Prohibit the possession of weapons after what happened in Las Vegas? (Discussion)
After what happened in Vegas, many people have taken advantage of the moment to pronounce again against the possession of arms. Okay, I ask a question, does possession of weapons change anything that happened? Do you really believe that the fact that Stephen Paddock committed that crime in that way is due to the possession of weapons and not to other factors? In my opinion there are people who take advantage of isolated tragedies to promote their political agenda. In other countries of the world, such as Switzerland, according to the "Small Arms Survey", with headquarters in Geneva, there are 46 weapons per hundred Swiss, and these types of crimes are nonexistent.
No physical object is aggressive in itself; any object, be it a weapon or a knife, can be used to attack, defend or for other purposes. It is as absurd to prohibit or restrict the purchase and ownership of weapons as to do so with the possession of knives. In any case, will all objects that a criminal use be banned? And if it could, how would that prohibition apply?
Attempts to disarm countries always end, by disarming people who generally use weapons in a proper way, and leaving the whole cluster of weapons in the hands of criminals and all those who break the law. Then, instead of prosecuting the true criminals, the state is in charge of pursuing citizens who have guns. If the laws limit or prohibit the carrying of weapons, it is obvious that criminals will not be willing to abide by them.
Citizens are ready to continue to support a political agenda that would lead them to have the accumulation of arms in the hands of the State, whose existence according to political philosophy is based on being a monopoly of legal force, and in the hands of the criminals who did not surrender their weapons and who managed to get even more.
Disarming citizens is to weaken the nation, the reasons for the events that occurred in Las Vegas, are cases that should be dealt with careful, can not simply make a rash decision, similar to what Caleb Keeter did in my opinion.
Remember that countries where the state is more repressive and the crime greater, are those where the right to bear arms is not defended.
Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/10/02/i-cannot-express-how-wrong-i-was-country-guitarist-changes-mind-on-gun-control-after-vegas/?utm_term=.894b743ad4ce
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/10/02/cbs-fires-lawyer-for-facebook-post-saying-las-vegas-victims-do-not-deserve-sympathy/?utm_term=.1933792b9ace
Thats aweful. We need to unite in times like these
Indeed friend, guns do not kill people why guns do not shoot themselves. The culprits have criminals and those should be in prison.
Not to mention, if the official story were correct, that the gunman already broke many laws in acquiring his gun stash. So, those who want more gun bans... well, they didn't work last time, or the time before, or the time before.
Will more gun bans work now?
But it is so much simpler for feeling based people (such as liberals) to want to blame the inanimate object, instead of look to people as the source of violence. It is so much more comforting to blame the weapon. Then, they can remain in their delusional state that people are inherently good.
It is the same with socialism/communism. If we are all good, caring people, then we should all care about everyone being fed, etc. And so, the utopian dream continues. But, if you start looking at humanity as being mostly self serving, with some being evil, then their dream for a better future breaks down. So, we shant not think of such things.
(This is not to say that conservatives are anything other then sticks in the mud)
totally agree.
Great Points, @builderofcastles...
Molon Labe
The seizure of firearms would lead to all kinds of violence and crime.
I also believe that the POS perp in this case did not have Full Auto
weapons, it sounded like he likely had a bump-fire stock or maybe
one of the newer Binary Triggers, once I heard audio of the attacks.
The Full Auto is a constant rate of fire, but the 2 things I listed have
a variable rate of fire due to the user input...
Good appreciation, very true, I did not want to talk about it because I was more general. But it is as I say, some try to take isolated cases to promote a political agenda.
I saw a post on steemit that claims video evidence of multiple shooters, meaning FALSE FLAG!
Just like the Deep State, enlisting one of their wack-jobs to do their dirty work...
Good appreciation, can you pass the link to see the video?
Yes Indeed! Here:
https://steemit.com/news/@tftproject/damning-video-from-mandalay-bay-appears-to-confirm-multiple-shooters
I'm a little on the fence. I think it's essential to keep the people as armed as the government, but clearly there's a limit to that, as we don't want people running around with nukes. And yet, what's to stop people from doing that anyway? The only thing this process seems to lead to is the inevitable overmilitarization of the world, with the people militarizing in order to protect themselves against the government, and the government trying to protect itself against the people.
A gun is also a very different tool from a knife, or a hammer, or most other potential weapons. Each of these things is a useful tool for other things, many of which are constructive. But a gun can't be used in a truly constructive manner; it's purely a destructive tool, and either it's destroying cans, which is fun, or locks, which is useful, or people, which is probably a thing to try and avoid. For sure the best way to avoid gun deaths is NOT by driving gun sales into a black market. I don't know what other way there is to control guns, perhaps a firearms tax fund used for voluntary buybacks, but I'm open to potential answers
I perfectly agree with you, I think it has hit the crux of the matter. Disarmament is almost impossible, in addition to implementing it effectively is a milestone, also to say that people must be armed enough to be able to defend themselves against any oppressive force, including the state.
More guns less crime.
How many people were injured/killed due to crowd action vs how many were actually shot.
Should we ban crowds?
So is. You are right in what you say.
@originalworks
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @vieira to be original material and upvoted it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
To enter this post into the daily RESTEEM contest, upvote this comment! The user with the most upvotes on their @OriginalWorks comment will win!
For more information, Click Here! || Click here to participate in the @OriginalWorks writing contest!
Special thanks to @reggaemuffin for being a supporter! Vote him as a witness to help make Steemit a better place!
Aren't there like a bunch of rules for holding a gun already? If anything, people carrying a gun with the proper training are an aid in shootings. Well, it wouldn't have helped much in this case but yeah... If crazy people want a gun they often find a way to get it anyways...
It is true, even if it were illegal to carry arms, when a criminal would like to get one, he would get it, why usually where there is a supply there is demand, and if the legal market does not satisfy that offer if he will use the black market.
In this case it will be worse, because good people will not have weapons and criminals will.
It is true that guns dont kill people, but i think that society is leading some people to use guns, theres just too much pressure from every side. No wonder that some people loose it.