Was Las Vegas Shooter a liberal?

Uh give you money to live.

 

Which points to the vegas mass murderer not being liberal. As I've been saying.

 

LOL....another delusional RWer who thinks that "leftists" don't own guns. Whatever float your boat dude.

 

The majority do not. Or at the very least, they believe that only they should own firearms.

 

Pointless speculation, just like this whole thread...

 

Ok, you lefties who own guns but want more gun control? Now that's real stupid don't you think?? What's also stupid is that they think that all these new gun laws that they want to make will stop the bad guy from getting a gun. How do you guys exist with this type of thinking? Common sense is not so common amongst the people on the left.

 

I think there is quite a pile of information that's been subverted. We may never know because of political correctness.

To the title..........how can a crazy man know what party he belongs with? Anyone who shoots up a pile of strangers has to be a nut job. I can understand when folks shoot others out of self defense, but this wasn't anything similar. Even if he did think he was helping his wife's cause. oops, didn't mean to blame her. Might be something else.

 

What a dumb argument. It goes to show you lack critical thinking skill. I have no need for fully automatic weapon that spray and pray. One shot one kill, not wasting bullets. Who said anyone wants to outlaw all guns. Only dimwitted people on the right.

 

I agree that your deductions are a bit of a leap. That being said, there has been nothing said about his voting registration nor his political leanings. Everyone has at least a small interest in politics and express that to people they know. The silence on the subject does raise my brows.

 

While there are no hard and fast criteria for this particular variety of psycho, there is a fairly well tested 'type'. They're almost always between the ages of 15 and 55. With some experts suggesting an even tighter age range (18 - 45). Also, they're rarely educated and well-to-do.

The perp in the LV case doesn't fit anything. He's spectacularly wrong as a 'sudden brain snap' candidate. He's too old to be destroyed by a failed romance (that sort of crazy tends to be left behind by middle age), and wasn't understood to be recently bankrupt (even if he had been and felt the need to top himself - as some of these failed high flyers do, his profile suggests simple suicide, not mass murder).

As far as I can tell, the only motive which makes a lick of sense is The Religion of Peace or some other ideological motivation. A bored rich guy, looking for a new adventure or purpose, and already morally flakey, revisits youth via warrior games.

 

The ACTUAL shooter's motives are still unknown. His political views are not public knowledge. However, far right media and propaganda machines like Breitbart tried to blame the attacks on a innocent man, who is a liberal. They used social media to spread false evidence and information about the attacks to frame him. His family is now sueing breitbart, and various other right wing websites for slander and trying to bring criminal obstruction of justice charges against them on the grounds that they actively attempted to undermine the investigation into the shooting.

 

What do you mean by this?

Who is this 'innocent man' you speak of, and what exactly happened to him?

 

I think you're supposed to have a link to the story in the OP.

I dunno, we've heard remarkably little about the shooters political leanings from the Legacy Media. Considering they'd be all over his political leanings like botox on a Kardashian were he a conservative (see: Stephanopolous, George) I kinda suspect he's likely left-leaning. The news story does seem to have dropped off the radar.

 

The man's name is Geary Danley, He is the husband of the woman who police believing was the friend of the real shooter who he traveled with. Law enforcement officials have said that they know that she had nothing to do with the shooting, but right wing trolls attempted to blame her and her husband for the shooting. They did this was because he was an outspoken liberal on social media, and the far right had decided that the shooting had to be a liberal on day one, and since he was a liberal and was married to the woman they assumed was involved in the shooting, he had to be the shooter. They spent weeks spreadings false information about them and the shooting over the internet.

He ended up getting attacked severals times after being false accused and they both receive hundreds of death threats. He almost got his job and they were almost evicted over it.

 

Dropped off the radar is an understatement. More like buried.

I suspect investigations are at full tilt, and after the initial fiasco with changed timelines etc, they're opting to keep it all very low profile. Still, the apparently complete media blackout is unusual. Most especially, the lack of any footage/pics/reportage at all of hospitals activity on the night, nor emergency services vehicles and personnel attending to the 500 odd injured on site.

Another oddity, to my casual observer mind, is the very emphatic 'minding' by FBI operatives of LV Police Chief at his (Chief's) press interviews. The suited guy standing behind is literally lip reading the Chief. Unless that sort of thing is usual in America, when Police Chiefs speak to the press?

 

Hadn't heard about any of that. I suppose that given such a target group (country fans), he's hardly likely to have been a conservative - so I can see the logic of it. Still, it's weak, as motives go. I suspect a more galvanising ideology was behind it.

 

The LVPD had to cut back on the investigation and stop dealing directly with the public because they kept getting false leads from people claiming to have evidence that Geary Danley was the shooter, which they know isn't true.

The actual shooter was named Stephan Paddock. He was a well off, reclusive man who rarely communicated with anyone outside of a close circle of friends. This is why police don't know his motives. Because according to all his friends, he never showed any signs of violent behavior. Police were actually thinking he might have had dementia, schizophrenia, or some other psychological disorder that can bring about this type of violence, but it's impossible to test for these diseases after death, since the tests rely on moniter brain activity, and his medical records show no previous testing or diagnosis.

 

A most convenient line of enquiry - in terms of public knowledge.

Meantime, The Religion of Peace have claimed him. The apparent instant dismissal of their claim is deeply suspect, IMO.

I understand the need to qualify these things, but normally it's accepted at face value. Why would authorities quibble this time? We know the answer to that of course. The shocking PR of terrorism manifesting in your elderly white next door neighbour, has to be handled very carefully.

 

Accept there is no sign that Paddock was a member of or involved with ISIS. The CIA have said they believe ISIS false claimed responsibility, something they do on a regular basis, in order to spread fear of future attacks.

 

Why would there be a 'sign' of his involvement, if he was a smart man and determined to achieve his goal?

Further, it significantly harms The Religion of Peace to make claims which are later demonstrated to be false. They wouldn't do so lightly.

 

Islamic terrorists tend to be concerned with spreading as much fear as possible. He was apparently going to kill himself no matter what so why would he be concerned about law enforcement linking him to ISIS? If he was an Islamic terrorist, he would WANT the link to be there, so ISIS could show that they had recruited a white American. That is why the CIA believe that the ISIS claim was BS. They were just trying to take credit to spread fear. ISIS makes these types of claims all the time.

 

No, I mean he wouldn't want anyone to know BEFORE the event. He'd also know that the group would speak for him, post-mortem.

Not many plausible explanations, but this is one of them. Besides, going on their (IS) habits thus far, doesn't allow for a change in tactic and/or a new audience for radicalization. Further, let's say we take them at their word ... how is that a bad thing? If they're lying it still means they applaud what happened. Barely any better than actually doing it.

 

////////
So you want to go after 'automatic weapons'? That'll do the trick eh comrade? That will stop the next mass shooting. lol.
You don't need to have one.. that's cool. Who are you to tell me that I shouldn't have one.
You really think that outlawing automatic weapons will stop them from getting them?? WTF??? What happened.... did you get dropped on you head as a child?

The shooter was a known Democrat. Democrats and liberals go together like horse and carriage.... like love and marriage.

 

Are you smoking pot or did you just fall and hit YOUR head. They ought to reexamine your sanity and take away your gun.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/10/steph...ances-democrat-republican-las-vegas-shooting/

 

Jesus was a Republican. He opposed the liberal Roman state and was killed by the Roman state. Further, his teaching were all about the individual. He created the individual and therefore individual freedom. This led directly to Thomas Jefferson and the Republican Party.