NY Times Obtains Surveillance Camera Videos for LV Shooter

The New York Times has obtained new surveillance camera videos of Stephen Paddock's last days at the Mandalay Bay before carrying out the Las Vegas shootings.

The videos add nothing to deciphering Paddock's motives. He acts normal, his interactions with staff are normal, even when he's alone in the elevator the cameras don't capture anything odd.

The Times labels the videos:

"unnerving because it ends in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.

That may be, but they are not the deadliest mass killings in modern American history. More than 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks. As for domestic killings, more than 168 people died in the OKC bombing and more than 500 were injured.

Congress could disregard the Second Amendment entirely and outlaw the possession and purchase of all guns and rifles and we'd be no safer. Bombs can kill more people than guns. [More...]

Until the focus changes from the type of weapon used in these attacks to an examination of what causes the rage that leads such killers to resort to such mayhem, the unexpected attacks will continue. To a family who lost a loved one, does it really matter if the method of death was by gunshot or bomb? The result and their despair is the same.

Some mass killers are mentally ill and when reliable information of their illness is known in advance, such as from teachers, family members or employers, efforts at early intervention could make a huge difference. For those who act out of rage, rather than mental illness, listening to their grievances, so they know they are being heard, could lead them to abandon their fantasies of mass-destruction or attempt to acquire any kind of deadly weapon.

Stephen Paddock was not insane. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were not insane. While we know what motivated McVeigh and Nichols (their anger at the federal government) we still don't have a clue what triggered the rage in Stephen Paddock. Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is appropriate and may indeed save lives. But as to the many killers who are not mentally ill, outlawing firearms won't make a difference: They will just choose another form of weapon, from arson to bombs to using chemical weapons to poison our water supply. The intense focus in this country on outlawing some types of firearms is the equivalent of putting a piece of tape over a nail in a tire. You may stop the tire from going flat for a few days, but it won't fix the underlying problem.

< Sessions Issues Memo on Charging Death in Drug Cases | Pro Gun Control Rallies Across America Today >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Like that's gonna happen: (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 01:24:47 PM EST
    "Congress could disregard the Second Amendment entirely and outlaw the possession and purchase of all guns and rifles...."

    Parkland interviews Bernie: (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 05:26:49 PM EST
    in The Guardian.  NO gun restriction laws in Vermont. NRA ratings meaningless.

    Good read! (none / 0) (#31)
    by linea on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 07:09:52 PM EST
    Infuriating read given (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 05:00:18 AM EST
    his record on gun control. He's angling for these kids' support. I hope they are savvy.

    He has (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 06:28:22 AM EST
    a very poor voting record on this issue. I think once that is pointed out they are not going to too fond of him.

    I believe they are (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 03:00:28 PM EST

    27000 (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 08:04:51 PM EST
    Long Boston globe editorial on the subject of guns.

    That's the number of lives that would be saved every year if the nation got their death by gun numbers down to MAs.

    Couple of interesting bits

    78% of American adults do not own a gun

    Half of all guns in the country are owned by 3% of the population.


    Very surprising stats, to me (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 08:34:34 PM EST
    so much for the right's go-to argument that the cause of gun violence is "cultural." MA is a very culturally/ethnically diverse state with large urban populations.

    Since January 1 of this year, ... (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 03:57:07 AM EST
    The United States has suffered / borne witness to:
    • 12,445 firearms incidents;
    • 3,178 people killed by firearms;
    • 5,553 people injured by firearms;
    • 145 children 11 years and younger killed or injured by firearms;
    • 596 teenagers between 12 and 18 years of age killed or injured by firearms;
    • 49 mass shootings;
    • 64 officer-involved incidents in which the LEO was shot and wounded or killed;
    • 530 officer-involved incidents in which the subject / suspect was shot and wounded or killed;
    • 474 home invasions in which a firearm was brandished by the perpetrator(s);
    • 367 incidents of self-defense in which a firearm was used; and
    • 380 accidental or unintentional shootings.

    Comparing this scale of mayhem over the past 82 days to the seldom and random bombings which have occurred is ludicrous. And no serious person is talking about repealing the Second Amendment or taking away everybody's guns, so let's please not go down that highway to hysteria again.

    What people want is common-sense gun laws, like we have in Hawaii. Our state has one of the highest rates of gun ownership per capita in the country, yet we also have the lowest (or second-lowest) rate of firearms violence on an annual basis. If our firearms laws work here, surely something comparable can work elsewhere.


    I have been watching the demonstrations (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by desertswine on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 12:10:35 PM EST
    against gun violence today, the March For Our Lives.  And that's what I love about America, all those beautiful colors.

    Just got back home from the march (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 12:30:30 PM EST
    in Philadelphia. Maybe 10,000 folks walked from in front of the Liberty Bell to Veterans' Park on Penn's Landing -- and from the look of it, including the signs, mostly teachers, high school kids, and aging boomers like us. Some favorite signs: "Well regulated."  "Be a Dicks." "We call B.S." and "Girls' school clothing is more regulated than firearms."

    Almost went to Philly, ... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 03:55:21 PM EST
    ... but was worried about getting the kids up early enough, finding parking, etc.  Went to a local one in Asbury Park.  Beautiful day for a march along the boardwalk, but I think they might've been more impressed with the Philly march.

    My sister's kids and their friends ... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 12:40:59 PM EST
    ... are all in downtown L.A. today for the March. My mother, aunt and I aren't there, but we did the next best thing, along with other empathetic adults, parents and relatives. We loaded the cars up with kids to drive them downtown. I didn't know my mother's car could seat seven. My sister's car can only cram in six. They'll catch the Gold Line train back to Pasadena after it's done. I'm proud of them for getting involved. For most of these kids, it's their first demonstration and march. It likely won't be their last.

    Here here (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 12:14:40 PM EST
    a vibrant crazy quilt at it's best

    Btw ds, ot, but, was that a baby rhino?


    Yes, a baby southern white rhino... (none / 0) (#52)
    by desertswine on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 12:45:19 PM EST
    today he's healthy, happy, and a good deal bigger.  Sometimes I got to play with the babies.  I only wish that I had taken more pictures.  Biodiversity is important for our children's future.  Although I've been pretty depressed about it lately.

    He's a cutie (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 01:43:42 PM EST
    not to overstate the obvious.

    I petted a baby hippo about that age once in full view of momma. Something that, in the wild, you definately couldn't do and live to tell the tale.


    Yes it was a great photo (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 01:46:46 PM EST
    Desertswine, the last open thread was full (none / 0) (#49)
    by vml68 on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 12:16:19 PM EST
    so I couldn't comment but I am sooooo jealous of you after seeing that pic of you with a baby rhino!

    It was a privilege. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by desertswine on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 01:45:39 PM EST
    "Bombs "can" kill more people" (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    Sure.  In theory.  But they don't.  In theory, pencils "can" kill more people than guns, but they don't, because guns are easy.  They're easy to buy.  They're easy to use.  They're easy to hide.  They're easy to transport.  They can be used repeatedly and rapidly.  They can be used up close and at great distance.

    There's a reason terrorists recommend guns as a weapon for people who want to use them in an attack.  There's a reason guns are used to kill FAR more people every year than all other weapons (including bombs) combined.  The magnitude of risk presented by guns is faaaaar greater than any other kind of weapon.

    I would like to have (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    The liquor contract for the NRA today.

    The NRA sure knows how to come up with (none / 0) (#59)
    by vml68 on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    "Hey, hey, NRA, (none / 0) (#60)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 04:44:21 PM EST
    how many kids have you killed today?"

    Keeps running through my mind today.


    Seriously (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 04:50:20 PM EST
    So much of what was said today could have been recorded at one of the many anti war rallies I attended.

    It was actually very cool to see people feel that again.  And to feel the power in numbers we felt.


    I see the NRAs (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 10:10:41 PM EST
    example of a "good guy with a gun" happy outcome still involved three young people being shot.

    Whew, ain't that a relief.

    Because it wasn't twelve or fifteen, that's a reason not to limit access to firearms.


    have you been retained as legal counsel for (2.00 / 2) (#2)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 07:57:20 AM EST
    the NRA? I ask, because your "argument" is as laughably transparent as theirs are. Congress didn't have to ignore 2A, to ban non-law enforcement civilians from owning automatic weapons; it did so back in the late 30's, and was affirmed by the USSC. this was in response to the use of those weapons by criminals, during prohibition and the depression.

