|
Post by GeneralFaye on Oct 2, 2017 15:07:30 GMT
ISIS try to claim everything like Bin Laden's old mob used to.
|
|
|
Las Vegas
Oct 2, 2017 16:09:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by lordb on Oct 2, 2017 16:09:32 GMT
ISIS propaganda agency are claiming the shooter is one of their soldiers who converted to Islam a few months ago. Sounds rather dubious at this stage but who knows... Who knows indeed. Possible but from the available information so far seems like ISIS bullshit
|
|
|
Post by 3putts on Oct 2, 2017 18:20:39 GMT
Rot in hell Stephen paddock you utter utter cunt
|
|
|
Post by skip on Oct 2, 2017 18:49:19 GMT
Yanks + guns and that bell end who didn’t really play for us had his photo op with two of the things. I love America but it’s gun control is a disastrous tragedy. Brett, that’s him. FFS.
|
|
|
Las Vegas
Oct 2, 2017 19:15:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 2, 2017 19:15:34 GMT
I can't imagine as it's just a nut with a gun. This fella has stocked up on ammo & booked himself into an elevated 'snipers position' above a country music concert. I've seen people from the concert saying a woman was walking around beforehand telling them they were all going to die. Definately sounds pre-meditated to me, and more than likely political, and therefore an act of terrorism. Yes I noticed that too, it's been confusing me all day. All the news channels are suggesting that the authorities believe he acted alone but if these witnesses are telling the truth, then surely there's much more to it?
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Oct 2, 2017 19:27:00 GMT
I can't imagine as it's just a nut with a gun. This fella has stocked up on ammo & booked himself into an elevated 'snipers position' above a country music concert. I've seen people from the concert saying a woman was walking around beforehand telling them they were all going to die. Definately sounds pre-meditated to me, and more than likely political, and therefore an act of terrorism. Could have just been some random bible bashing nutter. This report from London on the train today.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41466140
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Oct 2, 2017 19:51:56 GMT
Nope, he's been doxxed on 4chan as a left-winger.
Pics of him at an Antifa, anti-Trump rally wearing a pink pussy hat.
Don't know if that's the motive but seems to put paid to the Isis / Bible Thumping theories.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Oct 2, 2017 19:52:56 GMT
|
|
|
Las Vegas
Oct 2, 2017 20:49:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by themistocles on Oct 2, 2017 20:49:14 GMT
I can't imagine as it's just a nut with a gun. This fella has stocked up on ammo & booked himself into an elevated 'snipers position' above a country music concert. I've seen people from the concert saying a woman was walking around beforehand telling them they were all going to die. Definately sounds pre-meditated to me, and more than likely political, and therefore an act of terrorism. Yes I noticed that too, it's been confusing me all day. All the news channels are suggesting that the authorities believe he acted alone but if these witnesses are telling the truth, then surely there's much more to it? A lot of questions need to be answered . This plan was highly sophisticated and would've been weeks in the making. He or someone booked 2 rooms next to each other with perfect vantage points. I'm no conspiracy nut but I'm not naive to belive the initial reports the media tell us. No way he acted alone if at all.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Oct 2, 2017 20:55:19 GMT
Where were these images taken from?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Oct 2, 2017 20:57:17 GMT
Yes I noticed that too, it's been confusing me all day. All the news channels are suggesting that the authorities believe he acted alone but if these witnesses are telling the truth, then surely there's much more to it? A lot of questions need to be answered . This plan was highly sophisticated and would've been weeks in the making. He or someone booked 2 rooms next to each other with perfect vantage points. I'm no conspiracy nut but I'm not naive to belive the initial reports the media tell us. No way he acted alone if at all. I might be being very stupid here, but what is sophisticated about this plan? It seems all he had to do was a) book a hotel room; b) buy a shit load of guns in a state where it is apparently a piece of piss to buy guns; c) point gun downward and pull trigger.
|
|
|
Las Vegas
Oct 2, 2017 21:10:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by themistocles on Oct 2, 2017 21:10:37 GMT
A lot of questions need to be answered . This plan was highly sophisticated and would've been weeks in the making. He or someone booked 2 rooms next to each other with perfect vantage points. I'm no conspiracy nut but I'm not naive to belive the initial reports the media tell us. No way he acted alone if at all. I might be being very stupid here, but what is sophisticated about this plan? It seems all he had to do was a) book a hotel room; b) buy a shit load of guns in a state where it is apparently a piece of piss to buy guns; c) point gun downward and pull trigger. He had 10 assault rifles and 3 tripods. Managed to get them through security and metal detectors. A man with no military background managed to hit targets 800meters plus. Booked rooms with perfect vantage points. No one knew about him.
|
|
|
Post by localloser on Oct 2, 2017 21:13:04 GMT
BBC now reporting he had 19 guns in the hotel room. WTF???
Sounds like he was on a mission of some sort. Bastard
|
|
|
Las Vegas
Oct 2, 2017 21:15:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by chuffedstokie on Oct 2, 2017 21:15:02 GMT
19 weapons plus associated ammunition. Lugging that lot up must have been hard collar for a 64 year old.
|
|
|
Las Vegas
Oct 2, 2017 21:16:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 2, 2017 21:16:38 GMT
I can't imagine as it's just a nut with a gun. This fella has stocked up on ammo & booked himself into an elevated 'snipers position' above a country music concert. I've seen people from the concert saying a woman was walking around beforehand telling them they were all going to die. Definately sounds pre-meditated to me, and more than likely political, and therefore an act of terrorism. Could have just been some random bible bashing nutter. This report from London on the train today.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41466140
There was a woman at the front of the crowd telling people they were going to die TONIGHT. She was escorted out by the security and then 45 mins later the shooting started. Yes she could have just been some random nutjob but it really is one hell of a coincidence.
|
|
|
Las Vegas
Oct 2, 2017 21:23:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by Davef on Oct 2, 2017 21:23:20 GMT
Since 1968, more US citizens have died at the hands of domestic gun crime (over 1.5m) than have died in the country's history during wars (around 1.3m).
|
|
|
Post by localloser on Oct 2, 2017 21:26:11 GMT
19 weapons plus associated ammunition. Lugging that lot up must have been hard collar for a 64 year old. Up to the 32nd floor!! Wonder how many people saw him in the elevators - must have been up and down for a good while...
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Oct 2, 2017 21:30:05 GMT
Can we just get our terminology and laws right about the guns, because it's important to have facts right before flying into emotional rants on it.
The rifles he used were full auto. They are the most heavily restricted weapons in all of the USA and certainly not a piece of piss to get his hands on. If he went through the correct legal channels it would have taken him over a year on a Class III licence, would have cost him a fucking bomb (well over 10k a piece) and they'd have had to have been made pre 1986.
It is not a case of him popping down to the shops and filling up his trolley.
The most logical assumption (and it is an assumption) is that he bought these illegal weapons on the black market, or manufactured them himself, which is a felony in its own right.
In this one, isolated, particular instance, there is no argument to be made for more gun comtrol as it's pretty much impossible to acquire them legally. If anything, this illustrates how gun control will never work over there, because he still managed to acquire them.
As for the amount of guns he had, well, it looks scary on the surface, but realistically, so what? He could only use one at a time. Yes he was a total fucking evil lunatic but the number of guns in his arsenal is largely irrelevant to any serious discussion about him.
I'm not interested in any other discussion about that from my end, but language and understanding of context are important in any story, especially one as emotively charged as this one.
|
|
|
Las Vegas
Oct 2, 2017 22:06:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by themistocles on Oct 2, 2017 22:06:48 GMT
Why would he need 19 guns...
