Help

I haven't been on this board in a very long time and after the shooting last night I think, "what if they're right?"... I just don't know. Please /k/ show me the way, rekindle my faith, tell me it's gonna be ok, post gun porn or some shit idk

They're still not right.

This was just a perfect storm. You had a guy who was older and had a significant amount of money and guns (most shooters are young and use cheap/stolen guns). He holed himself in a highly elevated position, firing down into a dense crowd with rapid fire (still don't know if it was F/A or a crank/bumpfire stock). For fuck's sake, he even set up cameras in the crowd to see if anyone was approaching him. There's nothing that could have been done. Even if a significant portion of people in the crowd had their CC, they're not going to be able to somehow accurately suppress the killer with a pistol while everyone is panicking around them.

Even if something passed in the wake of sandy hook, he would still have had his guns, ammo, and magazines.

The shooter took his time, planned out the event and actually set up for it. He was motivated and actually had a bunch of money to carry out his plans. No amount of gun control would have stopped him, at best it would have changed the style of attack.

Overall, the media hyped mass shootings are so far and infrequent, that you have a far higher chance of getting struck by lightning than getting shot in a mass shooting.

he could have changed it into an ira style mortar attack and have much more dead and wounded people in much worse shape.

I know this isn't the board to be asking this, but I honestly feel you guys would give a more accurate answer than Sup Forums: is there any word on the shooter's motive yet?

Because his family seems to have been completely taken by surprise on this according to the news.

he just wanted to get some sleep in his hotel room. but he couldn't sleep from the faggots throwing a party under his window.

He lost a shit ton of money at the casino

>he could have changed it into an ira style mortar attack and have much more dead and wounded people in much worse shape.

Christ, you're right.
Death count would have been in the hundreds in that scenario.

Most likely bait, but whatever. Right about what? Wanting to ban everything for everyone because of some rare occasions when a few people get killed? I couldn't give less of a fuck about it. Way more people die from various causes, but you don't see leftards advocating to ban cars, hospitals, swimming pools and food, amongst others. Or maybe they are, since they want to ban everything. Not for themselves though. Left wing politicians plan to remain protected by armed guards, even when guns are banned, they plan to keep driving big polluting cars even when thermal cars are banned and people are forced to share state owned self driving electric cuck mobiles. Catch my drift yet? Do as I say, not as I do.
A few people died, and then there is like 100 gazillions injured from the stampede. Except 99% of those aren't even real injuries, just bumping into another person will get you marked on the list of casualty. Don't you see the agenda behind it?
Gun laws don't work in any country. Ill intentionned people can still buy gun legally, no matter the red tape and the hoops one has to go through. And for those who want more effective weapons or more discretion, there is the black market, which no law can ever expect to do anything about. Even if all guns could be magically banned, according to the leftist argument "without guns there would be no gun crime", criminals would either smuggle guns from shitholes such as Mexico without any issue (because if people are passing through so easily, objects are even easier to get through), thanks leftards for opposing the wall. Or they could still make guns (they do in many countries), or steal them from the government (with the help of insiders, more often than not). Or for those who don't feel like going through the hassle, they can make their own explosives with common household products, are we going to ban those? Trucks, knives too?

like user said if it werent guns, it would be a truck through a crowd, or bombs, or knives, or fire, etc
no law will change whats in a man's heart
liberty is worth blood

it's not bait and I'm not the kind of person to drift towards extremes but thank you for the support. I just think people are quick to put the blame on something on the most readily available object (if that makes sense)

Alright, im sick of seeing this "what if theyre right" bullshit, so imma just fly swatter this shit right now.

First off, we have second amendment rights. We can bear the arms we like. (To an extent)
Now, yes. Occasionally some fucknut gets a hold of an assault rifle and a shit load of legally bought ammo and shoots up a bunch of innocent people. This is bad. That being said, there are also tens of thousands of responsible gun owners who do NOT do this kind of thing. One bad apple should not be able to ruin the whole batch.

Now, if we DO ban assault rifles, heres whats gonna happen.
>youre going to make it 10 thousand times harder for the good people to get the guns they will resonsibly own. They did nothing to deserve this.
>the bad guy isnt going to say "oh, I guess no more guns anymore" and just give up. They will find other options, like street dealers, or black market. THIS FACT ALONE MAKES GUN CONTROLL USELESS.
Yes, it makes guns harder to get, but they can still get them in unconventional ways.

And finally, people use guns for mass killings because its the fastest and easiest method.
You take that away, they WILL go to the next, easiest, and fastest method.

That method will be home made bombs. Bombs are even more dangerous and destructive, and I can promise you they cant ban every bomb component on the market.

Now if i were you, Id rather be shot and die rather than be blown up and ripped to shreads by shrapnel. A truly determined killer wont just stop his plot because a lack of gun.

