What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Azalin]

Are you pretending to ape communism?

 

I wouldn't say there's any pretense at all.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Azalin

[ExiledInIllinois]

He was at an elevated position with tripod mounted full auto and I'm assuming scoped machine guns. There were 22000 people well within the effective range of the gun. The people were also trapped in a pen so to speak. The cops found him and attempted to enter within 16 minutes but he shot one of them so they backed off and didn't enter for another hour. Instead of continuing shooting for another period of time he killed himself. It's very lucky he didn't kill a lot more people Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah. Smoke detector went off and they went right to room... Didn't have to go door to door.

[LeviF]

I agree, but I'd expect less casualties and more injuries in that case.

 

Eh. It's hard to say without seeing pictures of the crowd from his vantage point. Lots of gunshot wounds can be fatal if you can't effectively stop the bleeding. Like Tom said, definitely doable with a "spray and pray" sort of method. Trying to kill 59 specific people...tough. Trying to kill as many as you can in a mass of thousands and get 59 in nine minutes? Definitely not impossible.

[GoBills808]

 

Eh. It's hard to say without seeing pictures of the crowd from his vantage point. Lots of gunshot wounds can be fatal if you can't effectively stop the bleeding. Like Tom said, definitely doable with a "spray and pray" sort of method. Trying to kill 59 specific people...tough. Trying to kill as many as you can in a mass of thousands and get 59 in nine minutes? Definitely not impossible.

Yeah. Like you say, without knowing all the information it's tough to say for sure. I just heard the reports and my immediate thought was something didn't add up.

[DC Tom]

 

You cut off the rest of my post on purpose - where I talked about the state. Enforcement of private contracts means ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACT LAWS BY A STATE. Moron.

 

And in any event, all of this came up because Tasker the Megalomaniac said that "freedom" is what pulled humans out of the mud. That doesn't even make any sense - humans have been free since they started walking upright. If anything, it was the opposite - sacrificing/abandoning certain freedoms to the collective, for the common good - that pulled humans out of the mud.

 

Contract laws and private contracts were enforced LONG before any concept of "the state."

[Tiberius]

Contract laws and private contracts were enforced LONG before any concept of "the state."

Before courts were created?

[DC Tom]

Before courts were created?

 

YES, you !@#$ing moron.

[grinreaper]

True story. My sister was dropped on her head as a baby. She voted for Trump.

So, in other words, your sister who was dropped on her head is smarter than you?

[Coach Tuesday]

 

Contract laws and private contracts were enforced LONG before any concept of "the state."

That is just not right. Contracts and private property go hand in hand. You cant have long-term exchanges of private property without a collective enforcement mechanism. It was not until the collective began enforcing contracts that humans emerged from the mud. Having the backing of the monopoly of power to enforce property rights freed humans up to create sustainable wealth.

[Kelly the Dog]

This is the "passing yards," of fire arm statistics.

If I ever respond to any post of yours again, it is by mistake.

 

I've put you on virtual ignore, because I thoroughly believe in the equation [a/t = b/t], which, in layman's terms, translates to "One who argues with tard becomes tard."

 

So if you respond to me in the future, and I don't respond, it's because I just consciously or hopefully unconsciously ignored it because it's a waste of everyone's time.

[ExiledInIllinois]

So, in other words, your sister who was dropped on her head is smarter than you?

No. She lives in Florida.

[BringBackOrton]

If I ever respond to any post of yours again, it is by mistake.

 

I've put you on virtual ignore, because I thoroughly believe in the equation [a/t = b/t], which, in layman's terms, translates to "One who argues with tard becomes tard."

 

So if you respond to me in the future, and I don't respond, it's because I just consciously or hopefully unconsciously ignored it because it's a waste of everyone's time.

I thought that was a funny joke. Get over yourself, dick head.

[TH3]

NICK GILLESPIE:

This Is the Time To Defend the Second Amendment: Anti-gun activists are pushing for a crackdown in the wake of the Vegas shooting. That’s understandable but wrong.

They demand a sacrifice of liberty to their god the State.

It’s laughable.

6 months ago, the Left was all “This is the worst fascist government since the 1930s.”

Today they’re all “You must surrender your weapons to the beneficent hand of the State.”

It’s as if they’re incoherent, stupid, and power-hungry or something.

Writes Gillespie:

 

 

It’s not cold-blooded or Vulcan to point out that we remain in the midst of an unprecedented deceleration of violent crime and gun crime. Surely that has some connection to policies over the past quarter-century or so that have made it easier for a wide variety of people to legally own and carry guns.

“From 1993 to 2015, the rate of violent crime declined from 79.8 to 18.6 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older,” says the Bureau of Justice Statistics in its most recent comprehensive report (published last October, using data through 2015). Over the same period, rates for crimes using guns dropped from 7.3 per 1,000 people to 1.1 per 1,000 people. The homicide rate is down from 7.4 to 4.9. These are not simply good things, they are great things. They are the essential backdrop of all discussions about gun crime and mass shootings, even as we grieve the people killed nonsensically in Vegas.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, the Party Of Science doesn’t care, because they’re really the Party Of State Power.

 

The US has the high st rate of gun violence by multiples over every other mature country tho....

[Tiberius]

How much are tax payers being burdened with right to fire arms? Health care costs for this one attack must go into the millions and millions. Nationaly it must cost billions in healthcare, law enforcement, legal costs. What a waste of money

[BringBackOrton]

How much are tax payers being burdened with right to fire arms? Health care costs for this one attack must go into the millions and millions. Nationaly it must cost billions in healthcare, law enforcement, legal costs. What a waste of money

More reason to not have the government pay for healthcare.

[DC Tom]

That is just not right. Contracts and private property go hand in hand. You cant have long-term exchanges of private property without a collective enforcement mechanism. It was not until the collective began enforcing contracts that humans emerged from the mud. Having the backing of the monopoly of power to enforce property rights freed humans up to create sustainable wealth.

 

But you don't need a STATE to provide collective enforcement. Many cultures have managed private property and agreements without recourse to the "state" or courts. The Mongols spring most immediately to mind. And the Celts, and Vikings, Maya, Medieval Japan, Europe during the Middle Ages...

[Tiberius]

More reason to not have the government pay for healthcare.

So you don't think those people that were shot had a right to health care?

But you don't need a STATE to provide collective enforcement. Many cultures have managed private property and agreements without recourse to the "state" or courts. The Mongols spring most immediately to mind. And the Celts, and Vikings, Maya, Medieval Japan, Europe during the Middle Ages...

 

The Vikings?? Shut up! Ha ha!!

[BringBackOrton]

So you don't think those people that were shot had a right to health care?

 

 

The Vikings?? Shut up! Ha ha!!

You don't have a right to anything that isn't already yours.

 

So no. I think in an ideal world, the person who caused the injury would be held responsible for the cost. But not the government.

[Tiberius]

You don't have a right to anything that isn't already yours.

So no. I think in an ideal world, the person who caused the injury would be held responsible for the cost. But not the government.

You don't know what you are saying. Most people have way more common sense than that

[/dev/null]

 

But you don't need a STATE to provide collective enforcement. Many cultures have managed private property and agreements without recourse to the "state" or courts. The Mongols spring most immediately to mind. And the Celts, and Vikings

Very true. The Mongols, Hells Angels, Outlaws, and Bandidos do tend to dish out their own form of internal justice.

 

Not sure what Larry Bird and Randy Moss have to do with this.