Las Vegas terrorist may have been thinking of a trip to Boston

NBC News reports Stephen Paddock "researched possible locations in Boston and Chicago."

UPDATE: NBC News narrows it down to the Fenway Park area, but says no indication he actually traveled to Boston.

Ad:

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

    Free tagging: 

      Comments

      Someone would have noticed the guns

      By on

      In Vegas, the cops are too busy threatening unarmed black men with summary execution for the brazen crime of walking around. They don't have time to bother noticing some old white guy with an arsenal to put the national guard to shame.

      It is also more difficult to drive in and out of either city, which one would have to do with all those guns.

      up
      15

      i saw the video

      By on

      I didn't see any probable cause justifying the demand he lie down on the pavement and have his hands cuffed behind his back. Why did they do that?

      Made up?

      By on

      You were with him?

      Or are you just whitesplaining?

      up
      11

      Michael Bennett, an innocent

      By on

      Michael Bennett, an innocent man, was detained and had a gun pointed at him. The cop, like many dirty cops, turned his body camera off. All for what? Being black of course.

      up
      17

      Likely so

      By on

      Hard to carry guns around here without causing alarm.

      You bet that was a factor.

      up
      12

      They didn't teleport to his hotel room

      By on

      He had to do some walking around, though I suspect if he wanted to he could have simply been a professional photographer with his equipment. Just put the weapons in hard black cases; nobody would be the wiser.

      up
      19

      the risk

      By on

      The risk he'd have taken on if he chose Boston or Chicago was transporting the weapons.

      Let's face it. We dodged thousands of .223 high velocity bullets that tumble when they strike their target, designed to inflict lethal injury (but unlikely to pass through interior walls.)

      Mass. AWB doesn't keep them out of Mass if someone brings them in. But we also don't have residents stockpiling them in their homes without breaking the law.

      Since the federal AWB expired and wasn't renewed the pace of mass shootings (10+ killed) has increased substantially and that's not a coincidence.

      Congratulations, you live in the state with the fewest death by gunshot of any state in the union.

      still waiting for the footage

      By on

      Vegas has a million cameras in the casinos. I'm still waiting for the footage from the casino of this maniac moving all these guns in.

      Because large suitcases being

      By on

      Because large suitcases being rolled around by tourist looking types are so conspicuous?

      What law would change that? Especially by someone looking to violate the #1 law of the land since Cain & Abel, "don't murder people?"

      That is why we need stricter

      By on

      That is why we need stricter federal gun laws. Whack jobs from shithole states where any maniac can buy any gun(like Nevada) put the lives of people in states with more sane gun laws in danger.

      up
      19

      No it was the view!

      By on

      I am in favor of stricter gun laws because no one has the right to own a cannon but he was researching hotels that overlook Fenway Park and there are no hotel rooms with a view of the playing field.

      This

      By on

      I really don't think he cared about gun laws, he cared about site lines and the hotels near Fenway aren't tall enough to get the bowl of humanity to shoot at that he had in Vegas. Not to mention, this isn't about us so maybe drop the dramatics. He's dead so we're safe now. People died in a city not Boston. Focus on that.

      No it was the view!

      By on

      I am in favor of stricter gun laws because no one has the right to own a cannon but he was researching hotels that overlook Fenway Park and there are no hotel rooms with a view of the playing field.

      BPD statement

      By on

      We are aware of the media reports referencing a Boston connection to the Las Vegas mass shooting incident that occurred on Sunday, October 1, 2017. The Boston Regional Intelligence Center is in contact with our local and federal law enforcement partners here and in Las Vegas and continues to monitor the situation. There is currently no known threat to the Metro Boston Homeland Security Region related to this incident. The LVMPD is the lead investigating agency, therefore, all further inquires should be directed to them. The BPD has and will continue to take proper security measures to protect all public venues and gatherings in the city.

      up
      10

      Did he go to ball games?

      By on

      Did he go to ball games?

      From what I've read, he was focused on staging a maximum casualty event then escaping capture.

