Orlando, Florida mass shooting. 50 dead, 53 wounded

[VCR_CAT]

-snop-

 

Yeah no, I understand that calling for an outright ban of weapons right now would be completely unrealistic and just a disaster overall; between jobs that would be lost, riots over the government recalling weapons that citizens paid good money for legal purchases, and the overall cultural imprint that guns have made. Whether a gun ban happens or not isn't really easy to determine because if it does happen, it would need to be a very slow process of restrictions and shifting the culture and industry away from them. It wouldn't happen for a long time.

 

regarding shootings and gun-related crimes (or crime in general); it's always worthwhile to look at countries that do things otherwise, such as the UK or Australia, and see how crime in those nations is per-capita in relation to the US. I haven't done this to any great degree (I know OF differences, but I don't know THE differences) so I'm not going to make any huge sweeping statements regarding it.

 

But, looking at the second amendment real quick and its purposes. Regarding self-defense against a military regime; weapons and tech has just advanced to the point that a population of assault weapons just aren't going to stand a chance against the US military. Between bombers, jets, tanks, cruise missiles, and electromagnetic artillery based on ships with a range of hundreds of miles; a militia of average joes with minimal training in comparison isn't going to do anything but cost lives. In regards to self-defense against situations of crime; I remember someone posting stats in an older thread about gun-related crimes and people being able to defend themselves successfully in regards to them. It doesn't work. A shooter with an assault weapon is going to absolutely destroy a few dudes with some pistols, and nobody walks around in public with an M16 strapped to their back for self-defense. Also, just a quick note re: caliber; high-caliber doesn't mean anything in a normal situation outside of military levels of weapons and protection. A 9mm bullet is more than enough to kill a dude, and a low-caliber pistol is a far more effective weapon in a firefight than, say, a .50 Deagle (clip size; recoil; rate of fire; etc.)

 

But yeah; gun control needs to happen. The fact that the shooter was able to easily and legally acquire the means to conduct this is just super not okay. Make guns far more regulated, and hopefully move towards a very restricted and limited availability of weapon options for fire-arms, or just none at all in the future. I mean like, if I have a pistol, I'm not walking around with it at the ready at all times; if a criminal decides to take me on he's going to have his weapon drawn and pointed at me. I don't have professional training or practice in quick-draw firing and I definitely don't have the stomach to kill a dude; whether I have a weapon or not is not going to make a difference to my life in that situation.

[vla1ne]

actually, by sheer number advantage, citizens with weapons, and soldiers unwilling to fight their fellow citizens would be able to take out the government with more ease than you might think.. as for the situation of crime, I posted statistics relating to it recently as well, and even without including the probable deterrent that conceal carry provides, there really have been multiple crimes prevented by simple citizens who happened to be on the scene at the time using conceal carry to surprise and stop criminals. of course, a person with an m16 beats a person with a pistol, but in open carry areas, would you risk it when everybody on the street could pull their gun back at you? a street full of potentially armed people is a far greater deterrent to crime than a street with guaranteed unarmed people, as i've previously stated, the most successful mass shootings were carried out in "no carry" zones. and the ones you don't hear about, where citizens stopped the shooting themselves, occur in "conceal carry" or "open carry" zones. the numbers are actually out there, it took me a second to find them, but they demonstrate that armed citizens, with proper training, actually do make a difference in crime.

 

but regardless of that, i believe we are both on the same page when it comes to better regulating weapons distribution. so we at least have that in common.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

I honestly would like to know the stances of the police officers who have dealt with active shooter incidents. as they are the ones who have to deal with the shooter or shooters, and deal with the carnage that was caused. I find it hard to imagine the cops on scene, plus the SWAT team who stormed into the club and took out the shooter, weren't stunned and/or shocked by the carnage, even if they did keep their composure.

[VCR_CAT]

I honestly would like to know the stances of the police officers who have dealt with active shooter incidents. as they are the ones who have to deal with the shooter or shooters, and deal with the carnage that was caused. I find it hard to imagine the cops on scene, plus the SWAT team who stormed into the club and took out the shooter, weren't stunned and/or shocked by the carnage, even if they did keep their composure.

 

I heard on the radio once (a rare occurrence) that there's a need for therapists for those who work in emergency response jobs; be it police, fire department, or paramedics. There's a high risk of PTSD and a lot of other stress disorders that come with the job. The man who was shot in the helmet and lived, for sure, is not walking away from that and just brushing it off his shoulder like it didn't happen; that's a very real "I could have died" situation.

