Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

Status
Not open for further replies.
You seem to think oppress means to kill en masse, it doesn't. There isn't much a civilian can ever do if the army (who are incidentally also American citizens so they'll never in a million years do it) start dropping nuclear bombs on their own cities (also, family and friends). If on the other hand they want to start shooting people at polling stations or lawful protesters then fire arms will definitely provide a deterrent.


where were they when anyone of Japanese descent was bring rounded up?

or when black people where legally segregated?

the government has impressed the American people a fair few times in history usually with broad support
 
You seem to think oppress means to kill en masse, it doesn't. There isn't much a civilian can ever do if the army (who are incidentally also American citizens so they'll never in a million years do it) start dropping nuclear bombs on their own cities (also, family and friends). If on the other hand they want to start shooting people at polling stations or lawful protesters then fire arms will definitely provide a deterrent.

Yeah because Sadam and Assad never used chemical weapons against their own people did they!!
The whole we need guns to defend ourselves in case a dictator or tyrannical person gets into power is utterly ridiculous, with the weapons and delivery systems available to the person in charge a few assault rifles and handguns aint gonna do jack!
 
So governments commit terrorism daily according to your logic.

I'm not sure you're very logical or able to follow basic arguments but yes some governments are involved in terror - I'm not sure what relevance that has to the thread though as this sub thread was simply correcting the mistaken view by some that any mass murder is 'terrorism'.
 
Yeah because Sadam and Assad never used chemical weapons against their own people did they!!
The whole we need guns to defend ourselves in case a dictator or tyrannical person gets into power is utterly ridiculous, with the weapons and delivery systems available to the person in charge a few assault rifles and handguns aint gonna do jack!

I think you massively under-estimate the capabilities of tens to hundreds of millions of, even relatively low tech but armed, civilians against single digit millions (and probably less in this kind of scenario with defection, etc.) government forces and one of the first things that would happen in a scenario like that is the over-running and looting of army facilities, etc. which just wouldn't have the numbers even with heavy armour and gunship support to prevent it in time.
 
Last edited:
Yeah because Sadam and Assad never used chemical weapons against their own people did they!!
The whole we need guns to defend ourselves in case a dictator or tyrannical person gets into power is utterly ridiculous, with the weapons and delivery systems available to the person in charge a few assault rifles and handguns aint gonna do jack!

As per Roff's post, you don't seem to understand or appreciate how powerful the civilian population is, especially when armed. If modern military equipment was all that was needed then the US could have ended the conflict in Syria wouldn't have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for so many years and wouldn't have had to withdraw from Vietnam. In the end some blokes in flip flops armed with AKs and improvised explosives are perfectly capable of waging war against the most powerful army in the world, especially if they have some local support in the areas they operate in.
 
As per Roff's post, you don't seem to understand or appreciate how powerful the civilian population is, especially when armed. If modern military equipment was all that was needed then the US could have ended the conflict in Syria wouldn't have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for so many years and wouldn't have had to withdraw from Vietnam. In the end some blokes in flip flops armed with AKs and improvised explosives are perfectly capable of waging war against the most powerful army in the world, especially if they have some local support in the areas they operate in.
The families of around 11000 dead Americans every year fully understand that fact!
 
LOL Imagine if this guy has been using a silencer..... literally just spray for good 30 mins before people notice others around them getting hit.

Not sure how a suppressor would work in a scenario like that - get some quite weird acoustics around tall buildings so the reflected sound would probably still be audible above the music - "silencers" don't work quite like people think.
 
I'm not sure you're very logical or able to follow basic arguments.
Yeah whatever.


this sub thread was simply correcting the mistaken view by some that any mass murder is 'terrorism'.
Mass murder is the end result therefore the effect and obviously not the cause, look at the first six letters of 'terrorism' the attacker caused the terror that's what a terrorist can cause.
 
Yeah whatever.


Mass murder is the end result therefore the effect and obviously not the cause, look at the first six letters of 'terrorism' the attacker caused the terror that's what a terrorist can cause.

