long live NRA - next convention in Mandalay Bay !

[JoeKitchen]

Let's not forget a couple of things.  Our Republican Congress has refused to allow our Centers for Disease control to collect and/or analyze data related to firearms injuries and fatalities.  Secondly, there are children injured or killed from playing with firearms that they should not have access to or are "collateral damage" in shootings that would otherwise be preventable with reasonable regulations.

What kind of regulations are you suggesting? 

Although certainly tragic, I don't see how regulations could keep idiots from leaving loaded firearms out for their kids to play with. 

Laws and regulations, and punishments, often do not prevent negligence, especially in the privacy of someone's home.  Not to mention I am sure most kids end up hurting or killing themselves with handguns.  Since we spend so much time on trying to regulate "assault rifles," I doubt the regulations that could be passed would even put a dent in child deaths from guns since they probably would not effect handguns. 

I kind of equate this to the parents who leave their children in cars in the summer.  Research has shown that no matter what steps are taken to prevent this, some people, across all spectrums, just neglect their children and forget about them being in the back seat. 

Events like this are tragic, not just because of the immediate consequences, but because it makes politicians focus on the wrong kind of gun control.  By far, more people are killed with handguns then assault rifles, but since it is only one or two people at a time, no one ever brings up handguns. 

I am all for better gun control, but by looking at the statistics on gun deaths, regulating "assault rifles" is nothing but window dressing. 

[Alan Klein]

No, it isn't.  You constantly contradict yourself because it simply suits your reply-de-jour.  You lack any genuine understanding of most of the topics at hand.  Indeed, it was your participation that has largely thrown this thread "down the rabbit hole".

There you go again insulting instead of providing cogent arguments.  I didn't realize an Australian who lives 10,000 miles on the other side of the earth knows more about the US Constitution, gun laws and how Americans feel about them.  Thank you for your contributions to the discussion. 

[RSL]

Russ, why do you keep spreading debunked arguments, see the link I posted in reply #124, most US cities have a murder rate significantly higher then any European country. Those numbers exclude suicide so that's a non-issue. And if you don't belong to a gang or live in a criminal hot-spot your chances are also much better then average in European countries. So in like-for-like comparison you don't even come close. Wake up and see that the homicides in the US are much higher then in Europe, no matter how much you figure by excluding data that are unfavouvorable to what you are trying to prove. If you (and the US) accepts that these numbers are fine that's OK, but don't pretend you're as safe as or safer then where I live, because that's crap.

Okay, Pieter, I'll agree with you that in most European cities, people simply die of boredom rather than gunfire.

[pegelli]

Okay, Pieter, I'll agree with you that in most European cities, people simply die of boredom rather than gunfire.

Come to Amsterdam, you won't be bored (and much safer to boot), even Alan's daughter survived and had a great time

[RSL]

Let's not forget a couple of things.  Our Republican Congress has refused to allow our Centers for Disease control to collect and/or analyze data related to firearms injuries and fatalities.  Secondly, there are children injured or killed from playing with firearms that they should not have access to or are "collateral damage" in shootings that would otherwise be preventable with reasonable regulations.

Right, Alan, but how about telling us where in those cities that "collateral damage" takes place. Reasonable regulations won't help in the ghettos where gangs are shooting each other up, with bullets whizzing into neighborhood houses. That's collateral damage.

[RSL]

Come to Amsterdam, you won't be bored (and much safer to boot), even Alan's daughter survived and had a great time

Love to, Pieter, but I'm not quite as mobile as I used to be. I like hanging out at home and writing crap on LuLa. 

[Alan Klein]

Interesting article and I was surprised to see where it was published.  I kept on reading it looking for the punch line; just the results of what that publication has conditioned me to expect. 

However, I don't how access to the mental health has anything to do with this situation.  By all accounts, this individual had no prior issues with mental health or violence, he was unknown to the police, and his family are completely mystified by his actions here. 

If I missed the news article that explained the giant flashing red sign that screamed he needed help, please post it. 

The guy was on Valium:
"Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock was prescribed the anti-anxiety drug Valium in June, a drug that has aggressive behavior as a possible side effect.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Paddock was prescribed the medication in June. He was supposed to take one pill per day and fulfilled the prescription on the same day it was written.

"If somebody has an underlying aggression problem and you sedate them with that drug, they can become aggressive," said Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center, told the newspaper. "It can disinhibit an underlying emotional state. ... It is much like what happens when you give alcohol to some people ... they become aggressive instead of going to sleep."
...

Questions remain over why Paddock wired $100,000 to the Philippines just before the shooting. The island nation is the home country of his girlfriend, who was out of the country at the time of the shooting.

He also reportedly gambled with more than $10,000 during the day before the shooting."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-was-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-months-before-killing/article/2636485

This is wacky stuff.  Why would someone gamble during the day when later on he plans to blow his brains out after shooting a bunch of people?  Did Valium make him nuts? 

[RSL]

Why would someone gamble during the day when later on he plans to blow his brains out after shooting a bunch of people?  Did Valium make him nuts?

Why would anyone who's rational gamble in a casino anyway? Evidently they're people who can't do math.

[pegelli]

Let's not forget a couple of things.  Our Republican Congress has refused to allow our Centers for Disease control to collect and/or analyze data related to firearms injuries and fatalities.

Right, Alan, but how about telling us where in those cities that "collateral damage" takes place.

Pretty hard to do if you can't find the data because government agencies are not allowed to collect them, maybe that's where they need to start.
On the other hand, ignorance is bliss 

[Alan Klein]

Come to Amsterdam, you won't be bored (and much safer to boot), even Alan's daughter survived and had a great time

Yes, she had a great time.  I'm still working on the Henri Willig Dutch Honey Syrup Waffles in a blue tin can she gave me from her trip there.  I add a little grape jam to the top of the waffle before munching on it with a cup of coffee.  Yum.  (I hope that's an acceptable thing to do?

[JoeKitchen]

The guy was on Valium:
"Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock was prescribed the anti-anxiety drug Valium in June, a drug that has aggressive behavior as a possible side effect.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Paddock was prescribed the medication in June. He was supposed to take one pill per day and fulfilled the prescription on the same day it was written.

"If somebody has an underlying aggression problem and you sedate them with that drug, they can become aggressive," said Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center, told the newspaper. "It can disinhibit an underlying emotional state. ... It is much like what happens when you give alcohol to some people ... they become aggressive instead of going to sleep."
...

Questions remain over why Paddock wired $100,000 to the Philippines just before the shooting. The island nation is the home country of his girlfriend, who was out of the country at the time of the shooting.

He also reportedly gambled with more than $10,000 during the day before the shooting."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-was-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-months-before-killing/article/2636485

This is wacky stuff.  Why would someone gamble during the day when later on he plans to blow his brains out after shooting a bunch of people?  Did Valium make him nuts?

Okay, but all that does not necessarily prove that better access to the mental health care would have solved this.  I still have not seen conclusive evidence of him having an underlying aggression problem.  So the person prescribing the Valium would have not reason to believe it could have an adverse side effect. 

On top of that, your reference states that some can become more aggressive, implying that it does not always happen.  Considering he was on Valium for a short period of time, it is possible that it just had not been noticed yet if the Valium did have that side effect. 

I think the article Jeff posted may have some credence in it, but premature at this point.  It came across as someone with a Mental Health Access agenda deciding to jump on the bandwagon. 

[Alan Klein]

Okay, but all that does not necessarily prove that better access to the mental health care would have solved this.  I still have not seen conclusive evidence of him having an underlying aggression problem.  So the person prescribing the Valium would have not reason to believe it could have an adverse side effect. 

On top of that, your reference states that some can become more aggressive, implying that it does not always happen.  Considering he was on Valium for a short period of time, it is possible that it just had not been noticed yet if the Valium did have that side effect. 

I think the article Jeff posted may have some credence in it, but premature at this point.  It came across as someone with a Mental Health Access agenda deciding to jump on the bandwagon. 

I was just posting additional facts about the killer that I didn't know about earlier.  I have no idea if he was nuts, the Valium made him so, or maybe it was a gambling debt?  Who knows?  I do know that changes in the laws years ago emptied out mental institutions.  Many were put on drugs to control their impulses.  But many stop using them.  Fortunately, most do not turn to murder.  Now this guy was certainly smart to have planned this whole thing in such detail over a long period of time.  Maybe there is a terrorist connection that's being hidden until the FBI grabs others.  It just seems such an awful event for no reason yet discovered.  There has to be one. 

[JoeKitchen]

I was just posting additional facts about the killer that I didn't know about earlier.  I have no idea if he was nuts, the Valium made him so, or maybe it was a gambling debt?  Who knows?  I do know that changes in the laws years ago emptied out mental institutions.  Many were put on drugs to control their impulses.  But many stop using them.  Fortunately, most do not turn to murder.  Now this guy was certainly smart to have planned this whole thing in such detail over a long period of time.  Maybe there is a terrorist connection that's being hidden until the FBI grabs others.  It just seems such an awful event for no reason yet discovered.  There has to be one.

Pointed noted; I did not mean to come off as confrontational. 

I would love to know the point too, however I am not of the opinion there was one.  Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK for no apparent reason. 

[Littlefield]

Maybe he had a brain tumor like the Texas tower shooter. I highly doubt mother's little helper talked about on Infowars Lol was why he mowed down all those poor people.
Don

https://www.infowars.com/las-vegas-gunman-was-prescribed-drug-linked-to-violent-outbursts/

[Chairman Bill]

Ah! I see you got the point, Bill. Dictatorial regimes don't actually need to have designated dictators.

I suspect my interpretation of the term 'dictatorship' is different to yours.

[Farmer]

Phil, As I've said before, figures don't lie, but liars figure. I don't know where you're getting your figures, but I'll tell you that unless you're bent on suicide, belong to a gang, or live in a place like the Chicago ghetto, you're very unlikely to die by gunshot in the U.S. As Casey Stengel said, "You could look it up."

In 1964 I was stationed at Ubon Ratchathani, across the runway from an Australian fighter squadron detachment. The game those guys used to play in their O' club, a game called "carrier landing," was a lot more dangerous to life and limb than living in the U.S.

Russ, I'm not saying it's a death-trap going to the US.  I've been many times and spent weeks at a time travelling around.  It is, however, more than 10 times more likely that I will get shot in the US than in Australia, and we are no dictatorship.  Less guns and more controls don't make us less free or more endangered, mate.

Carrier Landing - I've heard about that - I don't think it was limited to Aussies, though.  And, frankly, just living with our wildlife is more dangerous than most places on earth :-)

[Farmer]

There you go again insulting instead of providing cogent arguments.  I didn't realize an Australian who lives 10,000 miles on the other side of the earth knows more about the US Constitution, gun laws and how Americans feel about them.  Thank you for your contributions to the discussion.

Not an insult, a statement of demonstrable fact.

As to my knowledge about anything due to distance, there's this thing called the internet, and travel, and listening to lots of other people, and so on.  But there you go with your xenophobia again.

[texshooter]

You are all wrong, sorta.

He killed many. This suggests he was a psychopath.
He killed himself.  This suggests he was depressed.

However,  psychopaths rarely get depressed. With one exception: when the psychopath is old and has a high IQ, a profile which he fits.

Typical depression is linked to loss of something with which someone is attached or to feelings of guilt and unworthiness.  Psychopaths are rarely attached with something or someone, and they never feel guilty or unimportant. So they never get depressed.  When high IQ psychopaths get old, they understand that grandiosity is illusory and self-satisfaction through omnipotent striving is unreachable. This leads to atypical anhedonic depression.

So he wasn't depressed in the usual sense of the word. One can say he was nihilistically bored, a condition that can turn an intelligent psychopath into a mass murderer.

In short, he killed himself and 59 others because he was understimulated and out of time.  No brain tumor, no adverse reaction to anxiolytics, no political or religious extremism, no rage disorder, no psychotic breakdown, no grief or chronic physical or emotional pain. Just boredom.

The only thing that might have stopped him is having no access to guns capable of mass casualties.
Democrats score a political point this time around.

[Schewe]

I think the article Jeff posted may have some credence in it, but premature at this point.  It came across as someone with a Mental Health Access agenda deciding to jump on the bandwagon.

Joe, let me ask you as delicately as I can, you DO know that The Onion is a satire website that does parodies and other outrageous stories...but they do look real. But the story I posted hit a lot closer to home because it was ironically so close to being accurate and real...the GOP does want to scale back Medicaid particularly for mental health.

But there's no way this guy wasn't loony toony because who in their right mind buys nearly 50 guns and plans on taking out as many people he can down to outfitting his semis with bump stocks to reach nearly fully auto rate of fire.

Can anybody claim this guy wasn't nuts? And yes, he flew under the fruitcake radar and mental health check wouldn't have helped...but outlawing ANY gun that could shoot or be modified to shoot in an nearly automatic rate is also completely nuts.

We have back to back wingnutz, the guy in Vegas and the guy shooting at congressmen that decaided to do crazy things and they had guns...how nuts is that?

[JoeKitchen]

Joe, let me ask you as delicately as I can, you DO know that The Onion is a satire website that does parodies and other outrageous stories...but they do look real. But the story I posted hit a lot closer to home because it was ironically so close to being accurate and real...the GOP does want to scale back Medicaid particularly for mental health.

But there's no way this guy wasn't loony toony because who in their right mind buys nearly 50 guns and plans on taking out as many people he can down to outfitting his semis with bump stocks to reach nearly fully auto rate of fire.

Can anybody claim this guy wasn't nuts? And yes, he flew under the fruitcake radar and mental health check wouldn't have helped...but outlawing ANY gun that could shoot or be modified to shoot in an nearly automatic rate is also completely nuts.

We have back to back wingnutz, the guy in Vegas and the guy shooting at congressmen that decaided to do crazy things and they had guns...how nuts is that?

Yes, I am aware of what the Onion is and their point.  However, as you stated, it was "ironically so close to being accurate and real."  So, for intents and purposes, it could have been a real article.  It surely read like one; I saw no satirical language being used, which is why I was surprised of the publication. 

My point though is that using this occurrence to promote increases in Mental Health is not justifiable since for all we know it would not have mattered.  I agree, he must have been unstable and mentally ill, however he has no history of it nor a history of trying to get help. 

Those pushing for better mental health care, which I agree with, would be better suited if they used examples that were applicable. 

Insofar as the gun control debate, I would rather spend the political energy and capital on getting something that would have the greatest effect. 

Rifles are modular by nature.  They can be altered easily and parts can easily be made if not obtained, so outlawing "assault rifles," which is a loosely defined term, is not going to prevent them from existing.  Not to mention, assault rifles, although sensational, only account for a small amount of gun deaths. 

I would rather expend the political capture on measures effecting handguns, which account for the vast majority of gun deaths.

Pick your battles; you only get one, realistically.  Would you rather have a feel good policy that does virtually nothing or enact policy that effects the most prevalent, although mundane, cause of gun deaths?