Orlando attack - terrorism suspected

[BobbyMac]

Is phork really a Canadian?

Is phork really Canadian?

 

[ACamp1900]

Is phork really Canadian?

si senor

 

[BobbyMac]

si senor

Thx.

 

[ACamp1900]

?

Por qué no hablas Canadian homes???

 

[bkess8]

Thx.

He means jes.

 

[goldandblue]

Indeed. Whatever I feel like. A gun isn't a can of Pepsi. This kind of blase attitude about guns is why you are in the predicament you are in. The only intended use for a gun is to kill things. But heh, whatever you feel like.

Also, again, no one said anything about banning anything.

Intended use would completely depend on the person purchasing the gun. I have bought guns with Zero intention on ever killing anything with it. On the flip side, I have purchased guns with the complete intention on killing things. For example, Remington 1100 field special 12 gauge (birds-Quail primarily) Remington model 700 30-06 (deer and other large game). I do own an AR and with it have several 30 round clips and additions such as red dot sights etc. I have never even killed a fly with it but boy is it fun to shoot at targets. Lots of people in my area actually deer hunt with their AR's.

I don't have an issue with making it harder to own a gun. I do believe that a class should have to be completed before purchasing a gun. The hunters safety course is one of the best and most informative courses a person can go through to learn the proper handling of a weapon. The issue is people.

 

[phork]

Or to deter and protect.

So you need something that holds 60 rounds of ammunition?

I don't see any predicament. It's a sad deal that those people are dead. I don't see why that should stop me from being able to purchase a firearm.

Then what are you suggesting? You've been throwing a fit about how people can purchase/own these guns.

You don't see a predicament? Well I am done with you then.

The plastic rings found on pepsi cans get stuck on, injure and kill dolphins. Why do you hate Dolphins!?!?

Dolphins abuse their women. 10 Reasons Why Dolphins Are A$$holes | Deep Sea News

Or for recreation. I've shot targets and inanimate objects with no intention of ever aiming at a living thing.

Sure I never said you couldn't do those things. But the intended use of gun is kill things. They are designed and made to kill stuff.

Intended use would completely depend on the person purchasing the gun. I have bought guns with Zero intention on ever killing anything with it. On the flip side, I have purchased guns with the complete intention on killing things. For example, Remington 1100 field special 12 gauge (birds-Quail primarily) Remington model 700 30-06 (deer and other large game). I do own an AR and with it have several 30 round clips and additions such as red dot sights etc. I have never even killed a fly with it but boy is it fun to shoot at targets. Lots of people in my area actually deer hunt with their AR's.

I don't have an issue with making it harder to own a gun. I do believe that a class should have to be completed before purchasing a gun. The hunters safety course is one of the best and most informative courses a person can go through to learn the proper handling of a weapon. The issue is people.

People, and easy access to these guns.

 

[goldandblue]

Did you read the rest of the paragraph you bolded? freaking canadians.....




Don't have a canuck, I'm just messing.

 

[BobbyMac]

So you need something that holds 60 rounds of ammunition?

You don't see a predicament? Well I am done with you then.

Dolphins abuse their women. 10 Reasons Why Dolphins Are A$$holes | Deep Sea News

Sure I never said you couldn't do those things. But the intended use of gun is kill things. They are designed and made to kill stuff.

People, and easy access to these guns.

Well phork, what you need to do is vote for your progressive state congress-person that promises additional regulation on the weaponry you oppose.

 

[wizards8507]

Imagine the possibility that radical Islam and lack of gun control are both problems that need to be addressed.

I swear some of the discourse I'm seeing in this thread makes it seem like it has to be one or the other.

I still haven't seen anyone in this thread (or an elected Democrat) suggest which policy, specifically, would have prevented this attack? People keep suggesting this false dichotomy that we need gun control or mass shootings will continue, but NONE of the gun control policies suggested would have had the tiniest impact on any of these incidents.

Even if I conceded "gun control is okay" on principle, what law or program can be put in place that will prevent mass shootings?

 

[ulukinatme]

I still haven't seen anyone in this thread (or an elected Democrat) suggest which policy, specifically, would have prevented this attack? People keep suggesting this false dichotomy that we need gun control or mass shootings will continue, but NONE of the gun control policies suggested would have had the tiniest impact on any of these incidents.

Even if I conceded "gun control is okay" on principle, what law or program can be put in place that will prevent mass shootings?

The answer is none of course. Even during the Assault Weapons Ban there were mass shootings, although they were partially reduced for a time, but they weren't prevented. Also the Task Force on Community Preventive Services examined a number of firearm laws, including the Assault ban, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."

 

[fightingirish26]

For whatever reason you want, Doomsday theorist...target practice...sport shooting....whatever you feel like.

It's unfortunate. I don't see a reason to ban the sale of guns or anything insane though.