 

These are very, very mentally taxing positions to be in, and for sure it takes a strong stomach to handle them.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

I heard on the radio once (a rare occurrence) that there's a need for therapists for those who work in emergency response jobs; be it police, fire department, or paramedics. There's a high risk of PTSD and a lot of other stress disorders that come with the job. The man who was shot in the helmet and lived, for sure, is not walking away from that and just brushing it off his shoulder like it didn't happen; that's a very real "I could have died" situation.

 

These are very, very mentally taxing positions to be in, and for sure it takes a strong stomach to handle them.

Oh yeah, I've heard about PTSD among police officers before.

 

This also came to my mind: Who's to say that these loonies won't target or attempt to target police? In that hypothetical situation, I'd say the suspect would more than likely not come out alive, but don't underestimate a lunatic. They put everyone in danger, especially if they don't care if they live or die.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Oh yeah, I've heard about PTSD among police officers before.

This also came to my mind: Who's to say that these loonies won't target or attempt to target police? In that hypothetical situation, I'd say the suspect would more than likely not come out alive, but don't underestimate a lunatic. They put everyone in danger, especially if they don't care if they live or die.

I mean, this already happens. 4 police were killed in a Starbucks relatively near where I live in recent memory.

 

(I apologize greatly if I got any of the details with that wrong, my point stands that police targeted shootings are very real)

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/terrorist-watch-list-91-percent-approved-guns/index.html

 

This is rather alarming, even if the terror watch list isn't accurate at times. For once, the Republicans do have a point in that it's quite easy to make the list, but I doubt they'll budge on preventing people on the list from getting guns, even if that issue is dealt with.

[Delibirb]

The 2nd amendment being on the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it is untouchable or infallible. Amendments exist as a means of changing or clarifying what the constitution means or says, and it isn't done lightly. It is unprecedented for one of the first Ten Amendments to be amended, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done. It may not even need removal or alteration, just clarification, or maybe not even that. A right to own guns does not equate to a right to have instant access to all firearms on a whim. We can enforce more strict gun policy without being unconstitutional.

 

You can argue that better gun policy wont change anything, and you would be correct. Premeditating criminals will always be able to find a way to get weaponry. But I have two responses to that. A: Better gun policy can help prevent more on-a-whim crimes, which it sounds a lot like this one may have been. If someone has to go through a lot of back-alley effort to get a weapon, or if they decide to take the legal route and still go through time and effort, they may rethink their decision. B: No one is saying gun control is a cure-all on its own. It needs to be followed up with better education, better equality for citizens of every race, religion, sexuality, nationality, and gender, and better law enforcement/surveillance of suspected criminals.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why punish the vast majority of legal gun owners for the crimes of a few?

 

You all defend Islam by saying its 10% that's toxic.

 

Take my guns when you address the other problem too

[Dad]

Why punish the vast majority of legal gun owners for the crimes of a few?

 

You all defend Islam by saying its 10% that's toxic.

 

Take my guns when you address the other problem too

 

I thought he said more control laws, not "take guns from the owners"?  Even you agreed on stronger regulation, so what's the issue?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I thought he said more control laws, not "take guns from the owners"?  Even you agreed on stronger regulation, so what's the issue?

Cause stronger regulations always goes back to the attention grab "ban assult weapons"

 

If they'd stick to background checks and fingerprinting it'd be cool. But we saw how that turned out in the past w/ the Brady Bill

[VCR_CAT]

it always comes back to the slippery slope argument, doesn't it.

[vla1ne]

Cause stronger regulations always goes back to the attention grab "ban assult weapons"

 

If they'd stick to background checks and fingerprinting it'd be cool. But we saw how that turned out in the past w/ the Brady Bill

that does bring up an interesting question though, assuming that the majority of gun supporters are on the republican side of things, the republicans have a responsibility to their own electorate to draft better gun laws without the "ban assault weapons" frenzy. i mean, there's obvious reasons why they refuse to, but all of them amount to wanting to stay in a seat of power instead of doing their duty to the people they serve. if republicans really want to fight from the moral, or intellectual high ground, they'd take what the democrats have, improve upon the good parts while removing any calls to ban guns, and present it themselves. that way they could take the credit for drafting safer laws, while being able to avoid more backlash over issues like this.

 

democrats aren't always calling for perma-bans, but even if they were, they often have a logical reason to do so considering much of the time the other side of the isle has their ears plugged screaming "lalala don't take muh guns". republicans are doing with guns what trump was doing with the judge case, instead of sharpening the parts that are actually strong cases, they are attempting to dismiss the entire thing. if the tables turn in the houses, and republicans don't show leeway beforehand, democrats are likely going to destroy them.

