world

Las Vegas massacre probe turns to gunman's girlfriend in Philippines

137 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

137 Comments
Login to comment

Financially well-off, that's an understatement, he was a freaking multi-millionaire real estate investor. Which makes this move even more mysterious

14 ( +14 / -0 )

As time goes by... is the same as When pigs fly. I don't expect DT will do a darned thing, do you?

7 ( +11 / -4 )

I believe that what we have to do is to stop trying to identify what was wrong as a means of stopping these things from happening. Of course we're going to try to understand why a particular person did something - but that's not, in and of itself a solution to people killing others with guns.  

We have to acknowledge that some people are going to commit terrible acts and they will 'find' a reason to do so. We can't identify every person in the US who is going to do these things - so trying to 'stop' whatever supposedly made them do this isn't a solution. After all, a lot of these people appear normal to others. It's not like they're wearing a sign that says - "Hey, I'm about to go kill my coworkers or my ex wife or a whole bunch of people at a concert." 

That leaves us with only one thing we can effectively focus on - the guns and weapons. We need to regulate them just like we do driving/flying/ practicing medicine - actually virtually anything that could cause harm in the hands of the wrong person.  

We can't stop everything - but that's no excuse for not recognizing that we can do a lot to thwart this kind of thing and we should be doing it. We have to recognize that there IS no good reason for a person to collect an arsenal of semi-automatic or automatic weapons or to be able to modify guns into weapons that are solely designed to kill people - lots of them.

15 ( +20 / -5 )

one of these events could take place every week in the US but nothing would change....US politicians are either too gutless or too compromised by the gun lobby to do anything about it....

13 ( +19 / -6 )

Southern Democrats originally pushed gun control after the Civil War because they were scared of former slaves being armed. Their motivation for pushing gun control now is basically the same, they fear an armed populace who may not agree with their policies that favor urbanites and globalist elites.

-1 ( +13 / -14 )

Any word on the medications he was taking?

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

That the mass murderer spectrum includes rich, white males should come as no surprise to anyone. (Google ‘rich are morally different’ or ‘rich psychopaths’.)

What most US mass murderers have in common is easy access to legal weapons that in any civilized country would only be allowed to be owned by the police and military. By permitting its citizens and even those on terrorist lists to possess semi-automatic weapons, including .50 caliber rifles and handguns, that can be converted to fully automatic, the US has shown it’s no longer a civilized nation. 

This murderer was another gun fetishist. Police departments throughout the country should start registering ALL Americans owning multiple weapons. There seems to be a strong correlation between weak, unstable men and gun ownership.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

We need to regulate them just like we do driving/flying/ practicing medicine

He passed the background checks required to purchase those (admittedly numerous) weapons, so what do you propose?

actually virtually anything that could cause harm in the hands of the wrong person.

What if he had decided to ram a dump truck through the crowd instead? How could one regulate that from happening? The unfortunate truth is, if someone is bent on killing, they will find a way.

-6 ( +9 / -15 )

Had he watched Schindler's List recently? When hearing that he was shooting people from a high up vantage point, it reminded me of that terrible scene in the movie.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

He passed the background checks required to purchase those (admittedly numerous) weapons, so what do you propose?

Actually, all we know is that he was a customer of a guns and guitars shop and he cleared background checks. But did he really purchase all those weapons? I would be curious to see videos of him carrying all those weapons into the hotel.

I am surprised they never seem to mention his dad, who has an interesting (and relevant) history.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

They're desperate to humanize him and find a reason for this gun massacre aren't they, so they can blame that reason instead. They should do that for all criminals and killers. I'm sure they do.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

He passed the background checks required to purchase those (admittedly numerous) weapons, so what do you propose?

Many ideas are proposed. Eliminating assault rifles is one. Restricting gun magazine capacity and the ease with which they can be replaced (as California has already done) is another. These are common-sense ideas which would not unduly infringe on self-protection or hunting, the two most common stated purposes of guns.

Unfortunately, the NRA-led GOP has proposed other ideas. Allowing gun owners from one state to transport weapons through another though they're illegal there is one. If the bill passes, non-California residents could ignore California's magazine restrictions and follow their home state's instead. Permitting armor-piercing ammunition (currently mostly illegal) as long as the manufacturer certifies it is intended only for hunting is another. This invokes the "Mad Chuckle of Despair" factor for two obvious reasons: Animals tend to eschew Kevlar, and no criminal is going to be deterred by some warning printed on the cartridge box, "For use on Bambi only. Do not use on peace officers."

So, yeah, there are lots of ideas, some helpful, others harmful. You can guess which will make it through the GOP-controlled congress and be signed into law by Trump once the public's attention moves on.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

"Because I can."

In light of Laguna above. When sense is not common any more, then perhaps the present super-relaxed laws and their supporters are the madness.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

His father was a bank robber who spent sox years in jail. Then, FBI placed his father to one of a few men in 'Most Wanted Man'' list Figure where he digs his money. Date and receiver unknown. He sent $100.000 to Philippine. His 62 yrs. of girl friend was in Tokyo. But she is in Philippine now. Will be back in Vegas safely tomorrow.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

One day the US might finally realize that guns do kill people, just like tobacco does. It took a long time for cigarette companies to be sued for making deadly products but it happened. Let's hope the same thing happens with gun makers. The one fact that cannot be denied is that if there are no guns available to the general public then there can be no shootings. No guns should be the final goal and you can start by holding a gun amnesty like Australia did so successfully.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

The automatic that was used was obtained illegally so no amount of gun control would not have stopped this tragedy.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

"We'll be talking about gun laws as time goes by," said Trump, who strongly supported gun rights during his presidential campaign.

This might actually be an issue where Trump will do the right thing. Before the campaign back when Trump was a Democrat, Trump criticized the Republicans for being bought by the NRA and never doing anything about gun laws. He's also a New Yorker and city person at heart, so I doubt he has any genuine fondness for guns. It was probably just another means to win over the base of the party he chose.

Maybe he'll actually push for stricter gun laws... But then again maybe he won't. Who knows with him.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It’s going to be awhile before anyone knows as to why this guy did what he did and we may never really know the full reason.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Where are the labels of terrorism, violent gun culture, white on white crime, bad family upbringing, and un American?

Another example of white privilege is always calling every white mass shooters a lone wolf even though some of them have clear ties to racist groups. His father was a criminal. He obtained illegal firearms. He wired funds overseas, and his girlfriend fled the country.

Despite committing one of the most heinous crimes this year, the shooter is fondly being remembered as a country music fan in the news! :(

If people can't admit the truth then how do they expect to solve the problem.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Kobe White Bar

The automatic that was used was obtained illegally so no amount of gun control would not have stopped this tragedy.