Unfortunate? You're a clown.

 

[NorthDakota]

Unfortunate? You're a clown.

Tragic. Unfortunate. Extremely sad. Whatever word(s) you choose I guess.

 

[GoIrish41]

Context my boy Context...again when the word Arms was used, it is clear they meant what we know to be fire arms...guns. Restrictions/Regulations pertaining to other weapons are not a constitutional issue...guns are. Pretty simple really. Does that whole emotional, arm waving conflation usually work for you?

The point is not rather the Army has me in its crosshairs, and you know it. The point is, if your basis or owning a gun is to defend against Tyranny, I'd think you'd want the best one you can get...further I know it is convenient to think in terms of a big tank pointed at me...but you know there are many more forms that come in packages far smaller than the Army...you don't think there is Tyranny and serious misconduct inclusive of attempted murder at the county and city level?

You guys get all freaked out and offended and fail to stop and think that there may be considerations that approach the realm of plausible outside your immediate ascension/escalation to "TANK" and "ICBM"...

Is it really clear? I think you should read the 2nd Amendment and report back where what you are saying is clear. If it was meant as you are suggesting, why did they use "arms" and not the far clearer "guns" or better yet "muskets" as that was the state of the art personal weapon of the day? And even if, as you say, it is clear, do you think they could have envisioned a gun like an AR-15? Every time this topic comes up, we start getting into semantic arguments about what the founders meant but ignore what was known of weapons in their time. The founding fathers had no comprehension of what weapons would become in the 21st Century, or the degree to which murdering assholes would use them to wipe out groups of innocent people in recreational settings or schools. If they could have foreseen those things, I am confident that they would have not worded the 2nd Amendment so vaguely?

 

[GoIrish41]

You are such a shit starter....

I'm not trying to start shit. I'm reading the 2nd Amendment as written. If it does not specify guns, and says the more all inclusive "arms," why are people OK with restricting other "arms" but not any type of gun. The argument makes no sense to me. I suspect its because people who claim to be strong advocates of the 2nd Amendment, really are just strong advocates of owning guns and are not all that interested in what it really says. Arms are more than guns, but I think its clear that society has determined that some weapons are too dangerous for people to have ... I think that AR-15 should be counted among them, and I think the evidence gets stronger every time one of these mass shootings takes place. Further, I really don't understand how anyone could conclude anything else.

 

[IrishLion]

Yeah, the whole "protect against a tyrannical government" argument on the Second Amendment is just ridiculous.

You go ahead and protect yourself from a tyrannical government with your AR-15.

Get it out, load it, try to dial in your sites. Meanwhile, that drone above cloud cover that's got your whole block targeted is just gonna keep circling...


The point is that we don't need guns to protect ourselves from the government. They wouldn't help anyway.

There are plenty of arguments for the 2nd Amendment. But that one is by far the worst (and most useless).

That's it for me on the topic.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Is it really clear? I think you should read the 2nd Amendment and report back where that is clear. If it was meant as you are suggesting, why did they use "arms" and not the far clearer "guns" or better yet "muskets" as that was the state of the art personal weapon of the day? And even if, as you say, it is clear, do you think they could have envisioned a gun like an AR-15? Every time this topic comes up, we start getting into semantic arguments about what they meant, but ignore what was known in their time. Tthe founding fathers had no comprehension of what weapons would become in the 21st Century, or the degree to which people would use them to wipe out groups of innocent people in recreational settings or schools. If they could have foreseen those things, I am confident that they would have not worded the 2nd Amendment so vaguely?

Except people were getting ambushed by various Tribes for decades. Enoch Brown and the school children being one example.

BTW, here is a direct quote from Jefferson's Common Place Book:

The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack armed than unarmed persons.

Mind you, in 1775, General Gage ordered to collect "arms" for the people.....including muskets, pistols, bayonets, and blunderbusses. I can't speak for those men, but me thinks they used arms to avoid putting in restrictions (both known and unknown), just like you proposed above.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I still haven't seen anyone in this thread (or an elected Democrat) suggest which policy, specifically, would have prevented this attack? People keep suggesting this false dichotomy that we need gun control or mass shootings will continue, but NONE of the gun control policies suggested would have had the tiniest impact on any of these incidents.

Even if I conceded "gun control is okay" on principle, what law or program can be put in place that will prevent mass shootings?

I think a full blown weapons buy back a la Australia would be going too far in this country.

Japan has a ban on weapons and zero-tolerance policy. Again, probably not best for America.

But lets look at Germany. I don't know all the specifics or all the sides to the debate. Germany ranks pretty high on the guns per capita scale, but also has a low homicide rate via a firearm, so I figured maybe it's a good place to start. Some gun law tweaks in the wake of a couple mass shootings:

-Psych Evals for anyone under the age of 25 looking to buy a gun. Those over 25 may be called in for a psych eval based on their record (DUI, crime, etc).

