Categories
open thread

Open Thread on Mandalay Bay mass shooting in Las Vegas

Chaos in the aftermath of the shooting

UPDATE: 2:30 PM 10/2/17: The death toll has risen to 58, with more than 500 injured. Though it was first reported that Paddock was killed by police it now appears he shot himself before the police entered his room. There are still no details as to Paddock’s possible motives. The original post follows.

As I write this, the media is reporting that 50 have been killed and more than 400 others have been injured in a mass shooting at an open-air concert in Las Vegas. Police have identified the shooter as 64-year-old Stephen Paddock, who opened fire on concertgoers from a hotel room in the Mandalay Bay complex overlooking the venue, killing dozens before himself being shot dead by police.

The staggering death toll, which seems sure to rise, makes this the worst mass shooting in American history. At this point we know very little about the shooter or what his motives may have been, but that hasn’t stopped 4Channers and far-right “media” sources from spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories.

We’ll know more soon enough, I assume. In the meantime, here are a few useful tweets I’ve gathered up so far.

A couple of thread on on the disinformation being spread about the shooting by many of the usual suspects.

The execrable right-wing Gateway Pundit remains dedicated to getting everything wrong the fastest.

Other relevant tweets:

https://twitter.com/NivenJ1/status/914795331241484288

My heart goes out to all those affected by this senseless tragedy. If you’re a WHTM reader who lives in or around Las Vegas, or if you’re visiting there, please let us know how you are doing.

205 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Moggie
Moggie
4 years ago
Ooglyboggles
Ooglyboggles
4 years ago

I vote ban Skeptic.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
4 years ago

@Scildfreja

(the american constitution is hundreds of years old. it’s hot garbage and needs to be rewritten. just my opinion.)

Well, the GOP is certainly trying. 27 states have already passed resolutions supporting a constitutional convention. The magic number is 34, then it’s game over for the rights and liberties of anyone who isn’t a heterosexual Christian white male.

Maybe I’m overly pessimistic, but I just don’t see any way to fix broken institutions, laws, and systems by working within those same broken institutions, laws, and systems. The media won’t save us. Congress won’t represent us. The laws won’t protect us. The 25th Amendment is a sham. We don’t have a government any more, not in any meaningful sense. All we have is us.

I hope we’re enough.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

Why the fuck is poem being compared to fucking murder? What the actual fuck?

Skeptic is 3edgy5me

Edit:
@Oogly: seconded

Skeptic
Skeptic
4 years ago

IgnoreSandra – Please read what I wrote. I did NOT say it is acceptable to do so. In fact I said THE OPPOSITE, that it is morally “an abuse” of the right of free speech. What I said is that it is LEGAL, and that it should be legal, to do so.

But the reasons it should be legal have nothing to do with justifying it morally. They are the same reasons More used to give the devil the benefit of the law: if I cut down free speech to get at the Devil, and then the devil turns on me, to whom will I turn?

More realistically: if “hate speech” laws become constituionally acceptable, and Trump uses his majority in Congress to pass “hate speech” laws making it illegal to denigrate or attack white males, or heterosexuals, or the confederate flag, or Republican party members, etc., what would you do then?

PeeVee the (Tired of the Militant Plasticfaced) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Tired of the Militant Plasticfaced) Sarcastic
4 years ago

OMG.

Diego Duarte
Diego Duarte
4 years ago

Ok normally I don’t do this because I find it beyond fucking TIRESOME to explain to gits how Constitutional Law actually works.

Also, because nothing irks me more than getting a lot of condescending responses from people without any sort of degree or understanding in Law. Especially because I do happen to be a lawyer and understand what the fuck I’m talking about, unlike 99% of people talking out of their asses about the Second Amendment.

Let me just preface this by saying I’m not going to be replying further on this topic because constitutional doctrine is UNANIMOUS in regard to this particular debate. In fact, there IS NO DEBATE TO BE HAD HERE, THAT DEBATE ENDED DECADES IF NOT CENTURIES AGO. Thus, I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who has no legal knowledge about this topic. This is a one time deal.