      Officials hastened to add

      By on

      There was no specific threat directed at Boston or any of its landmarks, and citizens can rest easy with only the constant pervasive dread that this could happen anywhere, anytime, and that America has collectively decided its way of dealing with it is to hope it doesn't happen to anyone they know, so good news on that front.

      up
      20

      Don't lose sight of the numbers

      There are people with, variously, an advertising-driven or ideologically-driven agenda whose bread is buttered by stirring up fear. Always be alert to the ways in which we are being played.

      with only the constant pervasive dread that this could happen anywhere, anytime,

      That's as true of lightning strikes as it is of mass shootings of this kind, and the two pose, roughly, equivalent levels of risk. We're scared of mass shootings and not scared of lightning strikes why? Because we're encouraged to focus on one and ignore the other. Always follow the money.

      Another set of numbers? There are around 32,000 firearm fatalities per year in the USA, fewer than 100 or so of which are attributable to high-capacity military-type weapons of the kind used in Las Vegas and for other mass shootings. And yet all of the fear, and all of the policymaking attention, is focused on dealing with either the weapons used in these relatively rare attacks, or in dealing with the mental health issues that provoke mass murder, thereby completely ignoring over 99% of the problem.

      up
      11

      Well, for one thing

      By on

      You usually sort of have an idea when a lightning storm might be coming, just like you presumably have an idea when you're getting yourself at risk for all those other gun fatalities (you're in the drug trade, you're getting in bar fights, you're hunting with Dick Cheney). In a way that you don't expect either thing - or at least you wouldn't in any other country - when you go to an outdoor concert or a movie or a 1st-grade classroom.

      up
      10

      Numbers, again.

      In a way that you don't expect either thing - or at least you wouldn't in any other country - when you go to an outdoor concert or a movie or a 1st-grade classroom.

      I'm willing to bet that lightning strikes at outdoor concerts are a significantly higher risk than mass shootings at outdoor concert.

      Funny thing about that

      By on

      I was at Boston Calling a couple of years ago at Government Center when they announced there was a storm coming - which wasn't a real surprise, since the sky was getting ridiculously dark - and they were going to pause the festivities for a while to give everyone a chance to take shelter. (It was right after The Hold Steady, to be exact). So we jogged down the street to a bar and waited out the fierce storm.

      How much warning did the Vegas victims get?

      Evacuations from the Esplanade

      I recall the state herding people off the Esplanade and into the Storrow Drive tunnel at least once because of a lightning storm approaching during the July 4th concert. And I've been at other Hatch Shell shows that got cut short for the same reason.

      Indeed

      By on

      And now everyone wants to ban bump stocks.

      Like a lot of people, I'd never heard of these things. And now that I have, I'm deeply disappointed in people's intelligence to think you can "ban" a $99 part that anyone with half a brain could make in his garage if he wanted to.

      Sure, ban them. I wasn't planning to buy any. But any ban, would ignore the problem. Makes for good PR though.

      Honestly, there's no government solution to this sort of thing. Ignoring the 2nd Amendment (which would be bad), yeah you could make everyone turn in their guns, or you could forcibly go into everyone's homes and confiscate them, but that would just antagonize tens of millions of law-abiding people (which is also bad), miss the guns that people hide in anticipation of such a move (worse), and make for an enormous false positive problem where law enforcement now has to sort the good from the bad in a haystack numbering near 100 million, most of whom wouldn't cross paths with law enforcement otherwise.

      I've been thinking on this, and my conclusion is that there is no absolute solution, but there is something people (not government) can do: Reach out to each other, watch out for each other, and maybe, maybe, some of these nuts get help before they do any damage.

      up
      10

      "Honestly there's no government solution to this sort of thing."

      By on

      Except in every other major country...

      Except in the case of smoking in the US and the rest of the world...

      Hell, even just putting out a food pyramid, as wrong and biased as it has been shown to be, caused people to change their dietary habits at the time.

      The idea that the government isn't going to solve gun violence through policy changes, prohibition of certain accessories and weapons, and information gathering and campaigns is ludicrous given all the other ways that we've changed society through policy.

      up
      23

      You can't ban all guns

      By on

      That horse is long gone from the barn. But, you can ban semi-automatic weapons that have only one purpose: killing people. Bad the bump stock...maybe you can build one in your garage, but most people won't. Ban hollow point bullets. They are about as evil a thing as man has ever invented.

      All of those things are steps that will save some lives.

      *some* lives. But not the main problem

      But, you can ban semi-automatic weapons that have only one purpose: killing people. Bad the bump stock...maybe you can build one in your garage, but most people won't.

      Banning weapons that are responsible for fewer than 1% of murders is not really going to move the needle on the risk dial.

      Once again, we confuse "dramatic" for "significant."

      it'll take some doing

      By on

      Until 2007, the 2nd amendment conferred a right to bear arms in the common defense of the country, state, etc but not an individual right to own guns.

      D.C. v Heller 5-4 majority opinion conferred an individual right to own a handgun AT HOME for self defense.

      One of the justices who was in the minority thinks the court could fix this.

      That's an interesting opinion to have

      By on

      When I read the Constitution as a small boy in the decades before Heller, I saw "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and took it at face value.

      In fact, I took pretty much all of the Constitution at face value, reasoning that words mean what they mean, not a penny less, not a penny more. In the time between being a small boy and being a grown man, I've accumulated a much more intimate understanding of the value of words meaning what they say, rather than what someone else wants you to believe they mean.

      Somewhere between learning about how the Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees freedoms of speech and due process while the Chinese government summarily jails and executes certain people it deems contrary to its supremacy, learning about the Civil Rights movement and the brave people who risked and lost lives to get the votes they were promised by the Reconstruction amendments, and simple things like signing my name on the dotted line for loans and credit cards and the like, I've really grown to appreciate this thing called the rule of law that we have in America, where words and laws and contracts and Constitutions mean what they say each time, every time, and equally for everyone.

      So when I hear gems like "the Second Amendment didn't apply to the states until the SCOTUS said it did," I have to laugh at the line of thought that says we need a court ruling to tells us the bleeding obvious. We don't. In fact, we only need a court ruling to reaffirm that the bleeding obvious means what it says when someone decides to that they have the authority and/or a mandate to ascribe radically new and divergent meaning to old words and they're called out on it.

      Let's try this thought experiment: if President Trump were to declare himself God and Emperor of The United States and Defender of Their Liberties, and Congress is permanently dissolved, would that be unconstitutional the moment the words leave his lips, or would we have to wait for a court ruling before we decide it's unconstitutional?

      Read the WHOLE thing

      By on

      You only cite part of the second amendment. It reads as follows:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      We're not going to settle this here - but that's a very ambiguous statement. On the one hand it talks about the necessity of a "well regulated militia". On the other it speaks of not infringing on the right to keep an bear arms. Yet we clearly do draw the line on what type of arms one can bear. Swords and knives are "arms".

      My opinion - swords and knives are fine. In fact so are guns - EXCEPT - if you want a gun - you keep it where a well regulated militia would keep it - in an arsenal. You want to use it for hunting/targetshooting- go sign it out (from a central database so we can make sure you're not outfitting your private army). It's not perfect - but my guess is that tens of thousands of suicides, accidents and murders would be prevented annually with a simple law like this.

      I'm also not holding my breath.

      Did read the whole thing

      By on

      Then I got to the 'shall statement' part and drew my conclusions.

      My opinion is that the only reasonable limitation you could extract from the first bit is a definition of what 'arms' are, and that would by something issued to or carried by militiamen. So nuclear weapons...no; pistols, rifles, etc...yes.

      "weapons that have only one

      By on

      "weapons that have only one purpose: killing people."

      That's the purpose of pretty much all weapons for the entire history of weapons. In the 2001 movie, the purpose of that bone, killing people dressed like monkeys.

      Perhaps it's time we rethought the Second

      By on

      Amendment. Because the concept that owning weapons whose sole function is to kill and maim others is a basic inalienable right is horribly outdated. And, as the NRA has proven time and time again, one that has been continually exploited to benefit their narrow agenda as well.

      up
      10

      Perhaps not

      By on

      I am a card-carrying NRA member. So are lots of people. Tell us all what you think of us, don't hold back.

