Sam

It has, we've hidden those posts.

Eh, the way I see it: so many people in America have guns. You might as well have one too. Either way, firearms are the Pandora's box of the United States. The box is open, and it can't really be closed (of the estimated 644 million civilian owned guns in the world, 42% are in the US, and the US population is only 4.43% of the world). The numbers are just too big. You can't get rid of the guns. The only thing really, that can change, is society.

Oh, I don't doubt that for a second. I'm just saying that with the way politics is going, an idea like this is going from something that would be unthinkable to something that's being discussed.

I'd like to hope so but people are very very easily influenced these days. Anything posted in a top 10 list on Buzzfeed is as good as gospel to the left, much like whatever on Breitbart is undeniable fact to the right. The US military (and the UK and many other countries) have quite willfully deployed illegally to other countries. Feed people the right lie and I'm sure it could happen anywhere (even if only on a small scale). Plus, come on, we both know that men in business suits have been taking away our rights for quite some time!

It's not inaccurate as there's nothing that any number of people carrying weapons could have done in Las Vegas. There was absolutely no benefit to anyone there of having a weapon, and the only thing that could have come from carrying a weapon in Vegas would have been the increased burden of being in possession of a weapon during an active shooter incident. There's any number of scenarios that could have happened from someone in the crowd, who was carrying, misidentifying another person within the crowd during the heat of the moment as being involved (by something as simple as a gesture or movement or so on), or a responding police officer noticing someone who was running away with a weapon bulging through their clothing, or exposed by their shirt lifting up as they ran, or whatever else. Nothing good could have come from someone carrying a weapon in that crowd in Las Vegas. Let's remember that shooting situations aren't cut and dry. There were reports of multiple shooters in Las Vegas, nobody had a clue what was going on at first. I don't see how anyone can claim that during that chaos, there would have been any benefit from anyone in that crowd using or carrying a weapon. That's not an argument against or for gun control. That's an argument against the wrongly perpetuated idea that goes around which says that people who are carrying weapons don't become victims. Anyone can be a victim, carrying a gun or not. An unpopular view indeed, but I agree. I did say AR-15s and semi-automatic pistols. They are both very capable weapons. The only point I was making is a comparison with the UK where it seems that less capable firearms are more prevalent. I believe that the only mass-shooting in the UK since the Firearms Act was passed after the Dunblane massacre was the earlier mentioned case of Raoul Moat in Cumbria, where he used a sawed off shotgun - definitely a powerful weapon, but certainly less effective at both range and killing speed than a modern handgun. When looking at other shootings, one case pops to mind which was that of Jo Cox, a British MP, where the weapon used was a crude, homemade pistol: I am in no way saying that AR-15s are the most common weapon. I'm simply pointing out the differences in supply between the US and the UK. It is far, far easier to obtain a modern, semi-automatic pistol or AR-15 in the US than in the UK. I think you're being selective in your use of facts, though. Yes, it is true that states with higher gun volumes do not have higher rates of violent crime -- but they do have higher rates of murders committed with firearms. This is the part that nobody on either side seems to understand though. Gun control doesn't stop violent crime, and it doesn't decrease the murder rate as the left would have people believe. It really doesn't, and there's facts which are constantly quoted by the right which are accurate and do disprove this. For instance, in the UK, we banned handguns in 1996. From 1990 until the ban, the murder rate was somewhere between 10 and 13 per one million people. The rate actually went up after the ban, to 18 per one million in 2003 but then fell to 9 per one million in 2014. Obviously, gun control has nothing to do with the murder rate, there's still just as many (and in some years more) murders now with gun control than before (official statistics below): The same is true in Australia, murder rates have remained practically the same since gun control was enacted over there in 1996 (official statistics): http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html Still, the right conveniently ignores the fact that the United States undeniably does have a gun homicide problem: United States, 29.7 homicides by firearm per 1 million people Australia, 1.4 New Zealand, 1.6 Canada, 5.1 Sweden, 4.1 (UNODC data) Indeed, for some harsh reality that should hit closer to home for people here, states in the US with higher levels of gun ownership also have higher rates of law enforcement officer murders. There's some interesting research you should check about this, using official stats from the FBI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566543/ I do understand where you are coming from when you say that the stats are in your favor, but please also understand that most statistics which you are presented with will be very selective, designed to reinforce bias in one way or an another. Lots of people pay lots of money to do that, including the 38 million dollars spent by gun rights groups during the 1990 election cycle (which is quite the amount for back then). One interesting thing about comparing gun stats between countries is Switzerland, though. Firearm ownership in Switzerland is as close to the US as you'll get in the developed world: Switzerland guns per 100 people: 46 United Stats guns per 100 people: 89 The gun homicide rate in Switzerland is 7.7 per 1 million. Yes, it's more than in any other European country, but still way less than the United States (29.7) (again, UN data) Just saying, the stats aren't necessarily in your favor -- but they aren't really in favor of gun control either.

