Las Vegas Shooting Mass-Murder and Concert targeting

[Bible_Belt]

The best argument I have read for why an American needs an assault rifle is from ranchers in Texas who are susceptible to attacks by packs of feral hogs, at which time having a large clip becomes quite handy.

After the fall of Saddam's Iraq, the price of an AK-47 dropped to about $10 US. But even with dirt cheap assault rifles and no effective government yet in place, insurgents almost always chose explosives as their main weapon, simply because they work better. Explosives are usually made from fertilizer, and if the government in power bans fertilizer, then the people will starve, and it will be impossible to win the "hearts and minds of the people," which is the ultimate goal of any occupation. No occupation can be forced forever; eventually the people have to consent. Fertilizer, and especially the kinds that can go boom, are a much bigger equalizer than guns.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

I never thought of that...

But if you take into account the multiple windows thay shots were allegedly being fired from, how so much weaponry was brought to this room, the wired 100k to another country.....this is not all that implausible.

It’s how it is with all suicides. “Oh yeah he killed himself. With a gun. A shotgun.

The best argument I have read for why an American needs an assault rifle is from ranchers in Texas who are susceptible to attacks by packs of feral hogs, at which time having a large clip becomes quite handy.

After the fall of Saddam's Iraq, the price of an AK-47 dropped to about $10 US. But even with dirt cheap assault rifles and no effective government yet in place, insurgents almost always chose explosives as their main weapon, simply because they work better. Explosives are usually made from fertilizer, and if the government in power bans fertilizer, then the people will starve, and it will be impossible to win the "hearts and minds of the people," which is the ultimate goal of any occupation. No occupation can be forced forever; eventually the people have to consent. Fertilizer, and especially the kinds that can go boom, are a much bigger equalizer than guns.

$10 for an AK? Where the hell was I when this happened? Oh wait....

Most shootings are done with guns that have been attained through illegal means. Making guns illegal won’t do anything. I say to lower the prices to the point where everyone in that concert could have afforded one very easily. Let’s watch what happens to the shooter then...

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

It does not have to be about "need". This is a common framing of the argument by the alt-left.

It should never be about need. The idea that there is even a reason needed presupposes that some reasons are "good" and some reasons are "bad" and only those in authority (or those that like to pretend they are in authority as they claim the same moral and intellectual arguments) are capable of deciding whether ones "reasons" are "good enough."

People love the idea of being in control of other people. One way that comes out is through discussing what "reasons" are acceptable and which "reasons" aren't.

The whole constitution is a con anyway.

Ten years before the constitution was written, were people not allowed to have guns, and they needed a piece of paper and a central government to "give people" the "right" to own guns? Were people wandering around, unarmed, thinking, "Gee, I'd like to buy a gun, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed. I wish we had an all powerful central government that told me it was OK to buy a guy."

If this WAS the case, why was the constitutional convention done is as much secrecy as possible?

The constitution itself is very much like Obamacare.

1) you have to pass it to see what's in it

2) If you like your guns, (and free speech, etc.) you can keep your guns.

In reality, the constitution was just a power grab by those who wanted absolute power, and they used the idea of "giving citizens rights" as a selling point.

It was NEVER about the rights, it was always about a small group of elites who wanted as much power as they could grab.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The whole constitution is a con anyway.

Ironically, it does give you the right to make that statement in public. Similar statements are quite forbidden in much of the world.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Ironically, it does give you the right to make that statement in public.

The idea of free speech is also a con.

It only exists on property that is owned by the government, and not private individuals.

Free speech cannot exist on private property. My right to kick you out of my house trumps your right to say whatever you want in my house.

The idea of "public property" is what allowed the government to pay men to hunt down and kill all the buffalo so they could steal the land for the railroads, for example.

The con is always the same. Government grants "right" in exchange for having power over people.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Private property exists in large part because of the government, in that it is the government that enforces private property rules. Unless you're a Somali war lord with your own army, you have to depend upon the government to enforce your rights when others infringe upon them.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Private property exists in large part because of the government,

Nope

Private property came first, governments came later.

The cycle of societies ever since the neolithic revolution is pretty consistent.

Private property leads to business, which leads to prosperity, which leads to government, which leads to waste and corruption, which leads to decay and downfall.

Most people confuse correlation with causation.

https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-Prosperity-Evolves-P-S/dp/0061452068/

Governments are always behind private property and technology, yet they always do their best to claim credit.

 

[Von]

Nope

Private property came first, governments came later.

The cycle of societies ever since the neolithic revolution is pretty consistent.

Private property leads to business, which leads to prosperity, which leads to government, which leads to waste and corruption, which leads to decay and downfall.

Most people confuse correlation with causation.

https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-Prosperity-Evolves-P-S/dp/0061452068/

Governments are always behind private property and technology, yet they always do their best to claim credit.

Don't agree... Private property is a western concept... it's actually a ''evolution stage''

It's mentionned in Hobbes and Lockes (recent discussion philosopher)

People in order to survive banded together... under band that became tribes... the only one who had a ''private property'' was the leader of the pack who is the strongest/leader of the tribe.

Look in Asia and Africa... alot of tribes living in prehistoric stage, they have no concept of the '' I '' or the private property... everything belong to the tribe in order to share ressources that will help us win against nature and survive

As people got stronger and more numerous, you need to control them better and offer service in return for the ressources, they brought for the group. Hence, Governements emerged (Tribal, Chieftain, Depostic, Dictatorship, Republic, Direct Democraties, Indirect Democratif, Parlimentary, Absolute Monarchy, Constitutionnal)... you had to bound people through races, gender, colour, culture, belief, language etc..

From the emergence of the power of Government... emerged private property... Private property emerged in the 1500's with the concept of Individualism (Individualism is still a western concept)

How an individual can become an element of the government... etc...

So Individualism emerged as a reaction of governement and society stability... thus came private property... and private property was taken as a distinct English concept and later became an American Core Belief.

Only in America, you will have private property and individualism as a concept distinct for the ''greater collective (society and its governement''

Look at Asia, Middle-East, Africa... you still have there 1 leader calling the shoots for everybody and everyone under his blood/territory/name share all the ressouces.... and those who arent of his ''clan'' well have no access to it
Ask your moroccans friend if they had the ''king last name'' would they get a better and easier job
Ask your Libia friends, who know have access to the ressources that were reserved to the 1 millions Khaddafi clan members (on 7 millions people)
Ask your Iraq friend if the leader of the mosque would ask something would everyone move
Ask your afghanistan friend, when the male of the tribe ask for something what happens if you don't follow the order
Ask your chinese and japanese friend, how important is to be the ''honour of your family''

 

[Fatal Jay]

Cool, this cleared up alot as to why this las vegas shooting is not called a terrorist act

 

[backseatjuan]

The conditions in your country, free speech, guns, other stuff, are there to produce technological advances, which require riches. Nobody is trying to take your guns away, just limit to the point of sane.

 

[speed dawg]

Nope

Private property came first, governments came later.

The cycle of societies ever since the neolithic revolution is pretty consistent.

Private property leads to business, which leads to prosperity, which leads to government, which leads to waste and corruption, which leads to decay and downfall.

Most people confuse correlation with causation.

https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Optimist-Prosperity-Evolves-P-S/dp/0061452068/

Governments are always behind private property and technology, yet they always do their best to claim credit.

You lost me here, man.

Private property doesn't exist without government, unless you are man enough to fend off everyone who wants your property. Doesn't make sense. Look at Zimbabwe. There's no private property there because they can't trust the government. And if there was no government, could they fend off the gangs of roving thugs? Do you think a gang of pirates gives 2 sh*ts about private property?

I am sure that private property did come first, before government. The people who owned property were the alpha males who could convince everyone else to do what they wanted. But private property as we know it today came about with civilized government. The Indians didn't give a sh*t about metes and bounds, remember, because they weren't under our government, until we forced them to be.

 

[speed dawg]

Tell that to Michael Moore.

And herein lies the problem with this:

The conditions in your country, free speech, guns, other stuff, are there to produce technological advances, which require riches. Nobody is trying to take your guns away, just limit to the point of sane.

We all know too well that the end game is to take away ALL guns. It's been said too many times.

 

[Trunks]

http://theantimedia.org/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/

"Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.


Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point [...]

The Real Reason Gun Control Will Never Work:


Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem [...]

We have a society that panders to the basest desires and instincts. One of those is violence. We live in a society where women are given dirty looks for breastfeeding in a restaurant, while over their heads on the wall-mounted television plays a movie that graphically depicts someone being tortured to death. We are desensitized to violence, and we have a generation of people that do not have the coping skills necessary to deal with reality."

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Private property doesn't exist without government,

This is easily a "chicken or the egg argument."

All social animals are territorial, primates, wolves, even ants.

Separating the idea of "this is my land, stay off or I'll shoot" from the idea of a government is intellectually difficult.

Primitive man had no idea of private property, as they were nomads.

Once they planted seeds in the ground, that became something they needed to defend.

So, where do you draw the line between a powerful land owner, who owns the land and the people, and a government?

Some governments (monarchs) were the OWNERS of the private property and everybody else was a "serf" who was "owned" by the Lords.

What's the difference between a "government" of a couple hundred thousand people and the "owner" of all the land?

They both serve the same purpose, they both do the same thing, just different labels.

One may even describe the long evolution of "government" as a battle between small individual "private property" owners and one large "private property owner."

To go even further down the rabbit hole, consider the idea that "democracy" was an invention of the banking class.

You lend money to a king, and he dies, you don't get paid back.

You lend money to a democratically elected ruler, and you make interest for potentially hundreds of years.

My assertion is that there is ONLY private property, but different people use different methods (e.g.coming up with the idea of "governments' who "give rights' to people) to effectively control said property.

The idea of a democratically elected government with a written constitution may be the very BEST con humans have come up with so far....

 

[ChristopherColumbus]