Not a good morning.
Not good at all.
I was preparing the notes for two business ethics seminars I’ll be running today when the news of the mass shooting in Las Vegas came on HLN. There are several items I had planned for today’s Warm-Up, but they all seem trivial right now. 50+ dead, and over 200 wounded, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.
Random thoughts, as I simultaneously watch reports:
1 The shooter has been killed. His name is Stephen Paddock. Are you relieved that he doesn’t have a Muslim name?
2. It sounds like the gun used was no ordinary automatic weapon, but possibly a belt-fed machine gun. I wonder if that fact will restrain the inevitable politicization of this tragedy, as it once again sets off the anti-gun ownership activists.
3. President Trump tweeted out the obligatory condolences. I assume he will make public statement in person. Twitter has the advantage of being quick, but there is something off about tweets as official reactions to such deadly national disasters.
4. I have believed for some time that the relentless escalation of 24-7 anger, political hate, fear-mongering and vicious partisan rhetoric in the news media and social media are creating an environment that risks driving the weak, the ill, the stressed and the vulnerable over the edge. Of course, this shooter may have had a brain tumor like Charles Whitman; the shooting may have no political connection whatsoever. Still, this is not a healthy culture right now. It can’t have helped.
Ethics Alarms 
#2. Having heard the audio, I’d agree that it sounds like a machine gun. Though I wouldn’t rule out a modified automatic rifle. The bursts *could* be reconciled with a trigger modified rifle emptying out 30 round mags with pauses for magazine changes.
Having heard other audio, the cyclical rate of fire can be heard to change, implying a modified trigger assembly, as machines just don’t do that. Either way, police will report shorty on the weapons found. Something like 8-10 of them.
Perhaps a bump-fire device or similar. Magazine change pauses did seem to take place regularly.
Perhaps. That or something like that.
$10 says that this is another kook like the Congress shooter or Craig Stephen Hicks (who killed 3 Muslim students in NC) or the West Webster murderer, either marinated in hate or just plain into killing for killing’s sake.
“He has no political affiliation, no religious affiliation, as far as we know,” (brother) Eric Paddock said. “Our condolences go to the victims and all their families.”
He’d been in the hotel for a couple of days prior. Headscratcher.
How’s it a head scratcher that he needed several days to prepare is firing position?
”How’s it a head scratcher that he needed several days to prepare is firing position?”
That’s hell-n-gone from the reason I’m scratching my head.
I like to try to remember that early reports from all sources are usually wrong about incidents like these. People get confused about things like how many shooters there were and what they did. (The automatic-weapon report may be an example of that.) There are different kinds of shooters, these things happen for different reasons, and often the story is quite different from what everybody thought. The shooting at Columbine is a good example where many of the early narratives were wrong. I think it will pay us to be cautious about what we believe and what we repeat.
Sure some of the reports on the incident may be factually incorrect at this point; however, the reports of politicizing the events are not wrong.
Good point.
Speaking of reactions, my personal policy is not to hold anyone too accountable for things they say in, say, the first 24-hours after an incident like this. I don’t want to judge them too harshly for how they react to unexpected emotional shocks. I am less forgiving when what they say is really extreme, when they are professional public figures who should know better, or when I sense they are speaking from political opportunism rather than shock.
I disagree regarding people who are in positions that *demand* emotional self-control.
texagg04 wrote, “I disagree regarding people who are in positions that *demand* emotional self-control.”
Can you elaborate a bit?
How so?
Windypundit wrote, “I am less forgiving when what they say is really extreme, when they are professional public figures who should know better, or when I sense they are speaking from political opportunism rather than shock.”
You wrote, “I disagree regarding people who are in positions that *demand* emotional self-control.”
He said he’s less forgiving and but you disagreed and then what followed “seemed” to be kinda agreeing with him. I just didn’t know if there was more there.
Totally agree with him. Somehow my eyes blew right past his last couple of sentences.
Acknowledged.
I assume he means people like Presidents, Reporters, Police Officers.
I don’t make those kinds of assumptions.
Politicizing, you bet. Contrast Mr. President’s response to white skinned terrorists vs. dark skinned terrorists. White privilege? Have a haiku, on me.
My white skin, lone wolf.
Your dark skin, son of a bitch.
Now, any questions?
“I think it will pay us to be cautious about what we believe and what we repeat.”
Indeed. I’m tempted to turn on the TV & watch the loops of horror and speculation but it will be just train wreck watching. Reason, discernment, and patience is important in cases like this so we don’t give in to panic as infotainment. Thanks Windy for the astute reminder.
“I like to try to remember that early reports from all sources are usually wrong about incidents like these.”
The Michael Brown “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” incident comes to mind.
So does Duke LaCrosse.
And Benghazi.
Are you relieved that he doesn’t have a Muslim name?
