Massacre / Gun Control summary

[John Shaw]

Unless civilians are suddenly flying around in apaches raining down hellfire missiles from several miles away, I don't think it's going to matter.

Well, maybe we better start thinking about making some collective purchases, just in case.

All the air superiority in the world will not defeat an insurgency. It takes boots on the ground. If we have the same equipment as an infantryman, we will be just fine.

It would be just like the Taliban. Ever see those apache videos where the Taliban are running away from explosive 30 mm rounds and hellfire missiles? The Taliban are so outmatched they can't even see the ******* helicopter tearing them to little pieces, because the chopper is so far away. Literally, tearing them to pieces and spraying their body parts across the landscape. It's quite remarkable, really. You almost feel bad for them.

And that's the Taliban. They don't care about death because of their death cult religion. In fact, they love death. Americans aren't like that. A month or two at most, and the American rebels would fold. And whoever didn't would be dead within the next week.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Unless civilians are suddenly flying around in apaches raining down hellfire missiles from several miles away, I don't think it's going to matter.

Well, maybe we better start thinking about making some collective purchases, just in case.

All the air superiority in the world will not defeat an insurgency. It takes boots on the ground. If we have the same equipment as an infantryman, we will be just fine.

It would be just like the Taliban. Ever see those apache videos where the Taliban are running away from explosive 30 mm rounds and hellfire missiles? The Taliban are so outmatched they can't even see the ******* helicopter tearing them to little pieces, because the chopper is so far away. Literally, tearing them to pieces and spraying their body parts across the landscape. It's quite remarkable, really. You almost feel bad for them.

And that's the Taliban. They don't care about death because of their death cult religion. In fact, they love death. Americans aren't like that. A month or two at most, and the American rebels would fold. And whoever didn't would be dead within the next week.

How many Taliban are we fighting? Millions?

 

[John Shaw]

Unless civilians are suddenly flying around in apaches raining down hellfire missiles from several miles away, I don't think it's going to matter.

Well, maybe we better start thinking about making some collective purchases, just in case.

All the air superiority in the world will not defeat an insurgency. It takes boots on the ground. If we have the same equipment as an infantryman, we will be just fine.

It would be just like the Taliban. Ever see those apache videos where the Taliban are running away from explosive 30 mm rounds and hellfire missiles? The Taliban are so outmatched they can't even see the ******* helicopter tearing them to little pieces, because the chopper is so far away. Literally, tearing them to pieces and spraying their body parts across the landscape. It's quite remarkable, really. You almost feel bad for them.

And that's the Taliban. They don't care about death because of their death cult religion. In fact, they love death. Americans aren't like that. A month or two at most, and the American rebels would fold. And whoever didn't would be dead within the next week.

How many Taliban are we fighting? Millions?

Do you think it's going to matter, dude? If there were more of them, the only thing that would change is that more of them would be dying. They have no real way to fight back against the Americans. All they can do is run and hide, and hope we leave some day.

Except in our scenario, they won't ever leave, because America is their home base.

It's like prime Mike Tyson fighting a baby. It doesn't matter if it's one baby or a hundred, or even a thousand. The babies aren't going to be able to put a dent in Mike.

 

[CowboyTed]

Wut? Where are you getting this information from? Last I heard, this guy had no discernible ideology; he just up and decided to murder as many people as he could.

For those with an IQ above 30, his victims make it abundantly clear what his ideology was.

A Christian sponsored Country Concert filled with white people who voted for Trump.

People with high IQs don't make assumptions based on flimsy or non-existent evidence. They wait for facts.

Facts are inconvenient to the leftist agenda, still facts exist.

The victims were chosen deliberately with meticulous planning.

The killer left pretty much nothing behind. If they find out why he did it, I'd be very surprised. He could be another Charles Whitman for all we know.

It seems the only people trying to make blame here is the Right Wing... The center andleft have sated, lets wait and see...

I have no clue why this guy did what he did.. Maybe he was pissed off that he couldn't get a ticket to the concert... Maybe going for a record...

Who knows... But I despise people trying to make it out they knew what was going on in his mind... They don't know...

