Your daily terrorist bullshit.

[Hawkwind]

But the RPG-7V2, with thermobaric and dual high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds, high explosive/fragmentation is a much more versatile weapon in the urban jungle.

Cheaper to.

 

[Yoni]

From the BBC.... I dont believe this and my gut says cover up


Posted at16:19
IS say they are behind Las Vegas attack
The so-called Islamic State group has released a statement through its news agency saying it was behind Sunday night's mass shooting.

Police had previously said that they did not believe the gunman - Las Vegas local Stephen Paddock - was connected to any group.

They said they had no idea what Paddock's motive or belief system was and described him as a "distressed individual".

 

[Raven]

IS claim everything. Non-story.

 

[Tom]

Just imagine how much worse it would have been had he been limited to knives.

Mustn't forget to pray for the victims, but first I should forget that their God did this anyway.

 

[Zarjazz]

If I was forced to listen to loud Country Music while trying to sleep in my hotel room I'd get a bit annoyed too ....

 

[DaGaffer]

If I was forced to listen to loud Country Music while trying to sleep in my hotel room I'd get a bit annoyed too ....

I often bring along a dozen rifles for exactly that kind of circumstance. Its only common sense.

 

[CorNokZ]

I have the right to bear arms to protect myself!

GG vs a guy on the 32nd floor with an automatic rifle and a shit ton of ammo

Ban guns already ffs! My two cousins left Vegas just hours before this happened so I was shit scared this morning until I found out they were both okay

 

[Lakih]

I have the right to bear arms to protect myself!

GG vs a guy on the 32nd floor with an automatic rifle and a shit ton of ammo

Ban guns already ffs! My two cousins left Vegas just hours before this happened so I was shit scared this morning until I found out they were both okay

Banning guns in America, especially Nevada, would be just as easy as banning tea in England.
Not saying I don't agree with you, just saying it will never happen.

 

[dysfunction]

Just watching the news footage of people filming the shooting in Las Vegas. Just crazy automatic firing then stops reloads and goes again and again.
Quite terrifying.

 

[DaGaffer]

Just watching the news footage of people filming the shooting in Las Vegas. Just crazy automatic firing then stops reloads and goes again and again.
Quite terrifying.

Took the cops 72 minutes to get to him. Borough market terrorists were taken out in 8 minutes. Lots of questions to be asked there.

 

[CorNokZ]

Banning guns in America, especially Nevada, would be just as easy as banning tea in England.
Not saying I don't agree with you, just saying it will never happen.

You can have your guns, but we will slowly only allow you to buy a certain amount of rounds a year. Then only one mag a year. Then bullets are no longer sold and will only be purchasable through special licenses, I.e if you're in business where you need a gun, along with automatic weapons.

You can't get around the second amendment, but you can regulate it. No where does it say that you should have a fully automatic assault rifle at your disposal..

But as you say, it'll never happen

 

[dysfunction]

Took the cops 72 minutes to get to him. Borough market terrorists were taken out in 8 minutes. Lots of questions to be asked there.

Yes I know. I couldn't believe it when they said how long it took the police to get there and stop it.

 

[Job]

Turns out hes the son of one of Americas most wanted bank robbers who escaped prison and was labelled a psychopath in posters put up.
Things starting to piece together.

The Las Vegas shooter's father was a diagnosed psychopath and on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list

 

[Litmus]

View: https://youtu.be/H80tAIFG2wM


Crazy shit

 

[Scouse]

Took the cops 72 minutes to get to him. Borough market terrorists were taken out in 8 minutes. Lots of questions to be asked there.

I don't think anyone needs to ask any questions there...



Edit: Used to be fireworks fights in Bradford. Cops were always called and never stopped. More than once I saw cop cars get hit as groups of people were throwing fireworks at each other. They just drove on. There's no way they were going to risk getting burned for their wage.

Now bullets and guns?...

 

[Job]

These events are so rare its not worth doing anything about it..there is no agenda, no call for followers, no likely continuation of any kind of grudge.
Its just a glitch in the matrix.

 

[Job]

Holy crap..this from the performer who ran off the stage.

Keeter said that he spent the harrowing moments of the shooting “writing to my parents and the love of my life a goodbye” – and “a living will because I felt like I wasn’t going to live through the night”.

Around him, his friends, bandmates and crew were trapped, under fire. “These rounds were powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in a close proximity of a victim shot by this fucking coward received shrapnel wounds.”

 

[DaGaffer]

I don't think anyone needs to ask any questions there...



Edit: Used to be fireworks fights in Bradford. Cops were always called and never stopped. More than once I saw cop cars get hit as groups of people were throwing fireworks at each other. They just drove on. There's no way they were going to risk getting burned for their wage.

Now bullets and guns?...

I'm not sure what you're saying? The cops didn't respond because they're not paid enough?

 

[Raven]

People with a chip on their shoulder about the police are hilarious. I have never met a copper who was a prick when spoken to politely, as you would any other person. Maybe people should stop being pricks?

Its usually special snowflakes that have a problem with them, people with delusions of grandeur.

 

[DaGaffer]

People with a chip on their shoulder about the police are hilarious. I have never met a copper who was a prick when spoken to politely, as you would any other person. Maybe people should stop being pricks?

Its usually special snowflakes that have a problem with them, people with delusions of grandeur.

I've met and known plenty of nice coppers, back in the day I used to go drinking with a bunch. I have also met (and known) one or two absolute cunts though. People who shouldn't be allowed near positions of power. They've both done very well for themselves in their respective forces, which depresses me no end as it confirms a long-held belief about the type of people the police themselves think make good coppers.

 

[Raven]

I have met teachers that were pricks too, The one at our local school, who had worked his way up to head teacher got caught fucking one of the mums. Doesn't mean they are all pricks

There are a few that drink in our local, 1 firearms, 1 CID and a a PC. Normal people.

 

[Hawkwind]

Rumours that the shooter was ANTIFA (documents in hotel) and this is tied to some big action on Nov 4/5. Be crazy shit if that group is going this far.

 

[DaGaffer]

Rumours that the shooter was ANTIFA (documents in hotel) and this is tied to some big action on Nov 4/5. Be crazy shit if that group is going this far.

bullshit. All the 4chan wankers have been peddling this crap since the minute the firing started. It was literally the first "news" to get on to Facebook before they pulled it.
Facebook and Google promote politicized fake news about Las Vegas shooter

 

[DaGaffer]

I have met teachers that were pricks too, The one at our local school, who had worked his way up to head teacher got caught fucking one of the mums. Doesn't mean they are all pricks

There are a few that drink in our local, 1 firearms, 1 CID and a a PC. Normal people.

"Getting caught fucking one of the mums" isn't illegal, it isn't even a disciplinary offence (assuming its consensual). And while there is certainly a great deal of harm teachers can commit, there's far more potential for harm from the police, and I'm not just talking about the bent ones. Bad apples in the police are about the worst kind you can have, and the problem is growing:
The shocking truth about police corruption in Britain | The Spectator

 

[Wij]

bullshit. All the 4chan wankers have been peddling this crap since the minute the firing started. It was literally the first "news" to get on to Facebook before they pulled it.
Facebook and Google promote politicized fake news about Las Vegas shooter

Usual /pol/ shit. They agree a lie to push about everything and half of them are Russians pretending to be American so they can co-ordinate the bullshit with Sputnik.

 

[Wij]

Actually, having checked, Sputnik was pushing the equally bullshit ISIS angle this time.

/pol/
RT
DCLeaks
/The_Donald/
Gateway Pundit
Sputnik
ZeroHedge
Wikileaks
MintPress
etc...

a whole ecosystem of bullshit.

 

[Scouse]

Yep. Pretty much all public servants can be cunts but the consequences of the po-po being cunts is ridiculously high- and the barriers to entry doesn't seem to mean any less of them are cunts than the average human - though they should be.

A teacher being a cunt, or fucking your missus, is neither here nor there...

 

[Job]

All the cunts I have met in the business of law enforcement have been the office based staff..they range from indifferent to utterly up their own asses.
After witnessing a fatal road accident, the coroner on the case was just a fucking hideous human being, he oversaw the proceedings like some pompus lord of the manor, treated the family of the dead woman like they were pond scum barely worthy of his attention.
Lost in a bubble of his own importance having to deal with the messy public...if the family had been middle class it would have been so different...amazing to actually see the worst kind of Tory fucknut out in the wild.

 

[SilverHood]

Friend posted this on Facebook. It's from a private MD (doctors) forum:

The best gun control solution for the United States would be a system of mandatory insurance for damages caused by guns, including property damage, personal injury and death. Such a system would have features of Obamacare, mandatory vehicle insurance, workers comp. If the 2nd Amendment provides an absolute right to own a firearm, the societal risks must be borne by those who sell and purchase these dangerous products.

All guns would have to be insured. All damages would be compensated, moving up a chain of insurers (think UM or UIM coverage) toward a no-fault pool as a last resort. Reinsurance paid for by manufacturers. Damages would be fixed, like in workers comp or FELA, but all deaths and serious injuries (except suicides by the insured or her immediate family members, because, Darwinism) would pay damages as an incentive to the insurance market to account diligently for all firearms and investigate its insured gun owners. Innocent victims would obviously get more than those who arguably deserved to get shot, but we lawyers have been litigating the issue of self defense on a sliding scale as long as there have been guns.

Insurance would travel with the gun, as it does with vehicles in most states that have mandatory insurance laws. (E.g. My unlicensed New Yorker cousin drives my Georgia vehicle into a cyclist, my insurance pays.) For example, a manufacturer or other seller would have insurance on it's inventory until a gun is sold. This would feed the no-fault pool. Much the way it is impossible to drive a car off a lot without insurance, the seller would need verified proof of a potential buyer's firearm insurance before any sale or transfer of a firearm. Any person or company selling a firearm to a buyer without insurance would face sanctions including loss of its own insurance coverage, which would mean serious diligence on the part of all sellers, including individuals at gun shows. There would be no "self-insurance" or out-of-system sales or transfers. A 300 year old musket would require liability insurance if it can be fired, though probably not as much as a WW2 era Luger pistol, because the latter arguably has more potential to cause damage. Everyone involved pays into the pool as a real cost of doing business in guns, or owning a gun that can shoot someone or something.

All "accidental" shootings would be reported by police to the insurer whenever it can be determined which gun was fired, which is most but not all of the time. Gun companies have resisted available technology to make firearms that are easily linked to spent rounds. If damages from undetermined rounds are paid out of the general pool (into which mainly the manufacturers pay), then that would quickly incentivize them in the other direction to make individual gun owners responsible if possible. Stick it to the little guy. Similarly, sellers would charge more for guns that can't be linked to spent rounds simply because they cost more to keep in inventory. "Fingerprinting" of individual guns prior to allowing them to be insured would take a lot of the mystery out of this, and would probably be required by all insurers eventually.

Attaching a real cost to risk would make us think carefully about gun ownership choices. If you tell your insurer that you have trigger locks on all of your guns, locked up in a safe, but a child gets ahold of one of your guns and shoots it (even if no injury), what would that do to your insurance? Indeed, can you afford to give a fourteen year old a .22 for his birthday, Grandpa? He's not paying for his own insurance.

Insurers routinely check driving history before issuing insurance (or lack thereof). Training and experience could make a gun owner low risk and therefore cheap to insure. But being a gun "enthusiast" would come at a cost. Having a slew of accidental shootings would make anyone a risk, whether it's because the person is clumsy or just because he takes out his gun more frequently. It wouldn't matter which to an insurer: both could have expensive results, hence more costly insurance.

A single nationwide insurance database on this model already exists for automobile accident and homeowners damage claims. They know if you've made a claim for roof damage or a fender bender with another company. Indeed, from a civil liberties standpoint, insurers are in the best position to conduct background checks on all potential firearm purchasers. Government checks arguably are too intrusive, but we are routinely required to give detailed personal information to insurers, who then keep that information private under penalty of law.

Some purchasers are a greater risk than others, and insurance would be prohibitively expensive for such people (e.g. those with mental health issues, criminal background, domestic violence arrests, etc. would need expensive SR-22 style insurance). Much as there is a pool of last resort, there would be an insurer of last resort. But that insurer would know it's business. Have a history of domestic violence and just joined a militant extremist group? Ok, your insurance to buy that $400 AR-15 is $10,000 a month, payable 3 months in advance. Without that insurance, no purchase. And no 2nd Amendment violation, just the free market in action.

How would the insurer know that you just joined an alt-right hater club? It is their business to know that. They might look at your Facebook profile, gun and ammo purchase history, Call of Duty high score, health information, whatever. The gun buyer/owner would have an incentive to be forthcoming because if the buyer/owner gives incomplete, false or misleading info, that won't just make that purchase prohibitively expensive, but possibly future purchases as well. The Stanford rapist regrettably avoided prison, but that guy will never get off the sex offender registry, which is no joke. Lying about that time you shot your neighbor's dog in anger could keep you from ever being able to afford to own (legally) a gun again. Of course some lunatics will slip through the cracks over time, but far fewer than what we have now and with so much less harm.

