An Anonymous Coward writes:
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.
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.
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:
There are no Rambos, even if there are a LOT of well-armed deer hunters, firearms enthusiasts, and freedom fanatics out there in flyover country.
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
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.
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.
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.