    Congress also wouldn't have to ignore 2A to ban non-law enforcement civilians from acquiring ammunition, or limiting the amounts they could legally possess at one time. they already did this fairly recently, when they banned the manufacture/sale/possession of the Talon, a bullet with a Teflon coating, designed specifically to penetrate police body armor. Again, the USSC upheld that law. 2A makes no mention of ammunition, only arms, two historically/definitionally different things.

    "Banning all guns will not stop people from killing each other", claimed no one, ever. However, if you want to kill a lot of people, quickly, that generally requires weapons of war, designed specifically for that purpose. Sure, you can use a car/truck to plow through a group of people, killing/injuring many in a short period of time, but that's not what the car/truck was actually designed for. A bomb can be used to kill lots of people quickly. However, the elements of that bomb weren't designed with that purpose in mind (except for the military), and require some specialized knowledge to make/use. Guns weren't and don't.

    If this is truly the best you can come up with, stop now, and reconsider your position, or come up with a better argument.

    They said mass shooting... (none / 0) (#1)
    by unitron on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 03:22:38 AM EST
    ...not mass killing.

    ""unnerving because it ends in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history."

    It's not deadliest mass killing due to elaborate plot, it's deadliest mass killing due to easy to obtain bullet hoses.

    Where is word "guns" (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 03:26:42 PM EST
    or even "firearms" used in the 2nd Amendment?

    I keep thinking there must be two versions of the Bill of Rights out there, and I have the wrong one, because unless our resident warriors for Freedom!!! have been allocated the right to re-write the lexicon, "arms" can mean anything from spears to rocket powered grenades.


    In the late 18th Century, when the Amendments (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 04:40:55 PM EST
    were written, the word "arms" meant military weaponry that an individual soldier could carry ("bear"). So, I wouldn't go there, if I were you.

    The point being, in part (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 05:54:01 PM EST
    that in saner times, we've already come to some agreement as a society that some arms that can be "born" by a single individual, such as machine guns and rpgs, should not be available to the general public.

    Were those dangerous, slippery-slope infringements on the 2nd? And if so, why aren't more people raising holy hell about it?


    Point being, that textualism and so-called (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 09:26:35 PM EST
    "original intent" are not the best guides to Constitutional interpretation, in my opinion. The Second Amendment being a primo case in point. Like all "liberty" interests protected by the Constitution, the right to possess a weapon for personal self-defense, or even for hunting -- a right which I have no interest in exercising, myself -- is subject to reasonable regulation to achieve important public and governmental interests, such as health and safety of the general populace. Even the highly questionable Heller decision says so.

    So Why Are the Rates So Much Higher in the US? (none / 0) (#3)
    by RickyJim on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 08:38:51 AM EST
    in comparison with other countries?
    One more way to consider this data: The IHME also estimates what it would expect a country's rate of gun violence deaths to be based solely on its socioeconomic status. By that measure, the U.S. should only be seeing 0.79 deaths per 100,000 people -- almost five times less than its actual rate of 3.85 deaths per 100,000.

    Do you feel 3.85 deaths per 100,000 is quite acceptable?

    "Until the focus changes" (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    Until the focus changes from the type of weapon used in these attacks to an examination of what causes the rage that leads such killers to resort to such mayhem, the unexpected attacks will continue.


    Can we do both then? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    I mean really.

    A three-pronged proposal... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    for less senseless violence and rage in our age...

    • A reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  Yay to handguns, shotguns, and rifles for home defense and hunting.  Nay to weapons of war and mass casualty.

    • Universal Basic Income.

    • Universal Health Care including mental health, addiction, and dental treatment.

    Affirm or reaffirm that people are precious by guaranteeing a form of basic dignity, while preserving the liberty to bear reasonable arms.

    The Democratic candidate (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    for president in 2016, proposed gun control that banned assault weapons, banned severely mentally impaired from obtaining guns, and banned domestic abusers from acquiring guns. Guns for defense and hunting were OK.

    The candidate was also committed to universal health care for everyone, that included mental health (addiction), and dental care.

    In the book "What Happened" the candidate claims to have developed a plan for a universal basic income.  

    But, then, what does it matter, both the Democratic and Republican candidates were were the same. (as in tap water v sewer water).


