Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#541  Postby willhud9 » Oct 12, 2017 5:06 pm

:roll:

Yes I understand that completely. Your pedantic snidery is unnecessary. What you have failed to do is demonstrate how your risk assessment is somehow objective. It’s not. So don’t act like I’m not engaging in risk assessment just because you disagree with my conclusion.

I disagree with your conclusion that doesn’t mean you haven’t analyzed the issue and created a plan to minimize the issue.

The problem you are running into is you have a particular axe to grind and instead of engaging in proper discourse want to keep grinding it. At least Sendraks, Thommo, Seabass, and Olivier are open to discussing why I’m wrong instead of asserting I’m wrong in snide remarks.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 17858
Age: 26
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#542  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 12, 2017 5:16 pm

Sendraks wrote:
willhud9 wrote:I am 100% supportive of ranges having ammunition and it illegal to purchase ammunition outside designated ranges. And again stripping firearms such as an ar-15 of its firing pin aside from at the range is in my opinion a justifiable form of control.


I concur.

Playing devil's advocate here, how would that work with hunting?
And how about people that want guns for self-defense?

*Edit, nvm, missed the context.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#543  Postby The_Metatron » Oct 12, 2017 6:43 pm

willhud9 wrote::roll:

Yes I understand that completely. Your pedantic snidery is unnecessary. What you have failed to do is demonstrate how your risk assessment is somehow objective. It’s not. So don’t act like I’m not engaging in risk assessment just because you disagree with my conclusion.

I disagree with your conclusion that doesn’t mean you haven’t analyzed the issue and created a plan to minimize the issue.

The problem you are running into is you have a particular axe to grind and instead of engaging in proper discourse want to keep grinding it. At least Sendraks, Thommo, Seabass, and Olivier are open to discussing why I’m wrong instead of asserting I’m wrong in snide remarks.

No one likes their asses handed to them. Like you just have.

"My" risk assessment? Hardly. This is standard stuff. What is subjective about 500 wounded and what, 59 dead? Events clearly show the impact of the use of such weaponry in such situations to be maximally high. Nothing subjective about it. The impact is clearly demonstrated. It would be subjective if we didn't have any hard numbers based on actual events. We'd hear words like "often", or "many", or "few". You know, vagaries that aren't quantified. You use them a lot.

But instead, we know with a high degree of accuracy and confidence how many innocent people a lone fucker with a handful of assault rifles can kill.

Not objective, my ass. That appears to be another word that confuses you.
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19253
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#544  Postby The_Metatron » Oct 12, 2017 6:52 pm

willhud9 wrote::roll:

Yes I understand that completely. Your pedantic snidery is unnecessary. What you have failed to do is demonstrate how your risk assessment is somehow objective. It’s not. So don’t act like I’m not engaging in risk assessment just because you disagree with my conclusion....

One other thing comes to mind.

I can show a history of you demonstrating your lack of understanding of the risk assessment process. You weren't doing it right four years ago, and you still aren't.

Tell you what. Let's see if you can find, oh, any fucking source that shows that ignoring possible impact of an event is a valid method to assess and ultimately manage risk. Try it.

Before you get too excited, you'll find plenty of sources that use the term "severity". That's what we call a synonym. A word that means the same as another word. In this case, the other word is "impact".

You just show us a way to assess risk without considering the impact of the event. Failing that, I've supported my assertion that you don't know how to do it. Can you support yours?
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19253
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#545  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Oct 12, 2017 6:52 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
And how about people that want guns for self-defense?

They need to get themselves an education to learn just how bloody useless they actually are for self-defense.
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

when you chop off your neighbours head and use it as a vase, you can call it 'culture'.
it's called civilisation is when this gets you jailed for the rest of your live.
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 1912
Age: 44
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#546  Postby The_Metatron » Oct 12, 2017 7:03 pm

Agi Hammerthief wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
And how about people that want guns for self-defense?

They need to get themselves an education to learn just how bloody useless they actually are for self-defense.

That's no shit.

I wrangled with that problem myself, at length. Living somewhat rurally, I doubt the rozzers can respond in time to deal with any active assaults on my family. What I considered heavily was the trade-off between usability and inherent risk from owning the thing.

The gun I had in mind is a double barreled shotgun, of a style known as a coach shotgun. That's just a shortened shotgun, to allow for quick aiming. Smaller moment of inertia, you know.