>the bad guy isnt going to say "oh, I guess no more guns anymore" and just give up.
>A truly determined killer wont just stop his plot because a lack of gun.

the problem here is that you seem to be lumping all criminals into one group. the person who wants to shoot up their office or school or whatever is simply not going to have the connections to get them access to illegal weapons and may not even have the drive to go as far as to build explosives. the idea that people who want to commit mass murder don't care about consequences or self harm is simply not true. hell the reason most of them kill themselves is that they don't WANT to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Anyone with 100 dollars and knowledge could feasibly carry out a mass killing. Steal a truck and drive it through a crowd, nigger rig a bomb/bombs, pour gas on all the exits of a crowded event and burn people to death, stab people to death, hell, you could buy some heavy boots, shove people over, and american history x them into the ground. The only way to fight killings like these is to fight the hate in peoples hearts, not their chosen methods of execution.

Sandbagging the SHARE Act

Use your own goddamn brain OP. Be better than muhfeels people and look up facts and statistics. Watch debates on gun control and come to your own conclusions.
Don't just ask /k/ or Sup Forums to spoon feed you. That's what anti gunners do. Even if you do come to a conclusion I disagree with.

Probably wanted attention, power, and a challenge.

I'm not excluding the possibility of political motivations; if he did want to curtail pro-gun legislation his best move would be to not show his allegiances in any way.

basically I think this is true. really though, with gun control you're talking about lowering casualty counts in these events and possibly higher chances they would be picked up on police or terrorist watch radar for trying to circumvent bans illegally. With 69 dead and 500 injured I think it may be time for serious thought on the issue.
You look at britain and you see how it went with knives after guns were banned. People who are motivated will use whatever as deadly weapons.
Fundamentally I personally think people control makes a lot more sense. Mandatory psychiatric evaluations for prospective buyers and 5 year follow ups (and yearly if someone is seeming good but iffy), heavy fines for improperly stored or easily accessible guns (scaled upward from simple rifles, to handguns, to autos), hard prison time for those who illegally obtain. No grandfather clauses, no exceptions. Put guns in the hands of responsible owners and keep them there.

I think by the point someone is ready to carry out a mass killing there ought to be some real ouvert indications visible to a trained mental health professional. You may not catch them all but you catch more.

you need some practice with that though, and that's where those guys get caught. no problem going to the range though.

>Mandatory psychiatric evaluations
>for prospective buyers
Personally I feel strongly there should be mandatory psych evals for literally everyone. Not terribly realistic and probably not a great idea all things given but a I can dream.

>Mandatory psychiatric evaluations for prospective buyers
these would be abused left and right, and many perfectly fine people would be barred from guns

>heavy fines for improperly stored or easily accessible guns
practically asking to be implemented unreasonably. again, punishing average joe

>with gun control you're talking about lowering casualty counts in these events
like a couple anons have said, this wont necessarily lead to fewer deaths. other means of mass murder are available

They're never right, even if 1000 people died.

Well, according to my grandfather, the best way to prevent mass shootings in future is to make private ownership of firearms completely illegal, and anybody caught in possession of a gun should be given life in prison without parole.

Yeah, he's a fucking retard.

Did he have plans to do something afterwards, and to do what exactly? Did he intend to make a bomb but never finished it in time? Did he plan to just march down the stairs as an unstoppable killing machine and survive? Can the hotel lock people in their rooms or inside the building? How does one get that many guns without thinking about what doing this would do for the laws? How did he get all his money? Was one of his planes nearby? Did he lose a lot gambling? Was his girlfriend cheating on him? Normally this is extreme attention seeking behavior, so why doesn't he seem to have any social media accounts? Did he have a brain tumor? Is there a manifesto that's being kept from us? Who was he talking to? Why didn't he use any kind of silencer? Why did he start buying guns? Why did he have so many with him? What did he think about country music? Was he racist against anyone? Why did it take 75 minutes for police to do something about him? Who was that woman who said you're all going to die tonight?

All these must be answered to prove the innocence of yourself and your ideas in this, in the court of public opinion. For unless we can find a way to blame society and those who control the mainstream narrative, banning and confiscation is the only thing the government can do to to prevent a repeat of this. Yes, the casino could put some more effort into enforcing their no guns allowed rules, but that would mean a rich man has to spend money and we can't have that.

that's the thing. the only thing that gun bans would do is make existing owners criminals. it wouldn't stop crime, it wouldn't stop mass shootings, and the supreme court would never have it anyway.
i get the impression he was using bumpfire too, so you can bet people will be trying to legislate that somehow.

No motive as of yet. He was an accountant who made a killing in the housing market before the crash (millions).

He had the money, internalized his rage, committed to every thing he did, and took his sweet time doing it. The man is/was a perfect storm laying waste to a perfect target.

Why he did it? Maybe he got killed in the housing crash, maybe he's antifa, maybe someone cut him off, or maybe a bunch of little things finally built themselves up.

You'll know when the police know, IF they find anything. . . Because there might not be a motive, not a public one.

Timothy McVeigh murdered 167 people without a gun. That guy in France last year killed 80 people with a truck. The 9/11 bombers killed 2,000 people without a gun.

