Crime Shooting at University of Nevada, Multiple Victims Suspected (Shooter Deceased)

[Belaya Smert]

wut?



You said the ONLY proposal you've heard was taking away guns from law abiding citizens. The ONLY one you ever heard.

I responded I hadnt heard that one, to which you confidently stated Shumer proposed doing it yesterday.

I looked up Schumers proposal was to re-institute the assault weapons ban. Which I shared and doesnt appear to be the case.


Did you actually have a cogent point you were trying to make?

Gun control can only affect people following the law. It ain’t rocket surgery, Chief.

 

[650lb Sumo]

Yes the idea is the local government trains you and you provide you own guns and ammo. The local government can request you to form up, report to a designated place and help when needed. They are supposed to give you regular training to help with this.

I don't have time to research it now but I remember a bit, this 'well regulated militia' thing comes from comically obsolete culture and laws from mediaeval England, before there was much of a, or any professional army, and local aristocrats would call up their peasants and tenants to fight. Every man from 15 to 60 had to have a bow, a quiver and a certain number of arrows and come to compulsory practice once a fortnight or something. Bear in mind you had to practise a lot and often to pull a heavy bow because it took a lot of strength.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

You have a bad habit of not actually comprehending what you've read. I stated that plenty of Armed citizens stop mass shootings before they start, he stated in this case how would you know so I stated they have a 100 percent chance of not stopping the shooter with a gun if they didn't have one at all....its not really complicated....and what you keep stating is not actually factual and can be debunked but is it helps your narrative keep repeating that lie.

Not to correct you, but I think one sentence needs an askerisk.

*Plenty of armed citizens stop mass shootings before they start, AND in progress.

Sometimes the perp starts shooting and the armed citizen intervenes within a number of victims have already been shot. But the total number of victims would have been significantly higher if not for the armed citizen.

Sometimes the armed citizen is very close when the bullets start flying, like within the same room. Othertimes they're a seconds away.

 

[Thrawn33]

sadly i dont think he'll be getting that job now

But he will be voting in the 24 election...

 

[Sinister]

You have a bad habit of not actually comprehending what you've read. I stated that plenty of Armed citizens stop mass shootings before they start, he stated in this case how would you know so I stated they have a 100 percent chance of not stopping the shooter with a gun if they didn't have one at all....its not really complicated....and what you keep stating is not actually factual and can be debunked but is it helps your narrative keep repeating that lie.

If unarmed citizens had 100 percent chance of NOT stopping the shooter, then unarmed citizens would never stop shooters. But they do.

 

[Sinister]

But he will be voting in the 24 election...

For Trump, just like the only case of actual voter fraud found in NV. Lol

 

[Thrawn33]

For Trump, just like the only case of actual voter fraud found in NV. Lol

Brother I just make (terrible dad) jokes, ya'll can take them to either side you choose.

 

[ringking1982]

Here we go again. Was it white supremacy or the gun's fault, only time will tell.

Last time fake news CNN made a black shooter look white with face altering bleach. They also did that to Joe Rogen. Remember that?

We get it. Whites are evil. All other races and religions (not christmas) is good.

 

[spamking]

Your first paragraph, I agree with. But we both seem to be saying the same thing in different ways, nothing will PREVENT these criminals from shooting people if they want to shoot people AND have access to the means to do it except for prison-like multi-layered security measures, which its absurd to require that of every public gathering in a society. However I dont think mass shooters are specifically selecting locations based purely on the presence of security. That might be a factor, but it seems something that is accounted for more tha being a deterrent. Paddock couldn't likely get into the Route 91 festival so armed, of course, and he couldnt just waltz into a strip hotel with dozens of guns. He did it via concealment. He accounted for the security, he worked around it.

We could be saying the same thing differently. It sounds like we do agree that security plays some factor in how someone (Paddock) chooses to attack a location. He knew he couldn't go into the festival armed (a deterrent) and chose the next option.

This shooter picked one of the most heavily policed areas in Vegas to attack. And as of now it looks like it was personal. In other words he didn't care if someone there was armed or not, he wanted to shoot UNLV up specifically. If either of these guys wanted easy targets there are much better places in this City that didnt need to require that level of planning nor make certain rapid engagement.

Right. I've not argued that someone determined to do harm won't attack a location regardless of the security and other circumstances. My point is that people in those locations shouldn't need to cower if fear because some bureaucrat deemed their location a gun free zone and possibly without adequate security.

There are more means to self-defense than getting into shootouts, something which most citizens are going to be pretty horrible at. I teach people to fight for a living and most people arent cut out for that. I cant imagine putting a gun in their hands and asking them to randomly engage with someone who has hardened their resolve to indiscriminately kill people.

Sorry . . . if I'm choosing between some other means of self-defense against some dude with a gun, I'm choosing a gun myself 100% of the time. That doesn't mean I'm going to engage in shootout.

The point about gang infested neighborhoods if that if guns themselves were a deterrent for crime there would be no crime in those areas which have lots of guns. Normally this illicits a "well obviously those people are just degenerates" type of argument, but the point stands that people who HAVE guns who want to shoot other people will still shoot other people if they have guns or not.

An area with lots of guns doesn't necessarily mean that area is going to have no crime. It's dependent on who has the guns. Many times these areas are in metro locations with more gun control than I have to deal with in Oklahoma. So in many cases the people with the guns are prohibited possessors and the rest don't feel like jumping through the hoops to get a permit to have a gun, etc.

If you're not making the argument that people should engage with a shooter if they're carrying BECAUSE they're carrying then why are we even arguing?

I'm saying folks should be able to carry in all but the most sensitive locations (court house, government building, etc.) and you seem to disagree that them carrying plays any roll in their protection. As indicated in the part of your comment below in bold.

I honestly dont think we're very far apart on this, it just seems that you (like many others here who have made oppositional arguments to me) have the idea that carrying makes you safer and that just comes off to me as a feelings argument. Hell if you're open carrying and I'm an observant gunman you're the first to go. But I dont automatically assume most gunmen are exceptionally smart or observant. You're correct in that fleeing is the best initial course of action.

I disagree with open carry in public for the very reason you mention.

 

[spamking]

There were armed Cops IN the Hotel. So yes, on those same premises. Cops were on his floor in the time it took them elevator to get there once he started shooting. He had the pinned down in the hallway.

But my point is that they're not actively searching people checking in . . . . or at least they didn't in this case. Active security screening people and the presence of police on site aren't necessarily the same thing in my opinion.

 

[spamking]

No it's not, because you have to say "sufficient." Who decides what is sufficient? UNLV is ridiculously policed because right around the campus is considered a high crime area. That's WHY they have their own branch of the PD and a hub on campus. You can keep downplaying that all you like but it's right across the street from me. Its buzzing with Cops at all hours. Vegas also has pretty heavy school policing as CCSD has their own PD as well. Every time I pick up two students of mine for the gym, they live right behind a HS, there's always CCSD police on the grounds in patrol vehicles. Every day.

See my previous comment. The presence of police doesn't mean there are active security checks or anything other than being there going on. I'm simply saying that the security of a professional sports venue is vastly different than that of a college campus. They each have different risks that they account for, etc. It's pretty obvious that the mere existence of a police force isn't a deterrent. That being said, a college campus is still often designated as a gun free zone because all but approved security can supposedly carry. We disagree that the presence of a cop removes the gun free zone designation.

 

[spamking]

You have a bad habit of lying through your fingers dont you?

Unarmed civilians stop shooters more regularly than armed ones do.

r/dgu on reddit disproves this notion in a pretty big way . . . I'm sure Slate chose some pretty specific criteria to massage data to get to something that resembles the data pushed in that article.

Armed folks stop criminals (armed with a gun or other weapon) quite often. There's no honest arguing against that.

 

[NoSmilez]

715 mass shootings in a country of 330 million people means that mass shooting is not a big deal.

I said it before, coke kills more people but no one cares about it. Real problems like diabetes and cancer don't get half the attention that mass shooters do, it's ridiculous.

You have a choice to drink coke. You don’t get a choice when you are being shot at. We don’t live in some 3rd world shithole where people get randomly shot. It feels like it.

Cancer and diabetes have tons of attention. People don’t argue against curing or treating that issue.

 

[tastaylvr]

People still arguing about measures schools need to take instead of asking why you need them in the first place.

I can't imagine going to school and finding a metal detector at the entrance or needing to hand in my bag to get searched.

What a weird world.

 

[tastaylvr]

You have a choice to drink coke. You don’t get a choice when you are being shot at. We don’t live in some 3rd world shithole where people get randomly shot. It feels like it.

Cancer and diabetes have tons of attention. People don’t argue against curing or treating that issue.

Is it really a choice though? Products like coke are as addictive as cocaine.

There is no argument that companies like PepsiCo and Nestle have killed the most humans in history. If we really cared about those diseases we would cut the root of the issue which would be to ban them all. Neither of those companies provide any benefit to the world. Everything they sell is a poison.

 

[NoSmilez]

Is it really a choice though? Products like coke are as addictive as cocaine.

There is no argument that companies like PepsiCo and Nestle have killed the most humans in history. If we really cared about those diseases we would cut the root of the issue which would be to ban them all. Neither of those companies provide any benefit to the world. Everything they sell is a poison.

Let’s get rid of alcohol and cigarettes then.

 

[SoSo]

So your argument is that a gun X amount of feet away is too far? Lol My argument is that guys like this dont particularly give a f*ck how close or far guns are save for calculating how fast they'll die.

Don't ignore the rest of the source which also states that there's no clear definition of what a "gun free zone" even is. You can call anything with any restriction at all a "gun free zone"...and in fact that's what your source did. Wild West towns were technically "gun free zones" because you couldnt carry guns in town despite everyone owning one, right?

Gee I wonder why they did that. It's almost like they realized that every idiot having a firearm recreationally available as they went about daily tasks was kind of stupid, despite the risks of crime.

They did that because they didn't want people settling grievances in town where bystanders could be shot and all the drunkenness and agro that comes with being a frontiersman at that time, being someone that only comes into town every once and awhile turning into bloodshed (again, innocents being shot plus having to deal with it.) The sheriff's didn't give a shit if you shot another guy outside of town. That was outside their jurisdiction.

Different times bro. Way different times. Not my times bro. So, hard to judge.

 

[ermac88]

Gun control can only affect people following the law. It ain’t rocket surgery, Chief.

Ah okay so that was the point you were attempting to make?

It works in other developed countries with far less mass shootings/executions

 

[Belaya Smert]

Ah okay so that was the point you were attempting to make?

It works in other developed countries with far less mass shootings/executions

The point is you aren’t removing 400 million guns from US citizen like has been done in other parts of the world. With the amount of guns we have this is the safest gun culture in the world. You can’t put a dent in homicide statistics if you don’t go after the guns that do the majority of the killings. That’s handguns. And that’s also in urban areas where young males of color often are tied up with drugs and gangs. Maybe racial profiling would be more up your alley seeing as you don’t believe in individual rights of the law abiding. Or the Bill of Rights.

 

[Belaya Smert]

It pretty disingenuous as previously stated when a fired teacher shoots up a school and the first knee jerk reaction the government has is let’s ban the ones we think look scary.