When you consider the carnage he could have created with a hijacked, loaded semi tractor trailer at 60 miles per hour, people should be thankful he chose firearms........
You are absolutely right.
I was thinking more of a suicide mission in one of the aircraft he supposedly owned.
“When you consider the carnage he could have created with a hijacked, loaded semi tractor trailer at 60 miles per hour, people should be thankful he chose firearms.....”
He owned an airplane, could have taken off from Vegas airport loaded with gasoline and maybe TATP and crashed into the crowd.
I hate to say this, but looking at it from an engineering standpoint, firearms might actually be a limiting factor. I wondered when the first big concert/mass assembly attack was going to happen with a firearm. This evil a$$hole was clever enough to add attacking from a height, where locating him and returning fire were made much more difficult. And he had a lair were firearms and ammunition could be stockpiled. Such a combination of events may not happen again. Even so, he killed only 58 people. I say this with an eye toward macro events, and understanding with humble sorrow how bad it sounds.
Unfortunately, the science of killing people is not in it's infancy. Militaries know that riflemen hold ground, but to really get efficient at killing you need to bring in artillery or air power.
Guns are demonized, but in that morbid list of criminal mass killing events, firearms are behind kinetic energy(aircraft and trucks), arson, and bombings. Banning guns and ignoring underlying causes will make our criminals turn to more efficient methods, while taking the most effective defensive measures away from law-abiding people.