50+killed in Las Vegas concert shooting-200+injured

[aj3647]

You are correct though that bombs require some sophistication. So does modifying a gun. Your answer seems to be more laws. I'm not totally disagreeing with the usefulness of restrictions on bump fire technology but am not as optimistic that anti gun legislation will be anywhere near a cure all. Norway has tough anti gun legislation, for instance, and also had Breivik who killed 8 people with a bomb and 69 people with a rifle.

One incident, six years ago in Norway. You know this happens on a regular basis here, right? One attack in Norway does not compare to hundreds of mass shooting incidents in the United States.

Also, Norway has some of the more relaxed gun laws in Europe. Stricter than ours, yes, but fairly tame by European standards.

Also, I said "he wouldn't" have used a car at that specific venue. Yes, maybe he could have used a car at a different venue. But now we're dealing in hypotheticals, aren't we? He didn't drive a car into a crowd of people, now did he? No, what did he do instead? He took an arsenal of guns up to the 32nd floor of a hotel and rained death down upon hundreds of people. That's what he actually did.

Why do you think he chose the means that he did? I assume he owned a car, so why didn't he just drive into a crowd on the crowded Vegas strip? Why is it that car attacks in the U.S. are very rare, but mass shootings are common? If the car is just as deadly as the gun, why do killers overwhelmingly chose guns in the United States as their tool of choice for committing intentional homicide?

[oladub]

One incident, six years ago in Norway. You know this happens on a regular basis here, right? One attack in Norway does not compare to hundreds of mass shooting incidents in the United States.

Also, Norway has some of the more relaxed gun laws in Europe. Stricter than ours, yes, but fairly tame by European standards.

Also, I said "he wouldn't" have used a car at that specific venue. Yes, maybe he could have used a car at a different venue. But now we're dealing in hypotheticals, aren't we? He didn't drive a car into a crowd of people, now did he? No, what did he do instead? He took an arsenal of guns up to the 32nd floor of a hotel and rained death down upon hundreds of people. That's what he actually did.

Why do you think he chose the means that he did? I assume he owned a car, so why didn't he just drive into a crowd on the crowded Vegas strip? Why is it that car attacks in the U.S. are very rare, but mass shootings are common? If the car is just as deadly as the gun, why do killers overwhelmingly chose guns in the United States as their tool of choice for committing intentional homicide?

I actually didn't know that the 69 people killed by one terrorist in Norway "happens on a regular basis here". As far as I know, the Las Vegas attack was the largest such gun attack to happen in the US and, so far, fewer were killed in Las Vegas. You must want even tougher gun laws than Norway's. It turns out that the Las Vegas attack would be approximately the 11th largest mass shooting in the world as of January 15, 2017 "All but one of the 20 worst mass public shootings, 45 of the worst 50, occurred outside the United States"

"Since 1970, all of the 20 worst mass public shootings occurred outside the US. Muslims also committed 18 of the worst 20 mass public shootings in the world. All 20 of the worst mass public shootings occurred outside the US, and that was also true for 40 of the worst 44. It is possible that we are still missing even some of these large mass public shootings prior to 2000, but any of the ones being missed are outside of the US, Canada, the Commonwealth countries, and Europe.""The US makes up about 4.4% of the world of the population and accounts for 4.1% of the deaths from these attacks."