Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s certainly possible, I just want to see how he physically handled 10 suitcases and if the bellhop or anyone else found it suspicious.
He'd been at the hotel since Thursday. Making several trips over the course of four days would have aroused zero suspicion. Hell, put 5 long guns in a golf bag, with club head covers over the barrels, and you can parade them through the lobby all day long.
Why is this an issue? What is your proposed limit on how many items someone owns before it becomes suspicious? 11? 16? 21? 26.375?
What other items should have ownership quantity rights? Ammo I guess, right? By # of boxes or # of bullets? Knives too? A limit on those? Baseball bats, tire irons, cars, pretty much any item you deem dangerous?
Guns are not knives, cars or baseball bats. They are designed to kill efficiently. That is their sole purpose and they do an excellent job of killing a large number of people in a short period of time. That is their only purpose. A person that purchases 50 guns with a huge amount of ammunition should not mind getting additional scrutiny - unless they have something to hide. Would that scrutiny have stopped Paddock? Maybe, maybe not but what he was able to accumulate with absolutely no limits whatsoever should be a concern and likely is to the 500+ victims of this shooting. He apparently had as many more guns at his house as he had in that hotel room.
Guns are not knives, cars or baseball bats. They are designed to kill efficiently. That is their sole purpose and they do an excellent job of killing a large number of people in a short period of time. That is their only purpose. A person that purchases 50 guns with a huge amount of ammunition should not mind getting additional scrutiny - unless they have something to hide. Would that scrutiny have stopped Paddock? Maybe, maybe not but what he was able to accumulate with absolutely no limits whatsoever should be a concern and likely is to the 500+ victims of this shooting. He apparently had as many more guns at his house as he had in that hotel room.
Ahh, the old "surrender your rights if you have nothing to hide" play. That is a terribly weak argument.
If that is true, it goes to the lack of country music having anything to do with this. His brother said he was a country music fan. The music playing seems to have had less to do with it than the ability to target 22,000 people trapped in walls and fences from a nearby high rise building.
I doubt that many of us live in Chicago where gun grabbing laws are some of the most restrictive laws in the country.
You did say war zone?
I know they don't live in Chi. they all live in suburbia where it's nice and safe. LOL
they just ACT like they're surrounded by murderers, rapists, and FELONS! because, didn't you hear? guns are easiest to get in Chi! LAWS have no effect!
If that is true, it goes to the lack of country music having anything to do with this. His brother said he was a country music fan. The music playing seems to have had less to do with it than the ability to target 22,000 people trapped in walls and fences from a nearby high rise building.
I was just looking at lineup for the ‘Life Is Beautiful’ festival. There's a wide variety of performers. Chance the Rapper is a Christian but Lorde is a feminist (check their Wiki articles). With a diverse lineup like that he clearly was just looking for a big bang (no pun intended) for his buck and since he couldn't land the right spot for one, decided on the next event instead. It just happened to be a country music festival.
Ahh, the old "surrender your rights if you have nothing to hide" play. That is a terribly weak argument.
Why shouldn't someone that has purchased 50 guns including assault rifles and massive amounts of ammunition be asked a few questions to explain why they need so much? Maybe such a discussion would have discouraged Paddock. Who knows, but if the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter had lived, I would have liked to see her in prison for not keeping her guns away from her son. I do think it is reasonable for gun owners to potentially be held responsible if their guns are accessed by their children who shoots another child. If someone has a single gun or an armory, that should be a commitment. We have apartment buildings that refuse to rent to people that have pit bulls. It is reasonable to think Paddock should have been identified in some part of the process for having purchased so many guns and ammunition. It is highly likely the victims will go after his estate and any insurance he has but there were so many victims the distributed amount will be minimal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
