/liberty/ - Liberty

Here in Australia, I can't buy a gun to blow the head off of the nearest public official. What's your excuse?

>>103323

In the remainder of this, this is completely hypothetical and regards a friend of mine who just recently lost all of his guns to the bottom of a lake in a very unfortunate boating accident. He has thought about doing that a lot, and he's so goddam depressed and has basically nothing else going for him that he often tries to plan it out as a way to escape his miserable life.

>0a. Forget about getting MULTIPLE influential people.

You compound the problems of the previous point, and even if you were able to, then such people are even more likely to just simply not be important in the grand scheme of things–c.f. the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting. Anything powerful enough is not going to be designed like the duct work of the Death Star.

>0b.Even if it was just one, influential person worth killing, would you really even be able to?

Let's face it, you're likely to be an amateur, having 0 military expertise and likely no other allies who are going to help you out on this one, facing off against someone who at least have some form of private or public security team backing them up who know what they're doing. You have to have quite an ego to imagine that you're going to do anything against that sort of competence.

>1 - Even if you had the ability, and there was one person worth killing who might do a little bit of good, who would you shoot that would have any lasting impact?

I can't think of a target that would have any really lasting impact. In the simplest example, if you shot the President, he would immediately get backed up by a lackey. An FBI director would get replaced by another stooge. The CEO of CNN's successor wouldn't change anything. The power structure is at least decentralized so that killing one person won't do anything.

>2 - Even if you could, and you had a target in mind, would it have the effect you intend? What would shooting someone even do?

If there's a successor, the shooting will be used as a casus belli to double down on their agenda. In fact, as weird as this sounds, the more I think about any assassination attempt's possible ramifications both political and social, I legitmately think that trying to assassinate Ron Paul would probably do more for the cause of liberty than trying to assassinate Nancy Pelosi–or just assassinating your own friends in general. Assassinating Nancy Pelosi would just guarantee that someone just like her fills the vacuum (because the people around her to be able to fill her vacuum are likely of similar political and ideological viewpoints), only they would be able to point to the assassination attempt as proof that gun control needs to be taken away, that their ideas were 'important enough that blood had to be shed for them,' etc.. Meanwhile, if someone attempted to assassinate Ron Paul, he would be viewed as a martyr, his views would get one final, substantial boost to the public, and his enemies would be viewed as the violent barbarians. Every historical case I can think of where propaganda of the deed has been attempted, it has always backfired and ended up justifying the exact opposite philosophy.

1/2

>>103373

>3 - Why even a _shooting_? Guns are probably the least effective weapon for these kinds of acts.

The largest casualties inflicted as "propaganda of the deed" or as acts of terrorism were not done with guns. If you going to spend the time to plan out an attack, then you might as well choose effective or discrete weaponry. The Oklahoma City Bombing kill 168, and injured at least 680.

The unabomber killed+injured 26. And at least he chose a method that wouldn't get him caught from behind with his one lousy peashooter.

Not to mention what doing a kamikaze mission with a plane might do…

Now if you compare this with a mass shooting–which is even less useful because you aren't even at least targeting 'influential' people–it averages only 8 deaths.

A vehicle-ramming–which I don't fully know the statistics for, but the average vehicle-ramming attack seems comparable to a mass shooting.

Meanwhile the average mass car bombing has a MUCH higher kill rate. If anything, I'd rather keep mass shooters around because at least they haven't realized that they could be doing this much more intelligently.

At the very least, if you disagree with all the shit above, and you're going to do this, choose bombs, not guns.

>4 - What's even the chance of success?

Like someone trying to commit suicide for the first time, you're going to give off so many tells that you're likely to be picked up by the police before you even talk about BB guns to your niece, let alone that dream you have about smuggling in that stinger from someone in an alleyway to shoot down Airforce One. This is what irritates me about a lot of mass shooters. Jesus fuck, at least put some study and some thought into it! There's so many others that have come before you that you could at least spend some time to learn from, I mean, you're likely going to lose your life or end up in jail for the remainder of it, so why the fuck not put some thought into it?!

2/2

Was this supposed to be a "wallow in political depression" thread?

>>103373

If you expanded these two posts into a novel it would be a best seller

>>103319

FBI fags you are triyng too hard. My nuke is almost done and you can't do shit about it

>>103454

I feel like this just proves the point. I know a lot of people argue that that commie was the linchpin and this one assassination tore the cause of Japanese socialism completely apart (again, this falls under "Death Star's Heat Vent" theory–I don't think it's ever so simple). However, when I look at the facts, I don't understand how this was at all the case. If anything, I think you could make a case for the opposite. At the very least, the Japanese Socialist Party didn't disband. In the 1963 election following that, the socialist and communist parties together gained more seats.

Incidentally, even if it was a single, valid example–I would say a single example does not disrupt the entire argument: what about the Unabomber, the Weathermen, the 9/11 bombers, the OK City bombing, the Olympic Park bomber, the Boston Marathon bombing, whoever it was that killed Kennedy, etc., etc.? These individuals just inspired more ire against their causes, the backlash just hurt them more, or at the very least didn't change anything with the people they killed or injured.

>>103464

Assassinations really just worked back then when power was concentrated on a few people I guess. Nowadays everyone is easily replaceable so it doesn't really matter

>>103469

The only time I've heard of a political machine being successfully violently deposed was the Cantrell machine after the Battle of Athens. Of course, the problem with that is how you can organize in the face of spooks glow-in-the-darks–in other words, moles.

Also, by now, political machines are much more deeply embedded. As you said, natural selection applied to political machines has only fortified them even further.

>>103466

I'm sure there are a few key people that legitimately have outsized influence, they know better than to be front and center in public though.

>>103542

Yeah but that's the problem, you won't ever find them in the first place.

>>103542

>I'm sure there are a few key people that legitimately have outsized influence

You're twisting what's being said here. He's saying that there's no linchpin.

>>103546

I know that's what he's saying. I'm disagreeing with him and saying the people that would count as lynchpins arent public figures so you wouldnt know who to go after anyway.

>>103549

Alright "Wiseman," even if there was such a cabal, I bet you it would be structured in such a way such that even if every one of them died, their successors would pick up and nothing would happen.

>>103455

>all Americans are /fbi/

Die.

>>103469

so judging by the clock, 2800s will be when shit really starts to fly. sigh…

>>103464

>Ted K

no. people are becoming more wary of big tech these days.