[Lord Dave]

This one in Las Vegas, Nevada where gun laws are super lax.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lasvegas-shooting/at-least-50-dead-more-than-200-hurt-in-las-vegas-shooting-idUSKCN1C70FU?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner

It's sad but I'm so used to hearing about this stuff I just can't find myself caring anymore.

Still got shot by police and not a normal citizen though. :/

[juner]

Yeah I woke up to this news. Know a few people who were in attendance last night. They all made it out okay but literally had people being shot a few feet away.

[honk]

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-57086

[Rama Set]

Yeah I woke up to this news. Know a few people who were in attendance last night. They all made it out okay but literally had people being shot a few feet away.

Terrible. I hope they are relatively ok.

[juner]

Yeah I woke up to this news. Know a few people who were in attendance last night. They all made it out okay but literally had people being shot a few feet away.

Terrible. I hope they are relatively ok.

Everyone I know of seems to be. Luckier than a lot of others. Just a shitty day.

[Lord Dave]

The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved.  Now a minority group can't be blamed.

[Fortuna]

The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved.  Now a minority group can't be blamed.

If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.

[Pete Svarrior]

Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.

In fairness, both sides do that.

[Boots]

Now there's a guy who really, really, really, hates country music!

[Lord Dave]

The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved.  Now a minority group can't be blamed.

If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.

I'm not using it as political ammo, I'm stating a fact.
If the shooter had been any other than the majority race/group in America, the racist groups would be attacking said group as "dangerous" and using it as ammo for their agenda.  It happens every single time.

I also fail to see what the fact that there's a suicide bombing every week has to do with it.  People kill other people every day.  Race, religion, politics... all of that is irrelevant in the end.  In the end it boils down to one simple thing: Someone wants someone else dead.  The why becomes irrelevant.

[Dither]

What motivated Stephen Paddock to do this?

He was a wealthy retired High Roller with RE property, people like that are plumb lazy.
Did he really lift all those heavy guns into his room, why didn't he ask his golf caddy to do it.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, there's something else going on here.

Despite all that, what kind of world are we leaving for the next generation?
When you don't even need a reason to shoot 500 people and murder sixty.
 

[crutonius]

What motivated Stephen Paddock to do this?

He was a wealthy retired High Roller with RE property, people like that are plumb lazy.
Did he really lift all those heavy guns into his room, why didn't he ask his golf caddy to do it.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, there's something else going on here.

Well first off there is no Stephen. It was obviously Hillary Clinton. At this point nobody with any common sense disputes that. She's the only one that had that much experience killing that many people.

The question is what was her true target? I'm inclined to think that she had Intel that John Davis or Tom bishop was going to be there and that this was an attempt to shut down the fes but maybe I'm misreading things.

[Lord Dave]

What motivated Stephen Paddock to do this?

He was a wealthy retired High Roller with RE property, people like that are plumb lazy.
Did he really lift all those heavy guns into his room, why didn't he ask his golf caddy to do it.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven, there's something else going on here.

Despite all that, what kind of world are we leaving for the next generation?
When you don't even need a reason to shoot 500 people and murder sixty.

Could be temporary insanity.  Just one day *snap*.

[juner]

My office is not far from the MB. About a mile of the strip is still shutdown. This is just an awful fucking tragedy that the city and community won't recover from for a long time. If you are able to, please consider a donation to the victim fund put together by Steve Sisolak as there are so many families impacted and ruined by this. The victim fund can be found here: https://www.gofundme.com/dr2ks2-las-vegas-victims-fund 

[Fortuna]

Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.

In fairness, both sides do that.

Irrelevant

[Lord Dave]

So the hero security guard is less heroic, took a long ass time for cops to respond, and we still have no moive.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved.  Now a minority group can't be blamed.

If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.

Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.

Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.

[Rushy]

The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved.  Now a minority group can't be blamed.

If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.

Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.

Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.

Changes to the fundamental rights of a population based on emotional reactions to tragedies typically aren't the best kind of changes.

[honk]

The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved.  Now a minority group can't be blamed.

If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.

Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.

Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.

Changes to the fundamental rights of a population based on emotional reactions to tragedies typically aren't the best kind of changes.

That's not what he's asking, though. He's specifically questioning the oft-repeated idea that it's disrespectful or distasteful to suggest legislative action in the aftermath of a tragedy like this.

[Lord Dave]

The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved.  Now a minority group can't be blamed.

If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.

Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.

Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.

Changes to the fundamental rights of a population based on emotional reactions to tragedies typically aren't the best kind of changes.

I'd like to think we've seem more than enough mass shootings to be well past the point where emotional reactions are the only ones we have.