Ok? Here it goes:

Hereinafter I shall refer to “Constitutional Rights” as “Fundamental Rights”, as that is the proper denomination in most countries.

The idea that Fundamental Rights cannot be limited without infringing the Constitution is inherently wrong for a number of reasons.

Just because a right is considered Fundamental, that does not mean it is absolute or unlimited. Fundamental Rights have both intrinsic and extrinsic limits. The former in relation to their own definition, and the former in regard to other Fundamental Rights. In other words, Fundamental Rights are limited both by their particular definition and by OTHER Fundamental Rights.

This is because rights overlap and enter into conflict ALL THE TIME. Plenty of Fundamental Rights overlap in the Constitution. Think for instance Right to Private Property, which gives you the right to not just own and use the property how you see fit, but also exclude access to whomever you want; versus Freedom of Movement/Transit, which allows you to move unimpeded, without anybody limiting or restricting your movement.

Another example would be the Right to Life, versus Legitimate Defense. On one hand the government recognizes your right to live and at the same time the right to take away someone else’s life.

So is the Constitution contradictory? Are Fundamental Rights meaningless? No, it’s just that Fundamental Rights have plenty of “expressions” and protect the person in more than one way. This is why the Law doesn’t just stop at the Constitutional level and requires laws, passed by Congress, in order to properly establish how these rights work and are exercised.

Think of religious liberty for example. Some of the expressions of this right include:

– The right to exercise your religious beliefs
– The right to express them in public
– The right to congregate in both private and public places
– The right to hold public events
– The right not to be discriminated and persecuted because of your religious beliefs
– Etc.

Problem is, the expression of some rights sometimes overlap with the expression of other rights. So what happens when two Fundamental Rights are at odds???

A Proportionality Test, also known as a Balancing Test.

Normally it is Congress which is called to properly define the content and limits of a Fundamental Right, but these limits can be challenged in the Supreme Court. This is when the SC fulfills its role of determining whether these limits are unconstitutional or not.

And let it be noted that “unconstitutional” doesn’t necessarily mean “going against the Constitution”, because then no Fundamental Rights would ever accept any limits, and the entire document would be contradictory.

A Proportionality Test is only applied when two or more Fundamental Rights are at odds, in order to MINIMIZE THE INFRINGEMENT of BOTH RIGHTS TO IT’S SMALLEST POSSIBLE AMOUNT.

The pre-requisite of the Proportionality Test is two Fundamental Rights at odds, or otherwise what is known as a Constitutionally Protected Concept (i.e. National Security) against a Fundamental Right (but I won’t dwell into that here).

A proportionality test has three phases:

The Test of Adequacy: where the measure being adopted, to limit the expression of conflicting rights, must closely adhere to the purpose the Constitution established for both rights.

The Test of Necessity: where the measure being adopted must be both the most effective and adequate solution to preserve both rights, and absolutely necessary to that end.

The Test of Proportionality: where the measure or limit being adopted has minimized the infringement of both of these rights to its most minimal possible infringement.

That being said, it’s not just the “Right to Bear Arms” at play here. To allow the 2nd Amendment to go by unchallenged or unlimited allows for people to infringe or create an undue burden on the Right to Life and National Security.

Considering there are two Fundamental Rights at play here, it is COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE AND CONSTITUTIONAL TO ESTABLISH LIMITS TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT (AS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE BY REAGAN) IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF OTHER CITIZENS.

numerobis
numerobis
4 years ago

Revolution sounds fun, but e.g. modern Iran, or 18th century France, shows that it’s not always the utopia it might seem. You lose all the acquired rights and everything is up for negotiation.

Sure that includes dropping shitty things like 2nd amendment rights; but it also includes dropping nice things like religious freedom. It’s not too silly to imagine that evangelicals could run the show after a US revolution — no sillier than imagining that the ayatollahs would run the show after a westernizing and modernizing Iran launched a revolution against the Shah.

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
4 years ago

@ Skeptic

That is, in fact, part of the right of free speech.

by your metric, so is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

human beings have no natural rights of any sort. “rights” are a social construct, and if the society says you cannot publicly abuse another just because they are different than you, then you do not have that right.

sure, if the society says you can, then you do have that right. however, myself, along with a large group of others, many of whom you exchange ideas with here, are working to see that the society says you can NOT publicly abuse another just because they are different from you.

Diego Duarte
Diego Duarte
4 years ago

Also, just a btw:

Freedom of Speech is not absolute or unlimited, as pointed out by other people. It would be perfectly acceptable to outlaw Hate Speech, based on the results of their dangerous precedents or for Hate Speech to be included in the definition of Incitement to Violence, as other countries do.

To say that “it will be minorities who will suffer the consequences the most” is disingenuous. Plenty of countries have laws against Hate Speech that work. In fact, it’s when Hate Speech is allowed to run rampant that abusing and discriminating minorities seems to be a common scenario.

dreemr
dreemr
4 years ago

Also voting to ban Skeptic, who is adding nothing to the conversation and just “Well, ACTUALLY”-ing all over the thread. Boring and unhelpful. And kind of a jerk.

Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ Diego

Ok? Here it goes:

That was a really nice explanation; cheers.

Viscaria the Cheese Hog
Viscaria the Cheese Hog
4 years ago

FWIW there are a lot of countries with an understanding of free speech that is not as absolute as that of the US who have not fallen into repressive autocracy, so I’m not sure that slope is as slippery as you seem to think it is.

Diego Duarte
Diego Duarte
4 years ago

@Alan

Thanks mate. Was planning on making it longer and giving a real world example such as “what happens when a religious parade interferes with freedom of transit” and give an understanding as to why these events need permits, but I got an arbitration agreement to draft. And I’ve been procrastinating it since morning -_-

Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ viscaria

there are a lot of countries with an understanding of free speech that is not as absolute as that of the US

This is ours (ECHR Signatories)

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Nina
Nina
4 years ago

Thanks Diego, that was a really helpful explanation.

Schnookums Von Ghostface Fancypants Killer
Schnookums Von Ghostface Fancypants Killer
4 years ago

I’m assuming at this point that, since it’s supposedly not time to debate gun control anytime there’s a tragedy, that the endgame is having enough gun induced tragedies that there is literally no time we’re ever allowed to discuss this.

Also…

Weapon vs Tool

I am a Veteran. When we went through Basic Training it was very clear what our M-16 was: A Weapon. Meant to Destroy (yes, they said that, not kill) the Enemy. Pretty much the only thing we referred to as a tool was our Entrenching Tool (although they taught us how to kill with that too). But it was made very clear: your rifle was a weapon, and it was meant to destroy. No ambiguity in the least.

PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
4 years ago

USC evacuated; shots fired; nothing known yet.

Live broadcast: https://twitter.com/fubarfarooq/status/914935194670424065

PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
4 years ago

…And Tom Petty died.

Fuck this. Fuck this. Fuck this.

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
4 years ago

I just don’t see any way to fix broken institutions, laws, and systems by working within those same broken institutions, laws, and systems. The media won’t save us. Congress won’t represent us. The laws won’t protect us. The 25th Amendment is a sham. We don’t have a government any more, not in any meaningful sense. All we have is us.

I hope we’re enough.

@ buttercup

You’re absolutely right in all of this. The power structure is never going to allow anyone to vote it out of power.

As for “us” being enough, well, we’re all we got.

revolution sounds fun

In a nation with 275 million guns, 300 million gallons of alcohol, a 3-day supply of food and less than a day of medical care… “fun”??? A nation that has glorified predatory behavior for generations, considers the weak to be the valid prey of the strong, accepts rape as a “negotiation” with women, and considers anyone’s right to live to be at the behest of anyone strong enough to kill?? “FUN”?? I’ll stick to Dave’n’Busters… thanx anyway.

Seriously, this “video game” mentality that some people have about what it’s going to be like “after the collapse” is sickening. Most of us will spent the revolution watching our loved ones die, likely slowly and painfully.

Not that the reality changes the likelihood, because I’m very afraid that I, or at least my children, will be carrying weapons in anger to try and save the lives of our loved ones.

ETA: numberosis, I wasn’t including you in that bunch that has the “video game mentality” about revolution, I apologize for that inference.

Schnookums Von Ghostface Fancypants Killer
Schnookums Von Ghostface Fancypants Killer
4 years ago

Yeah, I think it’s time for our gracious host to exercise private property rights and show “Skeptic” the door. I have little patience for people playing stupid semantic/dictionary definition games, and even less for those whose understanding of the Constitution is pretty piss-poor.

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
4 years ago

…And Tom Petty died.

Fuck this. Fuck this. Fuck this.

“Leather and Lace, Tom Petty and Stevie Nicks…

and the tower at Overlook Park… and a sunset… and a sunrise…

… and a dear friend I spent 38 years with

yeah, fuck this

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
4 years ago

ITYM “after the CIA launched a revolution against the Shah”. HTH.

Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
4 years ago

My heart goes out to the victims of the shooting in Las Vegas and their families.

Gabby Giffords, the Congress member who was shot a few years ago, and her husband, Mark Kelly, are speaking out about gun control. Giffords said she knows this “horror too well.” And in a statement I heard on the radio, Kelly called the shooting terrorism.

Gabby Giffords’ Husband Mark Kelly to Congress: ‘Thoughts and Prayers’ Won’t Prevent Next Shooting

WASHINGTON — Mark Kelly, the retired astronaut and husband of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, told reporters on Capitol Hill that the messages of thoughts and prayers to the families of victims in the Las Vegas shooting are “not enough.”

“What we are hearing today at the Capitol and the White House are thoughts and prayers,” Kelly said outside of the Capitol building with his wife at his side. “Thoughts and prayers are important. We send our thoughts and prayers, too. But they are not enough. Your thoughts and prayers aren’t going to stop the next shooting. Only action and leadership will do that.”

Giffords was shot in 2011 at a constituent event in Tucson, Ariz., and she and her husband have since pressed for stricter gun laws.

“Despite the tragedies in places like Aurora and Newtown and Orlando, despite daily shootings in communities across America, despite senseless gun related domestic violence, despite epidemic or preventable suicides, despite the problems of toddlers shooting toddlers and their parents, the response from Congress has been to do nothing, absolutely nothing,” he said.

But so far there is no indication that Republicans will take up gun violence legislation. In fact, before the Las Vegas shootings, the House was scheduled to discuss legislation as soon as this week on a bill that would relax restrictions on obtaining gun silencers.

At the press conference, Kelly said, “Imagine how much worse the [Las Vegas] shooting could have been if the gunman had a silencer.

“Imagine the gun lobby’s version of society — everyone armed, everyone out for themselves, everyone at risk all the time,” he added.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan, saying that Congress has a “moral duty” to “address this horrific and heartbreaking epidemic.” She called for the creation of a select committee on gun violence to come up with bipartisan legislation.

http://variety.com/2017/politics/news/las-vegas-shooting-gabby-giffords-mark-kelly-gun-laws-1202577979/

JS
JS
4 years ago

“Someone killed a bunch of people, so let’s discuss frees peach rights instead” – shorter Skeptic

No, thanks. I’d rather we express condolences, post some cute kitten pics, and maybe work out how to fix gun laws in the US. US gun violence has been getting worse every year, for a long time. At least the last 30 years in my memory, probably longer in history.

I’m tired of checking news, just to find another “multiple people died in gun violence” at least once a month.

1 3 4 5 6 7 9
%d bloggers like this: