Jump to content

Lead guitarist of the band that was playing in Vegas posted this


Liberty
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There really isn't a reason for any non-active military citizen to have access to anything that carries more than maybe 6-10 rounds to a clip. There is also no reason for anyone to need to possess more than maybe 5 firearms. And even that is stretching it.

 

Chris Rock actually had a great idea in one of his early 2000's comedy skits. Make bullets $5,000 a pop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really isn't a reason for any non-active military citizen to have access to anything that carries more than maybe 6-10 rounds to a clip. There is also no reason for anyone to need to possess more than maybe 5 firearms. And even that is stretching it.

 

Chris Rock actually had a great idea in one of his early 2000's comedy skits. Make bullets $5,000 a pop.

 

+1!  You could still allow gun ranges to have those weapons, so those that want to get their jollies off can.  You just can't have the average consumer buying those guns, and possibly using them on the unsuspecting public. 

 

The argument is going to be where do you draw the line.  Even an AR-15 can do significant damage in a closed off area with multiple clips and multiple shooters.  Do you reduce it to handguns, shotguns and no more than 10 round rifles?  I mean for all intent and purposes, that should be good enough for the actual hunters.  If you need more than that, well...that's a problem!

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really isn't a reason for any non-active military citizen to have access to anything that carries more than maybe 6-10 rounds to a clip. There is also no reason for anyone to need to possess more than maybe 5 firearms. And even that is stretching it.

 

Chris Rock actually had a great idea in one of his early 2000's comedy skits. Make bullets $5,000 a pop.

 

+1!  You could still allow gun ranges to have those weapons, so those that want to get their jollies off can.  You just can't have the average consumer buying those guns, and possibly using them on the unsuspecting public. 

 

The argument is going to be where do you draw the line.  Even an AR-15 can do significant damage in a closed off area with multiple clips and multiple shooters.  Do you reduce it to handguns, shotguns and no more than 10 round rifles?  I mean for all intent and purposes, that should be good enough for the actual hunters.  If you need more than that, well...that's a problem!

 

Cheers!

 

The events in Las Vegas yesterday were certainly tragic.  But if you look back at the 20th century and ask yourself what were the most atrocious acts of violence committed against humanity, by far the clear answer is genocide perpetrated by large state governments (e.g., China, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, etc.) - to the tune of approximately 150 million people having been murdered (not including armed combatants in the world wars).  This genocide occurred in large part after the citizens were forcibly disarmed by those same governments.  The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or even defense against crime.  The Second Amendment was put in place because the Founding Fathers understood that the greatest threat to life and liberty was from large central governments.  I know availability bias speaks heavily to what happened yesterday.  But as Stalin said, a few murders are a tragedy, a million murders is a statistic.  Citizens should be allowed to own firearms sufficient to deter and prevent government tyranny.  Perhaps this is a rifle with a maximum of 10 rounds as suggested above - I don't know.  But emotional appeals for "more gun control" are largely useless without specifying what those controls would be, and how such controls would balance the desire to prevent tragedies like last night vs. the need for an armed citizenry to deter the millions of deaths that historically occur when citizens are forcibly disarmed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the same BS arguments come up every time this happens.... Fight against government genocide. Yes if the US government decides to go genocidal on it's people it's gonna be accountants with AR-15s that will take down the US military.

 

A citizenry with guns would have prevented Stalin from committing genocide by fighting the Red Army? The German armed forces had a formidable arsenal well in excess of what an armed citizenry might posses and they didn't fare very well. But a bunch of professors with handguns and rifles would have succeeded Wehrmacht failed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really isn't a reason for any non-active military citizen to have access to anything that carries more than maybe 6-10 rounds to a clip. There is also no reason for anyone to need to possess more than maybe 5 firearms. And even that is stretching it.

 

Chris Rock actually had a great idea in one of his early 2000's comedy skits. Make bullets $5,000 a pop.

 

+1!  You could still allow gun ranges to have those weapons, so those that want to get their jollies off can.  You just can't have the average consumer buying those guns, and possibly using them on the unsuspecting public. 

 

The argument is going to be where do you draw the line.  Even an AR-15 can do significant damage in a closed off area with multiple clips and multiple shooters.  Do you reduce it to handguns, shotguns and no more than 10 round rifles?  I mean for all intent and purposes, that should be good enough for the actual hunters.  If you need more than that, well...that's a problem!

 

Cheers!

 

The events in Las Vegas yesterday were certainly tragic.  But if you look back at the 20th century and ask yourself what were the most atrocious acts of violence committed against humanity, by far the clear answer is genocide perpetrated by large state governments (e.g., China, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, etc.) - to the tune of approximately 150 million people having been murdered (not including armed combatants in the world wars).  This genocide occurred in large part after the citizens were forcibly disarmed by those same governments.  The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or even defense against crime.  The Second Amendment was put in place because the Founding Fathers understood that the greatest threat to life and liberty was from large central governments.  I know availability bias speaks heavily to what happened yesterday.  But as Stalin said, a few murders are a tragedy, a million murders is a statistic.  Citizens should be allowed to own firearms sufficient to deter and prevent government tyranny.  Perhaps this is a rifle with a maximum of 10 rounds as suggested above - I don't know.  But emotional appeals for "more gun control" are largely useless without specifying what those controls would be, and how such controls would balance the desire to prevent tragedies like last night vs. the need for an armed citizenry to deter the millions of deaths that historically occur when citizens are forcibly disarmed.

 

I don’t see how having an “armed militia” would be of any use. If a tyranical government rose to power in the US and the US Army was on the side of the despots, no armed militia would stand a chance. And if the army was on the side of the people, no armed militia would be necessary. And what makes you so sure that an armed militia wouldn’t become the brown-shirts of the government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as we know, the shooter was not a psychiatric case, nor a radical Islamist.  Until further info is available, he best fits the profile of that Washington DC shooter who attacked the Republicans at baseball practice.  This shooter may be an anti-Trumper shooting at what he might believe to be a crowd of predominantly Republicans/pro-Trumpers (country western music fans).  Maybe trying to start a civil war.

 

The argument is going to be where do you draw the line.

 

Strict gun confiscation from inner city-types who get guns for offensive purposes, i.e., Democrats.  Allow guns for those who use it strictly for hunting and self-defense, i.e., Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as we know, the shooter was not a psychiatric case, nor a radical Islamist.  Until further info is available, he best fits the profile of that Washington DC shooter who attacked the Republicans at baseball practice.  This shooter may be an anti-Trumper shooting at what he might believe to be a crowd of predominantly Republicans/pro-Trumpers (country western music fans).  Maybe trying to start a civil war.

 

The argument is going to be where do you draw the line.

 

Strict gun confiscation from inner city-types who get guns for offensive purposes, i.e., Democrats.  Allow guns for those who use it strictly for hunting and self-defense, i.e., Republicans.

Seriously dude? What's wrong with you? This is a republican vs. democrat thing? Or an inner city vs good country folk thing?

 

Firstly, when someone picks up a bunch of weapons to go shoot hundreds of people I think by definition that someone falls into the category of someone who's not of sound mind.

 

Secondly, this was a old white guy living in Mesquite Nevada (population 17,496) . Exactly the type of person your brilliant gun control plan would ensure has access to guns.

 

Thirdly, while nobody know whether politics have anything to do with this or not. The crazy guy in DC was politically motivated and this is why the rhetoric of you need guns to stand up to tyrannical government is so stupid. Whenever some guy thinks that the gov't is being tyrannical based on whatever thoughts are rattling around in his head he'll pick up some guns and shoot some people. Cause that's what he's supposed to do right? See the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strict gun confiscation from inner city-types who get guns for offensive purposes, i.e., Democrats.  Allow guns for those who use it strictly for hunting and self-defense, i.e., Republicans.

 

I think it's really cool that with a population of 320+ million there are only two types of people in the US.  It makes all of the arguments so pithy and fruitful.  No grey areas, no nuance --- just republicans vs. democrats.  Sure simplifies the decision tree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the same BS arguments come up every time this happens.... Fight against government genocide. Yes if the US government decides to go genocidal on it's people it's gonna be accountants with AR-15s that will take down the US military.

 

A citizenry with guns would have prevented Stalin from committing genocide by fighting the Red Army? The German armed forces had a formidable arsenal well in excess of what an armed citizenry might posses and they didn't fare very well. But a bunch of professors with handguns and rifles would have succeeded Wehrmacht failed?

 

You should study your history a little better.  In general, a country's military force has been very reluctant to fire on its own people.  Instead, state governments that have committed genocide have generally relied on forcibly disarming the people coupled with a small amount of secret police and the use of terror.  Think about the French Revolution - the French army theoretically could have murdered a large number of French citizens and stopped the revolution, but they joined with the people.  When ordered to fire on their own citizens, militaries rarely do so, especially in the face of a large scale uprising.

 

The Red Army would most likely have NOT fired on its own people.  Stalin was deathly afraid of the possibility of citizens resisting his rule - hence his ruthless campaign of terror.  An armed populace in Russia taking out large portions of the secret police (when they came knocking on the door at midnight to take people away to the gulag) would have changed the course of history.

 

And no, I would not trust professors to be the ones leading the way.  But there are still enough people in this country who would fight for their liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would make sense to outlaw the bump stock he used which while not technically fully auto, it very nearly accomplishes the same thing.

 

That said, I find it very naïve to think that gun laws would have stopped this individual. He clearly put a lot of thought, time and money into his heinous actions. If there hadn't been a firearm on the planet he would have found an alternative plan. He was a pilot which leads to obvious alternatives, or he might of used a bomb or a vehicle.

 

When we get hung up on the methods we lose freedoms and extend our airport wait times chasing a demon that has shifted to other strategies. These things are spawned by mental health issues and/or extremist ideologies. The easy solution will never work, the proper solutions are tough. The media and politicians predictably favor "taking action" and attack the symptoms without ever dealing with the underlying diseases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

genocide perpetrated by large state governments (e.g., China, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, etc.)

 

A citizenry with guns would have prevented Stalin from committing genocide by fighting the Red Army?

 

I know this is a huge tangent, but Stalin's purges were not genocide by any stretch. Also, US prison population right now is higher per capita than at peak of Gulag system under Stalin.

 

Back to subject -- I agree that civilians with AR-15s are not gonna match US military if it comes to that. You can never match the weaponry that military has (up to nuclear), so what's the point? The only hope is that military sides with civilians. The whole NRA thing is not about being vigilant of government anyway. It has a lot of racist undertones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I know this is a huge tangent, but Stalin's purges were not genocide by any stretch. Also, US prison population right now is higher per capita than at peak of Gulag system under Stalin."

 

To write something like that you have to be anti-semitist or just like the former Iranian president claiming that the Holocaust was a lie.

 

And to compare the prison system in the U.S. with the Gulag is another stupid statement. How many political prisoners are in U.S. prisons? Oh I forgot, you must be assuming that drug dealers, assassins, pedophiles are political prisoners.  ::)

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To write something like that you have to be anti-semitist or just like the former Iranian president claiming that the Holocaust was a lie.

 

I'm not sure where anti-semitism comes into picture here. Are you confusing Hitler with Stalin by chance? By any definition of genocide, Stalin's purges were not it. I'm willing to be proved wrong with proper citations. It's funny that same people who claim stuff like that will immediately turn around and say that wiping out Native Americans was NOT genocide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To write something like that you have to be anti-semitist or just like the former Iranian president claiming that the Holocaust was a lie.

 

I'm not sure where anti-semitism comes into picture here. Are you confusing Hitler with Stalin by chance? By any definition of genocide, Stalin's purges were not it. I'm willing to be proved wrong with proper citations. It's funny that same people who claim stuff like that will immediately turn around and say that wiping out Native Americans was NOT genocide.

I'm not sure what you mean by definition of genocide. IS it the fact that genocide has some racial, ethnic, or nationalist root for the killing? Because some of Stalin's killing had ethnic, racial or nationalistic roots. But in the end the man killed over 10 million people - and that's a low estimate. When someone reaches that kind of body count he's a genocidal maniac no matter what his reasons were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by definition of genocide. IS it the fact that genocide has some racial, ethnic, or nationalist root for the killing? Because some of Stalin's killing had ethnic, racial or nationalistic roots. But in the end the man killed over 10 million people - and that's a low estimate. When someone reaches that kind of body count he's a genocidal maniac no matter what his reasons were.

 

Well, by definition you have to target ethnicity/race. Holocaust was genocide for example. Where did you get the 10 million number? Cardboard's link above, for example says "over half a million". If you want to include indirect deaths due to famines and such, then Winston Churchill is a genocidal maniac as well, but we don't want to go there, do we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what can prevent government tyranny and genocide and such?

 

Strong democratic institutions and human rights and checks and balances on power and strong social norms supporting those things and high quality individuals holding office and a military that swears allegiance to the people and not to a ruler, a powerful fourth-estate that holds the powerful accountable, etc.

 

The Middle East and Africa are full of guns and they haven't exactly helped prevent tyranny and violence.

 

Want to do sports shooting at a range or hunt? Sure, here's a bolt rifle. Want something that can kill & wound 500+ people from hundreds of yards in a handful of minutes? No. There's no conceivable legit reason to have that. The fantasies about militias beating down the US military and restoring freedom after some dictator takes over are just fantasies, a few armored gunships would fly in and it'd be the end of that.

 

The Onion had the best headline that they keep using every time this happens:

 

"No way to prevent this", says only country where this happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$450k/person seems  high.  Median wage in u.s. is around 30k and gun crime is concentrated in poor areas.

 

I'd guess they are calculating the present value of lifetime earnings loss.

 

If you are wondering about the long term effects of gun shot wounds, here's a sad story about one survivor and her mom:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/12/05/after-a-mass-shooting-a-survivors-life/

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




×
×
  • Create New...