Simple question to gun advocates

[radical right]

Don't play stupid. Smoke is so well known as line of sight denial instrument that armies throughout the world have used it for centuries. .

So is night. The shooting happened in the dark.

 

[westwall]

Don't play stupid. Smoke is so well known as line of sight denial instrument that armies throughout the world have used it for centuries. .

So is night. The shooting happened in the dark.

Under FLOODLIGHTS. Are you really this stupid?

 

[radical right]

Once again, you're being stupid. There IS no loss of performance when a high powered rifle uses a suppressor. Yet again you demonstrate your profound ignorance.

You have to use subsonic ammo for the supressor to work like a silencer. Which is a loss of performance.

Why not just wear the damn earplugs?

 

[radical right]

Under FLOODLIGHTS. Are you really this stupid?

Smoke doesn't obscure floodlights. You can see them glowing through the smoke. And if he was using them to aim by, he would still have them no matter how much smoke you blow. Hint. stop blowing smoke, it doesn't obscure a target the size of a football field. When the target is anywhere on that football field.

Smoke makes it impossible for a sniper to pick out a particular person within it.
But it doesn't protect the crowd in general. And in this case the target was anywhere

 

[frigidweirdo]

We can never stop murder or gun violence. We can make it harder for people to achieve mass murder by limiting their fire power. What if Uzi's were available at Walmart and that was the weapon of choice in the last dozen shootings... How many more bodies would be pilled up. Probably something comparable to Vegas. See the point yet?

If you admit that we can't prevent it, and you acknowledge that bad people will always be able to get the guns they want, what makes you think they won't just get them? Here is an Israeli woman with an M-16.

Here are some more...

Or how about at the beach?

The Israeli's have figured out that gun control doesn't work. So have MORE people carrying guns and they will be able to stop the bad actors before they are able to kill a lot of people.

That is the reality.

Im sure some bad guys will always be able to get their hands on those guns. Others maybe not. Maybe they just use a pistol instead or the quickest easiest thing they can find... In those cases maybe they only kill a couple people and not dozens. Don't you think that makes sense? Don't you think if it saves lives then it is worth exploring?

"Don't you think if it saves lives then it is worth exploring?"

False assumption. How would lives be saved if the murderer/terrorist uses explosives, or airplanes, or poisoned cool aid instead?

And they had that choice, but it's often harder to get such things or carry out such things. Guns are the weapon of choice because they're easy to get. They're not the weapon of choice in the UK, and the murder rate is much lower.

Guns are not the weapon of choice of the most successful mass murderers. Explosives, incendiaries, poisons and vehicles are all easily obtained and/or made. And America is not an island.

Well, it depends what the mass murderer wants. The sadistic kind, the ones who kill over a long period of time, might not use guns, because it's not their style. Those without style will use guns.

The 8 Worst Mass Murderers in American History
Number 8 in Sandy Hook, guns
Number 7 in Virginia Tech, guns
Number 6 is Wall Street Bombing, bombs
Number 5 is Heaven's Gate Suicide, well, suffocation
Number 4 is Bath School Disaster, bomb
Number 3 is Orlando Night Club, guns
Number 2 is Vegas, guns
Number 1 is McVeigh, bombs

So, bombs are there, guns are there. The two most popular. Bombs are actually illegal, guns aren't.

 

[iceberg]

If you admit that we can't prevent it, and you acknowledge that bad people will always be able to get the guns they want, what makes you think they won't just get them? Here is an Israeli woman with an M-16.

Here are some more...

Or how about at the beach?

The Israeli's have figured out that gun control doesn't work. So have MORE people carrying guns and they will be able to stop the bad actors before they are able to kill a lot of people.

That is the reality.

Im sure some bad guys will always be able to get their hands on those guns. Others maybe not. Maybe they just use a pistol instead or the quickest easiest thing they can find... In those cases maybe they only kill a couple people and not dozens. Don't you think that makes sense? Don't you think if it saves lives then it is worth exploring?