Why? I don’t get the concern. The Muslim haters have already cemented their opinion at this point. I don’t see many more being swayed.
I am more concerned about the “role model” the Las Vegas shooter has provided that will now have the effect of teaching future terrorists how to operate with more deadly effectiveness, either singly or in groups. Eventually, a “law enforcement officer” is going to do something like what happened in Vegas, shooting into an unarmed crowd. That’s my prediction.
I’ve wondered why the Islamists haven’t used this tactic before.
The easy availability in some states of automatic weapons civilised to semi-auto, which can easily be converted back to full auto – though with less efficiency and reliability – makes such incidents inevitable.
Right now there is still disagreement on whether the US has a problem or not. Unless they or someone they know is amongst the slain, many don’t see it as an issue. They change their mind when they’re personally involved, but not if they’re not. That’s true for many issues.
Fully automatic weapons are illegal. Always. If they are available, then that just demonstrates that the restrictions just block lawful gunowners.
I fail to see why it would be easier to bust an automatic weapons dealer than it is to bust a crack dealer.
As for the problem, the problem is crime, and we solve the problem by punishing the offenders.
What a ridiculously naive statement.
Which statement is naive?
And how?
The statement that the problem of crime is solved by punishing criminals.
I trust you’re smart enough that I don’t need to explain how that’s naive, but perhaps that’s a generous assumption.
So we are better off if we did not punish criminals?
If punishing criminals does not solve the problem of crime, then punishing those who break laws against possession of automatic weapons would not solve the problem of crime, either the possession itself or murder.
So we are better off if we did not punish criminals?
No, and my comment doesn’t imply that. Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent people?
They are not illegal, I don’t know where you get that talking point all of a sudden because I know that you know they’re legal. You’ve already written about it.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2014/08/31/the-nine-year-old-and-the-uzi-a-case-study-in-news-media-public-opinion-manipulation/
In 1986 it became illegal to manufacture and sell them to the public, it became illegal to import them and did not change the status of every already legal automatic weapon.
They’re uncommon, they’re expensive, there’s no new ones going on the market. And they are legal and out there if someone is motivated enough and can find an owner willing to part with one.
“Fully automatic weapons are illegal. Always.”
Not true.
Fully automatic weapons are restricted and heavily regulated and thus expensive. No new ones are allowed to be sold to civilians, but there was no confiscation of the old ones which are still on the market.
M16 select fire (full auto) can be had for around $30,000, with the appropriate paperwork. It also has to be one already in civilian hands before the law went into effect, which means they are expensive due to supply and demand.
My deer rifle can fire as fast as the recordings sounded today. Read up on two stage triggers, and ‘bump’ triggers for legal ‘work arounds.’
The Second Amendment is to protect us from our own Government, not to hunt with. Thus restrictions on types of arms are unconstitutional. This is how we have the situation where a rich man (as this was) can get multiple rapid fire weapons.
When I say they’re legal I get nasty replies. So unfair!
Drones fly pretty high up I don’t think a rifle, even an automatic one, would be good enough to protect you.
“When I say they’re legal I get nasty replies. So unfair!”
You have to gesture with your hands just so… 🙂
“Drones fly pretty high up I don’t think a rifle, even an automatic one, would be good enough to protect you.”
Drones have human operators, who have families. They also are dependent on supply chains that can be compromised.
Start killing Americans with drones, and watch the retaliations of an armed population. Kill my kids, open season on yours. Civil War ain’t pretty, but this is what it boils down to.
Val, we have fully operational TANKS in civilian hands in Texas. Wanna bet what else exists around the country?
I think you have it backwards. You’re saying if they come at you with drones you’ll rebel, I’m saying if you rebel they’ll come at you with drones.
Every try to account for the number of stinger missiles manufactured versus the one we can account for, especially after we started arming the Afghan rebels against the Soviets? Me either.
Your difference makes no difference: they are not going to commit mass genocide with a drone first strike. They start killing using drones, no matter what the killed did first, and my comment stands.
And if they come after us with drones, we go after the drone operators.
I think there have been cases of citizens shooting down drones, but they weren’t the “kill people from a distance” kind of drones.
Your tech is a little off. Semi-autos usually come from the factory in that configuration. Full-auto “dewats” aren’t usually available, as its very difficult to meet ATF guidelines for doing this, so its usually much more cost-effective to just buy a purpose-built semi auto. Contrary to popular belief, its not easy to modify a semi auto to full auto. I used to build these types of weapons.
Wait—you actually know something about guns. You’re disqualified from this debate.
Yes sir 😦
I’m not “relieved” that the shooter isn’t Muslim. Does that matter to the victims? Dead is dead.
ISIS just claimed this guy was a recent convert to Islam. Looks like The Religion of Peace may not be out of the woods on this one yet…
Maybe it’s true, but wouldn’t ISIS claim that no matter what?
