world

At least 50 people killed, 200 wounded at Las Vegas concert attack

119 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


119 Comments
Login to comment

Awful news. Not going to speculate at this stage, just hope that it ends without many casualties.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

just hope that it ends without many casualties.

Sounds like there are already too many casualties, including two too many fatalities.

Those photos look like shots out of a D-Life cop drama.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Seems to be from an automatic gun shooting down onto the country music concert from the ~30th floor in nearby Mandalay Bay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830IzRvjzpQ

Even in America, automatics are not easy to obtain even in the black market

There's no metal detectors in those hotels - guests typically just walk in with their luggage

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Country music concert. Those are attended overwhelmingly by a certain demographic, so I'm thinking hate crime/terrorism.

-20 ( +2 / -22 )

Latest news says at least 20 dead. That must have been some weapon.

Where do people get filthy devices like this?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

lostrune2: Seems to be from an automatic gun...Even in America, automatics are not easy to obtain even in the black market

The sound of the gunfire in the footage I've seen is insane. Bursts of constant firing. I know little about U.S. gun laws, so thanks for the info, lostrune. I fear that the fatality rate will grow over the next few hours, but like Cleo, I'm hoping for the sake of those there that it doesn't.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

From what I know, fully automatic rifles are prohibited by Federal law, but it's not too difficult to convert a semi-automatic to fully (I just googled it and found you can buy kits for around 200 dollars). I was just thinking the other day that the US has not had a mass shooting for a while - since Trump became president, more precisely.

This is a terrible tragedy, but rest assured: Nothing whatsoever will be done.

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131

8 ( +10 / -2 )

I believe, Toshiko, a frequent poster here, lives in that area. Hope she and hers are all safe.

Regardless of what kind of weapons used or who is attacked, and where, these incidents really make one despair. Really, really tired of reading of them.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

I was immediately thinking 'modded' AR-15, very popular semi-automatic rifle(hunting).

Hoping the death toll don't rise.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Trump will have something to work on instead of the kneeling.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

From The Guardian

Asked if the shooter was part of a militant group, Sheriff Lombardo said “no”.

It's not going to stop all the wild speculation at this early stage.

How could anybody, regardless of their motivations, do this to fellow human beings?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Sounds like the shooter was shooting people at the concert from the 32nd floor of that hotel? If so, no wonder there are so many dead. How many have to die before Americans realize the stupidly high price they have to pay to be able to 'bear arms'?

15 ( +19 / -4 )

Sounds like the shooter was shooting people at the concert from the 32nd floor of that hotel? If so, no wonder there are so many dead. How many have to die before Americans realize the stupidly high price they have to pay to be able to 'bear arms'?

No doubt some of those who still advocate gun use will say that knife attacks are just as dangerous. Except I'd imagine he'd have killed a lot less people with a knife from the 32nd floor...

Whether it's a hate crime, a terrorist attack, a postal, a school massacre etc - these crimes are exacerbated with guns being so easy to purchase or modify.

18 ( +19 / -1 )

I’m not going to speculate, but I have have a gnawing feeling what the results will turn out, but whatever the reason or motivation, it’s just sad that something like this could happen to innocent people that just only wanted to enjoy a concert. I pray for the injured and I pray for the ones that had to sadly die because of someone else’s selfish actions, at least this guy is dead and can’t hurt anyone anymore.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

It was a human being who somewhere along the line, lost his humanity.

And many have died as a result. This is what happens when you reduce human beings to little armies of the right and little armies of the left.

The truth and motivations often prove to be a bit more complex than such reductions and labelling.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

My guess for republican reactions=

1: Stricter gun control would do nothing! / More guns would have solved this.

2: Inb4 gun control liberals mix politics into this horrific incident. lmao!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There are currently two names being floated about online as to the identity of the shooter. Am not going to post here but it's easy to find out if you can't wait until official confirmation.

In the meantime; from the BBC

Nevada has some of the least stringent gun laws in the United States.

People are allowed to carry weapons and do not have to register themselves as a gun-owner.

Background checks are done when people buy guns, but they are also allowed to sell them privately.

The state does not ban assault weapons, which are automatic or semi-automatic firearms, and there are no limits on buying ammunition there.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41466116

5 ( +8 / -3 )

A real tragedy, for sure! It was just some nutter with a grudge and a modified weapon. It was an incident just like this that brought about the changes to the gun laws in Australia some 20 odd years ago, which reduced gun related deaths by 80% in the first year alone.

People often scorn Japan for the high suicide rate, which was around 26,000 people in 2016. However, by contrast, there were 33,000 gun related deaths in the US in 2016. Yeah, I know, guns don't kill people. People (with guns) kill people. "I need a gun to protect myself from other people with guns" That's just daft logic!

Condolences to the families of the dead, dying and injured. How many mass shootings does it take for the US to realise that having three times as many guns as people in the population is not such a good idea?

13 ( +15 / -2 )

Incredibly disgusting and not sure how an "armed population" could have done anything to help here except triggering a general slaughter with hundreds dead.. There are tens of millions of assault weapons in the US, so this tragically won't be anywhere near the last of these types of events and in fact will most likely get worse and worse as these deranged shooters learn from the mistakes of those who came before them

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Love it "stricter gun control" would do nothing.... oh yes it would... especially if the U.S. followed in Australia's footsteps. But no American Politician wants to get near the gun issue... I'll be they're happy this happened while no elections were going on.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

Stop the madness USA, stop the madness.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Educat: Thank you to worrying me. I live in Henderson, south of Vegas. More than 50 people dead and more than 200 injured, People around here avoid Vegas events.

16 ( +16 / -0 )

Just insane.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

In France today, a nutter with a knife killed 2 women. In the US today, a nutter with access to high powered automatic weapons has killed 50 people to date.

Wake up America.

19 ( +23 / -4 )

I will indeed pray for the dead and the city, but more than that I will pray that Americans FINALLY get it into their heads that guns are a MAJOR part of the problem. No way anyone could have done what Stephen did without guns. And the numbers will go up.

50 dead, and more than 200 injured -- all from one man. And some are going to say guns don't play a factor in those numbers.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Trump tweets:

My warmest condolences and sympathies to the victims and families of the terrible Las Vegas shooting. God bless you!

No mention of getting tough on terrorists, though. None of the usual rage or anger. "Warmest condolences" to the victims and their families. What does that mean?

12 ( +15 / -3 )

If the US didn't change laws when a gunman killed kids at an elementary school, they won't change now.

And with movies like John Wick and new TV shows like The Punisher making guns "look cool" , nothing will ever change. President after President, no one has done anything. It's disgusting actually, the NRA is bigger than them all.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

Trump tweeted condolences messages.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

These poor people didn't even know what hit them. To be at first enjoying a wonderful event, and then have it either take the life from you, or traumatize survivors of this brutal massacre for life, is more than one can comprehend. RIP to all have died from this tragic act of cruelty, and I hope all who have survived it, will be able to recover from this, both physically, and emotionally.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

President after President, no one has done anything. It's disgusting actually, the NRA is bigger than them all.

It's a cultural thing, apparently. I can't begin to understand it but there's got to be something fundamentally wrong when an organisation like the NRA can literally dictate the safety of US citizens by gun worship.

Any President, Democrat or Republican goes up against them and they're shot down - not literally, obviously.

No lessons will be learnt from this tragedy. The NRA narrative will be pushed and the terrorism angle (because it doesn't fit the usual agenda) will be played down.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

President after President, no one has done anything. It's disgusting actually, the NRA is bigger than them all.

If this was an assault or fully automatic weapon those have been banned before and still are in some states. Just way to early to tell.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

death toll is expected to be over 50! and America still wont do anything about the huge gun problem they have, the right will continue to state "guns dont kill guns, people kill guns" yet very few other tools are available to an individual (other than a bomb) that can kill so many people in a short period of time. Americas 2nd amendment will continue the slaughter.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

@Scrote

Absolutely. It's a terror attack, regardless of who was behind it and their motivations.

50 people. Maybe more. Dead.

Does it really make some here (not you) feel better if it was a Bernie supporter, a Trump supporter, a white guy, a black guy, etc etc that did it?

So it can be rationalised?

There needs to be rage over this. Not at a demographic or a people but at what kind of society as a whole makes guns so readily available?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"guns dont kill guns, people kill guns" sorry typo "guns dont kill people, people kill people"

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

And some are going to say guns don't play a factor in those numbers.

Smith, that's the final step in their normal gun-massacre playbook:

"Pray for (insert name)!" (This helps grab attention from their religious base and makes it sound as if they actually care beyond damage control.)

"This is not the time for political discussion!" and when it's pointed out that now is exactly the time for political discussion, doubling down with "You defile the victims memories by attempting to politicize this tragedy!"

Now finally armed with specifics dredged up by well-paid analysts, they will then politicize this tragedy by tailoring talking points to targeted demographics which, when viewed as a whole, mutually cancel each other out but serve their purpose in confusing the populace long enough until something new distracts their attention.

They'll then quietly tiptoe away to spend the hard-earned dollars the gun lobby has gratefully paid them and relax with the knowledge that, with subsequent massacres lined up like swells on a good day on Oahu's leeward coast, they'll never be out of a job.
11 ( +14 / -3 )

Absolutely. It's a terror attack, regardless of who was behind it and their motivations.

"Absolutely," eh? Jumping to conclusions, or what. It depends on the motivation of the killer and their affiliation with terror groups. At this point it seems it was a white American shooting at predominately other white Americans, which throws motivation into the dark.

Normally terrorists shoot people who are different from themselves, religiously, ethnically, or ideologically. The guy in Orlando, for example, had a vicious grudge against homosexuals, Jews and women when he killed 49.

We dont know this killer's story, although you've made up your mind already. I say: We shall see.

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

This is the price many American ppl are willing to pay for the 2nd amendment. Heavy price indeed.

18 ( +19 / -1 )

No doubt some of those who still advocate gun use will say that knife attacks are just as dangerous. Except I'd imagine he'd have killed a lot less people with a knife from the 32nd floor...

Doesn't make sense. If he didn't have a gun, how do you know he wouldn't have switched his method, say, drive a vehicle into a crowd like they've been doing in Europe all year long. That's equally fatal. Next time we hear about some nut job driving into an un suspecting crowd, will the anti-gun cattle moo as loud as they can about the easy access to vehicles?

-19 ( +1 / -20 )

We dont know this killer's story, although you've made up your mind already. I say: We shall see.

Do you think he caused terror amongst all those people?

At this point it seems it was a white American shooting at predominately other white Americans, which throws motivation into the dark.

Does it? Could be any number of reasons? Remember Timothy McVeigh?

Terrorism is terrorism.

15 ( +15 / -0 )

Police located the person of interest, Marylou Danley.

I am not sure but I think Nevada has gun control law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump apparently just offered his "warmest condolences." His awkward phrasing shows he's clearly not used to pretending he cares: "warm" is for something happy; "deep," for something sad.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

will the anti-gun cattle moo as loud as they can about the easy access to vehicles?

