Active shooter in Las Vegas

[DMC]

this place is full of a bunch of liberal blowhard do nothings you had me fooled RG.

I exposed this fact: Me

[TSA]

Well the leading ar15.com theory is that this guy is a liberal and shot everyone up to prove that guns are bad.

TSA, do you subscribe to this theory and would this count as liberal activism in your book?

I'm not subscribing to any theory as hardly any information has come out yet, which is strange in and of itself. But it's a plausible theory they've got over there.

If he was a right winger that would have been leaked and blasted from the mountain tops of the media like every other white right wing shooter before him. The large amount of legally purchased guns placed all around the room that one single person could not possibly have a use for could have been Paddock's way of showing what can happen with legally purchased firearms.

[rjv]

I don't think it was applied in the other direction though I do see the problem with TSA's article, it seems to debunk itself by considering absence of evidence to be evidence of absence. It only allows that in one way however, not the other.

But there has to be a claim, and the claim is that the gun ban was effective, and the evidence cited was the lack of the very rare mass shooting. So a more accurate claim would be "thus far it appears that..." . It would be more accurate than drawing any other conclusion for or against, but since the act of making guns illegal was an extreme measure, you really need more than "jury is still out" to support it when you try to use Australia as an example.

by inference it was. i mean that is the whole point of claiming to debunk. but how can one debunk something that is strictly tautological? or, conversely, how can someone prove something that is strictly tautological?

[TSA]

So what have you discovered since your last update?

Feel free to bump your conspiracy thread. I can find it if you have problems.

You are free to bump it if you'd like. I won't be discussing it further in this thread or the other.

[TSA]

I exposed this fact: Me

I've always assumed it, but I've actually got them admitting it today: Me

[DMC]

by inference it was. i mean that is the whole point of claiming to debunk. but how can one debunk something that is strictly tautological? or, conversely, how can someone prove something that is strictly tautological?

If you say you have evidence of something and I show that it's not really admissible as evidence, I have debunked you without needing to disprove your claim.

[Pavlov]

I'm not subscribing to any theory as hardly any information has come out yet, which is strange in and of itself. But it's a plausible theory they've got over there.

If he was a right winger that would have been leaked and blasted from the mountain tops of the media like every other white right wing shooter before him. The large amount of legally purchased guns placed all around the room that one single person could not possibly have a use for could have been Paddock's way of showing what can happen with legally purchased firearms.

Well as long as you aren't subscribing to this theory and responsibly waiting for actual proof like you always do

How's Deadpool's FOIA fight going that would help prove the theory you totally aren't subscribing to going?

[DMC]

I've always assumed it, but I've actually got them admitting it today: Me

Chumpster doesn't have time to do anything else, what with running 2 accounts full time and posting 24 hours a day. He's hoping to get picked up by some Russian hack organization.

[Pavlov]

You are free to bump it if you'd like. I won't be discussing it further in this thread or the other.

Why not?

Wait, are you being mind controlled by Cat Stevens music? You can tell me. This is a safe space for you.

[TSA]

I don't think it was applied in the other direction though I do see the problem with TSA's article, it seems to debunk itself by considering absence of evidence to be evidence of absence. It only allows that in one way however, not the other.

But there has to be a claim, and the claim is that the gun ban was effective, and the evidence cited was the lack of the very rare mass shooting. So a more accurate claim would be "thus far it appears that..." . It would be more accurate than drawing any other conclusion for or against, but since the act of making guns illegal was an extreme measure, you really need more than "jury is still out" to support it when you try to use Australia as an example.

Did Australia and Great Britain’s reforms prevent mass shootings? It’s hard to say, simply because mass shootings are relatively rare. In the post-buyback period, Great Britain has had one massacre with guns while Australia has had none. It’s hard to calculate how many would have been expected without a ban. Australia looks more successful in this regard, because it had more frequent mass shootings before the ban (averaging about two mass shootings every three years from 1979 to 1996.3) Mass shootings in Great Britain, prior to the ban, were rarer. Prior to 1996, there hadn’t been a widely covered mass shooting in Britain since 1987.