To people who question the amount of guns and ammo he has stockpiled in the room... Well they have a point...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do you think it's going to matter, dude? If there were more of them, the only thing that would change is that more of them would be dying. They have no real way to fight back against the Americans. All they can do is run and hide, and hope we leave some day.

Except in our scenario, they won't ever leave, because America is their home base.

It's like prime Mike Tyson fighting a baby. It doesn't matter if it's one baby or a hundred, or even a thousand. The babies aren't going to be able to put a dent in Mike.

I disagree.

Texas alone would be a big chore for the military to control. We have 26 million people and 10x as many guns right now. If we all had the same equipment as an ordinary infantryman, they could bring in the entire military, with all equipment and men, and it would take closer to decades than years for them to win that fight, if at all. I think you are grossly overestimating the control over the ground a military force can have without lots of boots on the ground.
The entire military does not even have a 10th of the number of currently armed. adult male Texans. They would need at least 3 million more ground infantrymen to be comparable even with their superior personal firearms v. our civilian shit.

None of this is even taking into account the serious political and PR issue the military would have for killing its own citizens.

You could be right, but I just do not see it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So he was firing at storage tanks of flammables but bullets could not pierce?

This is my turning point as a conservative. Sittings ducks for insanely rapid fire weapons in the hands of a madman. It's no longer solely the madmans fault

I will keep my shotgun, 20/20. You should too, Guns that can fire a dozen rounds in a second and can kill at 500+ feet away are military murder machines; not needed in ordinary citizens hands.
And frankly for those of you who like firing off dozens of rounds at targets and get bent out of shape at my opinion; your hobby is kinda wierd.

The only argument I can think of for needing access to bump stocks or fully automatic weapons is that they need them in case the government turns against the people ... but the 2nd amendment (and state constitutions) was written with shitty muskets in mind. I doubt early Americans could've dreamed that an elderly man could rain absolute hell from 32 stories up, killing dozens of people in a matter of minutes. I highly doubt they imagined a world in which the American military could launch precision nuclear strikes from across the globe, capable of annihilating millions in mere seconds. I doubt they could would imagine that a simple gun, fully-auto or not, would stand a chance against the god-like power our military has become.

In other words, if the military turns against the people, no number of assault rifles is going to save the people.

Sorry, but you are ignoring history. How did we defeat a vastly superior force in the Revolutionary War?

How did the Viet Cong run us out of Vietnam with AK-47s?

Why are we having so much trouble defeating the Taliban who have no real weaponry?

Why haven't the Russians wiped out all of the Syrian rebels?

The difference between the rebels and the English was not nearly as large, lol. The American military, if it so chose, could wipe your property off the face of the Earth from miles away, or snipe your entire family to death within 0.5 seconds before you even knew they were there. No gun is going to save you from that.

Nam didn't win that war. American politicians lost it.

The Taliban aren't winning jack shit. They are just surviving like cockroaches, which they would achieve way more easily if they just stopped trying to fight like ******* idiots.

Why haven't we been able to wipe out ISIS, and why haven't the Russians wiped out the Syrian rebels? That's a somewhat better question, but it probably has to do with Russia not wanting to appear as though they don't give a damn about committing war crimes, since the rebels are mostly terrorists hiding behind human shields. Russia is trying to become a world leader and power again, not the world's pariah. They want to look like the reasonable ones. Also, costs, logistics, etc. Not the same as a fight in the military's own back yard. And we're leaning on the Iraqis, because we don't want to become entrenched again in an occupation.

But if you'll recall, the American military demolished the Iraqi military in ... what, a week?

Try 6 weeks.

You need to study history more. Your assessments are indicative that you are not fully aware of the conduct of warfare either today or in the past.

My son, who fought in Afghanistan, would tell you that you are simply full of _________ in regards to the Taliban.

Without getting into too much detail, I will tell you that in exercises I have participated in, teenagers and grandfathers have fought some of our best troops to a standstill with only light weaponry. There are lots of advantages in fighting on your home turf and you don't have to follow the rules.

 

[John Shaw]

Well, you guys are entitled to your opinions. Maybe you're right. Maybe not. Hopefully we never have to find out. I highly doubt we will.

