It's hard to compare states since it's simple to take guns from one place to another. When comparing countries, however, it's a little different. I reference the abstract of a paper in my post which touches on some of that. It seems the U.S. is unique in terms of wealthy countries dealing with this issue.
In this case, no gun would have helped unless someone happened to have a sniper rifle they could shoot back with or bazooka or rocket launcher or whatever... Essentially just owning and carrying a gun for self defensive would not have helped in this case (or many others).
Understanding that it was guns that also ended this what is missing from most peoples description.
That's a fair point, but as I mentioned in my post, there's a place for highly trained professionals (such as Detroit Threat Management) and a place for everyone else. Even then, lethal force isn't always the only option.
Have they conclusively determined yet if he took his own life or was taken out by the police? I've heard conflicting reports.
Granted. Education and training is crucial. I would dare say there are plenty of private gun owners who have just as much if not more time behind the sights than LEOs. Also, still, as you stated, lethal force is not the only option however in any case where the subject is clearly threatening human lives, it is. My opinion.
They have ruled it as a suicide, but there are many differing theories on this.
Okay, I think something like a bazooka or rocket launcher might be a little extreme. lol Being that the Las Vegas area was already a "gun free zone" and the shooter knew he would have no opposition from anyone that wasn't also breaking the law, it was up to law enforcement and there painfully slow response time to slow him down. A fully automatic rifle shoots 6 rounds per second, any amount of time at that rate of fire is painfully slow. That is also a good reason to use the 32nd floor as his point of attack, takes that much more time for them to respond after he watches them all arrive. On the other hand, if Las Vegas was as free as the constitutions 2nd amendment was designed, there could have been plenty of hunting rifles in the back of all of those "Country Music Loving Fans" trucks that might have provided an instant opposition to the situation before it ever began, which brings us back to the Texas vs Illinois scenario. Even if he decided to proceed, knowing the armed public could easily retaliate, the oppositions long or "sniper" rifle could have made the situation considerably different. He was shooting a 223, there are plenty of hunting rifles that can easily mach the distance he was shooting from, including the 223, a very common caliber for a hunting rifle. When a snipers nest starts taking fire, the sniper has to either eliminate the threat instantly, or duck for cover. My thought would defiantly have been for him to duck for cover being there would have been way more than one threat to have to deal with, from who knows how many different locations. The Chinese wouldn't attack the U.S. on the ground in WWII because they knew there "would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" as Yakomato stated after the conflict. The same would have applied in this situation if the "Law" didn't infringe on the peoples rights in that area.
The .223 is not a common hunting round, unless you're talking about varmints and squirrels. While it is legal for deer in many jurisdictions, it isn't a good round, as it has been designed to wound enemies, and cause enemy forces to spend their resources treating wounded, rather than fighting. Deer are about the same size as soldiers, so tend to be wounded by the round, rather than dropped in their tracks.
It's hard to say the same about the .30-06.
Folks that have never been under fire, have never had to disarm someone threatening them with a firearm, and have never calculated a ballistics table, are poor sources of advice regarding what works, and what doesn't in such situations.
Also, the first threat to the shooter was an unarmed man. He did the right thing, which was to attempt to engage the shooter point blank, where his firearms couldn't provide much advantage.
IIRC, that was when the shooting stopped. I could be wrong. However, if he'd been armed, he could have stopped the shooting for certain then.
The balance of your remarks are right on.
Stay free!
I heard, without a doubt, what sounded like a full auto AK-47 or other 7.62 600 RPM weapon in use. No one knows for sure what it was, but it sure sounded like an AK-47 to me. Other's have suggested it was a belt fed 240. It's more likely, in my opinion, for it to have been an AK though. The full auto I heard was not JUST a bump fired AR.