Support NeoGAF

[UpDownLeftRight]

These conspiracy nuts can't even explain what the motive would be. The current headline is horrifying enough as it is. Having another shooter would have little effect at this point. We are already way over the threshold of terrible.

Social media has really become a cancer. People are living in alternate universes.

Been saying this for years but it's getting rapidly worse. I used to have a level of faith in humanity as a whole but honestly I'm surprised we even made it this far these days. I actually kinda wonder how many people were already this dumb and easily mislead and how many decided to just go down the rabbit hole with them due to the SM collectives.

 

[More_Badass]

How do you counter the “no gun laws or bans would have stopped this guy because he would just use a bomb or car” “argument” when it comes up?

I mean, obviously there are tons of actual counter arguments, but the problem isn’t having a solid counterpoint, but getting the point across that the guy using a bomb or car instead isn’t the issue we’re trying to deal with. That seems impossible to get across because these people always circle back

Also got hit with the “banning bump stocks wouldn’t have stopped this guy” today as well

 

[BunnyBear]

If you think we are being told all the facts you are kidding yourselves.
They dripfeed what they want us to know.

I get called a tinfoil for thinking outside the box.
It's not unfathomable that a 64 year old man didn't do this alone.
This took extensive planning.

I’m not against a good conspiracy theory. JFK? Yeah, maybe. 9/11? Meh. But this one?

You have brain damage.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

I don't understand why everyone finds it so hard to believe that he had accomplices.

Because it's not true.

So glad conspiracy nuts are getting banned. FUCK YOU ASSHOLES.

 

[jmdajr]

Chaotic situation with gunfire echoes. Is this the first mass shooting you've paid attention to? Literally every single one has reports of multiple shooters because of those two factors. Initial swat and police reports indicate that because they get reports from the people there and they have to check and make sure that's not the case. Better to assume there are multiple shooters than assume there aren't.

But seriously, every single one of these has reports of multiple shooters right off the bat.

As for why so many weapons? So he didn't have to reload? Because the guy was nuts? I'm not sure that means there are multiple shooters. Again, most of these incidences have multiple guns. Not quite this guy's arsenal but most people aren't as rich as him and don't have as good of a position to sit back and fire away in their plan.

The guys brother pretty much said stop with the conspiracy. He did it himself.

Just pay the bellhop 100 bucks to carry your stuff. It's not rocket science.

Most people are in their own little world. He could probably have taken RPGs up there. No one would have noticed.

 

[TaterTots]

Someone that has never heard gunfire like that may assume there was a second shooter. If you're outside with the echo, I can see how some victims could think that initially. However, it's obvious now there was only 1 shooter. Someone may have helped him obtain the explosives and chemicals. I believe that's what the Sheriff was alluding to. We need to leave the hot takes on the shelves and wait for answers from the investigation conducted by professionals.

 

[Baron_Calamity]

That's the scariest part of this whole thing. It really didn't take much planning at all.

Hew certainly acted alone and had the resources to do this by himself. However with the timeline of when he started stocking up weapons and visiting locations to scout out possible targets, he was putting some thought into it for at least the past year.

Everything makes sense and something one guy could do. The one thing that sticks out as not making sense is he was recording himself while doing this and he appeared to plan on getting away. Thats where I get stuck. I can't think of what what plan would include "filming yourself" and "getting away."

Did he want to one up Vester Flanagan, the former TV weather guy who shot and killed another reporter and the cameraman and uploaded it to facebook afterwards?

 

[jmdajr]

Hew certainly acted alone and had the resources to do this by himself. However with the timeline of when he started stocking up weapons and visiting locations to scout out possible targets, he was putting some thought into it for at least the past year.

Everything makes sense and something one guy could do. The one thing that sticks out as not making sense is he was recording himself while doing this and he appeared to plan on getting away. Thats where I get stuck. I can't think of what what plan would include "filming yourself" and "getting away."

Did he want to one up Vester Flanagan, the former TV weather guy who shot and killed another reporter and the cameraman and uploaded it to facebook afterwards?

Maybe in that ten minutes he felt regret and decided to kill himself.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

How do you counter the “no gun laws or bans would have stopped this guy because he would just use a bomb or car” “argument” when it comes up?

I mean, obviously there are tons of actual counter arguments, but the problem isn’t having a solid counterpoint, but getting the point across that the guy using a bomb or car instead isn’t the issue we’re trying to deal with. That seems impossible to get across because these people always circle back

Also got hit with the “banning bump stocks wouldn’t have stopped this guy” today as well

We live in a world where even with the strictest of laws someone can destroy a mass of people if they really try. That's just life.

I don't get why we want to make it easier? building a bomb or driving a car into people is much harder to pull off then standing in a window and holding a trigger.

In a theoretical world where Adam Lanzas parents couldn't purchase an assault rifle what would he have used? a handgun? maybe he misses some longer shots and 1-2-3 people don't lose their lives. HOW is 1 life not justification enough?

Tell that to the parent of a child that was struck down.

 

[parrotbeak]

How do you counter the ”no gun laws or bans would have stopped this guy because he would just use a bomb or car" ”argument" when it comes up?

I mean, obviously there are tons of actual counter arguments, but the problem isn't having a solid counterpoint, but getting the point across that the guy using a bomb or car instead isn't the issue we're trying to deal with. That seems impossible to get across because these people always circle back

Also got hit with the ”banning bump stocks wouldn't have stopped this guy" today as well

"We have to draw the line somewhere. Chemicals to make bombs are regulated. Cars have a primary use other than killing people. i agree banning bump stocks wouldn't have stopped him; we should go much further. Like he shouldn't have been allowed to buy 30 rifles in a month."

Then unfriend.

Also that argument is basically, let's not try to improve anything because bad things will still happen. I'd throw that at them.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Also got hit with the “banning bump stocks wouldn’t have stopped this guy” today as well

I got hit with the 'WELL WHATS NEXT BANNING KNIVES' thing - from a Canadian who owns zero guns and has never fired one in his life.

 

[Baron_Calamity]

Maybe in that ten minutes he felt regret and decided to kill himself.

He probably didn't think the police would find him so fast and decided to kill himself than be captured. For all his supposive planning, he didn't realize the gun smoke would be detected by the hotel.

 

[Steel]

How do you counter the “no gun laws or bans would have stopped this guy because he would just use a bomb or car” “argument” when it comes up?

I mean, obviously there are tons of actual counter arguments, but the problem isn’t having a solid counterpoint, but getting the point across that the guy using a bomb or car instead isn’t the issue we’re trying to deal with. That seems impossible to get across because these people always circle back

Also got hit with the “banning bump stocks wouldn’t have stopped this guy” today as well

Banning bump stocks would have saved a lot of lives.

 

[otapnam]

The crazy thing was him trying to hit gas tanks at McCarran airport. Dude was living out some murder death kill fantasy. Some legit insanity on display

 

[Haly]

How do you counter the ”no gun laws or bans would have stopped this guy because he would just use a bomb or car" ”argument" when it comes up?

I mean, obviously there are tons of actual counter arguments, but the problem isn't having a solid counterpoint, but getting the point across that the guy using a bomb or car instead isn't the issue we're trying to deal with. That seems impossible to get across because these people always circle back

Also got hit with the ”banning bump stocks wouldn't have stopped this guy" today as well

It's a silly deflection tactic because it presumes gun laws wouldn't reduce the large amount of other gun deaths that happen every day. Gun control is being brought up now because this was a very egregious example of the failure of gun regulations in this country. It's not about preventing this specific tragedy. It's about confronting an obvious problem no one wants to confront.

After 9/11, the entire world enacted stricter travel regulations and checks for passengers. Air travel is very neatly divided between "pre 9/11" and "post 9/11".

The death toll equivalent of four 9/11s happen every year in the US due to gun violence, but there hasn't been a single legislative change in response.

 

[plagiarize]

How do you counter the “no gun laws or bans would have stopped this guy because he would just use a bomb or car” “argument” when it comes up?

I mean, obviously there are tons of actual counter arguments, but the problem isn’t having a solid counterpoint, but getting the point across that the guy using a bomb or car instead isn’t the issue we’re trying to deal with. That seems impossible to get across because these people always circle back

Also got hit with the “banning bump stocks wouldn’t have stopped this guy” today as well

I counter it with 'so what?' We can't prevent Vegas from happening at this point. Maybe we can prevent other attacks with new regulation. The only thing that could prevent Vegas from happening is a time machine and no one has one of them.

 

[BlackGoku03]

How do you counter the “no gun laws or bans would have stopped this guy because he would just use a bomb or car” “argument” when it comes up?

I mean, obviously there are tons of actual counter arguments, but the problem isn’t having a solid counterpoint, but getting the point across that the guy using a bomb or car instead isn’t the issue we’re trying to deal with. That seems impossible to get across because these people always circle back

Also got hit with the “banning bump stocks wouldn’t have stopped this guy” today as well

I haven’t been able to come up with one. Especially with all this evidence of him trying to hit other large groups of people. It’s clear he was going to do this no matter what. I’m not sure any amount of regulations besides a total gun ban would have stopped him from killing. My boss, who is a gun owner, said if he didn’t have a bump stock he would have employed one of the numerous ways of automating the guns.

He thinks everyone should own guns. It would prevent robberies and stuff... but I told him no handgun would have been able to pick him off from that distance.

 

[Alucrid]

How do you counter the “no gun laws or bans would have stopped this guy because he would just use a bomb or car” “argument” when it comes up?

I mean, obviously there are tons of actual counter arguments, but the problem isn’t having a solid counterpoint, but getting the point across that the guy using a bomb or car instead isn’t the issue we’re trying to deal with. That seems impossible to get across because these people always circle back

Also got hit with the “banning bump stocks wouldn’t have stopped this guy” today as well

i would ask them why he chose to use guns instead of a bomb or a car.

 

[Haly]

You can't smuggle a car into a theater or a bar, or a school.

 

[LegendofLex]

How do you counter the “no gun laws or bans would have stopped this guy because he would just use a bomb or car” “argument” when it comes up?

I mean, the obvious answer would be:

1) Gun policy is focused on reducing gun deaths in general, not just preventing psychos from killing people

2) Guns are by far the most favored homicide weapon right now; we can still try to reduce gun homicides even if it won't stop all forms of homicide

3) No one expects a 100% reduction in homicides as a result of gun policy; we simply expect fewer people to be killed by guns as a result of gun policy, based on actual lower gun deaths in areas with stronger gun policy right now

The problem is that usually gets followed up with "you can't trust facts; let's talk common sense instead." Most gun rights advocates don't trust facts that contradict their feelings.

 

[Youth Crew]

The fake news is vapid for a 2nd shooter right now. A few people in this restaurant I just went into were talking about it. I rolled my eyes, grabbed my food, and left.

 

[RM8]

Why do nutty people need to believe there were two shooters?

 

[Temeculan3000]

Why do nutty people need to believe there were two shooters?

People don't want to believe one guy with no clear motive or affiliation could do this. They would rather he was part of some group with a clear motive / conspiracy / terrorist organization etc.. as it is easier to accept.

People want a clear enemy, and not have to believe a seemingly "normal" American white male could do something like this alone.

If people can't make sense of the world they live in, they will rationalize fantasies for comfort.

 

[jstripes]

People don't want to believe one guy with no clear motive or affiliation could do this. They would rather he was part of some group with a clear motive / conspiracy / terrorist organization etc.. as it is easier to accept.

People want a clear enemy, and not have to believe a seemingly "normal" American white male could do something like this alone.

If people can't make sense of the world they live in, they will rationalize fantasies for comfort.

Which is part of the larger "everything happens for a reason" line of thinking.

 

[jmdajr]

He probably didn't think the police would find him so fast and decided to kill himself than be captured. For all his supposive planning, he didn't realize the gun smoke would be detected by the hotel.

Hmmmm. Did a fire alarm go off?

 

[rjinaz]

People don't want to believe one guy with no clear motive or affiliation could do this. They would rather he was part of some group with a clear motive / conspiracy / terrorist organization etc.. as it is easier to accept.

People want a clear enemy, and not have to believe a seemingly "normal" American white male could do something like this alone.

If people can't make sense of the world they live in, they will rationalize fantasies for comfort.

It's this, but it's also that they believe the government is out to get them, and are terrorizing and controlling the American people so every time one of these tragedies happen, it's validation of their viewpoint. They want to believe they are superior than most Americans because they can see the lie while the sheep believe the government.

I mean look what just happened in this thread, it was never about a second shooter, the poster even opened with how the government covers these things up.

Man I thought when Republicans controlled congress and Trump became president this shit would slow down a little, but it seems to just be getting worse. I'm sure Trump and his "everything is fake news but what I tell you" isn't helping either.

 

[HeySeuss]

Maybe in that ten minutes he felt regret and decided to kill himself.

Doubtful. He wanted to be in complete control the entire time. Killing himself is going out on his own terms and not relinquishing that control to let the cops take him.

 

[MikeRahl]

How do you counter the “no gun laws or bans would have stopped this guy because he would just use a bomb or car” “argument” when it comes up?

I mean, obviously there are tons of actual counter arguments, but the problem isn’t having a solid counterpoint, but getting the point across that the guy using a bomb or car instead isn’t the issue we’re trying to deal with. That seems impossible to get across because these people always circle back

Also got hit with the “banning bump stocks wouldn’t have stopped this guy” today as well

You aren't going to stop every bad thing from happening everywhere. The main goal should be to put up as many road blocks as possible which will cause someone with ill-intentions to either not end up going through with it, or him getting caught at one of those.

More invasive psych evaluations may have meant he got flagged at some point along the line.

Limits on the number of guns would either limit the damage he was able to do, or he would have to resort to obtaining most of his arsenal illegally which is more opportunities to catch him.

Ban on (semi-)Automatic weapons would have greatly reduced the amount of bullets he would have been able to spray, or he would have had to obtain them illegally which is more opportunity to catch him.

The best example in everyday life I can think of is locking your house. If someone wants to get into your house while you aren't there without your consent they are going to get in. You lock your door as a base deterrent. This isn't a great example because obviously the stakes are a lot lower but this is what I always think of in situations like this where people constantly refrain "but it would have happened anyway somehow!"

 

[Raven117]

People don't want to believe one guy with no clear motive or affiliation could do this. They would rather he was part of some group with a clear motive / conspiracy / terrorist organization etc.. as it is easier to accept.

People want a clear enemy, and not have to believe a seemingly "normal" American white male could do something like this alone.

If people can't make sense of the world they live in, they will rationalize fantasies for comfort.

Yup. This right here.

Human minds want to rationalize the world we live to give us a level of predictability. Its natural and what has helped us evolve as a species.

Its difficult for us to accept that random acts (really of anything thats random...natural disasters, sudden deaths) always garner so much attention...It goes against our illusions of predictability.

Obviously with those making conspiracy theories...and all...its irrational, but its a desperate plea of trying to make sense of this world.

 

[J-Rod]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I understand why the wild speculation is going around. People want to make sense of things and here we are 4 days after the attack and authorities still have no explanation or motive. In the past, we learned about the motives soon afterwards.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Why do nutty people need to believe there were two shooters?

They lead incredibly unfulfilling lives, and this somehow fills that void.

 

[Socreges]

Shame that Stranger was banned before we heard his thoughts on 9/11 and the moon landing

 

[D4Danger]

He probably didn't think the police would find him so fast and decided to kill himself than be captured. For all his supposive planning, he didn't realize the gun smoke would be detected by the hotel.

that seems to be the theory. You can hear it in a few videos where there's long pauses after the first couple of rounds and then muffled shots because he's firing inside the hotel. The security guard that found him so quickly obviously distracted him and then shortly after the shooting stops so he presumably killed himself thinking the police were there even though they were another ten minutes away. His plan might've been to fire all those guns and then try and escape in the panic. He certainly had the means to do that.

 

[Living the Dream]

that seems to be the theory. You can hear it in a few videos where there's long pauses after the first couple of rounds and then muffled shots because he's firing inside the hotel. The security guard that found him so quickly obviously distracted him and then shortly after the shooting stops so he presumably killed himself thinking the police were there even though they were another ten minutes away. His plan might've been to fire all those guns and then try and escape in the panic. He certainly had the means to do that.

Hate to play the what if game, but if that security guard wasn’t there, it would have easily been 100+ deaths. Horrific.

 

[Jeremy]

that seems to be the theory. You can hear it in a few videos where there's long pauses after the first couple of rounds and then muffled shots because he's firing inside the hotel. The security guard that found him so quickly obviously distracted him and then shortly after the shooting stops so he presumably killed himself thinking the police were there even though they were another ten minutes away. His plan might've been to fire all those guns and then try and escape in the panic. He certainly had the means to do that.

AFAIK, it took an additional hour+ to breach the room but he had already killed himself 10 minutes in when the guard arrived, which is kind of a miracle. I don’t know how long he planned on going or how many more lives he could have taken. Also if he planned an escape why leave a note? Are they going to release the note?

 

[Metalgus]

AFAIK, it took an additional hour+ to breach the room but he had already killed himself 10 minutes in when the guard arrived, which is kind of a miracle. I don’t know how long he planned on going or how many more lives he could have taken. Also if he planned an escape why leave a note? Are they going to release the note?

There's a note??? First I heard about it.

 

[wild wild rice]

There's a note??? First I heard about it.

Yes, the contents haven't been released yet. From NY Times:

"Mr. Paddock left a trail of clues that are, so far, more cryptic than revealing: There was a note in his hotel room whose exact contents the authorities have yet to reveal. Sheriff Lombardo said that it contained numbers that were being analyzed for their relevance, and that it was not a manifesto or suicide note."

 

[Shadow Puppetry]

I hate Alex Jones i was just showing the witnesses interview

>links to InfoWars clip

 

[TheRagnCajun]

It's a silly deflection tactic because it presumes gun laws wouldn't reduce the large amount of other gun deaths that happen every day. Gun control is being brought up now because this was a very egregious example of the failure of gun regulations in this country. It's not about preventing this specific tragedy. It's about confronting an obvious problem no one wants to confront.

After 9/11, the entire world enacted stricter travel regulations and checks for passengers. Air travel is very neatly divided between "pre 9/11" and "post 9/11".

The death toll equivalent of four 9/11s happen every year in the US due to gun violence, but there hasn't been a single legislative change in response.

Arguing about bombs and cars are of course deflection tactics. Arguing about bump stocks, automatic weapons and magazine capacity is also deflection as well. They both invite a lot of scrutiny, speculation and hypotheticals.

The heart of the issue is whether gun lovers are willing to make a sacrifice for the sake of public safety. What does it take for them to be willing to give up their constitutional right to own guns (not the same as banning all guns). They live in a paranoid delusion where they think liberals are trying to take all their guns away for ulterior purposes, they're worried about a tyrannical government, and they're worried about intruders in their home trying to kill them. If these people can get past these fears, see gun ownership as a privilege and not a right, I'm sure the experts that be can find a way forward on gun regulation.

 

[Switch Back 9]

Arguing about bombs and cars are of course deflection tactics. Arguing about bump stocks, automatic weapons and magazine capacity is also deflection as well. They both invite a lot of scrutiny, speculation and hypotheticals.

The heart of the issue is whether gun lovers are willing to make a sacrifice for the sake of public safety. What does it take for them to be willing to give up their constitutional right to own guns (not the same as banning all guns). They live in a paranoid delusion where they think liberals are trying to take all their guns away for ulterior purposes, they're worried about a tyrannical government, and they're worried about intruders in their home trying to kill them. If these people can get past these fears, see gun ownership as a privilege and not a right, I'm sure the experts that be can find a way forward on gun regulation.

Yeah good luck with that.

This will never, ever, EVER happen.

 

[TAJ]

That guy's banned and rightfully so, but I'll say again...
I've brought thousands of pounds of stuff through casinos in boxes and crates, in several cartloads and had staff not give me a second look.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Yeah good luck with that.

This will never, ever, EVER happen.

Well that explains why America has been stuck in endless debate on the issue for 20+ years.

 

[Ominym]

People don't want to believe one guy with no clear motive or affiliation could do this. They would rather he was part of some group with a clear motive / conspiracy / terrorist organization etc.. as it is easier to accept.

People want a clear enemy, and not have to believe a seemingly "normal" American white male could do something like this alone.

If people can't make sense of the world they live in, they will rationalize fantasies for comfort.

It’s a tough pill to swallow knowing that people you walk by on the street, interact with at the office, or are even related to can be capable of such evil. But it’s out there, it’s real. Seemingly normal people can be very, very different under the surface and we have to overcome a large amount of cognitive dissonance to realize we cannot always spot something, or someone, carrying such darkness.

I get why people want there to be more, want there to be something to take away and learn from so that somehow next time we can be better at spotting this before it happens. But there will always be people we cannot see till it’s too late. And that’s why we need to limit people’s means to do mass damage so easily rather than pretending we can change nothing and get better at spotting these people to the point of eliminating mass shootings.

 

[Shadow Puppetry]

 

[TAJ]

Since when did 64 become this magical age when you become an invlaid and can't hold a 8 lbs gun and plan a mass shooting that doesn't really involve much more than..get guns, shoot guns at other people? A high vantage point isn't novel. The old mass shooting cliches were a gunman in a tower. Suitcases with wheels and elevators moved the guns. This dude didn't dead lift 300 lbs of weapons 32 flights of stairs.

Amazing the lengths people go through to form a conspiracy as soon as the shooter is white. Brown skin, open shut case even before the first police press conference, white guy shoots up a place and the lizard shadow government has to be involved.

One of my uncles didn't stop working in construction until his mid-70s. He was still a beast when he quit.

 

[blackflag]

I was a teenager once but we didn't have social media. Is it just exposing more dummies or are kids getting dumber.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Meh.

I feel confident calling this constitutionally protected speech. Feels like satire.

 

[Baron_Calamity]

There's a note??? First I heard about it.

it probably wasn't related to the murder spree. He was gambling that weekend and it might have been a number sheet for odds that heavy gamblers tend to use.

Hmmmm. Did a fire alarm go off?

No but it alerted the front desk that someone could be smoking in the room. Security guard was probably sent there to tell the guest to quit when he noticed that the situation was completely different.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Shame that Stranger was banned before we heard his thoughts on 9/11 and the moon landing

Also GMOs and vaccines.

 

[Captain Zyrain]

Meh.

I feel confident calling this constitutionally protected speech. Feels like satire.

I imagine he'll be questioned and released, but I'm fine with them taking a closer look at him.