Las Vegas Shooting

[GooooMarquette]

First, Norway doesn't ban guns.
Second, despite the fact not one person here is arguing for a  ban on guns, you guys keep arguing against a ban on guns. Can't t help the straw man or do you literally have no other talking points?

They don't have any real arguments, so creating the straw man of "you really want a total ban" is the only way they can argue.  Kind of like Trump's "they're going to take all your guns away" fear mongering during the campaign.  I'm sure he'd be pleased that they're staying on script.

[rocket surgeon]

"extreme" is believing that we do not have a gun violence problem in the U.S..  I don't care how FAR (why is this capitalized?) right you are or how much of a "gun nut" (nothing close to that term came from me) you are, if you don't think we have a gun violence issue you hold an "extreme" position. 

I posted some 'yes/no' questions earlier trying to figure out if certain Scoopers believed we have a gun violence issue.  I take it you don't think we have a gun violence issue or, if we do, it isn't associated with the availability/volume of guns in the US.

  i can respect your position.  i hope you can respect mine.

    no, i do not think we have a gun problem.  we have a people problem.  how many guns go up north wisconsin around thanksgiving every year?  how many gun deaths/murders occur during that period?  you cannot dismiss this example.  now, let's take a certain square block region in say, milwaukee.  is the problem with guns?

      yes, we have some random stuff like vegas-very very horrific as it is, is not the rule.  certain regions of chicago, it is sadly, an every day occurrence.  why in certain specific areas, are people shooting, knifing, clubbing, running over other human beings?  we cannot predict people going off the deep end with no uncertainty all the time.  someone just snaps.  and then we want to find someone or something to blame?  it's only natural.  we want some type of closure.  we want to try to make sense out of it-hey!  blame the guns?  i just struggle with that. 

  i have a saying that helps me out sometimes and it's embedded at the bottom of tamu's posts. ya can't go wrong with it.  check it out-it's very pertinent here and can be universally applied to many other areas of our lives.   if it doesn't work the first time, repeat...

   

[Tugg Speedman]

The law abiding citizen doesn't need assault rifles.  If they are truly law abiding, they can have handguns, shotguns, etc.

So you woild ban all the guns on the right, but not the left, even though they are the same gun.

[Tugg Speedman]

I'm going to type this really slowly so you can try to understand it.

I posted the link to refute your homemade gun nonsense, or at least try to have you back up your outlandish claims with actual facts.  Instead you quote an article that talks about something I never mentioned.  Good Job!

I never mentioned the fact that older guns are still in use, that criminal types would probably favor cheaper weapons (no sh!t Sherlock) and in an earlier post I actually said I agree with you that there are too many guns in circulation to ever ban them. 

So yet again, like StillAWarrior pointed out, you completely miss the point and go all berserk on some other tangential topic.

So, I would love to see some actual statistics on your claims about homemade guns.  Thanks

That passage is from your link noting the most popular guns in Chicago are still Saturday Night Specials even though the illegal (read homemade, not in a licensed factory) were over 20 years old.

You're calling the idea that nonlicensed (homemade guns) is nonsense by linking to an article that says they are the biggest problem in Chicago.

[GGGG]

So you woild ban all the guns on the right, but not the left, even though they are the same gun.

I don't know.  Have to start somewhere.

[naginiF]

  i can respect your position.  i hope you can respect mine.

    no, i do not think we have a gun problem.
   

Certainly can respect yours.  however, we are talking about two different 'problems' or past each other......in the bolded above you are missing a word in the phrase i'm using.  it's a gun violence problem to me and an evil person problem for you.

The two things that each one of these violent acts has in common is that it involves a gun and it involves someone evil/sick/hurt enough to use it on another human.  Agreement on that right?

Both sides of the issue need to be worked equally diligently to get to a lower level of human on human gun violence.  Another thing i think we can agree on is that the volume of gun murders/suicides/injuries that happen (self inflicted, acts of terrorism, legally obtained, illegally obtained, lone wolfs, acts of passion, etc, etc..) is beyond acceptable.

[Tugg Speedman]

I don't know.  Have to start somewhere.

Thank you as you perfectly stated the problem gun owners have with non-gun owners that demand emotionally based rules about a subject they know little about ... you want to make up random rules to randomly restrict guns but not actually fix any problem.  All this is designed make yourself feel better.

And this only ends in one place ... a total ban, as you'll keep piling on and piling on random rules until we have that total ban.

Here is a fact, most mass shooting like Sandy  Hook, San Bernardino or the Pulse nightclub in Orlando the shooter did not use the most lethal gun available.  That would be a shotgun.  In close quarters shootings (like those noted above) a hunting shotgun would do far more damage.


So when your done banning assault rifles (after you can define them) and the psychopaths turn to shotguns, are we going to ban them too?

Vegas is an exception to this ... but mass shootings from up to 1200 feet away, as was the case with Vegas is almost unheard of.  Maybe the Texas tower shooting about 55 years ago ... so twice a century.

[Lennys Tap]

You could make the same argument for legalizing a grenade launchers, heroin and child porn, I guess. But we've wisely decided as a society that we'd be better without them legal. Even though the bad guys still can get them (despite the inconvenience).

That reminds me of an earlier post in which you cited banning "40 mph, cigarettes, trans fat, alcohol, football, motorcycles, bicycles" as something that would save lives, and yet we allow them,
For starters, it's a bad analogy because most of these things harm no one but the user. Pretty sure I won't die an early death because someone else eats too much trans fat, plays football and drives a motorcycle.
An AR-15 with an extended clip, on the other hand, exists to hurt people other than the user.
So, big difference.

Beyond that, all the things you cite provide some sort of benefit that we as a society have determined outweigh the harm. Speedy interstate travel is beneficial. Bicycles are beneficial. Even alcohol and tobacco have benefits.
What benefit does an AR-15 with an extended clip in the hands of a civilian provide?

Where did I ever say anything about wanting AR-15s legal? Mine was just a simple and true declarative. Banning ANYTHING will by definition mean law abiding citizens will cease to have access to whatever that anything is. Lawbreakers will be inconvenienced but not stopped. If you want to argue that the inconvenience will result in saving lives I'm open to that argument.

On another subject, you can very well, for example, die an early death because of another's consumption of alcohol. I'd guess your chances being killed by a driver impaired by booze or another drug are much better than being gunned down by an AR-15.

Look, I see no need whatsoever for automatic weapons. I don't like guns period. My point is if you REALLY want to cut down on gun deaths, lung cancer, drunk driving (and other driving fatalities), obesity, diabetes, etc. we know how to do it. In all these cases (and many, many more) we've erred on the side of freedom rather than safety. Whether, when and how the scales are tipped in the other direction makes for an interesting debate.

As for the notion that we as society have decided that substances like alcohol and tobacco provide some sort of benefit that outweighs the harm, what are you smokin and drinkin? Cigarettes kill 480,000 smokers every year. Smokers KILL 41,000 of their fellow men by way of second hand smoke. 16,000,000 Americans have serious diseases related to smoking. I won't bore with the numbers of people who kill themselves and there fellow citizens with booze but they're staggering, too. What benefit could possibly outweigh the harm? But enough people want (or are addicted to/"need") the poison and some pretty powerful people make a boatload selling it. If people really care about public safety/health in this country this is where the low hanging fruit is.

[GGGG]

Thank you as you perfectly stated the problem gun owners have with nongun owners that demand emotionally based rules about a subject they know little about ... you want to make up random rules to randomly restrict guns but not actually fix any problem.  All this is designed make yourself feel better.

And this only ends in one place ... a total ban, as you'll keep piling on and piling on random rules until we have that total ban.

Here is a fact, most mass shooting like Sandy  Hook, San Bernardino or the Pulse nightclub in Orlando the shooter did not use the most lethal gun available.  That would be a shotgun.  In close quarters shooting s(like those noted above) a hunting shotgun would do far more damage.

So when your done banning assault rifles (after you can define them) and the psychopaths turn to shotguns, are we going to ban them too?

I think intelligent people can sit down to discuss reasonable alternatives for the types of guns we should allow in society.  You are the one resorting to emotional-based tactics by posting a picture and saying "which should be ban?"

That's pseudo-intellectual bullsh*t.  It is the same lame excuse that people like you always come up with - "well if you can't figure out which ones to ban, then you can't ban any of them." 

Be smarter.

[Tugg Speedman]

I think intelligent people can sit down to discuss reasonable alternatives for the types of guns we should allow in society.  You are the one resorting to emotional-based tactics by posting a picture and saying "which should be ban?"

That's pseudo-intellectual bullsh*t.  It is the same lame excuse that people like you always come up with - "well if you can't figure out which ones to ban, then you can't ban any of them." 

Be smarter.

What does this mean? .. alternatives for the types of guns we should allow in society

[GGGG]

What does this mean? .. alternatives for the types of guns we should allow in society

It's pretty obvious.  Be smarter.

[MU82]

we don't have a gun problem...with law abiding citizens.  we have a problem with bad people.

Or bad toddlers. Unless you missed my post about toddlers shooting an average of one person per week the last couple of years.

Toddlers!

[ATL MU Warrior]

That passage is from your link noting the most popular guns in Chicago are still Saturday Night Specials even though the illegal (read homemade, not in a licensed factory) were over 20 years old.

You're calling the idea that nonlicensed (homemade guns) is nonsense by linking to an article that says they are the biggest problem in Chicago.

Last try before I quit.

I know the passage is from the article I linked. The guns in question were made by a company (or rather two companies) in a factory outside of Los Angeles.  That matches no definition of homemade that I am aware of.  The passage is below and makes no mention of the fact that these factories were unlicensed so as you so often do you are making that up out of thin air.

The “Saturday Night Special” is still kicking

In the 1980s, a group of gun manufacturers set up shop outside Los Angeles, California. These companies, which included Raven Arms and Lorcin Engineering, were collectively dubbed the “Ring of Fire,” as they became notorious for producing simple, cheap handguns commonly known as “Saturday Night Specials.” Even though these junk guns had a tendency to misfire or malfunction, production by Ring of Fire companies grew exponentially, and by 1990, they churned out one-third of all handguns in the U.S. A trace report by the ATF in the 1990s found that Saturday Night Specials like the ones produced by Raven and Lorcin were 3.4 times more likely to be used in crimes than other guns.

Though both companies have been out of business for decades, the appearance of the Lorcin .380 and Raven .25 among Chicago’s most seized guns speaks to the enduring appeal of the Saturday Night Special. Harold Pollack, co-director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, says that many black market gun customers are looking for a weapon that even the least skilled person can operate. These firearms fit the bill.

Older guns are also easier to buy for cheap on the black market, adding to their attraction, especially for younger gang members. Cook’s research has shown that crime guns purchased by gang members tend to be an average of 12.6 years old.

After reading the above, clearly you will no other choice but to apologize for being so completely and utterly wrong (yet again). If you have some actual data that supports your claim please share.

Apologies to all for getting sucked in to this.

[rocket surgeon]

Certainly can respect yours.  however, we are talking about two different 'problems' or past each other......in the bolded above you are missing a word in the phrase i'm using.  it's a gun violence problem to me and an evil person problem for you.

The two things that each one of these violent acts has in common is that it involves a gun and it involves someone evil/sick/hurt enough to use it on another human.  Agreement on that right?

Both sides of the issue need to be worked equally diligently to get to a lower level of human on human gun violence.  Another thing i think we can agree on is that the volume of gun murders/suicides/injuries that happen (self inflicted, acts of terrorism, legally obtained, illegally obtained, lone wolfs, acts of passion, etc, etc..) is beyond acceptable.

yes, we can we agree on all the above except where to place the blame-an inanimate object or a human being who has free will and sets in motion the action of the object as it cannot do this by itself.  the difference between an evil person and a non evil person is the evil person acts upon his evil thoughts whereas a non evil person may have the same thoughts but has self control and knows right from wrong.  now i know some will argue that not all human beings have free will or do not know right from wrong.  to me, that person is still evil. 

   an evil person does not need a gun to commit his evil acts as well-we have covered this one ad nauseum

[forgetful]

Try and read what you link.  Becuase you missed this section which read like I plagiarized it for my comments on this site

Your apology is accepted and I know you will be more careful and actually read what you link in the future.

As others have explained.  You are wrong, like usual.  The companies were legal companies.  The guns were tested and passed required certification tests. 

They were not homemade. 

They were low quality guns that could be sold cheaply and legally.  That is why they were chambered for low caliber ammunition, they couldn't hold under higher pressures/forces.

[GooooMarquette]

It's pretty obvious.  Be smarter.

Not gonna happen.  Every time someone here proposes a starting point to begin a rational discussion, he simply dismisses them as someone who "doesn't understand" (the ultimate irony) and then repeats "total gun ban!", "total gun ban!"

[Vander Blue Man Group]

  i can respect your position.  i hope you can respect mine.

    no, i do not think we have a gun problem.  we have a people problem.  how many guns go up north wisconsin around thanksgiving every year?  how many gun deaths/murders occur during that period?  you cannot dismiss this example.  now, let's take a certain square block region in say, milwaukee.  is the problem with guns?

      yes, we have some random stuff like vegas-very very horrific as it is, is not the rule.  certain regions of chicago, it is sadly, an every day occurrence.  why in certain specific areas, are people shooting, knifing, clubbing, running over other human beings?  we cannot predict people going off the deep end with no uncertainty all the time.  someone just snaps.  and then we want to find someone or something to blame?  it's only natural.  we want some type of closure.  we want to try to make sense out of it-hey!  blame the guns?  i just struggle with that. 

  i have a saying that helps me out sometimes and it's embedded at the bottom of tamu's posts. ya can't go wrong with it.  check it out-it's very pertinent here and can be universally applied to many other areas of our lives.   if it doesn't work the first time, repeat...

   

I've read this post multiple times.  It'd astounds me how much you don't get it. In fact, it disgusts me. Complete absence of logic.

[Tugg Speedman]

Last try before I quit.

I know the passage is from the article I linked. The guns in question were made by a company (or rather two companies) in a factory outside of Los Angeles.  That matches no definition of homemade that I am aware of.  The passage is below and makes no mention of the fact that these factories were unlicensed so as you so often do you are making that up out of thin air.

After reading the above, clearly you will no other choice but to apologize for being so completely and utterly wrong (yet again). If you have some actual data that supports your claim please share.

Apologies to all for getting sucked in to this.

Do you think every meth lab is a bunch drug dealers running  a "pharmaceutical corporation?"

The "company" was not a licensed gun dealer.  It was an illegal operation, a rogue operation.

This is what I meant by "homemade" a bunch of gun runners got together and started making illegal guns.  Becuase the technology is that easy to reproduce.

As others have explained.  You are wrong, like usual.  The companies were legal companies.  The guns were tested and passed required certification tests. 

They were not homemade. 

They were low quality guns that could be sold cheaply and legally.  That is why they were chambered for low caliber ammunition, they couldn't hold under higher pressures/forces.

not surprised you would say this, you have made it clear your definition of immoral is "corporation."

And who tested and certified these guns?  No such thing existed at the time.  At the time anyone could start cranking out these guns.

At its height, Pablo Escobar was the 7th richest man in the world.  Was his operation easily confused with Merck?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorcin_Engineering_Company
Lorcin Engineering Company was a firearms manufacturer established in 1989 by Jim Waldorf.[1] Lorcin produced a series of very inexpensive handguns, which were sold primarily through pawn shops and marketed towards people with low income. As such, their guns were frequently referred to as saturday night specials, and Lorcin was noted by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as one of the Ring of Fire companies, a series of companies established around Los Angeles, California, all of which manufactured inexpensive handguns of similar design[2] and all of which were connected to Raven Arms. Waldorf was a high school friend of Bruce Jennings, founder of Jennings Firearms.

