Jump to content

What is better, no guns, or more guns?


Recommended Posts

Evander Kane speaks up about Vegas and shooting

 

"I woke up this morning and had quite a few text messages from some friends, buddies and my parents," Kane said Monday morning in KeyBank Center after the Sabres held off-ice workouts. "I didn't really know what was going on until I got on the Internet and saw what was happening. It just makes you sick."

 

"I think everybody who's an adult enjoys going to Vegas. It's a place to have some fun," Kane said. "I definitely have some close friends that I've gotten to know over the years. I was just talking to a buddy in Vegas last night around 9 o'clock. To wake up and see what happened there was difficult. It's just sickening. There's some sick people out there. There needs to be some stiffer consequences for that type of stuff. It's tough."

http://buffalonews.com/2017/10/02/sabres-kane-vegas-shooting-type-stuff-just-sickening/

 

Tougher consequences for who?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to know how difficult an expert would say killing 59 people from 400+ yards with a shot you've never taken before, with the equipment he had and the training he apparently didn't, within the span of about 16 minutes would be.

He just sprayed into crowd. Nine rounds a second. Heck, its hitting concrete which means ricocheted rounds could have killed people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to know how difficult an expert would say killing 59 people from 400+ yards with a shot you've never taken before, with the equipment he had and the training he apparently didn't, within the span of about 16 minutes would be.

 

Automatic plunging fire in to a packed crowd of 11,000 from 400 yards? I don't know that I'd say "easy," but it's certainly doable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He just sprayed into crowd. Nine rounds a second. Heck, its hitting concrete which means ricocheted rounds could have killed people.

With a modified automatic from that distance I'd have a hard time keeping a group within 15 yards. And I think it was grass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a modified automatic from that distance I'd have a hard time keeping a group within 15 yards. And I think it was grass.

Like Tom said above.

 

How many floors up was he?

Thanks for the news!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not about practicing contract law (whatever that means - it sounds like practicing safe non-sex), it's about the state enforcing private agreements so that commerce can happen and people can accumulate property without having to worry that someone with a bigger gun is going to come along and take it from them.

 

As to the car accident analogy - it would make sense if there were an amendment that said, "Congress shall make no law restricting the speed of vehicles." So then we'd have "car enthusiasts" driving 200 mph wherever and whenever they wanted, routinely running over small children but the response would be "Hey, that's just the price of freedom! We need to protect the right of drivers to drive however fast they want, even though it leads to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths each year, because FREEDOM. Stop POLITICIZING the TRAGEDY!"

You're only posting this claptrap because you had the right to be dropped on your head as an infant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What? You're the one that just said it's not about private contract enforcement, it's about THE STATE enforcing private agreements.

 

Shut the !@#$ up, fool.

 

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.

Edited by Coach Tuesday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

People didn't know where the fire was coming from. Bullets falling on them. One group wasn't covered well and a person tried to shoe them uncover a little better, he got clipped.

 

 

10:1 ratio

There was over 500 injuries. Not sure what was from an actual bullet.

Edited by ExiledInIllinois
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not an expert or anything but I know a bit. For really good knowledge there are some gun forums out there that I'm sure have covered it in depth, now that we're getting some details on his equipment.

 

 

I want to know how difficult an expert would say killing 59 people from 400+ yards with a shot you've never taken before, with the equipment he had and the training he apparently didn't, within the span of about 16 minutes would be.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your political views are cracked, dude.

And you ask questions coming from a place of intellectual dishonesty where you aren't actually seeking discussion or answers, but are looking to take pot shots at people, attacking view points you don't even understand in order to score cheap points.

 

I'd rather have a piece of **** who does stuff like that think I'm "politically cracked" than behave like the piece of ****.

 

 

 

Freedom didn't pull the human species out of the mud. Collective contract enforcement did, actually (commerce with the state having the monopoly of force).

Freedom is the moral priori on which the concept of private contracts is predicated. The freedom or associate, and the freedom to enter into agreements with others is all a contract is.

 

Making a contract legally enforceable is nothing more than the just action of a state protecting rights and freedoms.

 

 

 

And freedom wasn't "given" to us by the state - it is the natural state of things. The Framers' view was that freedom should be the default state of play, and the purpose of the Constitution is to set limits on what the state can do to impinge on our natural freedoms.

Yeah, no ****. Where did I say otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Are you pretending to ape communism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...