What If he is innocent and terrorist broke into his apartment...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 0:39:16 GMT
19 weapons plus associated ammunition. Lugging that lot up must have been hard collar for a 64 year old. Apparently he'd been there since Thursday, so I doubt he'd have took em all up in one go. But even so, you'd have thought someone would have noticed summat odd, what about the maids for a start.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Oct 3, 2017 2:02:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 6:48:48 GMT
Can we just get our terminology and laws right about the guns, because it's important to have facts right before flying into emotional rants on it. The rifles he used were full auto. They are the most heavily restricted weapons in all of the USA and certainly not a piece of piss to get his hands on. If he went through the correct legal channels it would have taken him over a year on a Class III licence, would have cost him a fucking bomb (well over 10k a piece) and they'd have had to have been made pre 1986. It is not a case of him popping down to the shops and filling up his trolley. The most logical assumption (and it is an assumption) is that he bought these illegal weapons on the black market, or manufactured them himself, which is a felony in its own right. In this one, isolated, particular instance, there is no argument to be made for more gun comtrol as it's pretty much impossible to acquire them legally. If anything, this illustrates how gun control will never work over there, because he still managed to acquire them. As for the amount of guns he had, well, it looks scary on the surface, but realistically, so what? He could only use one at a time. Yes he was a total fucking evil lunatic but the number of guns in his arsenal is largely irrelevant to any serious discussion about him. I'm not interested in any other discussion about that from my end, but language and understanding of context are important in any story, especially one as emotively charged as this one. Not necessarily, reports are now suggesting he used perfectly at least 2 legal semi-automatic weapons with a "bump stock" which allows it to fire like a fully automatic weapon. I'm far from a firearms expert though so have no idea what a "bump stock" is?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 3, 2017 7:38:10 GMT
And still the right wing gun nut lobby maintain that this isn't the time to discuss gun control. Shameful.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 3, 2017 7:55:04 GMT
And still the right wing gun nut lobby maintain that this isn't the time to discuss gun control. Shameful. The nut jobs now have their mandate with the Don in charge of proceedings over there don't they?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 3, 2017 8:08:20 GMT
my understanding is that less guns obviously = less violence/murder crimes committed with guns (eventually), but it doesn't actually reduce those things overall. If you took guns off law abiding people then all the bad guys and criminals would be left with all the guns (they don't abide by laws by definition) thus the murder rate would increase as people cannot defend themselves. To implement a total gun ban now would mean the US would have to turn into an absolute police state, home invasions (causing many deaths) and a probable civil war!
A gun is just a means by which people commit the crimes, if they didn't use a gun then criminals could, and have, used trucks or knives or bottles of acid to kill and maim indiscriminately.
Banning guns probably wouldn't change much RE murder and crimes statistics, they'd probably just stay the same, it wouldn't even prevent shooting like the las vegas shooting as the gun he used was already banned, he was a multi millionaire, he could probably get a gun if he lived alone on the moon.
the problem is the violence, not the means by which it is meted out, why is america so violent ? is there a correlation with the use of mind altering drugs, prescription and otherwise ?
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Oct 3, 2017 8:59:14 GMT
my understanding is that less guns obviously = less violence/murder crimes committed with guns (eventually), but it doesn't actually reduce those things overall. If you took guns off law abiding people then all the bad guys and criminals would be left with all the guns (they don't abide by laws by definition) thus the murder rate would increase as people cannot defend themselves. To implement a total gun ban now would mean the US would have to turn into an absolute police state, home invasions (causing many deaths) and a probable civil war! A gun is just a means by which people commit the crimes, if they didn't use a gun then criminals could, and have, used trucks or knives or bottles of acid to kill and maim indiscriminately. Banning guns probably wouldn't change much RE murder and crimes statistics, they'd probably just stay the same, it wouldn't even prevent shooting like the las vegas shooting as the gun he used was already banned, he was a multi millionaire, he could probably get a gun if he lived alone on the moon. the problem is the violence, not the means by which it is meted out, why is america so violent ? is there a correlation with the use of mind altering drugs, prescription and otherwise ? To be honest, the amount of Yanks in mind-altering, legal pharmaceuticals is indeed 'mind-blowing'. Way too many in this country too. Mind pills don't sort out life's problems, and the fact they are considered acceptable is nothing but propaganda for ££££££££££ reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Oct 3, 2017 9:16:19 GMT
Can we just get our terminology and laws right about the guns, because it's important to have facts right before flying into emotional rants on it. The rifles he used were full auto. They are the most heavily restricted weapons in all of the USA and certainly not a piece of piss to get his hands on. If he went through the correct legal channels it would have taken him over a year on a Class III licence, would have cost him a fucking bomb (well over 10k a piece) and they'd have had to have been made pre 1986. It is not a case of him popping down to the shops and filling up his trolley. The most logical assumption (and it is an assumption) is that he bought these illegal weapons on the black market, or manufactured them himself, which is a felony in its own right. In this one, isolated, particular instance, there is no argument to be made for more gun comtrol as it's pretty much impossible to acquire them legally. If anything, this illustrates how gun control will never work over there, because he still managed to acquire them. As for the amount of guns he had, well, it looks scary on the surface, but realistically, so what? He could only use one at a time. Yes he was a total fucking evil lunatic but the number of guns in his arsenal is largely irrelevant to any serious discussion about him. I'm not interested in any other discussion about that from my end, but language and understanding of context are important in any story, especially one as emotively charged as this one. Not necessarily, reports are now suggesting he used perfectly at least 2 legal semi-automatic weapons with a "bump stock" which allows it to fire like a fully automatic weapon. I'm far from a firearms expert though so have no idea what a "bump stock" is? Imagine that normally you hold your rifle tight to the shoulder and operate it by pulling the trigger with your finger. If you replace the normal, solid stock with one that has a spring in it, you can then hold your finger in a static position, and literally pull the whole rifle forward with your steadying hand. This will operate the trigger, and the recoil will sent the rifle back towards your shoulder, and the stock sort of collapses to allow this because of the spring. However, if you continue pulling the gun forward, this operates the trigger mechanism again, and carries on until you stop pulling the barrel forward or you run out of ammo. It's not full-auto, it's still semi-auto, you're just altering how you work it. You don't even need the stock to do it if you fire from the hip. I'm not putting any political slant on that either way, it's just for your information.
|
|
|
Post by spiler on Oct 3, 2017 9:24:33 GMT
And still the right wing gun nut lobby maintain that this isn't the time to discuss gun control. Shameful. No wonder Trump wants a muslim travel ban over there. With US gun controls as it is, 100's-of-millions-of-weapons currently in circulation, it doesn't take take much thinking to see the potential-killing-zone for Islamic terrorists. Thank goodness we have sensible gun control in the UK and most of the EU. RIP to all the victims of this madness.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 9:52:55 GMT
Not necessarily, reports are now suggesting he used perfectly at least 2 legal semi-automatic weapons with a "bump stock" which allows it to fire like a fully automatic weapon. I'm far from a firearms expert though so have no idea what a "bump stock" is? Imagine that normally you hold your rifle tight to the shoulder and operate it by pulling the trigger with your finger. If you replace the normal, solid stock with one that has a spring in it, you can then hold your finger in a static position, and literally pull the whole rifle forward with your steadying hand. This will operate the trigger, and the recoil will sent the rifle back towards your shoulder, and the stock sort of collapses to allow this because of the spring. However, if you continue pulling the gun forward, this operates the trigger mechanism again, and carries on until you stop pulling the barrel forward or you run out of ammo. It's not full-auto, it's still semi-auto, you're just altering how you work it. You don't even need the stock to do it if you fire from the hip. I'm not putting any political slant on that either way, it's just for your information. Ta mate, you learn something every day. Why the hell would they be available legally just out of interest? And what is the rationale for making silencers easier to purchase as well? Just all seems bizarre.....
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Oct 3, 2017 11:31:40 GMT
Imagine that normally you hold your rifle tight to the shoulder and operate it by pulling the trigger with your finger. If you replace the normal, solid stock with one that has a spring in it, you can then hold your finger in a static position, and literally pull the whole rifle forward with your steadying hand. This will operate the trigger, and the recoil will sent the rifle back towards your shoulder, and the stock sort of collapses to allow this because of the spring. However, if you continue pulling the gun forward, this operates the trigger mechanism again, and carries on until you stop pulling the barrel forward or you run out of ammo. It's not full-auto, it's still semi-auto, you're just altering how you work it. You don't even need the stock to do it if you fire from the hip. I'm not putting any political slant on that either way, it's just for your information. Ta mate, you learn something every day. Why the hell would they be available legally just out of interest? And what is the rationale for making silencers easier to purchase as well? Just all seems bizarre..... They're not legal, they're just not illegal, if that makes sense. You can bump fire by just wedging your finger into a belt loop, you don't need the stock, but they'd be easy as shit to make anyway so making them illegal would really be pointless for someone intent on using one on people. Contrary to popular belief silencers don't silence anything, they're really called suppressors and they're still loud as shit, nothing like you see in films or TV or games. A suppressor captures ths sound of escaping gas but when the bullet breaks the sound barrier you still hear a sonic boom, so really you're knocking off about 30db max, down to about 120db, which is still as loud as a jackhammer. The point of them is to let the shooter fire safely without ear protection, otherwise you'd have a perforated ear drum. There's some argument about whether they reduce your ability to detect exactly where the sound's coming from but the difference is tiny and really makes no odds. They certainly don't turn your shot into a "pffew" like in James Bond, it still sounds like a gunshot. They don't make the gun any more lethal. They can only be used for about four shots in fairly quick succession as well before they fill up with that gas and stop working, and it takes some time for that to dissipate and go back to working properly. The scaremongering around cosmetic features is pretty irritating, it seems that the majority of people who latch on to anti-gun arguments knee jerk at anything that seems scary without really understanding it. Suppressors are actually pretty heavily encouraged for shooting in the UK as they reduce noise pollution. It's just how you look at it.
|
|