Massive Evidence Mounts Vegas Shooting Was an ISIS Attack

@nooneinparticular Said

Not at all my point. A weapon in the hands of the untrained can cause more harm to themselves and others around them then it can protect that person or their loved ones. This is true of all weapons ranging from your hands and feet all the way up to firearms and explosives.

@nooneinparticular Said

Not at all my point. A weapon in the hands of the untrained can cause more harm to themselves and others around them then it can protect that person or their loved ones. This is true of all weapons ranging from your hands and feet all the way up to firearms and explosives.

Guns are a tool, and one which can be separated from your person. As such, a reliance on guns to protect you is misplaced. There is a difference between having a gun in case of a bad situation and believing that the power that a gun gives you will somehow protect you. In many ways, it's like the scrawny dude who takes martial arts classes and after a few lessons thinks he's a match for the bully that beats him up. Chances are, he's not, and the misplaced confidence will simply end up getting him into a situation in which he was not prepared for.

@puzZles Said

I don't think it's about "confidence" but rather feeling secure. There is a big. difference.

Quote:

Good point about non-trained individuals being possibly dangerous. But in an already dangerous and threatening situation, I'd rather take my chances with the non-trained person. At least he is on my side. And we are going to get hurt or die anyway. At least there'd be a chance.

Quote:

If I were to shoot at a would be assailant and miss (terrorist, for example) maybe hit an innocent by-stander... it's still the lesser of the evils as that shot would drive the assailant to run or seek cover, giving potential victims a chance to do the same.

Quote:

Even if an innocent party did get hurt, or God forbid killed, they probably would have been killed anyway along with many others.

Quote:

I'm speaking of impending deadly situations; not your everyday casual mishaps. And there is nothing. wrong. with being prepared. But everything wrong with allowing ones self to become a sitting duck.

@nooneinparticular Said

There is a difference between feeling secure and actually being secure. I would rather arm a person with reality than a sweet lie. It might be nice to think that owning a gun protects you from terrorists but the sad reality is that it really doesn't.



What a fatalistic attitude. While lots of people are hurt or die in mass shootings, many more of them survive relatively physically unscathed and it has nothing to do with whether or not they had a gun on them.



You underestimate the mental fortitude of your opponent. You are assuming that a terrorist is the same as an unarmed civilian, that they will obey their instinct to run and hide. That is a dangerous assumption that might work against scared desperate muggers, but against people intent on killing you? I find that bit of logic tough to swallow. Tell me, how many mass shooters were arrested in the past couple years? How many of them were either gunned down or committed suicide? Yet you think they still possess a sense of self preservation?



How convenient. Unfortunately for your conscience, that fatalistic attitude is nothing more than a rationalization. It is impossible to determine who will live and die in a mass shooting or any other sort of altercation involving weapons.



Yes there is nothing wrong with being prepared, but if you think a gun is enough to prevent you from being a sitting duck then you are naive.

@puzZles Said

1) It helps. Again, think San Bernardino California.

2)
And a lot of the times I'd bet a gun at said moment would have helped.

3)Although true, many of them are suicidal, still others have been known to run. It's all a crap shoot. I can't imagine if someone is pointing a gun in your face and you are unarmed, your not wishing in that moment you had a gun on you to "kill or be killed".

4)But smart people don't sit by unprepared.

5)I never said it would prevent a situation.

@nooneinparticular Said

Look I have no problem with people arming themselves, but there is a difference between protection and overconfidence. Preparing for the worst is protection, but thinking that a gun means that you can protect your friends, family, and neighbors, especially from terrorists, is overconfidence. There's a difference between being cornered with a gun and attempting to 'help' because you think a gun alone gives you the ability to protect others.

@mrmhead Said



So many children die innocently with the excuse "I didn't know" or "I didn't think"

@puzZles Said

I never thought that about "a gun alone". That is you assuming. If the rest of what you are saying is true, then you and I have been in agreement from go.

@Ratty Said

Typical.

In the absence of clear facts conspiracy takes root.....

@nooneinparticular Said

You've been talking about how a gun is the answer to the question of 'how do I protect my loved ones and neighbors?' You've been talking about how a gun 'gives you a fighting chance' against a mass shooter. You've been talking about how a missed shot is simply a non-issue because 'they probably would have died anyways'. You talk about how guns are the answer to mass shooters, how you keep bringing up San Bernadino as if there is any evidence to suggest that having people with guns on the premises would have made a lick of difference.

Clearly we haven't been in agreement at all. Or was I supposed to interpret all of these statements to mean that 'No, actually. A gun does not in fact appreciably increase your likelihood to survive a mass shooting'? Because that's what I've been saying.

@Ratty Said

Typical.

In the absence of clear facts conspiracy takes root.....

@Commander4th Said

I think people would rather believe what they want to believe

@chaski Said

Actually, from a law enforcement perspective, there are quite a lot of “clear facts”. (I admit that I am about to over simplify here, but after all I am not writing a doctoral dissertation).

What is wanted and needed in any investigation to prove the elements of the crime are the who, what, when, where, why & how.

“We” clearly know the who, what, when, where and much (if not all) of the how. The only part of the how that “we” don’t know is exactly how the weapons were carried into the hotel room (though this is so obvious that the lack of an eye witness is irrelevant).

So, in terms of “clear facts”, all that remains is the why.

A little logical thinking (a very little actually) answers the core of the why. Let's look at and delete the obvious...

➢ The event lacks the normal characteristics of Islamic based terrorism… there was (apparently) no screaming of the words allahu akbar, there was no last minute video explaining the holy nature of the attack, there was…well, there was literally nothing that would lead one to believe that this was an Islamic terrorist act.
➢ The events also lack extremist dogma or other characteristics of a Christian (either protestant or catholic) motivated attack (think IRA).
➢ The events lack the publication of an anarchistic manifesto.
➢ There is no (apparent) sex related issue (as with either a jilted lover or a serial murder).
➢ There is no work related issues (the dude wasn’t’ demoted or fired by the postal service).
➢ There was no monetary gain (either directly or by way of insurance) for the suspect nor his family or lover.
➢ Basically there was no traditional motive.
➢ There was no government target (like the Oklahoma City bombing)
➢ There was no political target (like a senator or president)
➢ There was no military target like the Pentagon or a military person in uniform) nor loss (by the suspect) of a child or loved one in the military.
➢ There was no economic target (like the world trade center)
➢ Perhaps one could say the guy hated Country Music, but that seems a bit absurd…and doesn’t fit the facts, since the guy also looked at a number of other music venues that were not country music.

All of which leaves us with the obvious… the guy was literally insane. We will never know for certain if it was paranoid schizophrenia, but that is certainly a logical candidate.

So, in actuality we do have most (if not all) of the “clear” and relevant facts.

So, why do so many people default to the conspiracy theory?

Because most humans are pretty much gullible nitwits that are willing to believe complete crap...when it fits their personal views and narrative of the world.

On the other hand I am apparently a LIAR so everything I just wrote is wrong.

Now Ratty... please tell me to "f*** off" and complain that I have responded to your post on this forum site which is made up of anonymous people, so I can once again post a picture of a snowflake.

The end.

@Commander4th Said

I think people would rather believe what they want to believe