    I wonder if things might have been different... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    if the candidate was more bold/less calculating and actually introduced the universal basic income proposal, instead of leaving it on the drawing board.  

    In all the public position/private position world, that was one to go public with!  


    Yes, she was (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    cautious. Probably, a quality that came with the responsibilities of position. And, the hard-earned awareness that a particularly bold idea, no matter its merit, would have her on the defense as a shrill socialist or stale Stalinist from right wing wackos and their enablers, the media. All the time, derailing her candidacy.

     Also, the burn from proposing a then, bold, universal health care plan in 1993, may have instilled in her a no longer viable political lesson of covering impassioned ideas with circumspection.

     However, I do believe that once in office, she would have rolled out innovative and bold ideas.  As Secretary of State she rattled many a cage with positions on women's, children's gay's and, generally, human rights.  Of course, in the case of rattling Putin's cage, by calling him on his rigged election, she earned his rage and exacted his retribution.

    The country, in my view, made a debilitating and tragic decision in electing Trump.  And, a catastrophic decision in not electing Hillary.


    Not to be Debbie Downer... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 03:13:29 PM EST
    but every election feels like a choice between losing and losing bigly...2016 just took the losing bigly option to preposterous proportions, making regular losing look like a utopia now.

    On a positive note, Trump might be this debilitating tragedy we call a system of governance's "rock bottom".  Any system that let this mother*cker within a whiff of power needs more checks in its balances my brother, for damn sure!


    To roll back on topic... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 03:19:01 PM EST
    The feeling of powerlessness and hopelessness a debilitating tragedy of representation in government helps fuel might be tied in to this whole violent rage problem.  

    I've been doing some light reading lately (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by CST on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    War and Peace

    In reading it, I've come to 3 conclusions, 1 - it's really remarkable how little the human condition has changed, 2 - things aren't THAT bad these days, 3 - they could absolutely get worse.


    Very true... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 03:26:35 PM EST
    things ain't that bad, in fact by most metrics they have never been better...yet people are less content.  This is one of the great mysteries of the 21st Century.  



    I think now people know a lot more about (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    people that have it better than they do, so they are not content with what they have.

    Sometimes (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 01:50:48 PM EST
    It's really obvious you are not into politics.

    But I love ya


    No sh*t... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 02:04:13 PM EST
    Slinging plumbing supplies is hard enough on my soul...forget politics, I'd die inside if I got to into it.

    The Vonnegut Theorem...

    "There is a tragic flaw in our precious constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president."

    Thank god the great humanist never lived to see this nut eh!  A bump to the head did what he patronized Brown & Williamson to do for him, but like most corporations, they oversold and under-delivered.


    I was thinking about Gore Vidal yesterday (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 11:28:31 AM EST
    ...as one does...

    Would love to hear what he would have to say today. He really thought outside the usual clear lines about politics and of course wrote and spoke with the most acerbic wit. vitally I have some of his nonfiction writings...I wonder if Trump ever came on his radar?

    Back to topic though, I think common sense reforms like banning assault weapons are well within the 2A. The fact is that the average joe with a grudge is not capable of building a bomb that can kill more that an assault weapon can. Sure, McVeigh and the 911 masterminds were capable of such, but they are not the average school or workplace shooter that are causing far more deaths and serious consequences in this country.


    I imagine Gore would've subjected (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 11:57:30 AM EST
    Trump to an acid bath that would've made his treatment of Reagan seem warm and fuzzy..

    I believe he actually corresponded with McVeigh at one point. He detested Capote, and I wonder if he may have been doing research for a book that would one-up In Cold Blood..


    Bravo (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    I am all for gun rights

    I absolutely not for assault weapon rights


    Done that (none / 0) (#62)
    by linea on Sat Mar 24, 2018 at 05:25:05 PM EST
    The US already did a `assault style weapons' ban, I doubt that will happen again. However, because of their appeal to certain types of people, I'm fine with putting `scary looking rifles' in the same category as handguns and requiring background checks, a waiting period, and a minimums purchase age of 21.

    That ban reduced the number of victims. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 25, 2018 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    Walk - chew gum (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    We can focus on mental health AND reducing access to weapons of mass killing.  

    Maybe (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 11:01:44 AM EST
    It's also truth that if they happened with a pump shot gun fewer people would die

    We already have been doing that (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 02:49:50 PM EST
    in a very fumbling, half-hearted way..

    A Huge problem that has to be routed-out somehow is the ludicrous amount of clout wielded by the Koch Brothers and Peter Thiels and Mercers of the world with their bottomless pocketbooks; these people who don't believe in a "we" or in a society in any meaningful way.. Like Margaret Thatcher saying theres no such thing as society..

    That's the sociopathic mentality and influence we have to expose and wage full-scale war against, because these people won't stop. They're on a mission from God, like their useful idiot religious right foot soldiers.

    My opinion (none / 0) (#23)
    by linea on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 04:52:52 PM EST
    I recognize the 2nd Amendment, the recent SCOTUS rulings, America's history of gun ownership, and the popularity of hunting.

    That said, what can be done right now is to place `assault style weapons' in the same category as handguns, require a background check, a waiting period, and restrict purchase to those over 21.

    I should probably mention that I don't believe in guns but I did graduate from an extensive gun training course and based on my knowledge, I consider `assault weapon' to be primarily cosmetic. What's really needed is a ban on all semi-automatic weapons and I believe this to be Constitutional.

    I would like to see this Federal legislation:

    • A ban on all semi-automatic weapons (handguns and long-rifles),
    • Restrict cylinder, tube, clip, and magazine capacity to a maximum of five rounds.
    • Restrict firearm purchases to those over 21.
    • Restrict purchases of multiple magazines and bulk ammunition purchases.
    • Require that handguns be registered and fired ballistics data be on file.
    • Require that all firearms, unless they are being transported, be kept in safes or lock boxes specificity designed for weapons.

    Edit (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by linea on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 06:05:25 PM EST
    I should have written, `attended a full day general knowledge gun course at an outdoor range' rather than an `extensive' training course. Just to be accurate.

    What would the realistic outcome be? (none / 0) (#24)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 05:24:15 PM EST
    Approximately, how many lives would be saved? Or what change in the relative risk of being killed or injured is a mass attack?

    I'm less of a gun person than you but before big changes are made, I'd like to know what realistic outcome would be.  Has it worked well in Australia and the UK?  I've heard mixed things.


    When I say (none / 0) (#26)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 05:32:42 PM EST
    "Has it worked well in Australia and the UK?"
    I'm talking about big changes to gun laws, not necessarily doing exactly what they did.  

    Only mass attack? (none / 0) (#27)
    by linea on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 05:49:06 PM EST
    Most certainly banning semi-automatic weapons would be effective in reducing the number of people that one person could kill.

    I feel people are focusing too narrowly and need to consider street crime commited with weapons - including armed robbery, home invasion, and random gang shootings (among others). These are typically committed with handguns. If all handguns could be banned, that would be on the top of my list. But I believe the handgun restrictions I already listed would have an impact on street crime despite not banning all handguns.


    Related (none / 0) (#30)
    by linea on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 07:04:45 PM EST
    March 23: The DOJ has included bump-stocks and other devices that increase the rate-of-fire of a semi-automatic weapon under the "machine gun" category, effectively banning the devices across the US.

    President Trump tweets:

    Obama Administration legalized bump stocks. BAD IDEA. As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS with a mandated comment period. We will BAN all devices that turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns.

    he's not my president (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 11:56:25 PM EST
    He's the man with a desk in the oval office. I have never ever referred to him as President here. It's like the sound of nails on a chalkboard to read it in a comment here. Please refer to him as Trump or Donald Trump. There's only so many showers one can take in a day.

    Pretty powerful (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 07:34:05 PM EST

    TGIF (none / 0) (#33)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 07:47:59 PM EST
    One more bit (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    Omnibus Spending bill will stipulate CDC can study gun violence

    The omnibus spending bill currently making its way through Congress will stipulate that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) can study gun violence, Democratic and Republican sources confirm to ABC News -- research the agency has steered clear of since the so-called "Dickey Amendment" was passed in 1996.

    Dickey, which first surfaced inside an appropriations bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, warns that "none of the funds made available to injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to promote gun control." A similar provision was included in the Appropriations Act of 2012.

    Also (none / 0) (#37)
    by linea on Fri Mar 23, 2018 at 08:41:29 PM EST
    Continues the standard funding for Planned Parenthood and prohibits any monies be used for the Trump Wall.