• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Slaughter in vegas

Someday, we are going to look back at the NRA keeping studies on gun violence and public safety illegal the same way we are starting to look at the NFL suppressing concussion/head injury studies on brain damage.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Someday, we are going to look back at the NRA keeping studies on gun violence and public safety illegal the same way we are starting to look at the NFL suppressing concussion/head injury studies on brain damage.
Click to expand...

Or tobacco companies on cigarette usage.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Great - so he would have killed 10 people instead of 60. I think the families of those 50 people would have been happy with that result.
Click to expand...

No. He may very well have killed as many, just wounded fewer because he wouldn't have fired as many shots. But if he's going to prep for mass casualties, he may not even do the gun thing but instead do the truck through the Vegas strip thing, or Truck bomb thing, or use a more damaging round more likely to rip through more than one body. This is why hypotheticals are kind of useless.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
No. He may very well have killed as many, just wounded fewer because he wouldn't have fired as many shots. But if he's going to prep for mass casualties, he may not even do the gun thing but instead do the truck through the Vegas strip thing, or Truck bomb thing, or use a more damaging round more likely to rip through more than one body. This is why hypotheticals are kind of useless.
Click to expand...

Yep. No solutions. Can't legislate morality, guys. Best we can do are thoughts and prayers.
 
I think some of these killers plan to escape but may become overwhelmed with guilt after executing their plan doesn't fix their issue or relief their pain.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
No. He may very well have killed as many, just wounded fewer because he wouldn't have fired as many shots. But if he's going to prep for mass casualties, he may not even do the gun thing but instead do the truck through the Vegas strip thing, or Truck bomb thing, or use a more damaging round more likely to rip through more than one body. This is why hypotheticals are kind of useless.
Click to expand...

Why bother. Let's just admit that mass shootings are as American as hot dogs, fireworks, and the NFL. It's the price we pay for the 2nd Amendment.
 
Thought for sure when I saw 923 that it would be to post the new Frum piece from the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...he-debate-is-missing/542229/?utm_source=atltw

Until Americans change their minds about guns, Americans will die by guns in numbers resembling the casualty figures in Somalia and Honduras more than Britain or Germany.

It’s truly hard to imagine that this change will be led by law. Guns are inscribed into the Constitution of the United States and the individual states. On the other hand, it’s also in most states legal for a parent to strap her child into a car seat, roll the windows up tight, and smoke a pack of cigarettes in the vehicle. Parents almost universally refrain, not because they are compelled, but because they love their children and will not willingly expose them to acknowledged dangers.
Click to expand...

The adults who exposed those children to death and injury surely thought they were doing the right thing by having guns in their home. But they were wrong, dead wrong. As Melinda Wenner Moyer writes in the current issue of Scientific American: “The research on guns is not uniform, and we could certainly use more of it. But when all but a few studies point in the same direction, we can feel confident that the arrow is aiming at the truth—which is, in this case, that guns do not inhibit crime and violence but instead make it worse.”

And the surest sign that gun advocates know how lethal the science is for their cause is their determination to suppress it: since the mid-1990s, Republicans in Congress have successfully cut off federal funding for non-industry gun-safety research. That’s not what you do when the facts are on your side.

Gun safety begins, then, not with technical fixes, but with spreading the truthful information: people who bring guns into their homes are endangering themselves and their loved ones.
Click to expand...
 
riscdeac said:
And weed. Of course another 50 years after it's all legal for recreational use in every state. We will tally the manslaughters in vehicle accidents, have enough medical documentation to show brain damage, lung disease, cardiac issues etc.
Click to expand...

no weed please more guns
 
riscdeac said:
Why all
Those guns? Was he that insane thinking
He could disappear
And leave
All that stuff?

He did wire money to the girlfriend. He used her card. Maybe he was setting her u so he could
Get away with it and he would disappear? The whole thing is just bizarre.
Click to expand...

maybe he was just nuts. that's possible, too, right?
 
Pretty sure weed has been around for a long time, to believe that you need more examples and subjects to determine long term outcomes is asinine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top