Alaskan
0
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2014
- Messages
- 12,025
- Points
- 113
I didn't intend to make that kind of inference, although I see how it could have been taken that way.
Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers
How to Register on LPF | LPF Donations
Shooting in Las Vegas
- Thread starter ped
- Start date
I didn't intend to make that kind of inference, although I see how it could have been taken that way.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2015
- Messages
- 12,708
- Points
- 113
We saw Republican congressmen attacked on a small baseball field by an anti Trump democrat who was filled with hate , could killer Steven Paddock had been an anti Trump democrat, no one else has such blind hate that I have seen in the news than an anti Trump hater, along with the presence of mind to plan something like this for days or longer and with thousands of dollars worth of weapons, this takes motivation and the ability to plan and obtain the means.
The big clue is who he attacked, country music fans and right after the " I'm proud to be an American " song.
The killer Steven Paddock was not poor and not broke, he had sent thousands of dollars overseas before doing this, it seems he planned this and knew his target.
The big clue is who he attacked, country music fans and right after the " I'm proud to be an American " song.
The killer Steven Paddock was not poor and not broke, he had sent thousands of dollars overseas before doing this, it seems he planned this and knew his target.
Last edited:
diachi
0
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,700
- Points
- 113
What I don't get is why he needed >20 guns? Surely even ~5 would have been more than enough?
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2015
- Messages
- 12,708
- Points
- 113
Because the barrels and gas systems get hot after a few hundred rounds in a row and they fail,
military machine guns have quick change barrels, look at the MG42 or any of the modern machine guns, the barrels change out with a twist of a cam lock.
The sporting rifles he modified can NOT fire 1000's rounds in a row, the barrels will melt.
Look at the WW1 maxim, it had a big water cooler around the barrel and a hand pump to cool it.
This so called assault rifle in the video died after 265 rounds in a row with standard magazine changes.
military machine guns have quick change barrels, look at the MG42 or any of the modern machine guns, the barrels change out with a twist of a cam lock.
The sporting rifles he modified can NOT fire 1000's rounds in a row, the barrels will melt.
Look at the WW1 maxim, it had a big water cooler around the barrel and a hand pump to cool it.
This so called assault rifle in the video died after 265 rounds in a row with standard magazine changes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,499
- Points
- 113
According to one source his father was a well known bank robber who had clear psychopathic tendencies. He had been on the FBI's most wanted list. Another source of information is that people who had dealings with Paddock .jr described him as also having Psychopathic behaviour and would engage in impulsive behaviour.
This is not a hate crime, but a terrorist attack.
Polarizing this tragedy and making it political is exactly what people don't need right now.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2015
- Messages
- 12,708
- Points
- 113
I agree it was an act or terrorism, I am sickened by the insanity of what I suspect his motivation may have been.
On another note these media jackasses that say your store bought sporting rifle can be made to blaze away 1000's of rounds in minutes is BS.
------------------
@ Diachi below: I haven't seen that pic but standard mags hold 30-40 and at a full auto rate of 750- 900rpm only last 2-3 seconds.
On another note these media jackasses that say your store bought sporting rifle can be made to blaze away 1000's of rounds in minutes is BS.
------------------
@ Diachi below: I haven't seen that pic but standard mags hold 30-40 and at a full auto rate of 750- 900rpm only last 2-3 seconds.
Last edited:
diachi
0
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,700
- Points
- 113
That makes sense, from the pictures I've seen he still had a lot of rounds to go through before he stopped too. One picture I've seen shows a pile of 13 presumably full 60(?) round magazines.
Benm
0
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 7,896
- Points
- 113
How can you know this?
A terrorist attack mostly serves the purpose to instill fear in people that more will follow, like the islamic attacks in europe that were claimed by ISIS and with the message that they would not be the last.
A hate crime would target a specific group of people. You could say that about an attack on a gay nightclub, but the victims here seem pretty random - the most they would have in common is that they might like gambling.
Maybe this was just one mad man attempting to kill as many people as possible without any regard for who they were, and then take his own life without even leaving any explanation why. I suppose a case of mental illness with severe consequences, but that could just be the single factor.
Exactly
No indication that is was a terrorist attack , yet unkless you call anyone doing anything illegal a terrorist attack.
Terrorizing is not "terrorist"
Terrorism has a very specific and well defined definition.
Mass killing of innocents, even on the scale of Las Vegas, does not automatically meet the generally accepted definition of terrorism, which requires a political, ideological or religious motive.
The Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as an attempt to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."
To be charged with terrorism, a person has to be suspected of acting on behalf of one of nearly 60 groups that the State Department has declared a foreign terrorist organization. A person who carries out a mass attack and survives can face a range of charges, but unless the person is linked to one of the banned groups, a federal terrorism charge won't be one of them.
"Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2015
- Messages
- 12,708
- Points
- 113
The question is do we want violent protests that grow into a revolution or do we want the rule of law.
Barry poured fuel on the fires of protest and now it's time we return to the rule of law, respect for each other and respect for our flag.
YES we have the right to protest, but we must not mix violence with our protest or we all lose big.
I know the American 2 party system is as divided as ever, that's why we the people must stand together on the basics and our Constitution.
Americans have been arming up for years now like never before and I seriously doubt anyone will let themselves be made helpless, actually being responsible for our own safety is needed, so we must all stand against terroristic violence no matter what the reason of the terrorist.
The swamp would rather reign over a burning wreck of a nation than give up their control, Trump wants us to all come together under our flag and our God as Americans who won't always agree, but we must agree that violence has no place in debate.
----- EDIT -----
One more thought, as for the few times our police abuse authority, that must be stopped cold, if there is a legitimate protest with the ABC police dept then go protest at the ABC police dept, surround the place and protest, but smoking dope in the streets and breaking others property while looting is wrong, and doing that nonsense when an officer had good reason to use deadly force is counterproductive, I am sympathetic to abuse of power, that's why I want to see the draining of the swamp....it may take a while.
Barry poured fuel on the fires of protest and now it's time we return to the rule of law, respect for each other and respect for our flag.
YES we have the right to protest, but we must not mix violence with our protest or we all lose big.
I know the American 2 party system is as divided as ever, that's why we the people must stand together on the basics and our Constitution.
Americans have been arming up for years now like never before and I seriously doubt anyone will let themselves be made helpless, actually being responsible for our own safety is needed, so we must all stand against terroristic violence no matter what the reason of the terrorist.
The swamp would rather reign over a burning wreck of a nation than give up their control, Trump wants us to all come together under our flag and our God as Americans who won't always agree, but we must agree that violence has no place in debate.
----- EDIT -----
One more thought, as for the few times our police abuse authority, that must be stopped cold, if there is a legitimate protest with the ABC police dept then go protest at the ABC police dept, surround the place and protest, but smoking dope in the streets and breaking others property while looting is wrong, and doing that nonsense when an officer had good reason to use deadly force is counterproductive, I am sympathetic to abuse of power, that's why I want to see the draining of the swamp....it may take a while.
Last edited:
!00%, exactly
Americans are actually responsible for their own safety, first and foremost --is an individuals responsibility.
Police and government only enters into anything done after the fact to clean up the mess. All that can be done is laws to make such behaviors a crime. Nobody or government can stop a dedicated dysfunctional mental case form perpetrating idiocy harming others.
100% right about the swamp.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2015
- Messages
- 12,708
- Points
- 113
Yes I feel awful for all the victims of terrorism we have seen recently, from bombings to truck attacks and shootings we have seen a lot of it and I hope that we can stop our petty bickering and deal with some very serious issues before we see a hydrogen bomb attack.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,499
- Points
- 113
Actually in the US the definition of what is or isn't a terrorist act is defined in 2 ways... one on a State level and another Federally.
In Nevada the State Statute defines an act of terrorism as : “act of terrorism" means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause
great bodily harm or death to the general population”.
This seems to fit the bill for what took place in Las Vegas. Please note that there is no universally agreed upon definition of the word terrorism.
the UN members don't have a single definition either.
Also have a look at the varying definitions of terrorism:
United States
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Title 18 of the United States
Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113(B),
defines terrorism as: “…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the
criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a
civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect
the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily
within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…”
a) US Patriot Act of 2001: terrorist activities include:
• threatening, conspiring or attempting to hijack airplanes, boats, buses or other vehicles.
• threatening, conspiring or attempting to commit acts of violence on any "protected" persons,
such as government officials
• any crime committed with "the use of any weapon or dangerous device," when the intent of the
crime is determined to be the endangerment of public safety or substantial property damage
rather than for "mere personal monetary gain[/B]
b) FBI definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate
or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or
social objectives.
U.S. Army Manual definition terrorism is the "calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful
violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies ... [to attain]
political, religious, or ideological goals." U.S. Army Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Chapter 9, 37 (14 June
2001).
c) Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as: The calculated use of
unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate
governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Last edited:
Good points but, what the guy did has not been labeled an act of terrorism at the State or Federal level so----until it is, it isn't or at best it has not been determined that his actions were terrorism nor that he was a terrorist.
Looks more like criminal nut case individual at this point
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,499
- Points
- 113
yes, I understand what you're saying. I don't think we'll ever know what the motivations were. I don't think it'll really matter though.
You've got the worst case of mass murder in US history, and the killer intended to kill far more people.
I don't know if "criminal nut" is an accurate term either. He was deliberate, and he had measured out distances to his targets. That isn't someone you can call
simply "nuts". He knew exactly what he wanted and when to do it.
diachi
0
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,700
- Points
- 113
*By a "lone" white guy with some guns.
There's been plenty of other mass murders which were worse. 9/11 was far worse. The Oklahoma City bombing was also worse, in terms of deaths. There's other examples too.
Edit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/75df7j/las_vegas_gunman_shot_security_guard_before/
Hmmmm
Last edited: