Orlando, Florida mass shooting. 50 dead, 53 wounded

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

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?

 

That's what I am worried about.

 

If Trump can actually convince them, I will be very, very impressed.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yeah, there's no hope where the NRA are concerned IMO. I might agree with them /w "Assult Weapons" but in general they're in-compassionate people that shame legal gun owners like me all over the country

 

Then again, Trump is a different beast than anything we've seen

 

Say he succeeds. My problem is different. What about people who were fine when they bought the gun and weren't afterwards? Much lower chance of occurring yes, but even a single American life wrongly lost is one too many

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.

You know saying "move out" is easy to say, and a lot harder to do.

 

Living in poverty in the US is arguably worse than dying

[Aerion Brightflame]

As far as I know, the issue with gun laws isn't the NRA, it's the GOP. The NRA are in favour of closing loopholes with gun fairs, and of better background checks, because they don't want mass shootings. They want sane gun holders to be buying and using there weapons so they can make profit.

 

The issue is the GOP refuses to pass anything the Democratics propose, and they refuse to actually do anything themselves with there majority. So the DNC propose fairly radical changes, the GOP go 'Muh Second Amendment', shut it down without ever offering a reasonable alternative. Obama would happily take any kind of federal progress in terms of guns as a win. It's perfect for both sides of the aisle, the DNC gets to look progressive and the GOP can go 'Look we stopped them doing anything more drastic'. And yet they do nothing. They just act as a block opposing any kind of change on almost anything. It's the flaw of the two party system, there's never really an incentive to compromise. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

As far as I know, the issue with gun laws isn't the NRA, it's the GOP. The NRA are in favour of closing loopholes with gun fairs, and of better background checks, because they don't want mass shootings. They want sane gun holders to be buying and using there weapons so they can make profit.

 

The issue is the GOP refuses to pass anything the Democratics propose, and they refuse to actually do anything themselves with there majority. So the DNC propose fairly radical changes, the GOP go 'Muh Second Amendment', shut it down without ever offering a reasonable alternative. Obama would happily take any kind of federal progress in terms of guns as a win. It's perfect for both sides of the aisle, the DNC gets to look progressive and the GOP can go 'Look we stopped them doing anything more drastic'. And yet they do nothing. They just act as a block opposing any kind of change on almost anything. It's the flaw of the two party system, there's never really an incentive to compromise.

 

You're right I think. Either that or the NRA is pulling strings to manipulate other strings

 

Just as Trump and the NRA are talking and the NRA says this

 

Happy to meet @realdonaldtrump. Our position is no guns for terrorists—period. Due process & right to self-defense for law-abiding Americans

 

The senate filibusters

 

funking Politicians

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

@Winter: Agree with you there. Personally, I do not believe the NRA is for the legal gun owners one bit. I personally think they are for the gun industry. I could be wrong, but among the millions of gun owners in America, I'm pretty sure a good amount of them were equally horrified by this, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, etc, and yet, the NRA (and most of the GOP) still won't budge? Look at the aftermath of this, where even a few Republicans are now advocating for gun control now. People can't be so hard-headed to not realize there is a serious problem here. Being worried about one's rights is understandable, but unless I missed something, aside from the whole assault weapons debate, most Democrats and gun control advocates haven't called for a total banning.

 

Another concern I have is in regards to if tougher gun laws actually pass. Certain people are definitely going to fight it, and even if the number of mass shootings is drastically reduced, if just one, ONE, happens after said laws are passed, you will have people saying "See, it doesn't work!" and possibly try to get them removed. We can't stop every act of violence, but, some of these guys just don't care. They will find any reason in the book to either remove or loosen gun laws, imo.

 

Basically, even if it anything does pass, who knows if it will actually last, whether it works or not. Admittedly, it would much harder to get rid of a reasonable gun law that actually proved successful, because that probably would just discredit the person or people fighting against it.

 

@Aerion: The GOP is also an obstacle, but the two can be very much intertwined with each other. Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz are perfect examples of the gun lobby and the GOP being connected. Heck, the group that endorsed Cruz has a leader who wants ZERO background checks. Cruz touted that endorsement, mind you.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Webb probably had the best apparent position on guns. Expect to Trump to change his statement on them about three times or so this week.

And for the record if "muskets" was the original extent of the 2A then "Christian sects" was the original extent of freedom of religion and constitutionality debates regarding a ban go out the window. 

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Thought it would be interesting to hear some views from AR-15 owners: http://abcnews.go.com/US/ar-15-owners-explain-guns/story?id=39873644

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

"When you create gun-free zones, the only people who are going to obey those laws are people that are not a threat,"

 

I mean that IS true

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

"When you create gun-free zones, the only people who are going to obey those laws are people that are not a threat,"

 

I mean that IS true

 

Agreed.

 

I honestly feel people misunderstand gun owners these days, to be honest.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Can we re-name this as the Gun Control Thread? And have any further gun incidents filter into this thread?

[Dad]

Can we re-name this as the Gun Control Thread? And have any further gun incidents filter into this thread?

 

Just make a mega thread.  And then when a shooting happens and it inevitably spills over, filter that into the megathread.

[IQuitDolphin]

I'm not even going into the gun control bullshit, I'll just focus on the shooting itself.

 

a) People kill people. Not guns. Guns help people kill other people easier. There are things other than guns that help people kill other people.

b) The shooter was a confirmed ISIS supporter or someone influenced by ISIS to a great extent.

c) Therefore, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that this is a domestic terrorist attack or hate crime by an ISIS supporter, and that influence by ISIS is the issue, not guns?

 

After all, if he didn't have access to a gun, the ISIS supporter (and by extension, domestic terrorist) would've used another tool. If he really wanted to kill people in the name of ISIS and couldn't get a gun, well, he'll find another accessible means of mass killing. It wouldn't have prevented the attack, and the damage done with a bomb would most likely be just as catastrophic as one with a gun.

 

EDIT: Should read earlier pages. RIP.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

"When you create gun-free zones, the only people who are going to obey those laws are people that are not a threat,"

 

I mean that IS true

Okay, but nearly every place where that applies seems like it's better off as a Gun-Free zone. Letting random civilians carry in a club? A school? Specific personnel having that allowance, sure, but I feel like it's a bit of a cheap talking point and that most people aren't even discussing gun-free zones moreso than the ability to purchase guns.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Okay, but nearly every place where that applies seems like it's better off as a Gun-Free zone. Letting random civilians carry in a club? A school? Specific personnel having that allowance, sure, but I feel like it's a bit of a cheap talking point and that most people aren't even discussing gun-free zones moreso than the ability to purchase guns.

I think you completely missed the point. The Omars of the world are at ease with death and committing 1st degree murder. They're not going to be too heartbroken about breaking a no-carry law too

All you do by restricting areas is make it so legal citizens cannot fight back

[IQuitDolphin]

I think you completely missed the point. The Omars of the world are at ease with death and committing 1st degree murder. They're not going to be too heartbroken about breaking a no-carry law too

All you do by restricting areas is make it so legal citizens cannot fight back

Assuming said people with guns will fight back. Civilians are just that: civilians. They do not have the mental state required to kill, let alone shoot. Even police officers practice against cardboard targets, and must have most likely have never been in a gunfight.

 

Personally, either decision will not influence the outcomes much, as people are people and they will instinctively flee first regardless of whether they can fight back or not. Fear overpowers common sense.

[vla1ne]

Assuming said people with guns will fight back. Civilians are just that: civilians. They do not have the mental state required to kill, let alone shoot. Even police officers practice against cardboard targets, and must have most likely have never been in a gunfight.

 

Personally, either decision will not influence the outcomes much, as people are people and they will instinctively flee first regardless of whether they can fight back or not. Fear overpowers common sense.

so says you, there's a ton of instances where people opened fire in open carry zones, and in many of those instances, the second or third body added to the count was the shooter. you underestimate people. sure not in every case, but in enough cases, open/concealed carry has proven that civilians with guns aren't as bad off as those without guns. in fact, in that one college shooting, (columbine i believe), the shooter was kept in place by civilians with rifles, lowering what could have been an insane body count, and allowing the police to take control of the situation much easier.

[Aerion Brightflame]

That's still not a certainty you should rely on. Unless you change the law to ensure that anyone who legally owns a firearm has suitable training (I.E. a Militia), you are still complicating situations more than needs be done. I'm sure that for all the cases where civillians opening fire on the perp actually helped matters, there's as many or more situations where they had no effect or simply made it worse. I doubt either of us can find numbers to support these however. 

 

If your attitude is going to be 'Well concealed carry can keep body counts down in public shootings' instead of actively reducing public shootings through restrictions and relevant social programs, then you could at least ensure people with concealed or open carry have somewhat decent training instead of just firing range practice say. Have a minimum standard of firearm training required for ownership of a gun, including safety standards. It even helps deal with the conspiracy nuts because then there are groups of trained civillians dotted around the country ready to help when the government decides to screw you. 

 

If you refuse to get rid of guns, then make gun ownership the equivalent of car ownership. Both are deadly instruments in the wrong hands. Arguably both are useful tools in the right hands, but depends on your attitude. 

 

Again, I personally feel that firearms in high stress situations are just asking for things to escalate, and these are generally the cases where you don't want things to escalate. But there are solutions that don't compromise these sorts of things. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That's still not a certainty you should rely on. Unless you change the law to ensure that anyone who legally owns a firearm has suitable training (I.E. a Militia), you are still complicating situations more than needs be done. I'm sure that for all the cases where civillians opening fire on the perp actually helped matters, there's as many or more situations where they had no effect or simply made it worse. I doubt either of us can find numbers to support these however. 

 

If your attitude is going to be 'Well concealed carry can keep body counts down in public shootings' instead of actively reducing public shootings through restrictions and relevant social programs, then you could at least ensure people with concealed or open carry have somewhat decent training instead of just firing range practice say. Have a minimum standard of firearm training required for ownership of a gun, including safety standards. It even helps deal with the conspiracy nuts because then there are groups of trained civillians dotted around the country ready to help when the government decides to screw you. 

 

If you refuse to get rid of guns, then make gun ownership the equivalent of car ownership. Both are deadly instruments in the wrong hands. Arguably both are useful tools in the right hands, but depends on your attitude. 

I 100% agree. Gun training and renewing licences like cars should be a thing

 

More strict training for more "dangerous" guns. etc

 

I just worry what the government might use a "gun owner list" for. Like will police officers have information that I'm a gun owner? What if they shoot me cause they know I'm a gun owner and mistake me raising my hand for something else? 

[Delibirb]

I 100% agree. Gun training and renewing licences like cars should be a thing

 

More strict training for more "dangerous" guns. etc

 

I just worry what the government might use a "gun owner list" for. Like will police officers have information that I'm a gun owner? What if they shoot me cause they know I'm a gun owner and mistake me raising my hand for something else? 

Ideally for targeted surveillance and regular investigation to ensure the state of the gun owners is still the same or as acceptable as they were when they got their guns.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ideally for targeted surveillance and regular investigation to ensure the state of the gun owners is still the same or as acceptable as they were when they got their guns.

I'm not sure how I feel about the feds shaking me down twice a week to make sure I'm not an Daesh convert

 

And there would need to be a lot of oversight over the investigation department, at some point it becomes a government subjugation program which I'm not ok with

[Delibirb]

I'm not sure how I feel about the feds shaking me down twice a week to make sure I'm not an Daesh convert

 

And there would need to be a lot of oversight over the investigation department, at some point it becomes a government subjugation program which I'm not ok with

Well it wouldn't be twice a week. Probably anually or bi-annually, if even that.

 

And I seriously doubt investigations would involve direct contact with the person. Probably just taking a look for suspicious/dangerous online activity and/or phone communications, though one probably wouldn't even need to go that far to determine if someone is or is becoming a threat via firearm. Though if one did, an ASI would be ideal for that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well it wouldn't be twice a week. Probably anually or bi-annually, if even that.

 

And I seriously doubt investigations would involve direct contact with the person. Probably just taking a look for suspicious/dangerous online activity and/or phone communications, though one probably wouldn't even need to go that far to determine if someone is or is becoming a threat via firearm. Though if one did, an ASI would be ideal for that.

That's all fine, call me a bit paranoid, but I'm seeing Captain America 2 style targeting of "threats" 

 

If it was just looking over online stuff then I guess that's fine. But I worry to what degree they'll take it. Is saying Obama is a bad president enough to get me on the blacklist? Who will moderate what accounts for danger. Will my family be targeted? If the way they go about looking at people is vetted and public I'm ok with it, if not there is a lot of room for concern

 

The 2nd amendment was created to fend off tyranny afterall

[Delibirb]

That's all fine, call me a bit paranoid, but I'm seeing Captain America 2 style targeting of "threats" 

 

If it was just looking over online stuff then I guess that's fine. But I worry to what degree they'll take it. Is saying Obama is a bad president enough to get me on the blacklist? Who will moderate what accounts for danger. Will my family be targeted? If the way they go about looking at people is vetted and public I'm ok with it, if not there is a lot of room for concern

 

The 2nd amendment was created to fend off tyranny afterall

HYDRA's method of dealing with threats is necessary when one is creating a new world order of sorts, as they were. Taking out threats to the cause. What I'm proposing is much less malevolent. If a threat is determined, probably worst thing that happens is remove their guns and right to own them for the remainder of their lives, and try them with conspiracy. There would be literally no reason to involve your family (Why even bring this up unless you think you might be decidedly a threat?) or anyone's.

 

Tyranny is generally only objective in hindsight. the 2nd Amendment was also created in a time where mass shootings basically didn't happen except by foreign soldiers or by rogue militia. The fact they can be so easily achieved now warrants taking a second look at just how far Right #2 actually should stretch.