"Don't you think if it saves lives then it is worth exploring?"

False assumption. How would lives be saved if the murderer/terrorist uses explosives, or airplanes, or poisoned cool aid instead?

And they had that choice, but it's often harder to get such things or carry out such things. Guns are the weapon of choice because they're easy to get. They're not the weapon of choice in the UK, and the murder rate is much lower.

Guns are not the weapon of choice of the most successful mass murderers. Explosives, incendiaries, poisons and vehicles are all easily obtained and/or made. And America is not an island.

Well, it depends what the mass murderer wants. The sadistic kind, the ones who kill over a long period of time, might not use guns, because it's not their style. Those without style will use guns.

The 8 Worst Mass Murderers in American History
Number 8 in Sandy Hook, guns
Number 7 in Virginia Tech, guns
Number 6 is Wall Street Bombing, bombs
Number 5 is Heaven's Gate Suicide, well, suffocation
Number 4 is Bath School Disaster, bomb
Number 3 is Orlando Night Club, guns
Number 2 is Vegas, guns
Number 1 is McVeigh, bombs

So, bombs are there, guns are there. The two most popular. Bombs are actually illegal, guns aren't.

Dear CNN: Really? This animation of a bump stock is just EMBARRASSING

and when they are, they're not reported on correctly...

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? No

Do you support it now? Fuck NO!

Why or why not? Only bad things happens whenever Progressive take away the right of the people to bear arms.

What bad things?

 

[Slade3200]

I'm fine with automatic weapons being banned. But if we give the gun control freaks and inch they take a mile, look lets be honest the gun control lobby their goal is to ban guns, period. It doesn't matter how much we compromise with those assholes they will just keep coming back until there is a full ban on private gun ownership.

If you support banning automatic weapons then wouldn't it make sense to ban the bump stocks that turn semi's into autos? also anything else that gives the mass destruction capabilities which is at the heart of why the Autos were banned?

You can ban bump stocks, but they can be easily made at home, and someone as extreme or as sick as the Las Vegas murderer was wouldn't care whether they were illegal or not.
Go ahead and ban them, I really don't care, but do so knowing that it's not going to make any difference when it comes to an event like Las Vegas.
It's simply window dressing that apparently will make some people feel better.

Good then it shouldn’t be a big deal

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? No

Do you support it now? Fuck NO!

Why or why not? Only bad things happens whenever Progressive take away the right of the people to bear arms.

What bad things?

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and KJU

 

[9thIDdoc]

If you admit that we can't prevent it, and you acknowledge that bad people will always be able to get the guns they want, what makes you think they won't just get them? Here is an Israeli woman with an M-16.

Here are some more...

Or how about at the beach?

The Israeli's have figured out that gun control doesn't work. So have MORE people carrying guns and they will be able to stop the bad actors before they are able to kill a lot of people.

That is the reality.

Im sure some bad guys will always be able to get their hands on those guns. Others maybe not. Maybe they just use a pistol instead or the quickest easiest thing they can find... In those cases maybe they only kill a couple people and not dozens. Don't you think that makes sense? Don't you think if it saves lives then it is worth exploring?

"Don't you think if it saves lives then it is worth exploring?"

False assumption. How would lives be saved if the murderer/terrorist uses explosives, or airplanes, or poisoned cool aid instead?

And they had that choice, but it's often harder to get such things or carry out such things. Guns are the weapon of choice because they're easy to get. They're not the weapon of choice in the UK, and the murder rate is much lower.

Guns are not the weapon of choice of the most successful mass murderers. Explosives, incendiaries, poisons and vehicles are all easily obtained and/or made. And America is not an island.

Well, it depends what the mass murderer wants. The sadistic kind, the ones who kill over a long period of time, might not use guns, because it's not their style. Those without style will use guns.