      But in all seriousness, I disagree. It's not outdated. The right to self-defense is a vital one in a free society. If you cede all of that responsibility to the state, then you've ceded all others. And yes, that means private citizens should be allowed to own devices that can kill.

      In fact, we already do. Most of us have a kitchen full of sharp knives and dangerous chemicals. Most of us own automobiles. Most of us have enough stuff in our garages to cause some serious mayhem if we were so inclined. And just about every single man, woman, and child who has access to this sort of stuff doesn't do a single solitary thing with it that they shouldn't do.

      Same thing with guns. I don't own a gun right now, but I've taken up target shooting and may be purchasing one soon. When we buy a house, I'll get another one for home defense. Lots of people do this without incident. In fact, just about everyone who owns a gun, even in liberal Massachusetts, does so without incident.

      More people die on the roads than die by firearms. And if suicides are excluded, then it's about 2:1 vehicular deaths versus shootings. More good could be done with enforcement of drunk driving laws, road maintenance, and driver training than would be done by confiscating every gun there is.

      But that's the purely utilitarian argument. There's a more powerful argument, and that's that we as a country choose to err on the side of personal freedom. As we should. The second amendment is the canary amendment. If you decide you can remove it from the Constitution because you don't like that a tiny fraction of the population misuses it, then what's to stop you from repealing other protections? What's the limiting principle?

      Plenty of people abuse the rights they are granted by the consitution, sometimes killing people directly or indirectly.

      Fourth Amendment protections against arbitrary searches and seizures is responsible for plenty of death and destruction since cops can't just go house to house in a high crime neighborhood and collect up all the undesirables.

      Fifth Amendment protections against double jeopardy and compulsion to self-incrimination, and 6th-8th Amendment due process rights cause plenty of harm too. But we've decided that it's better for a thousand guilty men to go free than for an innocent man to be jailed. And our criminal justice system spends nearly all of its time and energy because we presume innocence and place the burden of proof on the state before taking away someone's freedom.

      And as a whole, we've decided that in our society, we don't condition the behavior of the law-abiding on the misbehavior of criminals.

      "I am a card-carrying NRA member."

      By on

      Most of the people I know who were members of the NRA left the organization when it became radicalized, co-opted by the profit motive of gun manufacturers, and took ideological positions instead of positions focused on gun safety of owners, their neighbors and public safety in the U.S.

      The NRA demonized U.S Federal agents after the OK city tragedy and argued to militarize elementary school teachers after Sandy Hook so that Americans can own weapons lethal enough to take on their own government. That is not my point of view, that is the NRA's.

      I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as “jack-booted thugs.” To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as “wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms” wanting to “attack law abiding citizens” is a vicious slander on good people. - George H. W Bush

      Meh...

      The NRA demonized U.S Federal agents

      I think they did a pretty good job of demonizing themselves without the NRA's help.

      I'm with you 99% except for one nit....

      the rights they are granted by the consitution,

      The constitution does not grant rights, since rights are innately ours. What the constitution does is limit the power of government to infringe rights.

      Oh, come on!

      By on

      Cars are designed for transportation.

      Kitchen knives are designed to be used in the kitchen

      Guns, on the other hand, are weapons of war that are designed and built to kill and/or permanently maim other human beings, and they do.

      The Fourth Amendment protection against arbitrary and unreasonable searches and seizures is a damned good one..and should not be abridged, and thus ruin the lives of innocent people.

      The whole idea that guns are good for self-defense is pure malarkey. Like any weapon, a gun can be taken away from a person and used against him or her. Also, supposed you killed a burglar or whoever that broke into your home in the middle of the night or whenever and ended up with a court date? How would you deal with it?

      Also, no matter how skillful a marksman/woman you are, or think you are, there'll always be somebody who's quicker on the draw than you are.

      Ever heard the quote:

      No matter how great you are, there's always somebody who'll be your master"

      ?

      That applies here...perfectly.

      Sure

      By on

      After decades of trying and massive PR pointing to alcohol being evil.

      Meanwhile, the Equal Rights Amendment failed, as did the balanced budget amendment. Also, one can burn an American flag as part of free speech. The Constitution has been amended 28 times, with about a third being the Bill of Rights and 10% coming as a result of the Civil War.

      Um, no

      By on

      Getting rid of the Second Amendment is not just difficult. It's darned near impossible.

      There are ways to enact gun control without infringing on Second Amendment rights, like the assault weapons ban that was around in the 1990s. It's not around now. Why? Because there are segments of society that for some reason think that they should be able to own such weapons.

      Okay, now try getting 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 2/3 of the states to repeal the Second Amendment. That means that 12 states can effectively block the change. I'll throw 12 out. Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, Iowa, and Nebraska. And that's 14. 14 states that I am sure are full of people who appreciate that their gun ownership is a constitutional right.

      So, we could try to arrive at a consensus about means to lessen gun violence and work from there, or we could try your route. Which one sounds more practical?

      When reasonable and common sense attempts at

      By on

      gun control are continually delayed, challenged, or outright thwarted because of an amendment on a document written over 250 years ago, then perhaps we need to reevaluate that amendment - no matter how difficult it may be for some people to accept.

      We seem to have no problem judging the actions of people in the 17th and 18th centuries by today's standards. There should be no reason not to re-evaluate 17th and 18th century laws that are clearly outdated as well. "Oh, but it's too difficult" is a lame cop-out.

      Sure

      By on

      Good luck with convincing 38 state legislatures of your ideas.

      "no government solution"

      Presumably you're not aware of what the Conservative Australian Prime Minister did in response to a couple of mass shootings. In the 20 years between then and now, Australia has had zero mass shootings. In the US, they've become increasingly common, until we now have a multiple-victim shooting more than once a day, on the average. The organization compiling the statistics defines a mass shooting as one that kills more than three people.

      This is insanely stupid. It's getting worse, and Congress is doing nothing at all to end it. Prayers and best wishes have not proved to be at all effective.

      yeah, Australia

      By on

      An island nation with 1/13th the population of the U.S., which has a deep-rooted culture of firearms ownership. We're on the same page with the wishful thinking, but the practicality doesn't add up.

      You act like the Australian solution is for free

      By on

      But it isn't.

      Ignoring the monetary cost, you would be making criminals out of a large swathe of the population of responsible gun owners that, as a rule, don't cause any trouble. That's a real cost. It isn't measured in dollars, it's measured in lost confidence in government and in fear of government by otherwise law abiding citizens. If you seize (or "buy back") one kind of disfavored property and declare a whole class of previously lawful (and common) behavior suddenly unlawful, then you set a precedent for arbitrary and capricious exercise of state power in other realms of everyday life.

      Whether you believe that this is a real concern or not, you certainly have to acknowledge that a large number of your fellow citizens do believe it's real. You don't do yourself or anyone else any favors by dismissing them as deplorables and their fundamental beliefs about freedom as insanity.

      And as much respect as I have for the nation of Australia, Australia is not America. In America we have limited government in a way that few other places do.

      But since we're being international here, I might also point out that in Switzerland, they like their guns too, and they don't have any problems with them.

      Switzerland

      You have to keep them in the town armory when you aren't drilling.

      They had a suicide and a domestic violence problem. They didn't ban guns - they locked them up.

      firearm-related deaths per capita in US and Switzerland

      By on

      let's compare firearm-related deaths per capita in US and Switzerland to test Roman's gun safety theory "people can have access to guns without causing trouble."

      Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year
      Switzerland 3.01
      United States 10.54

      Looks like we win.

      Been arguing that for years

      By on

      For all I care, you can have a million guns. Wanna use it, sign it out at the gun repository. Doesn't even have to be governmemt operated.

      If you try to sign out a dozen of them, you'll have some explaining to do.

      Well regulated
      Militia

      Doesn't infringe on your right to keep or bear arms.

      Nothing in the constitution says you get to keep them in your house ( which is statistically way riskier than mot having a gun).

      No, I do not

      You act like the Australian solution is for free

      How am I acting that way? Pointing to a place that's often compared to the US as an individualistic, frontier-traditioned nation, that implemented an extremely difficult program in response to mass murder isn't pretending it was free. They did it because it was a rational solution to a deadly problem. What's your rational solution?

      Maybe you should stop making excuses for people who want to have the ability to kill lots of other people at a moment's notice. American exceptionalism is just such an excuse. We aren't that special, except in our submission to entities like the gun and insurance industries.

      BCA

      The Globe states he also googled Boston Center for the Arts....presumably thinking it might be a large concert venue?

      YOUCH!!

      By on

      If that Stephen Paddock had been thinking about a trip to Boston, then I guess that everybody here in the Boston area dodged a bullet, if one gets the drift. Guys like Stephen Paddock are the main reasons that we need much stricter and more affective gun laws here in the United States as a whole.

      Not really

      Guys like Stephen Paddock are the main reasons that we need much stricter and more affective gun laws here in the United States as a whole.

      Guys like Stephen Paddock are not the main reason at all; in fact they're pretty much irrelevant. Preventing there from ever again being another mass killing would make somewhere around a 1% difference in the USA homicide rate; barely enough to be noticeable. Vastly more significant than the Stephen Paddocks of this world are teenagers living without hope or opportunity, gangs, drug-addicted street criminals, and run-of-the-mill assholes with poor judgment and anger management issues. That's who's driving the murder rate, not madman mass murderers.

      The tenet I don't get from 2A fundamentalists is that

      a liberty-minded insurrection armed with assault weapons could defeat a tyrannical government backed by the US military. That seems like a scary, ridiculous fantasy to me, one obviously stoked by arms makers and a well-funded NRA lobby for their considerable profit. Maybe I'm wrong: the Commie Viet Cong won, after all. But I cringe at the notion that some Americans would prosecute that much bloodshed and chaos and societal ruination to preserve their right to play with their super-badass adult toys.

      I have no problem with pistols and single-action rifles, have many relatives with gun rooms full of those kinds of arms for hunting and recreational sport. I honor our great tradition of hunting and the home-defending independence of the frontiersman. Australia has that, too, yet it found a conservative-led way to crimp the kind of mass murder that assault weapons enable. I just don't see how we all need military-grade killing machines to preserve that rugged-individualist legacy as citizens.

      Hunt with a rifle, keep a sidearm handy for mercy kills. Own a shotgun, a much more sensible, practical tool for home defense. Go to gun ranges or other controlled environments to work out your Call of Duty urges in real life, if you must. But join a guerilla uprising to kill your fellow citizens in the service rather than have your tricked-out AK taken away? That seems utterly insane to me.

      There's a simple risk/reward proposition at work here, underscored by the extensive research that shows how guns make the overwhelming majority of their American owners less safe, not more. But tens of millions of dollars in sociopathically profit-driven propaganda by the gun lobby has effectively blinded many of us to it.

      I thought conservatives were all about the rule of law. If you're one of those folks who holds the rule of law dear, you might want to read this NY Times piece. It echoes my own rule-of-law-loving sentiment that in the 21st century, would-be oppressors have more to fear from lawyers and the courts than a citizenry armed to the teeth with assault rifles, quasi-automatic or no: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/gun-rights-vegas-massacre.html

      You might be willing to take up arms to kill American soldiers while defending your right to own the kind of weapons that Paddock used. But are you certain you want to live in the kind of lawless country that's left afterward? How much of the Constitution you profess to revere are you ready to sacrifice for sake of the Second Amendment?

      Worth reading from today's NYT

      https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/06/us/las-vegas-gun-deaths.h...

      On Sunday night in Las Vegas, 58 people were killed in a single mass shooting, one of the deadliest in American history. How does that compare with the daily gun deaths in cities across the United States?

      In Chicago, 58 people were killed by guns in a span of 28 days, counting back from Sept. 29, two days before the Las Vegas attack. Many shootings were of one person, not mass attacks. In Baltimore, there were 58 gun deaths in 68 days. In Houston, it was 118 days.