The guns were constructed of injection-molded Zamak, a zinc alloy.

In 1993, Lorcin was the number one pistol manufacturer in the United States, producing 341,243 guns.[3] However, in 1996, Lorcin filed for bankruptcy, with 18 pending product liability, personal injury, and wrongful death lawsuits. The company emerged from bankruptcy in 1997, but went out of business permanently in 1998 with an additional 22 lawsuits having been filed.[3]

----

He made cheap guns and sold them through pawn shops.  THe "company" was only in existence for seven years before it was shut down.  Yeah, that is a legit way of doing things.

So everyone, let's confuse this operation with Remington or Smith & Wesson.

And then there is this ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Arms
Raven Arms was a firearms manufacturer established in 1970 by firearms designer George Jennings. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting the importation of inexpensive handguns prompted Jennings to design the MP-25, a .25-caliber semi-automatic pistol, and enter the firearms business. Raven has been referred to as the original "Ring of Fire" company; the Ring of Fire companies were those known for producing inexpensive Saturday night special handguns.[1]

Raven kept manufacturing costs to a minimum by building their guns from injection-molded Zamak, a zinc alloy.

-------

So we banned the import of cheap handguns in 1968.  No doubt this was "sensible gun regulation."  So what happened?
Rogue operations opened business to fill the void and made hundreds of thousands of guns and sold them through pawn shops.

Think about this when you continue to call for gun bans.  My point is the gun is an old technology and easily reproduced.  They are not now because legitimate companies make quality guns at reasonable prices.  Ban them and "companies" like this will sprout up and fill this demand for these guns.

[Tugg Speedman]

I think intelligent people can sit down to discuss reasonable alternatives for the types of guns we should allow in society.  You are the one resorting to emotional-based tactics by posting a picture and saying "which should be ban?"

That's pseudo-intellectual bullsh*t.  It is the same lame excuse that people like you always come up with - "well if you can't figure out which ones to ban, then you can't ban any of them." 

Be smarter.

What happens when Intelligent people sit down and conclude the article below?  Do you listen carefully to this argument and concede your "we have to start somewhere" argument from a few posts above might be misguided?  Or do you yell and yell to bludgeon this voice/argument into submission?

Be reasonable

Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

Also, let's not confuse the Washinton Post with Infowars ...

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
The Washinton Post
October 3, 2017
Leah Libresco

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.de92f8dc57dc

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

-------------------

Here is the orginal 538 analysis
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/

[Tugg Speedman]

Honest set of yes/no questions for you.  I'm not looking for links, deflections, or explanations, or 'it is too complex of an issue for a yes/no'.....just yes or no:
- Do you believe there is an issue with gun violence in the U.S.?  (if 'yes' move on.  if 'no' there is no need to answer the rest)
- Do you believe any of these factors contribute to the issue of gun violence:
     - availability of guns i.e. ease of purchase.
     - who can buy and own guns.
     - quantity of guns currently existing in U.S.
     - quantity of guns produced and sold in U.S. from this moment forward
     - types of weapons available for sale
-  Do you believe we should do everything in our power to address gun violence in the U.S.?

Again, it's an extremely complex situation, and i know you are going to want to go into the subtle nuances of some of these, but just to level set where each of us is starting from yes/no on the above.

I'm 'yes' on all of them

No on most of them.

Have you looked at the data?

Remember that two-thirds of gun deaths every year are suicides.  Can we conclude those people would find another way even if every gun was banned and removed from the US?

So what about homicides?  Will you accept this reality?
And if you can, would you be open-minded enough to think it possible that more guns means less crime?

[Tugg Speedman]

Correct me if I am wrong but a gun free zone doesn't limit authorized personnel, such as a security guard, from have a weapon, does it?  Maybe it is up to the discretion of that particular establishment.

Completely wrong ... gun free zone means what the word says, no cops, security guards or any other type of gun ... period.

These people are sympathetic with the Black Lives Matter crowd in thinking cops are the problem in this country and their guns are what gives them the authority to commit violations against citizens.

And regarding gun free zones this means everyone is unarmed so come on in and commit crimes



And speaking of unarmed, any remember this right after Sandy Hook?  Whatever form anyone uses to announces they are unarmed they put themsevles at risk.

New York Journal News Publishes Gun Owners’ Names In Westchester, Rockland Counties
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/25/new-york-journal-news-gun-owners-westchester-rockland-counties_n_2362530.html

A New York newspaper is under criticism for publishing the names and addresses of local gun owners on Monday.

The article includes an interactive map of Westchester and Rockland counties that allows readers to view those who have a license to own handguns around them.

The article also has an editor’s note attached to it describing the type of gun the journalist who wrote the article owns. “Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011,” it states.

Some critics felt the Journal News article put people in danger. “Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves? What a bunch of liberal boobs you all are,” one commenter wrote on the newspaper’s website. Others worried that the names would expose law enforcement officials. “You have judges, policemen, retired policemen, FBI agents — they have permits. Once you allow the public to see where they live, that puts them in harm’s way,” Paul Piperato, the Rockland county clerk, told Journal News reporter Worley.

[Tugg Speedman]

Shifting gears from the gun debate, the motivation and profile of the shooter has everyone stumped.  He is not the type you would expect to commit this awful crime.

He made $5 million in 2015 alone.  How does one get angry at the world when they have this much money (not desperate).  Yes we can after-the-fact rationalize a reason but this is not the person an FBI profile would flag.

Vegas Shooter Investigators "Puzzled", Believe He Was Not Alone For Two Reasons
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-06/vegas-shooter-investigators-puzzled-believe-he-was-not-alone-two-reasons

Two days ago, Clark County Sheriff Lombardo for the first time expressed his conviction that Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock had to have help at some point during the tragic mass shooting, either in the preparation or the execution stage, or both.

“Look at this. You look at the weapon obtaining the different amounts of tannerite available, do you think this was all accomplished on his own, face value? You got to make the assumption he had to have help at some point, and we want to insure that’s the answer. Maybe he’s a super guy... Maybe he’s super — that was working out this out on his own, but it will be hard for me to believe that.”

“Here’s the reason why, put one and one–two and two together, another residence in Reno with firearms, okay, electronics and everything else associated with larger amounts of ammo, a place in Mesquite, we know he had a girlfriend. Do you think this is all self-facing individual without talking to somebody, it was sequestered amongst himself.”

Additionally, Sheriff Lombardo suggested that far from a suicide mission, authorities had seen evidence that the shooter planned to survive and escape.

To be sure, the question whether Paddock was alone or coordinated with some, still unknown collaborator, has been one of the most hotly debated topics involving last Sunday's tragic Las Vegas shooting.

Now, providing further impetus to the speculation that Paddock was not alone, NBC News reports, citing senior law enforcement officials, that investigators are speculating that someone else may have been in the Las Vegas gunman's hotel room when he was registered there.

According to NBC, the investigators are "puzzled" by two discoveries: First, a charger was found that does not match any of the cellphones that belonged gunman, Stephen Paddock. And second, garage records show that during a period when Paddock's car left the hotel garage, one of his key cards was used to get into his room. While there are several possible explanations for these anomalies, investigators said they "want to get to the bottom of it."

It gets better: according to Paddock's IRS records, the gunman was not only a legacy millionaire, he was a successful gambler, earning at least $5 million in 2015. Some of that could be from other investments, but most of it was from gambling, officials told NBC.

Separately, and this goes to Paddock's potential ISIS links which the Islamic State has tripled down on over the past week, CNN reports that in addition to his frequent forays into casinos and gun shops, Las Paddock took 20 cruises, many of them in Europe and the Middle East. In addition to stops at ports in Spain, Italy, Greece, the cruises also stopped in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, according to information provided by a law enforcement source. Paddock's girlfriend, Marilou Danley, accompanied him on nine of the cruises.

Picking up on the narrative that Paddock may have hoped to use his car as a bomb, Paddock's car, a 2017 Chrysler Pacifica Touring, was found in the hotel parking garage and contained 90 pounds of Tannerite and two suitcases filled with hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Authorities suspect the Tannerite was intended for use in target practice or to make the car explode if fired upon, according to information provided by the source. The information from the source was derived from intelligence obtained earlier this week. Authorities have since said that the vehicle contained 50 pounds of Tannerite.

That said, so far, investigators have found no evidence supporting a claim by ISIS that Paddock had converted to Islam and carried out the attack on the terror group's behalf, according to the information provided by the source. Paddock's girlfriend, Danley, has been unable to provide a motive for the mass killing, according to the information.

Finally, in the latest previously undisclosed discovery, the NYT reported that what some had assumed was a suicide note, was instead a notepad whose exact contents the authorities have yet to reveal. Sheriff Lombardo said that it contained numbers that were being analyzed for their relevance, and were "significant to the gunman"; the police are attempting to determine their meaning.

Paddock's motive for the worst mass shooting in US history still remains a mystery.

[StillAWarrior]

Completely wrong ... gun free zone means what the word says, no cops, security guards or any other type of gun ... period.

lol. This should be fun. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Tugg Speedman]

lol. This should be fun. Lather, rinse, repeat.

In fairness, it means whatever you want it to mean.  Many define it as I have while many others define it as you believe

What is a gun-free zone?

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/03/gun-free-zone-facts/

There’s no legal definition of a gun-free zone. The term is often used by both sides in the gun debate to describe places where the average person cannot legally carry a firearm. Schools are typically gun-free zones, owing to a federal law which prohibits firearms in all K-12 schools: public, private, and parochial. But some schools make exceptions, for armed security guards or for hunting instruction, among other examples. At least nine states have extended the exception to teachers who have concealed-carry permits. In reality, few public spaces are truly gun-free, even gun-free zones. (For the purposes of this explainer, we will use the blanket term, understanding that there are often exceptions.)

Gun-free zones can also include courthouses, jails, airports, and sports arenas. Last year, the military eased restrictions on carrying private guns on bases, allowing some service members to holster their own weapons, despite opposition from the Army’s highest-ranking official.

Who decides where guns are allowed?

Gun laws are different in every state. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment should be interpreted to permit private citizens to own guns and keep them in their homes. The court left it to states to decide who can carry firearms and where. Florida, for example, forbids guns in airport terminals — but dozens of other states, including Missouri and Oregon, permit them. And even within states, the rules get murky. In Texas, different cities had different interpretations of the state’s open-carry law, including whether firearms are permitted inside local zoos.

What about private businesses, like Starbucks or Target? Can they declare themselves gun-free zones?

In most cases, a business can decide if it wants to allow guns on its property. However, many companies are reluctant to officially ban guns, for fear of potentially alienating customers, and out of concern that doing so might make employees responsible for confronting armed customers. Some businesses, including Chipotle, Levi Strauss, Starbucks, Target, and Trader Joe’s, ask that people don’t bring firearms inside their locations, but stop short of explicitly prohibiting them. Walt Disney World bans weapons of all kinds, including toy guns. So do  Costco, Ikea, California Pizza Kitchen, Whole Foods, AMC Theaters, and Waffle House. Others, like Kroger, have refused to take a side.

Many states have rolled back restrictions on where guns can be carried, forcing businesses large and small to set their own policies — meaning if they want to disallow guns, they must put up a notice. In Texas, any business wishing to ban firearms has to display two large “no guns allowed” signs, with strict rules about font size.

There’s also been a movement to force businesses to allow guns on their property. At least 23 states have laws making it illegal for employers to ban guns at workplace parking lots, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

[🏀]

I did not know Australia was so gun free, this totally ruins my zombie outbreak survival plan.