For these folks, prayer is not about asking for strength to endure or wisdom to choose, but orders to a subservient God to smite any who disagree with them.

That comment doesn't mean that he's a "fan of murder" or that he has a "wish for another human being to be gunned down."

He's acknowledging that there are going to be more mass slaughters by people using guns. And that's true. We all know there are going to be more of them. Many more.

What he's saying is that when one of those mass-slaughters-by-gun(s) happen -- or, specifically, the next one -- that he'd rather see people at the NRA headquarters mowed down than, say, children at an elementary school, or children at an Amish school, or people at a church prayer service, or people at a nightclub, or people at a concert.

Nah, JD, he is a fan of murder, as long as the right people get murdered. He's praying for it, fervently wishing a violent death upon human beings with whom he disagrees. "Hey God, next time, take out those guys I don't like."

And nothing makes the people at the NRA headquarters any more deserving of a violent death than anyone else, except that they disagree politically with this Dave Williams clown.

As an aside: you and I both know no gunman is going to attack the NRA headquarters 'cause the likelihood is high that they're armed there and will shoot back, something a mass shooter is unwiling to risk. Mass shooters pick soft targets to avoid victims who can return fire.

There's nothing noble about this guy, nothing to be admired or defended. Instead of seeing a tragedy, he sees a chance to get a verbal shot in at people who profess beliefs with which he does not agree. He's as bad as Hillary and her "silencers" remark, or the thousands of tweeters who said this was karmic justice for country music fans "probably" being Trump voters, Republicans, and gun nuts.

"nothing makes the people at the NRA headquarters any more deserving of a violent death than anyone else,"

Exactly.

"Trump voters, Republicans, and gun nuts" are all people. Human beings.

He doesn't merely disagree with his opponents, he doesn't merely dislike them or even loathe them, he wants them dead.

Some things a moral person won't wish even on their enemies... and in this case the "enemies" are just people with a political disagreement.

I'm refusing to take any bait today. The picture that seems to be emerging is that of a well-funded and planned operation, conducted in complete secrecy until the moment he started firing. The nearest analogy I can come up with is a guy named Andrew Kehoe, who blew up a school in Texas in 1927. Like this guy seems to have done, Kehoe was a long-time resident who worked for months to gain people's trust and prepare his trap. He had resources at his disposal, and was very careful that no one had any reason to suspect that he was planning to do anything out of the ordinary. Kehoe's apparent motivation was that he lost an election for some minor local office. He took it as a personal affront for some reason.

I read yesterday that this guy's father had been convicted of a bank robbery in the 1970s. I wonder if the weapons he used came from his father. If so, he or his family have had them for decades. As we all know here, the manufacture and sale of automatic weapons, or mods to convert semi-auto weapons to full auto, has been illegal in the United States since 1986. Of course, there are a lot of foreign sources for automatic weapons. I don't doubt that a sufficiently determined person could sneak some through customs, perhaps buried in a container shipment of other goods.

We'll see as the story unfolds, but this is looking like such an extraordinary series of low-probability events that I'm not sure there is anything that could have been done to prevent it. Mass murders are not recent; there is a history of them weaving through all of Western civilization.

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/10/02/i-want-every-trump-supporter-dead-j-r-salzman-exposes-todays-compassionate-liberals/

This comment...

JD at October 3, 2017 12:24 AM

Charles Murray said it a quarter-century ago, and now many others are catching on: After WWII, the American educational system (and the society more generally) started separating the articulate and readily-educable kids from their peers. This pattern has continued, with distortion, such that a career-adept elite has no idea how to communicate with someone who doesn't already agree.

JD thinks the problem is that twitterer Williams has not made himself understood.

JD is mistaken.

And Williams is wrong.

To summarize Crid: Don't feed me a shit sandwich and try to convince me it's cake.

Cousin Dave: "The picture that seems to be emerging is that of a well-funded and planned operation..."

That's the suspicion I have. The guns used are illegal. Unless he modified or built them himself, he got them from someone else who is a criminal or worse.

This event proves the futility of gun control in the US. Outlawing automatic weapons doesn't prevent people from getting them. It just limits their sale and ownership to criminals and the government.

Picked up a couple of other tidbits.

1. Paddock seems to have had a gambling problem. He spent a lot of time in the casinos, and Reason quotes an anonymous casino employee as saying that he made some five-figure money exchanges there (not identified as to which direction).

2. His father escaped from prison, and was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list in the mid-1970s before being re-captured (in Vegas).

"The guns used are illegal"

Which ones?

The more those on the left wish those on the right to die . . .

They might just get their wish someday; but, they forget just how many law-abiding citizens of this country actually do own guns and will use them when push comes to shove.

No amount of being a "tough guy on social media" will help them.

50 or so people are shot in Chitown each day, isn't it?

"Which ones?"

Anything he used that was automatic, or had been modified to have a firing rate like an automatic. Manufacture of such has been illegal in the U.S. for decades. It is possible to buy an existing one that was manufactured before 1986, but they are very expensive; we're talking low five figures. The ammo is also very expensive; been a while since I checked (I used to have a co-worker who owned one), but I'm guessing that with inflation, it's up to about $6 per shot now. So if the Vegas shooter fired 500 shots, which seems plausible, then he went through $3000 worth of ammo. Not to mention the licensing regulations are onerous. You pretty much have to be a dedicated collector to own one.

Anything he used that was automatic, or had been modified to have a firing rate like an automatic. Manufacture of such has been illegal in the U.S. for decades. ... Not to mention the licensing regulations are onerous. You pretty much have to be a dedicated collector to own one. ~ Cousin Dave at October 4, 2017 6:55 AM

Bump Stocks are legal and dont' require a license. Police found at least two of them (NPR says 12) in the hotel room afterward.

A gun dealer interviewed on television said he sold bump stocks, but considered them a novelty or a toy and not useful in real shooting; that he would never recommend someone use one for anything more than getting a feel for an automatic fire rate. So much for that theory.

From NPR: "The classification of these devices depends on whether they mechanically alter the function of the firearm to fire fully automatic," said Jill Snyder, ATF Special Agent in Charge. "Bump-fire stocks, while simulating automatic fire, do not actually alter the firearm to fire automatically, making them legal under current federal law."
_________________________

So if the Vegas shooter fired 500 shots, which seems plausible, then he went through $3000 worth of ammo. ~ Cousin Dave at October 4, 2017 6:55 AM

Paddock gambled $10,000 to $30,000 daily at the casinos and online. Going through $3,000 worth of ammo was pocket change for him.

Paddock's financial capabilities raises more questions. When you can throw that kind of money around what laws will prevent you from doing something like this? Especially for a first offense? Most people don't have that kind of money and those who do are incredibly unlikely to go on these kinds of rampages. So changing law to prevent a 0.0001% chance doesn't seem reasonable. But then again most 'debate' over gun laws in America aren't reasonable.

Thanks, Conan. Beat me to it.

"A gun dealer interviewed on television said he sold bump stocks, but considered them a novelty or a toy and not useful in real shooting; that he would never recommend someone use one for anything more than getting a feel for an automatic fire rate. So much for that theory."

Yeah. Confession: Until yesterday, I had never heard of a bump stock. It appears to be a fairly simple device. I'm sure they will now be banned, but I don't know how the law can stop someone from making their own.

"So changing law to prevent a 0.0001% chance doesn't seem reasonable. "

Yeah, I think that's where we are at on this one.

"The ammo is also very expensive; been a while since I checked (I used to have a co-worker who owned one), but I'm guessing that with inflation, it's up to about $6 per shot now. So if the Vegas shooter fired 500 shots, which seems plausible, then he went through $3000 worth of ammo."

Wow. Very much not demonstrated.

If this guy bought TODAY:
• .223/5.56 is $0.25 to ~$1.30 per round
• .308/7.62x51 is $.50 to ~$1.50 each
• .50 BMG is only about $5 each.

That's a fast look at online sales. It's not linear (weight/round) because of demand. Our political climate has raised prices by 5x since Bill C was President.

It is no big deal to have a thousand or two on hand because proficiency has to be maintained. Shooting well requires practice, and this is obvious at the range in a way that other activities don't show you.