Monday, October 02, 2017

Las Vegas shooter challenges previous notions on domestic terrorism; left-wing beliefs?

It may sound almost trite at this point, to ponder the consequences of the horrific domestic terror even in Las Vegas late Sunday night, now the largest fatality count in US history, already exceeding Pulse.

The most obvious question is why the man was accumulating a cache of military assault weapons.
Also troubling is the idea that he was a senior citizen himself, not a young man entering the age of possible schizophrenia.

It does appear that Stephen Paddock has accumulated his cache for some time, and that this attack was thoroughly pre-meditated, very much like James Holmes’s attack in Colorado, much more so that Eliot Roger’s in California, and probably more so than even Pulse in Orlando.

And this seems to be apolitical, to prove that an attack could be mounted for no motive at all, right out of Hitchcock.
Ian Miltimore of Intellectual Takeout has a perspective on what feeds mass shootings today.  It pooh-poohs the idea of imprinting by violent media, but suggests that political violence is an instrument to redress feelings of powerlessness.
There are a couple of oddities that might connect to me.  One is that Paddock was a “professional” gambler who might not have counted cards but who used gambling sites, whose legality has been dubious. After I gave up my “” domain in 2005 and moved everything to “”, “” became a gambling site for a while.
Curiously, Saturday night, I had posted on this blog a post about a proposed bill to address the possible EMP threat, and used a picture of Las Vegas at night that I had taken on a Sunday night in May 2012, not far from the site of the massacre.  I had stayed in the Luxor, across the street from the concert site, for a few nights in December 1997.

There are already some theories attaching Paddock to the far Left, contradicting his persona of having become rich (like Trump) from real estate and casinos.

Update: Oct. 6

The Washington Post writes in an editorial today that banning bump stocks is not enough. 

No comments: