Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

First reports show over 50 dead and hundreds injured.  Witness say the shooter used an automatic weapon........the NRA says, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"...........well I find that a little simplistic........would have been hard of a knife wielder to kill that many people.

According to authorities the shooter is dead, they're looking for his girlfriend now.

The gun cockroaches are going to come out of the woodwork now, claiming that if someone had been armed, they could have stopped the shooter......bulldust.  No doubt any one armed  (and there were sure to be at least several in that big a concert) were busy filling their knickers.

Prayers and condolences to the victims.

[davidc4430]

Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock 'disturbed and dangerous', spent decades acquiring weapons: police

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-05/las-vegas-shooting-stephen-paddock-disturbed-and-dangerous/901...

So they think he was 'disturbed and dangerous'!

so how did you figure that out guys?

[bsal6160]

i agree with the NRA, Guns dont kill, PEOPLE KILL. With that said however, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to own a firearm, other than a farmer perhaps and shooting is not a sport.

it is something i am taught as a soldier with a single purpose in mind. yes you know the purpose.

the 2nd Amendment could be overiding by changing a law to something like ban the sale of ammunition. Still not denying there right to bear arms but deny them the right to ammunition SIMPLES

[lyndal1838]

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

i'm sure amongst the 500 injured and 50 dead there were some who thought owning a gun protected them.

i'm also pretty sure if i went to a big concert here i'd very likely not get shot.

and i dont need a gun to protect myself.

---

But how many of the members of that audience took out their guns and tried to protect themselves?

How did their right to bear arms actually protect them?

And how many people involved in these slaughters in the USA actually have the opportunity to use the arms that they are so fond of carrying?

[janeababe]

Oh come on folks.... lets keep our head together!

It might surprise some of you, others not so much, but I support the right to bear arms!

But making statements like ....

But how many of the members of that audience took out their guns and tried to protect themselves?

How did their right to bear arms actually protect them?

And how many people involved in these slaughters in the USA actually have the opportunity to use the arms that they are so fond of carrying?

....is nonsensical.   (sorry mate xxj)

They are not purchasing these (usually small /medium sized hand guns) to shoot at terrorists!  Its for 1:1 confrontation, and usually within the perimeters of their own home. Self defence in their own home to protect their family and themselves. And I agree with that.

And hopefully, they NEVER have the need to use it.

Am i a killer? NO

Would i kill, to protect myself or my family? ABSOLUTELY!

you  dont need guns to kill masses of people. As you know!

Now, it might also surprise some of you, others not so much, that I am a conspiracy theorist, (love me a good conspiracy)

...and this mass shooting, along with the crime scene, and the scenes of the hotel rooms, false flag to me, loud and clear!

but then.... that's just my viewpoint.

I am also saddened that many many innocent folk have been put through this terrifying experience.
Unnecessary deaths, with an underlying agenda.

[the_great_she_elephant]

 this mass shooting, along with the crime scene, and the scenes of the hotel rooms, false flag to me, loud and clear!

But which particular 'false flag' did you have in mind, Jane?

It couldn't have been radical Islamists as they would have been only too eager to claim responsibility.

The NRA or any other pro gun lobby can be pretty well ruled out, a massacre would certainly not advance their cause

.

It's very unlikely it was an anti gun lobby as it's hard to believe people passionate about stopping gun deaths would resort to shooting hundreds of people just to prove a  point.

I dont see what either  the Government, or opposition, would gain by setting up a massacre like this.

One could point the finger at ultra right wing nationalists or neo nazi groups, but surely they would have been more selective in their choice of both victims and fall guy.

[tezza2844]

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

oh. and in amereca your more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist.

---

or just an ordinary citizen exercising his 2nd amendment right to own heaps of military type firearms just in case he feels threaten by baddies or anybody anywhere any time

[tezza2844]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

Both of my guns are registered, because I bought them from legitimate dealers, but many "personal" weapons are not.  No children in the house, and haven't been for years.  Having a shotgun in a gun safe defeats the purpose in the event of a home invasion. And young children in the car are in car seats. 

While MPD is quite efficient, their job is usually apprehending perpetrators after the deed is done.

---

Just swap hit  to shoot 

[davidc4430]

acording to google, 13,286 people died from shooting in the USA in 2015, they prolly call it population control.

[davidc4430]

Gun violence in the United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

mind boggling

[tezza2844]

Recently(Tuesday or Wednesday) I watched an American "Current Affair type show" on Fox news  with one of the pro-gun lobbyist refer to an "unprecedented jump in gun violence" in Australia since Howards Gun Laws were enacted and how criminals were now manufacturing and selling their own machine guns. With so much fake news/facts being sprouted by these lobbyist is it any wonder "the right to bear arms"  argument is seen as one great big joke.