36 minutes ago, visionary said:

19 rifles

 

19 rifles seems to support my crazy theory that this was not planned at all. He was there early for the gun show and planned on selling or trading them. there is no tactical reason for 19 rifles. it makes no sense.

I swear. I think he came to town for the gun show. He came early to gamble, party, and take in the concert. Something happened to make him snap. I'll bet he was at the concert the night or nights before and something set him off. Maybe something as simple as hitting on a girl and getting brushed off harshly.

 

8 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

I watched the interview this morning that was about 15 minutes long with the brother.  He was pretty speechless.  Kept saying, "He's just a guy!  No religion, no politics, just a guy!  Owned some condos, sold some condos...just a guy!" 

And reporters can be such dingbats sometimes...one asked him how he was feeling and his response was, "My brother just killed 50 people out of the clear blue!  How do you think I'm feeling?"

 

One of the things that I hate about journalism. I said the same thing many times in school. The answer was always that it was just something that had to be asked like it was part of a checklist. It also just happens to be the loaded question that plays on emotions to get the viewer/reader choked up at the expense of someone who is a victim.

13 minutes ago, CTskin said:

What's the problem with bringing up Chicago as an example of why "gun control" laws are unsuccessful? Unless the point is that the laws must be much stricter in order to actually make a difference... Regardless, Chicago continually proves the right wing's point that bad people will get guns if/when they want them. 

NO IT DOES NOT. 

It proves that lax federal laws on the sale of guns at gun shows undermine anything any state can do because criminals can cross state lines and purchase trunk loads of weapons at a gun show.

 

50 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I just watched the video of when it started and that sounded like one of three things to me:

 

A guy with a full auto rifle

A guy with a rifle fitted with a bump stock and who knew how to use it well

Many shooters firing simultaneously

 

 

I've heard a binary trigger system before and the shots are not nearly that uniform because the person is still relying on their own finger and fingers get tired and jerky. A bump stock basically just requires you to hold the trigger down with a very specific amount of pressure and understand how to use the system.

Absolutely correct on the binary system. That was an absolute steady rate of fire with multiple magazines. I was all set to swear a bump fire could not fire that fast but a quick check of youtube proved me wrong. Sort of. I still think a real auto weapon fires faster and more consistently and that's what it sounded like to me.

20 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Why is more interesting.

I agree. The how is easy. 

I've been following this story closely, trying to make sense of it all. At first I thought of the target and thought maybe it was political, country music fans are often republicans and have a lot of Trump supporters. But no clear political ties have shown up. No religious affiliation either. And now I hear he was a country music fan. (unconfirmed by me). So if not politics, if not religion.  Why?

As crazy as it sounds, my working theory (probably destroyed by the fact he had 100 or so loaded magazines):

The guy was a gun collector and next week there is a huge gun show in LV. He brought all those guns to sell or trade. (evan a crazy shooter would know you don't need all of those guns)  So he gets there a week early to party and do some gambling. Maybe even take in the country music show. So he goes gambling and gets himself deeper and deeper into debt.  He freaks because he's blown all of his money so he gets drunk and goes to the show where he acts up, pisses people off and gets himself thrown out. He's lost everything, drunk, angry and has a target sitting below his hotel room...

Pure speculation of course but I cant help but think that it could be something that simple and that crazy.

9 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Not to mention most guns in circulation in Chicago come from outside the state.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html

 

This is really a federal issue.

Yup. From gun shows, where criminals can operate openly.

4 hours ago, tshile said:

May i ask where you got this information?

I'm a gun owner and shooter. (two handguns and an AR) Its pretty much common knowledge. Big gun shops will often advertise that they can get your paperwork done with no hassle. Usually to sell suppressors. The toughest part about automatic weapons is that there are only so many available. They are all older weapons originally sold before the ban and grandfathered in. Like a rare muscle car, that means they are expensive. But it's not that uncommon to go to the range and see someone shooting an auto. Let me tell you, when you hear how fast they fire up close where you can feel it, its a pretty scary thing. One second the paper target is whole, the next its in shreds.

Suppressors are the next big thing. Gun nuts are pushing republicans to lift restrictions, making suppressors easily available to anyone without a special license. As a shooter, I would love to have a suppressor on my home defense handgun so I don't blow out my ears if I ever had to use my weapon in self defense. Shooting at the range would be more enjoyable as well. But the rational human being in me says that if this guy had a suppressor on that rifle he may have killed another 50 before anyone knew what was happening.
 

His brother on MSNBC. Looks stunned. Says he has no idea what could have triggered him. Nothing stands out. No religion, no politics... "theres just nothing"...

Ummm. Sorry but I think that a few comments on what our *gag* president says about the incident are justified. I don't think anyone went over the top or said anything more than Trump himself has earned. 

With that I'll move on.

3 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

 

That's because sociopaths can't fake empathy. I would give trump credit for his speech, but he will surely Tweet something stupid within the next 48 hours.

I had to turn down the sound and look away. I have never hated anyone more in my life than I do that POS. Give him the best script and he still sounds like a moron and ***hole to me.

1 hour ago, GoDeep81 said:

Once the grief settles, the term "Automatic" is about to become a huge deal.. Media likes to throw the term around, when describing other mass/terror shootings, but until now, they were always wrong.. This is the first, as far as I know.. You don't just go buy an "automatic" weapon, you don't just watch a youtube and alter your civilian based AR/AK to be an automatic weapon.. The gun laws and regulations on owning/altering/selling/shooting/etc an "automatic weapon" are astronomical.

 

Not sure what will be worse.. Was he hooked up with a smuggling/terror organization or did he plan his life around "snapping" and killing a bunch of people? Cause what just happened in Las Vegas took vast amounts of time, money and planning.

I have a different take. This guy had 10 rifles. That suggests to me he has been a gun owner/collector for some time.I just heard someone speculate on the news that he may have had a "bump fire" mod. I don't think so. This guy apparently was a home owner, possibly w a pilots license.If correct that would suggest he could afford and would pass the background check for an automatic weapon. Its not that hard to do. And from the sound of it, the rate of fire was faster than a bump fire is capable of.

It is not difficult at all to own and shoot an automatic weapon in many places. If you have a clean record you go to your gun store, pay them and they will handle all of the paperwork for you. 6 months later that call you back to come pick up your machine gun. And many ranges welcome full auto weapons within the caliber limitations that already have.

I'm more interested in his motivation. Yes he was crazy but there is always something more than that. I'm hearing he went on a big gambling spree before hand (no word of won or lost) suggesting he was having one last fling. And the location of the room suggests he had a plan. Was he targeting that particular audience or did he just see an opportunity to kill a lot of people? Why, why, why... that's what always drives me crazy.

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

From the actual paper:

 

"Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century."

 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true

 

Are you committing to a historically unprecedented decline in emissions starting before 2030?  (Realistically, the peak has to happen before then because emissions have to be at current levels in 2030.)

 

How dare you let reality get in the way of a good smarmy comment.

Black nails it. Listen to Ryan talk. Either he is a lying sack of guano or a complete moron. 
Under the ACA, a healthy person isn't  forced to buy health insurance to pay for someone else who is unhealthy. You are paying into a system that EVERYONE EVENTUALLY NEEDS. So when you do eventually grow old, or you eventually get sick or hurt insurance companies use the money you paid in to pay for your care.
Because the alternative is to buy health insurance when you need it only to be denied coverage for previous conditions.... Which is no insurance at all.

Black makes it a lot more funny.
 

We’re still on track to experience the second or third warmest year globally in records dating back to 1880

 

Quote

Two agencies have produced very slightly different verdicts for this past August. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has found that last month was the second warmest August globally in 137 years of modern record-keeping, surpassed only by August 2016. Global temperatures last year received an extra boost from a strong El Niño episode.

Meanwhile, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information foundthat last month was third warmest, behind August 2016, which was first warmest, and August 2015, second warmest.

The trend in how global temperatures have departed from the long-term mean, through Aug. 2017. The base period here is 1880-1920 in order to show the magnitude of warming relative to pre-industrial time. (Source: Makiko Sato, Columbia University)

The difference between the two analyses really is quite small.

 

Meanwhile 

August 2017 was second warmest on record

 

10 hours ago, twa said:

 

Nuclear is the big dog, natural gas the most easily implemented, carbon sequestration to promote higher production.

If you don't embrace the first you are a fraud.

 

How bright are you?

Nuclear

GOP, Democrats join forces to advance nuclear power bill 

So #1 is a fail. Democrats embraced it. Unfortunately Republican support is a joke because they refuse to fund it.

Natural Gas

Fact or Fiction?: Natural Gas Will Reduce Global Warming Pollution Has burning natural gas instead of coal helped the U.S. economy decarbonize? It's complicated

 

Quote

From Florida to Wisconsin, gas-fired power plants are replacing nuclear ones. That fuel switch actually increases CO2 pollution, however. And, in the absence of mandates like renewable portfolio standards—mandates for a certain percentage of electricity to derive from renewable resources—natural gas could also prevent the building of wind and solar farms or geothermal power plants.

Cantwell, Senate Democrats Urge President Trump to Implement Rules that Limit Natural Gas Waste and Safeguard Public Health
 

Quote

"The BLM and EPA rules each rely on proven, widely available, and cost effective technologies to reduce leaking, venting, and flaring, and keep natural gas in production and in commerce rather than in the air. Delaying or revising these rules will only cause additional and unnecessary waste and result in substantial harm to communities across the country that will be exposed to dangerous air pollution. For the EPA to take action that will result in children being exposed to harmful oil and gas well emissions for at least two additional years in order to give the oil and gas industry a windfall is antithetical to the agency’s core mission." 

#2 fail. Democrats are not blocking natural gas, they see it as a moderate step *if* rules are in place to keep is safe and reduce emissions. But rules are needed for safety and to prevent the release of methane. What they don't want is for NG to replace zero emissions technology.

carbon sequestration

Can Carbon Capture Technology Be Part of the Climate Solution?