Similarly, some firearms, such as assault rifles, might be deemed by insurers more dangerous per se than other kinds of guns. (Maybe not, though, a lot more people are killed by handguns every year.) If the insurer decides that an AR-15 is uniquely dangerous, then a buyer would have to make a choice about the long term financial consequences of owning such a weapon, let alone several. It would not be illegal, just out of reach of many current and future owners financially, because of the real cost of having these guns available in our interstate commerce. A consumer looking at the cost of owning an AR-15, not euphemistically or philosophically, but in terms of a bill she must pay, would probably choose a different, less inherently dangerous gun, or no gun at all.

Government entities would not be exempt from this. The 11th Amendment protects government from some suits, but it is not absolute. A government wishing to arm its police would have to pay insurance according to the risk of its agents shooting at people. If a conservative leaning city wants a jack-booted legion of Rambos as its police force, its taxpayers will be paying through the nose for insurance. If any city wants to focus its criminal interdiction efforts on tweezers full of marijuana or small amounts of other drugs while ignoring the ubiquity of the threat of gun violence, have it that way. But probably not for long. I think that all taxpayers, and particularly conservative ones, would actually do everything they could to cut the cost by making its police force less dangerous to the public it serves and direct cops to focus (really) on reducing the prevalence of firearms. Imagine a municipality having to turn over its law enforcement responsibility to the county or state because its "police culture" created too much of a threat to its bottom line. Police training and mission would dramatically shift away from policing at the point of a gun to de-escalating conflicts. Market principles at work.

The point is obviously that insurance companies would have a compelling financial interest in making insurance affordable for those who they deem responsible gunowners and expensive for those who they deem risky. This is not rocket science. Lloyds of London profitably made evaluations of sea voyages in the 17th century without anything remotely resembling the data analytics available today. The government doesn't even run the show: the insurance companies control the market. Unlike healthcare, which we all use eventually, we don't all have to own firearms. But we are all affected by the shootings on TV. Guns make racism and income inequality worse. The converse is also true. But if those who ride the ferry must pay the toll, the result would be a fundamentally less dangerous country.

Best of all, and more cynically, this regime would be a job creator in the extreme. A whole new industry would arise across the country using free market principles. The market would determine the cost of insurance, not government. Because of the number of guns in the US, insurance companies would be drooling for this sort of market, even if the payouts would be huge at first (the Federal government could help frame and fund the general pool at the beginning, like with Obamacare). Gun owners would be judged responsible or not on objective, actuarial (and free market) principles. Truly responsible behavior would be rewarded. Conduct tending to make an objective observer say, "Hmmm, that guy is a serious risk with a gun" (think: George Zimmerman), would probably result in a denial of insurance coverage by all but the insurer of last resort.

Critics would cite the development of a black market for unregistered and uninsured firearms as a reason not to follow this path. However, we could use a "war on drugs" model to deal with that issue. All shooting would be investigated like drug offenses are now, with the risk to public safety justifying the abrogation of rights under the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments where appropriate.

Indeed, anyone openly carrying a firearm and not displaying her insurance card as well could be stopped by police and required to show proof of insurance, just like motorists do at a road block, or when police use computer cameras to instantly check the license and insurance status of the car in front of them. Responsible (read: fully insured) gun owners could march around armed to the teeth and not be molested by law enforcement. But then again their insurers might not like that. Too risky.

Gun owners who let their insurance lapse could be given a grace period to sell their guns or turn them in to law enforcement if they can't or won't get insurance. A first offense of no insurance after the grace period could result in a slap on the wrist fine and loss of possession the gun, like a charge of no vehicle insurance does with cars and drivers licenses. If a gun owner fails to reinsure within 60 days or so, the gun is destroyed. Repeat offenders would receive stiffer sentences.

Those who sell or traffic in uninsured firearms would go to prison according to the number and kind of firearms under a framework of existing law with just a few tweaks here and there. As we wind down the actual war on drugs, those officers trained in drug interdiction could translate their skills to going after illegally possessed guns. Assuming they could get insurance.

-------
It will probably work better than any legislating he US government can do. I've already decided that there's no way I'm staying in the USA forever, even though NY has one of the lowest gun fatality rates in the USA, it's insanity to stay.

 

[Job]

Its s great idea but comes up against the same problem, it would be seen as a backdoor attack on freedom and the day it was announced as a possibility, gun sales would go through the roof and anyone supporting it would have to stay indoors for the next ten years.