But, to keep it so it's usable in most conceivable situations, it would need to be loaded and at hand. And, I would need to be in just the right place and time, as well as the rest of my family and pets being at their right places to be any use. I'd hope that the insensate invaders will be so kind as to limit their attacks to those times when I'm ready for them and no one except the invader is in the line of fire.

I had in mind a Stoeger coach shotgun, to be kept inside a safe mounted within my walls. The safe needs two separate locks, so no one person can open it. You never know when an individual person with access to that thing will go over the top and use it on either themselves or someone else, probably a family member. The only way to mitigate that is to introduce a two person concept. It would be very safe, and very secure.

It simply wouldn't be useful for defense. And, if it is of no use, why bother going through all that fucking trouble to have the thing?
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19253
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#547  Postby The_Metatron » Oct 12, 2017 7:06 pm

I've opted for striking weapons instead. To my kid sized aluminum baseball bat (again, small moment of inertia), I intend to add a hardwood shepherd's crook. Something about my height. It would let me act at a slightly longer distance than a baseball bat, and it would add the ability to use that hook to capture or trip as well as the means to use the other end as a thrusting weapon.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to take a shot in the torso from the end of a hardwood pole with a 100 kg of scared me behind it.
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19253
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#548  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Oct 12, 2017 7:11 pm

I used to train martial arts at the local police dojo so here is an anecdote from there:

Some of the cops tested the distance required to use a pistol against an attacker with a knife.
When a bad guy with a knife comes running at a man trained with the use of guns from less than 10m (32ft) pulling out the gun takes too long to be able to defend against the attacker. The defender would be stabbed before getting an aim and a shot off.
Plus because the hands are busy with the gun he then wouldn't be able to effectively use them for defense otherwise.
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

when you chop off your neighbours head and use it as a vase, you can call it 'culture'.
it's called civilisation is when this gets you jailed for the rest of your live.
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 1912
Age: 44
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#549  Postby The_Metatron » Oct 12, 2017 7:16 pm

Agi Hammerthief wrote:I used to train martial arts at the local police dojo so here is an anecdote from there:

Some of the cops tested the distance required to use a pistol against an attacker with a knife.
When a bad guy with a knife comes running at a man trained with the use of guns from less than 10m (32ft) pulling out the gun takes too long to be able to defend against the attacker. The defender would be stabbed before getting an aim and a shot off.
Plus because the hands are busy with the gun he then wouldn't be able to effectively use them for defense otherwise.

The Mythbusters actually tested that once. I was quite surprised at the size of the radius within which you're pretty much fucked.

Of course, that assumes an announced attack. If someone really wanted to slip a knife into you, they wouldn't announce it. You'd know of it as it was sliding between ribs.
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19253
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#550  Postby zulumoose » Oct 12, 2017 9:08 pm

Which is one of the reasons why it is quite clear that advance warning such as from an alarm system, and physical barriers like metal reinforced windows and doors are needed before a gun inside can be effective, getting the gun first is pretty much adding to the problem.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 2111

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#551  Postby Oldskeptic » Oct 12, 2017 11:16 pm

willhud9 wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
willhud9 wrote: I believe we can see a massive reduction in gun deaths without having to repeal the 2nd or ban guns. But the issue is trust. Many gun owners do not trust the progressive party who seem to be going after the gun and not the violence.

So what if the dastardly Democrats in fact had this as their endgame, and managed to carry it through? Actually got everyone's guns? Potentially tens of thousands of Americans a year wouldn't die for no good reason and some people would be butthurt and be saying "I told you so! Those fuckers wanted our guns from the start!". Seems like an odd thing to fear.

It's just an unwillingness to make any sacrifice, any contribution to society, no matter how small the cost, or how big the benefit. Just like the fuckers who think taxation is theft, even if (or especially if) it would fund a life-saving healthcare system. There's a word to describe those who push back against such progressivism: "anti-social". Anti-socialism is baked into America's DNA to the point that "socialist" is one of the worst accusations that can be hurled at politicians. As a nation, America's capable of great things; as a society, you guys are fucked unless you pull your heads out of your asses.


But you can do that with virtually anything and justify it for the "betterment of society"

Oh who needs personal cars? After all its better for everyone if we use public transportation for everything. Less motor incidents, less pollution. For the greater good of society let's ban cars.

If a large group of people got behind an idea of which they perceive would better society we run the risk of marginalizing people's rights.