Quote

The Obama administration hopes to encourage the development of CO2 capture and use or storage. New rules from the Environmental Protection 

Agency requiring a 30 percent cut in power plant emissions by 2030 may spur development of CCS technologies. Already, NRG Energy has partnered with a Japanese firm to add CO2 capture to a coal-fired power plant near Houston and use a pipeline to send the captured pollution to nearby oilfields. Dubbed Petra Nova, the $1 billion CCS project is the latest in a series of 19 CO2 capture projects underway or proposed in the U.S.

'War on coal:' GOP Senate group moves to block EPA power plant rules

Quote

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and 39 fellow Republicans are attempting to use a rarely used legislative tactic to block planned Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas standards that would limit the amount of carbon new power plants can emit.

#3 is a MASIVE fail

So in short. You have not shown a single way of reducing greenhouse gasses that  "the greens" don't approve of. 

So tell me, what methods of reducing greenhouse gasses do republicans support? Examples please.

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

Lotta ways to reduce CO2 not embraced by the Greens, but they ain't too bright in general.

OK smart guy. Name some. Lets see how bright *you* are.

Trump administration removes links to taxpayer-funded climate data on USGS website. You paid for U.S. Geological Survey climate data, but the White House is making it disappear.

Quote

Rather than simply ignore the scientific information and research accessible to the public, however, the administration instead has chosen to remove climate data and references to climate change from government websites.

In the process, they’ve gone to “shocking” and “distressing” levels to hide the truth from the American public — who, it must be remembered, funded all this research

1 minute ago, twa said:

Oh damn I don't meet Mad Mike's high standards 

No you don't. 

6 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

He more or less says right here he is just trolling yall. I say this once a month but yall gotta stop talking to TWA about serious **** lls 

and it's been going on forever....

I'll probably get banned again for saying it but, this* is not a debate. Its a nonsensical attempt to throw a smarmy package of #### against the wall. It lowers the standard of conversation for all.

*

Quote

I do admit him and folk like him make it difficult for ya'll. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-hype-doesnt-help-1505672774

 

what % of the increase in temp is due to humans(that is changeable w/o killing them off) in your opinion?

 

do you know the % in the 97% bs that think it is above 50%?

 

but maybe we should kill off some/many for mother earth, ya'll already seem receptive for lesser reasons than survival.

 

maybe a poll?

1 hour ago, twa said:

You see what you want to

You just described yourself perfectly. 

4 hours ago, twa said:

Maybe because you can be bought?

 

I'm not trying to support mine, just pointing out the flaws in yours....for free 

Some things never change. Still no sane, rational argument. Still smarmy as ever.
 

1 minute ago, twa said:

your own link said "emphasise the shortcomings " which is not specific conclusions and most certainly is science.

 

Keep wrapping yourself in the 97%  bs while ignoring what % even those agree on details.

Keep preaching to your choir.

 

So you believe *this* supports your argument...?
 

Quote

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

I honestly wonder if you get paid to vomit your insane theories on this site. Sean Spicer and Sarah Huckabee Sanders have nothing on you.

25 minutes ago, twa said:

" offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report "

 

no room for skeptics or dissent in your science?

Your propaganda wing can't survive 

 

that NY AG is closer to being charged with corruption. 

Offering money for specific conclusions IS NOT how science works.

And your second argument may be your dumbest one yet. You want to talk about no room for dissent? Your hypocrisy is on full display here.
 

Trump is deleting climate change, one site at a time

EPA purges climate change information as part of “Website Updates”
 

Quote

Bad Argument/Myth #18: It’s a liberal conspiracy/It’s all about the money!
 

Reality: These are ad hoc fallacies(i.e., unless you provide actual evidence that they are corrupt, these claims are baseless assumptions). Additionally, if we are going to go down this road, then let’s flip things upside down and ask the opposite question: who would benefit from opposingclimate change research? The answer to that question is pretty obvious: oil companies. If scientists could really be bought off so easily, then why haven’t multi-billion-dollar oil companies been able to buy off more than a handful of them? Given the vast wealth of oil companies, the millions of dollars that they have poured into denialist organizations, and the economically unstable state of most governments, surely oil companies could offer scientists more than governments could.

Debunking 25 arguments against climate change in 5 sentences or less (each)
 

Here's the reality....

We are operating under the most corrupt administration in American history. If they had any argument based on scientific fact they would be using it. The choice they have made is to purge any mention of climate change from government. They have removed taxpayer funded information from the internet and stifled the free speech of anyone in any government position who disagrees.

The Trump administration is complicit in crimes against humanity and if there is any justice in they world they will be convicted of corruption and treason and publicly executed.

Tillerson used email alias at Exxon to talk climate: New York attorney general

Study Confirms ExxonMobil Knew About Climate Change Decades Ago, And Deliberately Misled Public

Meanwhile....

http://www.popsci.com/climate-change-infographic-our-warming-planet?con=TrueAnthem&dom=fb&src=SOC&utm_campaign&utm_content=59be881a04d30153b04c0199&utm_medium&utm_source