I don’t think so. Of all the jackassery they engage in they are heavily invested in “credibility” and typically don’t claim things they haven’t actually had a remote hand in.
Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn’t, Sparty. But it’s been a busy weekend for ISIS. Marseille and somewhere in Canada. Now Vegas? Who knows. But it’s so early. So much chaos. But to answer Jack’s question, was I relieved the shooter wasn’t named Mohamed and from an Arab country or of Arab descent? Yes. But not so much as a result of a fear of terrorism. More relief that I wouldn’t have to hear how the real cause of so much death is bigotry and Islamophobia.
Wasn’t even aware of Marseille, but I was busy all weekend. Lovely. Grrrr, I am getting close to going into Crusader mode.
Edmonton, a Muslim extremist drove a Truck of Peace into four people outside a football game on Saturday. The 30 year old Somali refugee has an ISIS flag in the truck.
Great. And then they complain that everyone hates them.
relief that I wouldn’t have to hear how the real cause of so much death is bigotry and Islamophobia.
Ditto, OB.
I wonder why the discussion turns to Islamophobia®™ after an attavk by militant Islamist sand Nazis.
Inspired by OBs comments (I guess i am on a roll for becoming not such a popular commenter…)
__________________________
So hard for people to see the truth, and harder to tell the truth. To understand causation, and to understand its effects.
By invading so many different countries, by killing hundreds of thousands of people over the last 15 years, and because of the average Americans obliviousness to the horror of death except when it happens among them (and then they howl to Heaven! and bemoan their unjust fate), the war-making powers have manipulated people into supporting their aims. .
It is not bigotry and Islamophobia that needs to be condemned, but complete moral blindness on the part of America to the harm their war-policy is doing. How many years of war now? How much harm done? What if one tiny fraction of that harm were infliced on your state, your neighborhood, people you know? You’d start dropping atom bombs …
Steve is going to begin his Crusade. But the crusade had already begun. It has been going on for 15 years!
The sort of war and destruction that the US has engaged in, resulting from the self-inflicted 9/11 false-flag attack by a tiny elite, has led the US into a moral abyss. On one level you can’t quite blame the victims of that psychological manipulation — the population of the US — for their reaction. But that was what was intended: to foment a situation where 15+ years of steady war was undertaken. I have come to see this 9/11 attack as producing a form of schizophrenia in people. The extreme fear, the uncertainty: these are manipulated in order to achieve the *permission* to carry out policies through war-making, conquest, division, and the infliction of terror. It is that simple. It can be reduced to these terms.
Where are the people with the moral courage to 1) see what is happening and 2) begin to talk about what is needed to stop it?
Why is the country — at a psychological level — going crazy? What is the *real* cause?
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “ISIS just claimed this guy was a recent convert to Islam.”
Provide a link to your source.
P.S. That’s is not likely to be a true claim, we’ll have to wait and see.
Just hit on the “Breaking” aol feed.
I don’t do AOL, link please?
Never mind, I found some of the reports.
It may indeed be BS, but it’s out there now.
Yeah, take that with a grain of salt. Maybe so. Maybe some Islamic recruiter found a disgruntled dude and convinced him to do this. Maybe.
Some idiot antifa dude somewhere also claimed credit for it supposedly, if the twitterati is to be believed.
Or it’s just a disgruntled old dude with his own personal world-view motivations.
I hate to tell you this but I am “disgruntled old dude with his own personal world-view motivations.” So far (time will tell), I haven’t shot anybody, certainly not with an automatic weapon (in a while).
That’s a vain hope on #2. Politicizing is already happening. https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/internet-pounds-nras-silence-after-las-vegas-massacre-they-have-to-clean-the-blood-off-their-hands-first/
Hillary is already at it trying to divide and politicize this event tweeting…
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton
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.
October 2, 2017 9:03am CDT
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton
Our grief isn’t enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again.
October 2, 2017 9:04am CDT
JUST A FEW SHORT HOURS AND THIS POLITICAL HACK IS TURNING THIS INTO A POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!!!
Not surprised. That said, this anti-gun tack hasn’t worked before, and it won’t work now. One of the definitions of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
If he used automatic weapons they’re already illegal. Suppressor on a machinegun is pointless anyway.
I was going to say… They only cut like 20 decibels at peak performance, and they only work at peak performance for like… a dozen rounds.
AND they heat up the gun much more than without one. NOT a rapid fire option.
Yeah, unless that silencer is slowing the rounds to sub-sonic that is not going to do much good. It is a common thing with gun myths that people talk about things they have no idea about.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, as far as I’m aware, sub-sonic rounds are only achieved by reducing gun-powder quantity inside each individual bullet casing.