Guns kill more than vehicles or knives. You only have to look at the carnage in Vegas.

And I'd rather moo like a cow than shoot like a coward.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

I am not sure but I think Nevada has gun control law.

@toshiko;

From earlier:

Nevada has some of the least stringent gun laws in the United States.

People are allowed to carry weapons and do not have to register themselves as a gun-owner.

Background checks are done when people buy guns, but they are also allowed to sell them privately.

The state does not ban assault weapons, which are automatic or semi-automatic firearms, and there are no limits on buying ammunition there.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41466116

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Again!  America has been no doubt cursed by guns.  Can predict such tragedy happens forever as long as guns are there.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

 "Warmest condolences" to the victims and their families. What does that mean?

It means heartiest condolences. What's the problem?

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

If he didn't have a gun, how do you know he wouldn't have switched his method, say, drive a vehicle into a crowd like they've been doing in Europe all year long. That's equally fatal.

Really? Have 50 people been killed in any of those attacks?

1 ( +7 / -6 )

RIP to the victims. I hope there are no further causalities. Gun control is a huge issue that must be dealt with, sooner the better.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Guns kill more than vehicles or knives. You only have to look at the carnage in Vegas.

No, you just have to look at Nice, for example, to see that you're wrong:

A lorry was driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day near the seafront at Nice. 87 people were killed, including the attacker, and a further 458 were injured.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Laguna: "Trump apparently just offered his "warmest condolences." His awkward phrasing shows he's clearly not used to pretending he cares: "warm" is for something happy; "deep," for something sad."

How about you spend your time offering your own condolences, deep or warm or whatever, and stop trying to tear down people who are offering their own?

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

406 people are ion hospitals. The shooter's room is with many guns with more than 1.000 ammo. His room is at corner so he was shooting fffrom two locations.

He is a resident of Mesquite.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Not every mass killing is terrorism obviously such as the shooters at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Aurora etc....

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

A lorry was driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day near the seafront at Nice. 87 people were killed, including the attacker, and a further 458 were injured.

Does this imply that military grade weaponry should be as easy to acquire as renting a truck? I've rented vehicles. Piece of cake. Even if I murdered someone a long time ago I can still rent whatever vehicle I wanted as long as I pay the money and have a valid license. Same thing with buying a machine gun? That easy?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Yet another mass murder, the warfare arms are still in open rotation and unrestricted. "freedom" for all in exchange for the lives of some. Countdown starts anew.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Really? Have 50 people been killed in any of those attacks?

Almost 90 died in the Nice attack in France last year by a truck. The insanity of humans is just unfathomable at times.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

"Terrorism" is a crime committed with the intention to instill horror, terror. These degenerates? Natives. "Natives". I wonder if the simply wanted to have fun, being insane and blighted... Even though it might not have been a terroristic act, they still did instill terror in others. Those gunshots will resound throughout the history not only of the city, but the planet itself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Absolutely," eh? Jumping to conclusions, or what. It depends on the motivation of the killer and their affiliation with terror groups.

Lets broaden the term just a little. Gunfire for 4-5 minutes and 50 killed 200 injured. Every survivor was in terror. He’s a terrorist.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

We live in a society awash with guns and easy access to them. If that's the way we want to do things, then every now and then 50 people will get murdered at a concert or 20 kids will get shot at school. Since we have a group of people determined to never change the situation, then we just accept this tragedy, move on, wait for the next one, then start the process all over again.

Next up in the routine is to blame the mental healthcare in the US until this tragedy drops from the headlines.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

If the US didn't change laws when a gunman killed kids at an elementary school, they won't change now.

Yup. If a society decides that the slaughter of children doesn't need gun control, nothing will. These incidents will just keep happening, and with increasing numbers of dead and wounded.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Another sad and tragic shooting spree there. I'm very sorry knowing that it has been happening all the time and, to make it worse, it won't stop in the future unfortunately. The fact that US people do not make an action on their stupid gun law makes me deeply confused and frustrated.

My condolences to the victims and their families/ friends and hopefully no more further casualty among the wounded.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Was at work for a few hours and now back to find the death toll has gone from more than 20 to more than 50... horrible.

Toshiko, very glad you're safe! I know Henderson, used to have both friends and family living there. But I only visited there once and now they've all died or moved away.

Disillusioned, I often disagree with you but I agree completely with your comment here.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Dan Lewis,

How about you spend your time offering your own condolences, deep or warm or whatever, and stop trying to tear down people who are offering their own.

Forgive my cynicism. The GOP is currently pushing a bill through congress now that, among other things, remove restrictions on the purchase and use of gun silencers. I have no doubt that Trump would sign it if it makes its way to his desk, just as I have no doubt Trump would veto any bill restricting guns in any way by a hypothetical Dem-controlled congress after the '18 elections. It's not that Trump is particularly pro-gun; he's simply well-attuned to who butters his bread.

Anyone who's reached my age and has been paying even a modicum of attention gets used to this: ostentatious displays of prayers and condolences followed by, at best, zero countermeasures - at best, I say, because, like that silencer bill, certain factions will push for laws which simply aggravate the mayhem.

So, please, save me the tears. As I mentioned above, this will disappear like a pebble tossed into the Pacific within a few weeks, just like all of the previous massacres have, due in great part to the perfidy of those feigning sorrow today.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The latest info released was that the gunman shot himself outside of his room.

His house was searched after searchers made sure no booby trap.

Mandalay guests carried luggages to Thomas Mack Center to stay and locals gave them blankets.

406 people are in various hospitals.