[TSA]

Well as long as you aren't subscribing to this theory and responsibly waiting for actual proof like you always do

How's Deadpool's FOIA fight going that would help prove the theory you totally aren't subscribing to going?

What are you thoughts on ar15.com's leading theory?

[boutons_deux]

KrazyAnne Conway Just Tried To Blame Obama For The Las Vegas Massacre

It was President Obama’s ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms . . .

in 2010 that decided not to regulate [the bump stock device that enabled the Las Vegas shooter to turn his gun into a rapid-fire weapon] . . .

I want to say something else . . . we did a quick search . . . this conversation isn’t being had until tragedies like this strike by those who try to be the loudest voices.

You see Hillary Clinton, who’s out on a book tour, talking about herself, not talking about this. WTF

You see her rushing to judgment on Twitter the other day while people are still looking through the rubble, searching through the hospitals for their missing loved ones, trying to politicize it.

http://verifiedpolitics.com/kellyann...egas-massacre/

Obama and Hillary are the cause of ALL problems.

[DMC]

Did Australia and Great Britain’s reforms prevent mass shootings? It’s hard to say, simply because mass shootings are relatively rare. In the post-buyback period, Great Britain has had one massacre with guns while Australia has had none. It’s hard to calculate how many would have been expected without a ban. Australia looks more successful in this regard, because it had more frequent mass shootings before the ban (averaging about two mass shootings every three years from 1979 to 1996.3) Mass shootings in Great Britain, prior to the ban, were rarer. Prior to 1996, there hadn’t been a widely covered mass shooting in Britain since 1987.

I don't take any issue with that paragraph, it's the le that's misleading. if the jury is out, then you cannot use the "told me otherwise" claim as it hasn't told you anything at all other than those making the positive claim are also jumping the gun, so to speak.

[Pavlov]

What are you thoughts on ar15.com's leading theory?

Seems like classic confirmation bias with all the laughable mistaken ID photos and made up stories that go along with it. Considering he scouted out at least three other sites with wildly different crowds suggests that the method was more important than any political message. This tannerite business and the fact he offed himself pretty quickly after being confronted remind me more of Eric Harris than anyone -- of course the similarities stop there. Modern profiling is only about 50 years old and no clear motive was ever found with a guy like Whitman, so I'm open to the idea we might never really know more than we do now. I know you hope he's Antifa or something like that, and maybe he is. You can have scoreboard if you declare your theory now.

[TSA]

I don't take any issue with that paragraph, it's the le that's misleading. if the jury is out, then you cannot use the "told me otherwise" claim as it hasn't told you anything at all other than those making the positive claim are also jumping the gun, so to speak.

The le is from a different article, but same author. I see where the confusion is now.

[TSA]

Seems like classic confirmation bias with all the laughable mistaken ID photos and made up stories that go along with it. Considering he scouted out at least three other sites with wildly different crowds suggests that the method was more important than any political message. This tannerite business and the fact he offed himself pretty quickly after being confronted remind me more of Eric Harris than anyone -- of course the similarities stop there. Modern profiling is only about 50 years old and no clear motive was ever found with a guy like Whitman, so I'm open to the idea we might never really know more than we do now. I know you hope he's Antifa or something like that, and maybe he is. You can have scoreboard if you declare your theory now.

I don't think he chose that site because it was a country concert. I think he chose it because logistically it offered the least resistance and the most amount of kills. I haven't even looked at the other sites and what rooms he looked at so I'm just spitballing.

I don't think he's Antifa at all, that would have come out by now. Bikelock Antifa professor was exposed in a day. I do think it will come out that Paddock was a leftist and the only reason I think that is because the media has been so hush hush and have not even dared speculate on his political affiliation. I think they already know it.

So no, I still don't have a theory, but I do think there will be quite a bit more coming out over the next few weeks.

[DMC]

Seems like classic confirmation bias with all the laughable mistaken ID photos and made up stories that go along with it. Considering he scouted out at least three other sites with wildly different crowds suggests that the method was more important than any political message. This tannerite business and the fact he offed himself pretty quickly after being confronted remind me more of Eric Harris than anyone -- of course the similarities stop there. Modern profiling is only about 50 years old and no clear motive was ever found with a guy like Whitman, so I'm open to the idea we might never really know more than we do now. I know you hope he's Antifa or something like that, and maybe he is. You can have scoreboard if you declare your theory now.

I have to wonder if his woman ferried mixed Tannerite to locations he could reach from his window. You have to hit it with a high powered charge or supersonic round to detonate it, so if she put it in places he could shoot from there, he could also have been hoping to hit one. Just a wild theory. Can't imagine any other use except as a defense against breech by putting it on the door so they blow the out of the place if they shoot through it, but a shotgun wouldn't do , you'd need a rifle. Not even sure a handgun would set if off.

[DMC]

I don't think he chose that site because it was a country concert. I think he chose it because logistically it offered the least resistance and the most amount of kills. I haven't even looked at the other sites and what rooms he looked at so I'm just spitballing.

I don't think he's Antifa at all, that would have come out by now. Bikelock Antifa professor was exposed in a day. I do think it will come out that Paddock was a leftist and the only reason I think that is because the media has been so hush hush and have not even dared speculate on his political affiliation. I think they already know it.

So no, I still don't have a theory, but I do think there will be quite a bit more coming out over the next few weeks.

I think he was an independent based on several factors.

[Pavlov]

I don't think he chose that site because it was a country concert. I think he chose it because logistically it offered the least resistance and the most amount of kills. I haven't even looked at the other sites and what rooms he looked at so I'm just spitballing.

I don't think he's Antifa at all, that would have come out by now. Bikelock Antifa professor was exposed in a day. I do think it will come out that Paddock was a leftist and the only reason I think that is because the media has been so hush hush and have not even dared speculate on his political affiliation. I think they already know it.

So no, I still don't have a theory, but I do think there will be quite a bit more coming out over the next few weeks.

Sorry, you just told us your theory.

[boutons_deux]

his brother said murderer had no religious or political affiliation.

Sounds like his lady friend is saying nothing, even if she knows. Maybe she was just a buddy and abused pet, not a real intimate with shared thoughts.

[Pavlov]

I have to wonder if his woman ferried mixed Tannerite to locations he could reach from his window. You have to hit it with a high powered charge or supersonic round to detonate it, so if she put it in places he could shoot from there, he could also have been hoping to hit one. Just a wild theory. Can't imagine any other use except as a defense against breech by putting it on the door so they blow the out of the place if they shoot through it, but a shotgun wouldn't do , you'd need a rifle. Not even sure a handgun would set if off.

My guess is he had more than one fantasy and if he somehow got out of the hotel he could go on with one involving bombs. OTOH he had a few days to plant it if it was part of the window shooting; maybe he just didn't find a good spot. He had to change plans before.

[Spurminator]

I'm sure eventually people will find reasons to believe he was a leftist while other people find reasons to believe he was a conservative. Or failing that, they'll just make up like they always do, and plenty of people will go along with it because thats what they want to believe.

But none of it matters as much as his access to a ridiculously large arsenal of ridiculously powerful weapons and his ability to use it before he was caught.

[TSA]

Sorry, you just told us your theory.

A very narrow theory if you want to call it that. I don’t have a theory on his motive.

[boutons_deux]

Trash again demonstrating he's really ed up

“Look, we had a tragedy, What happened is in many ways a miracle. The police department has done an incredible job. "

http://verifiedpolitics.com/trump-just-said-vegas-massacre-many-ways-miracle/

what other ways a miracle?

and he had a "wonderful" time LV this week.

[rjv]

If you say you have evidence of something and I show that it's not really admissible as evidence, I have debunked you without needing to disprove your claim.

my point is that when one is using a statistical syllogism as an argument, they are relying on a certain degree of probability to support their assertion. if one of my premises is tautological (the statistics of a lack of shooting sprees in countries with gun control) that does not mean this premise will support the conclusion that gun control will reduce the amount of shooting sprees. but that does not make the tautological premise any less true. that premise is true in any cir stance. what i think we are left with is a hypothesis, but placing the burden of proof on the person who offers this contingent statement or hypothesis would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam. i guess that's why i regard such arguments as Bayesian, or based on probability, in nature. but that is likely the case in most informal arguments such as gun control.