Sub-sonic can also be achieved by increasing the weight of the projectile enough relative to the powder charge to reduce the speed below the sound barrier. The most typical sub-sonic is rimfire, but there are several .30 caliber rounds out there from the factory that are subsonic as well.
Right, a function of propellant to projectile weight.
Key takeaway being: for a shooter to take full advantage of silencing technology, they’d need to do some heavy modification of ALL the individual rounds themselves. In short, Hillary is a complete idiot. And an abject jerk for her commentary on this.
This is new?
This is all basic bullet ballistics 101. I’ve reloading for all of my firearms except rim-fire for well over 30 years, I just stopped a few years ago.
I don’t know anyone that would reload their rounds for at or near sub-sonic with the exception of some short range race gun shooters who do for certain types of practicing (less powder, lighter bullets, less recoil, less dollars) but it’s absolutely pointless for any true rifle rounds to go subsonic.
Thinking about trajectories for a moment; a .22 LR out of a rifle can stretch out to damn near mile if using indirect fire methods.
Most factory .22 LR rounds are not subsonic at the muzzle; generally speaking it depends on the barrel length. I don’t know of any factory .22 LR round shot through a rifle that will be sub sonic at the muzzle.
There are exceptions to this – some 9mm some .45 some .40 S&W, etc. our of barrels shorter than 5″.
Actually, nearly every major manufacturer of rimfire ammo has sub sonic rounds available that are designed to be sub sonic from a rifle. They are designed for use in suppressed rifles etc.
There are any number of reasons to reload a larger caliber rifle bullet to be sub sonic – if fired through a suppressed rifle, they are often used in culling operations. Quite a few wild pig hunters use this type of ammo – also available as a factory load.
philk57,
I can reload a bullet that won’t make it to the opposite side of my ballistic chronograph and never reach a target, but it’s purpose would be rather limited in the real world. There are exceptions – as I acknowledged.
I don’t hunt wild pigs but I’ve shot runt pigs with .22 CB’s; again, there are exceptions – as I acknowledged.
I think you are narrowly focusing on my use of the word “pointless” while ignoring the rest of my comments. Reread my two comments without making additional assumptions.
Thanks.
Zoltar – you said: “I don’t know of any factory .22 LR round shot through a rifle that will be sub sonic at the muzzle.” I pointed out that you were incorrect in that statement since every major American rimfire manufacturer produces sub-sonic long rifle cartridges (CCI, Federal, Remington – I have some of each in sub-sonic). You also implied there was little need for sub sonic ammo – I pointed out at least one good use – culling and pig hunting. If there is limited use for such an item, why are millions of them made every year? I use them exclusively to train new shooters.
If a trajectory that is less than optimal is a deal killer, all of those animals killed every year with archery equipment will be quite surprised.
Having said all of the above, this is clearly off topic. I only replied to you because you are often quite sure of your opinions, which I enjoy. However, in this case, you were quite sure of a fact that you were wrong about. I would not have replied to you again, but I couldn’t resist it when you brought out your normal reply of accusing someone of making assumptions about what you wrote. I clearly responded to your mistake and you deflected the correction by saying that I assumed something that wasn’t there.
It will be interesting to see what new deflection you will use to pretend that you weren’t wrong in your factual statement about the availability of, or the utility of sub-sonic ammo. I won’t be responding, but it should be amusing.
philk57,
Ok so you’re going to completely ignore that I said “There are exceptions to this…” until pigs fly. Nice.
Those defeat the purpose of using a rifle though. It gets really hard to hit things when they start out so slow. Especially from the 34th floor of a building.
You know, whether or not she’s operating under the delusion that she’s going to spend the next 4 years saying things like she’s pretending to be the president. This sounds remarkably like exactly what she would have tweeted as the President.
I especially like how she says “We can and must put politics aside,” and then she proceeds to attack a political opponent . . . ALL WITHIN THE SAME SENTENCE.
You just can’t make this stuff up….
–Dwayne
1. Relieved, no, but I suppose it makes the event differently complicated than if he had been.
2. Of course not! To those hysterical about gun rights in the United States, a gun is a gun is a gun.
3. True, but he is who he is and this is how he communicates. But even if he called a press conference and gave the speech of his life, it wouldn’t be good enough for the so-called resistance.
4. Nope, not a healthy culture at all, brain tumor or not.
We are going to hear a lot of bs from the liberals about a national ban on assault weapons conveniently forgetting that owning a machine gun has been illegal since the 1920s. No, I can’t go down the street to Walmart or a sporting goods store and buy any kind of fully automatic rifle. This is not Somalia or Afghanistan where these guns are freely available.
That’s not strictly-speaking true.
Automatic weapons are rare, prohibitively expensive and the licensing for ownership are strict. They tend not to sit around in private collections so much as being owned by gun clubs and rented out for people to use on ranges while under supervision.
But they are out there and legal.
