my theory.. Vegas shooters motives were gun control .

a reply to: Deplorable

Splitting hairs I see. "Those murders are ok, these aren't though!"

That's pretty sick if you ask me. People were killed, are you really trying to justify one over the other? Are you trying to make one sound less horrible than the other?

Also, what makes you think I'm "Left"? I call BS out on both sides and your comment was full of BS.

a reply to: notsure1

After every shooting, there's a sincere discussion in Congress about banning certain firearms. That discussion lasts for 10 minutes, and they move on. (After Congressman Scalise was shot, the discussion lasted a little longer than 10 minutes.)

a reply to: Deplorable


Living up to your screen name, I see!

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: notsure1

After every shooting, there's a sincere discussion in Congress about banning certain firearms. That discussion lasts for 10 minutes, and they move on. (After Congressman Scalise was shot, the discussion lasted a little longer than 10 minutes.)

That is why I think he went so over the top with the amount of guns. To show how easy anyone could do this if they wanted.

And they could.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.

..Hillary's tweet
twit link

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Also, what makes you think I'm "Left"?

If you want to make this about you, fine.

You're a liar. It comes to you naturally. You lie to yourself. You believe your own lies.

This is how conservatives identify "Leftists". What you say cannot be believed by rational people.

a reply to: notsure1

I think so. That and infamy. These are the people that ruin worlds.

originally posted by: notsure1
So My theory about this guys motives is a little out there. I dont know all the facts or even how accurate what I do know is.

But from what I understand he had purchased most of these guns rather recently, and his brother seemed genuine saying he doesnt know why he had any guns.

So maybe he purchased and stockpiled them over some time planning an attack to show why we need to ban assault rifles.

Just a theory.

I'm watching a Jimmy Kimmel monologue right now. He's ripping the NRA for enabling Mentally Ill people to own guns, and also Congress, for considering the legalization of "silencers" on guns. Why would they be ILLEGAL?

a reply to: Deplorable

Lol, you're just a terrible person I see. Deplorable doesn't exactly cut it for you.

You just tried to justify mass murder, hope you can sleep with yourself at night. If you believe in God I bet he is shaking his head at you right now.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: notsure1

I think so. That and infamy. These are the people that ruin worlds.

YesI thought that too. He wants to live in infamy.

a reply to: notsure1

There is no proof for this, but it is a decent theory, as the gunman did make a point of showing the world how dangerous assault rifles can be, specifically. Although he did purchase his firearms legally, he made some illegal modifications to convert at least one of them to fully automatic.

a reply to: notsure1

That would be a form of suicide and mass murder to make his point

Who knows what his motive was. I don't think even the police know.

If there is no suicide note/manifesto found for this, then just about any crazy idea becomes a plausible motive. Even hate of country music.

With the little info we have I just don't think we will be able to figure it out.

Too soon to tell really, and the investigation is ongoing. Could it be used to promote gun control, sure enough, as well as surely he knew that no matter what his position on it was. Or none, if saying he just didn't care, he didn't care enough for his family, let alone people he killed why would he care about guns.

Have people changed over this? I'm sure it may as well as even probably drive people in the opposite direction depending on how they feel. So far known celebrity wise, it's been reported one of the Country music band member's present says he made a mistake supporting the Second.

A guy on CNN had a very good theory (a forensic psychologist). He said Paddock had three obsessions: Girlfriend, Guns, and Gambling. The three G's. So the guy on CNN theorized, he lost the girl, he brought the guns to the room for a last stand of glory, he then went gambling to chase his recent huge losses, lost everything. Snapped. And decided to take it all out on Vegas in one last stand of eff you for taking my money. I think it's a pretty good theory.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I like that theory too.

Every time there's a mass shooting someone tries to claim it's a false flag for gun control.

If a classroom full of six year olds getting shot up during the Presidency of a gun control enthusiast doesn't get it done, nothing will.

Your guns are safe.

a reply to: Mandroid7


Does she have a point? Could this shooter have used a silencer? Would it have made it harder to find the shooter?

a reply to: windword

If you're someone planning to shoot the shooter, from a distance it would be an advantage yes.

If you're a civilian, you'll hear the loud gun from pretty close even with the silencer.

The name is misleading, it's supposed to be a confusing or unrecognizable sound compared to a gunshot, it's not actually that silent. You would definitely hear something and turn around after a few of them went off.


Edit: My issue with this is that 'they would have got more with a silencer'. I'm not so sure that's the case based on the fish-in-a-barrel situation. They would get more of the police, maybe, the rest doesn't matter, they're unarmed.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: notsure1

After every shooting, there's a sincere discussion in Congress about banning certain firearms. That discussion lasts for 10 minutes, and they move on. (After Congressman Scalise was shot, the discussion lasted a little longer than 10 minutes.)

That is why I think he went so over the top with the amount of guns. To show how easy anyone could do this if they wanted.

And they could.

It does indeed look very suspicious for that many guns being found, and him only taking one gun. Very suspicious. Important info like "where he bought them" just for starters should be released. If it never is released, as well as other info, then that usually confirms that rogue badge flashing feds have come in and gagged the local LEO's from even investigating the case, or ever releasing information. (Because they want to use the horrible tragedy for their agendas whatever they are).

Back decades ago the people could expect to be learning every detail with nothing being withheld. Journalists would make it happen that way like it should.. Back before the levels of corruption became like today. Have to wait and see what happens next, like fast tracked legislation or some other knee jerk politically motivated things happen.

I don't see how a shooter could want gun control (because they don't like people getting shot), and also commit murder to get gun control to happen. It's a contradiction of reason and morality. Doing something horribly immoral just to show people they need to be moral because of the example they just showed is definitely crazy. Like mentally dismantled thinking. But then people have been that way before so it could happen. Seems unlikely here though.