Las Vegas Shooting: 50+ Dead 500+ Injured at Jason Aldean Concert

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Read a story in the Sun today about a young man who was shot and injured and has had to deal with medical vills as he has no health insurance for his trip to the States.

I think being shot, through no fault of your own, is one of those things where the US government should step up and cover your medical expenses. A Canadian citizen having to resort to setting up a GoFundMe page for his medical expenses shows the US in such a bleak light.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think being shot, through no fault of your own, is one of those things where the US government should step up and cover your medical expenses. A Canadian citizen having to resort to setting up a GoFundMe page for his medical expenses shows the US in such a bleak light.

IDK maybe he should have thought to purchase medical insurance for a foreign trip?? Its not like the hospital turned the guy away either.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Its not like the hospital turned the guy away either.

Few businesses in the states turn customers away, and the reality in the states is healthcare/hospitals is a business (for the most part).

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Travelling to the US without health insurance is a gamble that I just don't understand. For a few dollars a day, you get the peace of mind that if something occurs, you and your family won't be financially ruined.

Except most travel insurance is basically a scam just like most other policies that do post underwriting.

Simple google search will show about one story a month of some poor couple or family having to fight an insurance company who denied insurance claims for medical bills.

Last one I read a few days ago was a guy who was prescribed indigestion medication and had his claim denied because of it. Because of course that obviously was a major factor in his diagnosis of having a brain tumour!

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn...avel-insurance

[morgin]

Originally Posted by dino7c

IDK maybe he should have thought to purchase medical insurance for a foreign trip?? Its not like the hospital turned the guy away either.

21 year old going on a birthday trip? Yeah he should have got medical insurance, but I feel a lot more sympathy than judgment, that's for sure (to be clear, I have almost zero judgment - I don't know that I would have known any better at 21).

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think being shot, through no fault of your own, is one of those things where the US government should step up and cover your medical expenses. A Canadian citizen having to resort to setting up a GoFundMe page for his medical expenses shows the US in such a bleak light.

I would like to hear an opinion from a litigation lawyer. Do victims have a negligence claim against Mandalay Bay?

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.foxnew...arget.amp.html

[CaptainCrunch]

I've had a few days to just think about this whole thing.

And the one thing that strikes me was that this wasn't personal for him. There was no personal component to him. He was a bunch of floors up and hundreds of meters away, he basically aimed at a spot and hosed it down.

This wasn't a guy that was mad about being bullied so he went to his school or office. This wasn't something about hating someone of a different religion or color, this was equal opportunity random death.

This was a person that wanted to kill in a detached manner, he wanted to rack up bodies. It was basically a sport kill more then anything else.

He didn't want to look his victims in the eyes he didn't even see them as cut out targets to shoot. He wanted to see them as ants, as lesser things scurry around in a panic.

I have my doubts that we're ever going to see a clear motive beyond a hearty F-you to humanity as a whole. He was a person that might have just been sick of the concept of humanity.

Maybe he saw himself as some kind of twisted hero in his own mind. There's a possibility even that he was unhinged by the very act of mass shooting and wanted to expose the hypocrisy of the whole thing.

Maybe he just woke up and his kill switch flicked to the on position and he wanted to rack up a body count.

Which is more frightening then someone who targets for revenge or personal gratification.

Supposedly he had an escape planned he expected this to bring him some kind of emotional response of joy or arousal or calm that would make living through this a desirable goal, but what if in the end he just felt empty and cold and realized that this wasn't worth it.

There is next to nothing about this from the way he planed it to the way he executed that screams out impulse, or rage. What he did seems almost rational and calculating.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I've had a few days to just think about this whole thing.

Wait for the investigation to conclude. This is all still assumption. For all anyone knows, he could be a case like Charles Whitman where it's now fairly widely accepted a brain tumour had a significant role in his shooting. It's premature to conclude anything.

[afc wimbledon]

Why would anyone question how someone took completely legal guns into a hotel room?
I doubt the hotel would blink an eye if he took them in openly and just said he was moving and didn't want to leave his guns in storage

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

I’d start by increasing access to mental health and removing the stigma associated with getting help. I’d also look into the reason why the US has this issue and other countries where you have access to the same guns don’t.

And how do you determine who needs mental health? I mean, there are some people on this site I think should have some couch time, but how do you force them to see a mental health professional? If someone doesn't think they are sick, they are not going to go to a doctor. How is someone selling a gun to one of these individuals going to make a call that the person is mentally ill? Unless you are suggesting a psych eval prior to purchasing a weapon, which would increase purchase times to weeks/months while a proper analysis is completed, you're not proposing anything of value. Its great to say that we should increase access to mental health services, but how does that stop someone from getting a gun and using it on other people?

A registry only tells you who has guns if they register them, it doesn’t say how those guns are being used or how they will be used. Canada ditched the LGR because it wasn’t accomplishing what people thought it would. There was no evidence it actually lowered the homicide rate or made women safer. It was inaccurate and had a low compliance rate (which the police couldn’t stop). The compliance rate in the US would probably be well under 50%, with no way to actually force compliance.

Was there evidence to the contrary in Canada? Did the existence of the registry cause an increase in gun violence or violence against women? Did it increase the existence of illegal weapons? I have a feeling the answer to this is a resounding "no" on all accounts. The reason the gun registry failed was because of political weakness and opportunity for conservatives to appeal to their base. The same #### happens down here all the time.

You are right, that the gun registry only tells you who owns a gun when its registered, but when you start registering them at purchase, and then making the owners responsible for the actions of those weapons, people will then begin to act like responsible gun owners. They will then secure their weapons properly. They will then take extreme care when transporting, using, or selling those weapons. Placing the responsibility of the actions of the weapon on the registered owner will make them act more responsibly in how they manage the weapon. It works with other property where liability is an issue, so why should that not work with guns?

Limiting standard capacity mags (20 & 30 round) doesn’t improve safety and it doesn’t stop crime, even Canadian limited capacity mags can be returned to full capacity in a minute or two. People like to say that if a shooter had to change mags, it would give people a chance to run. That’s not a really viable argument when it takes a second or two to swap.

Limiting the number of rounds in a mag does limit the amount of damage an individual can inflict. The reason for the large capacity mags in the military is for spray and pray fire fights. Those don't exist in the civilian world. There really is no need for a large capacity magazine. As someone who has a #### ton of high capacity mags I will be the first to admit they don't provide any value to the recreational shooter except limiting reload time. If you're out hunting bambi and you can't take them down with a single shot, maybe you should take up knitting. If you need a 20-30 round mag for hunting, something is seriously wrong. The only reason for that large capacity mag is so I don't have to reload as often. PERIOD.

So if, in an active shooter situation, the shooter has to reload every 10 shots, that is more than ample time for people to take action and observe Run, Hide, Fight.

For the sake of argument, let’s say they do ban mags over 10 rounds. How do you enforce it? There is no record of who bought what (accessory purchases are not regulated), a vast majority won’t voluntarily surrender them without compensation, you have law enforcement that won’t enforce the law and you can’t go house to house to search for them.

Same way they would ban the internal combustion engine. First, you stop allowing them to be sold. Then you wait for attrition to take place. Then you police when and where you can. When some yokel arrives at a run range with his 20-30 round magazines they quickly get confiscated. It is a slow process, but it is a start. And that's the important thing here, to get a start on dealing with the problem, because continuing to bury our collective heads in the sand does nothing to help the problem. In fact, it only makes it worse.

Assuming anyone actually complies, how would you use the registry to prevent people from going off the rails and shooting up a mall? Unless your proposal includes limiting the amount of property someone can own and then using the registry and police to enforce those limits. It might be good for after the fact tracing, but in most of these cases, the shooter is either dead or in custody already. Even if they aren’t, tracing is possible now. We already register property, but it hasn’t stopped laws being broken.

The idea of a gun registry is to prevent people from buying weapons they shouldn't have, identifying the owner of a weapon should it be lost or stolen, encouraging responsible gun ownership, and having an audit trail to follow the life of a gun, and then holding owners accountable for their property. All of these are simple steps in helping limit the problem. There is no single silver bullet (pardon the pun) solution, but there are a whole bunch of things that can help limit the problem.

A lot of ideas are being tossed around, but they aren’t usually accompanied by how the specific idea would prevent shootings from happening. Not only that, but some of the things suggested are already illegal.

Let's start by using common sense and enforcing responsible gun ownership. Let's have real background checks, proper waiting periods, register weapons, restrictions on types and numbers of weapons owned, and then enforce responsible gun ownership. It works for all sorts of countries around the developed world, it should work in the US as well. If I were looking for a model to follow, I would look to Switzerland.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What he did seems almost rational and calculating.

No, this was definitely rational and calculating. This has been floating around his brain for quite some time. He did his homework. He knew the targets, had a plan for engagement, and according to the FBI, had an escape plan. This guy spent plenty of time putting this together. He knew all the angles. I'm just curious why he popped himself? The police were no threat to him. He could have likely made a clean getaway if he had chosen to. I wonder what made him shoot himself?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Why would anyone question how someone took completely legal guns into a hotel room?
I doubt the hotel would blink an eye if he took them in openly and just said he was moving and didn't want to leave his guns in storage

agreed... if they did see him with a few guns, i am not sure how it would be considered any different than any other shopping spree a tourist might be having in LV.

Guns are legal; not like there's a bag check or metal detector you need to go through to get to your hotel room especially after you've checked in...

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by New Era

No, this was definitely rational and calculating. This has been floating around his brain for quite some time. He did his homework. He knew the targets, had a plan for engagement, and according to the FBI, had an escape plan. This guy spent plenty of time putting this together. He knew all the angles. I'm just curious why he popped himself? The police were no threat to him. He could have likely made a clean getaway if he had chosen to. I wonder what made him shoot himself?

I thought he killed himself prior to SWAT breaching his door?

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by transplant99

He had 4 days to get his stuff into the room.

Most of those weapons break down into components.

So day 1 he checks in with 2 or 3 suitcases. One contains clothing etc, the other 2 contain 4 of the weapons. Later that night he heads down to the garage and grabs another 2 suitcases containing 3 or 4 of them. Then does it again twice the next day at various times. Just a guy walking through a massive hotel pushing a luggage trolley. No one, including the most alert and suspicious security guards are going to notice that.

By late night the second night he has all his weaponry and ammo in his room, and even able to hide them out of sight without much issue in an 1800 sq.ft. 2 bedroom, fully furnished suite. It's still a couple more days until he goes ahead with his plan.

This guy was smart in that way. He had clearly drawn up a plan that was not only brutally effective in its implementation, but also impossible to detect as happening before hand.

Im most interested to see if they ever really find the "trigger" that sent him down one of the darkest roads a human being could possibly take. Something happened to/around this guy that set off a controlled rage of epic proportions.

I think you'd have a hard time hiding that many guns in a suite from the maids for that many days. The only way I could think of would have been to bring all the weapons up the day previous using multiple trips and then hanging the "Do not Disturb" sign on the door.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Especially at night.

That being said why do civvies need tracer?

Hog hunting in the dark!

[Baron von Kriterium]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I thought he killed himself prior to SWAT breaching his door?

You are right, I believe. My understanding is that the ad hoc team consisting of hotel security and police reached the shooter's room 8-9 minutes after the shooting started.

A security guard was shot and the ad hoc team retreated and waited for SWAT.

I believe there wasn't any more shooting from the room after this encounter. Perhaps shooter felt there wasn't any way to get away and ended it right there.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

You are right, I believe. My understanding is that the ad hoc team consisting of hotel security and police reached the shooter's room 8-9 minutes after the shooting started.

A security guard was shot and the ad hoc team retreated and waited for SWAT.

I believe there wasn't any more shooting from the room after this encounter. Perhaps shooter felt there wasn't any way to get away and ended it right there.

I wonder if he ever thought to DB Cooper it out the window, 32nd floor would be high enough up wouldn't it?

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium

You are right, I believe. My understanding is that the ad hoc team consisting of hotel security and police reached the shooter's room 8-9 minutes after the shooting started.

A security guard was shot and the ad hoc team retreated and waited for SWAT.

I believe there wasn't any more shooting from the room after this encounter. Perhaps shooter felt there wasn't any way to get away and ended it right there.

When I was down in the US earlier this week they were reporting he had a camera setup outside the door of his hotel so he'd know when the SWAT team arrived, and used that to determine when to shoot himself. Not sure how reliable that was, but that's what CNN was saying Monday.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I thought he killed himself prior to SWAT breaching his door?

He did. That's the point. SWAT didn't respond for over an hour after the first shots were fired, and then about 45 minutes after the last shots were heard from the room. He could have got away clean. I don't know why LVPD has received accolades for their part because their response was brutal.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I thought he killed himself prior to SWAT breaching his door?

I don't think its been announced/discovered yet one way or the other definativily.

Fact is though that he stopped shooting out the windows at 10:15 as recorded by body cams on officers around the concert. SWAT first breached the room at 11:20 and saw a body on the floor. They waited 7 more minutes before the second breach and entrance into the room to confirm there were no more suspects and he "was down".

Logically I would take that to mean he offed himself right after he stopped shooting, but long before SWAT entered the room.


http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...eline-route-91