Mass Shooting in Las Vegas - 58 Dead at Least 515 Injured, Suspect Killed - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52739908]If the threat of sudden home invasion and murder is a realistic problem then I'd say your country has bigger problems than guns.[/QUOTE] Depends where you live, and yes. I can't speak for everywhere but it's pretty fucking bad here. I honestly didn't even know until I read this thread how weird it is that illegal firearms are just a thing here. Like, a high schooler could get you a gun by 2:00 kind of thing. edit: Im not exaggerating for effect, it's really a lot worse here than I intend to go into detail.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740061]The founding of this nation comes to mind, but that's about it. I don't think the same type of uprising would ever be possible again given how far weaponry has advanced since then.[/QUOTE] The key thing here is that outside of infantry/small arms, the weapons the military has at their disposal are only good for mass-destruction. An A-10 can't stand on a street corner to enforce a curfew, nor can an armed tank engage rebels in densely populated/constructed areas like cities or suburbs without causing huge collateral damage. Only an idiot would dare to raze his/her own infrastructure and loyalists just to bury a few rebels. The fights would be pretty fair if the population had firearms, and potentially force a government to its knees because they can't use their fancy toys without bankrupting themselves, burning down their own cities or killing their own people.

[QUOTE=LennyPenny;52739867]How well does Americas police work? Like there are so many people that keep guns to defend themselves, are cops really that bad at solving crimes that criminals can commit crimes and get away with it usually?[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court ruled back in the 90s that police departments have no duty to protect you from criminals, their primary task is to investigate the crime after it has happened. Nobody is going to defend you from bad guys except you.

This is my opinion, obviously: When you live in a society where mommy has to take multiple day jobs to cover cost of life because daddy is locked in prison for many years cause he'd rather sell weed/ rob a bank than flip burgers for sub-minimal wage to support family: their kids will suffer: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/apr/05/crime.penal[/url] The shooter's father was sentenced to 20 years prison. How many criminal people had the same fate? Never having the chance of being brought up by their own father. I've lived in the Czech Republic which has the most lenient gun control laws in Europe and can't remember any instance of a mass shooting. 78 percent of U.S.A. workers say they are living paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet - don't you think there's a certain correlation to crime?

[QUOTE=kormonster;52740133]The key thing here is that outside of infantry/small arms, the weapons the military has at their disposal are only good for mass-destruction. An A-10 can't stand on a street corner to enforce a curfew, nor can an armed tank engage rebels in densely populated/constructed areas like cities or suburbs without causing huge collateral damage. Only an idiot would dare to raze his/her own infrastructure and loyalists just to bury a few rebels. The fights would be pretty fair if the population had firearms, and potentially force a government to its knees because they can't use their fancy toys without bankrupting themselves, burning down their own cities or killing their own people.[/QUOTE] While its very different, have you seen the recent coup attempt by the turkish military? They were firing from attack helicopters. I don't think they were thinking about collateral damage when trying to overthrow the government.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740049]Then how about this. Treat firearms like we already do cars and require a registration renewal every few years.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_State_Board_of_Elections[/url] The Supreme Court ruled over 50 years ago that you can't impose a fine or tax to exercise a Constitutional right. [editline]2nd October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RobL;52740053]Has an armed rebellion against government ever been a rebellion of the majority's will rather than that of a militant minority?[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)[/url] WW2 veterans and other civilians actually went to war over corrupt poll officials.