You are right, although I tend to think of this as the necessary trade-off that you make to live in a developed country with functioning institutions. A certain amount of faith has to be placed in those institutions, and a degree of power afforded to them. After all, that's the point of the rule of law - a society collectively entrusts a higher power to keep the peace, rather than having to take matters into their own hands.

Is it really inaccurate to suggest that had people been carrying weapons in Las Vegas that the situation would have been much more confusing, chaotic and lethal? I agree that someone who wants to do harm will. There's no denying that. The emphasis has to be on limiting that person's ability to do harm though. If prevention is better than cure, then surely it would be ideal to make it harder for that same person to actually get a gun, rather then be relying on other people with guns to stop them. And, well, restricting rights is pretty common practice in the United States, whether or not people would like to admit it. Someone convicted of any felony will lose the right to carry a weapon, even if their offence was entirely non-violent in nature and even if there were mitigating circumstances. You might argue that someone ticking those boxes who perhaps got caught up in a financial crime is far less likely to shoot someone than a person who is legally allowed to carry a weapon but clearly has mental health issues or other factors which would raise concern. The thing about the UK at least, is that while crimes involving firearms do of course happen here, they happen so, so, so so much less frequently than in many, many other countries. If someone does go insane, the chance that they will be able to get a firearm and go on a killing spree is, compared to the US, minuscule. And, even in the event that this does happen, because the supply of firearms here is scarce, the weapons employed are typically old/ineffective/incapable of killing large numbers of people. When you compare that to the US, you'll find that almost always the firearms used are very effective at killing large numbers of people (like AR-15s and semi automatic pistols). It should be noted just how rare modern semi-automatic weapons in the UK are. The typical confiscation by the Met Police in London looks something like this: In my opinion, this is one of the big differences that people don't understand or know of. The sheer supply of weapons in the US makes it very easy for one to fall into the wrong hands, whereas over here it's substantially harder.

Look, I don't believe just suddenly taking everyone's guns away is going to solve anything. I don't really consider myself to be in the pro or anti gun control camp... I just take issue with stupid, ill-informed comments like the one posted above. It's perfectly fine to believe in the 2nd Amendment and to want to a carry a gun. Indeed, if I lived in America I would probably want to carry a gun too considering many other people do. I don't necessarily believe that there's a link between decent people carrying weapons and mass shootings. Yes, the Las Vegas shooting is in some respects more unconventional, but it works effectively to demonstrate why you cannot blame victims for being shot. It's undeniable that had people been carrying guns in Vegas, it would have been much worse. That's why it's not a victim's fault for their choice to carry or not carry a gun. My only issue is with the individual who did blame the victims in this scenario. All crime is the fault of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator alone. I'd like to make that clear.

No, you blamed victims of a shooting for not having a gun with them. I don't see how that's any different to Vegas.

I'm sorry to say, but sentiment like this isn't a logical or well-thought out approach to gun ownership but is instead simply lunacy of the highest order. As others have said, I really hope you've just not thought this through properly -- but you have just blamed the victims of this shooting for being shot. You've said that because someone didn't carry a gun into their freaking church that they are at fault for not protecting themselves. Not only is blaming the victim of a crime just downright stupid and nonsensical, but this mindset is actually a lot more dangerous than you or many others who hold similar beliefs will ever realize, and I can only really provide one example to try to explain that to you. I know there's a growing number of people who believe, in the US, that a responsible citizen is one who carries a gun to protect themselves and their family. I understand where this thought comes from and in theory it might sound like a good idea... The simple reality, though, is that carrying a gun isn't some sort of ironclad proofing against being a victim of crime and in many cases is actually a burden. This is why: In the Las Vegas shooting, there were: Thousands of people enjoying a music concert all huddled up in a venue. One man with a stockpile of weapons and ammunition, set up in a booby trapped hotel room across the street. Basically, your logic states that those thousands of people should have both been allowed to carry guns into the venue (which I'm assuming they weren't) and indeed should have been carrying guns at this time. In such a scenario, you theoretically have thousands of people with guns ("good guys with guns") against one "bad guy with a gun". And, you know, as The NRA has taught us... "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun", right? In Las Vegas, dead wrong. Dead, dead, dead wrong. I want you to just close your eyes and imagine the sheer carnage, confusion and chaos that would have arisen should two thousand ordinary people, carrying guns to 'protect themselves' have just suddenly pulled guns as soon as shots started flying. You don't even need to complicate matters by throwing in any additional factors like the adrenaline rushes or some of these people obviously being drunk or intoxicated or whatever else... You could've been looking at a death toll of five hundred, one thousand. Easily. Furthermore, can you even imagine what this would do to the police? They're looking for a shooter, they're trying to evacuate the area... and all they see is a bunch of "responsible citizens" running amok with guns?! Just lunacy. I'm sorry, it's stupid. That's an unbelievably stupid and ill-informed thing to say. P.S And women, thanks.

I think it'd probably we useful if we could agree that the back and forth isn't going to achieve anything. I will ill reply back to this with my thoughts when I get the time, but for now let's refrain from name calling please.

At least when the world ends, we know what it'll be blamed on.

Just to clarify, the LVMPD aren't looking for anyone else in connection with this at the moment, and have ruled out the involvement of Marilou Danley (the female companion). There's some speculation emerging that the man recently made gambling transactions, for what it's worth.

I noticed that several people have been replying to this with their own takes on the suspect's motive and whether or not he's right wing, left wing, and generally trying to appropriate blame in a partisan manner (these posts have been removed). I don't believe that in something like this it really matters if the person who pulls the trigger is right wing, left wing, or a chicken wing. It's simply reprehensible and it's something so tragic that surely people of all political philosophies should be able to come together in search of a solution, not politicking or blame. In short, please don't reply to this thread with attempts to advance your own political agendas.

I'm sure this used to be optional. A recent Invision Community update might have changed that though. It's funny - I checked and it's actually not possible to make it optional again. The setting just isn't there...

As many of you will have noticed, we're again in the process of making some changes to our Community Team. New Community Manager @ineseri, who originally was in charge of our moderation team and more recently took on the role of Community Manager, has stepped down from his position. Ineseri joined the team in 2014 after many years of frequently contributing to the forums and would go on to become one of our most active and dedicated staff members. Unfortunately, an increasing number of real life commitments and opportunities have left him with a lot less time than I'm sure he would like, and he felt that given the importance of his role, it would only be right for everyone here, both members and staff, that he step aside to allow someone else with more time to take on his responsibilities. Obviously, it goes without saying that ineseri will be missed by all of us on the team, and I hope that everyone will join with me in wishing him the best for the future. It's been great to have you onboard, even if we all despise you! As such, we're happy to be welcoming @willpv23 to his new position as the Community Manager. Will has also been with us on the Community Team since 2014, although first joined the 'G17 Family' much earlier during his time as a staff member on 'FCRP' - the popular San Andreas Multiplayer game server which we hosted in 2012. Community Moderator Applications One of Will's first changes has been to the way that we recruit new people to the Community Team - previously, we invited members who we thought would fit in well with the role and the responsibilities it carries. Now, however, we're looking for some more members to join the Community Team and would like to invite anyone who is interested to fill out a short form, expressing their interest. If you think that you'd like to get involved with LSPDFR by volunteering some of your free time to moderating our community, please submit an application to us using the following link: http://lcpd.fr/staffapp

There's more details and an interview with the superintendent of the school district here: http://www.walb.com/story/35168276/worth-co-sheriff-defends-controversial-school-search

I agree that the idea makes sense on paper, especially when you look at how unique the UK is in the fact that our police are not routinely armed, but I'm simply not comfortable with how it might work in reality. It would be a very profound shift in every aspect, and it's just not something you could flip a switch on. I think instead that the answer lies in when say that not everyone has the luxury of an ARV near enough to save them. It's very simple - they should. It's reassuring to know that the police who do carry firearms in the UK are both highly trained and vetted. I think that as a result, there's just a heightened awareness of their responsibility. I feel reasonably confident knowing that a firearms officer in the UK will only use their firearm (including merely showing/drawing it) when absolutely necessary. This honestly isn't a confidence I think you can have in most other countries in the world.

Absolutely. Kirsty from the GTANet team said this is a day that'll go down in history for the community. I definitely agree. Here's hoping that OpenIV can get back on track. Being optimistic now, but Rockstar might even throw them a bone or two!

I think a lot of the confusion stemmed from OpenIV itself, really. They had a post on their site that literally said modding had been declared illegal. It was obviously effective in mobilizing support, but clearly it caused some confusion and overreactions too. We did notice that a lot of people seemed to be misinformed, and that's why we put up our special page trying to clarify things in a way which we thought was fairly objective. But you know what? While, sure, some of what was said and done over the past few weeks was pretty questionable, this looks to be a good result on the whole. I'm really quite proud of the way that we as a community responded, and it's been great to see the level of support that we, as people who like mods, have received. Let's not take away from that with a blame game.

It's a difficult situation for some people, as there's many that rely on YouTube pretty much for their entire livelihood. To lose their channel over a legal dispute like this could be a serious problem for them, so it's understandable why some have chosen to exercise caution. Still, I commend those that have fought on regardless :)