Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

Not disagreeing with you because it's all perspective but in my experience and in living here, most Americans favour the right to bear arms and want to keep their guns. Especially in the Midwest, South and North West.

 

Tbh I think labelling someone a terrorist gives them some kudos and implies what they have done has some meaning, however warped.

I would prefer to label anyone who can kill innocent people in such an indiscriminate way as mentally and morally deranged.

 

Basque separatists get labelled terrorists as did the IRA. It's a fair point on the van attack but I think it's more a case of van bloke being a lone whacko as well.

 

Islamic State have claimed responsibility...
Seriously. The *****.

 

They didn't get him, the **** killed himself

 

The very definition of "mentally and morally deranged".

 

I just can't understand why someone, no matter how pissed off would want to kill innocent people?

We live in a sick world

 

It's been a shocking year

 

I'm not sure the Westminster attacker would necessarily have objected to being called a 'terrorist' though, unlike the Borough Market attackers, his motives have not yet become clear.

There may be a difference between the terrorist who plots with others with a clear political motive and one who pulls out a motive at a point of personal psychosis, rather like US nutters of yore who always claimed 'Jesus' spoke to them.

We simply don't know what flavour of nutter this one is, but he seems more like the personal psychosis than political hatred type at the moment.

 

Apparently some of the guns were legal semi-automatic weapons (bad enough) but fitted with a 'bump fire' modification which apparently does not turn them into full auto guns for legal purposes. Mind boggling how a country can allow citizens to have this sort of thing:

 

ISIS, who would probably try to claim responsibility for a chip pan fire in Chesham, have made a new claim, this time giving Stephen Paddock a convert name.

 

I'd like to play with her bump fire

 

Seems to me that labelling this nutter as anything while his 'motives' are still a matter of speculation is a bit premature.

 

Gun ownership in the US will never become a thing of the past in our lifetimes. The lobby is too powerful with money in too many politicians' pockets. Couple that with the gerrymandered state level elections and 2/3 consensus across both Houses of Congress for a constitutional amendment and you've got a recipe for never. It's borderline impossible to get that level of support in the modern era of partisan politics.

Even more stingent gun control won't happen, despite the majority of Americans are in favour of it. The bodies of two dozen children didn't change things post-Sandy Hook. If that didn't do it, nothing will.

 

Interestingly it does fall under terrorism under Nevada State Law.

I always though terrorism had to have some sort of Political motivation behind it, which they may still find out in the coming days.

 

Whilst I agree with you that stigmatising people because of their background is wrong, for me, terrorism needs to have an agenda. Terrorists commit heinous acts to further their cause, but they always have a motive or agenda.
Unless I'm wrong we don't have a scooby why he did this yet. Whilst the act obviously caused terror I'd stop short of calling him a terrorist or it a terrorist act until we know his motivation.

 

Hmmm. But if the act committed was to further his cause/agenda of making people ‘feel his pain’ etc surely that makes him a domestic terrorist at the very least. His agenda doesn’t have to be as big as religion or politics, it could be anything he’s convinced himself of, big or small, however irrational or warped.

Whilst I respect and understand the way America was founded and the way they live, they take the constitution in any way they individually want. Trump has told the NRA, they have a ‘friend’ in the White House. He is systematically making a mockery of the first amendment with the travel ban. They pick and choose what they want to respect when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Whilst I agree that guns are too heavily embedded into American culture to be able to eradicate public ownership of guns, the law can be changed. At the minute, the American public are encouraged to own guns. Just think about that statement. In some states it is perfectly legal to openly carry a military grade assault rifle wherever you want. Watching ‘Ghost of Barry Endean’s video above - I don’t know which I find more sickening - people’s desire to own such weapons, the fact they are allowed, or the horrendous, almost orgasmic sense of excitement the (seemingly) normal, young, average joe, American woman has in making an already deadly weapon even more deadly. But we need to remember, it’s only for her own protection...apparently.

 

Yes, completely agree, but lets not label it until we know what it is.

 

It's far too late to bring in gun control in America. It is estimated that there are around 300 million guns in circulation. It would be impossible to call all those in and if you tried, a black market would be created. Unfortunately if someone wants to carry out a similar atrocity they will find a means of obtaining a weapon.