So do you have any credible information that the Las Vegas shooter was a member of any gun club which possessed fully automatic weapons and that he had access to them? Somehow I think not. Of course he may have gotten hold of one illegally thanks to previous government policies such as “Fast and Furious”.
There are many thousands of class III weapons in private hands, if this was even a real machine gun and not a semi-auto with some kind of bump-fire gadget.
Some experienced military folks have suggested that the rate of cycle suggests that it was an AK47 style rifle. With some skill & machining those weapons can be converted to fully automatic, since that’s what most are when used in a military configuration. So it may have been illegally converted, or just procured illegally. So far that’s just conjecture. But clearly from the tape it suggests changing magazines regularly versus just firing belt-fed in short bursts (to avoid burning out the barrell). An automatic AK with bipod support on a stable surface can be extremely deadly. The same goes for most AR & AK rifles though.
I don’t think weapon aim or accuracy is much of a concern here.
Have the police released any info on the weapons used yet?
Most audio has a solid consistent rate of fire, but some audio strongly suggests a modified trigger or “bump fire” or similar adjustment.
I just listened to the audio. The cyclic rate was wandering all over, which suggests some type of trigger device. The only guns I’ve ever heard that wandered like that are the M-60 and the M2, and that wasn’t one of those.
He used different guns and changed often to allow the barrels to cool.
So what you’re saying is that you’re angry at me for pointing out that you’re factually wrong about owning automatic weapons?
I Never suggested that the shooter had one, I never said he was a member of a club that had them.
What I did was tell you that your assertion was not factual.
But hey, way to jump on the politicization train. Jerk.
Don’t put words in my mouth I didn’t say. You also didn’t answer my question about if you had evidence that the shooter was involved in a gun club that had access to fully automatic weapons.
Citation https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg449.pdf
VICE News notes that “Turner [President of Nevada’s NRA chapter] described Nevada’s gun laws as “libertarian” and “not very restrictive.” Turner noted that it is perfectly legal for Nevada residents to own assault rifles and that “the only restriction on magazine capacity in Nevada is how strong you are,” meaning if you can physically pick up the magazine it’s legal to carry.”
However, murder is still illegal.
Repeat after me.
Mere POSSESSION of weapons do not violate people’s rights.
It is SHOOTING these weapons to commit murder, or vandalism, or reckless endangerment that violates people’s rights, and that is already ILLEGAL.
We already have the highest prison population in the world. Do we really need to put people in prison if they have not violated anyone’s rights?
Putting people in prison for victimless crimes is pretty much how we got to the point where we have the highest prison population in the world.
There are no victimless crimes.
“There are no victimless crimes.”
Well, explain to me how using a plastic box as opposed to a cardboard one to import fish victimized anything. Or how we have Federal laws that make it illegal for US citizens to own anything illegal to own in another country.
Jack, you likely commit three felonies each day and don’t even know it. Do some research on how regulations with the force of law have allowed LEOs to basically jail anyone if they want them enough.
Here is a start, but this just scratches the surface.
https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it#.8KUxO4acm
I actually have to agree more with slick here. Saying there are no victimless crimes makes about as much sense as saying there are no victimless laws.
Wait… what?!?
{examines what he himself wrote for ideological purity, logical fallacy, and bias… nope, a solid point made}
Thanks, Chris. Not sure how that happened, but (again) we agree.
Actually THAT sentence makes no sense. Nobody is the “victim: of law by definition. Society has decided that a result is in the interest of society. A law may be a burden to an individual, or a group, but they are not “victims.”
Absurd, Jack. The Nuremburg laws had no victims? Jim Crow laws had no victims? Note that I am not comparing any of the laws in the United States today to those laws; I am stating that “nobody is the victim of law by definition” is obviously untrue.
Of course my initial statement, that there are no victimless laws, was probably overly broad. Laws against murder don’t really victimize anyone. But a law saying that blacks can’t vote obviously does victimize blacks, even if society has decided that doing so is in the interest of society. Saying that laws can’t victimize anyone by definition is revealing of an authoritarian streak.
Deflection. I’m talking about Constitutional laws in the United States. I’m not talking about Sharia law, Nazi law, or rebel “law.” Obviously illegal laws and laws that violate basic Constitutional principles harm people. I will agree that laws that are unconstitutional have “victims” until the laws are overturned. But those are invalid laws from the start.
Growing a plant in your backyard is illegal, for certain kinds of plants. Note that I am not talking about selling, refining, ingesting, or doing anything else with this plant, merely possessing it is illegal. Who is the victim of this “crime”?
For the curious, VICE news has the best clinical run down on the shooter:
https://news.vice.com/story/everything-we-know-about-las-vegas-gunman-stephen-paddock
Props to you for following VICE.
I follow I *wide* range of news sources on Twitter and a *very wide* range of twitterati “personalities” who dive into neurotic news analysis.
