Jump to content

Las Vegas Shooting


Captain Karnage
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

18 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I said that was fine.  But there is no point in speculating that gun control would have done anything.  There are many different ways he could have gotten several fully automatic guns.  It is not known if these guns were obtained as automatics or if they were modified to be fully-automatic.  No one knows.  So getting political and saying that a lack of gun control is the cause of this attack when that is not even known at this time is ridiculous.  Hell, it could come out that he got all his guns from Mexico and Trump's border wall would have stopped this.  Who knows???  Same with the idea that ISIS is claiming responsibility.  They do that all the time, who knows if this is true?  There's no point in talking about what should be done in response to speculation.

The only political thing I will say is thank God we don't have a president who has yet to blame the shooter, but blamed the NRA twice.  Thank god we don't have a president that asked people to not get political and the immediately got political.  And FYI Clinton, silencers don't make guns silent...

 

Blaming the shooter goes without saying, dude. I'd prefer tangible policy change, as Clinton seems to be suggesting here, to meaningless platitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Blaming the shooter goes without saying, dude. I'd prefer tangible policy change, as Clinton seems to be suggesting here, to meaningless platitudes.

Same. The victims are dead and there's nothing now we can do for them. The time to help them was after the last mass shooting; when we did nothing. what we can do now is MAYBE make some moves to save the would-be victims of the next one. (we won't)

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DisobeyedCargo said:

Unfortunately, your right. We have maybe a week at most to discuss this before we just don't care anymore. The problem is we are not going to come to an agreement over something as big as gun control in just one week. We need to dedicate serious dicussion time to a subject like this so these horrible shootings don't continue to happen or st least happen less frequently 

I remember when Obama suggested  about removing the constitution of owning a weapon or something after a mass shooting at a school a few years ago, our media showed Americans throwing themselves at gun stores to quickly buy weapons because of the fear of losing that right.

Yup, it will definately will take more than one week.

Edited by Nym
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If America implements gun control, it would be turning its back on its origins. America is because it took up arms from frontiersmen protesting unfair taxation. A ban on guns means that American citizens essentially no longer value the defining traits of our country, and desecrate the sacrifice of everyone who fought to defend them. Unlike Japan, the UK, and in some cases Germany and Australia, America has guns so ingrained into their culture that being without them leaves the impression of susceptibility to oppression that we initially formed to combat. This is a deep and complex problem, exacerbated by people like Hillary Clinton refusing to educate themselves on what guns and gun paraphernalia actually do, instead wondering why Joe schmo has a scary black rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus this whole situation reminds me of the nightclub shooting in Florida a year ago. The nightclub is fifteen miles from where I live, seeing a street I visit time to time on national news, brings chills to my spine. In the college where I'm studying, there is a  memorial for those who attended and died. I personally know how awful these events are to a community. Still people on the street wearing Orlando Strong t - shirts, and permanent scar to Orlando, Florida. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

If America implements gun control, it would be turning its back on its origins. 

...our origins are that of a pre-industrial agrarian society with no state police or ability to move word of an attack faster then the speed of horseback. And where the most dangerous weapons available for personal use were muskets that an exceptionally skilled operator could use to fire off about one shot every 20 seconds. There's a fine line between abandoning our origins and outgrowing them. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

If America implements gun control, it would be turning its back on its origins. America is because it took up arms from frontiersmen protesting unfair taxation. A ban on guns means that American citizens essentially no longer value the defining traits of our country, and desecrate the sacrifice of everyone who fought to defend them. Unlike Japan, the UK, and in some cases Germany and Australia, America has guns so ingrained into their culture that being without them leaves the impression of susceptibility to oppression that we initially formed to combat. This is a deep and complex problem, exacerbated by people like Hillary Clinton refusing to educate themselves on what guns and gun paraphernalia actually do, instead wondering why Joe schmo has a scary black rifle.

Alright. Let's turn our back on our origins. This logic would have Japan still dominated by Samurai.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Same. The victims are dead and there's nothing now we can do for them. The time to help them was after the last mass shooting; when we did nothing. what we can do now is MAYBE make some moves to save the would-be victims of the next one. (we won't)

Actually there is something we can do for them.  We can encourage people to donate blood which hospitals need for over 500 injured.  Which has been mentioned less in this thread than gun control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

this shit has been politicised for years and should be

there's a reason that resolution was relatively quick in the UK when the Dunblane Massacre happened in 1996 and 16 children and a teacher were killed.

or when the same happened in École Polytechnique in Canada. The same happened for Australia because of the Port Arthur massacre. In all of these cases stricter gun laws were introduced directly after as a result of these.

I don't really know if those guns the perpetrator had were legal or not but this is always the tactic to kick it further down the line so it never gets addressed. Meanwhile, in other countries they actually bothered to have a swift resolution through the legal system.

"but my freedoms," they cried.

This shit goes above the realms of common sense. It's not even worth mentioning any more. Just let the USA keep shooting itself up, and the rest of the world will continue watch on with palms over faces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Alright. Let's turn our back on our origins. This logic would have Japan still dominated by Samurai.

Japan:2500 years old

USA: <250 years old

By the time we get to the point that our founding is ancient history, humanity will either be dead or light years away from Earth. We are still a baby country compared to our contemporaries in the West, and even more so in the East. Japan was dominated for 1000 years by the samurai. Why shouldn't the US celebrate the instrument of their sovereignty for at least 1/4 of that time? The only reason that the US would consider gun control is if an armed group killed the same amount of people that 9/11 or Pearl Harbor did, and that won't happen because the amount of communication necessary for something like that tends to tip off the NSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Why shouldn't the US celebrate the instrument of their sovereignty for at least 1/4 of that time?

This is sarcasm, right? I have a hard time telling...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Res said:

This is sarcasm, right? I have a hard time telling...

Yea I don't really know where he's going with that....

 

That being said, there's a misconception that the right to bear arms has something to do with self defense.  It doesn't actually.  It's to prevent things like Nazi Germany in a hypothetical where the gov't takes over and commits mass genocide.  It sounds ridiculous to insinuate that something like this could happen in America today but I'm sure people thought Germany would never commit genocide on a governmental level.  When you take away guns, it is a symbol that the government has unlimited power over it's citizens.  I don' think that aspect of our culture is worth losing and I don't think this instance suggests otherwise. 

There is currently no evidence that these guns were modified and not automatic when they were obtained.  Until there is, this shooting is not a valid argument in the gun control debate which is why I think people need to get their facts straight until they point fingers at the NRA.  There are other shootings that can be used, but at the moment this is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I don't think that "too few guns" was a significant reason why the Nazi regime was able to murder as many people as they did. Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ping said:

...I don't think that "too few guns" was a significant reason why the Nazi regime was able to murder as many people as they did. Seriously.

Of course the Jews wouldn't have won against the Nazis if they had guns.  But who knows, maybe if Nazis knew people had guns when they went to butcher or capture them they wouldn't have risked it.  It's a counterfactual argument used by the right much like "this would have been prevented if we had gun control" is a counterfactual argument from the left. 

Still, if you think that people could not win against government with guns, look at the American Revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lushen said:

Yea I don't really know where he's going with that....

 

That being said, there's a misconception that the right to bear arms has something to do with self defense.  It doesn't actually.  It's to prevent things like Nazi Germany in a hypothetical where the gov't takes over and commits mass genocide.  It sounds ridiculous to insinuate that something like this could happen in America today but I'm sure people thought Germany would never commit genocide on a governmental level.  When you take away guns, it is a symbol that the government has unlimited power over it's citizens.  I don' think that aspect of our culture is worth losing and I don't think this instance suggests otherwise. 

There is currently no evidence that these guns were modified and not automatic when they were obtained.  Until there is, this shooting is not a valid argument in the gun control debate which is why I think people need to get their facts straight until they point fingers at the NRA.  There are other shootings that can be used, but at the moment this is not one of them.

This argument in particular is nonsensical for several reasons. First of all, Nazi Germany had the support of the general population, and kept the Holocaust mostly under wraps; sure, people knew that SOMETHING was going on but most didn't want to dig that deep. If Germany had had guns legalized, you would have seen the people with guns in favor of the government vastly outnumber people not supporting the government. Resistance would have failed spectacularly. Because, in general, for a regime like Nazi Germany to take over in the first place mostly democratically, THEY NEED THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE. Your armed citizenry would have shot Communists, not Nazis.

Secondly, Hitler's rise to power is very much the exception in terms of the rise of dictators. Lenin, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Mao- they all came into power through VIOLENT INSURRECTION, made possible by the breakdown of rule of law caused by violence. Pro gun advocates making this argument often assume that only the good guys will have guns, and it assumes that the bad guys will use subterfuge, not violence, to seize power. History has shown this is not the case.

Edit: The American a Revolution was not nearly as popular or bottom up as propaganda would have you believe. The Americans were getting defeated until actual professional military help in the form of Baron Von Steuben and the French came. The American Revolution could not have succeeded, further, without the backing and planning of the Continental Congress.

Edited by blah the Prussian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blah the Prussian said:

Secondly, Hitler's rise to power is very much the exception in terms of the rise of dictators. Lenin, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Mao- they all came into power through VIOLENT INSURRECTION, made possible by the breakdown of rule of law caused by violence. Pro gun advocates making this argument often assume that only the good guys will have guns, and it assumes that the bad guys will use subterfuge, not violence, to seize power. History has shown this is not the case.

This is particularly hysterical because the left have a habit of comparing Trump to Hitler which would suggest that America is being led by a dictator right now.  And one of the "breakdown of rule of law" was the abolishment of gun rights in Germany prior to Nazi Germany.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook

History (and current events) actually shows us that the more power the government has over its people, the more likely they are to be corrupt and murder it's citizens.  Many revolutions in countries in the middle east have "THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE" and the government just gases them.  Taking guns away from Americans undermines what it means to be an American - that the government does not have unlimited power over its people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lushen said:

This is particularly hysterical because the left have a habit of comparing Trump to Hitler which would suggest that America is being led by a dictator right now.  And one of the "breakdown of rule of law" was the abolishment of gun rights in Germany prior to Nazi Germany.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook

History (and current events) actually shows us that the more power the government has over its people, the more likely they are to be corrupt and murder it's citizens.  Many revolutions in countries in the middle east have "THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE" and the government just gases them.  Taking guns away from Americans undermines what it means to be an American - that the government does not have unlimited power over its people. 

Yeah man, I was saying that Nazi Germany was the exception in terms of dictatorships because they siezed power entirely legally. If a dictatorship was going to come to power anyway giving everyone guns just means that it will come to power through military force, which means a civil war, which likely means even more death and suffering. Overall the message that guns are needed to allow the people to rebel is a terrible, terrible message to send, because it encourages people to rebel whenever the government does something they don't like, which is unworkable. When you legitimize violence as a means of enforcing political will, which is what this argument essentially does, it NEVER stops at fighting government tyranny. Overall I support the maintnence of the state's monopoly on the initiation of the use of force because history shows that, contrary to popular wisdom the biggest threat to freedom is not the government but violent revolution from below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Of course the Jews wouldn't have won against the Nazis if they had guns.  But who knows, maybe if Nazis knew people had guns when they went to butcher or capture them they wouldn't have risked it.  It's a counterfactual argument used by the right much like "this would have been prevented if we had gun control" is a counterfactual argument from the left. 

Still, if you think that people could not win against government with guns, look at the American Revolution.

Yeah, what blah said. Hitler managed to seize control over Germany because of many factors - public support, splintered opposition (the social democrats and the commies hated each other), people underestimating Hitler both in terms of his agenda ("surely, he'll be more reasonable once he's the chancellor") and political skills and ruthlessness.

You might now that some jews were actually saved from the annihilation camps - not by force, but by hiding them (like Anne Frank, to take a famous example, even though she was found and murdered later) or by political shrewdness (e.g. Oskar Schindler). Do you seriously think the Nazis would have tolerated someone who would not only openly oppose them, but also use weapons to do so? Do you really think that the difference in power between the US army and armed citizens is as small as the difference was between English and American forces in the revolutionary war? Come on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ping said:

Yeah, what blah said. Hitler managed to seize control over Germany because of many factors - public support, splintered opposition (the social democrats and the commies hated each other), people underestimating Hitler both in terms of his agenda ("surely, he'll be more reasonable once he's the chancellor") and political skills and ruthlessness.

