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

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by New Era

In your mind. Do you know what you're looking at and how to interpret that? Duty assignments alone will raise some eyebrows. There's a lot of stuff in this timeline that LVPD would probably not have wanted released. The postmortem on this is not going to pretty. Publicly, it will be a success. Internally there will be some reorganization.

I've looked over it, and felt that the police did a good job. Could they have done a better one? Of course. This also could have been a much bigger disaster.

I am certain that there will be a post-mortem where things will change in the department too. Like anything, you can only plan so much for it. You plan and plan, and then when 'it' happens, you see how good your planning is.

A bad dept would look at it and go "well, we did ok. Carry on for next time."

A good dept will look at it and go "Ok, we did several things well, several things not so well, and these things plain didn't work how we expected or planned at all. Now that we have a bit of real experience with these things, how can we improve..."

[ernie]

It seems there was a good portion of luck (bad choice of word I know) involved on having this end when it did. Had the security guard not been on the 32nd floor for a completely unrelated reason, Paddock doesn't target him and give away his location. Without that the PD takes longer to reach to narrow things down and he likely gets a few more minutes of shooting before he takes himself out.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by ernie

It seems there was a good portion of luck (bad choice of word I know) involved on having this end when it did. Had the security guard not been on the 32nd floor for a completely unrelated reason, Paddock doesn't target him and give away his location. Without that the PD takes longer to reach to narrow things down and he likely gets a few more minutes of shooting before he takes himself out.

I think the security guard was on the floor because of the smoke alarms.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think the security guard was on the floor because of the smoke alarms.

I thought he was there attending to a different alarm, an open door at a different room. Just happened to be on the 32nd floor.

A bit off topic but the UFC hosted 1500 shooting survivors at 216 on Saturday and donated a million bucks. They invited Jason Aldean to sing the anthem at the event and he declined with his managment company saying he was too shook up to play live and needed some time off. Understandable considering. But when he showed up in New York to play Saturday Night Live the same night as 216 it seriously pissed off Dana White...

His image was more important then coming back to Vegas and playing for the people who are his fans and who got shot watching him play. ##### you Jason Aldean. Stay out of Vegas,

F you indeed.

[Igotnothing]

I pretty much automatically take anything Dana White said with a grain of salt, actually much more than just a grain. It was great of them to donate a million bucks though. Maybe Aldean just didn't want to be in Vegas anymore, can't hardly blame him for that.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I thought he was there attending to a different alarm, an open door at a different room. Just happened to be on the 32nd floor.

A bit off topic but the UFC hosted 1500 shooting survivors at 216 on Saturday and donated a million bucks. They invited Jason Aldean to sing the anthem at the event and he declined with his managment company saying he was too shook up to play live and needed some time off. Understandable considering. But when he showed up in New York to play Saturday Night Live the same night as 216 it seriously pissed off Dana White...

F you indeed.

How many people are in the audience for SNL?

The only thing Aldean can be blamed for is having his mgmt say he needed time off. That said, I would want to see the quote from someone other than Dana that this is what his management team said. Can hardly blame him for not wanting to go back and play within 1 mile of where everything happened in front of 20k people a little over 7 days later. The focus of him playing for UFC is because of the terror that occurred and while I didn't watch the SNL, I assume it wasn't a role completely focussed on bringing back the memories he just went through.

Dana is a clown who would screw anyone over for 50 cents. To say what he said because he disagreed with Aldean (and most likely doesn't know the whole story) in light of everything that has happened is just a typical Dana move.

[OMG!WTF!]

Yeah I just read that Aldean went back to Vegas to visit victims on Sunday. I think White just didn't like the snub. It would have been cool to "finish the show" in a way though.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nra-bump-stocks-1.4346367

Not really unexpected, but man.. These things have zero practical use. You would hope the NRA would consider this would build a little good will by supporting it. But nope. Oppose every ban, no matter how reasonable.

LOL... that's the NRA I know...

the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" mindset...

they should just go full no holds barred if they believe that... why shouldn't automatics be legal? or grenades? or rocket launchers?

I mean its bad people doing that shooting, so a heavily armed populace is going to better in order to protect people right?

I ran out of sympathy for Americans wrt to gun violence after nothing changed following Newtown...i'll feel bad for the victims of the families of course, but American's have really brought this on themselves.

What exactly has more lax guns laws done? because anecdotally, it sure seems like there are more mass shooting and with higher death counts now compared to 20 years ago... a lot of folks are in denial, just like they are with global warming and the associated weather events that have been increasing in frequency and intensity and not seeing a causal relationship

[Fuzz]

If only a good guy with a gun was in the crowd and had a sniper rifle to shoot this guy.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

LOL... that's the NRA I know...

the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" mindset...

they should just go full no holds barred if they believe that... why shouldn't automatics be legal? or grenades? or rocket launchers?

I mean its bad people doing that shooting, so a heavily armed populace is going to better in order to protect people right?

I ran out of sympathy for Americans wrt to gun violence after nothing changed following Newtown...i'll feel bad for the victims of the families of course, but American's have really brought this on themselves.

What exactly has more lax guns laws done? because anecdotally, it sure seems like there are more mass shooting and with higher death counts now compared to 20 years ago... a lot of folks are in denial, just like they are with global warming and the associated weather events that have been increasing in frequency and intensity and not seeing a causal relationship

It's not necessarily Americans. Like, it sort of is, but their institutions are so corrupt and so unreflective of the will of the voters that I just feel sorry for them.

Americans by and large agree on a lot of things: tax the rich, stricter gun control laws, single payer healthcare, environmental legislation, etc, but it doesn't matter because the supreme Court, Congress and the Senate at both state and federal level is corrupted to the point where the will of the people is often flatly ignored in favour of the whims and machinations of their ruling class.

I feel sad for Americans.

[transplant99]

So the timeline changes more than a little bit after more investigation.

Las Vegas police released new details Monday about what occurred in the days and minutes before the mass shooting on the Strip, raising new questions about why it took about an hour for officers to enter the gunman’s hotel suite.

Six minutes before Mandalay Bay shooter Stephen Paddock sprayed gunfire onto the Route 91 Harvest festival grounds on Oct. 1, he shot hotel security guard Jesus Campos, Sheriff Joe Lombardo revealed Monday.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/...e-on-festival/

[ernie]

Gun control is one of the issues where you see the huge disconnect between representatives and the general public they are supposed to represent. It illustrates just how corrupt and useless the US system of electing officials can be. Appeal to a narrow base to get a nomination and then get elected because you are the "correct" party....and then only serve those that nominated you because the only thing that matters is getting re-elected. Nothing illustrates that better than the John Oliver piece on the Daily Show a few years back on gun control.

He talked to a Australian politician that spearheaded the gun control legislation and contrasted it with the US politician. The most important thing for the Aussie was doing the right and moral thing even if it cost him his support from the base. The US politician was not concerned about doing the right thing or even anything...he just wanted to be re-elected. Nothing more. Appeals to your narrow base will get you elected in the US system.

The majority of Americans want the following:

-prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns
-bar gun sales to people on no fly and watch lists
-background checks for private and gun show sales
-ban assault style weapons (this is wishy washy language..I imagine it can be summed up by guns and mods that shoot a lot of bullets in a short amount of time)
-creating a database to track gun sales

Every single one of those has majority support in both parties and are at over 70% support overall.

Yet nothing gets done. Create a database and the authorities all of a sudden know Paddock is purchasing a lot of guns and ammo for some reason. It at least raises some suspicions and maybe puts him on the radar.


New timeline...does change things quite a bit. Had he left that security guard alone who knows how much more time he gets. Given he had cameras set up you have to think he also knew he didn't kill the guard and you wonder if that is why he never tried for his escape. Put him on a quick "mission" to cause as much carnage in the 10 or so minutes he felt he then had and then take the easy way out.

[Northendzone]

^ just out of curiosity, where did you get data to support your conclusions on what the majority of americans want?

not that this is in any way scientific, but i watched that jimmy kimmel monologue and lots of comments on youtube seemed to suggest that many americans feel they need a gun to protect them from the king of England attacking them. i am sure some of it is internet bravado, but it makes me wonder about the americans general populations view on guns

i also loved that graphic that is floating around social media on which politicians tweeted out thoughts and prayers but took funds from the NRA

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

^ just out of curiosity, where did you get data to support your conclusions on what the majority of americans want?

not that this is in any way scientific, but i watched that jimmy kimmel monologue and lots of comments on youtube seemed to suggest that many americans feel they need a gun to protect them from the king of England attacking them. i am sure some of it is internet bravado, but it makes me wonder about the americans general populations view on guns

i also loved that graphic that is floating around social media on which politicians tweeted out thoughts and prayers but took funds from the NRA

It was a recent Pew poll in a CNN article. I should have linked the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/politi...ing/index.html

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Admittedly it's about a spike that occurs after a shooting which then they say tends to fade. However, I find the polls themselves to often not be comparable. There are a many people who will answer the following two questions this way:

Do you think there should be background checks on private and gun show sales? Yes

Do you think guns control laws should be more restrictive? No.

For example in the Gallup link 86% in Oct 2015 said they were in favor of universal background checks for ALL gun sales AND a centralized database of gun sales yet only 55% answered yes to having more strict regulations.

There is a massive disconnect with the voting public in this. When you say gun control people think "they are taking my guns!" they don't equate that with common sense regulation such as universal background checks or not selling to people on no fly lists etc. It is associated almost solely with gun bans.

I hope this one changes some things and I think it has legitmately changed some minds. The argument of "good guy with a gun" doesn't apply to this and nearly 5 dozen people are dead and over 500 others injured in a 9 minute shooting spree. Clearly you need more than a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. You need legislation that allows authorities to dotheir job and protect the community...at the very least.

I think that goes a long ways to helping improve the situation and it isn't a ban on anything. The next step is to ban things that you don't need to hunt or protect yourself and are purely for increased body count. I think you'll have most people on board for that as well.

The answer can not be "well put in better security". Sure that is likely necessary as well, however, I look at it like my profession. I'm a chemist. When I'm doing a reaction I will have a relief valve or rupture disc to prevent over pressure if something happens. It's a last ditch effort to keep people from getting hurt. You don't want to have to use it. Security and weapons screening to me is like that relief valve. Ya you want that as a last second intervention but the safety of the process should be starting much earlier so you aren't truly relying on it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Americans by and large agree on a lot of things: tax the rich, stricter gun control laws, single payer healthcare, environmental legislation, etc

Then why do they elect Republicans?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by SebC

Then why do they elect Republicans?

Because Republicans are great at packaging a message that activates voter's fear center and makes issues emotional rather than rational. Republicans are great at wedge issue politics, but terrible at actual governing. When it comes election time, real issues don't matter, but guns, religion, sexuality, and abortion are front and center, because they know their base are triggered every time they hear any of those terms.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by New Era

Because Republicans are great at packaging a message that activates voter's fear center and makes issues emotional rather than rational. Republicans are great at wedge issue politics, but terrible at actual governing. When it comes election time, real issues don't matter, but guns, religion, sexuality, and abortion are front and center, because they know their base are triggered every time they hear any of those terms.

Yep and it goes even further...."my family always votes republican". That is a very strong component of things especially in the areas where voting republican is clearly not in a persons best interest. Now it's not scientific at all but my experience down here has been that I've never heard a democrat say they'd disown their child if they ever voted republican. I've heard the reverse more times than I care to count....including twice yesterday!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by ernie

Now it's not scientific at all but my experience down here has been that I've never heard a democrat say they'd disown their child if they ever voted republican. I've heard the reverse more times than I care to count....including twice yesterday!

Though Republicans are worse, Democrats and Republicans are both becoming deeply partisan. 49 per cent of Republicans and 33 per cent of Democrats say they would be unhappy if their child married someone of the opposing party. In 1960, those figures were 5 and 4 per cent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/o...-personal.html

What has always struck me about Americans is how many identify as Republicans or Democrats. I rarely see Canadians say they are Conservatives or Liberals. They may vote that way in an election, or even most elections. But it isn't a social identity the way it is for so many Americans.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by SebC

Then why do they elect Republicans?

Because they pander to white Christians better. Lets just get the elephant in the room out of the way... It's not hard to tell that much of the republican voting block is based in the south and other rural areas. It is not hard to look at those areas that voted consistently democrat for decades until the 60's when the democratic party decided to embrace the civil rights movements. Then the areas all started turning republican. Not everyone switched at once of course. I think back to that Kentucky county clerk lady a couple years ago who refused to issue marriage licences to gay couples. I remember reading the lady still considered herself a democrat. Pretty sure she had done so just out of routine and that her ideals had long ago diverged with that of the democratic party.

As newera points out, much of the way they do this is by instilling fear in everyone and convincing the people that have been in power in this country since its inception are actually some sort of persecuted minority. They invent things like the war on Christmas, the war on coal, etc. So then they can demonize everyone they don't agree with.

We are dumb down here. We idolize people like Trump or the Kardashians. Our moral compass is simply broken. We refer to the POTUS as the 'leader of the free world' but on the issues facing our planet, we don't lead at all. We have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do whats right.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Though Republicans are worse, Democrats and Republicans are both becoming deeply partisan. 49 per cent of Republicans and 33 per cent of Democrats say they would be unhappy if their child married someone of the opposing party. In 1960, those figures were 5 and 4 per cent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/o...-personal.html

What has always struck me about Americans is how many identify as Republicans or Democrats. I rarely see Canadians say they are Conservatives or Liberals. They may vote that way in an election, or even most elections. But it isn't a social identity the way it is for so many Americans.

I wonder how much has to do with binary choice of the two party system. Having a real third option allows one to not be one of "them", while still allowing disagreement from your own party. In America, if you're a Democrat you can't really disengage from your party or your "one of them" and vice versa