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

That's why if the context matters you should quote instead of simply reply.

But in this particular instance I don't think context really matters. If the whole point of law is preservation of lives then the country should be run like a prison because the death rate is a lot better than what we have in society in general (hell probably be even more effective since you don't have a concentrated population of violent individuals). Plus as I stated, legislation's effect on society is too complex and multi-faceted of an issue for anyone to claim that this particular set of laws would save x number of lives definitively.

@bmanva: can't quote on a phone for some reason.

You make it sound as if removing guns would somehow have a negative impact. There are plenty of countries where gun ownership is almost nonexistent that have a higher average quality of life than America

And you make it sound as if gun control law does exactly what the legislative authors want, that we can have a system in place that restrict criminal access to arms while not infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens to arm and defend themselves and that there are no unintended consequences to these types of ideal scenario law making. You don't believe the people who started the prohibition and war on drugs had the exact same noble but ultimately naive idea in mind? That they thought along the same line of "what could be bad about removing alcohol or recreational drugs from society?"

As I stated many times in past debate, I honestly believe that if you were to magically eliminate guns and knowledge of guns, then society will be safer overall. Unfortunately that's not the result gun control laws produces; changes to law first and foremost affect people who abide the law. Gun control law control primarily how one can legally acquire weapon primarily, yes, there's a secondary effect of how that is felt in the criminal market but the disparity of effect upsets the equilibrium of well armed citizens and well armed criminals and shifts the balance toward the latter.

And it's also dependent on the set of legislation being put forth, the complete lack of observable impact the 94 AWB made on gun violence proves that restrictions based on features of weapons are ineffective and is a waste of LE resources (ref. the DOJ report on 1994 AWB and police one survey). Yet time and time again, gun grabbing politicians keep revisiting the issue of "assault weapon".

This is the biggest problem right? This complete hyperbolic nonsense. The incorrect use of language for impact along with a very poor reading of the second amendment.

Its not sacred, its just a right. It was a right written by people who knew rights would change as the country grew and changed. There is nothing sacred about it, it was not given to you by a deity.

Even if we are to go this hyperbolic route of "all guns banned" (which is absolutely never the argument or suggested course of action) you owning an item and that item then becoming illegal to own, is absolutely not the "nature of tyranny". If you do not know what a tyrannical government is, i suggest you look it up and see examples. Whats really funny here is if you actually pay attention to history, you know that guns don't make a damn bit of difference if a government is tyrannical or not.

Of course third, the 2nd amendment does not say people have the right to bare arms. That is not a single sentence or single declaration. It very clearly states that well regulated militias as citizens, have the right to bare arms. And of course if you know anything you know this was their idea of police/military and is why standing army's are illegal in the constitutions.... so btw, you're a function of something that is far more tyrannical within our constitutional framework than a removal of certain firearms. Hopefully you understand why, but i have my doubts.

@bmanva: You're conflating different things.

I'm not the one who initiated the comparison between two different countries with vastly different socioeconomic factors and cultures.

They banned guns with no negatives. The rest of that is immaterial.

Now who's conflating different things?

That was the discussion I posted. Period. I cannot be conflating two different things when I've reiterated the same thing twice.

You're conflating two very different countries. Again, given what's happen to Australia in the past decades, prohibition could have work there while we know for a fact that prohibition failed here in the US. How different societies react to same piece of legislation can be drastic. Stating that x worked in country A, it should totally work in country B without consideration to their difference is putting one's ignorance on full display.

Lol, that is your response? We had a bunch of mass shootings before strict gun laws were introduced in 1996/1997, and haven't had a single mass shooting since. It's as simple as that. You can try to sidestep around it and try to find statistics that try to discount the fact, but it's pretty clear cut.

We might be a "nanny state" in your eyes, but at least I know I have a MUCH smaller chance of being killed by a psycho with a gun here.

Have a read of this while you're at it:

Link

So you're for killing the babies and making that choice for them, but not killing people that already made that choice for themselves? Man your world is backwards.

Trolling again? You have zero comprehension about my post. Kudos.

It's truly incredible how Americans call other countries that all have higher standards of living then them "nanny states".

You basically said that people can redeem themselves. So we shouldn't pass judgement whether they should live or die. Children are innocent, but we don't know their future and the harm or good they can bring, but we should be able to murder them for convenience.

I can comprehend your bullshit just fine. I can always read between the lines and make associations of what you're implicating. The only one here that trolls is you bud. You pick one thing out and say it doesn't make sense because you take it out of context and blur the lines of what it means. It's old and boring.

I honestly can't believe you have been doing this for over 100,000 posts.

No no you didn't.

Yeah, it kinda is. Some people are just in denial I think.

@bmanva said:

@hrt_rulz01 said:

@bmanva said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Australia doesn't have that problem.

Australia isn't America. Honestly seeing how well they are taking gradual and steady march toward a nanny state in stride, I think prohibition could really work there.

http://www.gq.com.au/success/opinions/nanny+state+australia+is+out+of+control+and+it+is+getting+worse,48545

http://www.traveller.com.au/australia-the-land-of-the-idiot-gi36oy

Lol, that is your response? We had a bunch of mass shootings before strict gun laws were introduced in 1996/1997, and haven't had a single mass shooting since. It's as simple as that. You can try to sidestep around it and try to find statistics that try to discount the fact, but it's pretty clear cut.

We might be a "nanny state" in your eyes, but at least I know I have a MUCH smaller chance of being killed by a psycho with a gun here.

Have a read of this while you're at it:

Link

I don't think I'm the one missing the point... Well, actually I'm sure you see the point, but choose to ignore it.

Anyway, good luck with your non-"Nanny state", where children can get murdered whilst at school by a psycho who has easy access to assault rifles.

@n64dd: It's sad how little you know before posting your memes. I am against both abortion and the death penalty. Unlike you conservatives I'm not a hypocrite.

@n64dd: You are so sad dude. And it doesn't faze you.

160,000+ plus posts, and it's all vague bullshit. Sorry you got called out. Go google why Detroit is a mess and think you're an expert! It'll make for an interesting conversation!

I doubt you've read all my posts. You didn't even exist when I started posting. But nice try. Now I'm out. You can get back to your regularly scheduled trolling.

So you used to not be a troll? Tell me more.

@hrt_rulz01 said:

@perfect_blue said:

@hrt_rulz01 said:

Lol, that is your response? We had a bunch of mass shootings before strict gun laws were introduced in 1996/1997, and haven't had a single mass shooting since. It's as simple as that. You can try to sidestep around it and try to find statistics that try to discount the fact, but it's pretty clear cut.

We might be a "nanny state" in your eyes, but at least I know I have a MUCH smaller chance of being killed by a psycho with a gun here.

Have a read of this while you're at it:

Link

It's truly incredible how Americans call other countries that all have higher standards of living then them "nanny states".

Yeah, it kinda is. Some people are just in denial I think.

@bmanva said:

@hrt_rulz01 said:

@bmanva said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Australia doesn't have that problem.

Australia isn't America. Honestly seeing how well they are taking gradual and steady march toward a nanny state in stride, I think prohibition could really work there.

http://www.gq.com.au/success/opinions/nanny+state+australia+is+out+of+control+and+it+is+getting+worse,48545

http://www.traveller.com.au/australia-the-land-of-the-idiot-gi36oy

Lol, that is your response? We had a bunch of mass shootings before strict gun laws were introduced in 1996/1997, and haven't had a single mass shooting since. It's as simple as that. You can try to sidestep around it and try to find statistics that try to discount the fact, but it's pretty clear cut.

We might be a "nanny state" in your eyes, but at least I know I have a MUCH smaller chance of being killed by a psycho with a gun here.

Have a read of this while you're at it:

Link

I don't think I'm the one missing the point... Well, actually I'm sure you see the point, but choose to ignore it.

Anyway, good luck with your non-"Nanny state", where children can get murdered whilst at school by a psycho who has easy access to assault rifles.

The debate isn't about gun violence in Australia or whether gun laws there were effective but gun violence in the US. Simply drawing a comparison between the two countries in the context of "if it works for Australia then it will work for America" is flawed because there's a unproven causation between Australia law and violence (homicide rate didn't represent a significant drop post 96 ban; the downward trend of homicide is consistent to the rest of the developed world). And even if the law is effective in Australia, it's not evidence it would have the same effect in US due to all the differences between the two countries. That's like saying Australia population is overwhelming white, if US demographic can mirror that of Australia we would have less issue with crimes and violence.

The matter of fact is whether you want to recognize it or not, there are some significant numbers of difference between our nations that contribute to the disparity in violence and crime much more so than our gun laws. Physical size of US and our populations, diversity of our cultures, our history, economy, etc. Plus US has a lot of problems that Australians don't deal with; drugs and poor education are all factors that lead to higher crime and violence. And those aren't problems more gun control or a gun ban can fix or even help with.

@bmanva said:

@hrt_rulz01 said:

@perfect_blue said:

@hrt_rulz01 said:

Lol, that is your response? We had a bunch of mass shootings before strict gun laws were introduced in 1996/1997, and haven't had a single mass shooting since. It's as simple as that. You can try to sidestep around it and try to find statistics that try to discount the fact, but it's pretty clear cut.

We might be a "nanny state" in your eyes, but at least I know I have a MUCH smaller chance of being killed by a psycho with a gun here.

Have a read of this while you're at it:

Link

It's truly incredible how Americans call other countries that all have higher standards of living then them "nanny states".

Yeah, it kinda is. Some people are just in denial I think.

@bmanva said:

@hrt_rulz01 said:

@bmanva said:

Australia isn't America. Honestly seeing how well they are taking gradual and steady march toward a nanny state in stride, I think prohibition could really work there.

http://www.gq.com.au/success/opinions/nanny+state+australia+is+out+of+control+and+it+is+getting+worse,48545

http://www.traveller.com.au/australia-the-land-of-the-idiot-gi36oy

Lol, that is your response? We had a bunch of mass shootings before strict gun laws were introduced in 1996/1997, and haven't had a single mass shooting since. It's as simple as that. You can try to sidestep around it and try to find statistics that try to discount the fact, but it's pretty clear cut.

We might be a "nanny state" in your eyes, but at least I know I have a MUCH smaller chance of being killed by a psycho with a gun here.

Have a read of this while you're at it:

Link

I don't think I'm the one missing the point... Well, actually I'm sure you see the point, but choose to ignore it.

Anyway, good luck with your non-"Nanny state", where children can get murdered whilst at school by a psycho who has easy access to assault rifles.

The debate isn't about gun violence in Australia or whether gun laws there were effective but gun violence in the US. Simply drawing a comparison between the two countries in the context of "if it works for Australia then it will work for America" is flawed because there's a unproven causation between Australia law and violence (homicide rate didn't represent a significant drop post 96 ban; the downward trend of homicide is consistent to the rest of the developed world). And even if the law is effective in Australia, it's not evidence it would have the same effect in US due to all the differences between the two countries. That's like saying Australia population is overwhelming white, if US demographic can mirror that of Australia we would have less issue with crimes and violence.

The matter of fact is whether you want to recognize it or not, there are some significant numbers of difference between our nations that contribute to the disparity in violence and crime much more so than our gun laws. Physical size of US and our populations, diversity of our cultures, our history, economy, etc. Plus US has a lot of problems that Australians don't deal with; drugs and poor education are all factors that lead to higher crime and violence. And those aren't problems more gun control or a gun ban can fix or even help with.

We had similar "relaxed" gun laws as you prior to 1996, and had several mass shootings. After the stricter laws were introduced, not a single since. That's no coincidence and not part of any "downward trend of homicide consistent to the rest of the developed world".

But anyway, nothings ever going to change over there it seems. So I'm sure you & fellow gun owners will be happy with that.

So another mass shooting, again we hear and read pointless "prayers to the victims and their loved ones" and stupid hashtags. I am sorry that does not bring back the dead, I can almost say with certainty that the families of those who died at the very least, cares very little about your feelings on the matter, unless you can rewind time. Those who have loved ones that are wounded might take to those thoughts more kindly.

Again we see the two main political lumps of useless try to score cheap "blame points". Again the Media films and speculate like some cheap ass entertainment show.

Again the gun discussion flares up again.

And again everyone ignores the uncomfortable truths when they jump on the easy political blame game, since it is so easy to find neat justifications through the blindness of ideologies and religion while leaving the heavier issues alone..

There are obviously something wrong in the US, at a very basic level, far more basic then gun controls, or horrid self serving political ideals.

Something much more basic, like mental health issues, the slow degradation of the culture that has come to celebrate violence, the deconstruction of society

I strongly doubt someone pulling off a mass shooting are fine mentally. They might not be criminally insane, but that certainly does not mean that they are sane.

Certainly the fairly easy acces to guns are part of the problem, someone who intended to do a lot of damage but had a hard time of getting a gun, would have a harder time killing people, but ignoring the person behind the weapon is really stupid.

Personally I would see to having a better healthcare system. Something far more effective then Obamacare, which to me always read as a band aid put in place until groundwork for proper universal care could be proper woven into the systems. And better focus on kids mental health at a young age at institutions. So more money for the education system, and far better control over the usage of said resources for the institutions. Just throwing money at it will solve nothing.

Also I am sorry but the social norms over there have taken an ugly warlike tone whenever I see discussions over there. So there is a societal problem. The rising up violent and vile people as some sort of fame, or the constant blaming of groups. it does not matter which group of people it is, but when society holds up x group as the reason for things going south, society should not be surprised when crappy things happen. Tell people long enough that they are monsters, and sooner or later they will believe it. Mentally unstable people, faster then others.

The Disruption and destruction of social norms, values and customs, that have almost been forced through society with nothing to replace it certainly has not helped either. While I am still too young to state that we all need to go back to a 1950 nuclear family mindset, I do recognize that in its stead the western world, and the people there are left with nothing in its place, alone, isolated, alienated. Current trends will likely cause worse results down the line.

In this specific case I am not sure how much the societal norms and pressures have played a role. Maybe in this case he just woke up and wanted to off the world. A lot of mental issues are at least partly biological in nature, and given the description of his farther, it stands to reason that there might well have been something there, behind the surface. Maybe brought on by outer stress.. Hell who knows? maybe he lost a lot of money, which might have caused enough stress to trigger some latent behavior?

Maybe he just saw the world around him and decided that everyone had gone utterly insane.

I do not live in the US, so feel free to disregard my thoughts..

@hrt_rulz01 said:

@bmanva said:

@hrt_rulz01 said:

@perfect_blue said:

It's truly incredible how Americans call other countries that all have higher standards of living then them "nanny states".

Yeah, it kinda is. Some people are just in denial I think.

@bmanva said:

I don't think I'm the one missing the point... Well, actually I'm sure you see the point, but choose to ignore it.

Anyway, good luck with your non-"Nanny state", where children can get murdered whilst at school by a psycho who has easy access to assault rifles.

The debate isn't about gun violence in Australia or whether gun laws there were effective but gun violence in the US. Simply drawing a comparison between the two countries in the context of "if it works for Australia then it will work for America" is flawed because there's a unproven causation between Australia law and violence (homicide rate didn't represent a significant drop post 96 ban; the downward trend of homicide is consistent to the rest of the developed world). And even if the law is effective in Australia, it's not evidence it would have the same effect in US due to all the differences between the two countries. That's like saying Australia population is overwhelming white, if US demographic can mirror that of Australia we would have less issue with crimes and violence.

The matter of fact is whether you want to recognize it or not, there are some significant numbers of difference between our nations that contribute to the disparity in violence and crime much more so than our gun laws. Physical size of US and our populations, diversity of our cultures, our history, economy, etc. Plus US has a lot of problems that Australians don't deal with; drugs and poor education are all factors that lead to higher crime and violence. And those aren't problems more gun control or a gun ban can fix or even help with.

We had similar "relaxed" gun laws as you prior to 1996, and had several mass shootings. After the stricter laws were introduced, not a single since. That's no coincidence and not part of any "downward trend of homicide consistent to the rest of the developed world".

But anyway, nothings ever going to change over there it seems. So I'm sure you & fellow gun owners will be happy with that.

That's not what the data show. In 1996, US homicide per 100,000 is 7.4; at the same time, Australian homicide per 100,000 is 1.9. By 2013 (the last year I was able to find Australian homicide data for), US has dropped to 4.5 while Australian has dropped to 1.2. If you compare the percentage change from 1996 to 2013, the shifts from two countries are actually really close at 39%. Not to mention the fact that US experienced a sharp drop in homicide that's not present in the Australian data in the late 90s. If you smooth out the graph and hide the labels, I bet you would think the US graph is the Australian data because of that drop which better correspond to your narrative of effective gun ban post 1996. Obviously there multitude of factors that affect the rise and fall of homicide rate besides gun laws (which is what I've been saying the entire time), but the data does contradict your argument that gun ban had a noticeable effect on Australian homicide rate.

You can verify the data with the sources I listed above.

@bmanva: I'm not disagreeing that the overall numbers were on a downward trend anyway... but that doesn't discount the cold hard fact that we had several mass shootings before 1996, and haven't had a single one since. That's no coincidence and you can post all the graphs you want. It doesn't change that fact.

If you make it more difficult for the average person to go buy an assault rifle or whatever firearm, you will get less mass shootings. It's very simple. And why the average civilian even needs an assault-type weapon is beyond me but that's another topic.

Really depends on your definition of mass shooting, because there have been several shootings that racked up some body counts.

But more importantly whether some were killed by a mass shooter with "assault-type weapon" or whether they were hacked to death by crocodile dundee hardly matters to the victims or their families and friends. The focus on HOW the victims killed is just you not wanting to recognize that the Australian gun ban did nothing in terms of saving lives, which I thought was kinda the point but hey, what do I know; it might just be because your government prefer people get kill in other ways than shot.

The existence of Switzerland sort of illustrates the flaw with this logic. Gun laws in Switzerland vs Visualizing gun deaths: Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world.

Switzerland is more gun crazy then America, but they shoot less people then Australia.

Here's a fact you might not be aware of: it is very difficult for the average person to go buy an assault rifle in the US; has been since 1986. Also it is more difficult for the average person to go buy whatever firearm in california (both assault rifles and so called "assault weapons" are banned completely there), yet more mass shootings happen there than any other state. There's also little correlation between mass shootings and state gun laws.

Like I've been saying before it's not the gun law, it's the socioeconomic and cultural difference. A lot of developed countries aren't facing the challenges US has (e.g. education, drugs and poverty). Granted, US isn't a dump by any stretch of the imagination; there are a lot of upward opportunities here if you got the right stuff but at the same time, the bottom goes down pretty deep for the have-nots.

Swiss gun law is even more laxed than US; they are allow to own machine guns. Typical Swiss gun collection:

@kittennose: I'm sceptical as to whether that's correct... I'm sure from the statistics I've seen, Switzerland has more gun deaths than Aus.

And after having a brief look at a few statistics, Switzerland does indeed have a higher firearm-related death rate. Link

Does this militia actually exist today? How do you join? Also who regulates them?

The link I posted ranks both nations by the year 2013. The link you posted ranks Aus by the data from 2013, and Switzerland by various other years. If we go by the 2013 data used in your link, Aus ranks higher then Switzerland.

Heck, the fact that they peek and valley around each other still kind of blows a hole in your "If you make it more difficult for the average person to go buy an assault rifle or whatever firearm, you will get less mass shootings." theory. The Switz kind of flood their neighborhoods with them.

Funny how the braindead pro gun crowd always makes the dumb argument that more guns = more peace, by that logic, the US should be the most peaceful country in the world. 13000 homicides every year because of lunatics with guns, hundereds more innocent killed by lunatic cops with guns. oops, guess not...

I am one of those who believe that overly strict gun controls are roughly like the more obstructive DRM on PC games.

It is more restrictive and burdensome to law abiding citizens than it is to criminals. It may stop a few cases here and there maybe... but overall, I just cant see a link. Correlations can be found here and there, but nothing convinces me it is the causation.

Some well thought out gun control can do good however. So it isnt all black and white.

Maybe revered is a more preferred term, as "sacred" was not aimed to have religious connotations attached. Best not to pander to semantics though, such a bore.

It was a theoretical question posed by a user earlier, and a theoretical response was given. I understand such a pipe dream will never come to pass, but there's hardly anything wrong with discussing it. As for whether they make a difference, the founding fathers of the United States sure begged to differ.

I would recommend looking into the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller. I understand you have your own interpretation of the given amendment, which is fine, but when you're coming in hot on the high-horse, best to keep an eye out for branches.

Most mass shootings are not done by criminals......

Jesus, I really hoped this thread wouldn't spyral out of control like this. Constitution debates, australia, and abortion thrown in for good measure. Users going back and forth to settle old scores, and all the same talking points.

We humans are a very complex yet predictable species.

Last I checked, there's law against shooting up random people in public. However to your intended point, even before they first pull the trigger, most mass shooters are already criminal in that they broke several statutes regarding existing firearm law, e.g. conceal carry without permit, bringing firearms into restricted areas (schools etc), and in the case of sandy hook, stolen weapon. Counter point is if they were going to commit mass murder whether the acquisition of weapon is legal or illegal is hardly a concern. I think you are seriously underestimating their commitment and ingenuity if you do think that's the case.

And if you want to go down the road of bringing up body count with guns vs without then you're talking numbers, and again statistically speaking, mass shooting is a tiny sliver of homicides annually. More Americans die from alcohol poisoning and DUI each year, but no call for alcohol control?

Doesn't change the fact that mass shootings aren't being done by criminals...........

The fact is all mass shooters are criminals. There is no such thing as legal mass shootings...

its funny. the mass shooting happens at a white conservative venue (country music) and suddenly republicans everywhere are open to gun control laws. Even the NRA is supporting it. Absolutely ridiculous how racist some people are..mass shooting happens to liberals and those colored people, and the 2nd ammendment is holy scripture from the bible that is untouchable. A black president tries to change gun laws and the 2nd ammendment was written by moses himself. A few more mass shootings like this targetting white consservatives, and i'm sure the 2nd ammendment would be scrapped altogether.

Conservatives are a joke...at least stand up for your ideals if you really believe in them.

Ah so you want to be pedantic and argue semantics....................

This is not semantics, this is the gross use of language and assistant to an attitude we see far too often, that we cannot alter AMENDMENTS because they are being perpetuated and viewed as you said, something "sacred". And this was not you acting in a box, if that was the case it would not be a problem, but its an attitude is so common with the insane right, we've even seen a video game (Bioshock Infinite) that has incorporated it.

Yah, i mean... this "misunderstanding" seems to be pretty vital to the position you laid out and is super common among people with your general position, but whatever.

The founding fathers had muskets and made it so amendments were amendments... could be altered when needed. The amendments themselves are pointless and not what one focuses on, one focuses on the foundational block.

I hold the "interpretation" (which it really needs to be rewritten) that America as a whole holds and that America as a whole held until the NRA started buying politicians. There's that tyranny you pretend to be concerned with as you stand with the front line for the tyrannical.

The whole "gun violence only kills X number of people per year..."

while "obesity/alcoholism/drugs/etc kills Y number of people per year..." argument to me is really, really silly.

I mean I get it, if you're arguing numbers you obviously want to counter with numbers. Someone says "guns kill 100,000 people a year" you want to throw out the bigger number so you go "smoking kills 500,000 a year! HA got you!" (just using random numbers, by the way, not researched).

But the fact is that's bullshit. Because we are talking about gun violence--hostile, aggressive, offensive, take-your-life without you knowing it--versus dying from something a bit slow and self-inflicted.

If I smoke myself to death, it might take years. I can get my affairs in order, say goodbye to my loved ones, get over my regrets and sorrow and make peace.

I don't think any of the people shot at this event had an opportunity to do that. They probably planned to go home or get a bite to eat after or something, maybe call their parents. But no, that was snatched from them. I bet most of them didn't have wills drafted.

All these people dying from heart disease, well, I won't say they deserve it but they do do it to themselves. I mean I am very overweight, morbidly obese technically, I will probably die from this within 20 years if I Don't correct it. That'd be 30+ years "before my time" as a white, middle-class male that otherwise looks after himself and has good genetics. But I wouldn't call that tragic because I did that, it's not a surprise, and I can deal with it if I have to. It's just sad and depressing.

These people getting shot? That's a tragedy.

TL;DR: there is a big, big difference between being killed and simply dying. It's like the difference between having something stolen and losing something: when you lose something, you are sad, you might be angry with yourself for losing it, but you kind of go "Well, that's the way it goes sometimes"; but when something is stolen, it's an injustice, you are outraged, you have been wronged. It's literally the same result--you have no possession--but means two entirely different things to the person.

Yeeeah, I'll have to admit that LJ's comment had me going "Huh?" for 5 minutes since it appear to be some sort of paradoxical, contradictory statement lol. I'm going out on a limb and suggesting that he means mass shooters weren't career criminals. Stephen Paddock for example may have been a obnoxious, self-center, arrogant jackass, but he definitely wasn't on America's Most Wanted list for being those things. He's not specifically talking about the act itself, but who they were prior to flipping their sanity switch. A "grey area" to it being supposedly all "black and white"...