Mass Shooting at Mandalay Bay, Las Vegas

[Greater Cesnica]

What a foolish arguement

I carry because there are criminals and they have guns/knifes/bats or multiple groups.

What happens when my husband and i encounter three men who want to hurt me?

Also it helps woman equal the playing field against some rapists.

From this I gather you live a life in perpetual fear.

Actually, I gathered that he's probably just wanting to be prepared at all times.

[Imperializt Russia]

20 so far? Tengri, do they have a suspect?

I don't mean to attack anyone with this post, hence removing the anchor and name of the poster. I just wanted to use their post to illustrate the point.

But this is something I've spoken about before, a preoccupation with fatality.
Yes, 20 or so (I believe 24) people were killed. But five hundred and fifteen were wounded, as we presently know.

Over half of one thousand people, many minor I'm sure, but many majorly.
It's just confusing to me. The one time I remember the wounded outweighing the dead, as it were, was the Boston bombing, where the 250 or so wounded received much more notice than in other attacks - though the 3 individuals killed still received an overwhelming amount of the coverage there.

[Nakena]

What I want to know is how ONE MAN thats SIXTY FOUR years old shot around 600 people!

My suspicion is that he had a full auto assault rifle of the AK family or maybe even a light-machine gun. In any case likely illegal and as you said before, he planned and prepared the attack in advance.

[Kash Island]

Yep, never once have people been assaulted or killed with non-firearm weapons!/s

Turns out most people are bloodthirsty and waiting for the first excuse to kill someone.

There was a terrorist attack in Edmonton the other day. Attacker used two cars and a knife. Four injuries, no fatalities.

Just know, I am amused to no end by the fact that you feel the need to carry around a firearm in order to feel physically safe, because you've convinced yourself that there are marauding, bloodthirsty gangs out to get you.

What a foolish arguement

I carry because there are criminals and they have guns/knifes/bats or multiple groups.

What happens when my husband and i encounter three men who want to hurt me?

Also it helps woman equal the playing field against some rapists.

See above. Also, most rape is committed by someone the victim knows, not by a street tough in a dark alley at knife point.

Where did you get the idea of maurading gangs? I just said multiple attackers are possible.

Honestly i think your just trying to piss people off.

[Shamhnan Insir]

What I want to know is how ONE MAN thats SIXTY FOUR years old shot around 600 people!

Its sadly very easy. Gain a height advantage over a dense crowd of people. This was obviously planned well in advance, not just someone waking up one day and blowing a fuse.

[Sovaal]

Yep, never once have people been assaulted or killed with non-firearm weapons!/s

Turns out most people are bloodthirsty and waiting for the first excuse to kill someone.

There was a terrorist attack in Edmonton the other day. Attacker used two cars and a knife. Four injuries, no fatalities.

Just know, I am amused to no end by the fact that you feel the need to carry around a firearm in order to feel physically safe, because you've convinced yourself that there are marauding, bloodthirsty gangs out to get you.

Again with the strawmanning. No, I am perfectly aware that "roving gangs are out to get (me)". Well, not me specifically, they tend to just be concerned about themselves and their rivals. But in no way does that mean that I should be defenseless.

[Camicon]

There was a terrorist attack in Edmonton the other day. Attacker used two cars and a knife. Four injuries, no fatalities.

Just know, I am amused to no end by the fact that you feel the need to carry around a firearm in order to feel physically safe, because you've convinced yourself that there are marauding, bloodthirsty gangs out to get you.

See above. Also, most rape is committed by someone the victim knows, not by a street tough in a dark alley at knife point.

Where did you get the idea of maurading gangs? I just said multiple attackers are possible.

Honestly i think your just trying to piss people off.

Multiple attackers out to assault and/or kill you? Sounds like a marauding gang to me.

[Thermodolia]

What I want to know is how ONE MAN thats SIXTY FOUR years old shot around 600 people!

Take lots of ammo, one AK, add height and the element of surprise and presto changeo you have 600 people injured or dead. Also 64 years isn't that old.

[Ifreann]

20 so far? Tengri, do they have a suspect?

I don't mean to attack anyone with this post, hence removing the anchor and name of the poster. I just wanted to use their post to illustrate the point.

But this is something I've spoken about before, a preoccupation with fatality.
Yes, 20 or so (I believe 24) people were killed. But five hundred and fifteen were wounded, as we presently know.

Over half of one thousand people, many minor I'm sure, but many majorly.
It's just confusing to me. The one time I remember the wounded outweighing the dead, as it were, was the Boston bombing, where the 250 or so wounded received much more notice than in other attacks - though the 3 individuals killed still received an overwhelming amount of the coverage there.

There are at least 58 dead.

[Kash Island]

Where did you get the idea of maurading gangs? I just said multiple attackers are possible.

Honestly i think your just trying to piss people off.

Multiple attackers out to assault and/or kill you? Sounds like a marauding gang to me.

You paint it like mad max

Your getting harder to take seriously after every post.

[Galloism]

/shrug

The department never wanted us to get caught flat footed.

I mean, it's a bit like wearing your seatbelt in an airliner while it's cruising. The chances of actually needing it are pretty stinking small. However, when you suddenly hit clear air turbulence without warning, you'll be glad you had it on.

Guess that makes sense if you're policing in the US. Still, hammers and nails, and all that.

Yeah, and it's a justification that applies to everyone else too.

[Camicon]

There was a terrorist attack in Edmonton the other day. Attacker used two cars and a knife. Four injuries, no fatalities.

Just know, I am amused to no end by the fact that you feel the need to carry around a firearm in order to feel physically safe, because you've convinced yourself that there are marauding, bloodthirsty gangs out to get you.

Again with the strawmanning. No, I am perfectly aware that "roving gangs are out to get (me)". Well, not me specifically, they tend to just be concerned about themselves and their rivals. But in no way does that mean that I should be defenseless.

Not marauding gangs then. You need to carry a firearm to feel physically safe because... reasons? That makes more sense.

[Kash Island]

Again with the strawmanning. No, I am perfectly aware that "roving gangs are out to get (me)". Well, not me specifically, they tend to just be concerned about themselves and their rivals. But in no way does that mean that I should be defenseless.

Not marauding gangs then. You need to carry a firearm to feel physically safe because... reasons? That makes more sense.

There are these things called criminals that exist.

[Sovaal]

Again with the strawmanning. No, I am perfectly aware that "roving gangs are out to get (me)". Well, not me specifically, they tend to just be concerned about themselves and their rivals. But in no way does that mean that I should be defenseless.

Not marauding gangs then. You need to carry a firearm to feel physically safe because... reasons? That makes more sense.

"Reasons". Preparedness. Everything is a statistic till it happens to you.

[Camicon]

Multiple attackers out to assault and/or kill you? Sounds like a marauding gang to me.

You paint it like mad max

Your getting harder to take seriously after every post.

I'm not the one that needs to carry a firearm in order to feel safe from the nebulous threat of being randomly assaulted or killed by multiple attackers.

Guess that makes sense if you're policing in the US. Still, hammers and nails, and all that.

Yeah, and it's a justification that applies to everyone else too.

It would apply if everyone was trained as a police officer. Such is not the case.

[Greater Cesnica]

What I want to know is how ONE MAN thats SIXTY FOUR years old shot around 600 people!

Take lots of ammo, one AK, add height and the element of surprise and presto changeo you have 600 people injured or dead. Also 64 years isn't that old.

This is his glorious picture:



Looks like someone who overdosed on a cocktail of drugs.

[Ifreann]

Take lots of ammo, one AK, add height and the element of surprise and presto changeo you have 600 people injured or dead. Also 64 years isn't that old.

This is his glorious picture:

Looks like someone who overdosed on a cocktail of drugs.

No it doesn't.

[United Muscovite Nations]

BBC and the guy's brother say that the shooter had a gambling problem, and may have lost 10-20,000 US$ in the run-up to the shooting at a LV casino.

[Kash Island]

You paint it like mad max

Your getting harder to take seriously after every post.

I'm not the one that needs to carry a firearm in order to feel safe from the nebulous threat of being randomly assaulted or killed by multiple attackers.

Yeah, and it's a justification that applies to everyone else too.

It would apply if everyone was trained as a police officer. Such is not the case.

It has happend to people and there are many instances where people have been saved by firearms in the hands of good citizens.

[Greater Cesnica]

This is his glorious picture:

Looks like someone who overdosed on a cocktail of drugs.

No it doesn't.

What would you say?

[Camicon]

Not marauding gangs then. You need to carry a firearm to feel physically safe because... reasons? That makes more sense.

There are these things called criminals that exist.

And most are non-violent. More still haven't killed anyone, and have no desire to, nor any plans to.

Not marauding gangs then. You need to carry a firearm to feel physically safe because... reasons? That makes more sense.

"Reasons". Preparedness. Everything is a statistic till it happens to you.

See, we could actually talk about statistics if the NRA hadn't spent the last several decades blocking all attempts to create a federal database on firearm violence.

[Galloism]

Yeah, and it's a justification that applies to everyone else too.

It would apply if everyone was trained as a police officer. Such is not the case.

Actually, there's some evidence that the general public is, on average, better at shooting than the police.

Probably because they get more range time.

(Note: this is not the same as crisis management training, which police need more of than they get as well, but the general public basically never gets)

[Thermodolia]

This is his glorious picture:

Looks like someone who overdosed on a cocktail of drugs.

No it doesn't.

Besides someone on drugs couldn't have pulled this off

[Camicon]

I'm not the one that needs to carry a firearm in order to feel safe from the nebulous threat of being randomly assaulted or killed by multiple attackers.

It would apply if everyone was trained as a police officer. Such is not the case.

It has happend to people and there are many instances where people have been saved by firearms in the hands of good citizens.

Find me some stats, because until then all you've got is supposition.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No it doesn't.

Besides someone on drugs couldn't have pulled this off

Hold my beer.