The 8 Worst Mass Murderers in American History
Number 8 in Sandy Hook, guns
Number 7 in Virginia Tech, guns
Number 6 is Wall Street Bombing, bombs
Number 5 is Heaven's Gate Suicide, well, suffocation
Number 4 is Bath School Disaster, bomb
Number 3 is Orlando Night Club, guns
Number 2 is Vegas, guns
Number 1 is McVeigh, bombs

So, bombs are there, guns are there. The two most popular. Bombs are actually illegal, guns aren't.

You neglected 9/11,aircraft/fire and the Jonestown massacre, poison, and the ,Dividion massercre, fire/gun fire all of which saw more killed than Las Vegas with few gun deaths.
Explosives are no more heavily regulated than guns and are much easier to make.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Im sure some bad guys will always be able to get their hands on those guns. Others maybe not. Maybe they just use a pistol instead or the quickest easiest thing they can find... In those cases maybe they only kill a couple people and not dozens. Don't you think that makes sense? Don't you think if it saves lives then it is worth exploring?

"Don't you think if it saves lives then it is worth exploring?"

False assumption. How would lives be saved if the murderer/terrorist uses explosives, or airplanes, or poisoned cool aid instead?

And they had that choice, but it's often harder to get such things or carry out such things. Guns are the weapon of choice because they're easy to get. They're not the weapon of choice in the UK, and the murder rate is much lower.

Guns are not the weapon of choice of the most successful mass murderers. Explosives, incendiaries, poisons and vehicles are all easily obtained and/or made. And America is not an island.

Well, it depends what the mass murderer wants. The sadistic kind, the ones who kill over a long period of time, might not use guns, because it's not their style. Those without style will use guns.

The 8 Worst Mass Murderers in American History
Number 8 in Sandy Hook, guns
Number 7 in Virginia Tech, guns
Number 6 is Wall Street Bombing, bombs
Number 5 is Heaven's Gate Suicide, well, suffocation
Number 4 is Bath School Disaster, bomb
Number 3 is Orlando Night Club, guns
Number 2 is Vegas, guns
Number 1 is McVeigh, bombs

So, bombs are there, guns are there. The two most popular. Bombs are actually illegal, guns aren't.

You neglected 9/11,aircraft/fire and the Jonestown massacre, poison, and the ,Dividion massercre, fire/gun fire all of which saw more killed than Las Vegas with few gun deaths.
Explosives are no more heavily regulated than guns and are much easier to make.

True, but it doesn't matter, the point is there.

Explosives can be made. But it requires effort on the part of the people making them to research. Guns are far more spontaneous an for those who simply snap, or haven't thought it through much. Either way both are for killing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

That's kind of knee jerk if you ask me. This only happened one time in such a venue and likely would not happen again in the future. The idea of terrorism is to terrorize people forcing them walk on eggshells from that point on.

As bad as 911 was and the deaths that took place, the real delight for terrorists is what happened afterwards. Random searches of airport passengers, TSA agents and their body scanners, long waits at airports, shutting down of operations because somebody found a suspicious looking luggage bag, things like that.

As a truck driver I can honestly say how it greatly effected air freight deliveries and pickups although I'm not at liberty to say how. What I can tell you is that 911 made it a real pain in the ass for all of us due to overreaction and over precautions. The terrorists are still winning over fifteen years after their attack. They share delight in our paranoia.

We can't let this unfortunate incident change the way we live. We can't allow liberals to cash in on this tragedy. The worst thing we could do is disallow outdoor concerts next to tall buildings, or have a militant presence at every event. Look at us! We are discussing the use of bump stock even though it was never used before and probably never will be used again even if left legal.

There is nothing wrong with learning from this situation, but what would be wrong is for us to be expecting a similar attack in the future and taking ridiculous precautions like having snipers at each event. If a hotel (or whatever) next to an event sees something unusual, no doubt, report it to somebody. In 99% of the cases, it would probably be nothing. But allowing us to be terrorized for the rest of our lives would be a huge win for this maniac; even worse if he did have some connection to a terrorist group.