As far as I read, he didn't obtain an automatic. He legally bought a gun and legally upgraded it to be like an automatic. So please tell me where you have read otherwise.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

@crazyjoe, that's a really good post! Lots to digest.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

He legally bought a gun and legally upgraded it to be like an automatic.

He definitely knew his guns, takes a bit of expertise and deep knowledge to convert a semi to an automatic.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Dems were politically attacking with this almost immediately. It's like they know they had to do it quick before evidence starts coming out that shows the actual motive of this guy.

The gf will be providing that soon.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Dems were politically attacking with this almost immediately. It's like they know they had to do it quick before evidence starts coming out that shows the actual motive of this guy.

They made a rush to judgement and started blaming guns and demonizing any supporters without knowing or getting all the facts together.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He passed the background checks required to purchase those (admittedly numerous) weapons, so what do you propose?

Stricter checks.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

They guy had no criminal history, what are they supposed to check?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

They made a rush to judgement and started blaming guns and demonizing any supporters without knowing or getting all the facts together.

Just for clarification: that's not a good, right?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Dems were politically attacking with this almost immediately. It's like they know they had to do it quick before evidence starts coming out that shows the actual motive of this guy.

The Dems are quick to attack because this keeps happening again and again and again. What will it take for Republicans to take some preventative action? When is the right time to talk about gun control? When people aren't being senselessly shot?

His motives are secondary. We want to prevent anyone from being able to do this.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Trump: "This is not the right time to be talking about gun control."

OK, so... later? Which is it then?

Strike while the iron is cold, or generate some real heat through a proper national debate?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Just for clarification: that's not a good, right?

So why are the left going ballistic?

The Dems are quick to attack because this keeps happening again and again and again.

Ok, and how’s the emotional outburst helping them?

What will it take for Republicans to take some preventative action? When is the right time to talk about gun control? When people aren't being senselessly shot?

We have gun control, but you won’t get a consensus to eradicate guns, as a hunter, do you know how many hunters are in the US that own semi-automatics? If you think getting rid of 11 million people is an impossible and daunting task, you have millions more of the semi- automatic in people’s homes across the country. It will never happen, I don’t know why we have to go down this road with the left always, but I get it, it looks good on paper for the base.

His motives are secondary. We want to prevent anyone from being able to do this.

That should be with every crime regardless of motive or weapon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So why are the left going ballistic?

I dunno, cuz 60 people were just murdered and another 500 injured?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

What if he had decided to ram a dump truck through the crowd instead? How could one regulate that from happening? just as they have been doing in Australia and Europe, putting up concrete/ steel barricades to prevent vehicles from enter pedestrian and mall areas. A truck driven down a sidewalk can be easily shot at by police, driver shot, tyres shot out etc. But as the Vegas gunman has shown a gun owner with multiple high powered weapons at a good vantage point can kill dozens before authorities can even reach him. Has been shown before with lone gunman Anders Breivik killing 69 people in Norway & Martin Bryant killing 35 in Australia.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Yes, I feel anger as well, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the guns, weak argument.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Libs/Dems were against the travel ban because they said it wouldn't prevent anything and was against people's rights.

same people now want more gun control even though it wouldn't have prevented this and is against people's rights.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

They made a rush to judgement and started blaming guns and demonizing any supporters without knowing or getting all the facts together. what are the common denominators for mass shootings, 1. the person is mentally unstable. 2. high powered fully auto weapons are used. SO which do you thing is more obtainable 1. predicting when millions of gun owners with stable mentality will become unstable and go on a shooting rampage 2. banning the sale of all high powered fully automatic weapons including those that can be modified to become full auto. Australia did just this after the 1995 mass shooting and since then there has been zero mass shootings

8 ( +12 / -4 )

We have gun control, but you won’t get a consensus to eradicate guns, as a hunter, do you know how many hunters are in the US that own semi-automatics?

We won't get a consensus if people refuse to talk about it that's for sure.

If you think getting rid of 11 million people is an impossible and daunting task, you have millions more of the semi- automatic in people’s homes across the country.

Again, definitely impossible if you don't even try. You know there's an impossibly large volume of drugs floating around the country too, but that doesn't stop the law enforcement from confiscating massive volumes of it. Unlike drugs which we haven't made a dent in due to the endless supply from other countries, the vast majority of guns are made in the USA. We actually have control of the supply, so there will be less and less of them in circulation in time.

It will never happen, I don’t know why we have to go down this road with the left always, but I get it, it looks good on paper for the base.

We have to go down this road because the left doesn't want to die for the right's stupid hobby. (I know it's not completely a left/right issue, but you made it one.)

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Odd reactiona abound on this from the Trump administrations and sick gun owners.

One day; the sick gun owners will get better. When someone has the chutzpah to take away their toys.

One day.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes, I feel anger as well, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the guns, weak argument.

You feel anger because your toys are threatened. Unfortunately; it appears from all you have posted about them - you care more about guns than your fellow Americans.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The mental health argument is a perennial red herring.

The vast majority of those with mental health problems will never kill.

The GOP would never, ever agree to allocate the sums of money which would be required to screen and care for those with mental health problems.
5 ( +7 / -2 )

Stricter checks.

Background checks are optional. Just buy from a gun show or a private party if you don't feel like going through the process.

Here in Arizona you can buy tens of thousands of dollars of guns after passing a background check, walk out to the parking lot, suddenly decide you don't want them anymore, then hand them out to friends and family. The cops can't prove that you didn't change your mind. But the recommendation is that you buy a gift certificate from a gun store instead so the person who ultimately receives it has to undergo the check. That's the recommendation.

Think about that the next time someone talks about background checks.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

MrBum - We won't get a consensus if people refuse to talk about it that's for sure.

People have been talking about "it" for decades. More importantly, people have been voting on this issue for decades, and the gun-banning Democrats have lost their seats in many of the various legislatures.

But you're not asking for a simple pro or con consensus where the voters willingly accept whatever the results are. You seem to be expecting a consensus in favor of gun-banning, or registration/confiscation, and you seem surprised/annoyed/frustrated that so many voters refuse to accept your advice.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Gun ownership is a right. Liberals say that 'rights' arent negotiable and simply have to be accepted without comment. In this case, I agree with them. There will be no solution to this that involves removing guns from anyone who is legally authorized to have them. The main problem with all 'rights' is that once people have them, they dont give them up.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

OK, NRA, over to you -- we have 2 questions:

1) An assault rifle that can kill people 300 yards away -- what is the proper use for such a gun? Self-defense? Hunting? Target shooting? Pray, enlighten us all.

2) Bump-stock devices -- should they be banned? If not, why not?