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;52740168]While its very different, have you seen the recent coup attempt by the turkish military? They were firing from attack helicopters. I don't think they were thinking about collateral damage when trying to overthrow the government.[/QUOTE] The coup was very localized and there are some who say it was even staged or forced to find dissenters, so it's not a good example. The land mass of the United States is huge, extremely varied, and full of metropolitan areas. Any sort of insurgency or guerrilla movement that encompassed the entire country would be near impossible to stamp out, especially after massive military desertion, and your average U.S. soldier is a patriot, but in the way that he isn't going to attack civilians with a tank just because he was ordered to. The "innawoods" stuff isn't a meme either, there are already people who are already prepared for this. A localized revolt would be put out, but a modern conflict encompassing the entirety of the country would be something never before seen in modern day.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52739998]Yes the push against more thorough background checks sounds pretty stupid, but this doesn't mean pro-gun advocates have never made compromises. Several changes to gun regulation were made over the years such as: - Removing the ability to buy firearms via mail order (black powder weapons can still be shipped directly to you as in most places). - Putting an extremely prohibitive $200 tax and background checks requiring fingerprinting, passport photos and a wait time of over 6 months to buy a suppressor, short barreled weapons or machine guns. - Removing the ability of civilians to own any machine gun made after 1986, which hyperinflated the market and made them prohibitively expensive to any average person. (Most actual assault rifles cost more than a car, and certain weapons can reach over $100,000) - The Assault Weapons Ban. This is a huge reason why no one wants to negotiate anymore. I don't think anyone for guns wants to have a discussion about the topic because really we can't trust politicians not to shoehorn in dumb shit like another assault weapons ban or worse. There's only things to lose and nothing to gain. The whole thing with gun owners being defensive and feeling persecuted is not unwarranted as some of you think. The media is constantly painting gun owners as uneducated, trigger happy and irresponsible. Added onto the fact that after any mass shooting without fail, news outlets trying to push an anti gun political narrative will ask the question "why are people allowed to buy machine guns?" and continually imply we all have readily available access to military hardware and that machine guns are something you can just buy anywhere on the streets [B]which they are not[/B]. Anytime I want to go to the range to practice, I feel like I have to hide everything and get it into the car fast as possible because people are going to think I'm some horrible person for owning a weapon. At least that's the sort of message I'm getting from watching dumb politicians and the news constantly bashing guns and the people who own them. There's also a significant portion of people personally attacking gun owners on here as well. They try to blame us and gun culture by saying things like we're somehow indirectly responsible for the actions of the minority of fuckwits who abuse their rights to commit atrocities such as mass shootings. But please, go on and tell me about how I shouldn't feel persecuted in even the slightest amount.[/QUOTE] I think part of the problem is that gun owners tend to be "represented" by the loudest, worst advocates in their bloc. You tend to get a sort of media sensationalism that those in the anti-gun camp can play into because the response from the pro-gun lobby is so seemingly tone-def. No one in the mainstream media, left or right, wants to hear gun owners of any stripe being sensible. They want people clutching their ARs to their chest and screaming "You can take it from my cold, dead, hands!". That kind of thing gets great play and oddly enough it seems to be the draw for those types that treat the NRA like the Vatican. I know it's completely biased, but I come from a very conservative mid western area and even the most staunch conservatives I know are super reasonable about responses to tragedies like this until they get on social media. I think gun owners are stereotyped far too often, but there doesn't seem to be any real, visible movement in the media that's not the super corporate friendly NRA, so most people focus on the screeching hillbilly strawman.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52739895]You gonna ask the dude that just kicked your door in at 2am to patiently wait 5 minutes for the police to respond or are you gonna arm yourself to protect your property and your life?[/QUOTE] "when seconds matter police are minutes away"

[QUOTE=SoulChallenge;52740166]This is my opinion, obviously: When you live in a society where mommy has to take multiple day jobs to cover cost of life because daddy is locked in prison for many years cause he'd rather sell weed/ rob a bank than flip burgers for sub-minimal wage to support family: their kids will suffer: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/apr/05/crime.penal[/url] The shooter's father was sentenced to 20 years prison. How many criminal people had the same fate? Never having the chance of being brought up by their own father. I've lived in the Czech Republic which has the most lenient gun control laws in Europe and can't remember any instance of a mass shooting. 78 percent of U.S.A. workers say they are living paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet - don't you think there's a certain correlation to crime?[/QUOTE] The shooter was a wealthy man, allegedly. His brother says he was a wealthy poker player, accountant, and real estate owner. (he owned apartments, plural) [url]http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-attack-stephen-paddock-trnd/index.html[/url] [editline]2nd October 2017[/editline] Don't get me wrong, I think crime and poverty are definitely linked, but not in this case.

[QUOTE=Ridge;52740170][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_State_Board_of_Elections[/url] The Supreme Court ruled over 50 years ago that you can't impose a fine or tax to exercise a Constitutional right.[/QUOTE] I didn't say add a fine or a tax.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740228]I didn't say add a fine or a tax.[/QUOTE] A paid registration, such as what we have for cars, is a de facto tax. Did you mean something different?

[QUOTE=catbarf;52740239]A paid registration, such as what we have for cars, is a de facto tax. Did you mean something different?[/QUOTE] Yes, just registration in general. It's more a means to force people to get (free?) mental health screenings. It needs no added fine. (Though maybe an added tax on sales of firearms or ammunition to offset the free screening cost).

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740244]Yes, just registration in general. It's more a means to force people to get (free?) mental health screenings. It needs no added fine. (Though maybe an added tax on sales of firearms or ammunition to offset the free screening cost).[/QUOTE] Didn't he have no negative background though?

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52739334]You are aware it's an [I]explicit [/I]right to keep firearms in this country correct? The second you get rid of that it makes the path to disarming the citizenry that much easier. I get that that's probably your ideal way to deal with the situation, but it will most certainly never fly in the US.[/QUOTE] Welp, incoming 2am rant from the PoV of a Norwegian who has to deal with none of these issues: Can someone explain why there is a widespread belief that the government of the biggest first world nation in the world will overthrow the US at any second, as if that wouldn't massively destabilize the nation? And why act like the constitution is the word of god and should never be changed? (Some "purist" people seem really insane when it comes to this) The world changes, the constitution clearly has flaws like the right to bear arms that is both fueled by and breeds more paranoia in the modern US. The way I see it, parts of the constitution is clearly outdated and needs major fixing. Disarming the citizens of the US could be a good thing... if it had been done 70 years ago. It's obviously impossible today to remove all unregistered firearms around.. Guns arent a benefit to the american society other than as a luxury / novelty / tool. Guns themselves as objects/tools/utilities aren't an issue per se, but the whole nearly religious attitude and unhealthy paranoia fueled "from my cold dead hands" view makes the whole situation seem incredibly dangerous. I just wish the US would focus more on mental health and rehabilitation, and take that final step into becoming a [B]great[/B] first world country. You don't need to make guns illegal, but I believe a major attitude change around the reason for having them is sorely needed. I'd like some actual PoV's from those who have different views than me. Oh and if i'm outright wrong or stupid about some parts, i apologize.

[QUOTE=OvB;52740200]The shooter was a wealthy man, allegedly. His brother says he was a wealthy poker player, accountant, and real estate owner. (he owned apartments, plural) [url]http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-attack-stephen-paddock-trnd/index.html[/url] [editline]2nd October 2017[/editline] Don't get me wrong, I think crime and poverty are definitely linked, but not in this case.[/QUOTE] I wish not to disprove you. You're right. Still, the guy's dad was in prison and that's a big factor in a child's psychological development.

LVPD scanner spiked. Swat is about to raid one of his homes/properties

[QUOTE=kariko;52740251]Didn't he have no negative background though?[/QUOTE] Not the same thing as being mentally unstable, and a background check currently does not screen for that if undiagnosed.