Alcohol was the case of this back in the 20's. What purpose does alcohol serve for society? It causes a lot of problems. It causes a lot of cost to society. In fact, alcohol costs more in lives per year in the United States than guns, and yet we do not see any significant pushes to ban alcohol? why?

Because we tried it. The Christian left pushed really hard to ban the distribution of alcohol. And because they pushed so hard they spoiled the progressive movement in the United States. It was not conservatives who wanted alcohol gone, but progressives. They believed alcohol was a stain on society and society would be better off without it and so in the name of progress it'd be best to just stop drinking alcohol.

And because of that a lot of New Deal progressive policies were met with hesitation and out right rejection. Because of that the roaring twenties were dominated by Laissez-faire economics instead of the established progressive economics presidents Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson had overseen. A lot of progress was LOST because progressive pushed too hard on an issue and spoiled their own progress.

This is my problem with fellow progressives. They are so ideologically driven they fail to apply their ideology to reality. They fail to apply what is practical. Sure, there really is NO point in people having handguns. Sure there really is no societal benefit for someone having the right to carry. But there are plenty of things that have no societal benefit that we allow despite the fact that it is arguably not good for society. And even still being able to want something is not a bad motivation. Today i wanted McDonald's. I was in the mood for salty french fries (chips for you English folk) and there is a McDonald's next door. Obesity has cost more lives than guns. Are we going to ban the right to purchase McDonald's? Are we going to force McDonald's to serve only healthy food products? Lower the salt to healthy portions? Because people eat at fast food restaurants healthcare costs are high due to obesity, diabetes, and hypertension.

and there are probably a lot of you who actually would be all for that and it is scary. Because freedom of choice should always trump societal woes and scares. Especially because all it takes is a far-right government to go: "Oh, books are a problem and are costing society by *insert fabricated statistics*. So let's ban books." If we give governments the power to ban things in the name of security and the greater good of society we risk having the same government abuse said power. And in a country rife with racial tension I know a few demographics that would not be happy with a strong state to abuse power.


Well said.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7230
Age: 60
Male

Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#552  Postby willhud9 » Oct 13, 2017 12:27 am

The_Metatron wrote:
willhud9 wrote::roll:

Yes I understand that completely. Your pedantic snidery is unnecessary. What you have failed to do is demonstrate how your risk assessment is somehow objective. It’s not. So don’t act like I’m not engaging in risk assessment just because you disagree with my conclusion.

I disagree with your conclusion that doesn’t mean you haven’t analyzed the issue and created a plan to minimize the issue.

The problem you are running into is you have a particular axe to grind and instead of engaging in proper discourse want to keep grinding it. At least Sendraks, Thommo, Seabass, and Olivier are open to discussing why I’m wrong instead of asserting I’m wrong in snide remarks.

No one likes their asses handed to them. Like you just have.


Another assertion. A bold one, but still just an assertion.

Look Ive been wrong. Ive made mistakes and miscalculations. I am only human and I am only 26. Im still figuring this journey out. But I usually admit when I am flat out wrong or when I stand corrected. Or when I do have my ass handed to me. I have admitted in the past when I don't have much of an argument left and concede.

"My" risk assessment? Hardly. This is standard stuff. What is subjective about 500 wounded and what, 59 dead? Events clearly show the impact of the use of such weaponry in such situations to be maximally high. Nothing subjective about it. The impact is clearly demonstrated. It would be subjective if we didn't have any hard numbers based on actual events. We'd hear words like "often", or "many", or "few". You know, vagaries that aren't quantified. You use them a lot.


Well maybe it is you who does not know what risk means and how to assess said risk. If there is a 50% chance of rain I run the risk of getting wet. My assessment would be, am I going to be spending a lot of time today, when is it most likely to rain, and should I bring protective gear for myself in case it does rain. I run the assessment to ascertain the risk of me getting wet. If I conclude that the risk of me getting wet is insignificant enough and fail to get wet that does not mean my risk of getting wet was 0%. It meant I concluded that the risk wasn't worth worrying over and changing my daily ritual to accommodate for it.

Another analogy:

I have a serious problem with my dog eating my food I make off my plate on my desk (I don't really because my dog is well trained but its an analogy roll with it).

Now the problem is clearly my dog is getting access to my food. So there are 2 ways I can eliminate the risk of my dog eating my food completely. I can a) get rid of my dog; after all I don't really need here and she is just additional expenses around the house or b) I can stop making food. Either one of those would reduce the problem I have to 0. At an inconvenience to my mother who loves my dog, and whom I cook for. So in order to reduce the risk to 0 I have to inconvenience my mom who is a responsible and rule abiding housemate.

Well I don't think that is really just. After all, my mom did not do anything wrong and most likely won't do anything wrong. Statistically she is not likely to eat off my plate, etc. So I accept a small risk. There is always the chance my dog will eat off my plate. But I want to do everything I can short of getting rid of my dog or stop making food to eliminate as much risk as I can.

So what are some ways to remove risk: I can remove the chair from the table if I have to walk away from my plate. I can not leave my plate unattended when the dog is in the room. I can store my plate in an inaccessible area for my dog. I can train my dog not to grab table food. I can barricade my room from the dog when I get up. Etc. etc.

Now here comes the part of risk assessment which I do not think you quite grasp:

Through a combination of all of the above if I leave food unattended what is the likelihood that my dog will get it? What risk do I have that my food will be endanger of being eaten by my dog? 20% > 50%. 10% > 20 %. I will never eliminate it. We established that up top, but we can make it statistically unlikely. That is risk assessment. I believe that a 5% risk of my dog eating my food is worth keeping my dog.

Now back to the topic:

But instead, we know with a high degree of accuracy and confidence how many innocent people a lone fucker with a handful of assault rifles can kill.


yes we know events like this happen and we need to create controls that will lower the risk of this happening again. I am of the mindset though that you do not have to remove the guns. My end goal is not a 0% risk, but as small a risk as possible. Which brings me to the AR-15. Mass shootings are not common. Period. I do not have a high risk of dying this year from a mass shooting. I have more of a risk from dying via a hunting accident or a handgun crime than I do an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic long gun. Therefore my risk assessment for the AR-15 is rather small. I am not worried about AR-15's or semi-automatic long guns. They are a very small portion of gun deaths and the majority are accidental (so legislation would need to target ways to reduce the accidents).

Now you can have the opinion that a risk of anything over 0% is too high, and that is your opinion. I personally don't live life like that. I have a .33% of being shot tomorrow. To me I am not really worried about that. I am not going to adjust my life style significantly. Is that risky? Is that being complacent with the risk of me being shot? Don't know and don't care. Life is too short.

I am all supportive of legislation that seeks to make that .33% a .20% and seeks to severely reduce gun deaths, but as Ive said there are plenty of ways to do this without banning a certain kind of firearm.

Not objective, my ass. That appears to be another word that confuses you.


No I understand it just fine. :dunno:
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 17858
Age: 26
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#553  Postby willhud9 » Oct 13, 2017 12:40 am

The_Metatron wrote:
willhud9 wrote::roll:

Yes I understand that completely. Your pedantic snidery is unnecessary. What you have failed to do is demonstrate how your risk assessment is somehow objective. It’s not. So don’t act like I’m not engaging in risk assessment just because you disagree with my conclusion....

One other thing comes to mind.

I can show a history of you demonstrating your lack of understanding of the risk assessment process. You weren't doing it right four years ago, and you still aren't.

Tell you what. Let's see if you can find, oh, any fucking source that shows that ignoring possible impact of an event is a valid method to assess and ultimately manage risk. Try it.

Before you get too excited, you'll find plenty of sources that use the term "severity". That's what we call a synonym. A word that means the same as another word. In this case, the other word is "impact".

You just show us a way to assess risk without considering the impact of the event. Failing that, I've supported my assertion that you don't know how to do it. Can you support yours?


Get off your high horse.

1) I am all for gun control. I have made this perfectly clear. You just want more control than I do.

2) I am all for reducing gun deaths and the risks of gun deaths occurring. I have never said elsewhere that I am not.

3) Pointing to past events and going: "you didn't assess your risk" is stupid. If I was attacked by a shark would you really say, "well thats a risk you get when swimming?" Would you join the monsters who think because a shark killed a kid that we should cull sharks from the beaches? Or would you go, "Well it is tragic that the kid died from the shark attack, but statistically speaking shark attacks ARE rare and at this point we need to get more information before we can assume a pandemic of sharks is actually happening."

If we had a shark attack every week we'd have an issue, but we don't.