 

[westwall]

Once again, you're being stupid. There IS no loss of performance when a high powered rifle uses a suppressor. Yet again you demonstrate your profound ignorance.

You have to use subsonic ammo for the supressor to work like a silencer. Which is a loss of performance.

Why not just wear the damn earplugs?

Once again for the learning impaired. A SUPPRESSOR reduces the firing signature of whatever weapon fires it. If you use subsonic ammunition the firing signature is further reduced. A SUPPRESSOR reduces the dB by a certain amount based on how good it is. Subsonic ammunition merely eliminates the supersonic crack of the bullet as it passes over intervening people. The SUPPRESSOR does not gain special abilities due to the ammunition used.

 

[westwall]

Under FLOODLIGHTS. Are you really this stupid?

Smoke doesn't obscure floodlights. You can see them glowing through the smoke. And if he was using them to aim by, he would still have them no matter how much smoke you blow. Hint. stop blowing smoke, it doesn't obscure a target the size of a football field. When the target is anywhere on that football field.

Smoke makes it impossible for a sniper to pick out a particular person within it.
But it doesn't protect the crowd in general. And in this case the target was anywhere

Clearly you have never experienced the joys of military smoke.

 

[westwall]

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

That's kind of knee jerk if you ask me. This only happened one time in such a venue and likely would not happen again in the future. The idea of terrorism is to terrorize people forcing them walk on eggshells from that point on.

As bad as 911 was and the deaths that took place, the real delight for terrorists is what happened afterwards. Random searches of airport passengers, TSA agents and their body scanners, long waits at airports, shutting down of operations because somebody found a suspicious looking luggage bag, things like that.

As a truck driver I can honestly say how it greatly effected air freight deliveries and pickups although I'm not at liberty to say how. What I can tell you is that 911 made it a real pain in the ass for all of us due to overreaction and over precautions. The terrorists are still winning over fifteen years after their attack. They share delight in our paranoia.

We can't let this unfortunate incident change the way we live. We can't allow liberals to cash in on this tragedy. The worst thing we could do is disallow outdoor concerts next to tall buildings, or have a militant presence at every event. Look at us! We are discussing the use of bump stock even though it was never used before and probably never will be used again even if left legal.

There is nothing wrong with learning from this situation, but what would be wrong is for us to be expecting a similar attack in the future and taking ridiculous precautions like having snipers at each event. If a hotel (or whatever) next to an event sees something unusual, no doubt, report it to somebody. In 99% of the cases, it would probably be nothing. But allowing us to be terrorized for the rest of our lives would be a huge win for this maniac; even worse if he did have some connection to a terrorist group.

Just like lightning actually strikes the same place MORE frequently than you have been led to believe, once a bad group figures out how soft a target is, they will continue to exploit those now identified soft targets.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

That's kind of knee jerk if you ask me. This only happened one time in such a venue and likely would not happen again in the future. The idea of terrorism is to terrorize people forcing them walk on eggshells from that point on.

As bad as 911 was and the deaths that took place, the real delight for terrorists is what happened afterwards. Random searches of airport passengers, TSA agents and their body scanners, long waits at airports, shutting down of operations because somebody found a suspicious looking luggage bag, things like that.

As a truck driver I can honestly say how it greatly effected air freight deliveries and pickups although I'm not at liberty to say how. What I can tell you is that 911 made it a real pain in the ass for all of us due to overreaction and over precautions. The terrorists are still winning over fifteen years after their attack. They share delight in our paranoia.

We can't let this unfortunate incident change the way we live. We can't allow liberals to cash in on this tragedy. The worst thing we could do is disallow outdoor concerts next to tall buildings, or have a militant presence at every event. Look at us! We are discussing the use of bump stock even though it was never used before and probably never will be used again even if left legal.

