Liberal Here:

alright conservatives, here's your chance. Explain to me how the fuck LOOSER gun restrictions would have stopped or stymied the situation in Vegas last night?

Even if everyone at the concert had a firearm on them, they're not going to shoot at the side of a hotel, hoping to hit the gunman. The neighbors next to the gunman within the hotel have to get through a locked door and possibly traps or an accomplice before firing upon the window shooter.

How would more guns or looser restrictions have possibly helped the Vegas situation rather than the alternative? I want real and realistic answers.

It's not the governments job to stop all the horrific things that could happen. Their job is to protect personal and civil liberties.

/thread

How would gun restriction have helped?
The weapon used was allready illegal, what would you do? Make it more illegal?

maybe if they banned murder, they would have stopped him, right? why haven't we banned that yet?

It wouldn't have. But more restrictions on his already illegal possession of a full auto wouldn't have helped either. Sometimes, bad things happen. Like 84 being killed in Nice, France by a fucking truck.

It wouldn't.

Neither would stricter gun regulations, unless we went full Britstain, which would cause much more crime than it prevents.

Most mass shootings are easily preventable by a well armed population--just look up how many mass shootings have been foiled in Texas. Most mass shootings that are successful occur where nobody has guns.

Anyway, guns make the individual safer, and every law abiding citizen should have the right to defend himself with as much as a semi-auto rifle.

If we lived in ancap paradise some kind fellow could have just gotten in his own personal B2 he took to the concert and dropped a MOAB or tactical nuke on the Mandalay bay to get rid of the shooter

Who the fuck said that? Disregard anyone who claims that this attack could have been prevented, because they're retarded.

That being said, horrible shit goes down in our world every day. It's not society's job to prevent every horrible thing from not happening. It just can't be done.

We don't have citizen gun ownership entirely to have citizens stop other citizens from shooting each other. It is to prevent government tyranny, to protect the other rights we have, like speech, assembly, etc. Without gun ownership, the state tyrannizes the people, even brainwashing them that the tyranny is something they should desire, that the tyranny is 'common sense'. This is how social systems work, the founders recognized it, they were woke as fuck, and they gave us the second amendment to ensure that future generations would not have to suffer through the tyranny they experienced and so many other people in the world experience right now.
Like right now in Europe, they are importing "refugees" to exploit as cheap labor, and these same refugees rape and murder native Europeans, and the state doesn't care about its own citizens enough to protect them, it just wants to maximize gdp at the lowest cost to benefit the richest donors and technocrats who keep the politicians in power. And if you complain about these murderous invaders, the state STOMPS ITS BOOTS ON YOU, because you're just supposed to sit back and take it up the ass or else.
This happens because the people there don't own guns and the state has no reason to fear the people, it doesn't have to ask for their consent to rape them. It just does what it wants to enrich itself. The people are told their country doesn't even belong to them, it belongs to whoever in the world is willing to work for the lowest wages.

sage

Democrat here. Pacific Northwest.
You're a fool if you think progressives aren't armed. Shit man a lot of us served. Those of us who haven't have family who have, family in law enforcement, and so on. I've hunted and gutted deer. I've slaughtered squirrel in potato fields. I've fought. I've wrestled. I used to skate and I've broken so many bones I've literally lost count and walked half of them off. And there's nothing special or exceptional about me. You're a fool if you don't think progressives are formidable. For every straw man pic you have of a faggy liberal I have a pic of a fat virgin beta orbiter with a weak stance who still flinches when he fires. I don't presume that the alt right is not formidable. I grew up surrounded by the tea party before they became the tea party. I know what they can do. I've hunted with them. But that's what's funny about these neolibertarian pseudofascists. They assume they're the toughest guys in the world and everyone else is soft. That's why they keep losing wars. The south loses. Every time they flex. Progressives are ruthless when cornered. We burned Atlanta to the ground and used rape as a weapon of mass psychological operation, disrupted troops and marched right up to Jefferson Davis front door. We designed a bomb that destroyed entire cities, then we upgraded it. We invented remote control flying guns and remote control bombers.. Don't fuck with us. The south will rise again? Fine. We'll put em down again.

>Here's your chance REEE!

No, you explain to me how tougher gun restrictions will stop:

1) Someone using a drone to do the same thing
2) Someone using a truck to do the same thing
3) Someone taking a 3D printer and printing themselves up a bunch of guns that are even more dangerous

The genie is out of the bottle on this one. There is no stopping people from killing large amounts of people in crowded areas anymore. You're demanding a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem.

Adding, Marx wholeheartedly supported private gun ownership. Gun control has always come from faggot liberals who are useful idiots for the billionaire class who don't want the lower classes to have any power whatsoever. The billionaires don't want you able to vote, don't want you able to complain, they don't want you able to fight; they just want you to do your job for peanuts and be happy with what you're given.
Inevitably, anything that threatens the agenda of the billionaires is labeled as hate speech.

nice pasta nigger

>Liberal Here:
You lost already.

You Liberals are soooooo retarded.

The point of having guns isn't to defend yourself against a possible mass shooting, especially when the assailant is firing from an unknown location at least 30 stories above you.

The POINT of your second amendment RIGHTS are to keep the American people on a level of defensive strength at least ~somewhat~ comparable to their own military and police, in case:

1) The government gets taken over by crazies, and you have to defend your home, property, and family. Instead of just going quietly into the night like a bitch, you can fight back.

2) The government for some reason fails to protect you, so you can protect yourself. Obviously we use this example all the time for shit like "if someone is robbing you, you can stop them!" But originally, it's more for the idea that say another country is invading yours, and the military can't get to your town in time, your town can at least mobilize itself and defend against the threat.

I am so sick of retarded liberals trying to get us to throw our rights away because they don't understand these basic fucking concepts. You don't have second amendment rights because the founding fathers wanted you to defend yourself against mass shooters, bears, and toddlers carrying guns. You have second amendment rights so you're able to defend yourself against Nazi government takeover or a Mexican invasion etc. But all of you are too stupid to get it.

Nothing, including whatever disarmament fantasy you probably believe in, would have prevented the shooting. It's a shit situation and should be treated as such. Nobody needs to lose any more rights after this.

Who told you that?

dc vs heller you shit sucking commie bastard

so this...
this is the power of Reddit

Don't care ;-)

Look up DeShaney v Winnebago where the SCOTUS said that individuals don't have a right to state protection from non-state actors and Castle Rock v Gonzales where the SCOTUS said that a mother who's children were murdered by her estranged husband didn't have standing to sue the police for the failure to enforce a restraining order when doing so would have saved her children.

The question isn't about whether or not looser restrictions would have stopped it, but whether tighter restrictions would have made any difference.

Protip: It wouldn't have.

explain to me how stricter gun laws would have helped, if they were automatic weapons then it would have been illegal for him to have them anyway