We don't have shootings with AR-15's every week that kill 50+ people. They are rare events. Tragic, sure, but rare. Now if research comes out saying that Ar-15 gun deaths are rapidly rising and that its becoming a serious health risk than yes do something about it, but until then banning the AR-15 does not REALLY solve anything. There are other ways to control the firing of the AR-15 without banning the firearm.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 17858
Age: 26
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#554  Postby willhud9 » Oct 13, 2017 12:44 am

Now off the topic of gun control and on the topic of this thread:

The LV shooter bought 33 guns this past year? How the hell does that not raise any alarms via law enforcement. Like shouldn't there be a system when it looks like someone is stockpiling weapons to actually investigate to make sure everything is alright at least?

It baffles my mind.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 17858
Age: 26
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#555  Postby OlivierK » Oct 13, 2017 3:48 am

There would be plenty of Americans, probably including you on a different day, who would object to law enforcement being granted warrants to investigate someone merely exercising their right to own legal-to-own products.

Give you a heads-up, will: whatever your feelings are about "why the fuck would anyone need 33 of these weapons designed for mass killing? Surely that should ring alarm bells", I'd wager those feelings are not dissimilar to those of the people you've been arguing with for the last few pages, except substituting "1" for "33".
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7444
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#556  Postby zulumoose » Oct 13, 2017 4:17 am

Btw, if you have a 0.33% chance of being shot every day, that means you will be shot on average once every 3 years or so. The human race would die out with statistics like that.
User avatar
zulumoose
 
Posts: 2111

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#557  Postby willhud9 » Oct 13, 2017 5:59 am

OlivierK wrote:There would be plenty of Americans, probably including you on a different day, who would object to law enforcement being granted warrants to investigate someone merely exercising their right to own legal-to-own products.

Give you a heads-up, will: whatever your feelings are about "why the fuck would anyone need 33 of these weapons designed for mass killing? Surely that should ring alarm bells", I'd wager those feelings are not dissimilar to those of the people you've been arguing with for the last few pages, except substituting "1" for "33".


But that is the issue.

Why does buying 1 gun raise warning bells for people? If someone told me they bought an AR-15 I'd be like, "Oh cool, what for?" If they told me "because I want to be a badass" I'd probably go, "well you shouldn't have the gun" but if they said, "Well I want to learn to shoot it and its a hobby." I'd be like oh cool.

The thing is I dont know how it is in other countries, but I tend to view people as innocent unless I have reason to suspect otherwise. If someone comes up to me asking for money I don't go, "Are you a scammer and not really homeless?" I trust that they actually need money.

The same is true with firearms, cars, etc. I trust people will do the right thing more than doing the irresponsible thing and the thing is we see this. 30% of the country owns guns. We don't have a gun crime rate of 30%. We have a slim margin of those who own guns committing crimes. The majority of gun owners ARE doing the responsible thing and if gun control passes they will do the legal thing and continue to do so.

Hunters for example do this. You have hunters who go out every year and then you have the amateur hunters. These hunters are obnoxious, loud, and not really in it to hunt. They chase off game and when they discharge their firearm they often miss or wound the animal and let the animal suffer. The hunting community shows disdain and impatience with these kind of people and support laws strictly punishing their behavior. Hunters want to be able to enjoy and keep their hobby and are willing to make sacrifices in order to do so.

Gun shooters are by and by willing to make sacrifices if it means keeping their ability to enjoy their hobby.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 17858
Age: 26
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#558  Postby willhud9 » Oct 13, 2017 6:02 am

zulumoose wrote:Btw, if you have a 0.33% chance of being shot every day, that means you will be shot on average once every 3 years or so. The human race would die out with statistics like that.


Not how that statistic works? :scratch: Americans have a 1 in 6 chance of dying from cardiovascular disease i.e. 16.6% Funny how Americans haven't died out yet.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 17858
Age: 26
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#559  Postby Fallible » Oct 13, 2017 6:06 am

Hunters and hobby. Two words that just don't go together.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 43958
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Las Vegas Shooting Near Mandalay Bay

#560  Postby willhud9 » Oct 13, 2017 6:06 am

The_Metatron wrote:I've opted for striking weapons instead. To my kid sized aluminum baseball bat (again, small moment of inertia), I intend to add a hardwood shepherd's crook. Something about my height. It would let me act at a slightly longer distance than a baseball bat, and it would add the ability to use that hook to capture or trip as well as the means to use the other end as a thrusting weapon.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to take a shot in the torso from the end of a hardwood pole with a 100 kg of scared me behind it.


How macho of you :roll:

You talk about the tragedy of people dying yet have no issue braining someone with a blunt instrument modified to cause excessive pain.

Mmmmmhm.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 17858
Age: 26
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest