Off Topic > Off Topic
Las Vegas Police Investigating Shooting at Mandalay Bay Casino
Ragequit:
--- Quote from: Darryl McKoy on October 02, 2017, 05:19:12 PM ---Question - given this was a domestic terrorist attack, what's the pro-gun approach to thwarting these attacks in future?
--- End quote ---
a fighting chance and maybe deterrence
Dreams_Of_Cheese:
--- Quote from: Ragequit on October 02, 2017, 05:28:43 PM ---a fighting chance and maybe deterrence
--- End quote ---
Right. Just have some folks carry their rifles into a concert. That's safe thing to do that Will Never Backfire. But alright, let's assume that somehow that type of security breach is never exploited somehow. Are these people in the crowd supposed to fire upward into a hotel? It's entirely unrealistic to say that having had people with guns at the site of the attack would've made a difference. Maybe in another situation, but not this one.
kongo:
most venues and stuff don't even allow guns in their building / area / whatever so even if every person was big boss when it comes to using guns, stuff like this would still happen because the places it happens is normally where there isn't going to be anybody with a gun
i'm not taking sides here because i definitely don't want to pay for five hundred different licenses just to own a hunting rifle but at the same time stuff like open carry is stupid
cblock360:
T H O T
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/02/top-cbs-lawyer-no-sympathy-for-vegas-vics-probably-republicans.amp.html
otto-san:
--- Quote from: Darryl McKoy on October 02, 2017, 05:24:08 PM ---Getting defensive doesn't answer my question, I'm genuinely curious
--- End quote ---
i am as well. i don't think i've seen any real genuine and practical solutions offered outside of tighter gun restrictions. eliminating crime, hatred, and turmoil is obviously not an option, so we have to consider ways that actually mitigate the potential severity of violent crime, and i don't think civilians having more or an unchanged level of access to weaponry is a responsible option to take. the theory of allowing people more guns to encourage heroic acts sounds nice, but the fact is that lax restrictions make it easier for potential criminals to gain access to weaponry as well. in addition, the vast majority of individuals are unlikely to be capable of responding effectively in these situations, and mass gun and heroism training isn't a practical course of action either. this event showed how outrageously easy it is for someone to end an unfathomably large number of lives with great efficiency, and the only genuine course of action i can imagine is to reduce access to these efficient tools.
ofc i say all that with a series of assumptions about what solutions would be offered by people opposed to tighter gun restrictions, if there's something i haven't heard before i'd be interested in hearing it