Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Las Vegas Shooting: What We Know Now
Image via ABC News.
At least 58 people were killed and more than 500 hurt in the largest mass shooting in US history. The gunman, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock, fired from his 32nd-floor room at the Mandalay Bay hotel onto the Route 91 Harvest country music festival.
When confronted by police, Paddock killed himself. No motive is known at this time. He was a retired accountant from Mesquite, NV. His brother said “he was a wealthy guy playing video poker… on cruises,” adding that he could afford anything he wanted. Paddock’s father, now deceased, was a bank robber who was on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list.
The shooter had no criminal record. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Sheriff Joseph Lombardo said, “We had no knowledge of this individual. I don’t know how it could have been prevented.”
President Donald Trump called the attack “an act of pure evil” and praised the Las Vegas police. The President and the First Lady will lead a moment of silence at 2:45 pm ET/11:45 PT to honor those killed.
Published in General
A group of LA County sheriffs attended the concert, and my cousin Lori was one of them. She was shot in the hip and carried to safety by her husband. Thanks in part to the good Samaritan who drove them to a hospital, she’s in stable condition. It sounds like there were many good Samaritans out there that night.
Sadly, one of her friends and colleagues didn’t survive the attack. I heard she was a woman who worked in the records department, but my family is telephone tree’ing information around, so the usual caveats apply.
I think it is not the right time to be spreading rumors. We really don’t know much except that from the early reports this is very strange attack. We might find that the motivations and actions all make sense in hindsight, but so far very little at this time does. This includes the fact that the shooter used an automatic weapon, which is a very rare, expensive , and (if legal) tracked firearm.
When I saw this earlier today, for the first time in my life, I Tweeted Hillary.
What I said I cannot reprint here, although I think it is within CoC. Maybe.
Precisely my thought as well.
When things like this happen, people act heroically. They very often lose their lives in doing so. It would be nice if the press would focus a bit more on that, and a bit less on making this an issue about the NRA.
My point is that because it’s so early in the game and nearly impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff the responsible thing to do is refrain from speculation or from reposting things that may be wheat or chaff.
Beyond that, I’m not going to say you shouldn’t be skeptical of the FBI, but I will say that believing ISIS over the FBI seems to me to be a little nuts.
That story of the couple from New Zealand is just heart wrenching.
G-D in heaven hear our prayer. Peace and comfort to all in the midst of this evil. LORD hear our prayer.
Richard Dawkins should be publicly flogged.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/02/las-vegas-richard-dawkins-tweet/
We’re just all seeking information in order to understand the whys and wherefores of a horrible crime. This is a huge front-page story across the world about a giant mass killing in fun city frequented by high rolling gamblers and the good and the bad from points near and far. To think the great minds on Ricochet would be passive observers is a bit unrealistic? As for me, I’m all over the net since I first read about it on Drudge this morning and can’t get enough. It’s gory, yes, but it’s also fascinating.
I don’t know. When, as you noted, we have so little concrete information, passive observation seems to me to be far superior to active speculation.
At least 100 lashes with a mule whip.
So are we rethinking our stance on whether it’s okay to punch a nazi?
Are you implying words are violence? No one has punched anyone.
Calling someone out for their vulgar callousness is not the same as punching them in the face or are you saying it is?
A vigorous response along these lines would be appropriate though.
All who associate themselves with Dawkins’ foundation should be judged by his words in the face of this horrible event, will they disassociate themselves?
Saying someone should be publicly flogged is advocating violence. Or was Mike’s comment just another example of being a blowhard and talking a big game on the Internet?
Given the chance, I’d punch the [expletive] out of him.
OK, so given the chance, is it OK to punch a Nazi?
What does a Nazi have to do with anything? We’re talking about Richard Dawkins.
A few months ago we were all united in condemning the left and antifa for their “punch a nazi” campaign. Is violence against people for their political views only a bad thing on the left does it?
I wasn’t part of any of that conversation. If personally insulted, I don’t have a problem punching back. In my experience that’s the only language a bully knows. So when Richard Dawkins calls my a psychopath for having guns, I’ll punch him. If a Nazi insults me personally, I’ll punch him.
But then I’m not as refined and cultured as some others around here.
That’s fine. Just don’t complain about antifa and left wing thuggery. (Not saying you have, but a number of members who share your view on flagging Dawkins have.) fwiw, I agree Dawkins is an ass.
No one is going to hunt down Dawkins and punch him in the face for his vile statements on twitter, if I’m wrong on that feel free to call me out on it.
I have absolute confidence I will not be.
However if he did say such to someone’s face would you disagree that they constitute fighting words?
I can probably guess how those conversations went. Antifa is about chaos and violence; that’s their entire purpose of being. So people are right to condemn them. Those are the same anarchists who used to show up at WTO conferences and smash window and burn trash cans.
So I will complain about them. The difference between a reaction to a personal insult and violence for violence sake is very clear in my mind.
You’re sidestepping my original question. Is calling for Dawkins to be publicly flogged not advocating violence against someone for their views? Or was Mike’s comment, and all the likes it got, just another example of people talking tough on the Internet? That’s kind of your point right? That advocating violence is OK as long as everybody realizes you’re full of crap and aren’t serious?
So Richard Dawkins, an ass, tweets something obnoxious and you claim that given the opportunity you would kick the expletive out of him. You distinguish this from antifa on the grounds that it is a personal insult whereas they’re just generally angry? Do you know Richard Dawkins? Was his tweet addressed to you? Or are you did you just find it offensive and obnoxious? Is your objection to antifa just that it uses violence against the wrong opinions?
So fine, you don’t like my comment. Move on. You’re being boring, repetitious and tense.
I love how that has become a synonym on ricochet for expressing opinions with which one disagrees.
You are intelligent enough that I know I do not need to explain rhetoric to you. If actual violence resulted, which you and I know will not happen, I would change my opinion. So I can only assume the point of the critique was that you wish to denigrate some you have disagreed with in the past.
I certainly hope I am wrong in this assessment because as is it paints you as a rather petty man.