Las Vegas concert shooting

This forum is for talking about non-music-related stuff that the DBT fanbase might be interested in. This is not the place for inside jokes and BS. Take that crap to some other board.

Moderators: Jonicont, mark lynn, Maluca3, Tequila Cowboy, BigTom, CooleyGirl, olwiggum

User avatar
tinnitus photography
Posts: 7251
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by tinnitus photography »

beantownbubba wrote:
roland wrote:Watched a video from the crowd as the shooting took place, and it sounded like a full-auto just emptying a clip, and then changing, and running through another one. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment, but with a much greater screening process for mental health issues, but by what I heard on the video, this was not a "legal" firearm. Unfortunately, no matter how harsh gun laws may be or become, if someone wants something bad enough, they will find a way to get it, and this guy had the means and desire to mass murder.
Roland, I'm using your post as a jumping off point for discussion of the larger topic, not arguing against anything you've said.

Here's the thing: It's not about guns anymore.

As Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of stupidity.

I don't have all the answers and I may not have any of them. But this I know (and I'm not saying this represents the views of anyone who's posted on the subject here; I'm talking about the classic NRA/GOP response which is to offer condolences and pass more legislation making it easier for private citizens to own more weapons): To simply shrug our collective shoulders and say "shit happens" in the face of the overwhelming numbers of incidents and murders ('cause let's call 'em what they are); to simply shrug our collective shoulders in the face of unquestioned statistics that conclusively illustrate that the US has far more guns and far more gun related violent incidents than any other country on earth; to simply shrug our collective shoulders and act as if there's nothing to be done about it is just not acceptable. It makes no logical sense. It makes no rational sense. It makes no common sense. It is, as a pretty smart guy once said, flat out stupid. And yet that's what we do (or don't do) over and over again.

So sure we can argue about what the cause(s) of the problem actually are; we can argue about different classifications of weapons, we can argue about a whole lot of stuff. But instead of using that process to obfuscate, delay and ignore reality, let's have those arguments in the context of "how do we deal with this horrible problem?" What I mean when i say that it's not about guns anymore is that the specific solutions are, at this horrible low point, far less important than a broad understanding and agreement that the status quo is unacceptable and that something needs to be done to at least try to make it better. IOW, right now it's about the insistence of people, including many rich, powerful people, that there isn't even a problem that needs solving. Right now it's about not doing the same things over and over again expecting different results.

How can anyone look at the repeated carnage and not say "we must be doing something wrong; maybe we should try something different"? Is there a logical, reasoned argument for not doing anything (or for further expanding gun owners' rights w/out addressing the present calamity)? If so, I'd love to hear it. If not, isn't it time to try to save some lives?
it comes down to this:

gun violence is an acceptable side effect of not changing anything regarding gun control.

Iowan
Posts: 12063
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Oneota watershed

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by Iowan »

So I'm a big believer in the idea that criminalizing tangible things is a fool's errand as it attacks the supply side, rather than the demand side of the problem. Basically, if you make a thing illegal, you'll just create a black market for that item that's worse than the item. The War on Drugs/Prohibition come to mind.

We need to ban military grade weapons for personal use. Yes, some people will still get them. Yes, there are other ways to kill a bunch of people. But no other industrialized country in the world has this issue. But the demand for these things pales in comparison to the demand for drugs. When demand isn't that strong, you can at least limit access on that side. But if we don't at least try, we're complicit. This isn't an issue of people doing harmful things to themselves (drug use); this is about limiting people's ability to directly infringe on the life, liberty, and happiness of other citizens. Shit, if we just limited access to these things through more stringent testing and screening it would be a massive god damn start.

The fact that they've been relatively able to limit these items out in the public sphere (where drugs and alcohol were abject failures) suggests to me that this is more controllable.

No one has any legitimate use for an automatic, military grade rifle that can just spray bullets like that. I'm a gun owner. Have been since I was 10. There's just no point to this.

User avatar
pearlbeer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:56 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by pearlbeer »

Beebs wrote:
pearlbeer wrote:Couldn't we just start by saying that (at least most) private citizens are not allowed to buy, own, sell or possess any weapon whose sole intent in design is to kill human beings?
How do you define that? Any attempts thus far have been way off.
It does not seem that hard to me. Like pornography, I know it when I see it. An AK47, AR15 or any weapon of this ilk was specifically designed with a sole intent: killing people. Hell, our collective society refers to these things as Assault Rifles. It just doesn't seem that hard. Either way, the grey areas in these debates are filled with "thoughts & prayers". More often than not, if something is worth doing, it will be hard and uncomfortable. Any argument about this being hard or imperfect is just another way of saying that it isn't worth doing. Bubba said it earlier, the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
Love each other, Motherfuckers!

LBRod
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:15 pm
Location: Beneath Pacheco Pass

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by LBRod »

Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.

User avatar
pearlbeer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:56 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by pearlbeer »

LBRod wrote:Gun control laws don't work.

http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/03/a ... re#comment
Not having gun control laws isn't working either.
Love each other, Motherfuckers!

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

pearlbeer wrote:
LBRod wrote:Gun control laws don't work.

http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/03/a ... re#comment
Not having gun control laws isn't working either.


Arms control works well enough to keep fully automatic weapons from being in common circulation. There aren't too many hand grenades or shoulder-launched missiles out there, either. I'm sure there are a few, but it's few enough to be manageable. The arms lobby has a vested interest in telling us those laws don't work. In fact, they don't work so bad they spend money to have them repealed. ;-)
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
Smitty
Posts: 10900
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Fruithurst, Al
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by Smitty »

LBRod wrote:Gun control laws don't work.

http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/03/a ... re#comment
Tell that to Australia.
E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.

User avatar
Beebs
Posts: 4335
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 2:26 pm
Location: Chicks still dig the stash

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by Beebs »

pearlbeer wrote:Beebs wrote:
pearlbeer wrote:
Couldn't we just start by saying that (at least most) private citizens are not allowed to buy, own, sell or possess any weapon whose sole intent in design is to kill human beings?


How do you define that? Any attempts thus far have been way off.
No idea what your familiarity with firearms is so forgive me if I over explain. Here in New York State we have the SAFE ACT. I find it a little restrictive personally but being an American with a fucking soul, I'm happy to compromise a little in the interest of the greater good. When it was first rolled out they deemed anything with a magazine the held more than 7 rounds an assault weapon. Overnight my plink ass, Remington 597 .22 squirrel getter and it's 10 round mag was a menace to society. Long barrel 20 gauge single shot shotgun with a pistol grip? Banned. And many more completely arbitrary definitions of what a firearm "designed to kill humans" was. It was so egregious that they actually refined and rolled back many of the restrictions, which I'm pretty sure never happens, at least not in NYS government.

You see what I mean? They totally fucked it up and confirmed the fears of all the 2A assholes. So, it's more complicated than just saying an AR this or an AK that is banned.

On the other side, a close friend who is a county based therapist has invoked the Safe Act many times to have arms taken from folks who sent up red flags about gun violence. He claims it has given him tools to keep people safe that he had long wished for. A patient said, regarding his in-laws I believe that he was gonna "columbine those fuckers". An hour later the sheriffs department was in possession of all his guns and ammo.
Beebs is not a ragey man

Iowan
Posts: 12063
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Oneota watershed

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by Iowan »

Beebs has the right idea. A lot of AR-15s look more like death machines than they really are. They're a pretty common hunting rifle around here, and most aren't automatic.

The focus should be on restricting access to automatic weapons and making non-automatic weapons harder to modify. Banning responsibly used food procurement items will just be ammo to the 2nd Am nuts and won't effectively combat the issue as well keeping every Tom, Dick, and Harry who can breath from going to the gun show and walking out with an automatic arsenal.

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

dogstar
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: headed down to Oakie City in a slightly stolen car

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by dogstar »

pearlbeer wrote:Couldn't we just start by saying that (at least most) private citizens are not allowed to buy, own, sell or possess any weapon whose sole intent in design is to kill human beings?
I'm not sure what else you would do with a gun other than kill stuff
beantownbubba wrote:For reference purposes, this is the entire text of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Maybe regulating the militias would be a start.
"Guitars talk. If you really want to write a song, ask a guitar." Neil Young

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

beantownbubba wrote:For reference purposes, this is the entire text of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes, but DC v Heller pretty much wiped out the militia part and made the Second Amendment into a near total right to bear arms. It's no secret that the gun culture and the strength of the NRA have increased exponentially since that decision.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:
beantownbubba wrote:For reference purposes, this is the entire text of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes, but DC v Heller pretty much wiped out the militia part and made the Second Amendment into a near total right to bear arms. It's no secret that the gun culture and the strength of the NRA have increased exponentially since that decision.
This interesting article on just that dropped into my lap yesterday:

Gun Anarchy and the Unfree State

The real history of the Second Amendment

Saul Cornell wrote:Also, note what the aim of a citizen’s militia is: achieving the security of a free state. In other words, the Second Amendment not only ties the right to keep and bear arms to a particular means, but it states a clear purpose. What, then, is entailed in promoting the security of said “free state”? To begin with, we should clearly stipulate that the individual right of self defense—the one closest to the heart of modern Americans—denoted something very different from a free state’s maintenance. Americans esteemed this right, but did not have much to worry about when it came to safeguarding it. Indeed, the right was such a fixture of Anglo-American law that John Adams used it as the basis for his defense of the British troops charged with murdering civilians in the Boston Massacre. An American jury empaneled to hear that case found Adams’s argument entirely persuasive and exonerated six of the eight soldiers.

So a free state’s security was something other than procuring the self-defense of a society’s individual members. It was, rather, a collective enterprise: In the eighteenth century, the security of a free state was accomplished by a well-regulated militia—a local institution, composed of citizen soldiers. And as the wording of the amendment makes plain, that militia was subject to extensive regulation by government. Indeed, militia statutes were typically the longest laws on the books in early America. So the logical question that one ought to ask—one that seldom gets raised in the contentious modern debate over the role of guns in contemporary American society—is this: How do we maintain and promote the security of a free state when we no longer live in small rural communities and depend on well-regulated militias? How can one enjoy liberty in a society awash in guns?
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by beantownbubba »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:
beantownbubba wrote:For reference purposes, this is the entire text of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes, but DC v Heller pretty much wiped out the militia part and made the Second Amendment into a near total right to bear arms. It's no secret that the gun culture and the strength of the NRA have increased exponentially since that decision.
The Supreme Court also decided Roe v. Wade decades before it decided Heller and people are STILL fighting that one. Heller is the law today but any Supreme Court decision is only as strong as its ability to convince a broad majority of its correctness and legitimacy (i.e. that it was decided on the basis of valid legal principles reasonably applied, not political expediency). Heller is part of a morally and intellectually bankrupt construct that includes both the gun lobby and alleged strict constructionist constitutional interpretation. Since it is built on sand, it cannot stand, the questions are how and when, not if. Please note that the opposite of Heller is NOT the confiscation or banning of guns (though I acknowledge that some people would like it to be).

Also compare these 2 sentence fragments:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

They seem equally absolute to me. Yet nobody (well, hardly anybody) contests the right of the government to in fact make laws which abridge the freedoms of speech and press. Not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is the classic example. So it's well established that "absolute" does NOT mean absolute and if that's the case for the first amendment it's also the case for the 2nd amendment, even if one reads half the amendment out of the text. The implicit and explicit raising of the 2nd Amendment to some status above the other provisions of the Constitution is part of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy I'm talking about. It's no less of a provision but it's no more, either.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by beantownbubba »

John A Arkansawyer wrote:Just read it.
Story like that is supposed to have a happy ending. :( :cry: :cry:
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

beantownbubba wrote:
John A Arkansawyer wrote:Just read it.
Story like that is supposed to have a happy ending. :( :cry: :cry:
I once puzzled a group by saying the most comforting passage in the Bible is "To all things there is a season" in Ecclesiastes. So I find some comfort in watching good people be good together with each other in terrible times, the one guy who barely knew the woman and all those to whom she meant the world. But I would sure have preferred a happier ending myself and not needed the comfort.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
tinnitus photography
Posts: 7251
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by tinnitus photography »

this makes a lot of sense to me:
"In a free society, madmen and monsters find a way to kill". It's a tiresome argument, used repeatedly by gun rights advocates. In a free society. people will still choose to drive drunk, and yet we continue to enforce laws against it. In a free society, people will still choose to assault others, steal from others, break any manner of laws that are meant to protect others. There will always be those, in a free society, who choose to ignore the law of the land. Yet we, as a free society, continue to enact those laws in the best interest of our people, in an effort to protect as many as we can, even when we know, that in a free society, we may not always be able to protect everyone. I am exhausted by the argument that we can't prevent all gun crimes by enacting stricter gun control. Perhaps we could prevent some gun crimes, prevent even a few meaningless deaths. Why would we not even try?

LBRod
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:15 pm
Location: Beneath Pacheco Pass

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by LBRod »

Smitty wrote:
LBRod wrote:Gun control laws don't work.

http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/03/a ... re#comment
Tell that to Australia.
And their estimated 20% compliance with the law?
Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.

LBRod
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:15 pm
Location: Beneath Pacheco Pass

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by LBRod »

Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

LBRod wrote:
Smitty wrote:
LBRod wrote:Gun control laws don't work.

http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/03/a ... re#comment
Tell that to Australia.
And their estimated 20% compliance with the law?
Is apparently good enough that they haven't had any mass murders by guns since. Good enough to give it a try.

I'm just not inclined to lie down and die. Or lie down so someone else can die. It's become a bad enough situation to try some things that aren't certain to work.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

beantownbubba
Posts: 21751
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by beantownbubba »

I'm posting this link to Ross Douthat's column in the NYT for 2 reasons: He raises some points from the conservative perspective that are not often heard here and he raises them in a thoughtful way (as opposed to the knee jerk meme repetition one generally sees on social media). In particular, the point about proposed liberal solutions not being tailored to address the realities of the behavior to be curtailed is usually made in such ridiculous ways that it doesn't provoke or provide a challenge requiring response.

The column also ties in to Rod's and John's recent exchange: assuming the 20% compliance # is correct, doesn't that mean that the Australian initiative has failed? As JohnA points out Australia has had a 100% success rate in reducing/eliminating the problem so isn't that success? But how can that success be due to the changes in the laws if compliance is only 20%? Who knew gun control could be so complicated? Anyway, the linked column says some things that ought to be said in this discussion and nobody except Rod was saying them so...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/opin ... egion&_r=0
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

beantownbubba wrote:IThe column also ties in to Rod's and John's recent exchange: assuming the 20% compliance # is correct, doesn't that mean that the Australian initiative has failed? As JohnA points out Australia has had a 100% success rate in reducing/eliminating the problem so isn't that success? But how can that success be due to the changes in the laws if compliance is only 20%? Who knew gun control could be so complicated?
And to make it more complicated, and to be honest, Australia's success hasn't gone on long enough to be proof that their system works. I'd go so far as to say it's a strong indication that it can work, but not much further.

About that twenty percent, though--maybe that's as good as you need, to make it hard for marginal and whacko people to not have easy access. Good enough works.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

John A Arkansawyer wrote:I'm just not inclined to lie down and die.
you just have to "get small"

“It’s an open society and it’s hard to prevent anything. I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions,” he opined. “To protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said—get small.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/sen-jo ... d-gunfire/
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

LBRod
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:15 pm
Location: Beneath Pacheco Pass

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by LBRod »

whatwouldcooleydo? wrote:
you just have to "get small"

“It’s an open society and it’s hard to prevent anything. I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions,” he opined. “To protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said—get small.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/sen-jo ... d-gunfire/
So Steve Martin was right.
Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

LBRod wrote:
whatwouldcooleydo? wrote:
you just have to "get small"

“It’s an open society and it’s hard to prevent anything. I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions,” he opined. “To protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said—get small.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/sen-jo ... d-gunfire/
So Steve Martin was right.
was thinking the over/under was 5 minutes before a Steve Martin comment. Well done, my good man :lol: :lol: :lol:

Should have taken the under
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

beantownbubba wrote:I'm posting this link to Ross Douthat's column in the NYT for 2 reasons:
And I've got a third, which kind of pains me to report. He and I apparently are extremely close to agreement on the smart next step for those who want to regulate the arms industry. Our reasoning is almost identical:
Ross Douthat wrote:Right now tight regulations on fully automatic weapons are a settled part of our gun laws, and as restrictions go they seem relatively effective; no recent mass killer has acquired or used a machine gun. A new law banning “bump stocks” could still be flouted, of course, but it seems like a plausible extension of the principle that our machine-gun laws already enshrine. If you can’t manufacture automatic weaponry and you can buy only an old automatic under strict conditions, you shouldn’t be able to make a nonautomatic weapon fire like a machine gun by simply adding on a legal part.Right now tight regulations on fully automatic weapons are a settled part of our gun laws, and as restrictions go they seem relatively effective; no recent mass killer has acquired or used a machine gun. A new law banning “bump stocks” could still be flouted, of course, but it seems like a plausible extension of the principle that our machine-gun laws already enshrine. If you can’t manufacture automatic weaponry and you can buy only an old automatic under strict conditions, you shouldn’t be able to make a nonautomatic weapon fire like a machine gun by simply adding on a legal part.
I wrote:It's a rare day someone unlicensed is caught with a fully automatic weapon, and almost unheard of if it was built to be fully automatic. This guy was almost certainly using converted semi-automatics. He had sixteen rifles (isn't that a Brian May song?) with him. Possibly he was worried about overheating the barrel, so they were probably not built to be used as automatics. So if you want a small, possibly achievable step, putting the same downright harsh licensing regime used for automatic weapons onto the most common convertible semi-automatics is a good bet. Just winning one of these breaks the NRA's mystique. Don't wait for something perfect. Just beat them.
I knew about conversions, but not bump stocks or trigger cranks, or I might've gotten to where he is before he did. Props to Douthat for being more knowledgeable.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

whatwouldcooleydo? wrote:
John A Arkansawyer wrote:I'm just not inclined to lie down and die.
you just have to "get small"

“It’s an open society and it’s hard to prevent anything. I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions,” he opined. “To protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said—get small.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/sen-jo ... d-gunfire/
Thune is a strapping 6'4", wonder what "get small" technique he utilizes. Perhaps this?

Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

Too busy at the moment to do the research, but I wonder what the ban did for suicide numbers in Australia
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

User avatar
whatwouldcooleydo?
Posts: 13693
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Desolation Row
Contact:

Re: Las Vegas concert shooting

Post by whatwouldcooleydo? »

beantownbubba wrote:I logged on to say that as of this morning there seems to be at least one heartening development out of this tragedy but wwcd beat me to it. I'm very relieved and somewhat grateful to see that the old, tired, empty, cynical, reflexive, routine and meaningless "thoughts and prayers" response is finally getting the response it deserves not only from a broader spectrum of people but with more of the disdain, derision and challenge that is required.
Image
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing

Post Reply