[Delibirb]

Why punish the vast majority of legal gun owners for the crimes of a few?

 

You all defend Islam by saying its 10% that's toxic.

 

Take my guns when you address the other problem too

I'm not defending Islam, either. I implied working with the problems devout Islamic worship inherently has in my "better education, better equality" bit, as well as the problems of every other major religion. And I very explicitly said that the gun control needed to be followed up with these things, that it isn't a cure-all. Did you even read?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm not defending Islam, either. I implied working with the problems devout Islamic worship inherently has in my "better education, better equality" bit, as well as the problems of every other major religion. And I very explicitly said that the gun control needed to be followed up with these things, that it isn't a cure-all. Did you even read?

I didn't even quote you?

it always comes back to the slippery slope argument, doesn't it.

It's not a slippery slope if they already did it once and tried to do it a second time

[Delibirb]

I didn't even quote you?

It looked like a fairly clear response to me. Sorry, regardless.

 

Out of sheer curiosity, though, what does the general public actually need assault weapons to be regularly available for? Not to say I think they should be banned as it is, but why shouldn't they?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Do I need an AR-15 living in a fairly peaceful town? Not really. Is the Govenment likely to rise up? Again not too likely

 

Does some bloke stuck in a riot heavy area need a gun that can actually protect him? Yes.

 

So sure, I'll give up the AR-15 that I don't own, nor need. But not everyone is as fortunate as I am

Have you tried shooting 5 moving targets with a handgun? Cause idk about you, but I sure as hell cant get 5 kill shots there

[vla1ne]

which is why republicans would do well to make the law themselves. democrats are damn near guaranteed to sign anything relating to gun restrictions, and republicans would be sure to not include any unnecessary ban clauses.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats I'm arguing against. You're 100% vla1ne, but they're also useless shits

 

We need somone who's not a republican or democrat and not beholden to the lobby of beholden against it

 

I'm gonna be watching Trump's negotiation with the NRA heads today very intently.

 

But this is one of the few times I'm sad Berns didn't make it

[Slinky]

Do I need an AR-15 living in a fairly peaceful town? Not really. Is the Govenment likely to rise up? Again not too likely

 

Does some bloke stuck in a riot heavy area need a gun that can actually protect him? Yes.

 

So sure, I'll give up the AR-15 that I don't own, nor need. But not everyone is as fortunate as I am

Have you tried shooting 5 moving targets with a handgun? Cause idk about you, but I sure as hell cant get 5 kill shots there

 

Better question is, why are you living in that area?

Its common sense that if there is an immediate threat to your life, you get the funk out of there. It doesn't matter if you go into debt for a little while, its better than dying because you were an idiot to not move.

[Simping For Hina]

 

UCF Candlelight vigil was beautiful.

[vla1ne]

Better question is, why are you living in that area?

Its common sense that if there is an immediate threat to your life, you get the f*** out of there. It doesn't matter if you go into debt for a little while, its better than dying because you were an idiot to not move.

leaving isn't always possible immediately. i know from experience. the better question is can you afford to spend money on a auto/semi-auto weapon if your living conditions are already that bad.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats I'm arguing against. You're 100% vla1ne, but they're also useless shits

 

We need somone who's not a republican or democrat and not beholden to the lobby of beholden against it

 

I'm gonna be watching Trump's negotiation with the NRA heads today very intently.

 

But this is one of the few times I'm sad Berns didn't make it

 

I will gain a ton of respect for Trump and the people over at the NRA if they come to an reasonable agreement in that meeting.

 

But I agree. The reasonable people on both sides seem to usually be drowned out by either "More guns!" or "No guns!" or something.

 

EDIT: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-republican-joins-democrats-calling-gun-control-measures/story?id=39877542 Well, can't say I was expecting this.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I will gain a ton of respect for Trump and the people over at the NRA if they come to an reasonable agreement in that meeting.

 

But I agree. The reasonable people on both sides seem to usually be drowned out by either "More guns!" or "No guns!" or something.

Trump has been caving to all the wrong people recently. Currently he wants it criminalized to sell to people on the no fly or FBI watch list. Which would involve more work for gun sellers. I truely hope he succedes, but who has ever bested the NRA before?

[Delibirb]

I will gain a ton of respect for Trump and the people over at the NRA if they come to an reasonable agreement in that meeting.

 

But I agree. The reasonable people on both sides seem to usually be drowned out by either "More guns!" or "No guns!" or something.

Oh for sure. I've said it before and I'll say it forever: I despise Republicans and Democrats, and political parties need to be abolished. There's never any meeting in the middle, just the two absolutes, and it's disgusting and counterproductive.