Mass shooting at Las Vegas music fest....50 dead and 200 injured(update-400)

@horgen: No probably thousands. Full auto for a decent amount of time.

The guy was not mentally ill from what I heard. I really don't care what moronic gun fetishists say, we need to get REALLY fucking tough about guns. Make it as hard as possible to obtain them. And if you scream "But mah second amendment!" **** you. I'm sick of hearing about these mass shootings, and they keep getting deadlier. This damn country needs to wake up, and realize that guns are NOT the most important thing in the world. They are not toys, most people who own them treat them like toys, and that is beyond fucked up.

@n64dd: Lol I know. But pretty much accurate. Nukes by themselves won't kill until someone pulls the "trigger".

@horgen: I could be wrong, but 400 injured doesn't mean shot. Could be from running away from the gun fire and tripping etc. Still the gunman's fault though.

@AlexKidd5000: And how would have stricter gun laws helped in this case? The guy wanted to KILL and in your perfect gunless world he still could have found many other ways of doing it. This nonsense gets old to hear from people like you who have no idea what you're actually talking about but you just keep regurgitating what the media keeps throwing in your face time and time again.

Outside of repealing the Second Amendment, there isn't much that can be done from a legal position in this situation, assuming that everything reported so far is accurate. He allegedly retrofitted his weapons to fire full auto according to reports as of 1:40pm EST. Obviously, time can result in changes to the story.

If you think that is exactly what we need to do, as in repeal the Second Amendment, there is no way we will get the support to amend the Constitution in such a way with the current political climate.

I know. Hence why I think thousands of bullets sounds like to much. But hey I haven't heard more than 2-3 second clip from one video. By the sound of it he went through magazines fast enough.

I guess those weapons eat through bullets fast enough.

I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong, but if you do indeed feel so contrary to AlexKidd5000's opinion, then what do you propose is a better solution? What can America do so that its gun homicide rates aren't 25 times higher than other high-income countries? Or do you feel there is no reasonable solution and that living this way in America is just dandy?

Ah yes, because making bombs is as easy as buying firearms. He could easily have thrown his bombs from his hotel window all the way over there, hes got that Tom Brady arm. Anything to try to get away from the fact that these rifles made it possible to kill 50 people and injure hundreds from the distance that he was at.

Do you know why he chose guns over bombs or anything else? Because it was easier to kill people with, plain and simple.

@vfighter: what a stupid post. Sure he wanted to kill but could he have been as effective without a cache of deadly firearms? Could he have thrown knives at people half a mile away? No, of course not.

@perfect_blue: Oh sorry I didn't get the memo that knives are the ONLY other possible way to kill people. Thank God you set the record straight.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-attack-stephen-paddock-trnd/index.html

Looks like that Ben Affleck movie was right about accountants. When they aren't doing your taxes, they are some of the deadliest people in the world.

Guns in ALL situations make it FAR FAR easier to kill people! Sure he could have used a car, a bomb, a god damn FORK to kill people, but you know what? NOTHING comes close to the efficiency of a gun. No body is saying that more gun laws will get the number of gun deaths down to zero, but it would be just as great to get the number of gun deaths down from 10000 a year to 1000, and then maybe 100, and then maybe 10. You are IGNORANT and stupid if you think more strict gun laws won't do any good.

You don't do something like this without being mentally ill. He may not have shown it or have ever been diagnosed but he was most certainly sick.

That is not true, there is nothing in the 2nd amendment about what kind of guns or how easy it has to be.

Congress could without a problem make laws about how , when and who can buy guns and which guns is free to buy. The biggest problem is that Congress don't want to because the NRA is such a insanely powerful lobby org.

And when Sandy hook can't change anyone´s mind, then this certainly wont.

Three words........WELL REGULATED MILITIA....why does everyone ignore those words. Anyway this a shame. RIP to those he murdered and I hope their families find peace.

Making bombs is easy. Homemade explosive ingredients are stuff you can find in any store and instructions can be found on the internet. Molotovs are easy to make 1 rag a glass bottle and flammable liquid.

I was referring more to the goal of getting guns as closed to being banned altogether without outright banning them, not tougher gun laws that the shooter could have followed and still met his goal of mass murder. Congress can pass stricter laws, but at a certain point they face the possibility of their laws being challenged and thrown out.

Laws that prohibit domestic abusers and the mentally ill from buying guns aren't too hard to get passed, due to the public safety argument of people that either have broken the law or are considered too mentally incompetent to handle a firearm. Passing laws banning a mentally sane person that doesn't have a criminal record from possessing a gun is a lot harder, and in this man's case (assuming the facts listed so far are true), he legally purchased the firearms to include meeting the background check requirements, and after getting them he modified them to do what he wanted them to do.

Still much harder than buying a gun. If bombs were easier and more effective he would have used them. He chose guns because of how easy it is for him to get and how easy it is to kill people from a distance.

Yeah, it's really sad how every time one of these things happen the second amendment types further stigmatize an already stigmatized demographic. Being mentally ill does not turn you into some crazed nut, nor is it a prerequisite for going out and killing people. There are plenty of perfectly healthy people who kill every day. Apparently someone who's had mental health issue is completely incapable of owning a gun, but the angry white dude in his basement posting hateful crap on stormfront should be trusted with guns.

Not really buying a gun legally will require paperwork however a few months it was 4th of July many people celebrate with fireworks no one would bat an eyelid if someone bought some however that can provide you with gunpowder now all you need is a vessal to contain it fill that with shapnel nails , metal shards etc. Now all I need is an ignition for gunpowder I mentioned fireworks they provide fuses too, you can make homade granados precursor to modern granades. These items won't require background checks.

The shooter chose a high up room rifles are mediem to long range weapons he chose them because they would be most effective. Given the the size of the crowd even a poor shot could kill a lot of people. The shooter new what he was doing could have been much worse if he was military trained and accurate.

you can almost hear the NRA folks frantically typing up e-mails to supporters and ringing up their slav-- err. i mean congressmen.

Ding Ding Ding, thank you. When the amendment was written they had not concept of how powerful firearms would be today. Back then you used rifles that you actually had to aim and they were mainly for hunting purposes. And militias weren't a group of fat rednecks who worked themselves into a frenzy watching fox, they lined up in formation and actually had real threats to worry about. Now people just want to walk down the street carrying automatic weapons to feel tough. You dont need an AR15 to go to walmart. This last part isn't addressed to anyone in the quote chain, but I learned it this way; if you feel like you need a gun to feel safe in a specific area.....then don't go there.

That last statement supports nick's statement. I agree there are numerous other ways to kill outside of firearms, you are absolutely right. But a gun provides a much greater sense of range, control, and mobility. Also most bombings are more calculated and usually used as a diversion and not as reliable, and can easily be found. Columbine for instance occurred when the bombs the shooters tried to detonate failed to go off, so they just shot up the place doing more damage then the bombs would have done if they had actually been effective. The columbine shooters were highschool kids who bought automatic weapons online, and this is before the deep web made these type of transactions more streamlined. Also the kind of mind set that does this type of violence, especially if it is planning to be their last act; often would rather go out in the blaze of glory then wait to get found out as the bomber.

I'm not ignoring those words, although I am also not not ignoring the right of the people either since it could easily be argued on both sides whether or not it was saying that "the people" refers to the population in general or just people that are part of a militia. Our opinion of how the Second Amendment should be enforced isn't a reflection of how the Supreme Court will take it if Congress attempted to pass a law tomorrow stating that if you are not part of a militia then you have to turn in your personally owned firearms.

Besides, if they did pass the law, and the Supreme Court found the law to be constitutional, what is stopping millions of gun owners from getting together and creating militias just so they could meet the militia clause? Or worse, millions of gun owners deciding on their own that the new law is unconstitutional and violently resisting the law? You can't expect the military to just fall in line to put thousands of gun owners that refuse to turn in their weapons down, when many of them might agree that the law is unconstitutional and refuse to obey it, especially if some of their family members are the ones resisting.

But I get where people are coming from, I wish there were easier ways to prevent tragedies like this, and I hope that the families of the murdered find peace. I am especially concerned about the widow who was saved by her husband who acted as a human shield, because of the possibility of her being overcome with survivor's guilt. While I am fortunate enough not to ever been shot, I know first hand how guns can be bad even if legally purchased. Over ten years ago, about a month after I left Iraq, I was robbed at gunpoint in Atlanta, GA. There I was, closer to being killed by a firearm in Atlanta than I was in Iraq. Situations like this suck not only because of the senseless violence, but because of people jumping in and trying to make it political by blaming the other side.

58 dead, 515 injured. LINK The amount of death goes up. The injured, even higher.

Here are some of the names of the victims. LINK Don't make the shooter a martyr. Remember the people who wanted a good time.

The price of no access to healthcare. LINK For those who think universal healthcare are for the lazy, (I'm looking at you N64DD), this is for you. And if you think that I'm politicizing this, you can bury your head in the GOP's ass for all I care. Injured people need healthcare and will see a slew of bills come their way courtesy of the profit-driven healthcare system that plagues this country.

I don't the words well regulated militia were an accident. Also you can't make your own militia because that isn't well regulated....also not an accidental phrase. And it reads as though they were saying the people had a right to have a well regulated militia. Otherwise those words wouldn't be necessary if the goal was to have all the citizenry armed.

Bro what does a universal health care have to do with this shooting?

It's a debate that probably won't see a resolution to in the near future, since there are too many different opinions that determine what the original intent of the amendment is. An easy solution would be to simply repeal and rewrite it, but we all know that isn't going to happen anytime soon. In the case of this situation, I would rather that the government spends today concentrating on getting the victims the help they need (especially when it comes to proper health treatment) than to debate on what gun laws could be passed that will make this less likely to happen. The gun debate could come in at a later time, but based on today's events, we know that isn't going to happen.

Let's put this into perspective.

In January this year, someone wanted to kill people in my city - Melbourne, Australia. This place is your typical 'perfect gunless world', so he found the busiest pedestrian street and drove a car through it. He killed 6 people, and injured another 30. It was a terrible tragedy.

The government responded by putting up cement bollards around popular public areas, so that cars can no longer easily gain access to them.

A 15-year-old kid tried a similar thing a few days ago. A random pedestrian responded by throwing a free public bike in front of his car, completely stopping the rampage with no injuries/deaths. The kid then got out of his car, pulled out a knife, and the police tasered him into submission.

So...sure, if you're determined to go on a killing spree, people find a way. Guns certainly make it orders of magnitude easier though, and can apparently be 10x more effective.

Did you even read the link? Despite getting care, they will be billed one way or the other. Despite not being at fault, they will get billed.

Fake news. They will be taken care of.

As usual, you're completely unhinged.

@Maroxad: easy access to guns is a huge problem.

At this stage the US should see it has a massive gun problem and do something to fix it.

I'd rather just leave no words for this video, but gamespot won't let me do that. We could use a moment of unification, so maybe this will help.

I agree with you there. Hopefully, they figure out something that makes all of the good people in the country happy. In the meantime, focusing on taking care of the wounded and the families of the dead, while getting as much information on the shooter as possible should be the priority instead of trying to play politics.

@Mercenary848: I have no issue with Nicks view or yours I was just explaining how easy it is to craft homemade explosives. Thank god no civilan has access to the stuff they use in the likes of C4. I agree if you want to harm large groups guns are very effective. As I don't live in US I'm not trying get involved in the gun debate that's for them to figure out but that's easier said than done.

Aside from the gun discussion, curious how mental health might play into it. On the surface so far I've heard there's little to go on as far as social or political motives, maybe the dude just was crazy.

His family says not.........

@n64dd:

They're being helped through "GoFundMe" pages.

This isn't fake news. None of it is.

Still no idea about his motive. Wonder if he was some kind of domestic terrorist - like neo nazi, etc. Makes no sense.

I think TJ makes good points. We really need to stop fighting with each other, trying to score points against the other side.

If you can help out there are gofundme's and requests for blood donations I don't know the websites or if we can post such things but if you're able any support would be helpful.

How else could he have caused the damage he did?

You gun nuts are legit crazy. I just can't understand the affinity you people have for firearms.

A bomb or two probably would have doubled the numbers of deaths easily.

I hear you, and your right. As someone who lives in America I will give you this advice about determining American behavioor as an outsider. Look at hollywood. In Our American movies all you will see is people blowing each others heads off with guns, and crazy people grow up with these movies; and fantazise about them. That is why as far as american killers go, the gun will always be the preferred choice.

A senseless and horrible act of violence. I'm wondering if we'll figure any kind of motive in the attack. He was a millionaire in a well off community and no one in his family seems to be able to identify a character flaw as of yet.

He would have needed to get closer and past security, so no, I don't think that would have "doubled the numbers of deaths easily". Nice try though maybe one day you'll be right on something.