The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[Las Vegas Shooting]. Updates on where shooter got his ammo

1679111226

Posts

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    Are people really trying to peg this as terrorism?

    holy shit that’s a reach

    The difference between terrorism and just a mass shooting is motive.

    This is literally a thought away from being a terrorist activity.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Have any details on the type of weapon used been released? I haven't seen anything.

    no. there's a bunch of speculation based on the rapid fire in the recording but the police haven't released anything other than that there were multiple rifles in the hotel room

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    Brutal J wrote: »
    vimmer wrote: »
    Are people really trying to peg this as terrorism?

    holy shit that’s a reach

    Yeah, it's crazy, the guy was super white.

    There was no element of sustained, looming threat. Now that the event has happened, the danger is over, and we have no rational reason to believe we will be victims of whatever cause was behind this specific event.

    So the Oklahoma City bombing wasn't terrorism either.

  • vimmervimmer Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't think the DC sniper was affiliated with any terror group, but what he did was clearly terrorism.

    You don’t have to be part of a terror group, but fear for the DC sniper certainly grew with each new attack.

    In this case, there is no more fear of the perpetrator.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    It's reading like you guys really want it to be terrorism, which is weirding me out a bit. but right now we have no idea one way or the other.

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    It's reading like you guys really want it to be terrorism, which is weirding me out a bit. but right now we have no idea one way or the other.

    It's because we can at least understand terrorism.

    There is no way I will ever understand someone doing this just because.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Two things are true

    1) The definition of terrorism does not include everyone who perpetuates horrific acts of mass murder. I don't believe Columbine was Terrorism for example and this may not be either.

    2) The use of the term "terrorist" by Western and specifically US media definitely has a racial connotation which is undeniably awful.

    If this guy was exactly the same but called Mohammed then he'd be classified as a terrorist at this stage even if his motivation had absolutely nothing to do with extreme Salafist Islamism or whatever you want to call it. Similarly if he killed all those people while chanting the Sieg Heil he's still be a "Lone Wolf."

    Solar on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't think the DC sniper was affiliated with any terror group, but what he did was clearly terrorism.

    You don’t have to be part of a terror group, but fear for the DC sniper certainly grew with each new attack.

    In this case, there is no more fear of the perpetrator.

    Terrorism is an action intending to incite terror, to control people by that fear.

    Without knowing his motivations, it's impossible to say it's absolutely terrorism. It's also impossible to say it absolutely wasn't terrorism. We simply do not know yet.

    Either way, the news media probably won't call it terrorism even if it is, because the guy was white. But it's certainly possible that it is terrorism, it is down to the shooter's motivations.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    It's reading like you guys really want it to be terrorism, which is weirding me out a bit. but right now we have no idea one way or the other.

    I think there's a substantial amount of frustration over how it currently looks like someone who killed 58 people and wounded over 500 isn't being treated like a substantial civil threat in hindsight because he's white. He's getting the usual lone white guy writeups in papers now. Useful definitions of terrorism aside, that's pretty fucked up and that's what people are reacting to from what I can tell.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    It's reading like you guys really want it to be terrorism, which is weirding me out a bit. but right now we have no idea one way or the other.

    It's because we can at least understand terrorism.

    There is no way I will ever understand someone doing this just because.

    That and this country won't ever do anything about it unless it's terrorism apparently.

    steam_sig.png
  • vimmervimmer Registered User regular
    If you think this is terrorism, you don’t understand terrorism.

  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    A curious development: the shooter's family has been in touch with a few media outlets, and it turns out his father was on the FBI's most wanted list until 1977. The father was also diagnosed as psychopathic, but I'm not sure what that means comparing the 1968 definition of the term compared to how it's defined by contemporary psychiatry.

  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Daedalus wrote: »
    It's reading like you guys really want it to be terrorism, which is weirding me out a bit. but right now we have no idea one way or the other.

    What I DONT want is the ultimate determination of whether or not something is terrorism to be the color of the suspects skin. Which is exactly what seems to be happening whenever you compare the reaction of a shooting done by a non-white person vs a white person

    Javen on
  • GONG-00GONG-00 Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't think the DC sniper was affiliated with any terror group, but what he did was clearly terrorism.

    I live in the area and I certainly felt terrified during the whole ordeal. I also recall media focusing attention on white vans and box trucks when in actuality, the snipers were in a blue Caprice.

    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
    Law and Order ≠ Justice
    xu257gunns6e.png
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    If you think this is terrorism, you don’t understand terrorism.

    It sounds like you have a different definition of terrorism than the generally accepted definition.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    It's reading like you guys really want it to be terrorism, which is weirding me out a bit. but right now we have no idea one way or the other.

    More that we're really unhappy with this country's fucked-up inconsistent (consistently, predictably so) narratives on terrorism ("only if they're brown and/or the wrong religion") and gun violence.

  • vimmervimmer Registered User regular
    If there is not a competent intent to incite pervading terror in the surviving populace, it’s not terrorism. And claiming you’re a terrorist doesn’t mean your crimes are automatically terrorism.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    If you think this is terrorism, you don’t understand terrorism.

    Pretty sure life's been defined by terrorism for the past 16 years. Pretty sure everyone knows what it is. As we have no idea what the impetus for this attack was ruling out home grown terrorism already seems foolish. We've had confirmation that he likely isn't connected to any international terrorism syndicates, but this very well could be some kind of terror attack from another source. The truth of the matter is that we don't know that yet.

  • mojojoeomojojoeo A block off the park, living the dream.Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't think the DC sniper was affiliated with any terror group, but what he did was clearly terrorism.

    The dc sniper was faking a serial killer so that he could murder his wife scott free according to the prosecutors (this was disallowed in court). And promptly lost his shit in jail and the story only gets weirder with him drawing pictures of himself with Mohammed and Allah and Neo and Morpheus in the same picture.

    Wast really terrorism, but is about the scariest situation you can imagine.

    Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
  • vimmervimmer Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    It's reading like you guys really want it to be terrorism, which is weirding me out a bit. but right now we have no idea one way or the other.

    What I DONT want is the ultimate determination of whether or not something is terrorism to be the color of the suspects skin. Which is exactly what seems to be happening whenever you compare the reaction of a shooting done by a non-white person vs a white person

    It’s possible to believe that and still accept that this is not terrorism. So where do you stand given what you know now, is this or is this not terrorism?

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    If you think this is terrorism, you don’t understand terrorism.

    This could be terrorism.

    The use of violence to entice people to a certain ideology/status quo through fear and intimidation, especially through martyrdom, is a core tenet.

  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    If there is not a competent intent to incite pervading terror in the surviving populace, it’s not terrorism. And claiming you’re a terrorist doesn’t mean your crimes are automatically terrorism.

    Mass shooting in a crowd at a public gathering, intending to keep people from having public gatherings for fear of being in a mass shooting.

    That's pervading terror that has been incited. If that was the intent, terrorism. Claiming you are or aren't a terrorist has no bearing.

    Either way, we still don't know his motive. It can still be either.

  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    Like, honestly? Short of a manifesto, its WAY too early to know whether this was intended to be terrorism or not. But there's a HUGE difference in how the early hours of something like are handled, based on nothing but the suspects skin color. So when terrorism is considered to be in play when the person is brown, but dismissed out of hand when the person is white, that's a problem.

  • evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    A curious development: the shooter's family has been in touch with a few media outlets, and it turns out his father was on the FBI's most wanted list until 1977. The father was also diagnosed as psychopathic, but I'm not sure what that means comparing the 1968 definition of the term compared to how it's defined by contemporary psychiatry.

    even if he *is* psychopathic, psychopathic doesn't mean stupid. Psychopaths still have a drive of self-preservation, and even a moron would deduce that opening fire into a crowd is a sure fire way of getting yourself gunned down by the local tackleberrys.
    The fact that he did well in life suggests the opposite.

    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    I am just having trouble understanding how our society fails people so critically that they go down this path.

    It's sickening and horrible and I honestly want to cry. What went wrong?

    steam_sig.png
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Terrorism is an attempt to effect social, economic, or political change through (usually violent, sometimes merely symbolic) acts of terror. If you just want to inflict misery or death for its own sake, you're not a terrorist. The terror has to be a means to an end (and an end other than immediate financial gain, because otherwise its merely violent crime and not terrorism).

  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    It's reading like you guys really want it to be terrorism, which is weirding me out a bit. but right now we have no idea one way or the other.

    What I DONT want is the ultimate determination of whether or not something is terrorism to be the color of the suspects skin. Which is exactly what seems to be happening whenever you compare the reaction of a shooting done by a non-white person vs a white person

    It’s possible to believe that and still accept that this is not terrorism. So where do you stand given what you know now, is this or is this not terrorism?

    I honestly don't know, but based on what we know now, I've not seen anything that says it couldn't be, or that it's a 'reach'

  • CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    It's reading like you guys really want it to be terrorism, which is weirding me out a bit. but right now we have no idea one way or the other.

    What I DONT want is the ultimate determination of whether or not something is terrorism to be the color of the suspects skin. Which is exactly what seems to be happening whenever you compare the reaction of a shooting done by a non-white person vs a white person

    It’s possible to believe that and still accept that this is not terrorism. So where do you stand given what you know now, is this or is this not terrorism?

    That' it's too early to know either way and we should all maybe refrain from conjecture and bickering about it.

  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    If you think this is terrorism, you don’t understand terrorism.
    Domestic terrorism means “activities that--

    (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

    (B) appear to be intended--

    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

    (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”(18 USCS § 2331)
    The act doesn't need to actually effectively intimidate or influence, it merely needs to appear to be intended to etc. etc.

  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    evilthecat wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    A curious development: the shooter's family has been in touch with a few media outlets, and it turns out his father was on the FBI's most wanted list until 1977. The father was also diagnosed as psychopathic, but I'm not sure what that means comparing the 1968 definition of the term compared to how it's defined by contemporary psychiatry.

    even if he *is* psychopathic, psychopathic doesn't mean stupid. Psychopaths still have a drive of self-preservation, and even a moron would deduce that opening fire into a crowd is a sure fire way of getting yourself gunned down by the local tackleberrys.
    The fact that he did well in life suggests the opposite.

    I don't think he's stupid, but if this guy was indeed psychopathic that could be helpful in piecing together what set him off.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    vimmer wrote: »
    If there is not a competent intent to incite pervading terror in the surviving populace, it’s not terrorism. And claiming you’re a terrorist doesn’t mean your crimes are automatically terrorism.

    Mass shooting in a crowd at a public gathering, intending to keep people from having public gatherings for fear of being in a mass shooting.

    That's pervading terror that has been incited. If that was the intent, terrorism. Claiming you are or aren't a terrorist has no bearing.

    Either way, we still don't know his motive. It can still be either.

    Terrorism has a political goal. Dylan Roof, for example, was a terrorist. Did this guy have a goal? Maybe we'll find out at some point.

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    If there is not a competent intent to incite pervading terror in the surviving populace, it’s not terrorism. And claiming you’re a terrorist doesn’t mean your crimes are automatically terrorism.

    And considering so many people are now chanting "We can't go anywhere anymore without getting shot!" (Despite the statistical probability of this being very low), it sounds like if that was his intent (IF, I again strongly emphasize) then mission accomplished.

    If that was not his intent, then he's just a mass murdering fuckwad.

    Either way, it's not a "reach" to link this to terrorism.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    The commonly held definition of terrorism (and if you want to check, Google it, that's how everyone gets word definitions these days) is that it is an attack on civilians designed to formulate terror in pursuit of a political goal.

    Was this terrorism? Depends on whether he had a political motive. If not it's "just" a horrific mass murder.

  • vimmervimmer Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    If there is not a competent intent to incite pervading terror in the surviving populace, it’s not terrorism. And claiming you’re a terrorist doesn’t mean your crimes are automatically terrorism.

    And considering so many people are now chanting "We can't go anywhere anymore without getting shot!" (Despite the statistical probability of this being very low), it sounds like if that was his intent (IF, I again strongly emphasize) then mission accomplished.

    If that was not his intent, then he's just a mass murdering fuckwad.

    Either way, it's not a "reach" to link this to terrorism.

    People don’t actually believe that. They say that to influence government policy on guns and virtue signal their opposition to the current state of gun control.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    evilthecat wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    A curious development: the shooter's family has been in touch with a few media outlets, and it turns out his father was on the FBI's most wanted list until 1977. The father was also diagnosed as psychopathic, but I'm not sure what that means comparing the 1968 definition of the term compared to how it's defined by contemporary psychiatry.

    even if he *is* psychopathic, psychopathic doesn't mean stupid. Psychopaths still have a drive of self-preservation, and even a moron would deduce that opening fire into a crowd is a sure fire way of getting yourself gunned down by the local tackleberrys.
    The fact that he did well in life suggests the opposite.

    It's his father they're talking about. I misread this at first.... it's the shooter's father.

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    The commonly held definition of terrorism (and if you want to check, Google it, that's how everyone gets word definitions these days) is that it is an attack on civilians designed to formulate terror in pursuit of a political goal.

    Was this terrorism? Depends on whether he had a political motive. If not it's "just" a horrific mass murder.

    He very well may just have decided that there were people that needed killin, and some facet of his life that went to shit he found reflected in the concert.

    We don't know. We don't have a toxicology report, we don't know anything about his views or political leanings, we quite literally don't know anything about this guy except he clashes with what he typically view as a person who does these things in regards to social status.

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Savant wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    vimmer wrote: »
    Mass shootings in America happen more out of fashion than ease of laws IMO.

    There are far more effective ways of killing tons of people, yet we don't see those occur with the same frequency.

    Not really or soldiers would carry those tools.

    You don't think soldiers carry explosives?

    Bombs are probably the most effective way to kill lots of people, but fortunately we don't have a bomb culture like we have a gun culture, and don't hem and haw about regulating and restricting access to explosives.

    And we don't have to deal with bullshit like "the only way to stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb".

    Bombs are also more complicated and dangerous to the perpetrator. Bomb making materials are largely illegal and traced so an amateur bomb maker has a high chance of hurting himself before they get deploy it on their target(s).

    Guns are used for mass killings because they ARE very effective thanks to convenience and ease of use. To suggest that there are "more effective ways" is utterly pointless. Just because they aren't the most effective tool for a mass killing doesn't change the fact they are still highly effective.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    vimmer wrote: »
    Mass shootings in America happen more out of fashion than ease of laws IMO.

    There are far more effective ways of killing tons of people, yet we don't see those occur with the same frequency.

    Not really or soldiers would carry those tools.

    You don't think soldiers carry explosives?

    Bombs are probably the most effective way to kill lots of people, but fortunately we don't have a bomb culture like we have a gun culture, and don't hem and haw about regulating and restricting access to explosives.

    And we don't have to deal with bullshit like "the only way to stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb".

    Bombs are also more complicated and dangerous to the perpetrator. Bomb making materials are largely illegal and traced so an amateur bomb maker has a high chance of hurting himself before they get deploy it on their target(s).

    Guns are used for mass killings because they ARE very effective thanks to convenience and ease of use. To suggest that there are "more effective ways" is utterly pointless. Just because they aren't the most effective tool for a mass killing doesn't change the fact they are still highly effective.

    This line of discussion has already been nixed, per the mods.

    Pls read the op.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    vimmer wrote: »
    If there is not a competent intent to incite pervading terror in the surviving populace, it’s not terrorism. And claiming you’re a terrorist doesn’t mean your crimes are automatically terrorism.

    And considering so many people are now chanting "We can't go anywhere anymore without getting shot!" (Despite the statistical probability of this being very low), it sounds like if that was his intent (IF, I again strongly emphasize) then mission accomplished.

    If that was not his intent, then he's just a mass murdering fuckwad.

    Either way, it's not a "reach" to link this to terrorism.

    People don’t actually believe that. They say that to influence government policy on guns and virtue signal their opposition to the current state of gun control.

    You're going to want to be *very* careful going down this road.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    vimmer wrote: »
    vimmer wrote: »
    If there is not a competent intent to incite pervading terror in the surviving populace, it’s not terrorism. And claiming you’re a terrorist doesn’t mean your crimes are automatically terrorism.

    And considering so many people are now chanting "We can't go anywhere anymore without getting shot!" (Despite the statistical probability of this being very low), it sounds like if that was his intent (IF, I again strongly emphasize) then mission accomplished.

    If that was not his intent, then he's just a mass murdering fuckwad.

    Either way, it's not a "reach" to link this to terrorism.

    People don’t actually believe that. They say that to influence government policy on guns and virtue signal their opposition to the current state of gun control.

    Bullshit I guarantee my mother is legitimately afraid of shit like this.

Sign In or Register to comment.