aristocrat Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 I've been wondering what tactics the people on the ground could have used to defend themselves. A high intensity spot light to shield the view? Laser pointer? A decent handgun or riffle to take shots back allowing cover? Defensive tactics are obvious but I wonder what could have been done to take an offensive possession. Get behind something and pray until the ammo runs out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Magox Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 I think that's a weak comparison. The NRA doesn't own politicians as their contributions are relatively minor compared to other groups. In 2016 they spent $1.1 million on campaign contributions and about $3 million on lobbying. http://nypost.com/2017/10/05/the-true-secret-of-the-nras-success/ . Meanwhile, Opioid drugmakers spent on average $89 million per year on lobbying and campaign contributions from 2006-2015. http://www.range365.com/big-pharma-lobbying-for-opioids-spends-8-times-as-much-as-nra By the way, guess which politician got the bulk of that big pharma money in 2015....... I think that Big Pharma money was more what their perceived odds of who was going to win than anything else. They hedged bets all the way across, except for Donald.
LeviF Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 Charles C.W. Cooke: "Bret Stephens Indeed Does Not Understand the Second Amendment" Stephens is not a stupid man, and nor is he unaware of the reach that tyrannies have enjoyed. On the contrary, his is often a welcome voice in the fight for the liberty of all people. This being so, it is remarkable how blithely he elects to invoke Madison as a friend to his cause, and how readily he subordinates the right to bear arms to expediency. In truth, the Second Amendment was not an “amendment” at all, for, unlike some of the subsequent changes to the charter, it represented neither a change in policy nor a remedy for an error. Rather, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights it was the product of a disagreement as to how to best protect freedoms that were generally considered unalienable. For reasons outlined in The Federalist Papers, Madison believed that the power of the federal government would be constrained by its structure; if the central state had only a handful of carefully enumerated powers, he contended, it would not be able to exceed them. Others, the “Anti-Federalists,” disagreed, demanding a belt to add to the suspenders. The debate that followed was strictly structural — not a fight over speech or due process or arms, but over how best to ensure the maintenance of ancient liberty. Madison acknowledged this when introducing the Bill of Rights in Congress. The rights he had included, he made clear to his peers, were those “against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents.” In encoding the right to bear arms among the set, neither Madison nor his opponents were innovating. Instead, they were channeling Justinian, Locke, and Blackstone, and ensuring that the people of the new country would enjoy a robust right to self-defense, and the auxiliary protections that enabled it. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452368/bret-stephens-guns-columnist-does-not-understand
IDBillzFan Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 Yes ....and opiates don't kill 40.000 people year....its people..... Preach, brother. Last night I was sitting at home watching TNF, and the opiates came into my house, tied me down, and forced themselves down my throat. It was horrible. It was totally not my choice. They just held me down against my will.
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 This is a serious question. Do any of the people here who don't think there should be more gun laws or regulations think there is anything wrong whatsoever, or anything done whatsoever, about a guy who buys 33 guns in one year? Many of them semi automatics plus the bump stocks, etc? I'm genuinely curious. https://www.wsj.com/articles/girlfriend-of-las-vegas-gunman-back-in-u-s-1507124805 My answer is: It depends. If he bought 33 different kinds of guns with different calibers, it would raise an eyebrow but not nearly as much as many of the same kind of gun/same caliber. I'm not going to lie, I haven't read any details of the story. I also don't know the law(s) that governs the ATF. Theoretically there is some retention period for legal purchases and it wouldn't be difficult to get a red flag in place for someone who was buying multiple guns of the same caliber during a prescribed time period (implying it doesn't already exist). I do know that strawman purchases are illegal, so there should be some algorithm in place for a single person buying a large number of guns during any time frame. Call me a natural skeptic but I would all but guarantee that we will find out later that more than one ball got dropped. Preach, brother. Last night I was sitting at home watching TNF, and the opiates came into my house, tied me down, and forced themselves down my throat. It was horrible. It was totally not my choice. They just held me down against my will. My favorite "argument" is the ones that uses numbers, as if gun crimes in working neighborhoods in America are somehow different than they are in other developed countries. Newsflash: if you're not regularly involved in felonious activities, your chances of being a victim of a gun crime aren't statistically worse in America than they are anywhere else in the world.
Doc Brown Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 I think that Big Pharma money was more what their perceived odds of who was going to win than anything else. They hedged bets all the way across, except for Donald. That's the impression I got as well, but the poster tried to compare the NRA and Big Pharma companies which is ridiculous. Then there was the irony that the person who was most outspoken against guns and the NRA since the Vegas shootings happened to get the most money from Big Pharma companies that kill 40,000 people a year according to Baskins.
B-Man Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 CNNVerified account @CNN 7h7 hours ago Is it easier to buy guns than Sudafed? http://cnn.it/2y5BE0H No. Any other questions from the brilliant minds at CNN ?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 No. Any other questions from the brilliant minds at CNN ? If it is, then the question we need to be asking is: "shouldn't we make it easier to buy Sudafed?"
LeviF Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 No. Any other questions from the brilliant minds at CNN ? Classic Betteridge: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
unbillievable Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 If it is, then the question we need to be asking is: "shouldn't we make it easier to buy Sudafed?" Sudafed kills more people than guns.
TH3 Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) I think that's a weak comparison. The NRA doesn't own politicians as their contributions are relatively minor compared to other groups. In 2016 they spent $1.1 million on campaign contributions and about $3 million on lobbying. http://nypost.com/2017/10/05/the-true-secret-of-the-nras-success/ . Meanwhile, Opioid drugmakers spent on average $89 million per year on lobbying and campaign contributions from 2006-2015. http://www.range365.com/big-pharma-lobbying-for-opioids-spends-8-times-as-much-as-nra By the way, guess which politician got the bulk of that big pharma money in 2015....... Weak is trying to throw in a Hillary card....The NRA is the most effective lobby out there....maybe they get the most bang for there buck... The US has 35 times the rate of gun vilonce than the next highest well off country which is Germany...and as well we have the highest rate of gun ownership....but guns don't kill..... The US likely has something even greater than that in Opiate death rates.....but mixing analogies....drugs don't kill either right? Perhaps you can lend your insight on possible correlations we have on hand between possible political influence/rate of use of both guns and drugs/death rate of both... I tend to think there is one... Sudafed kills more people than guns. You win the day for the most patently false staement....reach farther up your ass for the next one... Edited October 6, 2017 by baskin
unbillievable Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 Weak is trying to throw in a Hillary card....The NRA is the most effective lobby out there....maybe they get the most bang for there buck... The US has 35 times the rate of gun vilonce than the next highest well off country which is Germany...and as well we have the highest rate of gun ownership....but guns don't kill..... The US likely has something even greater than that in Opiate death rates.....but mixing analogies....drugs don't kill either right? Perhaps you can lend your insight on possible correlations we have on hand between possible political influence/rate of use of both guns and drugs/death rate of both... I tend to think there is one... Depends on how far back you go. I'm betting the German statistics start around the 1950's or later.
IDBillzFan Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 The NRA is the most effective lobby out there....maybe they get the most bang for there buck... You think the NRA is more effective than Planned Parenthood? You should have a talk with David Daleiden and see the reach PP had on his life. My favorite "argument" is the ones that uses numbers, as if gun crimes in working neighborhoods in America are somehow different than they are in other developed countries. Newsflash: if you're not regularly involved in felonious activities, your chances of being a victim of a gun crime aren't statistically worse in America than they are anywhere else in the world. And if they want to use numbers, I refer back to the article posted here asking "Do you know what Chicago calls 58 gun deaths? September." In 2017, Chicago is averaging 59 gun deaths per month. Per freaking month. Nary a word from anyone. I guess black lives don't matter to Democrats.
B-Man Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 CNN: LAS VEGAS SHOOTER TOOK 20 CRUISES, SOME TO FOREIGN PORTS. In addition to his frequent forays into casinos and gun shops, Las Vegas strip killer Stephen Paddock took 20 cruises, many of them in Europe and the Middle East, investigators have learned. The cruises included stops at ports in Spain, Italy, Greece, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, according to information provided by a law enforcement source
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) Without banning the flood of guns coming into Chicago, how do you end the gun violence in Chicago? Any Suggestions please. I mean the genie is out of the bottle, right? Laxing the regulations will just make the violence spill more in the ghetto and out. I mean, everybody has guns illegally for protection, they will never tell you. Decreasing the regulation on the weapons will just increase the chaos and spill the fire power onto Michigan Ave. This is why we can't have our fun guns, the few wreck it for the many. Guns are so easily accessible over a small geographic area with vast extremes in gun regs... You'd be a fool to think people are following the law. People got them. Chicago just needs to open up, rescind any gun laws and let real chaos ensue. Let everybody shoot it out. Then things will change. Edited October 7, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois
Azalin Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 Without banning the flood of guns coming into Chicago, how do you end the gun violence in Chicago? Any Suggestions please. I mean the genie is out of the bottle, right? Laxing the regulations will just make the violence spill more in the ghetto and out. I mean, everybody has guns illegally for protection, they will never tell you. Decreasing the regulation on the weapons will just increase the chaos and spill the fire power onto Michigan Ave. This is why we can't have our fun guns, the few wreck it for the many. Guns are so easily accessible over a small geographic area with vast extremes in gun regs... You'd be a fool to think people are following the law. People got them. Chicago just needs to open up, rescind any gun laws and let real chaos ensue. Let everybody shoot it out. Then things will change. How do you ban a flood of guns coming into Chicago? Aren't they already illegal? How do you ban them further than that? Had the local citizenry been able to legally arm and defend themselves generations ago, then maybe the current urban/gangsta/ghetto culture existing there may not have had such an opportunity to become so entrenched.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 How do you ban a flood of guns coming into Chicago? Aren't they already illegal? How do you ban them further than that? Had the local citizenry been able to legally arm and defend themselves generations ago, then maybe the current urban/gangsta/ghetto culture existing there may not have had such an opportunity to become so entrenched. LoL. They already arm themselves. Why do you think people are getting killed. Escalation doesn't deter. They will just steal the legal guns too... Like when they bust into railway cars, etc... Chicago is a shipping hub: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-railroad-thefts-20170303-story.html You people are so naive... This ain't no sod house on a prairie homestead.
Azalin Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 LoL. They already arm themselves. Why do you think people are getting killed. Escalation doesn't deter. They will just steal the legal guns too... Like when they bust into railway cars, etc... Chicago is a shipping hub: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-railroad-thefts-20170303-story.html You people are so naive... This ain't no sod house on a prairie homestead. You continue to focus on guns, when it's people that are the problem. If guns were truly the issue, then Texas would be a 24 hour slaughterhouse/shooting gallery. Compare the political and cultural differences between Chicago and Texas, and see if you notice any significant differences.
Koko78 Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 How do you ban a flood of guns coming into Chicago? Aren't they already illegal? How do you ban them further than that? Had the local citizenry been able to legally arm and defend themselves generations ago, then maybe the current urban/gangsta/ghetto culture existing there may not have had such an opportunity to become so entrenched. That's easy: You pass a new law saying that the government really means it this time, along with an extra tax on the private jet-owning millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share for the large new signs pointing out that guns are illegal in the city.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 8, 2017 Posted October 8, 2017 You continue to focus on guns, when it's people that are the problem. If guns were truly the issue, then Texas would be a 24 hour slaughterhouse/shooting gallery. Compare the political and cultural differences between Chicago and Texas, and see if you notice any significant differences. Like walking into a house during a Cowboys game and splattering peoples brains all over the wall? That Texas culture? Yeah right... Somebody should have shot the basstard back. Get real.
Recommended Posts