon for any gun owner to possess, then those numbers are tiny. more would die to hammers in comparison. besides your missing the point. people that are going to commit a heinous act will find a way to carry it out one way or another. theres thousands of cases going back throughout mans history for thousands of years long before a firearm ever existed. pandoras box has been opened. the knowledge is out there and its easier then ever in this day and age to create something on a tiny budget with just a little time. shoot i could go to the uk, enter a hardware store and buy everything i need to make a shotgun for under 50 quid

Doesn’t the ease with which you can source guns and annoying in the USA make it a tad easier?

Looks like you’re all sighing with relief that this might be a full auto or illegal weapon while the rest of us are like - really?

Does that make it ok then? I mean how many have been killed in the USA so far this year with entirely legal weapons?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It could be terrorism, I am not saying it isn't terrorism.

To be 100% honest with you my initial reaction to this is premeditated right wing terrorism.

I cannot prove that however.

The point I am trying to get across is that until we actually know more about the motivations behind the shooting we cannot call it terrorism.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Spider879
Pls tell me/us when it's not too fking early to address the issue of weapons of small destruction..

That depends. How are things in Japan ?

No mass killings since that poisoned gas incident yrs ago, certainly none involving weapons of small destruction.

That is very good news. Evil comes in many forms and nations , doesnt it ?

originally posted by: flowerpower691
a reply to: ketsuko

That's the whole gist of the argument. People who own legal guns USUALLY do not do this.

A gun modified to be automatic is illegal. He didn't care. He knew he was not going to make it out of this. Likely crazy or on psych meds.

Which is why people with mental health issues bad enough for care need to be banned from owning guns.

The problem is how do you define those parameters? I think most would agree, but once you give people the power to start in one that, pretty soon the criteria are so fast and loose that seeing your school counselor once upon a time for possible adjustment issues to second grade will count as dangerous mental illness.

My thoughts with all of the people affected by this horrific attack.

Seeing reports on tv that shooter had 8 guns, 2 platforms, and had cameras set up to locate first responders.

Lots of planning into this.

I have no feelings on motive. Could have been revenge for girlfriends former job, left or right wing extremism, Etc. It's far too soon to know.

originally posted by: olaru12
Something odd about this event. To structured, planned and executed for just a random nut job.

The motive is the question.

Why?
Because it doesn't fit the awakened mind vision of a crazy person?

originally posted by: BlackSkinhead

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: BlackSkinhead

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BlackSkinhead

Like more laws?

Sorry does that piss you off more than people dying. My bad

Not at all. Pretty sure murder is illegal as well as automatic weapons in most states. I'm not sure how you figure more laws will solve the issue.

Same way the solved it in most of Europe and Australia.


Mad how blind Americans are to the options of loosing their weapons over Saftey of the general public.

If you believe that taking away legal arms will promote safety, I beg you to reconsider that thought.

a reply to: olaru12

50 dead 200 wounded from 1200 feet with a rapid fire weapon suggests a well trained psycopath

a reply to: burgerbuddy

In his campaign run Trump was pro constitutional, lets see if he sticks to his word.

Either way hang on to your rights.

Remove those right from the law abiding good sense citizens, your left with armed criminals for one.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Xcathdra

Just as all gun owners cant be held responsible for acts committed by a criminal in possession of a firearm.

100% agree with you.

Guns are only one small part of the problem, I have no problem with gun ownership, sure I think there should be certain restrictions put in place, mostly I think there should be much stricter background checks and all the rest of it.

But when it comes down to it, the gun was only the tool used to kill these people.

You cannot blame everyone who owns a gun for this, most Americans own a gun with out committing these kinds of acts so to blame it just on gun ownership would be stupid.

As a person who was in law enforcement I will say i dont ever want to see a day where citizens cannot own a firearm. In my years I have dealt with armed individuals and in none of those situations have i ever had to kill someone because they were armed. I have had armed citizens assist me with no issues.

The belief that gun crime becomes non existent the moment guns are banned is a fallacy.

I do not believe that the government can adequately protect its citizens. Its up to the individual to protect themselves firsts and foremost.

a reply to: Xcathdra

i've been thinking about that, it appears that the parking lot was a good distance from the motel. surly out of the effective range, meaning aim and shoot. unless it was a sniper rifle.

so just spray and pray as we called it was about all he could have done. plus it's just about impossible to aim firing full auto.
unless it's just three round bursts or a fixed mount.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Spider879
Pls tell me/us when it's not too fking early to address the issue of weapons of small destruction..

That depends. How are things in Japan ?

No mass killings since that poisoned gas incident yrs ago, certainly none involving weapons of small destruction.

That is very good news. Evil comes in many forms and nations , doesnt it ?

Just a lot more frequently in places with mass weapon ownership.

a reply to: khnum

We are never going to have that conversation, it's always too early.

originally posted by: olaru12
Something odd about this event. To structured, planned and executed for just a random nut job.

The motive is the question.

We prefer our safety from a tyrannical government. You guys might get off on selling out your nations souls (sovereignty) to corrupt globalist oligarch banksters, and hand over your ability to fight your way out of a paper bag to step up to resist them, but we at least like to ensure we have some semblance of prayer of being able to resist when the day comes (which is inevitable anyone over a long enough timeline).