Terror attack in Las Vegas and now Cali

You don't have to rethink your position. It's absurd. The Temple was shot up because they were Jews. The Church was shot up because they were black. Cops were targeted and murdered in TX because a nut retaliated for police shootings of African Americans. The shooter in the movie theatre clearly went in thinking he would get shot, he was wearing body armor. And as you pointed out the attack in Vegas was a sniper. Other people being armed didn't even come into the equation.

The nut in Orlando had no clue how many people may have been armed in that bar and neither did the nut in Oakland.

It's very likely that having armed people in this spots would have made the body count go up. Classic example this week of a security guard with a gun stoping a bad guy with a gun getting shot to death by the cops.

This is the USA. I assume everyone is armed.

 

I don't think allowing guns at schools/hospitals/churches would change anything. IMO shooters target those places because of who the victims are, not because they're gun free zones.

 

So I guess what you're saying is, Gun Free Zones are working?

Or are irrelevant to the phenomenon?

Btw, it's partially irrelevant that they were Jews or Blacks in the synagogue and church shootings-- they were Gun Free Zones that did not offer any resistance. Could have shot Jews or Blacks anywhere--I get that it's a gathering of those targets, but still.

And the most horrific of the massacres? Kids going on shooting sprees in schools? I'm convinced that the weak-minded millennials in those shootings decided those targets were easy pickings.

My brother lives in Texas and there are cops in front of every one of his schools with AR-15s. Those schools are NEVER getting shot up.

 

Go see me brother's kids schools in Texas.

 

I'm saying an armed country of 385 million people who are highly diverse with a huge portion of the population with drug and alcohol problems and hate for their fellow citizens is completely nuts.

Take a look at Santa fe Texas school shooting. He walked up to an armed officer and shot him before surrendering.

 

So do you take away the legal guns? And politely ask the illegal gun owners and nut jobs to turn in their guns?

All 385 million of them?

Or do you try to protect, with guns, what you can protect, against guns.

Putting up signs that say "Guns Aren't Welcome Here" is as effective as signs that say "Don't do drugs".

 

You can open carry in Nevada but can only carry concealed with a permit. Even on your personal property or in your home you can't carry concealed without a permit

 

another good guy with a gun murdered ... https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/us/alabama-mall-shooting-conflicting-police-accounts-trnd/index.html

 

Well, that's it I guess. Vegas Police closed the investigation: no motive. The FBI should be releasing their own report within the next couple of months.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/03/635507299/las-vegas-shooting-investigation-closed-no-motive-found

 

Somehow never saw this post. Anyway, it isn't surprising those schools haven't been shot up, considering 99.9% (give or take a 9 or two) of schools haven't been shot up. You'd have to do a study comparing shootings at gun-free schools vs schools guarded with guns. While controlling for a bunch of confounding factors (guarded schools may have characteristics that make them more or less likely to get shot up on average). It wouldn't be an easy task.

 

OK, so something "new" - but not that new - came out a couple of months ago by the FBI as an add-on to the "motiveless conclusion". It's a "composite, generalized cause": the shooter was furious and his rage was building over how the casinos were treating high rollers.

I'm not saying the turd shooter's name out of respect for the victims - which should never have been released IMO - but he had a $2-$3 million dollar bank roll and lived off of gambling. He paid for his house in cash, for example. This we already knew.

He was anti-social and generally rude and self-entitled. This we also already knew. The latest addendum release was essentially derived and based on only one gambler's info and opinion who knew the shooter more than other gamblers.

Some high rollers were being banned from casinos because they were winning too much. They were also eliminating perks like free cruises and comped quarters, and downgrading accommodations from penthouse to relatively high end suites, but not top tier.

His resentment was building that he was no longer being treated like King Charles, so he shot up thousands of people at a venue out of revenge for this maltreatment of his elevated person. They also deserved it for breathing. And that's it.

As we know ISIS claimed responsibility for it. They claim responsibility for anything that involves dead Americans. The FBI said zero connection. I believe that on this; but in general the FBI are also known liars. Discuss.

Edit: A word.

 

N

Not too far from concert shooting
Superbowl will be red alert