Las Vegas shooting: Killer bought more than 30 weapons, source says

[austingirl]

And, in fact, weren't all of the terrorist attacks of the previous week done with something other than guns.  Cars, bombs, knives?

Another good point. Which brings another question to my mind- why didn't Paddock fly one his planes into the crowd?

[ABX]

That's right. but neither can I just write it off to crazy yet, either.

Ted Kaczynski was crazy, but he also was highly intelligent, planned to every detail, had very clear motives and reasoning behind his actions.

But he was crazier than a shithouse rat.

[roamer_1]

Ted Kaczynski was crazy, but he also was highly intelligent, planned to every detail, had very clear motives and reasoning behind his actions.

But he was crazier than a shithouse rat.

Yep, but his crazy had purpose, and he told us what it was. That is strangely missing here.

[Sanguine]

Yep, but his crazy had purpose, and he told us what it was. That is strangely missing here.

I tend to think that the "authorities" have information on that, but for whatever reason, have not seen fit to let us know what it is.

[roamer_1]

I tend to think that the "authorities" have information on that, but for whatever reason, have not seen fit to let us know what it is.

Maybe true, but that in itself is speculation. The question remains.

[Sanguine]

Maybe true, but that in itself is speculation. The question remains.

No, that I think that is not speculation.   

[ABX]

Yep, but his crazy had purpose, and he told us what it was. That is strangely missing here.

So far.. but it is only just a couple of days later. It took a while for to find Anders Breivik's manifesto and he put it online. We don't know how big of an online presence this killer had. There was a facebook profile that FB pulled down quickly (common practice make it only available to LE) but I recall from some screenshots, if they were legit, it was pretty light on details. Kind of like your stereotypical grandpa's FB page.

[roamer_1]

No, that I think that is not speculation.   

Then you have evidence that proves what the LEOs are withholding?

[roamer_1]

So far.. but it is only just a couple of days later. It took a while for to find Anders Breivik's manifesto and he put it online. We don't know how big of an online presence this killer had. There was a facebook profile that FB pulled down quickly (common practice make it only available to LE) but I recall from some screenshots, if they were legit, it was pretty light on details. Kind of like your stereotypical grandpa's FB page.

As an aside, I wonder if the way-back machine has a copy of his FB page...

YES, it may take a while for a manifesto or association to come to light. That is true. But knowing that does nothing to answer the question, which remains.

There is, according to his brother, something new in this man's character, which his family was totally unaware of. His mother being unaware is pretty normal - Nobody want's their mom to know their nefarious side - But his brother?

That change is going to explain a whole lot. And perhaps from that, a motive can be derived.

If he turns out to indeed be that activist in the pink t-shirt, and a direct tie to liberal left is determined, the motivation would be fairly clear.

But right now, a guy who is well off, an avid hunter, and for all appearance, stable in his life, does not suddenly pop a gasket and shoot 600 people.

This is not a dude that is prone to meth or acid induced psychosis. This is not an outright activist. This is not a dude that is a brick short of a Happy Meal.

This was done with premeditation, and some thought. There has to be a reason.

[austingirl]

As an aside, I wonder if the way-back machine has a copy of his FB page...

YES, it may take a while for a manifesto or association to come to light. That is true. But knowing that does nothing to answer the question, which remains.

There is, according to his brother, something new in this man's character, which his family was totally unaware of. His mother being unaware is pretty normal - Nobody want's their mom to know their nefarious side - But his brother?

That change is going to explain a whole lot. And perhaps from that, a motive can be derived.

If he turns out to indeed be that activist in the pink t-shirt, and a direct tie to liberal left is determined, the motivation would be fairly clear.

But right now, a guy who is well off, an avid hunter, and for all appearance, stable in his life, does not suddenly pop a gasket and shoot 600 people.

This is not a dude that is prone to meth or acid induced psychosis. This is not an outright activist. This is not a dude that is a brick short of a Happy Meal.

This was done with premeditation, and some thought. There has to be a reason.

It has been reported that he did not have a FB or Twitter account. No way to know if that is accurate.

He was not very close to his brother according to other reports. And where are his two other siblings and two ex-wives? Nothing from those four people.

There are also conflicting reports about how much of a hunter he was.

That's the problem, so many conflicting reports and so little information. What was found at his Reno home?

I agree,  big question is WHY?

[roamer_1]

He was not very close to his brother according to other reports. And where are his two other siblings and two ex-wives? Nothing from those four people.

The brother's opinion seems genuine in his interview. As was his emotion.

There are also conflicting reports about how much of a hunter he was.

Alright - But lets just say he seems experienced enough to be a part of gun culture. To do as he did is so far removed from that culture as to be wholly unthinkable - Whether hunter or warrior or weekend target shooter. The knowledge he (nearly) undoubtedly possessed speaks entirely against this maniacal act.

That's the problem, so many conflicting reports and so little information. What was found at his Reno home?

I agree,  big question is WHY?

YEP.

[Suppressed]

Speaking from personal experience, you can darn near drive yourself crazy trying to rationalize the behavior of an irrational person.

It's a mistake to assume he was irrational.

Likewise, it's a mistake to assume that if he was rational, there must be a bigger plot.


Why do thugs in the ghetto kill people "for no reason" or "for the thrill"?  We see many of those cases.
Why is it so hard to picture this guy doing it just for the thrill, going out with a bang?


There are many possibilities.

[Suppressed]

Alright - But lets just say he seems experienced enough to be a part of gun culture. To do as he did is so far removed from that culture as to be wholly unthinkable - Whether hunter or warrior or weekend target shooter. The knowledge he (nearly) undoubtedly possessed speaks entirely against this maniacal act.

You say "gun culture" like there's only one.

I've known circles of very reckless, irresponsible idiots who are very into guns...more than I (said as someone who went to Nationals in college, used to teach firearm classes at a university, and is a Lifetime NRA member).  It's a nice fiction we often tell, that all gun owners are responsible, just because the vast, vast majority are.

[DCPatriot]

270 replies 367 retweets 948 likes
Reply 270 Retweet 367 Like 948 Direct message
David Burge‏ @iowahawkblog 7h7 hours ago
More
Sure, war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, but rounding up all the guns between NY and SF should be a breeze

[thackney]

It's a mistake to assume he was irrational.

We will have to disagree about there being rational thought that leads one to shoot hundreds of people you don't know.

[skeeter]

270 replies 367 retweets 948 likes
Reply 270 Retweet 367 Like 948 Direct message
David Burge‏ @iowahawkblog 7h7 hours ago
More
Sure, war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, but rounding up all the guns between NY and SF should be a breeze

We can't round up 25 million illegals but collecting 250 million guns will be no sweat.

[Sanguine]

We will have to disagree about there being rational thought that leads one to shoot hundreds of people you don't know.

So, by extension, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all irrational/crazy?  I would put them in the evil category.

[thackney]

So, by extension, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all irrational/crazy?  I would put them in the evil category.

I think so.  I don't believe crazy or irrational negates evil.  Many are both.

[Sanguine]

I think so.  I don't believe crazy or irrational negates evil.  Many are both.

I agree, but irrational tends towards the "crazy" end of the spectrum.  Establishing an aryan Germany or a communist utopia are not irrational seen from the bad guy's point of view. 

[thackney]

I agree, but irrational tends towards the "crazy" end of the spectrum.  Establishing an aryan Germany or a communist utopia are not irrational seen from the bad guy's point of view.

I'm back to saying don't try to rationalize the behavior of irrational people.  Just because it makes sense to them, doesn't mean it makes sense to rational people.

[ABX]

So, by extension, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all irrational/crazy?  I would put them in the evil category.

Based on their views of other human's life and rights and their own elevated views of their own power, it could easily be argued they were clinical sociopaths.

[Suppressed]

We will have to disagree about there being rational thought that leads one to shoot hundreds of people you don't know.

So you're saying that rationality requires empathy?

[roamer_1]

You say "gun culture" like there's only one.

There pretty much is.

It's a nice fiction we often tell, that all gun owners are responsible, just because the vast, vast majority are.

That some may not comply does not negate the idea that they were exposed to what's proper.

It is very similar to forest survival. The doing of it, and the exposure to how to do it, innately contain the safety aspects. It is reasonable to assume the same in his case.

[thackney]

So you're saying that rationality requires empathy?

I think such a huge disregard for the results to yourself and others isn't rational.

[thackney]

So you're saying that rationality requires empathy?

I think it would be accurate to say evil is a result of lack of empathy.  But a lack of empathy alone isn't evil.  Not carrying about others is not the same as actively trying to cause harm to both individuals and society.