• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Crime Shooting at University of Nevada, Multiple Victims Suspected (Shooter Deceased)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 585708
  • Start date Start date
He's basically just calling for people to have basic morals and ethics. The MSM knows that reporting heavily on mass shootings and naming the mass shooters just gives future potential mass shooters more of a reason to go on a rampage if they think they're going to wind up being notorious because of it.

Many of these guys are incels, mentally ill or awkward autistic types. They'd like nothing more than to have the spotlight shined on them while given attention that they've never had, but crave.

If the media truly cared, they would tone down the coverage on these awful situations. They don't really care so they cash in on the coverage and then pretend to care live on TV while they're cashing checks.

ahh yes, it’s the medias fault.
 
Right around the corner from my house, much like the Route 91 incident. Our normal route home runs down the street the school is on, it was blocked off. My Sons, 10 and 7: "Dad this is really close to our house." My wife and her Cousin graduated from UNLV, we've been to their boxing gym many times.

Apparently this guy was in his 60's? My wife read that last night. A few people were discussing it at the gym as well. Sucks to have this sort of thing happen twice in our community. One of my students is a campus Police Officer, Metro has a division specifically for the school, I'm sure he'll have some thoughts about it next time I see him.
 
So did Route 91.

And I'm sure it prevented people from carrying in various prohibited items into the venue.

What's that have to do with the guy shooting from the hotel? What's venue security expected to do about that type of shooter?
 
And I'm sure it prevented people from carrying in various prohibited items into the venue.

What's that have to do with the guy shooting from the hotel? What's venue security expected to do about that type of shooter?

There was also heavy security AT the hotel. In fact the strip has their own whole department of Metro just as the school does. There were armed officers on premises AT the Hotel.
 
RIP. During finals too, some fucked up shit.



At least it wasn’t during the All Star game
 

Cici's pizza ain't "gun free"...3 armed people killed.

Just sayin.

Dude. You know exactly what @GearSolidMetal meant.

Yes, that gun free zones dont always prevent shootings. My counter-point to both of you was neither do guns. Criminals gonna crime.

Three people were killed in a shooting at the Las Vegas campus of the University of Nevada (UNLV) on Wednesday morning.

'University of Nevada' = Gun Free Zone.

As for 'Gun Free Zones don't ALWAYS prevent shootings' nice qualifier you have there, but what if 96% of all mass shootings in a 72 year span took place in 'Gun Free Zones?'

 
There was also heavy security AT the hotel. In fact the strip has their own whole department of Metro just as the school does. There were armed officers on premises AT the Hotel.

That's nice and all, but doesn't address anything in my comment.

What point are you trying to make? That ultimately, site security doesn't matter?
 
Yes, that gun free zones dont always prevent shootings. My counter-point to both of you was neither do guns. Criminals gonna crime.

Of course they don't. That's part of our argument against them. Gun free zones without sufficient security measures in place very rarely prevent shootings. You're free to feel folks are stupid for carrying a firearm for protection, but it's equally as stupid to think people being armed doesn't act as a deterrent.

And since you brought it up . . . if criminals gonna crime happens regardless, would you rather have the option to be armed or unarmed in a gun free zone without any type of security?

Victims and their families often get talked into suing a gun manufacturer for the actions of a criminal in these cases. Wouldn't you think that they should also sue the venue if the site has been designated a gun free zone, but they fail to provide acceptable security to protect patrons?
 
Of course they don't. That's part of our argument against them. Gun free zones without sufficient security measures in place very rarely prevent shootings. You're free to feel folks are stupid for carrying a firearm for protection, but it's equally as stupid to think people being armed doesn't act as a deterrent.

And since you brought it up . . . if criminals gonna crime happens regardless, would you rather have the option to be armed or unarmed in a gun free zone without any type of security?

Victims and their families often get talked into suing a gun manufacturer for the actions of a criminal in these cases. Wouldn't you think that they should also sue the venue if the site has been designated a gun free zone, but they fail to provide acceptable security to protect patrons?

UNLV is not "without security"...its heavily Policed by it's own department of Metro who are stationed throughout the campus and patrol it. The Hotel was not "without security" it was heavily policed. The event was not "without security" it was heavily secured. So why did you need to insert the "without security" element into your argument here? I'm not arguing against carrying firearms, I just find that the argument is often nonsensical when faced with actual situations, all in one City, where the idea that shooters hesitate when guns are present is proven untrue. The presence of guns deters SOME gun violence, except when the criminals either dont care about being in a shootout, or want one. Guns dont secure gang-infested neighborhoods. Guns don't stop every "suicide by Cop" weirdo (which is an increasing phenomenon here). The argument that criminals will ignore "gun free zones" fails at every moment where they also ignore guns.

I dont care if people like guns or want to carry guns, but the Cowboy movie argument to is silly. And yes someone with a gun CAN take out a shooter, they can also just as easily take out a bystander. Taking out an active shooter in a live situation among a crowd isnt easy, police have shot the wrong people themselves more than once and they're trained for it.
 
That's nice and all, but doesn't address anything in my comment.

What point are you trying to make? That ultimately, site security doesn't matter?

That the argument of "criminals will ignore laws" also applies to protective measures. It's a silly notion to base ideas on. Security and presence of guns didnt prevent any of these shootings, so obviously the problem needs other approaches.
 
Three people were killed in a shooting at the Las Vegas campus of the University of Nevada (UNLV) on Wednesday morning.

'University of Nevada' = Gun Free Zone.

As for 'Gun Free Zones don't ALWAYS prevent shootings' nice qualifier you have there, but what if 96% of all mass shootings in a 72 year span took place in 'Gun Free Zones?'


UNLV is "gun free" for civilians, bit is HEAVILY policed. Guns around every corner and Cops constantly patrolling. You posted on response to this incident to make a political point that doesnt hold water here.

Also your data is flawed:

 
This was the 716th mass shooting in the USA this year (about one every 11 hours and 24 minutes).
the chemicals they spray in the air daily mixed with our poisoned food and social media and influencer based psyops are working.
 
CNN saying motive may have been that he was denied a job there. He was a career professor but not at that college. He’d recently applied at UNLV but did not get the job



sadly i dont think he'll be getting that job now
 
UNLV is "gun free" for civilians, bit is HEAVILY policed. Guns around every corner and Cops constantly patrolling. You posted on response to this incident to make a political point that doesnt hold water here.

Also your data is flawed:

A posted gun free zone creates a soft target. A lot of legal owners still carry in gun free zones. Most malls and movie theaters are fun free zones but it is safer to carry just in case.
 
Back
Top