I liked VICE because when it was “fresh” it was able to stifle it’s generally left lean to be clinical about alot of news topics, though it clearly had it’s preferred political bent on topics that weren’t really all that important.
But, of course, as it has “grown up” in the news world it has succumbed (Succame? Didst Succumbeth?) like all the others and been broken by bias in a large number of annoying facets.
Just imagine when we have self-driving cars and TRUCKS. Mass shootings will become a thing of the past when you can arrange for a mass bombing from afar.
I’m sure drones are getting there.
Google search videos of ISIS “precision” dropping extremely high explosive bombs from drones into open hatches of up-armored Iraqi Army Humvees.
You just gave me a nightmare scenario, Spartan: Self-driving vehicles equipped with self-shooting guns for automatic drive-bys at random heat-coded targets.
I’m thinking a Ryder truck packed with explosives next to a government building. Department of Labor is built over a highway. Super easy to blow up if you don’t mind suicide.
I know you’re being super cynical right now but aren’t you essentially making the gun rights argument that regardless of what you do, and people are going to do bad things?
*bad people
NOT
And people
No, I’m not doing that. Just because there are lots of ways to kill a ton of people doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be aware of all of them, and discuss whether regulation is in order — including whether such regulations would be effective.
In any event, while I am not a psychiatrist, I think there are men out there who want to pull the trigger on a weapon and kill lots of people — even if that means they are shot dead or turn the gun on themselves at the end. They want to know what that feels like, and want to know that people are talking about them when they are gone.
Bombers on the other hand (like arsonists) want to live to see their handiwork and they don’t mind living in the shadows. (I’m not including suicide bombers here.) The problem with self-driving vehicles and drones is that it will attract more of these men to commit these acts because it will be so easy with little threat to their own personal safety.
“I think there are men out there who want to pull the trigger on a weapon and kill lots of people” (bold mine)
Profiling?
If not, I think there are women out there who want to pull a Lorena Bobbitt.
History shows that men commit mass murders. If you want to argue that wives are more likely to cut off their husbands’ penises, then yes, I agree with you. Has it reached the point of a public health crisis? If so, I am completely willing to discuss.
“Has it reached the point of a public health crisis?”
It has if we apply the “if it saves just one schwantz” standard…
But that’s not the standard.
But it was funny.
Thanks Chris, humor is the great leveler. And after something unspeakable like this occurs, in far too short supply.
To which I say: NOT_ON_MY_WATCH
After the 9-11 attacks, no one knew when it would be appropriate to break the ice.
After over two weeks, the unremittingly randy, the irredeemably raunchy, the irrepressibly rude & irreverently ribald (originally) 77 Square Miles Surrounded By A Sea Of Reality-based “The Onion” did so with nonpareil aplomb:
“Hijackers Surprised To Find Selves In Hell.”
http://www.theonion.com/article/hijackers-surprised-to-find-selves-in-hell-1445
Jack,
Friendly correction: Today’s date is 10/2/2017
We all blew that, didn’t we?
Crikey. I can’t keep dates straight anymore. If you told me it was April 2015 I’d probably believe you.
Let’s do the time warp again?
That might be a bit rocky…
I’d put my money on “Fast and Furious” at this point: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/430153/fast-furious-obamas-first-scandal
Where was the United States Army? Nowhere to be found, as usual?
I feel like…someday, the myriad of disparate and seemingly unedifying quips you come out with will all be tied together into some sort of unifying worldview.
Still waiting on that.
The Army was not there to protect the people.
I feel like…someday, the myriad of disparate and seemingly unedifying quips you come out with will all be tied together into some sort of unifying worldview.
Still waiting on that.
Michael, There is a prohibition against using the military in law enforcement. It’s the Posse Comitatus (sp?) Act.
That is the point.
For the life of me, I fail to understand why this law was not repealed twenty-seven years ago.
Think about it. Criminal homicide was at an all-time high (it would peak in 1993). The Cold War was over. We could have brought our troops home to engage in urban pacification.
Yet, for some inexplicable reason, we refused to do so.
And now we are here.
For very good reasons. I do not want an army that is trained in suppressing civil unrest. That really is not what they are good for.
An author I respect has written that the army is good for breaking things and killing people. I don’t believe their targets ought to be our own towns and citizens.
I think there may well be some words about this in the Declaration of Independence.
Look at what we have now. We should have done this twenty-seven years ago.
As a matter of fact, we did use troops to pacify our cities.
https://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2015/05/10/when-us-troops-left-too-soon-n1996948
Civil authorities can not protect us or ensure justice, but we know from history that military occupation can do just that.
We need, and have needed, to station troops throughout the whole country to keep order.
Are you a troll? Seriously? You advocate for the military occupation of the United States?
I am adamantly opposed to giving anyone that power.
Lighten up there big boy; Michael Ejercito is not a troll.
If this keeps up we could be looking at an American Operation Banner or Operation Temperer, where the army operates “in support of the civil authority.”
Given that I know you’ve been around a while and are reasonable, I’ll go with your assertion.
The US army occupied the South after the civil war because it was a military occupation. It was needed as the citizens of the South took up arms against the US government and lost. We don’t have the parallel today.
I encourage you (Michael) to consider Chris, an avid liberal, and Texagg04, a rather conservative guy, are both considering you a troll. What you are proposing is so unpalatable to the American public, it would never come to pass. You’re clearly out of touch with the US public.
and In Las Vegas, a man fired a machine gun against the people of the United States.
we need solutions. and history informed us of a solution that, in fact, worked.
“In the face of Southern white supremacist hostility, it was only the continuing presence of federal troops in the South that could break up remaining pockets of rebellion, establish the right of blacks to vote and seek election, void discriminatory laws, and unilaterally remove disloyal or racist sheriffs and judges from office.”
and here is what happened when the troops left.
“Without the fear of federal [military] power,” recounts Downs, “a new and bleak era of Jim Crow was dawning.”
Also, during a national railroad strike, when strikers defied a federal injunction and continued to block railroads, the Army went in to enforce the injunction and free our railroads for commerce.
Listen, we pay trillions of dollars in protection money (taxes) without receiving protection in return. Why should we pay protection money if we do not get protection in return?
For over twenty years, I advocated martial law. I saw how useless civil authority was during the Los Angeles Riots.
and nine years ago, I made these comments.
https://blackpoliticalthought.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/jamiel-andre-shaw-high-school-football-star-dies-in-random-gang-attack-in-california/
If you visit the link, the blog author pretty much agreed with me.
Civil authority is the threat to our rights. Civil authority imposed Jim Crow. the anti-gun cult is demanding that civil authority violate our right to keep and bear arms. We need a solution to violence before the anti-gun cult convi9nces congress to go with their solutions.
We need to take the leash off of the Army. We took the leash off the Army during Reconstruction, and we ” establish[ed] the right of blacks to vote and seek election, void[ed] discriminatory laws, and unilaterally remove[d] disloyal or racist sheriffs and judges from office” When we put the leash back on, we got Jim Crow.
When we take the leash off the Army, we will have peace.
Michael, if we take the “leash” off of the military, we will have a military junta, and we will become Iraq. Not a pleasant thought.
“When we take the leash off the Army, we will have peace
Have you ever served, Mike? This is an massively stupid statement that could only have been uttered from vast ignorance and lack of common sense.
Love you like a brother, but you are just dead wrong… and civilians would be just as dead if your wish came true.
Deader. The Army’s job is to break things and kill people
That is why we need the Army.
We need them to break the things and kill the people that are causing disorder.
There is one thing Congress can do to pacify America.
Just give the military a blank check to keep the peace and maintain order.
It is that simple.
So, I gather you’re also willing to give up due process for this “martial law” idea?
Mike is stuck on this idea, and no amount of discussion will talk him out of it. He does not know what he is talking about, in this case.
Agreed.
We need to give the military that power so we can be safe.
Spoken like a true tyrant.
He’s trolling.
We need, and have needed, to station troops throughout the whole country to keep order.
Citation needed.
Recent events has shown a need.
Plus, there was even more of a need in 1993, when criminal homicide was at an all-time high.
The South has scars from military occupation TO THIS DAY.
If you had served, you would never wish for our own military to occupy our homes. The military is NOT good at enforcing civil rights: they are designed to destroy an enemy’s ability to fight.
Jack,
From Clinton: “Our grief isn’t enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again.”
Apparently we must put politics aside by making this a political issue against the NRA. Her lying is so automatic at this point that she pre-lies before she says anything so she has potential cover afterwards.
What does she mean by standing up to the NRA?
I mean, is not killing people already illegal?
Of course, a shameless race-baiter would point out that for sone reason, we only need to stand up to the NRA when white people get shot. Nobodt sure as hell suggests standing up to the NRA when black people, even kids, are shot to death in Chicago.
There does seem to be a disproportionate number of white people killed and wounded in the Las Vegas shooting spree. I mean, I know it was a Country and Western music venue or event, and white people tend to be in the vast majority at such events. But hey, if anti-white racists who cashed in on Obama’s Fast and Furious got hold of those weapons for that shooter, and if that shooter bought in to “white guilt” deserving “justice,” we very well might have just experienced one of the largest mass-killing hate crimes in recent times in the American longitudes.
Give me a break!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/02/cbs-legal-exec-no-sympathy-because-country-music-fans-often-are-republican/
I’d say she qualifies as a fick.
There is another four-letter word that comes to kind.
See you next Tuesday.
They fired her ass. Good for them. What makes people think it’s OK to post this kind of vile bile using their real names?
Steve-O said, “What makes people think it’s OK to post this kind of vile bile using their real names?”
I was just pondering that exact question. It is people who feel such righteousness and moral superiority that they see the people they target as subhuman and cannot imagine that any right thinking person could object to their words. There are multiple examples in history that demonstrate the outcome of such otherizing.
But to think there won’t be consequences? That’s just falling out of touch with reality.
Perhaps they have seen so many on the left get away with so much for so long that they are not sure there will be consequences. Perhaps they believe there will be consequences and they want to be a martyr to the cause. Some I think have fallen out of touch with reality in the sense that they have been in the echo chamber so long that they see no other reality.
What really frightens me is that if there are a few people who feel it is OK to publish this kind of hate, how many more are there who have exactly the same thoughts and write exactly the same messages but are able to refrain from posting them? In my opinion, anyone who literally prays for the death of another has renounced their humanity. I see little moral difference between the man who pulls the trigger and the man who rejoices in the resulting death.
Forgot to mention that apparently there were second thoughts about consequences in some cases since accounts were deleted. Another loss of reality is posting anything and thinking you can make it go away.
I think it’s partially that people just get triggered and cut loose, without thinking of consequences until they have already said what they can’t take back.
People like her don’t read opposing views, their social media landscape is nothing but comments like these, an echo chamber. Their mistake is in thinking that everyone, everywhere, feels as they do. Look how shocked Kathy Griffin was at the backlash for the bloody head photo, how shocked Melissa Click was to be fired. They’re far too insulated to be able to gauge how their comments appear to those outside their immediate circles.
It’s an old story with a new twist.
“They” think it’s going to be a big Lefty Yuck-fest amongst the ideologically certified, feverishly hand-wringing, deeply furrowed browed, “Look At Me” bumper stickered, “I’m Dialed In” lapel ribboned, and “Gosh I’m Nice” awareness braceleted crowd.
They’re dutifully horrified (hilariously, from where I’m sittin’) when they discover there are consequences and it goes sideways.
Examples are endless as they are disgusting: swift reaction to former MSLSD drone Melissa Harris-Perry, et al, mocking Mitt Romney’s Black Grandchild, and Kathy Griffin’s severed head incident come to mind as particularly Karmic.
“Pray only Trumptards died.”
What a vile piece of shit.
Communications like those tweets by “Ann” are too rapidly giving credibility to what I half-facetiously posted in this thread at 2:05 pm.
”What a vile piece of shit.”
And a (hopefully soon-to-be-former) teacher to boot!
I have already seen a pile of things like this surfacing, they’re coming out of the woodwork; these people have completely lost touch with reality.
CNN’s Jeff Zeleny: “Something else I think to keep in mind, a lot of these country music supporters were likely Trump supporters.”
What the FUCK does THAT have to do with anything?
I know…you have to wonder what he’s saying…they’re Trump supporters, so who would shoot Trump supporters? Or is it that the music fans were Trump supporters shot by a Trump supporter? I can see the gears turning…how can they blame it ALL on Trump?
CBS management reacted fast. She’s now a former CBS legal executive:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/10/02/cbs-legal-executive-no-sympathy-for-las-vegas-victims-because-country-music-fans-are-republican-n2389681
I still haven’t heard from my friends that live in Vegas or their family that’s there, they are huge country music fans, and have been attending one country music concert after another since they moved there. I’m becoming a little bit concerned that I haven’t heard anything from any of them since yesterday afternoon.
Keep the faith Z. I pray the are OK
Hate is what’s wrong, not guns. These kinds of things do not happen without hate as the real source of the violence.
Hate is intentionally being ginned up and rationalized as being the right thing to do in today’s political environment and our culture. If you don’t hate those you oppose then you are agreeing with those you oppose; I see this almost daily. There is no gray area anymore, hate is what’s been actively promoted since prior to the 2008 election and overrun the population since the 2016 election.
Yes, hate is irrational.
Yes, hate is dangerous.
Yes, this is “like” war.
Yes, there is now blood in the streets
Yes, a new reality has arrived.
Hate breeds hate.
Are you ready?
here is Nicholas Kristof’s take.
what he fails to see is that most gun deaths are deliberate.
The purpose of a gun is to destroy whatever it is aimed at. Ladders are not designed to kill. Cars are not designed to kill. You can’t make a gun “safer” without defeating the point of the gun: killing.
You’re daft if you think we’re going to suddenly ban them now. Democrats have been trying for what, 50 years now? The only thing that it gets them is a political shot in the foot when they piss off gun owners.
Invincible ignorance is part and parcel of the anti-gun cult.
These people have never heard of the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Fuck Lisa Cyr.
She’s probably too ugly to be worth it.