Yep.  And the first thing he did was get rid of guns because he knew after guns are taken away the movement towards dictatorship was complete.

Anyways, I still think this thread isn't an appropriate place to debate gun control.  As I said, there is still no evidence that any parts from these guns were purchased legally so making more guns illegal would not have done shit.  For those that don't understand, I will provide to you some imagery.

Spoiler

DLJiv1IUQAA_vuC.jpg

 

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lushen said:

Yep.  And the first thing he did was get rid of guns because he knew after guns are taken away the movement towards dictatorship was complete.

Anyways, I still think this thread isn't an appropriate place to debate gun control.  As I said, there is still no evidence that any parts from these guns were purchased legally so making more guns illegal would not have done shit.  For those that don't understand, I will provide to you some imagery.

  Reveal hidden contents

DLJiv1IUQAA_vuC.jpg

 

Well, actually, no. The first thing he did was pass the Enabling Act. Lushen, I've studied the rise of the Nazis on a fairly academic level. I've read biographies of Hitler by serious, professional historians, like Alan Bullock. You don't see serious histories of the Nazi regime making a big deal of their crackdown on gun ownership. It's almost as if it wasn't actually a significant step they took to take power at all, and its role has been overemphasized due to modern politics...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lushen said:

And FYI Clinton, silencers don't make guns silent...

No, but they'd do the trick if you're goal is to shoot up a CONCERT. I should think everybody there is at least a little distracted to not notice the people running and falling over to the right of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

No, but they'd do the trick if you're goal is to shoot up a CONCERT. I should think everybody there is at least a little distracted to not notice the people running and falling over to the right of them.

Inaccurate. The sound of silencers on large weapons is barely reduced.  It would still have been loader than a jackhammer.  Additionally, most people thought the sound was fireworks and only started to panic after they saw people who were actually shot, the music stopped playing, and you could hear people screaming.  The other misconception is that silencers would have made it more difficult to detect where the shooter.  While true generally, this is also false because most people thought there were multiple shooters so its clear they had no idea what was going on despite the lack of silencers.

Hillary Clinton's comments were entirely inaccurate and disrespectful and just shows you how politically motivated she is.  It also shows why you shouldn't jump to conclusions until you have facts.  There is no possible way to defend Clinton's tweets in response to last night.  I don't need to imagine what would have happened if the shooter had a silencer, because I can see it.  It's exactly what did happen.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Well, actually, no. The first thing he did was pass the Enabling Act. Lushen, I've studied the rise of the Nazis on a fairly academic level. I've read biographies of Hitler by serious, professional historians, like Alan Bullock. You don't see serious histories of the Nazi regime making a big deal of their crackdown on gun ownership. It's almost as if it wasn't actually a significant step they took to take power at all, and its role has been overemphasized due to modern politics...

...Posts like this make me wish this site had a "Like" button...

Lets be completely honest about what is being argued here. This is not "The Way things are Done in America" vs. "The Way Things Were Done in Nazi Germany."

This is "The Way Things are Done in America" vs. "The Way Things are Done in Canada, England, Western Europe, Scandinavia, East Asia, Australia, Israel..."

We are the only first world country that holds the right to own and operate firearms free from government interference to be a guiding principle of public policy.

We are the only first world country whose citizen's routinely die from gun violence, and where prevalent gun violence is just accepted as a condition of life in the country.

It is a cultural fiction based upon an outdated piece of revolutionary era political theorycraft that this state of affairs is necessary for the existence of liberal democracy; that government cannot work for the people without perpetual fear of armed insurrection. State institutions in the modern era have developed to the point that advanced democracies resolve their disputes through elections and lawsuits; not through Civil Wars.

Our laws are what they are because we--as a county--have determined the public interest in bringing gun violence down the minuscule levels of comparably advanced democracies is inferior to the individual right to keep and bare arms, as set forth at the time of The Founding.

And that's all there is to it. We could do what other countries do and get the same results; there's no mystery about what choice-of-policy yields what results. The numbers are unambiguous.

We don't want to do it. We'd rather have our guns.

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...