 

It comes down to the target doesnt it?
Attack on Westminster/government = terrorism. An attack on a mixed crowd attending a music festival doesnt immediately seem to be a terrorist act (though of course it could be)
That's how it's been defined to me anyway. Has been for 40 odd years.

Now if we have to redefine how we see terrorism then yes i can understand that. Of course it's not on that one particular group will be classed in such a way and that impacting on the daily lives of others of the same group.
But.. at the same time i'm getting sick of people labeling others as racists because they are using a term they have always used in a particular way.
Is that any better than what you are describing?


PS I also think part of the reasoning for describing attacks in such a way is to alleviate fear that the person or persons might be part of an organised group and that further attacks are imminent. When the authorities believe he acted alone they will call him a "lone wolf" no matter how awkward that term is.

 

Completely agree that this atrocity initially doesn't fit the recognised meaning of "terrorism".


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism

 

What about an attack on a mixed group who were out for drinks and food in London Bridge? Because that was a similar demographic to Las Vegas and was a terrorist act.

 

This is all sweet and everything Stevo and the rest said.

Yet within 10 minutes of an attack Sky will report it as "TERROR ATTACK" when it suits them? You're telling me they know the motive or agenda within under an hour of the attack? No way. It's a pick and choose situation based on various factors other than the actual crime being committed and I am sick of it.

 

I think you are making something out of nothing. It obviously was an attack that caused a sense of terror. No one said it was a terrorist attack, let alone one committed by Islamists. That is a huge difference.

Like Stevo, I believe the security services use a term like 'lone wolf' to try and calm fears of a rampaging terrorist gang at lose.

But, if you feel that Islam as a whole is wrongly associated with terrorism in the immediacy of an incident like this (and I have some sympathy) then your anger should be directed at the extremists within Islam who are deliberately and directly causing it through their actions over the past few years and their stated intentions for the future, until they get what they want. That is where my anger is directed, just as it was directed at the IRA when having to examine suspect packages in London in the 80's at risk to my own life, and having to attend the aftermath of their bombings.

 

Terrorism by definition is to cause terror, I have always assumed it's aim is to cause as much fear and disruption of normal activities as possible ... I'm not sure a lone wolf action does that sufficiently for the label no matter how serious.

 

Do you have any examples? I remember watching the Manchester and London Bridge events unfold on Sky/BBC and I vaguely remember that both were pretty slow to report it as anything terror related until it was confirmed by a Police source. A lot of people rush to conclusion during any incident but I often find Sky and BBC are quite good at waiting for an official line. Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, Daily Mail etc. on the other hand is a completely different story.

I also can't recall Sky reporting an incident as Terrorist related, and then having to back-track afterwards? Perhaps it's happened in the past but in recent incidents they get it spot on.

 

People died, who gives a sh*t what they called it. Grow the **** up.

 

In the immediate coverage of the Parsons Green incident, Sky News reported that a policeman had told a member of the public that there was ‘another bomb planted on another train and that the terrorist had escaped whilst armed with knives’ - I recall this vividly as I work around the corner just off Kensington High Street and was watching the coverage live in my office. They repeated the claim again within a few minutes and then never mentioned it again, as I’m sure they had been told it was false and hugely damaging if repeated. But they don’t always get it right.

As an aside, I have just caught a video online from Kim Beazley, who was Deputy PM of Australia and worked alongside John Howard in making public ownership of guns illegal in Australia in the aftermath of Port Arthur. In th space of 2:30mins, he debunks and pulls apart the argument that all Americans believe they have been told they are allowed to arm themselves under the Bill of Rights.
“The interpretation that Americans have of their second amendment is complete craven rubbish. The second amendment has nothing to do with the unlimited access to weapons by a contemporary character. It isn’t even a gun rights amendment. It’s an amendment to defend the United States. Back then they faced existential threats and couldn’t afford a standing army or even an armoury, so what did they do? They said that all men needed to arm and train themselves, they didn’t have to pay for the weapons, ammunition or training. Common sense, that’s what the 2nd amendment was - and the payoff was that these weapons would be deployed, as worded in the amendment, in a strictly regulated militia re. ‘The best we can afford in an army’. Since then it has been massively reinterpreted but mainly misinterpreted in only the last 30 years or so. Go back to the 19th century, as weapons became more complex,

 

In the immediate coverage of the Parsons Green incident, Sky News reported that a policeman had told a member of the public that there was ‘another bomb planted on another train and that the terrorist had escaped whilst armed with knives’ - I recall this vividly as I work around the corner just off Kensington High Street and was watching the coverage live in my office. They repeated the claim again within a few minutes and then never mentioned it again, as I’m sure they had been told it was false and hugely damaging if repeated. But they don’t always get it right.

As an aside, I have just caught a video online from Kim Beazley, who was Deputy PM of Australia and worked alongside John Howard in making public ownership of guns illegal in Australia in the aftermath of Port Arthur. In th space of 2:30mins, he debunks and pulls apart the argument that all Americans believe they have been told they are allowed to arm themselves under the Bill of Rights.
“The interpretation that Americans have of their second amendment is complete craven rubbish. The second amendment has nothing to do with the unlimited access to weapons by a contemporary character. It isn’t even a gun rights amendment. It’s an amendment to defend the United States. Back then they faced existential threats and couldn’t afford a standing army or even an armoury, so what did they do? They said that all men needed to arm and train themselves, they didn’t have to pay for the weapons, ammunition or training. Common sense, that’s what the 2nd amendment was - and the payoff was that these weapons would be deployed, as worded in the amendment, in a strictly regulated militia re. ‘The best we can afford in an army’. Since then it has been massively reinterpreted but mainly misinterpreted in only the last 30 years or so. Go back to the 19th century, as weapons became more complex, and the Americans expanded themselves to the West, what was the sign of a community forming itself into a municipality that would get recognition from the state? When you went into a town, you checked your guns with the sheriff. As simple as that. It went right across America. Their was no notion or idea that you were allowed or encouraged to meander around town with a weapon whatsoever. This ideologisation of guns is a product of the last 30 odd years and the conservative movement. So it’s recent, and crucially, it can be dealt with. And the one sign in contemporary movement is the Democrat Party seems to have seized its courage and argues unashamedly and unafraid that regulations need to be introduced.”

Whilst my firm belief is that I think no-one should be owning a gun, much less a cache of them, I respect the issue has gone beyond getting a total ban on public ownership. 310,000,000+ firearms in the hands of the population means that black markets would be created and people would no doubt be ready to go to war with themselves over what they would perceive to be a block on their human rights under the constitution. But far, far, far stricter gun control measures are required.

Whether this guy is or isn’t Oxford Dictionaries definition of a terrorist, he is a mass murderer. Who has very little previous misdemeanours and seemed like your average member of the population. Then you see he had 40+ firearms. Explosives. Etc. And a disregard for public life.

The American constitution. A piece of paper which shaped much of the power of the western world that falls down to modern scrutiny and should be reimagined by a progressive, forward thinking US President, much more like the last one and a lot less like the current.

 

When it affects you and your life is linked to a word then come and talk to me.

Kids in school thought it was funny to call me a terrorist purely because I'm brown. The word hasn't become naturally associated with white people like yourself (judging by your response I'm sure that's what you are) so it's easy for you to swear at me when you haven't experienced it. Pillock.

When people hear the word terrorist they automatically assume, Brown, Muslim, Beard and that's due to the media's reporting because there's plenty of other terrorists out there.

 

I think you said you were quite young. Certainly 30-40 years ago when people used the word terrorist in this country the immediate thought was Irish Republican, no doubt the sort of stereotyping you experienced was similarly experienced by Irish people back then. Due to the Good Friday peace agreement and 9/11 occurring very close together the stereotyping of how people imagined terrorists to look or sound like shifted.

 

Both a bit OTT here.

What I was about to say but Otter put it better.
I understand it's a sensitive subject for you but you're jumping to a few conclusions also.


Let's try and get it back on topic out of respect .

 

I think that the fact that Islamic extremists, tell us that they want to blow us westerners to bits, might have something to do with it.

 

Not that Westerners would ever do that to them? ... not that I excuse any of it, it makes me sick also

 

i'm pretty sure that in the uk (mainland) for the last 10 years or so, that's probably no true. if we take it as a given that the incidence of terrorism on these isles is already fantastically small and statistically inconsequencial, then the breakdown further of non-brown, bearded, muslim perpetrators is even smaller still. thats not to say i agree with the media reaction, but wouldn't it make more sense to choose a different path of criticism?