What is it then? Are people killed by guns ‘more dead’ than people killed by other means? No law is going to abolish murderers from the human race. All it will do is make it harder for the rest of us to defend ourselves from murderers. Why should millions of law abiding citizens have to pay by giving their rights away because of some lunatic?

Gun control has never been about ensuring safety. It’s only about getting control over the lives of law abiding people.

Holy fuck, why are you on this board? You unironically come off as a paid activist.

I am a liberal and I agree wholeheartedly with this. It's not the tool that kills, it's the intent behind it that puts it in motion.

Mandatory psych evaluations would only be fine if they were confidential and could not be used in any way to strip somebody of any their rights. And that is still toeing a very dangerous line.

That’s probably what he is.

>”hey guys, this insane person did this thing. Do you all want to give up your rights now?”

and how would have prevent masses of people crushed by trucks driven into crowds? make private ownership of trucks illegal and completely illegal, and anybody caught in possession of a truck (or any vehicle above 5 tonnes) should be given life in prison without parole?

>hell the reason most of them kill themselves is that they don't WANT to deal with the consequences of their actions.

No, mostly the reason is they want to prove how worthless life is. Other than the assorted religious and political terrorists, most mass murderers are deeply narcissistic nihilists that have decided that life is pointless, and they're going to prove it by hurting as many people as possible and then offing themselves. Hell, they write manifestos that say precisely that.

Absolutely. Everyone should have to either take public transportation or drive a smart car. Heavy deliveries can be done with a pickup truck, if you have annual mental health screenings and rigorous licensing processes. You don't NEED that truck, user.

Same is true people who buy fertilizer, or castor beans, or bleach, or almost any element from the far ends of the periodic table, really (including salt), or mercury (easy to make both mercury fulminate AND some of the deadliest toxins known), or gasoline, or a crowbar (what if someone derails a train?), or a box-cutter (killed almost 3000 people back in 2001), or steel pipe, or a 3D printer, or a milling machine, or a lathe, or a set of files and drill bits. You don't NEED those things, user. Won't somebody please think of the children???

I don't understand why more people don't come to this kind of conclusion... We drive vehicles on a daily basis knowing that accidents happen and are sometimes fatal. Look at the recent vehicle attacks in Europe. Should we ban driving because there's some risk of injury/fatalities?

I don't see why we, as a society, don't also accept that because we are an armed society, events like this are just going to happen sometimes, just like some cunt will drive a truck through a crowd on occasion. I don't see this event any differently.

It's a horrible thing that happened, but we can't punish the masses for the mistakes made by the few.

we base our laws usually on the actions from worst of us
rather than based off the good from the best of us
literal bizarro world

Hello /k/.

Putting up concrete barriers in areas with lots of pedestrians can be really effective. Obviously there's no way to prevent vehicle attacks completely but you can limit the damage.
Can't say the same about guns other than making them harder to get.

My arguement has always been that a gun should be at MINIMUM as hard to get as a driver's license. Guns are much easier to obtain than cars.

yes, welcome to our cloaca

Require CCP and must show weapon to vote. Most of societies' problems solved.

The " I've always been on your side but now i doubt " shilling meme.

Old and used, like their mom.

SAGE.

>the person who wants to shoot up their office or school or whatever is simply not going to have the connections to get them access to illegal weapons
just check in with your local rapefugees lol

>deeply narcissistic nihilists
So basically leftists. No wonder most shootings are done by left wing democrats

Because it has very little, if anything, to do with the people that actually lost their lives. The same is also generally true when a muslim terrorist attack happens. For liberals/commies, a mass shooting is a good time to push for greater state control and restriction of freedoms, which is what they would want even if these attacks never happened. But similarly, I couldn't really give a shit when a terrorist attack happens here (and I live in London) because it's so incredibly rare and unlikely to actually affect me. I'm more heavily affected by the gangs of immigrant youths that loiter around late at night in my neighbourhood and the overall soft invasion of my country. Still, what better indicator is there that my country is going to the shit than when every few months (or fewer!) some muslim goes on a killing spree or blows himself up? So liberals and commies don't particularly give a shit that a mass shooting has happened either, they just see them as extensions of the 'problem' of people having too many freedoms and see these events as great opportunities to push an agenda. That's why they ignore muslim terrorist attacks and we ignore mass shootings, because none of us actually care about anyone and just want to push a political agenda.

You don't need a license to own a car, and absolutely anyone can obtain a car, even a child could go to a garage, buy any car and start driving it on private property, without any hassle.
You only need a license to drive a car on public property, ie : the streets. There are no background checks, or waiting time, or age restrictions, or whatever to own a car. Even a felon could own one. Even someone who has already been responsible for a lethal car crash could still legally buy a car without any trouble.

You don't need a license to own a gun, carry or use it on private property, but you need a license to carry a gun on public property, ie : the streets. And even then, there are plenty of places where you can't carry a gun.

So no, guns aren't easier to obtain than cars, far from it.

SHALL