Las Vegas shooting death toll rises to 58, no apparent connection to terror
Source: ABC News
At least 58 people were killed and 515 were injured in Las Vegas on Sunday night when a gunman opened fire on a music festival crowd from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. It was the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history.
The "nonstop gunfire," according to one witness, sent more than 22,000 country music fans scrambling for their lives. Police say the lone suspect had at least 10 rifles when he was found dead in a Mandalay Bay hotel room.
Terrified bystanders ducked, ran, then sprang into action -- frantically caring for the wounded. As ambulances rushed to the scene, concert-goers made makeshift stretchers out of police barricades. They plugged wounds with their bare hands and used their clothing to try to stanch eachother's bleeding. At least one man described a stranger dying in his arms.
* * *
The motive was unclear. Officials said at a news conference this morning they have found no connection between the shooting and any international terrorist group.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/50-dead-400-injured-las-vegas-deadliest-shooting/story?id=50223240
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)IronLionZion
(45,547 posts)and are hesitant to use the t word on whites.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)For some reason, Terrorist and White Male can never be tied together in our MSM. Have to wonder if that's on PURPOSE. Of COURSE, IT IS.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)perhaps you missed it. No amount of caps and no matter how many people are angrily and ignorantly yammering that he is will not make him one if he is not.
Here is the definition our nation of laws uses. Though it may vary a bit from state to state, federal law would normally supercede:
IF it is established that Paddock's INTENT was to perform a terrorist act by that definition, he will be legally charged with a terrorist act.
If not, then not.
I'm going to add that I see no difference in disrespect for the law and for whether someone is actually guilty of a specific crime when it is expressed by someone here or the crowds at trump's rallies.
whopis01
(3,525 posts)IF it is established that Paddock's INTENT was to perform a terrorist act by that definition, he will be legally charged with a terrorist act.
Beyond that, your comment is wrong, because Nevada law has a different definition of terrorism.
NRS 202.4415 "Act of terrorism" defined.
1. "Act of terrorism" means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to:
(a) Cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or
(b) Cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment of:
(1) Any building or infrastructure, communications, transportation, utilities or services; or
(2) Any natural resource or the environment.
2. As used in this section, "coercion" does not include an act of civil disobedience.
I would say this pretty clearly qualifies as terrorism under that definition.
http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title15/chapter202/nrs202-4415.html
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)Terrorism has a real meaning. This man was more than likely highly unstable mentally. That is not terrorism...period....
get the red out
(13,468 posts)I agree, he likely was very mentally unstable. Mental healthcare never seems to get enough attention as an important issue in our society. And I'm not trying to come up with some kind of plan, or take the rights away from someone diagnosed with a mental illness; but getting good mental healthcare can be very difficult in this country, even when someone has insurance to cover it. Something need to happen to improve this situation, IMO. (And I'm not saying there aren't too many powerful weapons in our society either.)
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)I've done experience in this from my job. Not in a treatment capacity, though. I see here in NY, more facilities closed down and consolidated in understaffed places. Or privatized. It's terrible.
The great ignored threat in our society. Mental health on our people, ignored.
bdamomma
(63,928 posts)with lawmakers putting guns into peoples hands with mental health issues either.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)run of the mill "attack".
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Crazed Lunatic, Pure Evil, Mentally-Ill and other BS like that. It hurts their vocal cords to SAY THE TRUTH. STEPHEN PADDOCK was A WHITE MALE TERRORIST. That is the truth. Plain and Simple.
handmade34
(22,758 posts)fuck that... terror is terror, doesn't matter who commits it
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Terrorists want something -- no Jewish people in the middle east or whatever.
Madmen just want to see the world burn.
Subtle distinction, and perhaps a distinction without a difference.
handmade34
(22,758 posts)yagotme
(2,928 posts)End result, no real difference.
atreides1
(16,094 posts)NRS 202.4415 Act of terrorism defined.
1. Act of terrorism means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to:
(a) Cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or
(b) Cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment of:
(1) Any building or infrastructure, communications, transportation, utilities or services; or
(2) Any natural resource or the environment.
2. As used in this section, coercion does not include an act of civil disobedience.
(Added to NRS by 2003, 2947)
IronLionZion
(45,547 posts)why assume he didn't want something?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)yagotme
(2,928 posts)but he must have REALLY not liked it...
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Stephen Paddock "Created' Excuses Today. "He Did Not Like Country Music"....... Heck, we don't either but Paddock actions have NOTHING to do with "liking or Not liking Country Music".
lapfog_1
(29,227 posts)it was an open air venue with fencing around it with 20,000+ people inside a confined space right across the street from a high rise hotel where he could get a very good field of fire on those attending.
Shooting fish in a barrel...
This was a target of opportunity. Yet to be seen if this was a planned TERRORIST attack ( as per legal definitions ).
But it was clearly planned out.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Humor, specifically dark humor, is a defense mechanism.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)rocktivity
(44,580 posts)The Isis connection claim was probably fake news.
rocktivity
Rustyeye77
(2,736 posts)until there is.
I doubt it but who knows.
Crowman2009
(2,499 posts)Just sayin'!
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Now, I am not defending Trump's stupidity, but your argument has a flaw.
Let's say everyone from the horrid mythical country of Jihadistan is a terrorist. And let's say we have native-born terrorists.
If the goal is to lesson terrorists attacks, blocking people from Jihadistan helps. It's not perfect, in that you have home-grown asshats, too. But it helps.
(In short: there are other arguments that are much better re: Trump's stupidity, like no country is really Jihadistan and the people running away from countries close to being a mythical Jihadistan are, most likely, the victims of asshats trying to get away.)
Hekate
(90,846 posts)...it will happen over and over and over. 30,000 a year.
rocktivity
(44,580 posts)Did he attend the festival, shoot, leave, go to his hotel, and kill himself? If so, how did he get in with a rifle? Did he shoot from his hotel room?
rocktvity
yagotme
(2,928 posts)take 1 or 2 down to the festival. With 2 windows broken out of the room, it would look like he used the room as the vantage point. 2 clear fields of fire and all, covering main area and exits.
rocktivity
(44,580 posts)So my guess that he shot from his hotel room, then shot himself was right -- hooray for me.
rocktivity
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There's cell phone video that was being shot of the concert, that starts panning around like WTF when it starts, and you can see its from the Mandalay Bay upper floors.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)Response to TomCADem (Original post)
Skittles This message was self-deleted by its author.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
BumRushDaShow
(129,608 posts)This is the fucking problem.
The powers to be refuse to label anything "terror" that is DOMESTIC.