Loads of crimes likely cause terror in the victims but terrorism has a specific definition
 
Yeah whatever.

OK... but then below you've gone on to demonstrate some more of this 'logic'

Mass murder is the end result therefore the effect and obviously not the cause, look at the first six letters of 'terrorism' the attacker caused the terror that's what a terrorist can cause.

yes terrorism contains the world 'terror' - that doesn't imply that any incident that causes people to be terrified is 'terror'.... I mean I'm sure earthquake victims are also terrified

as already explained to you, terrorism generally requires a political or ideological motive ergo not all mass murders (or indeed murders) are acts of terror - but an act of terror can be just a single murder if politically or ideological motivated

I really don't know what is so hard to understand about that?
 
Not sure how a suppressor would work in a scenario like that - get some quite weird acoustics around tall buildings so the reflected sound would probably still be audible above the music - "silencers" don't work quite like people think.

I know, I've seen them used on youtube. But it would have definitely made it harder to hear above loud music and identify where shots were coming from.
 
I know, I've seen them used on youtube. But it would have definitely made it harder to hear above loud music and identify where shots were coming from.

I'd suspect it was people within the hotel who identified him rather rapidly... i.e. some rather frightened guests on his floor and/or on the floors immediately above and below him making some rather panicked calls to hotel security
 
I know, I've seen them used on youtube. But it would have definitely made it harder to hear above loud music and identify where shots were coming from.

Yeah could have made it harder to identify where he was shooting from as it tends to deaden the sound in close proximity to the shooter - hence why the whole thing about hearing protection though I suspect as much as anything that has been latched onto by people who want "cool" suppressors as there is nothing to stop them using ear protection.

I'd suspect it was people within the hotel who identified him rather rapidly... i.e. some rather frightened guests on his floor and/or on the floors immediately above and below him making some rather panicked calls to hotel security

Definitely a heart in mouth moment if you were in one of the nearby hotel rooms :s first thought probably would be that someone was going on a shooting spree inside the hotel itself.
 
Nothing lol about that tbh.

Yeah I don't literally mean LOL at it, more just like WTF at how much more worse it possibly could have been if he had access to such hardware.

But according to some articles that could be pretty soon if they pass it through congress. Which is actually lol'able/ridiculous if they do.
 
Looks like he shot himself in the stomach!!
I'd have thought one would shoot themselves in the head, not sure I'd want to shoot myself in the stomach?

Alex Jones posted suicide picture on twitter (Looks pretty legit but source is obviously weak as hell)
 
Yeah I don't literally mean LOL at it, more just like WTF at how much more worse it possibly could have been if he had access to such hardware.

But according to some articles that could be pretty soon if they pass it through congress. Which is actually lol'able/ridiculous if they do.

Suppressors are pretty accessible now in the US - even here we don't have particularly strict laws on them:

It is an arguable point that moderators for full bore rifle are of questionable effectiveness in reducing disturbance to quarry, but can confuse them by diffusing the directional report of the rifle. They may though be appropriate for reducing hearing damage of the shooter or reduce noise disturbance for example during deer control in urban parks. However, an applicant will be expected to demonstrate "good reason" for noise reduction before approval to acquire such an item is given.

Looks like he shot himself in the stomach!!
I'd have thought one would shoot themselves in the head, not sure I'd want to shoot myself in the stomach?

Alex Jones posted suicide picture on twitter (Looks pretty legit but source is obviously weak as hell)

Does seem a bit odd - maybe it was accidental as he seemed prepared for a much longer campaign.

EDIT: Can never really know the mental impact in that kind of situation though - until more comes out it seem his motive doesn't even seem to be known.
 
Last edited:

Not wanting to derail thread but terrorism is already the new norm now. This is also going to come out as terrorism somewhere I suspect. How many times or threads would we have if every terror attack in Europe was discussed? *move on nothing to see... *meh another one
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom