50 dead at Orlando club shooting.

[Dan]

Why hasn't ANYONE answered my question before?

 

[Dotini]

Why do you need a rifle like this? You aren't defending your house from twenty to thirty robbers at once. You aren't hunting thirty animals at once. You sure as hell won't be defending a shopping mall, concert, school/college campus, or any other large group of people with this strapped to your back. Why do people need high-capacity rifles?

A case could be made the AR-15, albeit with a magazine of modest capacity, would make an ideal, modern, lightweight hunting rifle for smaller game - say turkey. Similarly it would be good for home defense. Depending on the local laws. But those poor souls in the nightclub, they were totally defenseless. 100+ human beings shot down like fish in a barrel, many double-tapped. If all the tables were equipped with heavy ashtrays, someone might have brought the assailant down with a lucky throw. But that's a pathetic and forlorn hope, compared to a dozen .45's in crossfire. All it would take is one hit and Omar is down.

 

[Obelisk]

A case could be made the AR-15, albeit with a magazine of modest capacity, would make an ideal, modern, lightweight hunting rifle for smaller game - say turkey. Similarly it would be good for home defense. Depending on the local laws. But those poor souls in the nightclub, they were totally defenseless. If all the tables were equipped with heavy ashtrays, someone might have brought the assailant down with a lucky throw. But that's a pathetic and forlorn hope, compared to a dozen .45's in crossfire. All it would take is one hit and Omar is down.

That last comment reminds me of this story.

 

[Lucas]

If thats what you've gathered from all this, then Im sorry.

The point being, you ban "Assault Weapons" and there are still other non-Assault Weapons that are available that are just as deadly. Because guns are deadly. They require responsibility to use.

This is the same old "knives kill too, should we ban them?" discussion, except we are not talking about knives or handguns, we are talking about Assault Weapons which have a huge destructive power. Or are we supposed to believe that a person with a knife would be able to kill 50 people at an Orlando Club and cause many injured people?

 

[McLaren]

Why do you need a rifle like this? You aren't defending your house from twenty to thirty robbers at once. You aren't hunting thirty animals at once. You sure as hell won't be defending a shopping mall, concert, school/college campus, or any other large group of people with this strapped to your back. Why do people need high-capacity rifles?

What is this common theme for anti-gun arguments that you can only own a gun to hunt or use for protection?

You do realize there's this place called a gun range where people go to shoot for fun, right? People like to shoot & own semi-automatic weapons because it's the closest they'll ever get to shooting & owning a real military weapon. Gun collectors have been around long enough that they can fire off several different rifles and immediately form an opinion on how different they are & which they like. My buddy had a Desert Eagle at one point. It is the most pointless hand gun to hunt or protect you home with, but it's an incredible feeling when you fire it off at the range.

Any other crime with an item, people will blame the person, be a car, a knife, a stick, etc. Blame the person, not the tool. He should have never been allowed to own those guns if he was being watched by the FBI.

This is the same old "knives kill too, should we ban them?" discussion, except we are not talking about knives or handguns, we are talking about Assault Weapons which have a huge destructive power. Or are we supposed to believe that a person with a knife would be able to kill 50 people at an Orlando Club and cause many injured people?

No, but 280 people were affected by 2 pressure cookers in Boston. Maybe we can ban those next since they seem to be item of choice when it comes to bombing people.

 

[Dan]

A case could be made the AR-15, albeit with a magazine of modest capacity, would make an ideal, modern, lightweight hunting rifle for smaller game - say turkey. Similarly it would be good for home defense. Depending on the local laws. But those poor souls in the nightclub, they were totally defenseless. 100+ human beings shot down like fish in a barrel, many double-tapped. If all the tables were equipped with heavy ashtrays, someone might have brought the assailant down with a lucky throw. But that's a pathetic and forlorn hope, compared to a dozen .45's in crossfire. All it would take is one hit and Omar is down.

I completely agree with you on the fact that there's a greater chance of the attacker being stopped with more people being armed, but I remain skeptical of the belief that every gun owner would be able to properly conduct themselves in a situation like this. You have to make every shot count, because if you miss, that's just one less chance you had to eliminate the attacker before reloading, you're drawing the attacker's attention to you, and let's not forget the fact that you could hit a bystander.

Going back to the rifle, with a modest magazine size, I can see it being useful in the situation you described, but in a home invasion setting, a rifle is clunky for close-quarters combat in narrow hallways. A pistol or shorter shotgun could work more realistically.

 

[-Cheezman-]

Regardless of what rifle he used, why would anyone ever need an assault rifle, aside from having it in a collection? In realistic scenarios, you will never need the amount of firepower an assault rifle has. If you're going hunting, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would fit the bill perfectly. For home defense, a pistol or shotgun will work as well. For concealed carry, a pistol works there. An assault rifle would only ever need to be used in military settings.

He didn't use an assault rifle.
http://tribunist.com/news/when-you-hear-someone-call-an-ar-15-an-assault-rifle-show-them-this/

Few American's even have any sort of easy or legal access to actual assault rifles:
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa

It was just a rifle, like any other rifle. Except it had modern technology (some plastic handle bits) on it.

Firearms, like cars, computers, planes, TVs, refrigerators.etc don't live in a bubble where time has stopped. Technology evolves.

http://www.nramuseum.org/gun-info-research/a-brief-history-of-firearms.aspx

Incidentally, The AR15 is used for hunting:

• These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.
  
  
• AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.
  
  
• The AR-15 platform is modular. Owners like being able to affix different "uppers" (the barrel and chamber) to the "lower" (the grip, stock).

http://www.nssf.org/msr/facts.cfm


You also may want to rethink this statement: "An assault rifle would only ever need to be used in military settings."

The 1939 supreme court ruling that established that the government could regulate short barrel rifles and sawed-off shotguns was on the basis that, because there was no practical military use for them at the time, there was no practical civilian use. If we used that metric today; You'd probably be able to buy a Squad Assault Weapon at Walmart.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

Furthermore, one can easily argue the intent of the second amendment (or any "law" that allows "civilians" to own firearms) was that the average citizen should have access to military grade weaponry to defend their constitutional rights when the actual military failed to, or was unable to.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

 

[CodeRedR51]

If thats what you've gathered from all this, then Im sorry.

Well whatever I have to say is only my opinion and as someone who doesn't like guns my opinion is always wrong, so it won't make any difference in here.

 

[Dan]

What is this common theme for anti-gun arguments that you can only own a gun to hunt or use for protection?

You do realize there's this place called a gun range where people go to shoot for fun, right? People like to shoot & own semi-automatic weapons because it's the closest they'll ever get to shooting & owning a real military weapon. Gun collectors have been around long enough that they can fire off several different rifles and immediately form an opinion on how different they are & which they like. My buddy had a Desert Eagle at one point. It is the most pointless hand gun to hunt or protect you home with, but it's an incredible feeling when you fire it off at the range.

Any other crime with an item, people will blame the person, be a car, a knife, a stick, etc. Blame the person, not the tool. He should have never been allowed to own those guns if he was being watched by the FBI.

I know that people collect guns, take them to the range, and participate in competitions (the only sport shooter I can name is Jerry Miculek). I understand your point and believe it's a valid response, but in my opinion, these rifles are way too easy for criminals to purchase legally and on the black market. The risk outweighs personal entertainment.

You aren't going to massacre an entire crowd of a hundred people with a knife or blade weapon. By the time you've injured the first few people, everyone else will run away, or you'll have a select few brave individuals try and stop you.

A .50 AE Desert Eagle or S&W Model 500 is meant to kill the largest wild animals in North America in one shot. A car is meant to be used as transport, hauling cargo, entertainment, luxury, or sport. Yes, in the wrong hands, a car can kill someone. You can say the same thing about guns, but at the end of the day, a gun is still a weapon from the moment it is designed and built.

 

[McLaren]

I know that people collect guns, take them to the range, and participate in competitions (the only sport shooter I can name is Jerry Miculek). I understand your point and believe it's a valid response, but in my opinion, these rifles are way too easy for criminals to purchase legally and on the black market. The risk outweighs personal entertainment.

So, it's no longer, "You're not defending your home or hunting with a rifle; you don't need one", but "it's too easy for criminals to get" as your stance against them?

Do you happen to know what gun is responsible for 3 of the 5 most deadly mass shootings? Or that before Orlando, the deadliest mass shooting didn't involve a rifle at all?

You aren't going to massacre an entire crowd of a hundred people with a knife or blade weapon. By the time you've injured the first few people, everyone else will run away, or you'll have a select few brave individuals try and stop you.

A .50 AE Desert Eagle or S&W Model 500 is meant to kill the largest wild animals in North America in one shot. A car is meant to be used as transport, hauling cargo, entertainment, luxury, or sport. Yes, in the wrong hands, a car can kill someone. You can say the same thing about guns, but at the end of the day, a gun is still a weapon from the moment it is designed and built.

It doesn't matter, you hold the person accountable for improperly using it. Or in this case, whoever allowed him to purchase that rifle if he was supposedly being watched so closely by the FBI.

 

[Aki Ko]

Has anybody kept in mind how it was done in a gun free zone?

All this talk about gun laws won't do a lot if it's always gonna be in an area where you're, by law, not allowed to have it on you. Just saying.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Or in this case, whoever allowed him to purchase that rifle if he was supposedly being watched so closely by the FBI.

Except he wasn't red flagged by the FBI for surveillance when he bought the gun. Otherwise, it would have shown up on a federally mandated background check at the dealer.

 

[McLaren]

Except he wasn't red flagged by the FBI for surveillance when he bought the gun. Otherwise, it would have shown up on a federally mandated background check at the dealer.

From what I read, this guy was investigated twice, once in 2013 & then the following year. With all the details out there about why he was investigated, it baffles me why he wouldn't have been red flagged immediately for claiming to support Hezbollah, & then ISIL.

If the guy is nutty enough to make those claims more than once (even with no connections), one would assume he probably still shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun.

 

[Sanji Himura]

From what I read, this guy was investigated twice, once in 2013 & then the following year. With all the details out there about why he was investigated, it baffles me why he wouldn't have been red flagged immediately for claiming to support Hezbollah, & then ISIL.

If the guy is nutty enough to make those claims more than once (even with no connections), one would assume he probably still shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun.

He made his allegiance known during the attack. There was no time to red flag him and investigate those claims (if the DoJ wanted too).

 

[CodeRedR51]

Has anybody kept in mind how it was done in a gun free zone?

We've already been over that somewhat. Mainly that letting people carry guns for protection into a place where alcohol is being consumed is a very bad idea, but also that there was armed security present and the person did not survive I believe.

 

[McLaren]

He made his allegiance known during the attack. There was no time to red flag him and investigate those claims (if the DoJ wanted too).

You're missing the first point.

Mateen first became a person of interest to the FBI in May 2013, when he came to the FBI's attention after making "inflammatory" statements at a contract security guard job; Mateen told co-workers that he had family connections to al-Qaeda and that he was a member of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is an enemy of ISIL, to which Mateen later pledged allegiance, and FBI Director James Comey noted the "contradictory" nature of Mateen's statements. The FBI opened a preliminary investigation and interviewed Mateen twice; Mateen admitted making the statements but "explained that he said them in anger because his co-workers were teasing him." The FBI closed the investigation after ten months, deeming Mateen not to be a threat. Mateen was on a terrorist watch list during the investigation but was removed once the investigation closed.[62]

In July 2014, Mateen's name came to the attention of the FBI after he was linked to Moner Mohammad Abu Salha, an American radical who traveled to Syria and committed a suicide bombing there; the two men knew each other casually and attended the same mosque.[34][62] The investigation continued with a focus on Abu Salha.[62]

U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that according to the Department of Homeland Security, Mateen had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), though analysts noted that "at this point, it's anyone's guess as to how involved Omar Mateen was with either Al Qaeda or ISIS."[8] Mateen had also pledged support to the al-Nusra Front, a Syrian al-Qaeda's branch and opponent of ISIL.[63]

This guy pledged support to 3 different terrorist groups & was investigated twice for accounts related to terrorism.

How do you not become red flagged for good after 2 investigations in 14 months, esp in an era where making any kind of terrorist threat is considered a serious offense? If I'm selling something like a AR-15 to someone & I have to do a background check to make sure he's good to go, I'd think something like these investigations would be noted so I know not to sell a gun to someone who clearly supported terrorism.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Next time some old guy drives a Buick into a market full of people remind me to claim that Buicks should be banned.

The issue is not the Buick, the issue is the Automatic transmission.

The fact that there are only 2 pedals, it is too easy for people to make the mistake.

Had the car been a 3 pedal Manual transmission, none of these would happen.

We should ban auto transmission cars.



Tangent aside, how can you compare "killing people by mistake" vs "killing people by intention" ?

That's the difference you all laughing seem to forget...

 

[Obelisk]

The issue is not the Buick, the issue is the Automatic transmission.

The fact that there are only 2 pedals, it is too easy for people to make the mistake.

Had the car been a 3 pedal Manual transmission, none of these would happen.

We should ban auto transmission cars.



Tangent aside, how can you compare "killing people by mistake" vs "killing people by intention" ?

That's the difference you all laughing seem to forget...

None of us are missing that point. The comment @Danoff made was calling out your other comment:

PS: gun control must now be enforced by forbidding all semi-auto sales

Which is only getting rid of the tool, not the actual problem. It isn't the gun itself that kills people, it's the person pulling the trigger.

 

[Dan]

I hate breaking down posts because when I see other users do it, it makes me less inclined to read the whole thing, but this is the only way I can make a semi-consistent post.

He didn't use an assault rifle.
http://tribunist.com/news/when-you-hear-someone-call-an-ar-15-an-assault-rifle-show-them-this/

Thank you for your clarification. My knowledge of firearms could be considered marginally above average at best. I did not know there was a different classification under the name "sporting rifles."

Few American's even have any sort of easy or legal access to actual assault rifles:
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa

It was just a rifle, like any other rifle. Except it had modern technology (some plastic handle bits) on it.

Firearms, like cars, computers, planes, TVs, refrigerators.etc don't live in a bubble where time has stopped. Technology evolves.

http://www.nramuseum.org/gun-info-research/a-brief-history-of-firearms.aspx

Sorry, but I don't have nearly enough time to read that entire summary of firearms.

Incidentally, The AR15 is used for hunting:


http://www.nssf.org/msr/facts.cfm

In the first article you linked, it states here that "the AR-15’s .223 / 5.56mm ammunition is considered so low powered that it is banned from hunting large game like deer and elk because it cannot humanely take them down in one shot like most other rifle calibers can. In some states like Washington, all big game must be hunted with a minimum of .24 caliber ammunition – relegating the AR-15 to small game and varmint duty exactly because it is a low-powered rifle." So, this sounds like it wouldn't be of much use at all if it's restricted to only small animals.

You also may want to rethink this statement: "An assault rifle would only ever need to be used in military settings."

The 1939 supreme court ruling that established that the government could regulate short barrel rifles and sawed-off shotguns was on the basis that, because there was no practical military use for them at the time, there was no practical civilian use. If we used that metric today; You'd probably be able to buy a Squad Assault Weapon at Walmart.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

Furthermore, one can easily argue the intent of the second amendment (or any "law" that allows "civilians" to own firearms) was that the average citizen should have access to military grade weaponry to defend their constitutional rights when the actual military failed to, or was unable to.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I'm absolutely not in favor of fully-automatic weapons being in the hands of the public. Semi-auto pistols, shotguns, or hunting rifles are the only things I will settle for. I still believe that we don't need sporting rifles on the street. If one man could slaughter 49 people and severely injure 53 more with just a semi-auto rifle, imagine the damage he could do with a full-auto one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, it's no longer, "You're not defending your home or hunting with a rifle; you don't need one", but "it's too easy for criminals to get" as your stance against them?

No, I firmly believe in both of those.

Do you happen to know what gun is responsible for 3 of the 5 most deadly mass shootings? Or that before Orlando, the deadliest mass shooting didn't involve a rifle at all?

I don't keep track of murder weapons, and I get a bad feeling that trying to find out more information or using the wrong set of words in a search will get me on a list somewhere.

It doesn't matter, you hold the person accountable for improperly using it. Or in this case, whoever allowed him to purchase that rifle if he was supposedly being watched so closely by the FBI.

I think all people involved in removing him from the list need to be investigated and held accountable as well, since the news reports I've seen indicate he wasn't the only person to be taken off the watch lists after making terror connections.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

One of the reasons the death toll was so high is because a couple of idiots escaped and then blocked the exit.

Dumb Ass Patron
We just started pushing and pushing and then when we got that 10 second break we went to this alleyway which led for only employees and we tried, me and this random guy, tried blocking the door. At that point like I said the bullets were getting louder and closer. So we blocked this door and we did hear banging. I pray it wasn’t anyone trying to escape because I would forever feel guilty.

Who did he think was banging? He should forever feel guilty.

video of interview before comments

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...cked-exit-club-condemning-gays-certain-death/

 

[A2K78]

Anyhow like I said earlier I'm glad nobody I know goes to that place and are safe(despite my niece living within 10 minutes of said club). If anything one can only hope that the owner do the right thing shut down the place permanently. Wish I could say the same about other nightclubs.

 

[McLaren]

No, I firmly believe in both of those.

That's not really the point if you do. You presented me a question as why anyone needs those rifles & after I answered, you presented a different argument that basically called for the guns not being needed b/c criminals could get them too easily.

1 stance has validity to it being as this guy did get get them too easily given his background. The other not as much because the 2 situations you're presenting for your question aren't situations the gun is bought for typically.

I don't keep track of murder weapons, and I get a bad feeling that trying to find out more information or using the wrong set of words in a search will get me on a list somewhere.

That's called paranoia. If searching for info regarding mass shootings is going to get you on a list, you're there with easily a million other people since it's the hot topic.

I think all people involved in removing him from the list need to be investigated and held accountable as well, since the news reports I've seen indicate he wasn't the only person to be taken off the watch lists after making terror connections.

Agreed.

Anyhow like I said earlier I'm glad nobody I know goes to that place and are safe(despite my niece living within 10 minutes of said club). If anything one can only hope that the owner do the right thing shut down the place permanently. Wish I could say the same about other nightclubs.

You seem to have an issue with nightclubs, then. Not gun toting, gay-hating, radicals.

 

[Obelisk]

Anyhow like I said earlier I'm glad nobody I know goes to that place and are safe(despite my niece living within 10 minutes of said club). If anything one can only hope that the owner do the right thing shut down the place permanently. Wish I could say the same about other nightclubs.

Extreme overreaction.

Just as @McLaren said, you're up in arms over the nightclub and not the actual shooting?

 

[Snaeper]

Why hasn't ANYONE answered my question before?

I told you to go out and rent one. That will answer your question better than words could. If you were in a position to be swayed by words you wouldnt be using angry smiley's and asking loaded questions.

@Dotini The AR-15 was originally designed for civilians for that exact purpose. A small game rifle. The military put out a request for a new rifle and Colt offered it up and they liked it.

This is the same old "knives kill too, should we ban them?" discussion, except we are not talking about knives or handguns, we are talking about Assault Weapons which have a huge destructive power. Or are we supposed to believe that a person with a knife would be able to kill 50 people at an Orlando Club and cause many injured people?

This is an "Assault Weapon":

This is not an "Assault Weapon":

Tell me all about the incredibly destructive power that is removed when the changes are made to make it Assault Weapon ban compliant.

A person wouldn't use a knife to kill 49 people, they'd use a bomb.

Also, try reading up on the stories coming out of the nightclub situation (@Dan this goes for you, too). After the initial attack, that killer was barricaded in the club for three hours. He went around and shot every one that was still there to make sure they died, and others that could've been saved died on the floor because the Police had to attempt to negotiate with this d-bag. Lets not forget either that there were estimated to be 400 people in the club, with loud music that numbed them from the initial sense of danger. This not only gave the shooter more time to fire at helpless, standing targets, but he was essentially shooting at fish in a barrel, in the most truest sense of that phrase. In conditions like that, he could've used a .380 Auto Pistol and gotten the same results. Or, as in your example, a knife paired with a home made bomb in lieu of a gun, because even the worst DIY bomb would seriously damage a lot of people in those circumstances.

Having actually done my research on firearms because I have a general passion for them, if you want to ban something that is unreasonably dangerous, ban this:



It is completely legal by ATF standards, and is a simple stock that can attach to any AR or AK weapon. I imagine it's fun for some wahoo to shoot, but really has no practical usage in day to day lives and I dread the possibility of a psycho getting a hold of it and attaching it to his gun.

I hope gun owners can come together on it and let it get outlawed before it's used to inflict terrible harm.

In the first article you linked, it states here that "the AR-15’s .223 / 5.56mm ammunition is considered so low powered that it is banned from hunting large game like deer and elk because it cannot humanely take them down in one shot like most other rifle calibers can. In some states like Washington, all big game must be hunted with a minimum of .24 caliber ammunition – relegating the AR-15 to small game and varmint duty exactly because it is a low-powered rifle." So, this sounds like it wouldn't be of much use at all if it's restricted to only small animals.

That's the glory of the AR Platform, you can easily swap out parts to switch it to a larger calibre for hunting. So instead of having one rifle for large game and one for small, you can just change out the barrel and have one rifle fulfill two roles. But the AR-15, as I mentioned above, was initially designed as a varmint and small game gun, so it and the .223 cartridge were naturally well suited to the role and anyone expecting to take down a deer with them is an idiot.

Interestingly enough, the military actually reeled the original 5.56 cartridge in when they tested the first M16's. The bullet design they had specified would fragment upon impact and caused a great deal of damage to the target and was considered inhumane. They ended up going with a much more stable bullet design that wouldn't break apart upon impact.

...And then the military was actually concerned about how lethal the M4/M16's 5.56 round actually was. A lot of soldiers report combatants taking multiple hits and still fighting. They only recently re-designed the 5.56 to be more lethal, but what wars they've actually tested it in is a mystery. I've met my share of Vets though that do not swear by it, because unless you're getting a center-mass or head shot, you're not killing the person.

Well whatever I have to say is only my opinion and as someone who doesn't like guns my opinion is always wrong, so it won't make any difference in here.

If you don't like something, that's not an issue to me. I can understand that! But if you don't like something and express to me that you don't understand them, then I beg you simply to become more informed. Of course, in the world of guns, when you become more informed, you typically like guns.

I used to have no opinion on them. I had shot a shotgun once, a small-caliber bolt action rifle and revolver another time, but I figured they were used by Police, Bad guys and Action heroes. Then I spent the day with an old friend from elementary school I hadn't seen in years and he shocked the hell out of me when he pulled a gun from his waist and handed it to his girlfriend to store in her bag. I was thinking "What the hell? He has a gun? Why does he have a gun?" Then I researched them more, I began to like them, was fascinated by the different technical philosophies, calibers, firing mechanisms, histories etc.

Then 2012 happened, and I heard the BS that politicians were spouting to try to make people think they were going to change things. Just look at those two rifles above and tell me what an AWB will prevent? When it comes to guns, politicians just say the things that get them re-elected, they don't care about you or your safety. They feel what they can when people die, they experience outrage, but then they go right back to pandering.

Then I learned about the kind of people that support Gun Control legislature. Bloomberg and his blind supporting of politicians like Leland Yee. I learned what real gun crime is, and that's a small handgun held by a criminal and used on another criminal. I see the gun control laws in California, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC... and I see all the gun crime they don't stop.

So when I sit here and make things sound hopeless, it's because the course of action everyone seems to take doesn't work. I've seen the statistics not working in action. I didn't even have to read Pro-gun websites to glean this information. I went on the Brady Campaign's on interactive map that showed the gun crime going on in this nation. I researched every dot on the map (there were some that had ALARMINGLY little news reported on them given the severity of the crime, not to mention the credibility of the news site, but that's a separate issue).

The things I learned were this: A large majority of gun deaths are suicides or gang related. The large majority of crimes which were not suicide of crime-related were family members killing other family members. In that specific situation, a gun is not a necessary tool, nor is it even the most popular one. You're from Arizona like me, so I'm sure you've heard of Robert Fisher. I went to school with his son, my brother was even in his grade, they were friends. This is a guy who blew up his entire family and still has never been found. Even recently, again in Arizona, there was the mother that chopped her own sons up into pieces. These are anecdotal cases.

So yeah, I guess you're right. Your opinion doesn't matter. You don't like guns, you're upset and emotional over a bunch of people who died further away than those who die every day in Mexico at the hands of cartels just south of us. You know nothing about this topic, and you come in here with no research and try to shame people who LIVE this. Yeah, I guess in this regard I don't really care what it is you have to say until you open up your mind, do your research, maybe even fire a gun (hell, I'll take you to the range). And if you still don't like guns, I will have all the more respect for your opinion.

Despite all this Turbo, you're still one of my favored posters, and I hope our differing of opinion on this issue hasn't changed your mind about me lastingly. I like hot wheels, Gran Turismo, GTI's and cars in general just like you.

 

[CTznOfTime]

None of us are missing that point. The comment @Danoff made was calling out your other comment:

Which is only getting rid of the tool, not the actual problem. It isn't the gun itself that kills people, it's the person pulling the trigger.

In sum between what i proposed and what you both suggest, the safety of the general population depends on:

One position is to remove all guns of certain types (rifles and beyond).

The other position is to remove and isolate certain individuals of the population, but this assume that you know exactly all aspects (external and internal) of every single person of the population.

Which one do you think is easier to implement and more ethically possible?


You cant just go around and accuse people of wrong-doing even before they have commited them... Thats a waste of our resources. Would you like to be wrongly accused and you have no nay "

I hate breaking down posts because when I see other users do it, it makes me less inclined to read the whole thing, but this is the only way I can make a semi-consistent post.



I'm absolutely not in favor of fully-automatic weapons being in the hands of the public. Semi-auto pistols, shotguns, or hunting rifles are the only things I will settle for. I still believe that we don't need sporting rifles on the street. If one man could slaughter 49 people and severely injure 53 more with just a semi-auto rifle, imagine the damage he could do with a full-auto one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think all people involved in removing him from the list need to be investigated and held accountable as well, since the news reports I've seen indicate he wasn't the only person to be taken off the watch lists after making terror connections.

I agree with Dan here on this way of gun control.

Altho i am not a pro-gun person, i understand this country was founded on the basis of freedom and the protection of itself, and i respect that.

I can see the tradtional view that one must always have the ability to protect oneself.

But Gun control doesnt necessarily have to go against this anchored second amemdment.

Americans should totally continue to own personal firearms, just no longer firearms intended for mass destruction...

Why would one person need a rifle to protect themselves and their family?
If you believe you need rifles to protect yourself, then actually you have much bigger issues to resolve before owning any guns...

Anyhow like I said earlier I'm glad nobody I know goes to that place and are safe(despite my niece living within 10 minutes of said club). If anything one can only hope that the owner do the right thing shut down the place permanently. Wish I could say the same about other nightclubs.

Are you saying that type of lifestyle attracts danger and violence?!?

 

[Kent]

I checked back in to see what happens with the gtp on an event like this and you all (almost all) disappoint me.


This isn't a matter of guns.

This is a matter of extermist Islamic people killing.

Gun Control: Pretty sure the people of France learned what gun laws should have prevented last year.

Wake Up, you (for lack of a term that is AUP acceptable) Fools.

These psychos will not stop until Men rule the world, women are subjugated, homosexuals don't exist, and any non-Muslim is dead.

They will not stop.
They have not tolerance.

 

[axletramp]

This isn't a matter of guns.

Yes it is. Certainly access to weapons with the rate of fire used here is definitely part of the issue.

This is a matter of extermist Islamic people killing.

This is partly true in conjunction with the gun laws issue.

Gun Control: Pretty sure the people of France learned what gun laws should have prevented last year.

Not really. You can't equate what happened in Paris to what happens on a far more regular basis in the US with US citizens killing other US citizens (as an example).

Wake Up, you (for lack of a term that is AUP acceptable) Fools.

Er, OK. Name calling isn't part of a rational discussion or argument.

These psychos will not stop until Men rule the world, women are subjugated, homosexuals don't exist, and any non-Muslim is dead.

Wow, Rule the World? You do realise that the amount of people doing this is actually minuscule. And you're sure this is actually ISIS's aim (if they are involved directly)? Even if it was, are you really concerned that thousands will actually be able to subjugate billions?

 

[Carbonox]

Wow, Rule the World? You do realise that the amount of people doing this is actually minuscule. And you're sure this is actually ISIS's aim (if they are involved directly)? Even if it was, are you really concerned that thousands will actually be able to subjugate billions?

Miniscule or not, it doesn't change the fact they exist, are waging war against everyone in the world they can reach to spread their illegitimate "turf", and won't quit until being put in their place. Also I don't have links at the moment, but I'm pretty certain it has been documented plenty of times before that a worldwide caliphate is their ultimate goal.

 

[axletramp]

I agree they do need to be eradicated, but ultimately trying to kill them all will only go so far. I don't have the answers, but the so called 'war on terror' isn't exactly working, is it? This may be fought with weapons, but that's not what's going to end it.

 

[Snaeper]

Yes it is. Certainly access to weapons with the rate of fire used here is definitely part of the issue.

Thank you for making it easy for me to discern how much you know about guns, and thus the credibility of your follow up argument as a result of your lack of understanding.

Not really. You can't equate what happened in Paris to what happens on a far more regular basis in the US with US citizens killing other US citizens (as an example).

Our size, population and legal access to firearma do work against us in that regard. But I rest easy knowing that most gun deaths are concentrated in a few cities that have failing gun control laws to prevent such crime, and the fact that we have an incredibly low murder per capita in total, despite the amount of guns here and spend more time worrying about dying driving my car or drowning in a pool as Im far more statistically likely to do.

I also believe that when laws fail, federal agencies fail and people fail to stop a person like this man from doing what he did, I have no confidence that more laws will suddenly start working. Murder is illegal everywhere, and he still went and killed 49 people.

He even took two guns into a gun-free zone to do it!