Obama and Clinton messaged condolences.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

North Korea and China have less censorship than here. They're out of control. They have even started arguing their opinions in the email sent to tell you they've censored your opinion.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The bigger tragedy happened again, but people would forget this tomorrow just like nothing happened until another one happens. It seems that people who love to own guns dont care about future tragedies. Therefore more guns more tragedies.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

If he didn't have a gun, how do you know he wouldn't have switched his method, say, drive a vehicle into a crowd like they've been doing in Europe all year long. That's equally fatal.

What an absolutely absurd statement! I'm sure the families of the 33,000 people killed by guns in the US during 2016 would disagree with you.

I suppose this attack is the downside of having the world's largest armed civilian army.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

I'm pretty sure that "Rocket Man" would give up his nuclear ambitions before Americans willingly gave up their right to "bear arms." Sad as it is.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

What an absolutely absurd statement! I'm sure the families of the 33,000 people killed by guns in the US during 2016 would disagree with you.

Trying to divert our attention away with the passed pawn, eh, buddy boy? Nice try, but stay on topic for my guinness's sake!

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Some people aren't sympathetic by nature, especially those with limited vocabulary. I just saw his statement, it was pretty de rigueur and I don't blame him for that either. Not much else he could say. Once again there are big questions about gun ownership in American society, how is he going to respond to them without rattling his loyalists? I seriously doubt that his admin has the ability to deal with that, hurricanes & NFL players at the same time.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

By the way, Trump said this too:

President Trump on deadly Las Vegas shooting: 'It was an act of pure evil'

I suppose you're going to hate on him for that as well?

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Trump was very sincere when he said he will visit Vegas on Wednesday.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

And the FOOLS will still choose to keep their guns. Well, as they say, you can't cure STUPID.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Every time US citizens are afraid gun laws will become more restrictive, not guns banned just more restrictive, gun sales go up dramatically.

I firmly believe many Americans will let 50 innocent people die in a mass shooting than have stricter gun laws.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Terrorism is terrorism.

Terrorism can be defined in various ways. I don't get the point. Why don't we just call it murder?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I firmly believe many Americans will let 50 innocent people die in a mass shooting than have stricter gun laws.

People in love tend not to listen to reason, and this love is unconditional.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Metro Sheriff said 58 people died and more than 500 people are in hospitals. Then a US official said the gunman has no connection with international terrorist group. Hospital stuffs said they are working to keep

patients alive. One of speaker said that a robot entered the killers house first.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I firmly believe many Americans will let 50 innocent people die in a mass shooting than have stricter gun laws. unfortunately as another poster just stated the Sandy Cook massacre there were 20 kids aged 6~7 that were gunned downed that didn't change the opinions of gun owners or bring about any changes. Im afraid the recalcitrant attitudes of pro-gun owners and their 2nd amendments rights are more valued than 10,000+ gun related deaths in America every year. So the cycle will continue, another mascara , more shock bewilderment, memories fade until the next massacre.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

This isn't an argument for or against gun control in the US, I just would like to correct some misinformation before it spreads any further.

Fully automatic weapons (meaning hold the trigger down for continued fire) ARE illegal for civilians to own in the United States, including Las Vegas.

The only way to legally own automatic weapons is with a class III firearms license which is very difficult and expensive to obtain (and maintain). Most legal automatic weapons (which are also prohibitively expensive) are in the hands of places like movie production companies and gun ranges that rent them out for the 'experience' of firing an automatic rifle.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why don't we just call it murder? the correct word is massacre

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Those same politicians in charge who support gun rights and say this is a mental health issue are the first politicians to cut funding to mental health facilities.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Investigation will be continued to Northern Nevada about 7 hours drive distance because the killer owns properties. The person of interest is out of country right now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gun owners are angry about this... because it makes their justifying the shooter having 10 guns a lot harder (not so much, if at all, about more than 50 dead and 400 wounded). And this isn't even the first shooting incident this week!

Mr. Noidall: "A lorry was driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day near the seafront at Nice. 87 people were killed, including the attacker, and a further 458 were injured."

So, all trucks should be banned? Forgive me, but trucks serve a purpose -- many, really, and none of them killing. Guns serve one -- to kill. You need trucks. You do not need guns. But since you insist on bringing that up -- how many people killed by trucks like the incident you mentioned (let's say, in all of recorded history!) vs. those killed by guns in the US so far this year alone, or last year?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Gun owners are angry about this... because it makes their justifying the shooter having 10 guns a lot harder (not so much, if at all, about more than 50 dead and 400 wounded). And this isn't even the first shooting incident this week! 

I don’t feel anything, I don’t know a single gun owner that’s trying to make an excuse because we have nothing to do with this tragedy. By the way, I love how you and all the Europeans like to scream and yell and get so bent out of shape because of our rights to bear arms, but at the same time, shrug your shoulders every time there is a terror attack. Yeah, it’s sad and tragic, but that’s just the way of life. Ok, if you guys are content with accepting growing radical Jihadism and that’s your right, I don’t live there and I don’t care how Europeans conduct their lives, but in America, I have the right to defend myself and again, it’s tragic what happened, but as far as some left looney gun legislation sweeping through congress to stop us or our 2nd amendment, good luck with that.

So, all trucks should be banned? Forgive me, but trucks serve a purpose -- many, really, and none of them killing.

But recently, it’s the flavor of the year and easy to hijack

Guns serve one -- to kill.

Yes, I’m a hunter and I can’t kill my deer with one

Being a gun owner that comes with both pros and cons, but the pros outweigh the cons.

Yes, I’m a hunter and I can’t kill my deer with one.

You need trucks. You do not need guns.

That’s your personal opinion.

But since you insist on bringing that up -- how many people killed by trucks like the incident you mentioned (let's say, in all of recorded history!) vs. those killed by guns in the US so far this year alone, or last year?

Its a losing argument, the right will never concede to giving up on the 2nd amendment.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

Even if gun supporters believe change could reduce the number of senseless murders like this, they will not support anything that would restrict their rights with guns. They will shake their heads at Vegas and give their sympathies, but no, the laws will not be changing. It's just life in America and you do your best not to get caught up in the crossfire.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

515 people were injured and many others were critically injured. They needed to be in medical centers. So truck owners rushed to volunteer and brought victims to medical facilities.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The number of casualties is simply unreal. How could one person caused such carnage? Are we sure there was no other gunners?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

USA may be an English speaking country but it is unfathomable when it comes to gun control. Enough will never be enough.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

First of all I am not a huge gun owner. I do have two pistols for target practice. Second thing is that you have to have a Federal License to acquire automatic weapons. The license is so strict it will take two years to get. You have to be registered, licensed, background check, fingerprints, and money to get these weapons. Plus too they dont make anymore of them since 1986. So people gun control was in force and he still killed people.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

This is actually already the 3rd mass shooting in the US this weekend

US is a country that has accepted that mass shoo

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I wonder how many gun nuts are thinking "well if I was there with my conceal carry I coulda done somthin' " mentality.

Death toll is at 50 with 400+ injured. And NRA wants to try and to push silencers into the mix "to protect hearing for hunters..." Like that needs to be added into the mix. Humanity is full of too much evil.

What compassion I have left goes out for the victims, but I don't think the people that need to wise up to the situation are going to change their ways...

As I said, the NRA has helped to promote an unhealthy gun culture in the US. And we keep living with the results of the gun lobbyists all the time.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Really? Have 50 people been killed in any of those attacks?

Strangerland - The semi truck attack in Nice France that killed over 80+ people and wounded over 400+ springs to mind.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

What I want to know.

Reports say that 10 guns were found in the room, didn't they cleaning staff notice the arsenal and found it strange and report it.

Hotel room after all.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Until the US government puts a tighter gun control polices in place this type of news will carry on every other week. it disgusting watching these scenes on the TV and reading about them in the news. the NRA should hang its head in shame, but I suppose its to arrogant to do so as it is not there fault. I just hope terrorist don't get any idea's and try and copy cat it.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

59 dead and 500+ injured. There is no reason for people to own these automatic weapons. They sure aren't for hunting animals.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I don’t feel anything,

Why not?

By the way, I love how you and all the Europeans like to scream and yell and get so bent out of shape because of our rights to bear arms, but at the same time, shrug your shoulders every time there is a terror attack.

Ah, the gun-toting right. They might as well be from another planet; they just don't get it. The beligerence and aggression alienates a lot of people, including fellow Americans.

Anyway; please make your mind up. You regularly claim you could "care less" what other people think.

But here's my tuppence worth. People died, in their dozens and there's a correlation between the needless deaths and America's gun worship.

Barbaric.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

extanker - This isn't an argument for or against gun control in the US, I just would like to correct some misinformation before it spreads any further.

Fully automatic weapons (meaning hold the trigger down for continued fire) ARE illegal for civilians to own in the United States, including Las Vegas.

The only way to legally own automatic weapons is with a class III firearms license which is very difficult and expensive to obtain (and maintain).

Fully automatic weapons ARE illegal OR are legal to own with a class III license? Which statement is misinformation?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Bill O’Reilly: Vegas Shooting ‘The Price of Freedom’

Many Americans may agree with him. The rest of the world disagrees.

Americans, you cannot blame Kim Jong Un for this. Giving more and more to the Pentagon will not help. Why cannot you see the the greatest threats to your life come from within your country?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Even if gun supporters believe change could reduce the number of senseless murders like this, they will not support anything that would restrict their rights with guns.

I believe we need more mental institutions, because the majority of these whacked loons are mentally unbalanced, it just doesn't add up when you look at this guy, his family, something is just out of place. We should focus more on the individual rather than the firearm itself.

They will shake their heads at Vegas and give their sympathies, but no, the laws will not be changing. It's just life in America and you do your best not to get caught up in the crossfire.

Trust me, many us shake our heads at what's happening in Europe as well, but the Europeans say they have a handle on it, ok, so be it. And we have a handle on ours. Europe won't change its position on radical Jihadism and we won't change on the 2nd amendment.

Strangerland - The semi truck attack in Nice France that killed over 80+ people and wounded over 400+ springs to mind.

Bingo!

Ah, the gun-toting right. They might as well be from another planet; they just don't get it. The beligerence and aggression alienates a lot of people, including fellow Americans.

Ahh, the 2nd amendment haters, they just don't and never will get it.

But here's my tuppence worth. People died, in their dozens and there's a correlation between the needless deaths and America's gun worship.

I blame the guy and I wonder about his mental stability as to why he did it, that should be the real focus. Libs should stop this stupid war on the 2nd amendment, won't go anywhere,

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

it’s just sad that something like this could happen to innocent people that just only wanted to enjoy a concert.

No, it isn't sad. It's outrageous. And it's outrageous that in the face of news like this, your first reaction is to hug your own deer-killing gun.

Terrorism can be defined in various ways.

My dictionary defines it as *the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, *in the pursuit of political aims.

As usual IS is jumping in saying the gunman was one of theirs, a recent convert; until evidence to back it up emerges, a claim probably to be taken with a large pinch of salt. It's hard to see what political aim was being pursued here, unless it was the (apparently doomed to be fruitless) aim of getting guns finally banned in America.

A nutter with a gun. Lots of guns. Not hunting guns. Using them to kill and maim innocent people. Another day in America.

The semi truck attack in Nice France that killed over 80+ people and wounded over 400+ springs to mind.

Yes, it springs to mind because it was such a singular event. Gun massacres in the US, on the other hand, all conglomerate into a hazy mass.... how many killed by gun nuts so far this year? Yes, I've lost count, too. Or rather, we don't bother to keep count; we have no idea unless we look up statistics. It happens so often, it doesn't even make the news unless it's particularly gruesome, or wacko, or involves very large numbers of dead and injured.

in America, I have the right to defend myself

Great. So how would you have defended yourself against this nutter, spraying bullets from on high?

you guys are content with accepting growing radical Jihadism and that’s your right, I don’t live there

Lifetime odds of getting killed in America by a foreign-born terrorist: 1 in 45,808.

Lifetime odds of getting killed in America by accidental gunshot: 1 in 7,945.

Lifetime odds of getting killed in America by assault by gun: 1 in 358.

http://www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1

I don’t know a single gun owner that’s trying to make an excuse

Look in the mirror.

*Trust me, many us shake our heads at what's happening in Europe as well, but the Europeans say they have a handle on it, ok, so be it. And *we have a handle on ours

Terrorism in Europe has killed 11,288 people in 18,811 attacks since January 1970, according to the University of Maryland National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/a-history-of-terrorism-in-europe/

Meanwhile an average of some 33,000 gun deaths per year occur in America: from 1970 to the present, that works out at 1.5 million.

https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-death-stats-in-perspective-3303385

I hate to think what the numbers would be if you didn't have a handle on it, bass.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Laguna - I get it. Trump is basically an awful guy. But how about commenting something like: "Those are nice words, but how about taking some meaningful action..." and fill in the rest?

I don't support Trump, but try to recognize anything he, or others do that is positive.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I blame the guy and I wonder about his mental stability

Hmm. Not blaming anyone else; or any organisation. Good to know.

as to why he did it, that should be the real focus. Libs should stop this stupid war on the 2nd amendment, won't go anywhere,

Not a lib and not an American. Just hate to see your country being riven apart by violence. A violence that some it seems, won't face up to. And blame external factors rather than the cancer within.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Unfortunate. Dreadful. Life goes on. It isn't an epidemic, until it hits home. That's when it takes just one shot, one bullet too much. I wouldn't wish anything personal to happen to anyone, especially readers of this forum.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's a matter of numbers

What percentage do ya surmise of regular people who, for one reason or another, somehow ends up going postal? 1%? Half of a percent?

Now apply that percentage to those regular people who can access high magazine guns

As the # of those regular people grows, the percentage can remain the same, but the absolute # of that percentage would still grow too

So as the # of those regular people grows, the populace just gonna have to accept that mass shooting is becoming the new reality - it's just unavoidable numbers

People aren't shocked anymore - dismayed, but not shocked (the 4 worst mass shootings in US history occurred in the last 10 years - before Columbine 1999, it's relatively rare - nowadays it's not)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Dan Lewis,

I don't support Trump, but try to recognize anything he, or others do that is positive.

You're right - I've been unduly harsh on Trump, using the neophyte to denote the GOP in general. Okay, here goes: I appreciate that Trump stuck like epoxy to his teleprompter instead of verbalizing, as he is wont to do, his stream of consciousness, thus avoiding saying anything horrible. I appreciate that Trump hasn't tweeted about this yet. I appreciate that he was once against assault rifles until he was for them: it shows a human side of him, the ability to compromise a belief crucial to the well-being of your fellow man because you've subordinated your ethics to your ambition. Who among us hasn't been there?

Have I missed anything?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Its funny how this incident hasn't made trump open his eyes to the bigger problem in the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Meanwhile an average of some 33,000 gun deaths per year occur in America: from 1970 to the present, that works out at 1.5 million.

https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-death-stats-in-perspective-3303385

I hate to think what the numbers would be if you didn't have a handle on it, bass.

Lets put the deaths into context shall we? The USA on average has 2-3 millions death annually from all causes combined. Gun violence basically makes up ~1% of all deaths in the USA each year, or about a 10 per 100,000. To further put that into context 10 per 100,000 is one hundredth of one percent, in other words it would take 100 years before one percent of the population was killed from a gun.

In general would you claim that if a product, service, hobby, activity, etc was to kill in a population at an annual rate of one hundredth of one percent that it is out of control?

To put gun deaths further into context more people die on a per capita rate from Alcohol in Japan, UK, Australia, Germany, Canada, USA, etc. than the firearm death rate in the USA. Would you claim that all of these countries don't have a handle on the problem of Alcohol in their societies?

Me personally I think it is disingenuous to claim that when a product kills one hundredth of one percent of the population annually that it is out of control or that a society doesn't have a handle on it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Correct me if I am wrong, but the right to bear arms and the 2nd amendment was implemented at a time when the US was establishing independence from Britain, and essentially existed because the fledgeling country could not at that time, form a standing army to defend itself from existential threats and therefore relied on the people, organised into 'well regulated militia' to defend the country if required.

By the mid 1800's, this was already obsolete, as the US did have a standing Army by that time.

I know that many Pro-Gun posters and people hold the 2nd amendment close to their chest like a precious newborn, but it strikes me that the ideology behind it has long been distorted over time, so that they perceive it to be entirely different to what it was intended to be. It seems to be an ideology that is divorced from history.

I also get the sense that, to a certain extent, these people are willing to accept these domestic killings as a by-product of their culture. This guy was a wealthy, white retiree. It's inevitable that he will get painted as a loner/mentally ill/socially dysfunctional, but look at his brother's reaction - that was very telling. The killer was very, very American, exercising his rights to get and have guns.

In any event, nothing will change any time soon, you can see it in the voracity of the defence. America has made it's bed, and has to lie in it. These things are already yearly occurrences, and aren't enough to change minds. 1 man, over 500 victims. Wow man.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tamarama, don't forget that your above statement says "to bear arms" it says nothing about firearms, arms really implies a stick or knife, plank of wood, pitch fork, a wooden pole with a nail in it, as it says to bear arms. as for the fully automatic gun or machine gun why on earth does a general member of the public need one?? other than a collectors item, they are not very good for hunting, way to big and cumbersome for day to day protection. these type of assault rifles were made for one thing and thats front line troops, yet again why does a member of the general pubic need one?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

other than a collectors item, they are not very good for hunting, way to big and cumbersome for day to day protection. these type of assault rifles were made for one thing and thats front line troops, yet again why does a member of the general pubic need one?

Brian Wheway - If they are good for killing humans then they would be effective at killing game animals. I have never really understood the assertion that a gun can be effective for killing humans but it some how loses its ability to kill other animals.

A lot of soldiers that I know that own a personal AR-15 like rifle will say that if it is good enough to defend my country then it is good enough to defend my home and family.

As for the "need" the answer to that is they probably don't "need" it, but so what? Unless you are asserting that people should only be allowed to own "needs" and should be prohibited from owning "wants", which I wouldn't agree with, if not then there is really no point to the "need" question other than to act as a euphemism for "I just don't approve of this therefore you should not be allowed own one".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Noliving, I would like to respond to your comment,

If they are good for killing humans then they would be effective at killing game animals,

Your sort of on the wrong path here, assault rifles are for front line troops, so yes when you pull the trigger its spray bullets and kill, if you have ever talked to a true hunter or game warden they use a highly accurate bolt action single shot rifle, they will take a single shot with the intention of dispatching the deer in one single shot, its quick and instant death, the last thing they want is to cause a long painful death or suffering, but using an assault rifle this is not the case, the poor animal will be shot numerous times possibly leading to a slow and painful death, so using an assault rifle to go deer hunting is a ludicrous statement.

A lot of soldiers that I know that own a personal AR-15 like rifle will say that if it is good enough to defend my country then it is good enough to defend my home and family.

please check out this you tube link Jim Jefferies -- Gun Control (Part 1) from BARE -- Netflix Special

there is also a part 2 its just as funny . I still say that the general public should not be allowed to own a fully auto gun, there is no good reason for owning one! other than a want.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Brian Wheway,

I'm going to quote myself here because I guess you missed it. This isn't my opinion on guns, this is a fact.

Fully automatic weapons (meaning hold the trigger down for continued fire) ARE illegal for civilians to own in the United States, including Las Vegas.

The only way to legally own automatic weapons is with a class III firearms license which is very difficult and expensive to obtain (and maintain). Most legal automatic weapons (which are also prohibitively expensive) are in the hands of places like movie production companies and gun ranges that rent them out for the 'experience' of firing an automatic rifle.

The general public is ALREADY forbidden to own fully automatic weapons. The law restricting them was enacted way back in 1986. I don't know if people just want to remain willfully ignorant or are afraid that if admitting that the weapon used was already illegal will hurt their anti-gun argument, but either way, facts are facts. I find it funny that someone had actually downvoted for simply stating a straight fact about gun laws without any opinion whatsoever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe we need more mental institutions, because the majority of these whacked loons are mentally unbalanced, yes but many of these loons weren't initially unbalanced when they got their guns, life pressures etc changed them. how do you keep track of the millions of guns owners mental health over the period of their lives, do you make all gun owners go to a shrink a couple times a year? who decides if theyve become unstable and should have their guns taken away? Gun control and mental health checks need to go hand in hand, cant have one without the other. Cant send a drug addict to rehab while still letting them keep their supply of cocaine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To put gun deaths further into context more people die on a per capita rate from Alcohol in Japan, UK, Australia, Germany, Canada, USA, etc. than the firearm death rate in the USA. yet ive never known anybody that uses alcohol to kill somebody other than themselves. 30% of all mass shooting in the world are by Americans, Americas homicide rate from guns is one of the highest in the world.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Your sort of on the wrong path here, assault rifles are for front line troops, so yes when you pull the trigger its spray bullets and kill, if you have ever talked to a true hunter or game warden they use a highly accurate bolt action single shot rifle, they will take a single shot with the intention of dispatching the deer in one single shot, its quick and instant death, the last thing they want is to cause a long painful death or suffering, but using an assault rifle this is not the case, the poor animal will be shot numerous times possibly leading to a slow and painful death, so using an assault rifle to go deer hunting is a ludicrous statement.

That is more due to tradition, not necessarily effectiveness. What determines if the animal will be killed by a single gun shot has more to do with caliber and shot placement. You can buy semi-automatics and Fully automatics in the same caliber as Bolt Actions rifles and you can hit the same part of an animals body just as effectively. Also just like a Bolt Action firearm, this is especially true with Semi-Automatics, you can fire just one shot with them at a time.

Just because someone is using a Semi-Automatic or even a Fully Automatic firearm doesn't mean they are just spraying the animal with bullets, unless of course you are using a shotgun in which case you are no matter what type of action you are using.

please check out this you tube link Jim Jefferies -- Gun Control (Part 1) from BARE -- Netflix Special

there is also a part 2 its just as funny . I still say that the general public should not be allowed to own a fully auto gun, there is no good reason for owning one! other than a want.

I have seen his show and yes I agree with him that the vast majority of it is they simply want one, with that said rifles and shotguns and other long guns can in fact be effective for home defense. Additionally I would claim that Jim, and as well as you, are just the other side of the same coin and that is you just simply don't approve of people owning and using Fully Automatics and Semi-Automatics for recreation and because of that you believe people should be prohibited from being able to use such firearms for recreation.

Need is not a requirement in order to own a produce, use a service, etc for non-malicious reasons.

Unless you are claiming that people should only be allowed to own "needs" and not be allowed to own "wants" then there is really no point to the "need" question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the last thing they want is to cause a long painful death or suffering

The last thing they want is their precious meat/trophy riddled with bullets that then have to be removed before their victim can be eaten/mounted on the wall.

Sickening to come here first thing in the morning and read people discussing effective ways to kill.

Unless you are claiming that people should only be allowed to own "needs" and not be allowed to own "wants" then there is really no point to the "need" question.

You're looking at it from the wrong end. It isn't about what should be allowed, it's about what needs to be removed from society to make it healthy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're looking at it from the wrong end. It isn't about what should be allowed, it's about what needs to be removed from society to make it healthy.

I can't say that I agree. If you are going to ask the question why someone "needs xyz" in order to have the product or receive a service, etc. Then my interpretation/expectation is that you are then claiming that people should only be allowed own products, receive services if they have a "need" for it and that "wants" should be banned.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Further restrictions on firearm possession is an issue that must be discussed.

However, will the availability of fertilizer also be discussed after the next Timothy McVeigh comes along?

As awful as it sounds, people do come to live with such incidents. And, yes, the injured and the kin of the dead are scarred for life, but go on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ Cleo. the last thing they want is to cause a long painful death or suffering

The last thing they want is their precious meat/trophy riddled with bullets that then have to be removed before their victim can be eaten/mounted on the wall.

This may be the case for some people that are into blood sports, but what I am talking about is professional people like game wardens, estate management, as here in the UK red deer can be a problem as red deer can bread quite successfully, and the heard need to be controlled and managed, your statement is sort of correct and i can see where your coming from but it is a bit over the top. young deer don't really have any big antlers so trophy hunters won't do that, there and hundreds of small young male deer that are shot, this is how its controlled, as for eating the meat, what do you suggest, that its just left there to rot?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you are going to ask the question why someone "needs xyz" in order to have the product or receive a service

But that isn't the question. The question is, How do you stop ridiculous numbers of people being killed on a regular basis in a so-called developed, civilised nation? The obvious answer is to get rid of what is doing all the killing.

my interpretation/expectation is that you are then claiming that people should only be allowed own products, receive services if they have a "need" for it and that "wants" should be banned.

If it's something that causes harm, death and destruction to the general population, hell yeah you'd better demonstrate a need before you're allowed to get your hands on whatever it is that has the potential to kill your kids and your neighbours dead. Are you allowed to buy radioactive fuel, semtex, arsenic pills, anthrax agents, sarin, etc., over the counter to keep at home or on your person just because you want to? Why should lethal firearms be any different?

what I am talking about is professional people like game wardens, estate management

They aren't the people who have been all over the topic, telling us they need guns to feed their passion for killing wildlife.

as for eating the meat, what do you suggest, that its just left there to rot?

I don't eat meat, so I don't see any good in turning Bambi into steaks. Leaving him to rot would be unhygienic; a dignified cremation, maybe? Or stop arbitrarily messing up the environment so that herd populations don't get out of balance and 'need to be controlled and managed'.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

But that isn't the question. The question is, How do you stop ridiculous numbers of people being killed on a regular basis in a so-called developed, civilised nation? The obvious answer is to get rid of what is doing all the killing.

I disagree that it isn't the question considering your statement just below what I'm quoting and also the fact that the question is asking why does anyone need said firearm. Lets say that isn't the question, in that case the "need" question then isn't a fair question because it is falsely claiming/implying that people need to have "need" in order to own said products/receive services when in fact the person asking the question is now claiming that actually the person doesn't have to have a "need" but doesn't inform the person the question is being directed at of that fact.

If it's something that causes harm, death and destruction to the general population, hell yeah you'd better demonstrate a need before you're allowed to get your hands on whatever it is that has the potential to kill your kids and your neighbours dead. Are you allowed to buy radioactive fuel, semtex, arsenic pills, anthrax agents, sarin, etc., over the counter to keep at home or on your person just because you want to? Why should lethal firearms be any different?

Which is pretty much everything. Everything causes harm, death and destruction to the general population. So now we are circling back to the argument that everyone should only be allowed to own "needs" and not be allowed to own "wants". You are claiming in your first statement that isn't the question but now are claiming actually it is.

The reason why those things are heavily restricted/banned is not due to "need" but rather that the benefits of the product don't outweigh the cost of the product. That is not the same thing as having to have a "need" to have access to a product/receive a service.

It also means that if a new use is found for said products/services where its benefits out weighed the costs then it would become legal to be used that way or if the benefits were to over time start to out weigh those costs for the banned uses then those uses would become legal.

If we are making the claim that the benefits of recreational gun ownership don't outweigh its costs then it would be fair to ask what is the methodology that was used to come to that conclusion, it would also be fair to say that if you are going to be fair about this then that the methodology that was used to come to that conclusion would then apply to everything single product and service, meaning we have created a benchmark.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites