SHOOTING at Mandalay festival

Quote: mamat

He could have lost $2 million in 12 bets...
-----


Curtis told me that he’d been in touch with a number of such players in Las Vegas who “can derive advantages over the casino of half of one per cent, sometimes higher.” He said that around a dozen of these players, whom he declined to name, had “ended up running in the same circles as Paddock,” and recalled observing him over the past few months.

Curtis’s sources told him that Paddock was not a so-called advantage player, someone who can beat the video-poker game. “They call themselves A.P.s,” Curtis said, “and just about everyone I talked to said, ‘No, he wasn’t A.P. level.’

They discounted him as just a high roller, a guy who might have read a book or two, or something like that.” But Curtis heard that Paddock was what’s referred to as “a low seven,” or someone who has a verified low-seven-figure bank account, which would have afforded him a six-figure line of credit at casinos.

Curtis went on, “People who are semi-sharp, as we say in Vegas, they know they’re better off playing video poker than slots. This guy was smart enough to know that. He was not on top of the world of play, but he was a gambler that kind of knew how to play the angles a little bit.”

My post that had this 2 mil comment in it wasn't my comment... you realize this I am sure. I was posting up what more than the average person thinks about Casinos and Gambling. It is pretty obvious the common person doesn't believe in Advantage Play. They actually think it is impossible. All those comments were from yahoo users and what they thought of Gambling in general.

I think that Curtis and his friends or circle would say the same thing about me. Many times when asked if I am a professional I reply that I am a professional degenerate or I might say I am educated somewhat in gaming but in no way a professional... I am not listed as a professional gambler or do not have professional gambler status. I mean I am playing Reels and we both know that nobody and I mean nobody can beat Reels!! I try hard to look more like a sharp player compared to an AP. Maybe this guy was just good at cover or maybe he was just firing all the time. I'm not sure how it matters but I know they are going to analyze everything he did in his life. It will be nice when this attention goes away on Video Poker or AP lifestyle. I don't find it very fun to read about VP of any sort in the news. I may post information on here and at times I probably say too much and most likely should have all my posts nuked and never post again but it isn't as bad talking here compared to all over the news and web.

Quote: JohnnyQ

OK, this part:

Section 1

2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

ie:

"The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens".

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

- It is time for our country to have presidential elections based on the popular vote.

I know we have debated this a few years ago, but that's what should be changed. In fact, I think it could be argued that the Electoral College was designed in part to prevent a person like trump from being elected. Wasn't it also a huge compromise to the small states at the time, to entice them to join with the others to create a Federal government ?

I am not concerned about the small states. They are already vastly over-represented in terms of population by the Senate. The governors and state legislatures represent the citizens of the state on state level issues. The Federal government, and the president in particular, should be representing all the country's citizens, ONE PERSON ONE (equal) VOTE.

Really? You want the election based on the popular vote? You're basically saying you support a pure democracy. You do realize democracy is the first step to socialism, which eventually leads to communism. The Constitution is pure gold. Our founding fathers were geniuses, they knew the danger of a central government having too much power, and restricted it perfectly to create the very first free nation controlled by the PEOPLE. They didn't waste their whole day scrolling through mass media garbage on facebook or flipping through their phone, they gathered together, shared ideas, were educated about historical facts such as understanding how to keep a government in check and what can lead to an abusive government, etc. The problem is, 99% of citizens in this country dont know anything about our rights, the governments lack of power and are easily swayed by bullshit media and swarmed by their TV day and night as soon as they get home from an 8 hour shift 5 days a week. Therefore the citizenry of this country are the ones at fault, not the Constitution itself.

You think the Electoral system is bad, but it's only because we as citizens are not doing our job. We are focusing too much on which idiot puppet is going into presidency when you should be focusing all of that effort on who you're electing in your state. These statesmen are the ones who affect your life. They will also be the same ones going in to Congress to pass legislation. Go ask someone on the street right now who were the main candidates in the last state election for their state and I bet you right now not one of the people will name all of them. On the contrary, go ask that same person who were the candidates in the federal election and they'll most likely name them all, unless they just dont care about anything political, which makes them another mindless drone walking the streets.

As much as it's our fault, it's also the medias fault. You never see the state election on tv or anything about it, but the federal election gets mass publicity. Hmmm, i wonder why that is. The federal government has an agenda and that agenda is to keep the public as stupid and distracted as it gets. They literally have made the whole country think we live under a democracy as well as thinking we live under some type of dictatorship where the President of the United States rules all and it's the most important position on Earth. Just look at what you're saying, saying we need to get a popular vote. LOL. You really want a popular vote with a public that is more concerned with how big Kim Kardashians ass is or how much medication Kanye West has gone on? 90% of the public and 99% of people my age have to be the most unreliable and dangerous people to cast a vote. Just look at what happened in the last federal election, people were voting for a guy named 'DeezNuts', what kind of age group do you think was voting for that guy? It's just so sad and pathetic at the same time. Just a bunch of drones out there stuck to their cell phones and facebook. How about we learn to elect the proper state representatives and the rest will take care of itself.

The sad thing about the posts I write, is I bet no one even reads them, because the attention span of people these days is about 7 seconds, especially the youth. Just look at today vs centuries ago or even 50 years ago. Everything is digital now. Go compare 100 years ago the strength in relationships among friends and partners and see how much better it is than now. Technology has been good for business, but has destroyed society and has created and encouraged antisocial behavior amongst people.

The funny thing is, is that you could make the debate that it directly correlates to this thread. How many mass murderers probably felt lonely and depressed or felt that no one understood them? How many people today are depressed and lonely compared to back then? Why do you think this crazy shit didnt happen back in the 1700s? If more people engaged amongst each other and got rid of all this bullshit being fed to us through that tv panel in our bedrooms and got rid of our phones and social media, i bet you right now everything in this world would be fixed. You would have educated citizens with a healthy social environment.

Quote:

...at least one story stating he had checked in using the "girlfriend"s player card. This makes no sense to us. Since when can someone check into a hotel using another person's players card/points? without that person being present?

Oh good grief, this is just unbearable. Since always, is since when.

If this is not the absolute worst most poorly informed fever swamp on the web for such things as this kind of topic, it has got to be damn close to it. And this thread does not disappoint, doing an excellent job of maintaining the forum's *ahem* let's politely say 'pungent' reputation among normal people who mostly look but, more sensibly than me, don't touch.

It is routine to link player cards with a spouse or designated significant other such as a boyfriend/girlfriend. Has been for for a long time, a lot longer than I've had a casino card anywhere, we're talking decades, probably since about the first day player cards with computerized casino loyalty/reward systems were invented. At least hundreds of thousands of player card accounts are linked in this manner, I suspect possibly even as many as a few millions of them, and I constantly get and see invitations to do so.

Doing that, if someone chooses, combines the household's play and spend on the property or the company's properties for purposes of rating the value of their play and for earning and spending comps. Including using such comps to pay for hotel rooms. There will be literally hundreds of people standing at check-in desks around Las Vegas doing exactly that very same thing right at this moment as I click "post." I have also booked rooms for visiting family members many times, have been doing so for years, with them as the named hotel guests who will be showing up to check-in on the specified date, to be paid for with my comps on my player card account. If anything about that seems weird to someone, the problem lies in their grasp of how the world works. Which is pretty much what most people expect when they look at anything but the useful work that's done on purely mathematical analysis/computation here, so carry on with all the delirium.

Shame on me for peeking into the thread. I knew better than to do that, but now I should be inoculated to temptation again for another six months to a year or so, so thanks.

Quote: NokTang

I'm reminded that there was at least one story stating he had checked in using the "girlfriend"s player card. This makes no sense to us.

As we all know, mainstream media is clueless about gambling (which is good for APs).

One early article explained a "player's card" as being like a "debit card". :-)

This is not uncommon among people who never gamble (or only a little bit).

I guess what's confusing is when people put player's cards in machines to play FP.
For example, you sign up for a new player's card, and they put $5-10 FP on the card.
A newbie goes to a machine downloads $5-10 to play, so they think a "player's card" is like a "debit card".
...and they are partially correct.

-----
Most non-casino hotels allow you to pay for a room, and have someone else check-in.

But most comped rooms in casinos require the card owner to be present...at least in my experience. (I've never tried with a "linked" spouse/GF card).

He also looked up another potential target in Beantown, the Boston Center for the Arts, officials said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/paddock-booked-rooms-overlooking-concerts-vegas-shooting-article-1.3542741

Paddock also researched hotels near Fenway Park, the home of the Boston Red Sox, a senior law enforcement official told NBC News.
The lodging near Fenway offers, at best, an obstructed view of the ballpark — and Paddock ultimately gave up on the search, officials said.

Quote: RS

I don't think that's necessarily the right way to approach or go against it. Rather, the issue here is suicide, not guns. A different approach to fixing the problem is needed for suicides vs mass shooters vs domestic violence vs gangs shootin' each other up.

A hand gun is probably even more deadly (in regards to suicide) for someone struggling with depression and suicidal thoughts/tendencies. It's a bit harder to shoot yourself in the head with a shotgun or an AK-47 than with a hand gun (not that it can't be done, ie: Kurt Cobain)....and I think it'd be far less appealing as well. Sorta like -- would you rather take a few pills, fall asleep, and be dead in a little while.....or would you rather take a chainsaw to your neck?

So what's the solution to stopping or decreasing suicides in the USA? Are Americans overall unhappy? Is it more accepted in our culture than others? Granted, our suicide rate is 12.6/100,000 (or 0.0126%) and ranks 48'th highest in the world. It appears the center 30% are in the 8.5-12/100k range.

Per 100k, Canada and Australia are at 10.4, Netherlands 9.4, Norway 9.3, and Sweden at 12.7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Not RS-vetted sources, just quick google searches:

USA suicide methods:
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide

Australia suicide methods:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/EBA9606492CEFC61CA25788400127CEB?opendocument

Canada suicide methods:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/11696-eng.htm

The suicide rates in these countries, according to wikipedia, are 12.6, 10.4, and 10.4 respectively. In USA, suicide method of using a firearm is 51%, while Australia and Canada are hanging/suffocation 51% and 44% respectively.

Considering firearms are very difficult to get in Australia and apparently they're difficult to get in Canada or something like that too, you'd think there'd be a significant difference in the suicide rates between USA vs Australia & Canada, considering how "rampant" gun ownership is viewed in the USA.

On the other hand, it's also possible (to me, seems very unlikely) if guns were outlawed in the USA, you'd see those 51% or so of suicide by gun (about 6/100k people) drop significantly, such that we have a suicide rate in the 6-8/100k range (but mind you, that's a decrease of 0.004-0.006%, whereas if we decreased the rate by 0.0126%, there would be 0 suicides).

Granted, I just picked Canada and Australia somewhat at random and because they're similar. I haven't done a bunch of research on this subject, but I think the more you actually research something instead of just watching a stupid buzzfeed video telling you how to think, the more you'll get out of it and be able to understand it's not "It's a gun problem, period."


edit: website slow AF, wtf?

I just think it's bizarre to look at the issue and immediately waive off suicides as no big deal.

While it would be hard to measure, it's obvious to me that more guns = more suicides for the same reason, that guns are the most efficient killing devices we have.

Right off the top, killing yourself almost any other way is going to fail more, I'm pretty sure. People screw up the dosages of pills, or don't know which kinds are lethal. They slit their wrists the wrong way. etc. (Jumping off a high building works, but not that many people do it.)

Secondly, I think there's psychological difficulties, fear of pain, and time issues. With pills, you have to obtain the pills. Take them gradually, etc. More chance to bail out. Hanging yourself is scary and painful, unless you are an expert. And again, takes a lot of prep. and you might change your mind during that prep. Or someone might discover what you are doing.

Now, are there gun control measures that could reduce suicides? I'm assuming the total abolition of guns is off the table.

Not sure. And it's true, things like assault rifles and those bump things have no role in suicide.

One thing I thought of is some sort of mandatory safety stuff. Unlike some posters, I don't think the government should be able to randomly barge into your home at any time to make sure you are storing your guns correctly.

However, perhaps you should have to buy a gun lock with every gun. Or, you should have to prove you own a gun safe before purchasing any gun. Just like you cannot buy a car without buying seatbelts.

That's just off the top of my head. This wouldn't prevent the gun owner from killing himself. And obviously, many people would disregard the safety measures once they had them. But the aim would be to keep the guns out of the hands of other suicidal family members, especially angsty teens. Also, prevent kids from accidentally killing themselves and others.

That might or might not be a good idea. There maybe no good ideas. But I don't think suicides are just a non-issue for some reason.

Quote: Paradigm

Will there be quarterly or annual in home inspections by ATF to ensure collector compliance?

And piss tests

Quote: ZenKinG

Quote: JohnnyQ

OK, this part:

Section 1

2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

ie:

"The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens".

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

- It is time for our country to have presidential elections based on the popular vote.

I know we have debated this a few years ago, but that's what should be changed. In fact, I think it could be argued that the Electoral College was designed in part to prevent a person like trump from being elected. Wasn't it also a huge compromise to the small states at the time, to entice them to join with the others to create a Federal government ?

I am not concerned about the small states. They are already vastly over-represented in terms of population by the Senate. The governors and state legislatures represent the citizens of the state on state level issues. The Federal government, and the president in particular, should be representing all the country's citizens, ONE PERSON ONE (equal) VOTE.

Really? You want the election based on the popular vote? You're basically saying you support a pure democracy. You do realize democracy is the first step to socialism, which eventually leads to communism. The Constitution is pure gold. Our founding fathers were geniuses, they knew the danger of a central government having too much power, and restricted it perfectly to create the very first free nation controlled by the PEOPLE. They didn't waste their whole day scrolling through mass media garbage on facebook or flipping through their phone, they gathered together, shared ideas, were educated about historical facts such as understanding how to keep a government in check and what can lead to an abusive government, etc. The problem is, 99% of citizens in this country dont know anything about our rights, the governments lack of power and are easily swayed by bullshit media and swarmed by their TV day and night as soon as they get home from an 8 hour shift 5 days a week. Therefore the citizenry of this country are the ones at fault, not the Constitution itself.

You think the Electoral system is bad, but it's only because we as citizens are not doing our job. We are focusing too much on which idiot puppet is going into presidency when you should be focusing all of that effort on who you're electing in your state. These statesmen are the ones who affect your life. They will also be the same ones going in to Congress to pass legislation. Go ask someone on the street right now who were the main candidates in the last state election for their state and I bet you right now not one of the people will name all of them. On the contrary, go ask that same person who were the candidates in the federal election and they'll most likely name them all, unless they just dont care about anything political, which makes them another mindless drone walking the streets.

As much as it's our fault, it's also the medias fault. You never see the state election on tv or anything about it, but the federal election gets mass publicity. Hmmm, i wonder why that is. The federal government has an agenda and that agenda is to keep the public as stupid and distracted as it gets. They literally have made the whole country think we live under a democracy as well as thinking we live under some type of dictatorship where the President of the United States rules all and it's the most important position on Earth. Just look at what you're saying, saying we need to get a popular vote. LOL. You really want a popular vote with a public that is more concerned with how big Kim Kardashians ass is or how much medication Kanye West has gone on? 90% of the public and 99% of people my age have to be the most unreliable and dangerous people to cast a vote. Just look at what happened in the last federal election, people were voting for a guy named 'DeezNuts', what kind of age group do you think was voting for that guy? It's just so sad and pathetic at the same time. Just a bunch of drones out there stuck to their cell phones and facebook. How about we learn to elect the proper state representatives and the rest will take care of itself.

The sad thing about the posts I write, is I bet no one even reads them, because the attention span of people these days is about 7 seconds, especially the youth. Just look at today vs centuries ago or even 50 years ago. Everything is digital now. Go compare 100 years ago the strength in relationships among friends and partners and see how much better it is than now. Technology has been good for business, but has destroyed society and has created and encouraged antisocial behavior amongst people.

The funny thing is, is that you could make the debate that it directly correlates to this thread. How many mass murderers probably felt lonely and depressed or felt that no one understood them? How many people today are depressed and lonely compared to back then? Why do you think this crazy shit didnt happen back in the 1700s? If more people engaged amongst each other and got rid of all this bullshit being fed to us through that tv panel in our bedrooms and got rid of our phones and social media, i bet you right now everything in this world would be fixed. You would have educated citizens with a healthy social environment.

I read. You made some good points and it sounds like maybe you even referenced Plato. But, it's a pretty big stretch to say that popular vote = pure democracy. It would only be a pure democracy on one question: who is president. But all the polices would still be made be representatives. Except referendums.

I don't mind the electoral college, though. I see some merit to the idea that rural regions, people, interests and culture should not be totally overwhelmed in the political process.

I agree that we are increasingly isolated with weak social bonds. Part of the reason people go so nuts politically, and in general, is not just the echo chamber thing but the fact that many rarely deal with friends and family with whom they disagree. We're not only more isolated, we create our own worlds.

Sounds like this guy was close to his brother and his brother's family at least and possibly his woman and her family.

This whole thing was a very senseless tragedy. I feel so sad for the 59 innocent people killed and almost 600 innocent people wounded. I also feel sad for their families and friends who will never see their lived ones again all because of this senseless murdering sicko! Those poor people were just there to innocently watch a concert! They didn't deserve to be killed and wounded! :(

Quote: Rigondeaux

I just think it's bizarre to look at the issue and immediately waive off suicides as no big deal.

While it would be hard to measure, it's obvious to me that more guns = more suicides for the same reason, that guns are the most efficient killing devices we have.

Right off the top, killing yourself almost any other way is going to fail more, I'm pretty sure. People screw up the dosages of pills, or don't know which kinds are lethal. They slit their wrists the wrong way. etc. (Jumping off a high building works, but not that many people do it.)

Secondly, I think there's psychological difficulties, fear of pain, and time issues. With pills, you have to obtain the pills. Take them gradually, etc. More chance to bail out. Hanging yourself is scary and painful, unless you are an expert. And again, takes a lot of prep. and you might change your mind during that prep. Or someone might discover what you are doing.

Now, are there gun control measures that could reduce suicides? I'm assuming the total abolition of guns is off the table.

Not sure. And it's true, things like assault rifles and those bump things have no role in suicide.

One thing I thought of is some sort of mandatory safety stuff. Unlike some posters, I don't think the government should be able to randomly barge into your home at any time to make sure you are storing your guns correctly.

However, perhaps you should have to buy a gun lock with every gun. Or, you should have to prove you own a gun safe before purchasing any gun. Just like you cannot buy a car without buying seatbelts.

That's just off the top of my head. This wouldn't prevent the gun owner from killing himself. And obviously, many people would disregard the safety measures once they had them. But the aim would be to keep the guns out of the hands of other suicidal family members, especially angsty teens. Also, prevent kids from accidentally killing themselves and others.

That might or might not be a good idea. There maybe no good ideas. But I don't think suicides are just a non-issue for some reason.

I don't have a problem with safety requirements, although there's some weird stuff going on there.

New York, for example, considers a gun to be loaded if it is stored in the same container as ammunition. I believe other states are the same way. However in New York, you can have your hand gun locked in a case with no ammunition in the case, have that case inside another bag that has ammunition in it, and they consider that a loaded gun. People have gotten arrested landing in NY for transporting their gun via checking it on the plane for this.

That's like getting a DUI for having a sealed bottle of Jack Daniels in a safe in the back seat of your car.


Also, if I have a gun for home protection and someone is trying to burgle (THAT's a word??!!) my home while I'm asleep, it's not going to do much good for me to have to go to the closet, open my safe, take out my gun, then open up another safe which has ammunition in it (or however the hell some people want guns and ammunition stored)....and then I'll be ready to defend myself & family.

In 2013, about 2% of firearm deaths in the USA were due to accidents, negligence, or undetermined intent. Of the 2.5 million deaths that year, about 1.3% were had guns involved. (Wikipedia - gun violence in the USA, not verbatim) 0.01% of the population dies each year due to gun involvement.

"Gun violence" isn't an epidemic. Kids shooting themselves (accidents, not suicides) because their parents didn't lock up their guns isn't an epidemic.

Yes, there are other less effective ways to kill yourself, but the stats from Canada & Australia show people are willing to use those techniques, and it appears, unfortunately, they are successful at it.


People kill people. Really. Not to be insensitive, but you can't save everyone. It's not a gun problem, it's a human problem. Find a way to solve the gun problem and nothing is fixed. Find a way to solve the human problem, and you've solved the actual problem.

Quote: DrawingDead

If anything about that seems weird to someone, the problem lies in their grasp of how the world works.

I think you lost some context. That's really okay since you hold polite discussion in such low esteem. The question/inquiry was more about a "multi millionaire" with his own card and credit line and play history using a card of his Filipino "girlfriend" to check in and pay(the points on same) for a deluxe suite high up overlooking a popular concert. I may have not been clear about said context by mentioning use of other peoples points isn't as easy as you have come to believe it is. See you next year.

http://www.news.com.au/national/stephen-paddock-adam-le-fevre-tells-of-his-time-with-the-las-vegas-shooter/news-story/c688cbe4ec17354669f08eec8537765d

Mr Le Fevre told Nine...Paddock considered himself to be a professional gambler.
“He said as a professional gambler .. ‘I operate with $1.5 million to $2 million a year and that can generate me anywhere between $200,000 to $300,000 a year’,” he said.

http://kunm.org/post/details-emerge-las-vegas-shooters-real-estate-gambles

He may have been preparing for what would be his biggest deal, a multi-story apartment complex on the north side of Mesquite, Texas, not far from the municipal golf course. Paddock borrowed $3.5 million to buy the property and sold it eight years later for $4.6 million.

Quote: NokTang

I think you lost some context. That's really okay since you hold polite discussion in such low esteem. The question/inquiry was more about a "multi millionaire" with his own card and credit line and play history using a card of his Filipino "girlfriend" to check in and pay(the points on same) for a deluxe suite high up overlooking a popular concert. I may have not been clear about said context by mentioning use of other peoples points isn't as easy as you have come to believe it is. See you next year.

I don't think you realize how EASY it is to do this, actually. I'll give step by step instructions.

1. Call host to book the room for you.
2. Tell host to put <person X> on room and let them check in first, since you'll be <at dinner> <watching a show> <etc> when he arrives.
3. That's literally it.

Quote: beachbumbabs

And, yeah, we need better gun laws and better enforcement.

Sell all the guns you want. But...

Make it illegal to own more than a single box of rounds or perhaps very very expensive. Reloads, though, probably negate the use of that.

Close the gunshow loophole.

Enforce the waiting periods.

Do not allow mentally ill people to have guns.

Do not allow no fly list people to have guns.

Ban semiautomatic weapons and kits to change weapons into automatic, banana clips and drums, and silencers. None of those are needed for home protection, hunting, or other excuses.

The cost of protecting 2nd amendment rights (a separate argument is what the Constitution actually says, and whether something written when guns held one bullet should now rule unrevised) is too high. This is happening way too often to defend things as they are. However, I have no hope there will be any change. If Sandy Hook didn't get it done, neither will this.

Note: if I hear Carolyn Goodman say "59 new stars in the sky" one more time...

I basically agree with everything you wrote. But let me play Devil's advocate......

1. How would you possibly enforce the 'only own a single box of rounds'? Can you and your spouse own two? You, your spouse and 3 kids own 5?

2. The gun show loophole is closable if your elected representatives choose to do so.

3. Waiting periods probably make us feel better but really don't solve anything.

4. Please define 'menatlly ill' for me. Because I'm depressed I can't own a gun? How about 'Trump derangement syndrome'? This suggestion is to me the hardest to define, and thus enforce.

5. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no due process when you are put on the "No Fly List".

6. See answer 2. Banning these weapons is just a senate/house vote away and a signature from the President.

7. I love your cost benefit analysis. I live in the real world. My life changes not at all in a negative way with getting rid of these big bad weapons, and there will be less murders. So although in general I want the government less involved in my life, I would be for banning private ownership of big bad weapons.

Quote: RS

I don't have a problem with safety requirements, although there's some weird stuff going on there.

New York, for example, considers a gun to be loaded if it is stored in the same container as ammunition. I believe other states are the same way. However in New York, you can have your hand gun locked in a case with no ammunition in the case, have that case inside another bag that has ammunition in it, and they consider that a loaded gun. People have gotten arrested landing in NY for transporting their gun via checking it on the plane for this.

That's like getting a DUI for having a sealed bottle of Jack Daniels in a safe in the back seat of your car.


Also, if I have a gun for home protection and someone is trying to burgle (THAT's a word??!!) my home while I'm asleep, it's not going to do much good for me to have to go to the closet, open my safe, take out my gun, then open up another safe which has ammunition in it (or however the hell some people want guns and ammunition stored)....and then I'll be ready to defend myself & family.

In 2013, about 2% of firearm deaths in the USA were due to accidents, negligence, or undetermined intent. Of the 2.5 million deaths that year, about 1.3% were had guns involved. (Wikipedia - gun violence in the USA, not verbatim) 0.01% of the population dies each year due to gun involvement.

"Gun violence" isn't an epidemic. Kids shooting themselves (accidents, not suicides) because their parents didn't lock up their guns isn't an epidemic.

Yes, there are other less effective ways to kill yourself, but the stats from Canada & Australia show people are willing to use those techniques, and it appears, unfortunately, they are successful at it.


People kill people. Really. Not to be insensitive, but you can't save everyone. It's not a gun problem, it's a human problem. Find a way to solve the gun problem and nothing is fixed. Find a way to solve the human problem, and you've solved the actual problem.

The gun should be put HIGH in a closet where a child(Children tend to be under 5 feet tall) CANNOT easily reach it. They should not be able to easily SEE it either. Hide it under a AARP magazine on the very high closet shelf. Children are NOT interested in ""old people" magazines, so they will ignore a AARP magazine.

The difference in suicide rates between the US and other countries is due to the gun. Shrugging of 20k+ suicide deaths and allowing them to have access to the weapons to do so is foolhardy. There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates.

Guns and suicide

I would suggest that we take arms out of the hands of the most vulnerable and enforcing lockups and/or ammo displacement in homes with children. Of course it is not enforceable but it is educatable and penalizable. Meaning that if a child offs himself with their parents' gun that the parents would be held criminally negligent for that death.

Of course a smart lock would defeat that and with a smart lock you could keep a loaded gun on the kitchen table (exaggeration) and your child wouldn't be able to do anything with it, but the NRA got that one killed off. And the technology is easily available. Our phones have the fingerprint technology that works really well.

And that's the problem. There are reasonable solutions out there that would reduce gun violence and suicides and maintain one's 2nd amendment rights but the NRA and right oppose.

If the girlfriend's stories about being concerned about the man's mental health are true, and he was indeed laying in bed moaning and screaming "Oh my God", and she was her live-in partner, it would have been nice for her to know that she could have called the police, have him checked into a mental health institution for evaluation, and have his guns temporarily removed and his permit to buy guns removed.

That kind of behaviour (if reported true) is hallmark psychosis and a giant red flag. And while he might not have been a danger to himself or others (people hear voices all of the time and are not threats) when you have an armada of weapons in the house and unexplained behavior you need to think reasonably about one's protection.

Quote: SOOPOO

I basically agree with everything you wrote. But let me play Devil's advocate......

1. How would you possibly enforce the 'only own a single box of rounds'? Can you and your spouse own two? You, your spouse and 3 kids own 5?

2. The gun show loophole is closable if your elected representatives choose to do so.

3. Waiting periods probably make us feel better but really don't solve anything.

4. Please define 'menatlly ill' for me. Because I'm depressed I can't own a gun? How about 'Trump derangement syndrome'? This suggestion is to me the hardest to define, and thus enforce.

5. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no due process when you are put on the "No Fly List".

6. See answer 2. Banning these weapons is just a senate/house vote away and a signature from the President.

7. I love your cost benefit analysis. I live in the real world. My life changes not at all in a negative way with getting rid of these big bad weapons, and there will be less murders. So although in general I want the government less involved in my life, I would be for banning private ownership of big bad weapons.

1. Ammo dealers can keep track of sales. There are loopholes of course, similar to when you are a crystal meth producer and can no longer buy boxes and boxes of pseudoephidrine from the pharmacy. There are workarounds, and it is harder to procure, but if you really want to produce crystal meth, you can.

2. Private sales and loopholes like that should be closed.

3. It may slow down crimes of passion considerably.

4. Mentally ill = threat to oneself or others. Clinicians and doctors make those evaluations all of the time and it is far better to have a law that at least enables the removal of firearms from those identified.

Quote: RS

I don't think you realize how EASY it is to do this, actually. I'll give step by step instructions.

1. Call host to book the room for you.
2. Tell host to put <person X> on room and let them check in first, since you'll be <at dinner> <watching a show> <etc> when he arrives.
3. That's literally it.

Well....the big question is when did she call? I seriously doubt after she was in the Philippines. So again, we don't have these details available to us which is no surprise. I'm sure the investigators will be looking in to each and every aspect of it all. I respectfully ask you to focus on the specific instance, not a generally accepted methodology. We again I remind are talking about a deluxe suite in a nice hotel in Las Vegas for multiple nights over a weekend with an event next door.

As a side, the Filipino's ability to confuse everyone(Americans) is proven out. Her telling them he was moaning and whatever in bed? Showing signs of mental illness?(not clear if she said this or a compilation)

Quote: boymimbo

4. Mentally ill = threat to oneself or others. Clinicians and doctors make those evaluations all of the time and it is far better to have a law that at least enables the removal of firearms from those identified.

I can only tell you that it is not as simple as you make it seem. Are you saying a potential gun purchaser would need a bonafide psychiatric exam before being allowed to buy? If you start with the premise that it is ok to have a gun for your own personal protection, these people are not allowed that protection?

Quote: boymimbo

The difference in suicide rates between the US and other countries is due to the gun. Shrugging of 20k+ suicide deaths and allowing them to have access to the weapons to do so is foolhardy. There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates.

I never heard that Dr Kevorkian ever used any types of guns but I think he helped a few people out with this problem.

Currently there is no law against the act of committing suicide in the United States.
Physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill is legal in Oregon and Washington. Dec 10, 2014

The older I get the more I think I might be prone to suicide with my 45.
Jumping off of bridges is pretty popular... Golden Gate is number one I think.
The new Bridge over Hoover Dam has had 7 or so Jumpers into the river so far.

I have other choices like die a slow painful death in a hospital, heart attack, stroke, accident (Slip and Fall is in the Top Five), and many others I can't think of but if it comes down to having to choose between chemo and surgery or just doing it myself I'm pretty sure I will do it myself. I've witnessed a few people die slowly of cancer and so called treatment... not pretty. There really is no choice... you can't live forever... it is a losing battle and I am the type that would rather just get on with it so to speak.

I like that movie quote... Get busy Living or Get busy Dying!

Top Ten Leading causes of death in the USA

1. Heart disease
2. Cancer (malignant neoplasms)
3. Chronic lower respiratory disease
4. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
5. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases)
6. Alzheimer's disease
7. Diabetes
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Kidney disease (nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis)
10. Suicide

So just pick one really... suicide isn't as bad as many of these choices.

Quote: NokTang

As a side, the Filipino's ability to confuse everyone(Americans) is proven out. Her telling them he was moaning and whatever in bed? Showing signs of mental illness?(not clear if she said this or a compilation)

...........

No words.

Quote: NokTang

As a side, the Filipino's ability to confuse everyone(Americans) is proven out. Her telling them he was moaning and whatever in bed? Showing signs of mental illness?(not clear if she said this or a compilation)

Quote: rsactuary

...........

No words.

I have words
I think its complete BS what NokTang says about Filipino Women

Quote: monet0412

The older I get the more I think I might be prone to suicide with my 45.
Jumping off of bridges is pretty popular... Golden Gate is number one I think.
The new Bridge over Hoover Dam has had 7 or so Jumpers into the river so far.

I have other choices like die a slow painful death in a hospital, heart attack, stroke, accident (Slip and Fall is in the Top Five), and many others I can't think of but if it comes down to having to choose between chemo and surgery or just doing it myself I'm pretty sure I will do it myself. I've witnessed a few people die slowly of cancer and so called treatment... not pretty.

Bravo monet. That these other posters continue to think it is their right to determine for others that they shouldn't even be allowed to determine the cause and time and place, of their own death, gags me.

Dying a slow, agonizing painful death, which can take months, in front of loved ones and family, can make the family suffer immensely, and bankrupt the survivors. A death in the home in AZ. has to be disclosed on the home inspection when selling, can also lower the value of the home. Some people don't want to buy a house that someone has died in.


There should be more suicide, not less.

Quote: petroglyph

Dying a slow, agonizing painful death, which can take months, in front of loved ones and family, can make the family suffer immensely, and bankrupt the survivors. There should be more suicide, not less.

...... I've witnessed a few people die slowly of cancer and so called treatment... not pretty.

And just this morning the lead article was a disclosure that these ultra new and ultra expensive cancer drugs offer zilch above the old ones.

I don't know if the jerk at the Mandalay shooting hated music shows ... it seems he may have cased other events. Strange.
Did some music promoter cheat him once?

Quote: petroglyph

Bravo monet. That these other posters continue to think it is their right to determine for others that they shouldn't even be allowed to determine the cause and time and place, of their own death, gags me.

Dying a slow, agonizing painful death, which can take months, in front of loved ones and family, can make the family suffer immensely, and bankrupt the survivors. A death in the home in AZ. has to be disclosed on the home inspection when selling, can also lower the value of the home. Some people don't want to buy a house that someone has died in.


There should be more suicide, not less.

Many absurd things have been said in this thread on both sides. That if the government puts your name on a list, you should use your constitutional rights. That gambling is less regulated than guns. But suggesting that suicide prevention is tyranny is the winner.

Nobody said that suicide is never justifiable. However to suggest that it is always desirable or neutral is...

Well, let me just ask you this. A 15 year old girl is being cyber bullied and can't take it anymore. She decides to kill herself. That's cool in your book? Maybe her parents should help her. Maybe schools should have doctor Jacks instead of councilors. Got rejected by a girl? I know how you can end the pain immediately!

Quote: Rigondeaux

Many absurd things have been said in this thread on both sides. That if the government puts your name on a list, you should use your constitutional rights. That gambling is less regulated than guns. But suggesting that suicide prevention is tyranny is the winner.

Nobody said that suicide is never justifiable. However to suggest that it is always desirable or neutral is...

Well, let me just ask you this. A 15 year old girl is being cyber bullied and can't take it anymore. She decides to kill herself. That's cool in your book? Maybe her parents should help her. Maybe schools should have doctor Jacks instead of councilors. Got rejected by a girl? I know how you can end the pain immediately!

WOW!! That was some huge post I just deleted. When I get on a roll I can really get on a roll. It was just too much. Way too much for this forum and maybe just too much period. How can I sum it up in a few words. Nope I can't. Our problems as humans are too great to even try to break it down. I guess guns and suicide is like any other type of selfish behavior. I want guns I am going to get them. I want a massage I am going to get it. I want a gallon of Ice Cream same thing I am going to go get it. I want to kill myself I am going to do it. It is just basically self centered selfish behavior and I like many others are completely absorbed by it. It is pretty clear I and others like me need help and I suspect the best way out is to live a completely Selfless life. The problem is once you get wrapped up in Selfishness it is pretty tough to get out of the trap.

Quote: monet0412

WOW!! That was some huge post I just deleted. When I get on a roll I can really get on a roll. It was just too much. Way too much for this forum and maybe just too much period. How can I sum it up in a few words. Nope I can't. Our problems as humans are too great to even try to break it down. I guess guns and suicide is like any other type of selfish behavior. I want guns I am going to get them. I want a massage I am going to get it. I want a gallon of Ice Cream same thing I am going to go get it. I want to kill myself I am going to do it. It is just basically self centered selfish behavior and I like many others are completely absorbed by it. It is pretty clear I and others like me need help and I suspect the best way out is to live a completely Selfless life. The problem is once you get wrapped up in Selfishness it is pretty tough to get out of the trap.

I thought your take was more thoughtful than P's, but still superficial. As I've told you before, you're probably my favorite poster here and I think generally you see things from a deeper perspective. For example, the selfishness take is spot on.

I think that "I want X I will do X" is wrong for the same reason. What comprises our selves and our lives and how we make decisions is a complex question. Back when I was into economics, for example, the idea of multiple selves with competing interests was really interesting to me. Does the free rider problem apply if I decide to eat a tub of ice cream now, expecting all of my other selves to be more disciplined?

Anyway, I just don't think we operate as described in the first part of your post. Our thinking and behavior is fuzzy and inconsistent. We might have a moment where we could pick up a gun and pull a trigger, but we couldn't go through the process of making a noose, figuring out where to hang it, confront the pain of such a death, etc. Then, later in life, we'll be glad we didn't do it, and our family and friends will be spared a lot of suffering.

There was a doc about people who jumped off the Golden Gate and a few survived. Most of them said that the second they jumped off they regretted it and wished they could go back. Hanging yourself, taking pills, slitting your wrists are fairly difficult and you'll be able to back out once you start sometimes. Or you'll survive. Then you might decide you want to live.

terapined, I agree, I dated a Filipino girl for a few years and she had a fairly meek personality as did her all of her friends.

Had he said it about Korean or Vietnamese women I would have had to agree with him.

I do believe we have a Filipino female member here. I don't know if she will want to shed any light on this subject.

Quote: Rigondeaux

But suggesting that suicide prevention is tyranny is the winner.

Assisted suicide is legal in Wash. and Ore. as has been mentioned. Some posters want to remove a persons right to choose, when to end their own life, with a firearm. Would you deny a terminally ill person their right to take their own life by firearm, but still support a woman's right to choose an abortion?

Quote:

Nobody said that suicide is never justifiable.

Then that wouldn't be who I was responding to.

Quote:

However to suggest that it is always desirable or neutral is...

Did I suggest it is? Freedom to choose for adults is a plus. It is certainly not your decision to make if someone with a terminal illness wishes to end it, or do you think that decision belongs to you?

Quote:

Well, let me just ask you this. A 15 year old girl is being cyber bullied and can't take it anymore. She decides to kill herself. That's cool in your book?

I am supporting an adults ability to use a firearm, versus having to find another means to put an end to their misery. .

I think a .45 is a pretty sure and efficient [not to mention portable] means to end ones life. There are to many misses with pills and other methods. If a person has a failed attempt, they then have to deal with the aftermath, for the rest of their lives however long that is.

Ending your own adult miserable life isn't cowardice, its reality, and caring for those left to clean up the mess. Is it better for a spouse and family to find your corpse lying in bed in your own bodily fluids after dying from pills? Or come into a room to find you hanging, again after pissing and shitting yourself? Is that the memory you want them to have forever of you? Do you want them to watch you die for a year on chemo and radiation and waste away?

Just go out into the desert, call the cops and let them know [or send them a letter allowing your corpse to feed the earth for awhile and get lighter], and pull the trigger. The spouse doesn't have to find the ugly. I support death with dignity, not minors who can't legally buy a firearm.

I have two friends, whose teenagers hung themselves, and both donated the body parts. They had tried to find some good in the tragedy.

Quote:

Maybe schools should have doctor Jacks instead of councilors. Got rejected by a girl? I know how you can end the pain immediately!

Silly. On the other hand, teachers in grade school have the authority to make kids end up on psyche drugs, which I believe is the common denominator in most mass killings. I'm pretty sure the Sandy hook guy was on psyche drugs, as well as this Vegas fella. Also the Colorado theater shooter was on psyche meds.

When people talk about suicide prevention they are not primarily talking about terminal ill people.

Quote: ZenKinG

Really? You want the election based on the popular vote?

Yes.

Quote: ZenKinG

You're basically saying you support a pure democracy.

For the presidential election, yes. As someone else already pointed out, we have a representative democracy.

Quote: ZenKinG

You do realize democracy is the first step to socialism, which eventually leads to communism.

Oh my, I did not realize that ! ! !

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/17/the-electoral-college-badly-distorts-the-vote-and-its-going-to-get-worse/?utm_term=.9828942ac204

That means that in the electoral college, each individual Wyoming vote weighs 3.6 times more than an individual Californian’s vote. That’s the most extreme example, but if you average the 10 most populous states and compare the power of their residents’ votes to those of the 10 least populous states, you get a ratio of 1 to 2.5.

Here at the Animal Farm, all animals are created equal. But some are created more equal than others. I believe that book was about communism/socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

Instead of metal detectors, were casinos to go such a route, using trained k-9 dogs to detect guns, or powder might be a better choice. They can certainly afford it, if they wanted it.

Not sure how close they need to be to alert. As many guns as that guy was bringing in he might have been picked up just after traveling through a hallway -- just like people can tell someone who just walked through smoking a cigarette.

Because of no guns in the casino, you could ask someone to leave if they refuse a search. Better a firefight when the shooter unprepared than otherwise.

And, AFAIK, there is no invasion of privacy. It's private property, no x-ray exposure., etc., They can demand you leave if nothing else.

The fact that Paddock hooked up with a filipina is arguably somewhat telling, based on my limited experience doing prenups for American caucasian men who opt for a filipina wife, typically arranged through the internet.

Yes, I know Paddock met her when she worked as a host in Reno: please bear with me.

I've had three clients get involved with filipinas, and without exception the guys were all weird.

My impression of them: socially uncomfortable, "square pegs in a round hole", and the big one: CONTROLLING.

Paddock seems to fit the mold.

Thanks to those who said kind words about me. It is appreciated, and made me feel nice =) I especially want to thank those who said they learned something from me, as that is something I am very honored to have done. Especially those of you with whom I seem to be eternally opposed to on every topic (lol); it takes something to listen to someone who's opposed to you, and to take something from that is not an easy thing to do, and should be lauded. So, all in one, thanks, and you're welcome.

There's few things that have caught my attention and compel me to comment...

Quote: boymimbo

Misleading:

Not my attempt to, just the innate weakness of stats. But I'd ask you - You're a smart dude, and no doubt better at math than me. Could you extrapolate from what we know to get a grasp on what I provided? For this mystery 2k we don't know what to do with, isn't it kind of easy to guestimate what the real rifle number is? I happen to think it is, simply because handguns are beyond a shadow of a doubt used most often, and beyond a shadow of a doubt most used in crime, and beyond a shadow of a doubt cheaper, I think it's quite fair to say that the rifle's portion of the mystery number should pretty much reflect the ratio we do know about, that it is way on the fringe. If you have reason to deny that, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I think the charge of "misleading" is a bit disingenuous. Just so my point is understood, even if you assumed every one of those mystery 2k go into the rifle column, we're still only talking 0.0006% of the population. I'm in lockstep agreement with you on how horrifying it is, but I can't be the only one who sees a disconnect between the actual danger and the level of fear being displayed. More on that later...

Quote: terapined

I will take a shot at this
1st, really appreciate sharing your expertise. I learn more about guns from you then anybody else. You were the 1st to call bump stock. Impressive.
No way I want to argue with you.
Just insight into my passion about this
To me its a no-brainer because a ban will not affect me at all
I'm not a gun owner.
So of course I am for anything that doesn't affect my life in any way but I think will save lives.
You are a gun owner, I understand you feel different

I appreciate the effort, but one part of your post I have real beef with. Do not ever short yourself. Don't decline to argue with me, or anyone, because you're not familiar with the topic, or feel you can't argue as well, or for any reason. There's a reason why, in these types of threads, you don't often see me talking with guys like Keeneone or Skeptik or AZD or EvenBob. It doesn't do anything for me. I'm not gonna learn anything or be compelled to take a look at my own values if I'm only engaging with those who think exactly like I do. It's the exact reason most of my responses are to you, to rxwine, to boyminbo. That's not to say I don't appreciate my gunners; they certainly help keep me centered and relieve me of the feeling of being so GD persecuted all the time. But I highly encourage you, and everyone, to engage in dialog with those you feel opposed to. It's often where the best answers and most growth comes from, and on that end, I think this whole forum deserves praise for how we've comported ourselves in this thread. Well done all.

And I guess since you, terapined, opened up personal like, I'll do the same.

I personally do no give a s#$% about these types of weapons. I own a few, for varying reasons, but the gunner inside me is like all the rest of me - old fashioned. Of all the guns I own, the ones I enjoy using the most are as bare as you can possibly make a weapon. You've seen my tacti-cool "assault rifle" on DT. It's a full auto POS. I have it for literally one reason only, and that reason is because f#$% Andrew Cuomo. The very second I feel the bullspit ends, that thing is getting parted out and sold. But, until then, it is mine and will not be taken.

Forgetting a moment my usual arguments, here's my personal one. My guns represent well more than half of my entire net worth. In fact, they along with the Obama panic are the only reason I have a net worth. I worked hard to buy them, I worked hard to modify them, I spend what is probably into the thousands of hours researching, studying, and training, on gun safety, gun operation, self defense, human psychology, you name it. In many ways they are almost a religious symbol to me, if one can consider self reliance a religion. But because of panic, they have become a monstrous liability in my life. I am a closeted felon. I've by way of my weaponry engaged in enough civil disobedience that to be caught means game over for me. With one nosy neighbor, inopportune traffic stop, random internet SWAT'ing, my life ceases to be. I get tossed in the hoosegow, all my productivity ends, my son loses his father, my father his son, and you all get to pay my living expenses for the next few decades. And why? I personally have not changed one bit since 2000whenever. Same guy, same habits, same activities. I have harmed no man, committed no crime, threatened no body. Just a dude going about his life, most of which is spent alone or in the woods where no one has to deal with me. But because someone else committed a crime, I have to pay? Me? The guy who corrects cashiers mistakes, who takes drunk girls home and puts them to bed unmolested, who takes punches for those who cannot take them themselves, who's building an entire shed for a neighbor pro bono for no other reason than I have the ability whereas he does not... they'd take 5 figures worth of goods from me and slam me in a cell, all because someone else did something horrifying, and it scared you. That's not right.

And my final push... I see a common theme from the anti's that has spread into the moderates, and I daresay is held by some of the gunners as well (gunners like yours truly), and that theme is "We have to do something." Allow me to share my personal philosophy with you.

Now, I know I catch hell from time to time with what looks to be anti-American rhetoric. Billryan called it "an embarrassment", Babs said she was "irked" (and I imagine would have said much more, if not for our personal relationship), and I am also aware of our many service members here who have always taken great pride in what they've done. Their lack of comment I took as restrained hatred. I don't think they liked what I said very much. But anti-American is not what I am, and anti-America is not what I intended to express. See, I hold the belief that I am a free man by right of being a human being. Nothing more. Not because I'm "American" or "Western" or anything of the sort. I am born free, I recognize no master, and will not bow to one. In this sense, I do not see America as "giving me freedom", rather I appreciate the fact that it takes less than it could. Do you understand what I mean by that? Freedom is not a thing you can give, all men own it from birth. In my eyes, freedom can only be taken, and in our world, it is taken by the Man. In many cases, likely in most cases, we all accept it as "cost" for living in a society. We aren't "free" to take our entire profits, some must be used for the privilege of roads and utilities. We're not "free" to shoot folks out of hand, we pay for courts and judges. We're not "free" build a shelter, we must enforce codes for safety. Most of us, most of the time, are fine with this, and I am usually included. But what we must realize is that every time we say "Something must be done!" and we look to .gov to get it done, we pay for it in freedom. Freedom that is non-refundable.

We all are indoctrinated to love the flag, support our troops, and salute Old Glory. I am no different. I may at times question or point out why we're always saying "fighting for freedom" when everyone knows we're fighting on a lie, but the last 10 years does not erase the previous 200. Our men fought for freedom. Our great-greats, maybe our greats, maybe even just our grandparents. I know mine did. When Germany wanted the world, G-pops stood and said "no". When the Japs bombed PH, he stood and said "no". And since I'm young and American, I don't know what the hell went down in Korea, but when that went down, he stood and said "no" again. Don't we always, ALWAYS, even malcontents like myself, don't we all sit and give thanks for those who died for our freedoms? Folks, with this... you're simply handing them over. You're taking a nation's entire history of sacrifice and disposing of it. I get the outrage. I get the feeling of needing to act. But where's the logic, the common sense? Not to pick on him, but Mission lays out his stance and makes a point to say he'd not touch handguns. Mission is by all rights an intelligent dude, more than average I don't think anyone would deny. But handguns are by far, by FAR, the most often stolen, the most often carried illegally, the most often used in crime, and the most often used in murder, by a ratio of some 25:1. I see his impassioned plea, yet it doesn't include the one area where, if there was a problem, would need desperate attention the most. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Sorry for my complete inability to be concise or succinct in any way. I just urge, before you go and toss away our non-refundable freedoms, to take a look at the raw facts without the pomp and circumstance. These horrifying weapons whose "only purpose is to kill people" only get a few hundred every year. Gun crime stats are trending down, and except for some craziness in the early 90's (LA riots?) has been trending down since the late seventies. Even as our population skyrockets, as guns become "more lethal" or we find "new loopholes" or whatever folks drum up, it just keeps trending down. If you are feeling more insecure, if you fear for your safety now more than ever, if you are insistent that "Something must be done!", realize that all the stats in the world directly refute your feelings. I ask you to give serious consideration to this, and to please put head over heart.

NBC Nightly News reported that he, in their words, "earned" $5 million gambling in 2015. I don't buy this. First, how come they got ahold of this info but can't get Trump's tax returns!!! Second, if he WAS an AP as some are claiming, he'd have been 86'd numerous times.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

NBC Nightly News reported that he, in their words, "earned" $5 million gambling in 2015. I don't buy this. First, how come they got ahold of this info but can't get Trump's tax returns!!! Second, if he WAS an AP as some are claiming, he'd have been 86'd numerous times.

I guess its possible he received 5 million in W2G's so they are reporting that as earnings.

Quote: AxelWolf

I guess its possible he received 5 million in W2G's so they are reporting that as earnings.

I still want to know why/how they can get this info but not Trump's tax returns!

Quote: Face

Thanks to those who said kind words about me. It is appreciated, and made me feel nice =) I especially want to thank those who said they learned something from me, as that is something I am very honored to have done. Especially those of you with whom I seem to be eternally opposed to on every topic (lol); it takes something to listen to someone who's opposed to you, and to take something from that is not an easy thing to do, and should be lauded. So, all in one, thanks, and you're welcome.

There's few things that have caught my attention and compel me to comment...



Not my attempt to, just the innate weakness of stats. But I'd ask you - You're a smart dude, and no doubt better at math than me. Could you extrapolate from what we know to get a grasp on what I provided? For this mystery 2k we don't know what to do with, isn't it kind of easy to guestimate what the real rifle number is? I happen to think it is, simply because handguns are beyond a shadow of a doubt used most often, and beyond a shadow of a doubt most used in crime, and beyond a shadow of a doubt cheaper, I think it's quite fair to say that the rifle's portion of the mystery number should pretty much reflect the ratio we do know about, that it is way on the fringe. If you have reason to deny that, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I think the charge of "misleading" is a bit disingenuous. Just so my point is understood, even if you assumed every one of those mystery 2k go into the rifle column, we're still only talking 0.0006% of the population. I'm in lockstep agreement with you on how horrifying it is, but I can't be the only one who sees a disconnect between the actual danger and the level of fear being displayed. More on that later...



I appreciate the effort, but one part of your post I have real beef with. Do not ever short yourself. Don't decline to argue with me, or anyone, because you're not familiar with the topic, or feel you can't argue as well, or for any reason. There's a reason why, in these types of threads, you don't often see me talking with guys like Keeneone or Skeptik or AZD or EvenBob. It doesn't do anything for me. I'm not gonna learn anything or be compelled to take a look at my own values if I'm only engaging with those who think exactly like I do. It's the exact reason most of my responses are to you, to rxwine, to boyminbo. That's not to say I don't appreciate my gunners; they certainly help keep me centered and relieve me of the feeling of being so GD persecuted all the time. But I highly encourage you, and everyone, to engage in dialog with those you feel opposed to. It's often where the best answers and most growth comes from, and on that end, I think this whole forum deserves praise for how we've comported ourselves in this thread. Well done all.

And I guess since you, terapined, opened up personal like, I'll do the same.

I personally do no give a s#$% about these types of weapons. I own a few, for varying reasons, but the gunner inside me is like all the rest of me - old fashioned. Of all the guns I own, the ones I enjoy using the most are as bare as you can possibly make a weapon. You've seen my tacti-cool "assault rifle" on DT. It's a full auto POS. I have it for literally one reason only, and that reason is because f#$% Andrew Cuomo. The very second I feel the bullspit ends, that thing is getting parted out and sold. But, until then, it is mine and will not be taken.

Forgetting a moment my usual arguments, here's my personal one. My guns represent well more than half of my entire net worth. In fact, they along with the Obama panic are the only reason I have a net worth. I worked hard to buy them, I worked hard to modify them, I spend what is probably into the thousands of hours researching, studying, and training, on gun safety, gun operation, self defense, human psychology, you name it. In many ways they are almost a religious symbol to me, if one can consider self reliance a religion. But because of panic, they have become a monstrous liability in my life. I am a closeted felon. I've by way of my weaponry engaged in enough civil disobedience that to be caught means game over for me. With one nosy neighbor, inopportune traffic stop, random internet SWAT'ing, my life ceases to be. I get tossed in the hoosegow, all my productivity ends, my son loses his father, my father his son, and you all get to pay my living expenses for the next few decades. And why? I personally have not changed one bit since 2000whenever. Same guy, same habits, same activities. I have harmed no man, committed no crime, threatened no body. Just a dude going about his life, most of which is spent alone or in the woods where no one has to deal with me. But because someone else committed a crime, I have to pay? Me? The guy who corrects cashiers mistakes, who takes drunk girls home and puts them to bed unmolested, who takes punches for those who cannot take them themselves, who's building an entire shed for a neighbor pro bono for no other reason than I have the ability whereas he does not... they'd take 5 figures worth of goods from me and slam me in a cell, all because someone else did something horrifying, and it scared you. That's not right.

And my final push... I see a common theme from the anti's that has spread into the moderates, and I daresay is held by some of the gunners as well (gunners like yours truly), and that theme is "We have to do something." Allow me to share my personal philosophy with you.

Now, I know I catch hell from time to time with what looks to be anti-American rhetoric. Billryan called it "an embarrassment", Babs said she was "irked" (and I imagine would have said much more, if not for our personal relationship), and I am also aware of our many service members here who have always taken great pride in what they've done. Their lack of comment I took as restrained hatred. I don't think they liked what I said very much. But anti-American is not what I am, and anti-America is not what I intended to express. See, I hold the belief that I am a free man by right of being a human being. Nothing more. Not because I'm "American" or "Western" or anything of the sort. I am born free, I recognize no master, and will not bow to one. In this sense, I do not see America as "giving me freedom", rather I appreciate the fact that it takes less than it could. Do you understand what I mean by that? Freedom is not a thing you can give, all men own it from birth. In my eyes, freedom can only be taken, and in our world, it is taken by the Man. In many cases, likely in most cases, we all accept it as "cost" for living in a society. We aren't "free" to take our entire profits, some must be used for the privilege of roads and utilities. We're not "free" to shoot folks out of hand, we pay for courts and judges. We're not "free" build a shelter, we must enforce codes for safety. Most of us, most of the time, are fine with this, and I am usually included. But what we must realize is that every time we say "Something must be done!" and we look to .gov to get it done, we pay for it in freedom. Freedom that is non-refundable.

We all are indoctrinated to love the flag, support our troops, and salute Old Glory. I am no different. I may at times question or point out why we're always saying "fighting for freedom" when everyone knows we're fighting on a lie, but the last 10 years does not erase the previous 200. Our men fought for freedom. Our great-greats, maybe our greats, maybe even just our grandparents. I know mine did. When Germany wanted the world, G-pops stood and said "no". When the Japs bombed PH, he stood and said "no". And since I'm young and American, I don't know what the hell went down in Korea, but when that went down, he stood and said "no" again. Don't we always, ALWAYS, even malcontents like myself, don't we all sit and give thanks for those who died for our freedoms? Folks, with this... you're simply handing them over. You're taking a nation's entire history of sacrifice and disposing of it. I get the outrage. I get the feeling of needing to act. But where's the logic, the common sense? Not to pick on him, but Mission lays out his stance and makes a point to say he'd not touch handguns. Mission is by all rights an intelligent dude, more than average I don't think anyone would deny. But handguns are by far, by FAR, the most often stolen, the most often carried illegally, the most often used in crime, and the most often used in murder, by a ratio of some 25:1. I see his impassioned plea, yet it doesn't include the one area where, if there was a problem, would need desperate attention the most. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Sorry for my complete inability to be concise or succinct in any way. I just urge, before you go and toss away our non-refundable freedoms, to take a look at the raw facts without the pomp and circumstance. These horrifying weapons whose "only purpose is to kill people" only get a few hundred every year. Gun crime stats are trending down, and except for some craziness in the early 90's (LA riots?) has been trending down since the late seventies. Even as our population skyrockets, as guns become "more lethal" or we find "new loopholes" or whatever folks drum up, it just keeps trending down. If you are feeling more insecure, if you fear for your safety now more than ever, if you are insistent that "Something must be done!", realize that all the stats in the world directly refute your feelings. I ask you to give serious consideration to this, and to please put head over heart.

Here's the thing. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well in this thread. But I agree with nearly every word you wrote.

I grew up around guns. EVERYBODY took the NRA training and behaved responsibly. I know close friends whose son was killed by their other son when a loaded rifle was dropped walking through the bush and discharged; otherwise exactly zero deaths through negligence, malice, childplay, or suicide.

I was married to a gun collector and gave him a couple of rifles. I genuinely don't think he will ever use a gun in anger, madness, or in the commission of a crime, and yet he killed over 500 people in war (that he knew of) and was highly decorated for it.

The point being, I guess, is when did the common and societal respect for the power and responsibility owning a gun represents? Not that people buy respect for themselves with a gun, though that could be one of the twisted thought patterns that has led us here.

We didn't live in fear, though guns were everywhere. Something has been lost. And I don't know what.

Some of the influences might well be cultural. More and more realistic depictions of gun homicides and suicides. How many of each do you see a year in movies or tv? How many do you CAUSE a year thru video games? How much of it do you see on the news?

All in ever-more explicit graphics. Perhaps people become.so numb to the idea, the sight, that it ceases to shock, then somehow becomes alluring to a few. Perhaps their brains are even getting rewired to a more psychopathic/selfish POV, where other people are simply avatars in their self-directed narrative.

I think you are the person I agree with most fundamentally in all of this. Perhaps it's that our answers in changing this are different. Your answer is that it's simply unthinkable that you would use a gun in a madman shooter scenario. I'm the same. But apparently, that part of ethical self-conduct is missing in a few individuals, (not speaking about anyone on this board). And you would do nothing about it in the name of freedom.

I don't have an answer. I'm thinking out loud throughout this thread. But, forgive me for saying this, what if your son was now lying among the 58? You'd like to be the guy who put a/many bullet into Paddock, right? But your boy would still be dead. Revenge is not prevention, or justice

And so, in the absence of what I thought EVERYBODY knew was how guns were to be used, there needs to be some measure of prevention, to protect your rights and those you love. Doing nothing is not an option. There has to be an effective middle ground.

OK, your ex o killed over 500 people.

Why does that sound familiar?

Other than one being sanctioned, and the other not: is there really much difference?

One of the Commandments is "thou shalt not kill."

No exception is made for war.

Not saying your ex did anything wrong, just pointing out the fundamental absurdity of it all.

Quote: MrV

The fact that Paddock hooked up with a filipina is arguably somewhat telling, based on my limited experience doing prenups for American caucasian men who opt for a filipina wife, typically arranged through the internet.

Yes, I know Paddock met her when she worked as a host in Reno: please bear with me.

I've had three clients get involved with filipinas, and without exception the guys were all weird.

My impression of them: socially uncomfortable, "square pegs in a round hole", and the big one: CONTROLLING.

Paddock seems to fit the mold.

Thank you for posting your experiences and opinions. Those in denial of the obvious need to look in the mirror. A 70 year old man getting married to a 22 year old Filipino isn't exactly "normal". I've been to said country many times and interacted with same (both male and female BTW) here in Thailand. These other members in denial of the relevance of the Filipino "girlfriend" remain so at there own peril in terms of understanding the killers motives. He sent her to the Philippines on a "cheap ticket"? Think it through. He sent her $100,000.usd soon after she got there? Think it through and where's her explanation about what she did with the money? This inter-cultural relationship is related to the madness this guy developed and something could be learned from it. Instead we have people on here in denial of it's even existence and possibility. A sad day. OO.

Quote: terapined

I have words
I think its complete BS what NokTang says about Filipino Women

You are right...She really did love you, it wasn't about the money. OO and God Bless the victims of this madman.

Quote: SOOPOO

I can only tell you that it is not as simple as you make it seem. Are you saying a potential gun purchaser would need a bonafide psychiatric exam before being allowed to buy? If you start with the premise that it is ok to have a gun for your own personal protection, these people are not allowed that protection?

I am saying that for high-powered rifles/guns, i think it would be a good idea, yes. Other states already have laws that take guns away from people with various mental health issues.

But as I keep reading actual research, the more complex the issue get. A serious diagnosis does not lead to a higher risk for guns. For example, schizophrenia for a a large proportion of the popualation does not result in a danger to themselves or others. I think the key is "danger to themselves and others" which would result in removal of their guns and their ability to legally acquire guns.

Quote: petroglyph

Bravo monet. That these other posters continue to think it is their right to determine for others that they shouldn't even be allowed to determine the cause and time and place, of their own death, gags me.

Dying a slow, agonizing painful death, which can take months, in front of loved ones and family, can make the family suffer immensely, and bankrupt the survivors. A death in the home in AZ. has to be disclosed on the home inspection when selling, can also lower the value of the home. Some people don't want to buy a house that someone has died in.

There should be more suicide, not less.

Very insensitive remark. I have had many friends commit suicide, not because they were old or had a terminal illness. I support doctor-assisted suicide, and while there have been large increases in suicide among the aged, it does not account for the increases among perfectly decent people who suffer from mental illness.

Quote: Face

Not my attempt to, just the innate weakness of stats.

Who knows, Face? It's probably the best to extrapolate, but you never know. I think the point is that it doesn't matter. When the most horrific crimes are being done with these weapons, though few and far between, these are the ones people most react to, right or wrong. And it made me rethink gun control and look up other things. Of course you would be a loon to shake your head and say, "oh well, people die" but we knowingly do that every day when we just allow senseless and preventable deaths to happen via gun.

And I don't buy the argument that guns don't kill people - people kill people bull. The fact is that among the western world, the US has among the highest suicide rates and highest murder rates. The difference is the gun. Suicide rates are higher in states with lax gun laws. It just makes common sense.

And I sense that a great percentage of the population in the US are fine with the trade-off of "2nd amendment" and increased deaths, tragic, accidental, and suicidal in nature. I am not.

Quote:

I have it for literally one reason only, and that reason is because f#$% Andrew Cuomo. The very second I feel the bullspit ends, that thing is getting parted out and sold. But, until then, it is mine and will not be taken....

But because of panic, they have become a monstrous liability in my life. I am a closeted felon. I've by way of my weaponry engaged in enough civil disobedience that to be caught means game over for me. With one nosy neighbor, inopportune traffic stop, random internet SWAT'ing, my life ceases to be. I get tossed in the hoosegow, all my productivity ends, my son loses his father, my father his son, and you all get to pay my living expenses for the next few decades. And why? I personally have not changed one bit since 2000whenever. Same guy, same habits, same activities. I have harmed no man, committed no crime, threatened no body. Just a dude going about his life, most of which is spent alone or in the woods where no one has to deal with me. But because someone else committed a crime, I have to pay? Me? The guy who corrects cashiers mistakes, who takes drunk girls home and puts them to bed unmolested, who takes punches for those who cannot take them themselves, who's building an entire shed for a neighbor pro bono for no other reason than I have the ability whereas he does not... they'd take 5 figures worth of goods from me and slam me in a cell, all because someone else did something horrifying, and it scared you. That's not right.

You worry me. Look, you have made a choice to own your illegal gun and possible be caught as a felon and trade off that choice for the loss of things that should be the most important in your life (your son). I understand that you don't like the law. I understand that you are born free and want to remain free.

But that's a bunch of bull. We are not born free at all. We start sucking at the government's teat at birth. Your public school was paid for by your neighbor's and your parents taxes. From the services to your house (hydro, gas) to the roads you drive on to the eleven carrier groups that protect you, all paid by tax, give you the ability to live your life in a fashion that suits you. You used the law to get your rights to see your son. You used the law to set the child support that you have to pay. You are not free. Unless you are born in the middle of the woods in a land where no nation lays claim to, you are never free. That freedom disappeared with the colonization of the rest of the world by Europe in the early 20th century.

What I'm trying to say that despite what SAFE has done, you have made the choice to take a risk of losing everything to make a point. And I don't that's a wise decision. It may be a principled decision and your son might respect you when you're older, but I would rather that your son and you have a great relationship without having to see the warden at Attica.

Quote: Face

Folks, with this... you're simply handing them over. You're taking a nation's entire history of sacrifice and disposing of it. I get the outrage. I get the feeling of needing to act. But where's the logic, the common sense? Not to pick on him, but Mission lays out his stance and makes a point to say he'd not touch handguns. Mission is by all rights an intelligent dude, more than average I don't think anyone would deny. But handguns are by far, by FAR, the most often stolen, the most often carried illegally, the most often used in crime, and the most often used in murder, by a ratio of some 25:1. I see his impassioned plea, yet it doesn't include the one area where, if there was a problem, would need desperate attention the most. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I agree. But I don't hold such a dire view of the American people. I do feel that the government itself needs a wholesale changeout however. It has become too corrupt and too influenced by money and corporate interests.

Awesome post, though.

Quote: boymimbo

,,,. I have had many friends commit suicide, not because they were old or had a terminal illness.

Were they drug free? My supporting someone's right when and how to end their suffering seems somehow insensitive to you?

It does not seem you choose to consider another's view, as much as you want to further your agenda. Let me ask you this. For the friends you have lost to suicide, first was it by firearm, because repeatedly, that is what I have spoken to. How many do you know that have self terminated with automatic rifles?

And secondly, are you sorry for their loss, or are you sorry for your loss? That is why people cry at funerals is due to their own loss, because the dead don't care. We mourn for our own loss. Doesn't religion and many society's say the dead have went to a better place? Then why cry?

Do you feel equal sorrow for the 58 million aborted fetus's as you do about some friends whose misery is over? Or does the death of a handful of friends outweigh the death's of over 58 million, who never had a chance to decide for themselves?

Quote: terapined

I have words
I think its complete BS what NokTang says about Filipino Women

I don't understand why he is allowed to do this. If someone was saying every black is a liar or every Jew were something, they'd have been shut down long ago.
Any thing this jerk says isn't worth reading.

RE passing a mental-illness type exam to own a gun:

https://youtu.be/xYemnKEKx0c


Don't focus on the guy pretending to be crazy on purpose, but that you really can't prove your own sanity. If a psychologist wants you to fail, you will fail.

It's sort of like the "do you have a gambling problem?" questionnaire. I don't remember the questions on it, but I'd bet just about everyone who gambles somewhat often, especially APs, would "fail" on every or at least most questions asked, even though the reason for their answer isn't what the questionnaire is after.

EDIT: Just did a google search and found a "gambling problem questionnaire". It appears most questions would (or should) be answered as a "no" by most APs, but perhaps about 1/3 of the questions as "yes".

Psychopathy (not to be confused with psychosis) isn't something that is easy to detect or prove. It's a personality disorder and, at least by some standards, it's fairly prevalent and many psychopaths are functional. Common professions for psychopaths include journalism, politics and law enforcement.

A necessary condition for psychopathy is malignant narcissism. Psychopaths mostly become serial killers and the like when they are denied the power and status they think they deserve, which is probably one reason such people are usually losers. My theory on this guy is that he was a psychopath but he had the power and status and was functional. Then he lost it all and had to reassert his importance and dominance.

As RS's video suggests, it's easy to construe lots of people as mentally ill, and these are mostly descriptions of general types of behavior or tendencies. It's much less set in stone than something like having a virus. So, if the government can declare you mentally ill and take your rights away, buckle up.

Random thoughts:

20/20 deemed the shooter a compulsive gambler. I do not know on what basis they were able to discern this 'compulsion' but it seems non existent.

Turning civilians into soldiers: I've often heard that psychologist would agree that the fastest and cheapest way is to have them play violent video games with realistically depicted gore.

Psychology?
Perhaps its time for everyone to re-read On Being Sane In Insane Places, a decades old study of people coached on how to get admitted to the psyche ward but who, once admitted, acted perfectly normal. Staff members never caught on, but other patients would ask about their being investigators or reporters. Professionals tend to pathologize everything. One of the ringers was taking notes and a nurse said to another nurse "he is engaging in note taking behavior". There is a heck of a difference between 'taking notes' and 'note taking behavior' but professionals see everything as a disease manifestation.

You gamble? Must be a compulsion. You want to own a gun? Must be a killer.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

NBC Nightly News reported that he, in their words, "earned" $5 million gambling in 2015. I don't buy this. First, how come they got ahold of this info but can't get Trump's tax returns!!! Second, if he WAS an AP as some are claiming, he'd have been 86'd numerous times.

Quote: AxelWolf

I guess its possible he received 5 million in W2G's so they are reporting that as earnings.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/motive-remains-elusive-days-las-vegas-massacre/story?id=50320760

ABC - "Paddock reported a reported $5 million in earnings in 2015 -- most of it from gambling, according to investigators who have reviewed his financial records."

If Stephen Paddock was filing as a non-professional, gambling losses would be deducted on Schedule A.
Probably another case of reporters not understanding gambling.