SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
A gunman fired upon thousands of people attending a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip Sunday night, in a brutal attack that is blamed for at least 58 deaths, police say. In the mass shooting and panic that ensued, 515 people were injured. At least one of the dead is an off-duty police officer who was attending the concert.
Editorializing: Interesting how media always emphasize ISLAMIC terrorists, but downplay domestic terrorism as psychologically disturbed individual lone-wolfs.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Over 50 dead in mass shooting in Las Vegas
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 442 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Don't feed the bats tonight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @07:19AM (8 children)
So what's your point? From the initial reports, the murderer is dead, and only took so long in getting that way because there weren't enough armed persons around early enough to stop the murderer sooner - just as I'd mentioned your neighbors would be prepared to do to you when you first blew up a car that wasn't yours.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday October 03 2017, @08:11AM (4 children)
> only took so long in getting that way because there weren't enough armed persons around early enough to stop the murderer sooner
Totally looking forward to a crowd of concert goers shooting back at the mandalay bay from a couple hundred yards away at night. Even if half are actually sober, you'd run out of ambulances, maybe set fire to the hotel while killing innocents in their beds, and the cops would have no clue who's on which side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @08:47AM (3 children)
Apparently the very idea of someone being armed next door to a hotel room where automatic gunfire erupts out of nowhere never even crossed your mind. (Doesn't surprise me, as it appears rather narrow.)
That's effectively what happened, but with the additional time for the police to drive over to the hotel, then sort out the exact room all the racket was coming from, etc.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 03 2017, @04:31PM (2 children)
I believe CNN mentioned that the guy shot at the cops in the hotel before committing suicide.
How many brave heroes are going to burst through a hotel door with their carry toy, when an unknown amount of people inside are continuously shooting with automatic weapons?
Seriously... Stop watching Hollywood movies, people.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @09:08PM (1 child)
Simply because you yourself are a sniveling coward, who considers being mugged and left physically unharmed as "civilized", by no means requires other manlier men to share your "qualities".
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @10:52PM
Calling bob a sniveling coward would have looked less like a random ad hominem and more like the exposing of his tendency to project if I'd have remembered to include a link to the post he declared himself as such [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @03:38PM (2 children)
You're either being deliberately obtuse or are really clueless.
Stephen Paddock was the Rambo you say doesn't exist. And rather than supporting your argument, you double down and say that if only we had more Rambos, things would be much better.
So which is it? Those are contradictory statements:
or
You seem to vacillate, using whatever you can to try to justify your own beliefs. These folks are trust worthy and *never* use firearms inappropriately! But if they did, we need *more* armed folks (possibly impaired by alcohol or other substances) to shoot up a hotel with thousands of guests. What's more, these "responsible folks should be carrying their firearms (preferably with scopes and the like) on their person in an urban area to go see a concert.
No Rambos or more Rambos? Which is it? You should try to keep things straight, friend.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @09:11PM (1 child)
You are trying to make the case that 1 > 1. You're obviously false.
The murderer is no Rambo. He was one man, and he is now dead because other armed men came for him. Whether or not he chose to kill himself before the actual confrontation with armed men is beside the point - had there been no threat of armed men running at him, the murderer would have had no reason to kill himself if he could kill any who opposed him. He couldn't, he knew it, and if he indeed killed himself, that is the likely reason.
Still no Rambos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 03 2017, @11:00PM
To clarify, in the titular movies [imdb.com], Rambo does not die. John Rambo kills a lot of people, usually using guns, and lives on.
"There are no Rambos" is an acknowledgement that all humans are mortal, that sane humans acknowledge that fact, and that carrying firearms around does not change that fact. What firearms do provide is a means to turn a squishy, fragile human into a dangerous opponent. That this also allows for evil to make use of firearms is irrelevant - evil has been making use of sticks, rocks, and bare fists since the dawn of time.