I think that, if Americans were all to band together (unlikely) and fight to the bitter end regardless of casualties, then they could win by sheer overwhelming numbers. I just don't see that happening.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, you guys are entitled to your opinions. Maybe you're right. Maybe not. Hopefully we never have to find out. I highly doubt we will.

I think that, if Americans were all to band together (unlikely) and fight to the bitter end regardless of casualties, then they could win by sheer overwhelming numbers. I just don't see that happening.

But, that's what I am telling you. Texas alone would probably win, without any air support or missiles. It wouldn't take everyone banning together. With the political fallout that would result, 1 million would probably be plenty.

But, again. Your entire argument supports the need for citizens to be AT LEAST armed with equipment equal to that of the common infantryman.

 

[John Shaw]

Well, you guys are entitled to your opinions. Maybe you're right. Maybe not. Hopefully we never have to find out. I highly doubt we will.

I think that, if Americans were all to band together (unlikely) and fight to the bitter end regardless of casualties, then they could win by sheer overwhelming numbers. I just don't see that happening.

But, that's what I am telling you. Texas alone would probably win, without any air support or missiles. It wouldn't take everyone banning together. With the political fallout that would result, 1 million would probably be plenty.

But, again. Your entire argument supports the need for citizens to be AT LEAST armed with equipment equal to that of the common infantryman.

If Texans would be willing to put their families' lives in extreme danger? I guess it's debatable. I feel like you guys are taking a lot of human nature out of the argument though. When people are getting annihilated left and right, and they have no idea where the fire is coming from, their first instinct will be self-preservation and to protect their families. And I think the feeling of hopelessness would lead to a quick surrender. It would be hard, damn hard, to organize with that kind of firepower going to to town on you.

This scenario is also dependent on the military giving no ***** about PR though.

Also, if the real heavy shit came out, like ballistic missiles that can wipe out an entire community ...

Or, God forbid, nuclear weapons ...

In any case, the more you think about it, the more "ifs" "ands", and "buts" start popping up. Chances are, the military itself would be torn between people who would and would not fire upon civilians. And many civilians would want to side with the military because it's the "patriotic" thing to do in their eyes. It's just way too gray of a scenario to reduce to black and white, and try to say for certainty what would happen. I'm questioning whether the weapons themselves would be useful. And I think not, not only because I don't think such a thing could actually happen, but because I think if the rebels won, it would have little to do with bump stocks.

 

[WEATHER53]

If I think I need military grade weapons for possible action with the government; I should not have them

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

War tests the resolve of everyone. No doubt. You are making a great point.

War is about mind control. You don't have to kill all of your enemies. You just have to kill enough of them to make those remaining give up. War is also not about who is right, but who is left (as in. who is left standing).

But, I don't want to deviate from the entire point of this discussion. To say that we should not have better guns, or that we should have no guns, based solely on the presumption that we could never hope to defend ourselves against the U.S. Military is, in my opinion, not only fallacious, but supports the reverse position. If our military is so powerful that it is impossible to overthrow a tyrannical government, we need better guns, not more restrictions and fewer options.

 

[John Shaw]

I don't think it's impossible to overthrow a tyrannical government. I just question whether it's possible through force. Which is all automatic weapons really provide; brute force.

I would never advocate for banning guns. I just question whether we need guns that a sixty+ year old man can use to kill 58 people in around 10 minutes, and injure hundreds more.

Besides, wouldn't fully-auto probably be worse against the military than semi-auto? You would need precision, and I don't think fully-auto is known for its precision, though I'm far from a firearms expert.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I just question whether we need guns that a sixty+ year old man can use to kill 58 people in around 10 minutes, and injure hundreds more.

Well, the military, which is controlled by a government that could become tyrannical in a hear beat, has them. Those guns are effective in carrying out the work for which they were designed.

The focus should not be on the tools he employed, but on the reason why this 64 yo man felt compelled to plan out this massacre the way he did, when he apparently had plenty to live for.

 

[John Shaw]

I just question whether we need guns that a sixty+ year old man can use to kill 58 people in around 10 minutes, and injure hundreds more.

Well, the military, which is controlled by a government that could become tyrannical in a hear beat, has them. Those guns are effective in carrying out the work for which they were designed.

The focus should not be on the tools he employed, but on the reason why this 64 yo man felt compelled to plan out this massacre the way he did, when he apparently had plenty to live for.

Mostly agree. The lack of a motive is probably the most infuriating thing about it all.

I'm pretty sure M4s, which I believe the military still uses, can switch from fully-auto to semi-auto, and the vast majority of the time they use semi-auto anyway because it's easier to control. They use fully-auto for clearing buildings where accuracy isn't as important as firepower. They also use fully-automatic shotguns. Though this is just stuff I remember my friend telling me when he was in the military. Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting him.

The root cause of the issue isn't really about guns; it's something way deeper and more complex. But as I've repeated several times now, I'm not sure why we need weapons that are mostly just good for mowing down people in tight spaces.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I just question whether we need guns that a sixty+ year old man can use to kill 58 people in around 10 minutes, and injure hundreds more.

Well, the military, which is controlled by a government that could become tyrannical in a hear beat, has them. Those guns are effective in carrying out the work for which they were designed.

The focus should not be on the tools he employed, but on the reason why this 64 yo man felt compelled to plan out this massacre the way he did, when he apparently had plenty to live for.

Mostly agree. The lack of a motive is probably the most infuriating thing about it all.

I'm pretty sure M4s, which I believe the military still uses, can switch from fully-auto to semi-auto, and the vast majority of the time they use semi-auto anyway because it's easier to control. They use fully-auto for clearing buildings where accuracy isn't as important as firepower. They also use fully-automatic shotguns. Though this is just stuff I remember my friend telling me when he was in the military. Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting him.

The root cause of the issue isn't really about guns; it's something way deeper and more complex. But as I've repeated several times now, I'm not sure why we need weapons that are mostly just good for mowing down people in tight spaces.

Fair enough. Why can't the lefties be satisfied with the status quo? Automatic weapons are currently legal to own, but are highly regulated, hard to get, and even harder/more expensive to maintain under current law. Leave it alone, and we won't feel compelled to push back.

 

[John Shaw]

It's just a hard topic with no clear solution. I personally don't see the purpose of bump stocks. You don't need them to hunt. They likely wouldn't do you much good even in such an extreme scenario that we've been discussing. As far as I know, they're mostly just good for ******* around and for slaughtering large numbers of people in a scenario that the military wouldn't let you catch them in anyway (like a large crowd of unassuming and unaware concert-goers). The solution isn't solely in banning bump stocks or powerful weapons, particularly as the previous record-holder just used a semi-auto AR15. But I don't see the harm in it, as long as you don't start pushing for more, like banning ordinary weapons that actually have a purpose.

 

[HappyJoy]

What estrogen?

Man, what drugs are you taking that makes you forget what you post in a matter of minutes?

You said:

"I have reason to believe that if Alex Jones came out with a conspiracy that the government put estrogen in the air you would have fainted by now."

We made a couple of posts about that. Reread the thread. Maybe you shouldn't read any more and just go to bed. Sleep it off!

Right, I never said the estrogen thing was real, I'm not playing your imaginary conspiracy games, grow up.

Yet you still couldn't remember that you brought it up? I was making fun of you, jackass!

Go to bed, HappyJoy! You're drunk!

You missed the point, I've already lapped you twice.

The only lapping you are doing is at your own genitalia. Stop acting like a dog and go to bed!

You really did miss the point, but that's OK.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

as long as you don't start pushing for more, like banning ordinary weapons that actually have a purpose.

And that, my friend, is the real issue. The left wants a total ban on all firearms. They will never say that now because it is very unpopular, but that is the ultimate goal. You can't give them an inch. They are not trustworthy. They will keep chipping away at it until it's gone. So, while a ban on bumpers is probably a good idea, I do not support it for the sole reason that the left does not deserve it. They are lying shits who will keep pushing for more. They will not leave well-enough alone. So....

**** all you ******* commies. We are getting motherfucking machine guns. **** off.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You really did miss the point, but that's OK.

Yeah, but so did you...many times.

 

[HappyJoy]

You really did miss the point, but that's OK.

Yeah, but so did you...many times.

Next time, bring a point with you.