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52740261]Can someone explain why there is a widespread belief that the government of the biggest first world nation in the world will overthrow the US at any second, as if that wouldn't massively destabilize the nation?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't call it widespread, but it does exist. Americans have a long-standing distrust of their government- if you've seen some of the things, especially in recent years, that our government has done, you probably understand why. It's not so much the fear that the government will go 'time 4 fascism' and immediately take over, more that people want to have some form of last-ditch recourse when the government oversteps its bounds. Like I mentioned in a previous post, it's not just about enacting revolution. An armed populace can force a police action to involve violence if the government is seriously intent on carrying out its will, which the government may be unwilling to do due to unpopularity. You can see a taste of this backlash in the response to the Keystone pipeline protests, where the protesters were considered enough of a threat that the government used serious military force to subdue them, and the backlash to images of heavily armed riot police was considerable. Long story short- we don't trust our government and we don't want to shift the balance of power towards it. [QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52740261]And why act like the constitution is the word of god and should never be changed? (Some "purist" people seem really insane when it comes to this) The world changes, the constitution clearly has flaws like the right to bear arms that is both fueled by and breeds more paranoia in the modern US. The way I see it, parts of the constitution is clearly outdated and needs major fixing.[/QUOTE] Personally, I'm all for changing the Constitution if need be. What I absolutely [I]detest[/I] is when people either A. suggest passing legislation that directly contradicts the Constitution, or B. try to claim that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it actually means by applying modern definitions and stripping out context. If you want to change the 2nd Amendment, propose a measure to change the 2nd Amendment. Don't try to weaselly violate it through a new law (see: DC's handgun ban, ruled unconstitutional in DC v. Heller) or try to claim that the 2nd was about government-run militias (that is not what the militia is, nor what 'well-regulated' meant at the time it was written). [QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52740261]Guns arent a benefit to the american society other than as a luxury / novelty / tool. [/QUOTE] That is likely not a sentiment you would hold if you lived in one of the many cities in this country where crime is high and police response rates are measured in [I]hours[/I]. American courts have repeatedly upheld that police have no responsibility [I]whatsoever[/I] to ensure your safety. Your well-being is solely your responsibility and you have to take measures to protect yourself. [QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52740261]I'd like some actual PoV's from those who have different views than me. Oh and if i'm outright wrong or stupid about some parts, i apologize.[/QUOTE] I genuinely appreciate you asking these questions, so please don't take any of the above as intended to be aggressive.

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52740261]And why act like the constitution is the word of god and should never be changed? (Some "purist" people seem really insane when it comes to this)[/QUOTE] This is one of those things where changing the Constitution isn't so much of an issue, as it is the idea of changing the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights]Bill of Rights[/url]. From what I understand, pretty much everyone agrees that you don't fuck with the Bill of Rights, because it explicitly spells out guarantees in freedoms, limitations of government, and other things of that nature.

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;52740018]Because some people will go on a thread about a horrific mass shooting involving hundreds of victims and try to make the whole thing about themselves and their guns[/QUOTE] Well sorry for being concerned about how all the knee jerk reactions and political fallout could have real world consequences which affect me directly. [QUOTE=Revenge282;52740026]And others will go on a thread about a horrific mass shooting involving hundreds of victims and try to make the whole thing about pointless and impossible gun control measures. AlbertWesker has a point, to an extent. Gun owners have gotten nothing out of these supposed instances where we are supposed to just "compromise" or "be reasonable". When actual compromises and legitimate legislature comes to the table, you will be surprised how much easier this can be.[/QUOTE] Honestly if anyone actually wanted to compromise, I'd say taking suppressors and short barreled weapons off the NFA in exchange for more thorough background checks and having a small waiting time for each firearms purchase would be a good place to start. [editline]2nd October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Action Frank;52740196]I think part of the problem is that gun owners tend to be "represented" by the loudest, worst advocates in their bloc. You tend to get a sort of media sensationalism that those in the anti-gun camp can play into because the response from the pro-gun lobby is so seemingly tone-def. No one in the mainstream media, left or right, wants to hear gun owners of any stripe being sensible. They want people clutching their ARs to their chest and screaming "You can take it from my cold, dead, hands!". That kind of thing gets great play and oddly enough it seems to be the draw for those types that treat the NRA like the Vatican. I know it's completely biased, but I come from a very conservative mid western area and even the most staunch conservatives I know are super reasonable about responses to tragedies like this until they get on social media. I think gun owners are stereotyped far too often, but there doesn't seem to be any real, visible movement in the media that's not the super corporate friendly NRA, so most people focus on the screeching hillbilly strawman.[/QUOTE] Yeah the NRA is cancer now. If anything, they're probably going to downplay this incident by saying the solution is to add MOAR GUNZ :v:

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52740261]And why act like the constitution is the word of god and should never be changed? (Some "purist" people seem really insane when it comes to this) The world changes, the constitution clearly has flaws like the right to bear arms that is both fueled by and breeds more paranoia in the modern US. The way I see it, parts of the constitution is clearly outdated and needs major fixing.[/QUOTE] It's true that some parts are outdated, but the reason it's so vehemently defended is because it's the groundwork for practically [I]all[/I] of our rights. A lot of what is in the constitution isn't so much what we can do ourselves, but what the government can not do to us. And the government is always pushing for more power, even in ways that are subversive to our rights and our constitution. If they could just waive the constitution and throw down whatever they want, we'd be hauling people to court with evidence of their guilt stolen right out of their homes. You have a slight suspicion that Drug Dealer Dave lives in this house? Send in the SWAT team, find the drugs, then arrest him. Well maybe it wasn't him, but we found an ounce of weed in his nightstand, so arrest him anyway. Anyway the concern is that the 2nd Amendment is on-par with all these other rights we treasure, and if you start tearing down one, then it's not a stretch to start taking out the others. [QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52740261]I just wish the US would focus more on mental health and rehabilitation, and take that final step into becoming a [B]great[/B] first world country. You don't need to make guns illegal, but I believe a major attitude change around the reason for having them is sorely needed.[/QUOTE] I honestly think that if we are to have guns, we should educate people on guns. Most people don't understand them, so they either don't respect them or they fear them. People that don't respect them are a danger to themselves and others, and people that fear them want to spread this fear until they have enough support to push through a ban. That said, it's quite clear healthcare in this country is awful, mental healthcare especially. Even those who want it can often not afford it, so they go without. We have a higher suicide rate because of that, than of countries with proper healthcare. [editline]2nd October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52740295]Yeah the NRA is cancer now. If anything, they're probably going to downplay this incident by saying the solution is to add MOAR GUNZ :v:[/QUOTE] As a pro-gun person, I consider the NRA useful idiots at best and a detriment to the cause at worst. Plus they like to branch out into general conservatism, which I do not like. Stick with what you know, even though you actually don't know it very well and just make supporters like me look bad.

The NRA [I]has[/I] to be conservative; it's trying to uphold an antiquated document which expressly imparts freedoms to US citizens.

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52740261]Welp, incoming 2am rant from the PoV of a Norwegian who has to deal with none of these issues: Can someone explain why there is a widespread belief that the government of the biggest first world nation in the world will overthrow the US at any second, as if that wouldn't massively destabilize the nation? And why act like the constitution is the word of god and should never be changed? (Some "purist" people seem really insane when it comes to this) The world changes, the constitution clearly has flaws like the right to bear arms that is both fueled by and breeds more paranoia in the modern US. The way I see it, parts of the constitution is clearly outdated and needs major fixing. Disarming the citizens of the US could be a good thing... if it had been done 70 years ago. It's obviously impossible today to remove all unregistered firearms around.. Guns arent a benefit to the american society other than as a luxury / novelty / tool. Guns themselves as objects/tools/utilities aren't an issue per se, but the whole nearly religious attitude and unhealthy paranoia fueled "from my cold dead hands" view makes the whole situation seem incredibly dangerous. I just wish the US would focus more on mental health and rehabilitation, and take that final step into becoming a [B]great[/B] first world country. You don't need to make guns illegal, but I believe a major attitude change around the reason for having them is sorely needed. I'd like some actual PoV's from those who have different views than me. Oh and if i'm outright wrong or stupid about some parts, i apologize.[/QUOTE] I'm going to assume you can at least sorta understand why some people want to keep them around for self-defense and the like, whether you do or don't agree with that line of thought. So I reckon I'll try and address the point that is probably the most foreign to you, and certainly sounds crazy to a decent chunk of people reading this (but the replies should be interesting so I'll go for it): I don't think its super far-fetched to assume that, eventually, not necessarily now, not necessarily soon, or in a while, or in the next few generations, but sometime in the far future, the US (or whatever the US turns in to, maybe) will have to face either a: 1. Totalitarian Government attempting to subjugate the citizens of the nation. 2. Outside forces looking to annex/take over/etc. for resources, land, whatever. Both of these things are laughably ludicrous things to think could happen any time soon. Anyone who genuinely thinks the current US Gov't would become tyrannical is a crackpot. As for outside forces, well, I don't think any combination of forces can contest the US Navy and reach US land. That being said- I think there's a strong possibility that from now, to whenever our country/the world ends, that it COULD happen, for one reason or another. In that eventuality, I would like the citizens of Future US or etc. to have whatever they need to resist either vehemently. Whether that was Muskets and Kentucky Rifles in the 1700s, ARs and AKs in the present, or phased plasma rifles in the 40-watt range and hull-mounted plasma accelerators in the far and distant future. That's putting aside the practicals of today, which I think can be addressed without robbing citizens of what is literally a cornerstone of the most venerable constitution on the planet. I honestly think there are plenty of ways to bring down suicides and gang violence, which are the biggest contributors to the "Gun Violence" statistics, that can be applied without so much as glancing at firearms law. Idealistically, what I want is this: An America where my grandkid's grandkid's grandkids can wake up, go to work, earn fair pay for fair work, do whatever the hell they want in their free time,, vote for whom they want, say what they want, own what they want, and be whatever it is that they want to be if they put work in. That's the goal. I think that goal is plenty achievable while letting them keep a rifle by the fireplace or in the hovertruck for petty criminals, ayys, or other existential threats to the future US, and I see no reason why they should be deprived of that right because it's the simplest way to cut down on the problems of today by some well meaning, but in my opinion, short sighted/misinformed people. I honestly wouldn't want to be looked back at as the generation that began voting away citizens rights to self determination, and I think thats the road that picking and choosing which parts of the constitution and laws are applicable sets a precedent for.

Didn't some huge corporation or the Koch Bros try to alter the constitution not too long ago and basically everyone threw a shitfit?

You know, the whole argument for the 2nd amendment being there to keep Americans safe from a totalitarian government is completely nulled when the most fascist, xenophobic, bigoted, greedy, and anti-American government in the complete history of our nation was voted in and is actively being fueled by a party that is so heavily [i]for[/i] the 2nd amendment, and does not give a damn about any freedoms for women, gays, religious minorities, the poor, or any sensible American that gives a shit about their healthcare. And yet consistently this government demonstrates day in and day out every particular definition of an oppressive government that the 2nd amendment is supposed to defend American citizens against, [i]especially[/i] considering this government has been proven to be in bed with a hostile foreign power that America was on the bring of nuclear war with a generation ago. So please, enlighten us what kind of government is the 2nd amendment supposed to defend us against?

[QUOTE=Bradyns;52740380]The NRA [I]has[/I] to be conservative; it's trying to uphold an antiquated document which expressly imparts freedoms to US citizens.[/QUOTE] I meant as in they typically side with the Republican Party on issues unrelated to gun control.

is there a motivation behind this? or simply 'just because'?

[QUOTE=Da Big Man;52740441]You know, the whole argument for the 2nd amendment being there to keep Americans safe from a totalitarian government is completely nulled when the most fascist, xenophobic, bigoted, greedy, and anti-American government in the complete history of our nation was voted in and is actively being fueled by a party that is so heavily [i]for[/i] the 2nd amendment, and does not give a damn about any freedoms for women, gays, religious minorities, the poor, or any sensible American that gives a shit about their healthcare. And yet consistently this government demonstrates day in and day out every particular definition of an oppressive government that the 2nd amendment is supposed to defend American citizens against, [i]especially[/i] considering this government has been proven to be in bed with a hostile foreign power that America was on the bring of nuclear war with a generation ago. So please, enlighten us what kind of government is the 2nd amendment supposed to defend us against?[/QUOTE] I'd probably draw the line somewhere around: A. Government agents or hired hands start the wholesale slaughtering of anyone they don't like (Stalin's purges, Hitler's Holocaust, etc...) B. Mass disarmament and subjugation of the population (sometimes a warning of option A occurring) C. A foreign enemy stupid enough to attempt a conventional invasion. D. Shit hits the fan during a natural disaster and the rule of law cannot be maintained (which is increasingly more likely thanks to global warming) Ok well option D is less about government, but it's probably the most likely scenario where having firearms would help the individual by a lot.

[QUOTE=Spectre1406;52740504]is there a motivation behind this? or simply 'just because'?[/QUOTE] It'll probably be a little while before a motive is released. Unless he left a manifesto it'll take a bit for investigators to comb through his home, computers, emails, etc. Even then, they probably wont release it for a little bit until things are a bit more clear cut.