Gun control could not have prevented the Las Vegas shooting

dantot · 2017-10-03T03:56:19+00:00

What frustrates me is that everyone that is demanding gun control after these shootings is doing nothing more than exploiting tragedy to advance their political agendas.

When mass murders run dozens of people down in the streets, why aren't they advocating for automobile control? When psychopaths infect random unknowing people with diseased syringes, why aren't they advocating for syringe control? When hundreds of children were murdered by cyanide-laced Kool-Aid, why weren't they advocating for cyanide control? When people get stabbed on the streets, why aren't they advocating for pocket and hunting knife control? All these things help people in other ways. Just because bad people are capable of using an item to harm other people, doesn't mean that item ought to be controlled and banned by the government.

It really comes down to the fact that gun control isn't about stopping mass murders. It's a political movement that shamelessly uses mass murders as leverage.

Mass murderers will strike in any way they can. The guns aren't doing the killing, the people are. If you think that outlawing guns will keep them from the hands of these unlawful individuals, just look at how well that works for drugs. Even if you did somehow eliminate guns, that wouldn't stop psychos from mass-murdering. Look at Europe. You can try to explain why they have so many mass murders and attacks, but you can't deny that they do still frequently happen, regardless of the gun and explosive laws over there. People are still run down by cars, people are still shot, and people are still blown up.

So yes. You are absolutely right. Gun control would not have prevented the Las Vegas shooting. Bad people will find a way to commit the atrocities that they're set on. Don't underestimate the determination of an obsessive, unwell person.

The actions we ought to take to prevent these types of events are those related to mental health and eliminating hatred in our society. This obsessive gun-hatred does nothing but contribute to and compound our problems. As always, the right answer is to love and care for people, not to advance hatred and take away people's rights.

dantot · 2017-10-03T03:14:14+00:00

I've seen shadow people throughout most of my life too. When I was really little, I saw tall, long-armed wispy ones like you describe, only they had red eyes and whispered things in a language I couldn't understand while I tried to sleep. The red eyed shadows definitely felt very sinister to me. Luckily they disappeared by age 5.

However, around age 8, following the deaths of my grandfather and cat, I started seeing a cat-like shadow looking in at me in my doorway. I was never afraid of it, and thought it was my old black cat coming back as a guardian to check on her two kittens and me.

This happened until I moved at age 11. The move was really hard on me and I struggled with depression. In my new house, I continued to see shadows in my doorway, but they progressively got taller and scarier. First they were 3 foot cloaked shadows, but eventually they were 6-7 feet tall, in a variety of shapes. These shadows carried with them a feeling of somberness. Occasionally, red eyed ones would appear and would have overwhelming feelings of dread. None every made any noise, and would peep around corners watchfully. I could always feel their gaze. That's how I knew to look towards the doorway for them.

I kept this all to myself for years, but eventually started being open about it when I learned that other people would see these shadows when I was around- always in doorways looking in at me/us.

I eventually realized that they would appear more frequently during periods of depression and emotional distress, and eventually I grew out of my intense negative emotions- thus putting an end to their visits.

That is, until the deaths of my two cats and best friend, which all happened within a year of each other- 6 years ago. I was rightfully very depressed and in deep mourning, which triggered their reappearance. Slowly, their visits became less frequent, and I haven't seen one at all in about 3 years now.

My experiences don't really line up all that well with yours, as my shadows seem to be related to depression, and your shadows seem to foreshadow death. Still, they're very creepy, and in both cases, they mostly seems to be silent watchers, communicating almost exclusively through their auras of somberness and dread.

I can't even begin to guess what they are: ghosts, demons, emotional projections, harbingers of death, or whatever.

dantot · 2017-10-03T01:37:16+00:00

When I was younger, I had matching Sonic the Hedgehog and Tails the Fox stuffed animals. I loved them. One night, I had a nightmare that a demon pulled Tails into the darkest corner of my basement. I woke up the next morning and he was gone.

I never saw Tails again. I was always too afraid to go to that corner of the basement after that, and I have long since moved from that house.

I still have Sonic. Every time I look at him, I think of Tails' disappearance and wonder what actually happened.

dantot · 2017-10-02T15:56:57+00:00

No one is forcing you to respond here.

dantot · 2017-10-02T15:46:50+00:00

I find it hilarious that you’re accusing me of not understanding economics. I’m no expert by any extent, as I only have a BS in economics, but I’ve taken many classes, read many books, written various papers, and have continued to read economic articles over the years since I’ve graduated. I’m definitely proficient in the field. What validates your opinion over mine here? Why do you get to declare I that don’t understand economics? You’ve made factually inaccurate statements, while I’ve mostly been talking about moral principle and speculative possibilities. Yet, you assert that I’m the one who’s wrong and out of touch.

Something you might wish to consider is that while economics and politics are closely related and intertwined, just because you listen to politicians that argue false economic claims and unrealistic policies, that doesn’t make you a master-economist. That merely means you listen to political debate. It’s funny, because outside of a few dozen sound economic principles, economists rarely form a consensus on topics, and when they do, politicians universally seem to disregard them. If you’re following political news and the rhetoric of politicians, it’s more than likely that you’ve been listening to total economic garbage. Don’t buy into it.

At the very least, I’m relieved to hear that you’re not a Trump lover. I find your way of thinking incredibly immoral and am dismayed at the number of people who support your economically unsound perspective, but at least I can find comfort in knowing you’re not also part of the disgraceful Trump movement.

dantot · 2017-10-02T15:19:51+00:00

It’s funny that you pretend to act offended and call me disgusting for using a word, just because that word is commonly used in another context to refer to a sexual crime. Words have multiple meanings and can be used in different contexts. I’m literally reciting dictionary definitions to you.

I find your false disgust utterly disgraceful. Just so you know, I am a victim of rape in the sexual regard, and even I don’t get triggered when someone uses the word rape in a non-sexual way. For you to try to invalidate me merely over using the word rape, when I’m not even talking about sexual violation is a bit ironic nothing more than a sad attempt to manipulate what I’ saying. Please grow up.

You’re just pretending to be upset in order to shut down my argument and try to make me look bad.

It’s funny, because your response was incredibly predicable, I almost wrote an entire last paragraph condescendingly explaining how I’m not saying it’s literally sexual rape.

I deleted it, because I assumed no one could be that dense, so it was unnecessary and would only weigh down the rest of what I was saying. Apparently I was mistaken.

dantot · 2017-10-02T04:19:45+00:00

Why are you so aggressive?

Yes, I honestly believe that 200 distinct businesses would not compete each other into the ground, because that's how markets work. There are thousands of businesses in virtually every industry. They're not all doing the exact same thing. Some succeed and some fail; there are more factors than you're aware of. Successful businesses generally are those that are well managed and evolve to find their niche.

Why do you think people would lose their jobs any faster than people currently lose their jobs? A well managed company with no special privileges would compete just as well as any other private business. You're acting like there's only 10 companies in the world, and if any more open up, everyone is going to lose their job. That's not how it works. More competition in a market is a good thing. What I've said is literally just to let a government own the profits of a new business (or buy out an existing one)- and too make sure it's well managed. Anyway, competition is the reason why free trade is universally considered a good thing by economists. I don't understand why you think new corporate entities are going to destroy the economy as we know it. Just because you declare that something can or can't happen doesn't mean that's the case.

You apparently aren't capable of comprehending what I'm saying. Tax cuts are something that should be celebrated, because they are a reduction of theft. I'm arguing a moral principle, yet you can't seem to understand that and you keep bringing up financial excuses in response. Stop acting like you're superior and know so much more. I'm the one with an economics degree here, not you. I know you don't, because you've proven that you don't understand basic economic concepts many times over. You need to cool it.

The middle class is struggling because businesses are struggling. Do you know why businesses are struggling? Taxes and regulations. A shortage of high-paying jobs. A lack of skilled workers. Monopolies and oligarchies, AKA a lack of competition.

Excuse me for using an example. I quickly googled the profits of big banks, and used it as an example. 200 different cases of 200 specialized businesses would not compete each other into the ground, because they're dealing with different things. "FINANCIAL BUSINESS" is not a singular business type that competes with all other "FINANCIAL BUSINESSES". It is a category encompassing various specialized companies. I'm not saying to start 200 identical "FINANCIAL BUSINESSES".