[vla1ne]

That's still not a certainty you should rely on. Unless you change the law to ensure that anyone who legally owns a firearm has suitable training (I.E. a Militia), you are still complicating situations more than needs be done. I'm sure that for all the cases where civillians opening fire on the perp actually helped matters, there's as many or more situations where they had no effect or simply made it worse. I doubt either of us can find numbers to support these however. 

 

If your attitude is going to be 'Well concealed carry can keep body counts down in public shootings' instead of actively reducing public shootings through restrictions and relevant social programs, then you could at least ensure people with concealed or open carry have somewhat decent training instead of just firing range practice say. Have a minimum standard of firearm training required for ownership of a gun, including safety standards. It even helps deal with the conspiracy nuts because then there are groups of trained civillians dotted around the country ready to help when the government decides to screw you. 

 

If you refuse to get rid of guns, then make gun ownership the equivalent of car ownership. Both are deadly instruments in the wrong hands. Arguably both are useful tools in the right hands, but depends on your attitude. 

 

Again, I personally feel that firearms in high stress situations are just asking for things to escalate, and these are generally the cases where you don't want things to escalate. But there are solutions that don't compromise these sorts of things. 

as for proper training, this isn't pursuits we're talking about, nor is it an open field fight where everybody's running about trying to hit multiple other people. it's often one or two people carrying guns, in a smaller inside area to do as much damage as possible. you don't need perfect accuracy to hit a target ten feet away with a normal handgun. sure, advocate training, but if you've ever shot a gun before, you know that while it's hard to hit a fast target, a moderately slow one standing ten feet away is not an impossible feat. but here's a list of average people stopping shootings https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/  unlike gun free zones, concealed/open carry zones, have people who can, and in many cases will, fight back. unless you've got enough people with you to start a small war, you do not open fire in a crowded area where open/concealed carry is allowed, because it only takes one or two shots from a bystander to stop the situation. my entire statement was not about not banning guns, it was about gun free zones being demonstrably worse off than concealed carry zones. you can say that the criminal will then be able to bring his gun in unhindered, or that somebody who blows his lid will then have a gun already on hand, and my answer to that would be 1) so will the victims, and 2) if it were a gun free zone, nobody else would have a gun at all. if one person wanks into a bar with 20 people and starts shooting, what is there to escalate? every, or almost every citizen there is going to die unless he's stopped, so what exactly would be the difference between having a gun in that situation, an not having a gun? the answer is that the people with guns can at least take him out before he takes them out.

 

 

you are also missing something that is essential to factor in for america; a gun free zone is the only place you are guaranteed to not run into opposition, there is nowhere in america you can whip out a gun, start shooting, and not have the chance to get shot back at by a bystander, except in a gun-free zone, and almost every single successful mass shooting in america has been carried out in a gun free zone. same goes for the UK, but considering there's no guns allowed in the UK period, it's a moot point. i guarantee you, the next successful mass shooting, and the next one after that, will be carried out in a gun free zone.   http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425802/gun-free-zones-don't-save-lives-right-to-carry-laws-do

 

but think for a moment, would you place "gun free zone" on your front porch in an area where everybody else has guns? no, because it makes you the best target on the street. that same rule applies for the entirety of america. i support better rules, and fewer loopholes, but i do not support gun free areas, because they are the best targets for mass shootings, and they will always yield a higher body count than an area where people can bring their guns with them. your first statement boils down to "if people shoot back they might miss" and to that i say, "if you don't have a gun in the first place, you last worry not will be about missing."

 

 

but to finish, 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Actually my point is more that 'If people shoot back they might kill the wrong person' than they might fail to kill the perp by missing. But it's semantics. And I agree with you that the next mass shooting will occur in a gun free zone. But for a different reason - Because there are still non-gun free zones 

 

Yeah, it's not that shocking that gun free zones get undermined by the existence of neighbouring gun legal zones, and that people can still get fairly ready access to firearms as a result. It doesn't actually comment upon the effectiveness of no guns as a result, because the idea behind it gets flawed. It's why if you are actually banning firearms you have to do it at a national level across all states at once, and make an aggressive effort to remove existing guns. 

 

Since that won't happen, because reasons, then the logical course of action if you are aiming to mitigate the effects of mass shootings is to ensure every gun owner has some level of combat training - That would include live fire drills (Or at least Blank fire drills, something to simulate the chaos of a shooting like this). That way you make the chosen approach as efficient as it possibly could be. 

 

Like if you are going to introduce gun free zones you have to go the whole hog. Make them very expansive and being very aggressive about there enforcement. It has to be a concentrated effort across the nation.