There is nothing wrong with learning from this situation, but what would be wrong is for us to be expecting a similar attack in the future and taking ridiculous precautions like having snipers at each event. If a hotel (or whatever) next to an event sees something unusual, no doubt, report it to somebody. In 99% of the cases, it would probably be nothing. But allowing us to be terrorized for the rest of our lives would be a huge win for this maniac; even worse if he did have some connection to a terrorist group.

Just like lightning actually strikes the same place MORE frequently than you have been led to believe, once a bad group figures out how soft a target is, they will continue to exploit those now identified soft targets.

Like always, there may be attempted copy cats, but very few if any and certainly not at this level. But after some time, people forget and it goes away as it always does.

Fun lovers are now well aware of this possibility, but we need to leave it up to them if they refuse to bow down and allow this thing to ruin their enjoyment. If they are weary, then don't go. If they are willing to take a chance no matter how low the risk is of something like this happening again, then it's up to them.

If something like this does happen over and over again, that's a different story. Evil wins and we need to do more. But for right now, I think our best approach is not to get too carried away with all this.

 

[westwall]

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

That's kind of knee jerk if you ask me. This only happened one time in such a venue and likely would not happen again in the future. The idea of terrorism is to terrorize people forcing them walk on eggshells from that point on.

As bad as 911 was and the deaths that took place, the real delight for terrorists is what happened afterwards. Random searches of airport passengers, TSA agents and their body scanners, long waits at airports, shutting down of operations because somebody found a suspicious looking luggage bag, things like that.

As a truck driver I can honestly say how it greatly effected air freight deliveries and pickups although I'm not at liberty to say how. What I can tell you is that 911 made it a real pain in the ass for all of us due to overreaction and over precautions. The terrorists are still winning over fifteen years after their attack. They share delight in our paranoia.

We can't let this unfortunate incident change the way we live. We can't allow liberals to cash in on this tragedy. The worst thing we could do is disallow outdoor concerts next to tall buildings, or have a militant presence at every event. Look at us! We are discussing the use of bump stock even though it was never used before and probably never will be used again even if left legal.

There is nothing wrong with learning from this situation, but what would be wrong is for us to be expecting a similar attack in the future and taking ridiculous precautions like having snipers at each event. If a hotel (or whatever) next to an event sees something unusual, no doubt, report it to somebody. In 99% of the cases, it would probably be nothing. But allowing us to be terrorized for the rest of our lives would be a huge win for this maniac; even worse if he did have some connection to a terrorist group.

Just like lightning actually strikes the same place MORE frequently than you have been led to believe, once a bad group figures out how soft a target is, they will continue to exploit those now identified soft targets.

Like always, there may be attempted copy cats, but very few if any and certainly not at this level. But after some time, people forget and it goes away as it always does.

Fun lovers are now well aware of this possibility, but we need to leave it up to them if they refuse to bow down and allow this thing to ruin their enjoyment. If they are weary, then don't go. If they are willing to take a chance no matter how low the risk is of something like this happening again, then it's up to them.

If something like this does happen over and over again, that's a different story. Evil wins and we need to do more. But for right now, I think our best approach is not to get too carried away with all this.

I disagree with you. Criminals are by nature not creative. That's why they are criminals. This guy was waaaay different from the run of the mill mass murderer. He has laid out a very easy to copy template, and I guarantee you that others will follow in his footsteps.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

That's kind of knee jerk if you ask me. This only happened one time in such a venue and likely would not happen again in the future. The idea of terrorism is to terrorize people forcing them walk on eggshells from that point on.

As bad as 911 was and the deaths that took place, the real delight for terrorists is what happened afterwards. Random searches of airport passengers, TSA agents and their body scanners, long waits at airports, shutting down of operations because somebody found a suspicious looking luggage bag, things like that.

As a truck driver I can honestly say how it greatly effected air freight deliveries and pickups although I'm not at liberty to say how. What I can tell you is that 911 made it a real pain in the ass for all of us due to overreaction and over precautions. The terrorists are still winning over fifteen years after their attack. They share delight in our paranoia.

We can't let this unfortunate incident change the way we live. We can't allow liberals to cash in on this tragedy. The worst thing we could do is disallow outdoor concerts next to tall buildings, or have a militant presence at every event. Look at us! We are discussing the use of bump stock even though it was never used before and probably never will be used again even if left legal.

There is nothing wrong with learning from this situation, but what would be wrong is for us to be expecting a similar attack in the future and taking ridiculous precautions like having snipers at each event. If a hotel (or whatever) next to an event sees something unusual, no doubt, report it to somebody. In 99% of the cases, it would probably be nothing. But allowing us to be terrorized for the rest of our lives would be a huge win for this maniac; even worse if he did have some connection to a terrorist group.

But the right ARE cashing in on this.

Let's be tough against the Muslims, it gives the US a common enemy with which to focus their power. We need more military spending, we need more troops out in the world, we need to be tough, be strong.

I'm reading a book about naval power by Robert K Massey, a great writer of history books, mostly about the Russian Royal Family.

When Germany became an empire, it had little to no navy. Then Wilhelm II and Tirpitz came along. Both wanted to have a Navy. They had not real reason to justify having a huge navy, their enemies were France and Russia, or Austria, or anyone they had to defeat on land, not at sea. So they literally made England out to be the enemy. They found reasons to pick fights with England to promote their navy building. And they succeeded.

The US does the same. It makes the enemy to justify the spending of money. It uses FEAR to get that spending. Fear of terrorists. You fear terrorists more because of the security measure and the way the media sensationalizes the attacks. Every attack by Muslims is seen as a reason to increase security. Every attack by a white American is ignored because white America isn't the enemy.

Bush went into Iraq. More for US interests to do with OPEC, but the aftermath was a complete balls up. Or so it seemed. But the reality is the post war fuck up has enhanced the right's claims against terrorism massively. It's brought NATO back to the US more and more.

It all seems so planned.

 

[westwall]

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

That's kind of knee jerk if you ask me. This only happened one time in such a venue and likely would not happen again in the future. The idea of terrorism is to terrorize people forcing them walk on eggshells from that point on.

As bad as 911 was and the deaths that took place, the real delight for terrorists is what happened afterwards. Random searches of airport passengers, TSA agents and their body scanners, long waits at airports, shutting down of operations because somebody found a suspicious looking luggage bag, things like that.

As a truck driver I can honestly say how it greatly effected air freight deliveries and pickups although I'm not at liberty to say how. What I can tell you is that 911 made it a real pain in the ass for all of us due to overreaction and over precautions. The terrorists are still winning over fifteen years after their attack. They share delight in our paranoia.

We can't let this unfortunate incident change the way we live. We can't allow liberals to cash in on this tragedy. The worst thing we could do is disallow outdoor concerts next to tall buildings, or have a militant presence at every event. Look at us! We are discussing the use of bump stock even though it was never used before and probably never will be used again even if left legal.

There is nothing wrong with learning from this situation, but what would be wrong is for us to be expecting a similar attack in the future and taking ridiculous precautions like having snipers at each event. If a hotel (or whatever) next to an event sees something unusual, no doubt, report it to somebody. In 99% of the cases, it would probably be nothing. But allowing us to be terrorized for the rest of our lives would be a huge win for this maniac; even worse if he did have some connection to a terrorist group.

But the right ARE cashing in on this.

Let's be tough against the Muslims, it gives the US a common enemy with which to focus their power. We need more military spending, we need more troops out in the world, we need to be tough, be strong.

I'm reading a book about naval power by Robert K Massey, a great writer of history books, mostly about the Russian Royal Family.

When Germany became an empire, it had little to no navy. Then Wilhelm II and Tirpitz came along. Both wanted to have a Navy. They had not real reason to justify having a huge navy, their enemies were France and Russia, or Austria, or anyone they had to defeat on land, not at sea. So they literally made England out to be the enemy. They found reasons to pick fights with England to promote their navy building. And they succeeded.

The US does the same. It makes the enemy to justify the spending of money. It uses FEAR to get that spending. Fear of terrorists. You fear terrorists more because of the security measure and the way the media sensationalizes the attacks. Every attack by Muslims is seen as a reason to increase security. Every attack by a white American is ignored because white America isn't the enemy.

Bush went into Iraq. More for US interests to do with OPEC, but the aftermath was a complete balls up. Or so it seemed. But the reality is the post war fuck up has enhanced the right's claims against terrorism massively. It's brought NATO back to the US more and more.

It all seems so planned.

His book "Castles of Steel" is even better.

 

[Rustic]

How about for instance, restricting events that will have large crowds if the venue is out in the open, and it's situated next to high rise hotels, apts., businesses, etc. ?

How about restricting buildings to below the heights airplanes can fly?

I think a far better solution would be to hire designated sniper teams to provide an overwatch for large scale events like these. Additionally I would have smoke grenades for the various security guards to use so that in the event of a active shooter they could deploy them to make his task all that much harder.

That's kind of knee jerk if you ask me. This only happened one time in such a venue and likely would not happen again in the future. The idea of terrorism is to terrorize people forcing them walk on eggshells from that point on.

As bad as 911 was and the deaths that took place, the real delight for terrorists is what happened afterwards. Random searches of airport passengers, TSA agents and their body scanners, long waits at airports, shutting down of operations because somebody found a suspicious looking luggage bag, things like that.

As a truck driver I can honestly say how it greatly effected air freight deliveries and pickups although I'm not at liberty to say how. What I can tell you is that 911 made it a real pain in the ass for all of us due to overreaction and over precautions. The terrorists are still winning over fifteen years after their attack. They share delight in our paranoia.

We can't let this unfortunate incident change the way we live. We can't allow liberals to cash in on this tragedy. The worst thing we could do is disallow outdoor concerts next to tall buildings, or have a militant presence at every event. Look at us! We are discussing the use of bump stock even though it was never used before and probably never will be used again even if left legal.

There is nothing wrong with learning from this situation, but what would be wrong is for us to be expecting a similar attack in the future and taking ridiculous precautions like having snipers at each event. If a hotel (or whatever) next to an event sees something unusual, no doubt, report it to somebody. In 99% of the cases, it would probably be nothing. But allowing us to be terrorized for the rest of our lives would be a huge win for this maniac; even worse if he did have some connection to a terrorist group.

But the right ARE cashing in on this.

Let's be tough against the Muslims, it gives the US a common enemy with which to focus their power. We need more military spending, we need more troops out in the world, we need to be tough, be strong.

I'm reading a book about naval power by Robert K Massey, a great writer of history books, mostly about the Russian Royal Family.

When Germany became an empire, it had little to no navy. Then Wilhelm II and Tirpitz came along. Both wanted to have a Navy. They had not real reason to justify having a huge navy, their enemies were France and Russia, or Austria, or anyone they had to defeat on land, not at sea. So they literally made England out to be the enemy. They found reasons to pick fights with England to promote their navy building. And they succeeded.

The US does the same. It makes the enemy to justify the spending of money. It uses FEAR to get that spending. Fear of terrorists. You fear terrorists more because of the security measure and the way the media sensationalizes the attacks. Every attack by Muslims is seen as a reason to increase security. Every attack by a white American is ignored because white America isn't the enemy.

Bush went into Iraq. More for US interests to do with OPEC, but the aftermath was a complete balls up. Or so it seemed. But the reality is the post war fuck up has enhanced the right's claims against terrorism massively. It's brought NATO back to the US more and more.

It all seems so planned.

This country’s real enemy is it’s own federal government