Shooting in Las Vegas

What a fecking appalling reply.
Difference between France and the US is that France doesnt have as long and as consistent record of mass shootings as the US does. The last 5 mass shootings in France all being motivated by terrorism. The US has mass shootings at schools, public and civic events. The school mass shooting record in the US being particularly horrendous. The US has a serious problem and people such as yourself use the most pathetic arguments to deflect from that. Your comment about Pilots being as equally pathetic and cowardly argument to use.

Why is there a need to distinguish between the two. At the end of the day, they all result in human lives lost.
 
Is it?

What if the guy has just lost big in Vegas after a massive coke binge and has just fecking lost it? Is that terrorism by the very definition?
Yes, it could be.

You can always come up with reasons why someone shouldn't be called a "terrorist": lost in the casino, had a fight with his spouse, unhappy at work, etc.

Anyway, let's wait for the results of the investigation.
 
I have 6, most are shotguns but this guy if has a mental problem and with a pilot license he could used a airplane as a weapon which would be worse.

This is completely right, and covers off on the 0.00000000000001% of the psycho demographic who happen to have pilot licences.

As for the rest of the psycho demographic in the great USA, when the day comes that they decide to klll everyone, which is more likely:

A) they set off on years worth of training and education to learn how to fly a plane, biding their time until that magical day they get to satisfy their blood lust, or

B) they pop down to Walmart and buy a couple of guns and a shit load of ammo.

What you reckon?
 
Why is there a need to distinguish between the two. At the end of the day, they all result in human lives lost.
When you have mind numbingly ignorant, vile and pathetic comments such as barros' efforts sometimes pointing out the cuntishness of their comments is neccesary.
But hey, you have a go at me and ignore his efforts.
 
Am noticing a bit of a kerfuffle on twitter about the media being slow to label this as "terrorism". Do they have a point? My own take on is that you can't call something terrorism unless it's done to further a specific agenda. And until we know this agenda we can't call what's happening the act of a terrorist. Thoughts?

Does it really matter if this labeled as a terrorist act or not? So many people are dead and many more injured because of this.
 
Rip to the victims

Hope the ppl effected by it stay strong


Frankly at my country if anyone got caught with a bullet (not gun) can be sentence to dead.
 
Guns don't kill people, people do. The guy could have as easily have thrown knives at a couple of hundred people. From 300 ft.

Am I doing this right?

You are doing it half-right.

More weapons are needed. If everyone in the crowd had a sniper rifle with them the shooter could have been stopped quicker.
 
When you have mind numbingly ignorant, vile and pathetic comments such as barros' efforts sometimes pointing out the cuntishness of their comments is neccesary.
But hey, you have a go at me and ignore his efforts.

Have a go at you ? I just asked a question.
 
10 guns in his room. At what point do American's think that letting people have legal access to an arsenal of weapons may be a bad idea? fecking mental.

Why does he even need 10 guns? Judging from instagram a lot of Americans seem to have have a strange obsession with guns.
 
Because restricting civilian acess to guns will have a massive positive effect on one but not the other.

That's obviously not going to happen any time soon. If anything, this sort of thing will entrench the securitization construct by having more armed security at these sort of events, as well as probably more civilians carrying for protection. At the end of the day, people who want to harm or kill people will find a way to do it with or without their weapon of first choice.
 
This is completely right, and covers off on the 0.00000000000001% of the psycho demographic who happen to have pilot licences.

As for the rest of the psycho demographic in the great USA, when the day comes that they decide to klll everyone, which is more likely:

A) they set off on years worth of training and education to learn how to fly a plane, biding their time until that magical day they get to satisfy their blood lust, or

B) they pop down to Walmart and buy a couple of guns and a shit load of ammo.

What you reckon?

Must be in Europe not here in US:
"As an example, our average flight training time to completion of an accelerated Private Pilot training course (starting from zero) is about 47 hours over a 3 or 4 week period (students with prior training experience may be able to finish in less time). Compared to the national average of more than 80 hours for completion of a non-accelerated training course."
Took me 16 hours for my motorcycle license, 10 days for boat license (2 weeks) and we only need 47 hours to pilot a small airplane...that's crazy I know.
 
That's obviously not going to happen any time soon. If anything, this sort of thing will entrench the securitization construct by having more armed security at these sort of events, as well as probably more civilians carrying for protection. At the end of the day, people who want to harm or kill people will find a way to do it with or without their weapon of first choice.

Guns make it easier to kill people. The easier they are to get hold of the more people get murdered. It’s that simple. The Australian experience being a great example of how successful stringent gun controls can be in terms of saving lives (in a culture where an outdoor lifestyle and hunting remains popular)
 
That's obviously not going to happen any time soon. If anything, this sort of thing will entrench the securitization construct by having more armed security at these sort of events, as well as probably more civilians carrying for protection. At the end of the day, people who want to harm or kill people will find a way to do it with or without their weapon of first choice.
I'm afraid the day people will start using bacterial and chemical in attacks, specially the first one. More people educated and easy to buy lab equipment, the only thing we need is a crazy person and we have a bad mix.
 
Why is there a need to distinguish between the two. At the end of the day, they all result in human lives lost.

A mass killing and terrorism are separate acts of violence with different objectives. Why have different definitions and sentences for murder and manslaughter if the end result is a human life lost?
I would imagine prevention is more possible in regards to terrorism incidents than it is for a random mass killing where the perpetrator has no criminal history.
 
Am I actually seeing the argument that private pilot licences are just as dangerous as guns?
 
A mass killing and terrorism are separate acts of violence with different objectives. Why have different definitions and sentences for murder and manslaughter if the end result is a human life lost?
I would imagine prevention is more possible in regards to terrorism incidents than it is for a random mass killing where the perpetrator has no criminal history.

Even if a mass killing has no particular political motive, it certainly still has the intent to terrorize a population. Whether or not its done by a group or just one deranged individual is ancillary to the end result
 
Guns make it easier to kill people. The easier they are to get hold of the more people get murdered. It’s that simple. The Australian experience being a great example of how successful stringent gun controls can be in terms of saving lives (in a culture where an outdoor lifestyle and hunting remains popular)

To get to where Australia is, the U.S. would have to change its own constitution, which would take a massive change in the culture. Short of that, the only other way to do it is to increase security at these sorts of events.
 
either way, as always these events bring out the worst in people

Everyone trying to spin it in their direction to aid their arguments and political leanings
 
They are saying he used more than 1 gun to shoot people but I heard the video and sounded like an automatic gun, so would be interesting to know which weapons he had and which ones he used.
 
Wtf!? I'm a bit late on this but Jesus this is crazy. Such a high number of casualties.
 
To get to where Australia is, the U.S. would have to change its own constitution, which would take a massive change in the culture. Short of that, the only other way to do it is to increase security at these sorts of events.
...plus we would need a giant wall (a super Trump version) so we don't get the M13 buddies here plus the cartel people, Australia like UK is an island and easy to isolate the country from bad apples to move in unlike the US when we have people who cross the border looking for a better life and others to commit crimes. Why the terrorists are able to use automatic weapons in France? Because France has borders with other countries.
 
021017teacher.jpg


Sick.
She's a teacher? I wouldn't want here anywhere near any kid of mine.
 
You are doing it half-right.

More weapons are needed. If everyone in the crowd had a sniper rifle with them the shooter could have been stopped quicker.

True, or an RPG. How many people carry one of those around? The Taliban seem to have no difficulty.
g-cvr-091008-taliban-816p.jpg
 
terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
  1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Do you know the definition of terrorism? How are you aware of these political aims already? Or do you have your own narrative? I'm curious.

This is not only directed at you, but why does it matter if it's a "terrorist" act or whatever. Many people are dead and injured because of this terrible act. Does it make it easier to accept if it's not labeled a terrorist act?

Too much stress on what it should be called or what not. It’s a terrible crime regardless.

Absolutely!
 
Too much stress on what it should be called or what not. It’s a terrible crime regardless.

Actually no. If you were Muslim, or Asian you'd understand. We get treated completely differently because of terrorists. Or day to day lives and choices are affected because of bias against us because of what other people do (people we have no influence or control over).

When white people do the exact same thing, it's politically watered down, there is less blame put on the race and the religion of those people, draconian new laws are not bought in under the guise of that community being dangerous.

Last week some guy stabbed 2 women in France and it was terrorism. The night before someone slit a muslim teenagers throat outside of a mosque in Birmingham and it was murder. There were no headlines.

People are using this moment to highlight this systematic racism. German jews went through the same thing before it got a lot worse for them. When that process started it started off as dehumanisation.
 
Does it really matter if this labeled as a terrorist act or not? So many people are dead and many more injured because of this.
Exactly. Its the most tedious and predictable argument on the caf whenever something like this happens.
 
Right wing sites/supporters spreading false info about the attack. They're claiming the attacker was antifa and a convert to Islam.

What makes it even more troubling is the fact that one of the sites spreading fake info currently has WH press credentials.

 
either way, as always these events bring out the worst in people

Everyone trying to spin it in their direction to aid their arguments and political leanings

Yeah man. Politics have no relevancy here and I'm not interested in reading random twitter posts from imbeciles. The only debate to be had is the same one that rears it's head every time something like this happens in America. Even with the scale of this one I don't see anything being done about it and especially not with the current numpty in charge who if anything has recently only made it worse.

They are saying he used more than 1 gun to shoot people but I heard the video and sounded like an automatic gun, so would be interesting to know which weapons he had and which ones he used.

It says 10 guns on the bbc. God knows how much ammo he had but apparently the shooting went on for 15/20 minutes. It was clearly planned meticulously.

I'm normally one who's eyes glaze over sadly when this sort of thing happens again but the sheer scale of this is mind boggling. One person was single handedly able to kill over 50 people and send another 400+ to the hospital. That's absolutely insane.