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.
You're saying that if someone being shot at in a crowd had been carrying a long-range precision rifle, that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for him to have fired back and hit the one murderer who by definition was exposed to the crowd of victims?
If so, you have mentally departed from reality.
I dunno about you but I'd have been taking cover before even considering returning fire. And, as much as I like them, I'm not likely to take an AR15 to a concert. They're bulky and impractical for casual carrying.
I agree with you in spirit but that particular argument wasn't a good one.
I was pointing out the stupidity of claiming that there was "no way" "more guns" could have helped the problem.
A slightly more practical example could be the hiring of a few trained and tested sharpshooters to be posted in key locations around large venues, with spotters and comms folks to enable defenders to coordinate and have a chance of bringing a repeat attempt at such mass murder to a close much more quickly. (Only slightly more practical because current insurance agencies would never cover such a thing.)
In such an example, as long as the sharpshooters still had line of sight to a murder's perch, they most certainly could use their "more guns" to bring the mass murder to a close much quicker than a case of having no guns at all on the defenders' side.
That actually sounds like a fun job. Shame I'm too old and out of shape for it anymore.