3) How do 2nd amendment rights outweigh the right to life? Can't wait to hear from you!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Toasted Heretic - One day; the sick gun owners will get better. When someone has the chutzpah to take away their toys.

Then you back the Democrat Party's attempt to eventually ban privately owned firearms. This is the political message you need to drive home to all of the voters in the U.S.. The Democrat Party wants to ban firearms - If you want to ban firearms - vote Democrat.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

@bass do you know how many hunters are in the US that own semi-automatics?

I don't hunt and never have, but most hunters I know do so for what they call 'sport'. Why would a 'sport' hunter need a semi-automatic weapon? If they're such poor shots that they require firing multiple rounds to kill their prey, they shouldn't be hunting anywhere they could spray rounds and endanger all nearby.

Ban semi-automatic weapons of all sorts, especially semi-automatic handguns, which are used for the primary purpose of shooting a human.

Gun owners 'freedom' to own and use weapons should never infringe on others' freedom to go about their lives without fear of a gun owner - not police - using a weapon.

Anyone caught making a weapon fully automatic or using one should spend years behind bars.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Nothing will change given the attitude of gun-nutters and the power and wealth (and inhumanity) of the NRA, so, as harsh as this is, it'll happen again very, very soon. It'll take the children of such people to die before they start thinking about their attitudes and wonder if they might have been mistaken. Some, sadly, will even then suggest we need more guns, not less. I've been asked so far a few dozen times how things are in Canada compared to the US on this and every other time there is a shooting spree, and the answer is always that just across the longest unprotected border in the world there is a difference of an average of more than 33,000 lives lost/not lost, and that is the easiest answer to "does gun control work" that you can give, and example how a sane nation protects its people vs. how the US does.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

 Liberals say that 'rights' arent negotiable and simply have to be accepted without comment. In this case, I agree with them. 

Not true. Let's not pretend the constitution is not amendable, shall we? In the past we have amended the constitution to ban alcohol, legalize alcohol, emancipate slaves, and give women the right to vote. The constitution certainly is changeable. And we should consider changing it when 14,000 people are shot each year.

There will be no solution to this that involves removing guns from anyone who is legally authorized to have them

Oh, so what's the solution then, bl? Pray tell, what is the cause of America's gun violence problem, and what is your solution?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I cant determine what is the cause of gun deaths as each case varies. There is no solution to this that will not infringe upon the rights of lawful gun owners. That is why this issue has never been (and will never be) legislated. Same as there is no solution to radical Islamic terrorism because we cant just also take away the rights of Muslims who are not terrorists.

Emancipating slaves and allowing women to vote is a granting of additional rights, not taking away a right that already existed. The only amendment that took away rights was the banning alcohol, which never actually worked. That just drove alcohol underground and created even more law enforcement problems and led to the rise of gangster activity to provide people what they wanted. Until people feel safe enough where they dont want guns, it wont work.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

@arrestpaul

You seem to be expecting a consensus in favor of gun-banning, or registration/confiscation, and you seem surprised/annoyed/frustrated that so many voters refuse to accept your advice.

It's not my advice, it's common sense and reason. If you want to stop gun violence, you either do something guns or violence. Violence is something found in human nature. Guns are manufactured, distributed, and sold within our borders. Let's deal with the less complicated of the two.

Pro-gun people (avoiding "consensus" because I haven't seen concrete numbers) are surprisingly/annoyingly/frustratingly without reason, and I do wish reasonable Democrats and Republicans would just say "f*** the consensus" and do something. It happened in Australia with the conservative politician getting voted out by his constituents. He didn't care though, and the consensus eventually got over it.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@blacklab Until people feel safe enough where they dont want guns, it wont work.

You do understand that the majority of US citizens do NOT own guns. Stop using the term 'people' when you're referring to a minority of the population. Having recently spent several weeks in the US, visiting inner city areas, visiting rural areas - without having a gun and being around people who did not have guns - I did not feel UNsafe anywhere.

What is it that causes some Americans to fear so much that they're willing to risk those around them by just owning a firearm? I have come to believe that gun owners have an unwarranted fear of existence, that they're fundamentally weak people.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Unlike drugs which we haven't made a dent in due to the endless supply from other countries, the vast majority of guns are made in the USA. We actually have control of the supply, so there will be less and less of them in circulation in time.

What? You think it's any more difficult to smuggle guns into the US from Mexico than it is drugs? And if anything we have less and less control of the supply due to the advent of 3D printing and ease of using milling equipment. The left (correctly) points out that the war on drugs is an abject failure, yet want to repeat the mistake with guns.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

this was a horrible act but i seriously question whether it could have been prevented by more gun control. more people died in france when that truck plowed into the crowd or in mcveigh oklahoma bombing or in 9/11 for that matter. so do we need stricter controls over trucks, planes and fertilizer too? this guy was totally off the radar. if he didn't have access to guns would he have done something else? can you even prevent his access now that we can 3D print/mill them? on the other hand, the founding fathers put in the second amendment for a reason based on their experience. its the hedge against the government itself.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

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=.ac9f43a5e57e

this is a good article where someone realized gun control isn't the answer except for maybe suicide which is 2/3 of the gun deaths per year.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

What? You think it's any more difficult to smuggle guns into the US from Mexico than it is drugs?

No, I'm saying we manufacture the guns in the US. There's no need to smuggle them from Mexico. In fact, Mexico's criminals use American-made guns.

And if anything we have less and less control of the supply due to the advent of 3D printing and ease of using milling equipment.

Yes, all those shootings involving high-powered 3D-printed rifles we hear so much about, right? 3D printing uses plastic. The technology is nowhere near as sophisticated as some people think it is.

https://3dprint.com/139537/3d-printed-guns/

The left (correctly) points out that the war on drugs is an abject failure, yet want to repeat the mistake with guns.

War on drugs is a failure because we have very little control of the supply. The US is it's own gun supplier. It's worth a shot.

What's your solution? Just accept periodic mass shootings?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Again, definitely impossible if you don't even try. You know there's an impossibly large volume of drugs floating around the country too, but that doesn't stop the law enforcement from confiscating massive volumes of it. Unlike drugs which we haven't made a dent in due to the endless supply from other countries, the vast majority of guns are made in the USA.

Ok, so drugs are not a problem, but guns are? Especially guns that are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. We can talk all day, but I will bet you my house, no one will able to to touch the 2nd amendment.

We actually have control of the supply, so there will be less and less of them in circulation in time.

That will never happen.

I don't hunt and never have, but most hunters I know do so for what they call 'sport'. Why would a 'sport' hunter need a semi-automatic weapon?

A lot of us do and also, because we can. It’s easier for me, especially when I go deer hunting.

If they're such poor shots that they require firing multiple rounds to kill their prey, they shouldn't be hunting anywhere they could spray rounds and endanger all nearby. 

Ok, that’s your opinion, but as you said, you never hunted, so how would you know?

Ban semi-automatic weapons of all sorts, especially semi-automatic handguns, which are used for the primary purpose of shooting a human. 

Won’t happen, I'm telling you now and I would rally to support that it doesn’t get banned.

Gun owners 'freedom' to own and use weapons should never infringe on others' freedom to go about their lives without fear of a gun owner - not police - using a weapon. 

Most don't, you guys are so overly besides yourselves with this issue. What you just said, I can flip that around, I have the right to own a firearm, I feel that gun haters are infringing on my rights.

Anyone caught making a weapon fully automatic or using one should spend years behind bars

I think people that would try to take our 2nd amendment rights are the scary people.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

I think people that would try to take our 2nd amendment rights are the scary people.

I'd say the survivors of Vegas might disagree with you, at least on that point.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

You don't have to ban guns. Just put so many regulations on gun sellers where they have to close up shop. Follow the same path the anti-abortionists use. You can have your gun....if you drive to another's state to get it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Yes, all those shootings involving high-powered 3D-printed rifles we hear so much about, right? 3D printing uses plastic. The technology is nowhere near as sophisticated as some people think it is.

https://3dprint.com/139537/3d-printed-guns/

Maybe you don't hear about them because there's no need for people to use them currently, in the same way that there was no need for bath-tub gin prior to Prohibition. And of course the technology is underdeveloped currently, but it's only going to become more advanced. As for controlling the supply, we couldn't even put a dent in the illicit opium market despite taking over a country (Afghanistan) that supplies more than 90% of the world's heroin.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I have come to believe that gun owners have an unwarranted fear of existence, that they're fundamentally weak people.

I'll go even further and say they're fundamentalists. For them; the gun is supreme, it is the truth and woe betide the infidels who question their belief system.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

No one wants to answer me why its so important to try something, anything immediately about guns after 1 attack. To include taking away the rights of US citizens. Yet we were not allowed to try anything at all related to banning people from countries that support terrorism, even after dozens of Radical Islamic terrorist attacks. Not even citizens but we cant even block their extended families coming to the USA for 3 months om vacation because these people somehow have 'rights' in our country.

Guns, we can eliminate them all NOW as 'nobody should need them'. But Islamic terrorism, nothing we can do just gotta live with it, and pray and carry on like nothing has happened.

Also I didnt see any liberal or Dem calls for gun control after the Tennessee church shooting or any other 'religion of peace' related gun attacks.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

I'd say the survivors of Vegas might disagree with you, at least on that point.

Maybe they might and maybe they might not, none of them spoke out whether they were for or against it.

You don't have to ban guns. Just put so many regulations on gun sellers where they have to close up shop. Follow the same path the anti-abortionists use. You can have your gun....if you drive to another's state to get it.

Or you can just purchase your gun from a 3rd party or underground, either way, the people will still be able to get their guns. I'm not even remotely worried about it. And actually, gun violence nationwide has been going down, way down than from 30 years ago.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The President wasnt even allowed to implement a temporary entry ban policy based on dozens of terrorist attacks with a common theme. But 1 attack we have to permanently change our Constitution?

People die in car accidents too, should we take away people's right to own cars? People die by alcohol and tobacco, should we try that ban again? Guns at least have some purposes, to provide personal safety and give the ability to hunt food. Cars are a convenience and alcohol and tobacco serve no valid purpose in our society, do they?

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

as far as this woman, sources are starting to say that she recently received a large amount of money in a transfer from the shooter. She also allegedly has multiple legal names, was married to 2 guys at once prior to meeting the shooter, has 2 different social security numbers and multiple addresses at the same time. Might be something to be found in all of that or the illegal things can be leveraged to get information.

I suspect in a few days the real motives will start to come out.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I think people that would try to take our 2nd amendment rights are the scary people.

You also thought this attack was carried about by radical Islamic jihadists a few days ago as well.

The President wasnt even allowed to implement a temporary entry ban policy based on dozens of terrorist attacks with a common theme. But 1 attack we have to permanently change our Constitution?

Yeah, what were the courts thinking? Let King Donny reign, we didn't elect the courts ;) Get back to me when terrorists kill 14,000 Americans every year. Then maybe, your argument starts to make more sense.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

o provide personal safety 

Statistically this just isn't true.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Maybe you don't hear about them because there's no need for people to use them currently, in the same way that there was no need for bath-tub gin prior to Prohibition. And of course the technology is underdeveloped currently, but it's only going to become more advanced.

So it's not really an actual problem now? OK, thanks for bringing it up anyway. But when it does become a problem in the distant (let's be honest) future, hopefully reasonable people in the future will pass reasonable laws to deal with it. Let's focus on the problems we have today.

As for controlling the supply, we couldn't even put a dent in the illicit opium market despite taking over a country (Afghanistan) that supplies more than 90% of the world's heroin.

Are you actually comparing the level of control the US has in Afghanistan over the level of control it has within its own borders?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Also I didnt see any liberal or Dem calls for gun control after the Tennessee church shooting or any other 'religion of peace' related gun attacks.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/09/27/nashville-church-shooting-gun-rights-tennessee/699742001/

More guns is not the answer for Beth Joslin Roth, with the Safe Tennessee Project, a public policy group organized to address gun violence in Tennessee and advocate for stricter gun regulations.

“What I would say is that from my perspective, I’m always going to be on the side of figuring out ways to prevent shootings rather than figuring out ways for people to shoot bad guys,” she said.

I don't know what her politics are but she makes sense.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Maybe they might and maybe they might not, none of them spoke out whether they were for or against it.

So, you'd reckon that the survivors would not find guns scary at all & that those who want to prevent such mayhem are the real problem; the real scary people.

Right.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Blacklabel: "No one wants to answer me why its so important to try something, anything immediately about guns after 1 attack."

ONE attack? Because the US has never had any other where the NRA shuts down it's websites and Twitter on the day of, then comes out and says we need MORE guns? Because the hypocrite gun-nutters suddenly say "can't we just mourn and talk politics later" when it's not a Muslim and they have no other reason to create a narrative that deflects from guns? (Hell, FOX is even blaming people kneeling at football games for the shooting!)? Because even right now the NRA is trying to pass laws that will make shootings like this EASIER?

"one" attack. And I thought my math skills were bad.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

You also thought this attack was carried about by radical Islamic jihadists a few days ago as well.

Yes and still do and didn't ISIS take responsibility for this attack?

More guns is not the answer for Beth Joslin Roth, with the Safe Tennessee Project, a public policy group organized to address gun violence in Tennessee and advocate for stricter gun regulations.

Ok, so that's one group and what about the million others that do want them? I can make a list of the gun advocates as well, doesn't mean anything.

I don't know what her politics are but she makes sense.

I agree as well, but confiscating firearms is not always the answer.

So, you'd reckon that the survivors would not find guns scary at all & that those who want to prevent such mayhem are the real problem; the real scary people.

I don't know nor do I have a crystal ball insight as to what people think or don't think. Maybe they do and maybe they don't. My father was shot accidentally on a farm, long story, but after he recovered, he never gave it a second thought that guns should be banned, it depends on the person.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Beth Joslin Roth,

Wow, pretty obscure reference. Compared to now when all the late night TV hosts, Pelosi, Schumer and Hillary are all jumping in today before the motive and most facts are even known. Her social media of course shows she is a Democrat. But I will say her organization looks like it is trying to do some good in a reasonable way and I can support what they are about.

We support the second amendment.

We do not advocate confiscating guns.

We do not advocate taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

We do not believe that exaggeration, hyperbole, or political rhetoric are useful and, in fact, stand in the way of meaningful and effective action needed to reduce Tennessee lives lost to bullets.

We seek common ground and support common sense measures to reduce the number of families torn apart by gun violence.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The main problem with all 'rights' is that once people have them, they dont give them up. they do if theyre willing to make society as a whole a safer place for everybody even if it means taking away said rights give the illusion that they feel less safe. Unfortunately many are selfish and care only for themselves regardless of the consequences it has on others.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

 (Hell, FOX is even blaming people kneeling at football games for the shooting!)? 

And CNN is blaming Trump for creating 'angry white people who feel victimized'....one of whom was so angry he shot people who CNN claims are all white, gun carrying Trump supporters. huh? there is no way this guy is a Trump supporter so that is why the Dems and liberals on the attack so fast before it is found out who he really is.

This will all go away once the motive doesnt match the narrative anymore. Same as the Orlando shooting where they actually erased all Islam references in the 911 calls.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The main problem with all 'rights' is that once people have them, they dont give them up.  they do if theyre willing to make society as a whole a safer place for everybody even if it means taking away said rights give the illusion that they feel less safe. Unfortunately many are selfish and care only for themselves regardless of the consequences it has on others.

Does that apply to Chicago as well, because I have yet to hear people worry about that city.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Yes and still do and didn't ISIS take responsibility for this attack?

Terrorists have a long history of claiming responsibility for attacks they had no connection to. The fact is, the FBI says there is no connection between the attacker and ISIS. So, do you believe ISIS or the FBI?

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-does-isis-claim-terrorist-attacks-las-vegas-shooting-2017-10

https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/isis-are-now-bullshitting-about-terrorist-attacks-they-didnt-commit/

3 ( +5 / -2 )

they do if theyre willing to make society as a whole a safer place for everybody even if it means taking away said rights give the illusion that they feel less safe. Unfortunately many are selfish and care only for themselves regardless of the consequences it has on others.

None of the identity politics/LGBT movements consider society as a whole. they want their rights and they even want things that arent even 'rights' such as transgenders in military or different sex bathroom usage. They wont stop until they get these 'selfish' demands, somehow convert them into actual 'rights' and keep them forever.

But gun owners for the good of everyone, just give up your right to gun ownership? not likely.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Yep 12 hours to the final determination that there was no ISIS involvement. Didnt even pretend to look into it. But investigating Trump and Russia is on month 17 with no determination at all somehow. Foreign citizen woman who lived with shooter left the country to go to the Philippines and had $100,000 wired to her or someone she knows. Multiple addresses and identities and marriages but the FBI already cleared her too. Despite ISIS presence in.....the Philippines....?

Now do I think ISIS had anything to do with this? no. But at least look into it? They seem to be walking back their assumption that the woman had nothing to do with it and knows nothing simply because she was 'out of the country at the time'

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

'selfish' demands

Yes, how very selfish of transgenders to volunteer to fight and die for a country that doesn't even want to give them rights. If only they were as selfless as our trashy, draft-dodging commenter in chief.

But gun owners for the good of everyone, just give up your right to gun ownership?

When your "rights" result in the slaughter of 14,000 Americans annually, we should take a good hard luck at said rights.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

 But 1 attack we have to permanently change our Constitution? yet 30% of the world mass shootings occur in the US, add to that the dozens of mass shootings every year in the US and the 8000+ homicides by firearms each year it clear that the debate on constitution change is based more than just one attack.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Emancipating slaves and allowing women to vote is a granting of additional rights, not taking away a right that already existed

Didn't emancipation take away the 'right' of slave owners to treat other humans as chattels? Didn't universal suffrage take away the 'right' of the world at large (=men) to ignore the opinions and rights of women?

But 1 attack we have to permanently change our Constitution?

So far this year there have been a total of 273 mass shootings (defined as an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence). That works out at roughly one a day.

23 dead and 103 injured in September alone.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Yes and still do and didn't ISIS take responsibility for this attack?

They'd claim responsibility if someone dropped a sweet wrapper on the pavement.

Interesting how you now take the word this shadowy bunch of idiots over the sherrif and law enforcement agencies who say there's no connection.

Still, if it deflects from sick gun owners and their right to murder and maim, that's all good.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

At least something amazing came out of this:

In many places, hundreds of people waited 6 hours or more, in lines stretching blocks, to donate blood at the donation centers to help the Las Vegas victims

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/donate-blood-las-vegas.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/las-vegas-shooting-blood-donation-lines-strech-blocks-n806876

Donation centers even had to turn away those who scheduled appointments the next day because they ran out of equipment

6 ( +6 / -0 )

there is no way this guy is a Trump supporter so that is why the Dems and liberals on the attack so fast before it is found out who he really is.

At the end of the day; which party he, er, "supports", what his religion is, what job he had (an accountant! why aren't the feds looking into accounting?)... all this is obfuscation.

Guns are killing America. And with their lobbying and stranglehold over the political scene; so are the NRA Taliban and all who worship at the altar of firepower.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Terrorists have a long history of claiming responsibility for attacks they had no connection to. The fact is, the FBI says there is no connection between the attacker and ISIS. So, do you believe ISIS or the FBI?

How can YOU know when there’s an active and on going investigation going on??! I’m not going to believe anything until either the investigation is either complete or when they get in front of a mic and make a statement of the facts.

When your "rights" result in the slaughter of 14,000 Americans annually, we should take a good hard luck at said rights.

A large portion of them are suicide related.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html

And they’re going down, so good news.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/gun-homicides-us-down-40-1993-2014

Still, if it deflects from sick gun owners and their right to murder and maim, that's all good.

Well, besides tightening the already tight and stringent laws we have, what else do you want done and don’t say make all guns illegal, that’s like saying, we are going to make water illegal, not going to happen.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Gun control law may sound good but this guy altered his guns to work as automatic constant shooting machines. Gun control law can't weed out gun inventors.

No employees reported unfdinary amount of heavy luggage. Two windows were smashed. People are wondering what kind of security camera systems Mandalay has.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Comments like GOP bought by NRA are emotional responses to the disaster; they are not based on data. I'm not an NRA member but my understanding is that they are not one of the top contributors of $ to the various elected officials. They are powerful, but it's due to their numbers, not their contributions. If someone has data that shows this to be wrong, I'd be happy to see it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well, besides tightening the already tight and stringent laws we have

Plenty of murderous nutters get their hands on these filthy devices legally despite these tight and stringent laws.

I honestly can't imagine your idea of relaxed laws.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The guns were altered to work as automatic rapid shooting weapons.

President left White House.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

President arrived and went to the hospital first.

The shooter's girlfriend arrived to LA airport.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Another tragedy which shows just how much damage can be done with a gun.

While the number killed was shocking, this is approximately equal to the number of people who are murdered by a gun every couple of days in the USA (suicides stripped out for this fact).

There can be many sensible ways to regulate this - universal licencing for a start - after all, you need a licence to drive a car, but don't need one to operate a machine of death in many places.

Regulation of ammunition, with sales limited and numbers. Serial number on each shell. Punishment for illegal possession of ammunition. After all, guns don't kill people, bullets do.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Ah_so: a new proposal of gun control law by lawmakers who were victims of shooting.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

FBI contacted Philippine authority to send her back to USA. The shootings are handled by Vegas. So, something else, FBI is investigating. Why was she in Tokyo? Why she had to go to Philippine? Then went to Hong Kong. And she went back to Philippine. Whose money was he gambling? She is cooperating. Why did he send her to Philippine which has too many drug cartels and Triad organizations?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Things will only change when Democrats become the party that advocates for, proposes, passes and enforces gun regulation.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why she had to go to Philippine?

She's Australian, but she looks like she may be of Philippine descent. Maybe she had family there.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Black Sabbath: Democratic Party had been a majority party for many years. The Party did not advocate.

The current regulation is the result of bipartisan effort.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

After excellent speech, he returned to DC. Melania was dressed nicely. They did not have a chance to rest in Trump Hotel on Strip.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

 I'm not an NRA member but my understanding is that they are not one of the top contributors of $ to the various elected officials. They are powerful, but it's due to their numbers, not their contributions. If someone has data that shows this to be wrong, I'd be happy to see it.

Your understanding is correct in regards to the NRA's ranking among contributors, in fact the NRA doesn't even show up in the top fifty spenders. I read recently that they spent somewhere around 3.2 million in direct lobbying in 2016. As a comparison Google spent around 17 million and the National Association of Realtors spent around 55 million. The NRA spends a lot more money on political action than it does on direct lobbying.

The NRA's influence is not the result of paying off politicians it is the result of their ability to mobilize their membership to engage in political action at the local and state level. The current membership of the NRA is right around 5 million members but there are an estimated 60+ million gun owners in the US. The NRA's power is derived from its ability to connect the gun rights issue to the commonly held core values of many millions of americans, whether they are gun owners or not. From there it is easy to conflate a perceived attack on those rights as an attack on those core values. As a strategy it seems to work, according to a 2016 Pew poll 52% of respondents favored protecting the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, the same poll given in 2000 had that number at only 29%.

The majority of Americans support protecting the 2nd Amendment and the NRA's approach is to get their message out to as many people as possible and at the most grassroot level. They take their message directly to the people through a network of affiliates and volunteers and by actively supporting gun owner's rights at the most localized level, they have built a base from which they derive their power.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Toshiko.

And? Australia does have a large Asian population.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Toshiko...

Yes unlike Japan, in Australia and New Zealand people are not necessarily put into a category due simply because of how they look, or if they came to those countries one or ten generations ago, however yes, there are fairly large numbers of people of Chinese, Korean, Indonesian, Indian and Pilipino heritage.

Bass4funk...

I have to ask, do you really think when the second amendment was written they had in mind that a single person could do the kind of damage this person did? Laws can and sometimes should be changed as we learn and grow.

On the other hand, not to generalise too much, if the people that generally are so keen to defend this "right" were also as keen to respect and uphold the separation of church and state, the ideals of equal rights under the law I might believe it was actually about defending this document and not.. but I like my guns to bad if people get hurt.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Bass: As an NRA member a lot more than the people that panic and THINK they know and want or would like nothing more than to take every firearm from us.

I was responding to black's post where he claimed to know what the investigators were doing. I think you agree with my point that we should let the police do their jobs.

Kuya: The NRA's influence is not the result of paying off politicians it is the result of their ability to mobilize their membership to engage in political action at the local and state level.

And fear. Lots of fear. Without the NRA and gun owners the government would turn into a dictatorship overnight. They are the last and only line of defense in America. Natural disasters? When the big natural disaster hits (it's coming) there will be lawlessness on the streets and your gun is the only thing that will save you.

Real "end of days" stuff.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

And fear. Lots of fear. Without the NRA and gun owners the government would turn into a dictatorship overnight.

Seriously? Now I know you don’t believe that.

They are the last and only line of defense in America. Natural disasters? When the big natural disaster hits (it's coming) there will be lawlessness on the streets and your gun is the only thing that will save you. 

Real "end of days" stuff.

Way too much TV.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

And fear. Lots of fear. Without the NRA and gun owners the government would turn into a dictatorship overnight. They are the last and only line of defense in America. Natural disasters? When the big natural disaster hits (it's coming) there will be lawlessness on the streets and your gun is the only thing that will save you.*

Exactly what point are you trying to make? If you think that using sarcasm to belittle the opinions of people that disagree with you will work, then it might be worth a little reflection on how the whole "deplorable" thing worked out.

Bill Clinton warned the Democrats back in 2013 about that exact thing when he said:

“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,”

“A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things, I know because I come from this world.”

I was merely pointing out in my original post that the NRA connects directly with these "passionate supporters" and therein lays their influence.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If firearms have been banned in US, it could be a truck or a toxic gas instead. Remember the mad guy with a knife who murdered 19 people at mental health facility not so long time ago in Japan? Guns ownership does not lead to more violence, sick society causes violence. Our society is sick, immoral and mentally unstable, and this is a major problem that cannot be solved by banning the firearms.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

bosphorus: "If firearms have been banned in US, it could be a truck or a toxic gas instead. Remember the mad guy with a knife who murdered 19 people at mental health facility not so long time ago in Japan?"

Here we go again. Trucks and knives, since you don't know, aren't created with the intent to kill (well, most knives, anyway, and those that are designed to kill are illegal in most countries). Guns' ONLY purpose is to kill, or defend against others with guns who would use those guns to kill.

"Guns ownership does not lead to more violence, sick society causes violence."

Really, so, how about the number of deaths per year in Japan vs. the US, by guns? It is guns that have made American society sick on this issue, and the ignorance surrounding guns in the US is what makes the world even sicker. Defending guns is the absolute sickest you can get. A sick society is one in which more than 33,000 a year die by guns when across a single line (border) the number is about 100, due to gun CONTROL.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Here's a funny thing --

"Now is not the time to talk about gun laws."

"Now is not the time to talk about Puerto Rico's debt."

Which of the above DID Trump say, and which did he NOT say? Hmmm.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Lombardo, who on Monday said Danley was believed to be in Tokyo, told reporters on Tuesday she had been located in the Philippines and the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in the process of trying to bring her back to the United States."

She came back and talked with the FBI entirely of her own volition. There is absolutely not a shred of evidence that she was involved in any way.

Obviously choosing a partner based on wealth while ignoring their character defects is a risky and stupid idea, but if it wasn't for that just think how many lonely rich men there would be :(

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

That pesky 2nd amendment.

Want change? Pass an amendment to the constitution to restrict/remove it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I wonder what excuse they will use to take her money.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There are 40 million in the US who shoot as a hobby and so compared to those large numbers, the mass shootings are very rare.

And by the way, I haven't heard what party he was aligned with but many have been Democrats.

Quit picking on the women, elderly and disabled who own guns and are members of the NRA.

Guns level the playing field.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Guns level the playing field.

Which is why guns kill more in the US than elsewhere? Nonsense. Guns make small people feel bigger. Sad!

Quit picking on the women, elderly and disabled who own guns and are members of the NRA.

How about the gun makers who donate millions to the NRA? Are they fair game?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I guess some have not heard of Communism and do not care that so many countries in the world are now run by Communist dictators. I thought that Democrats were supposed to be so educated and worldly?

Guess not.

Guns do not kill. Gang-bangers in large cities kill more in the US than other groups.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

smithinjapan - Oct. 5 06:27 pm JSTbosphorus: "If firearms have been banned in US, it could be a truck or a toxic gas instead. Remember the mad guy with a knife who murdered 19 people at mental health facility not so long time ago in Japan?"

Here we go again. Trucks and knives, since you don't know, aren't created with the intent to kill

What about bombs? Aren't bombs created with the intent to kill?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

People, its life accept it! Nothing you can say will change it, blaming Donald wont help! He's to busy being the BEST President since Regan! He doesn't need any distractions now, he has to concentrate on Rocket Man, he needs to hurry up and NUKE or attack his ass!

Waiting on him to start this war with North Korea, Go Donald, Drop the MOAB first! Then tell them a NUKE is next!

As for mass shootings not a damn thing you people can do about it, to head off any future mass shootings! its life and unfortunately 59 people were in the wrong place!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I guess some have not heard of Communism and do not care that so many countries in the world are now run by Communist dictators.

Care to name a few? Oh and DPRK is not communist. It's for sure a dictatorship but whatever the whole cult of personality juche hybrid is; it's certainly not communism.

I thought that Democrats were supposed to be so educated and worldly?

Guess not.

Guns do not kill. Gang-bangers in large cities kill more in the US than other groups.

Which other groups? And how do they kill?

With. Guns.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

As for mass shootings not a damn thing you people can do about it, to head off any future mass shootings! its life and unfortunately 59 people were in the wrong place!

There is something that can be done to help stop the madness. Gun control.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

He's to busy being the BEST President since Regan!

He's so good that even his own people are calling him a 'f***ing moron'!

...oh wait. That's not good.

As for mass shootings not a damn thing you people can do about it, to head off any future mass shootings!

There are two ways around it:

1) Remove the guns

2) Make sure you aren't in a place with guns

Four Canadians were killed in Vegas by this shooter. I read in the Canadian paper that this has created a serious drop in Canadians interested in visiting Vegas. This could hurt their tourist numbers.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

There is something that can be done to help stop the madness. Gun control.

We already have gun control, we need more mental asylums for the people that mentally are challenged and should never be allowed to carry or use a firearm.

Care to name a few? Oh and DPRK is not communist. It's for sure a dictatorship but whatever the whole cult of personality juche hybrid is; it's certainly not communism.

Is it a democracy? Lol

You guys crack me up!!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Is it a democracy? Lol

It certainly isn't. Did I say that? It's not communism, either.

We already have gun control, we need more mental asylums for the people that mentally are challenged and should never be allowed to carry or use a firearm.

Or asylums for those who place guns and gun ownership above human lives.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It certainly isn't. Did I say that? It's not communism, either

But more importantly, it’s not a democracy. So they don’t have freedom or equal rights.

Or asylums for those who place guns and gun ownership above human lives.

The loons, yes, but not the 99% of gun law abiding citizens.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

But more importantly, it’s not a democracy. So they don’t have freedom or equal rights.

No, they don't. So, it's not communism, or Marxism or even socialism. It's a dynasty of wrong 'uns.

But that's there. The brainwashing and hysteria that is used in DPRK is not limited to that country.

Think of countries that praise deities and have violent militias, that seek to control women's bodies.

Guns aren't freedom. They are individual parcels of terror. I recommend sorting out America's internal terror problems before the rest of the world.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

violent militias

Wrong. Armed, yes. Violent, no. Most if not all are well organized and very disciplined. The NY militia that went to charletsville never caused any problems and went there to keep the peace.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

We already have gun control

No you do not. A waiting period of a few days is not 'gun control'. A paper 'background check' is not gun control. Virtually anyone who isn't already incarcerated and/or twitching and foaming at the mouth can get their hands on a firearm.

we need more mental asylums for the people that mentally are challenged and should never be allowed to carry or use a firearm.*

You're going to do mass mental-health screening of the US population? On the understanding that those who don't pass will have their guns taken away? Yeah right, I can see that happening.

Paddock was a law-abiding citizen until he wasn't, and had no apparent mental issues until he went crazy (unless you count wanting to own lots of lethal weapons as a mental health issue in itself; I think it probably is. If you want a gun, that in itself shows you're too crazy to be trusted with one).

Is it a democracy? Lol

Indicative of the level of understanding. Anything that isn't a democracy must be communism.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No you do not. A waiting period of a few days is not 'gun control'. A paper 'background check' is not gun control. Virtually anyone who isn't already incarcerated and/or twitching and foaming at the mouth can get their hands on a firearm.

It’s a lot harder than you think, go outside and take your gun, leave in your car, and it’s off to prison, you can’t just get a gun like you want to buy a coke, I know that.

You're going to do mass mental-health screening of the US population? On the understanding that those who don't pass will have their guns taken away? Yeah right, I can see that happening.

Hmmm, you might have a point, that would be like trying to get rid of all guns and abolish the second ammendment.

Paddock was a law-abiding citizen until he wasn't, and had no apparent mental issues until he went crazy (unless you count wanting to own lots of lethal weapons as a mental health issue in itself; I think it probably is. If you want a gun, that in itself shows you're too crazy to be trusted with one).

Ok, so 99% of the people with guns are law abiding and now we have to punish them because of one crazed killer. I can’t hunt squirrels, deers, boars, ducks, gators with a baseball bat. If you can’t ban trucks in Europe, we can’t ban guns outright, I hope not and pray and would fight vehemently against it.

No, they don't. So, it's not communism, or Marxism or even socialism. It's a dynasty of wrong 'uns.

Come again?

Think of countries that praise deities and have violent militias, that seek to control women's bodies.

And that’s why radical Jihadism is a serious problem.

Guns aren't freedom.

That’s your opinion.

They are individual parcels of terror. I recommend sorting out America's internal terror problems before the rest of the world.

Back at the rest of the world, they should equally get their house in order before criticizing us.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

you can’t just get a gun like you want to buy a coke

No one has claimed that. It's simply been pointed out that virtually anyone who isn't already incarcerated and/or twitching and foaming at the mouth can get their hands on a firearm. Your attempt at using an extreme opposite as some sort of way to discount the point didn't address the truth of the point that was made. Pretty much anyone not incarcerated and normal-looking can get their hands on a gun.

Back at the rest of the world, they should equally get their house in order before criticizing us.

You criticize other countries all the time on here, which gives you literally no standing whatsoever to have us follow the demand in this quote. We'll criticize your 'house' all we want - if you don't like it, then you'll have to stop doing it yourself before the rest of us take comments like that seriously.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. But don't be whiny and b*tch about the sword.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Pretty much anyone not incarcerated and normal-looking can get their hands on a gun.

So what’s your point? The 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere.

You criticize other countries all the time on here,

As well as ever liberal on this site, domestic or international.

which gives you literally no standing whatsoever to have us follow the demand in this quote. We'll criticize your 'house' all we want - if you don't like it, then you'll have to stop doing it yourself before the rest of us take comments like that seriously.

And we will do the same. When Europe starts banning vans, please let me know, then we can have a serious talk.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. But don't be whiny and b*tch about the sword.

I hope the left equally live by those words.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Just remove this silly 2nd Amendment - it was created at a time when the most powerful personal fire arm was a musket, not a 5.56mm rapid fire automatic weapon.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And we will do the same. When Europe starts banning vans, please let me know, then we can have a serious talk.

How many people do you think Paddock could have killed from the window of the 32nd floor with a van?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So what’s your point? The 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere.

What's your point? Our criticism of it isn't going anywhere either.

And we will do the same.

The difference is, you're the one whining about the US being criticized, while always criticizing.

When Europe starts banning vans, please let me know, then we can have a serious talk.

If vans are so good for mass killings, why are people using guns? And why do you even need guns - killers can just use vans. So guns are useless.

I hope the left equally live by those words.

Except that you aren't equally living by those words, because you're whining about countries criticizing the US, even though you criticize other countries. So what you're really saying is that you hope the other side will not whine about living and dying by the sword, even though it's something you do.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

you can’t just get a gun like you want to buy a coke

Yes we know, you have those meaningless waiting periods and background checks. Does nothing to stop the nutters who want guns from getting guns.

you might have a point, that would be like trying to get rid of all guns

That reads like you're admitting the people who already have guns are nutters who would be incapable of passing a mental health check. Funny how it's always the 'We want our guns' brigade who delight in telling us how crazy their fellow Merkans are.

now we have to punish them because of one crazed killer.

It's been mentioned before, it is not 'one crazed killer'. The US suffers a mass shooting on average once a day.

I can’t hunt squirrels, deers, boars, ducks, gators with a baseball bat.

We're heard before about your passion to kill anything that moves.

So what’s your point?

The point is that the country is awash with lethal weapons that are easily available.

When Europe starts banning vans, please let me know, then we can have a serious talk.

Impossible to have a serious talk with someone with a passion for killing, who equates a means of transport with a means of mass killing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And right back at you, you guys are equally criticizing the US, but when someone criticizes Europe it’s No, we are perfect in every way. ROFL

I've never read that from anyone on this site. Not one. I'd also remind you that there are many countries in Europe with differing problems. If you want me to talk about the imperfections of the UK, I'll write you an epic. It's called taking a look at yourself, warts and all. The sick gun culture of the US is a disfigurement.

Speaking generally, one problem all European countries don't have is tens of thousands of people being killed by these filthy devices per year. The jihadis, Brevik-types and other assorted garbage aren't in the same league in terms of overall numbers.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I love them that much more.

Above your fellow human beings.

How many more hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands are you willing to sacrifice before finally dealing with your problem?

but if libs had their way, I most definitely wouldn’t be free to own a firearm, to go hunting, to speak out, to have an opinion.

The Democrats may have lots of faults. Lots. But they aren't up there with Kim or Trump.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Above your fellow human beings.

No, because I care for my fellow human beings.

How many more hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands are you willing to sacrifice before finally dealing with your problem?

You make it sound like millions and millions of people are dying every few minutes, relax.

The Democrats may have lots of faults. Lots. But they aren't up there with Kim or Trump.

Ohhhh, I beg to differ...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thunderbird2 - Just remove this silly 2nd Amendment - it was created at a time when the most powerful personal fire arm was a musket, not a 5.56mm rapid fire automatic weapon.

You don't have the votes to "remove" the 2md Amendment. I'm not sure that you are even eligible to legally vote in the U.S.?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Toasted Heretic - How many people do you think Paddock could have killed from the window of the 32nd floor with a van?

I suppose that would depend on how large of a bomb(s) this monster built and put in the van(s). This monster certainly didn't need firearms to commit mass-murder. Why this monster chose to commit mass-murder is still unknown.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

This monster certainly didn't need firearms to commit mass-murder.

Great - then there is no need for guns since there are already other tools that kill just as efficiently. Guns are useless. Thanks for pointing that out!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I suppose that would depend on how large of a bomb(s) this monster built and put in the van(s).

And then driving it from the 32nd floor. Don't forget that crucial method.

This monster certainly didn't need firearms to commit mass-murder. Why this monster chose to commit mass-murder is still unknown.

Indeed. But what is very much known to the world is that guns helped him carry out his sickening mission.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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