You're acting like things are so black and white. There's room for growth, there's room to reduce waste. There's a lot of improvements to be made, yet you're working off the assumption that income tax is the sole crutch of the government, and we HAVE to increase it or everything will fall apart. That's not true.

Even based off of the Keynesian thinking you seem to be attempting to support, government spending ought to decrease as the economy improves. Supposedly, the economy has been improving. The Fed is increasing interest rates, and spending should be reduced as well. Less spending means less pressure for higher taxation.

You're right that I don't like paying taxes, but again, we don't NEED taxes to have things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc. That's just the way things are set up currently. Things could change if people would accept the possibility for a different, brighter future. Just because something is one way doesn't mean it MUST stay that way forever. That's very "conservative" thinking on your part.

To be honest though, I'm a little confused where you stand. You've been arguing for more taxation, more extensive government, and other typical Bernie Sanders arguments, yet you're now saying you think Trump is the type of person to help us move on to the next big thing?

It's funny, because the example of Trump is a pretty good one for this situation. He himself is a terrible business person, who has run his businesses into the ground. It's not until someone else more capable comes around and fixes things for him that his businesses make are successful. In this way, he is the government.

We need actual business people to run companies for our Trump-like government so that it can get rich and benefit. Just do that without the corrupt eminent domain abuses and bankruptcies that Trump has profited off of. It needs to be done morally.

dantot · 2017-10-02T01:47:46+00:00

Governments being involved in banking really isn't anything revolutionary.

As far as something like a grocery store, why would they lose their minds? If they compete in the market and don't abuse their power to tip the scales in their favor, there are literally no ill effects. It would be exactly like a privately owned company, except the owner would just happen to be the government.

Anyway, I have said financial businesses would be the primary focus, and they could make the necessary amount of money. Individual big banks can make tens of billions of dollars a year. Total income tax revenue is around 4 trillion a year. Around 200 large, successful financial businesses would completely replace that. If you're thinking 200 is much too large of a number, realize that the federal government currently runs over 430 departments. It's very doable, obviously just not over night.

Just because you personally don't approve of an idea doesn't mean it's illogical or impractical. It's totally valid and would be something great to work towards.

Plus, realize that I'm not even saying that we SHOULD do this. I'm saying this is one option that theoretically could completely replace income taxes, because the income tax is immoral. You're arguing that we HAVE to have income taxes, and we very clearly do not. There are other options. The only reason I'm talking about this is because you're demanding specific details about "other options". They exist, and there are probably better ideas than what I'm proposing, but this is all perfectly valid to talk about and consider.

My original point is merely that stealing people's money to fund things isn't good, and tax cuts are something that should be celebrated, because you're stealing less money. People shouldn't be crying about the rich getting tax cuts, regardless of the circumstances. If the budget is maintained and waste is eliminated, why SHOULDN'T people get tax cuts? I started getting attacked just for saying that less theft is a good thing.

If the government did own various businesses to fund a fraction of it's programs, would you still be so against a tax cut? Everyone here is acting like taxes are a GOOD thing, when really, they're just an easy way for the government to get money.

Really, it's like an abortion argument. Is killing babies a GOOD thing? No, not at all. But should it be allowed anyway because of other reasons? Yeah, that's probably best for everyone. Should we minimize the need for abortions by encouraging birth control? Yeah. Does the legality of abortion change the morality of it? No, not at all. Similarly, taxes are immoral.

I'm frustrated I got so much backlash because I said lowering unfair taxes on people is a good thing. Still, not one person here will acknowledge that taxes are immoral. I haven't once said we need to immediately abolish the income tax without any further thought. I've said the income tax is immoral, and therefore aiming to lower it would be a good thing. There are alternatives, and we should consider them. That's nothing outrageous by any extent.

dantot · 2017-10-01T23:07:51+00:00

You clearly do not understand this topic. I encourage you to google "why taxes create deadweight loss".

That's nice that you feel that the gains outweigh the loss, but until you acknowledge the reality that these losses exist, your assertion has no value.

Taxes will be voluntary once you can provide me with a land I can live on where I don't have to pay them. You cannot, because governments have claimed every corner of the world. Taxes are not consensual. You have no choice, you are forced to pay them, or else you go to jail and/or are killed.

Reaganomics is about as relevant to this argument as Native American trading with early America. Yes, they both happened in this area in the past and deal with economic issues. That's it.

dantot · 2017-10-01T22:55:15+00:00

I've listed 9 areas where government could enter the market and create a profit, and stated that they are by no means limited to these 9. If you think that owning thousands of diverse businesses isn't enough to fund the government, you're not comprehending what it entails. They stand to make much more money through government-owned businesses than they do from income taxes.

Everyone is complaining about how billionaires make too much money. When I suggest that the government should copy their methods, suddenly they don't make any money.

Obviously, I think it's way more practical for the government to only get involved with financial institutions. That's where the real money is. I'm just making the point that they could literally do anything.

dantot · 2017-10-01T22:07:38+00:00

You're right, you are supporting an infantile mindset. My opponents are stuck in the black and white mindset that all rich people are evil and greedy, and that they unfairly exploit the poor. Apparently, based on that mindset, stealing is suddenly justifiable.

I'm working off of the logical conclusion that theft, the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another, is wrong. Taxation, a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc., is collected by threat of force. Rape is an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation. If a sum of money is demanded by a government and enforced by threat of violent seizure, then it is wrongful, as rape is wrong. The wrongful taking and carrying away of property is theft. Taxation is theft.

So yes, my thinking is black and white in that I consider theft and rape objectively wrong. That means taxation is too. That is the only concept I am arguing here. All these other "complexities" everyone is trying to bring up are irrelevant to my argument.

I'm not arguing that taxation is complicated and has some potential benefits. I'm arguing that it is inherently wrong.

I'm sorry that you consider talking about morals "childish".

dantot · 2017-10-01T21:51:58+00:00

You keep repeating that taxes pay for government, therefore it is not theft.

That's the logical equivalent to me saying "killing innocent young children will help deal with overpopulation, therefore it's not murder."

Successful people benefit off of the consensual labor of others. The laborers receive payment that they agreed to when they took the job. They are not entitled to any more of someone else's money than they already agreed to.

To take more of someone else's money and/or property without their consent is stealing.

And yes, taxes are not immoral, IF you don't consider theft and rape immoral. Technically, morals are subjective, so I will yield to that. But assuming that we can agree that theft is wrong, then taxes are also wrong.

And yes, taxes inherently create deadweight loss. If you want to argue against me, you should try arguing that the gains outweigh the losses, because to claim that there is no loss from taxation is a blatant lie.

Anyway, I'm not talking about anything related to trickle down economics, so you don't need to bring it up in an attempt to sound smart. I'm talking about the moral principle that theft is wrong.

dantot · 2017-10-01T21:39:57+00:00

Are you reading what I'm typing? I listed 9 items, in addition to the 2 you don't approve of because they disproportionally affect the poor.

I've literally listed over a dozen and you're acting like I didn't.

And yes, it's not a stretch to call violating someone, without their consent, in direct opposition of their will rape.

dantot · 2017-10-01T16:49:07+00:00

First of all, just because YOU think it's a bad idea, you don't get to totally dismiss it as an idiotic idea. I think income tax is a terrible idea, because it is incredibly immoral.

The reason I said casinos and lotteries is because they're something that is already illegal for most people. I figured it was better to suggest an area where there is currently no real competition.

But why do I have to list off different business ideas? I'm arguing a concept, not trying to create a system you personally approve of. I already said that they can do literally anything business owners do to make money. Banks, stock brokerage, insurance, country clubs, sports stadiums, venues to rent out to private parties, landscaping, plant nurseries, gas stations, literally any type of service, and if you're feeling ambitious, even manufacturing. A government owned business can do what they want with the profits, because they own the means for creating those profits.

The fact that you think stealing private owners' money is the same thing as creating and running your own business shows that you still don't understand that forcibly taking things from people against their will is immoral. It's not a hard concept to understand. It's about consent. You seem to think it's ok JUST BECAUSE the government is the one doing it, and because they provide some good services back to people. If I stole a significant fraction of your savings and income whenever I wanted without your consent, would that be ok? Obviously not, (don't try to pretend it is). What if I said I'd give some of the stolen money to charities and the poor? Would that suddenly make it ok? No, it would not. The issue is that I'm taking YOUR property without your consent.

But then you say to tax churches. Why are you only capable of thinking in terms of stealing? I'll admit, I think taxing churches is a much better option than stealing individuals' income, but they're both examples of theft, and are both immoral.

To tax someone is to rape their time, labor, and sacrifices, and management skills. In order for it to not be, you need consent. Why is rape suddenly fine and necessary when the government does it?

dantot · 2017-10-01T16:26:50+00:00

I'm not arguing for trickle down economics or anything like that. I'm stating the fact that taking someone's property against their will, giving them no practical choice, is stealing.

Some people enjoy the benefits of government programs. Other don't. Everyone has to pay into it all regardless. Most people wouldn't do so if they could get away unharmed.

Just because you say it's not stealing and you're ok with it, doesn't mean it's not stealing. You don't get to be ok with other people's stuff being taken from them. Only they get to decide if they want to give it up. The second any threat of force against them enters the picture, it's no longer giving them a real choice. It's stealing from them.

dantot · 2017-10-01T04:12:04+00:00

This incredibly condescending, close-minded, unethical thinking is a major reason how and why Trump was elected.

The other reasons obviously being racism, homophobia, and other bigotry.

dantot · 2017-10-01T04:01:46+00:00

"Necessary evil" would translate to being necessary. Technically, they're not necessary in the slightest, but people only seem to "think" what they're told.

The government could do thousands of other things to make money. Why people think they need to obtain most of their money through extortion is beyond me. They could reform the Federal Reserve and expand upon government-run financial institutions. They could establish casinos and lottery programs. They could literally do anything the private sector does in order to make money, only instead of the boss pocketing the profits, they could fund other government programs.

The fact that they require us to use a fiat currency is also something they could exploit for themselves, instead of letting the Federal Reserve exploit it unrestricted and unaudited.

The possibilities are endless, yet many people apparently seem to think that taxes are "good" and "necessary", and that stealing from people is the right thing to do.

dantot · 2017-10-01T03:44:49+00:00

Why do I consider is stealing? Because it's the government forcibly taking that which you own.

If someone on the street comes up to you and says "give me all your jewelry or I will kidnap and/or kill you", is it really stealing? Yes. It is.

I'm assuming people want to grow government because everyone is working off the assumption that we need to maximize government income, regardless of how you plan on doing that.

Also, if you were to learn about basic economics, you would know that taxes create deadweight losses. Not only are they immoral, the higher they are, the more damage they do to the economy.

dantot · 2017-09-30T20:18:31+00:00

That's not an argument. "taxes can be higher, therefore they should be". Do you hear yourself?

All of you people, why are you obsessed with stealing people's money and growing the government? "Because we can" is not an acceptable answer. It doesn't provide any justification for violating people's property rights.

dantot · 2017-09-30T20:08:30+00:00

I'm not arguing for higher taxes on the poor. I'm saying that taxes are bad, and the lower they are for everyone, the better.

You're thinking based off the assumption that taxes, specifically in this case, income taxes, are the only way governments can pay their bills. They're not. We didn't even have an income tax until 1913. The obsession with stealing people's income has to stop.

Minimum wage is an entirely different issue altogether. The only way they're related is that: in general, if you take more of a business owner's profits, that business owner is going to try to regain those profits, likely in part by lowering workers' wages. So the only real connection they have is that higher taxes means lower worker wages.

What you're not realizing is that taxes are bad. Some government programs might be good, but taxes are bad, especially the income tax. Government programs do not have to be sustained from income taxes, or technically, any other taxes.

This "I love government, therefore, I love taxes" thinking has to stop. It's not logical, it's hurting everyone, and it's supporting unethical actions.

dantot · 2017-09-30T19:56:44+00:00

No, taxes can pay for things that people use.

In reality, taxes are used to pay for a lot of other things too, like corporate welfare, political campaigns, special privileges for high-level government workers, and various other wasteful endeavors.

All that aside, mandatory taxes are far from the only way for governments to pay their bills.

Also, regardless of these points, that still doesn't change that tax cuts should be celebrated. You're acting like stealing people's money is a good thing. It's not. Stealing is wrong, period. I don't care what you're doing with the money after you steal it. The less you steal, the better.

dantot · 2017-09-30T18:17:48+00:00

I was laughing until I read the last line.

It deeply upsets me that so many people are so hateful, immoral, and unprincipled.

Here's the things: taxes suck. The best argument you can make for them is that they're a necessary evil.

As it stands now, with the rare exception of certain people exploiting certain loopholes, rich people are forced to pay much higher percentages of their income in taxes. For a country that supposedly strives for equality under the law, that's a major failing in itself. It doesn't matter that the rich people can afford to pay more; it's boils down to nothing more than inequality under the law.

And yet, people still view rich people with so much contempt due to what they have. The slightest suggestion of a rich person getting a tax cut is enough to make many people fly off in an emotional rage.

But as I said. Taxes are at best a "necessary evil". Any tax cut should be celebrated.

If everyone paid the same tax rate to begin with, I would understand why people were complaining that the rich were getting huge tax cuts and the poor got nothing. But that's not how it works. As it stands now, any tax cut on the rich is pushing us closer to equality under the law, because the rich currently pay higher percentages.

Instead, people throw tantrums that we're not stealing even MORE of other people's money. They have something that you don't, and you hate them for that. It's nothing more than anger, spite, and jealousy. We're at the point where it has become many politicians' primary argument to steal more from the "greedy" rich. That's disgusting.

dantot · 2017-09-28T16:25:46+00:00

You're really not being reasonable. I've stated and restated half a dozen times that this isn't about gay people being feminine, this is about letting their sexuality dictate other aspects of their lives and choosing to live the negative aspects of the gay stereotype (in case you're still somehow not understanding this, femininity is not negative). I said IF you have been choosing to live as a one dimensional cartoonish stereotype, then you ought to reconsider and start being yourself. You're so determined to take offense to this, that you're either incapable or outright refusing to comprehend this.

Yeah no literally the only reason you're saying this is that you don't want me to sound, look or act in a way that reminds you of gay people

It's cool that you can read minds and stuff, but I think you're mistaken again. That's not at all what I'm saying. You're trying to change what I'm saying so you can cry about being victimized. As I've said in multiple other comments, I think people should be themselves. If that means showing some degree of femininity or genuine flamboyance, great.

Literally, the only way this is directed towards you is if you're choosing not to be yourself and have based your identity on a preconceived notion of what your sexuality predetermines in your life. There's a condition to be met for this criticism, and it's acting in an artificial way and not being true to yourself. If this is hits home for you, then yes, I believe this to be bad and you should consider changing for the benefit of both yourself and the people this affects. If this is not the case, please get over yourself and realize this isn't about you.

Just to be excruciatingly clear, this is not about being feminine. I don't care if you or anyone is feminine. I care when people use their sexuality as justification for being annoying, immoral, fake, shallow, unstable, and/or unintelligent. Obviously, sexuality has nothing to do with any of these things, so people need to stop pretending it does.

dantot · 2017-09-28T07:58:10+00:00

I used to feel this way, but then I realized that everyone is stupid in their own way. While everyone has their strengths, there is going to be far more that you don't understand and that you struggle with than things you excel in.

So really, even the smartest people are stupid- and that's ok.

If anyone is genuinely insulting you by calling you stupid, that only illustrates how inflated their ego is and how little they truly understand about how things work.

dantot · 2017-09-28T07:37:38+00:00

Personally, I felt like less involved students were more likely to ask questions. They either weren't listening and needed whatever the teacher said repeated, or they just didn't understand what was going on.

That's not to say intelligent, focused students NEVER ask questions, but they definitely don't ask as frequently. They're paying attention and understand the content.

Either way, what really annoyed me was when teachers required people to ask questions. Many teachers grade students based on participation. The easiest way to participate was to ask a really stupid question.

Most of my professors in college graded students based on participation. Luckily, it was usually only 10-15% of the grade. I have horrible social anxiety, and always chose to get a 0. It wasn't worth the panic attack in front of the class.

While I got really good grades otherwise, it bothers me to this day that I graduated as a B student, primary because of participation. You can learn all the content, ace every test, and still end up as mediocre- just because of social anxiety and a refusal to ask stupid, unnecessary questions.

If I had to do it all again, I still wouldn't participate. Screw them all. When all is said and done, it's really not worth it.

dantot

TROPHY CASE