Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (57410)	2/21/2018 10:13:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362335

Usually. Not sure I'd say "almost always". In cases were there was no clear close connection there seems to be a strong tend towards unarmed targets. Of course you could make a point about small sample sizes for such cases.

To: combjelly who wrote (57410)	2/21/2018 10:52:59 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By one_less Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362335

The Vegas shooter clearly spent a great deal of time in Vegas, but he specifically searched out (and found) the softest possible target. He had abandoned previously selected targets. But the one he found was pretty much perfect if your objective is to maximize carnage. There are 20 or more hotels on that strip, with tons of people walking around 24/7. He chose carefully. Orlando? Sandy Hook? I think you're making a very basic error in assuming that just because people shoot up places they're familiar with (e.g., schools) it is because they want to kill those specific students. Sometimes that is true no doubt; other times, it is the place they could easily get to, or the softest of soft targets (i.e., they know their way around, where various people will be at a given time of day, that there are no other guns in the place). The country is going to make some mistakes based on emotion instead of reason. Whether it will be damaging? No idea. But soft targets are a substantial piece of problem, and it looks like we're going off the deep end to avoid having to deal with it. It means more kids have to die before the public figures it out. Maybe ten years of additional shootings before some politician says, "Oh, maybe we fucked up."