-Inherited guns are made to be unusable. You have to pass the tests required and register the guns in the national registry. They've also made it harder to own multiple firearms.

-Police officers can now visit the homes, unannounced, to do spot-checks ensuring the registered firearm is locked away properly. (They tried to push for banning firearms being stored in the home, period, but that didn't pass.)


Some countries have done studies proving that strict gun laws do not prevent gun violence as criminals still find ways to illegally obtain weapons. From what I've seen, some data backs up this theory. But that's not the entire point, because other studies have proven some of these laws have drastically lowered mass shootings, homicides by gun, and suicides by gun. So I guess it just depends on where you look and how far certain countries have gone to fight back against gun related violence.

So I guess what I'm saying is that this country doesn't necessarily need to strip every American of their right to own a firearm, but we should give serious thought to what we can realistically do. You may never stop mass-killings, but if you can prevent some, I think most people would sleep better at night. Some of those countries I mentioned changed their laws drastically after a single mass shooting and against the will of the people. Yet here in America, where 90% of the population wants some sort of gun reform and after 164 days of 2016 we've had 133 mass shootings (including the biggest one ever), there's still a debate going on. I'd say it's time for a gut check.

 

[ACamp1900]

-Police officers can now visit the homes, unannounced, to do spot-checks ensuring the registered firearm is locked away properly. (They tried to push for banning firearms being stored in the home, period, but that didn't pass.).

I must have missed this one... If something like this were to pass, where would they have legally stored??

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I must have missed this one... If something like this were to pass, where would they have legally stored??

I think they were pushing for central depots where you'd have to check them in and out. I'm not exactly sure.

 

[ACamp1900]

I think were pushing for central depots where you'd have to check them in and out. I'm not exactly sure.

Interesting, I get the logic I suppose but that'd be one aspect to gun control I'm not sure I could get behind personally, I mean the entire reason I want a gun in the first place is for home security (just me). Also, I could see the wrong people making a go at over running the depot... anyway.

 

[TDHeysus]

stricter gun control will definitely work. I mean drugs are illegal, and coke and meth are so hard to get that no one is using them anymore. its simply to just too hard to get, so no one tries to get those illegal substances anymore. Stricter gun laws will make guns not so easy to get, and therefore criminals wont have them anymore....just like drugs.

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

Yeah, the whole "protect against a tyrannical government" argument on the Second Amendment is just ridiculous.

You go ahead and protect yourself from a tyrannical government with your AR-15.

Get it out, load it, try to dial in your sites. Meanwhile, that drone above cloud cover that's got your whole block targeted is just gonna keep circling...


The point is that we don't need guns to protect ourselves from the government. They wouldn't help anyway.

There are plenty of arguments for the 2nd Amendment. But that one is by far the worst (and most useless).

That's it for me on the topic.

I read somewhere that the registered hunters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia alone would make it the world's largest army.
I don't think the government could stop or even control a full fledged rebellion from it's citizens.

Especially considering 1/2 of it's military would quit and join the other side.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

stricter gun control will definitely work. I mean drugs are illegal, and coke and meth are so hard to get that no one is using them anymore. its simply to just too hard to get, so no one tries to get those illegal substances anymore. Stricter gun laws will make guns not so easy to get, and therefore criminals wont have them anymore....just like drugs.

Do you think Omar Mateen would've passed a strict psych evaluation? He didn't have a criminal background, but was still on the FBI watch list twice. Do you think other countries would've just let that small detail slide during his gun purchasing efforts? In some countries these background checks and psych evaluations extend to family members. Do you think his ex-wife would've vouched for him? Do you think his father would have?

You're right, you will never keep every gun away from every criminal. But that doesn't mean you just allow psychos like Omar Mateen to get them easily.

 

[ulukinatme]

Interesting, I get the logic I suppose but that'd be one aspect to gun control I'm not sure I could get behind personally, I mean the entire reason I want a gun in the first place is for home security (just me). Also, I could see the wrong people making a go at over running the depot... anyway.

This. I picked up a shotgun last year. I'm not inner-city, but I don't exactly live in a suburb either. There have been times weird shit has gone on outside the house, like the time my wife's car alarm kept going off for no reason, and a week later the back window was smashed. After the former I picked up my shotgun. We're in a long process of fixing up things around the house in preparations for moving, but we definitely want to move to suburbia now that we have kids and they're almost school age.

 

[IrishLion]

I read somewhere that the registered hunters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia alone would make it the world's largest army.
I don't think the government could stop or even control a full fledged rebellion from it's citizens.

Especially considering 1/2 of it's military would quit and join the other side.

That was half of my point, though... it would never come to that. The government, as messed up as it can be, wouldn't allow a Tyrant to take the streets of its own country by force. And the members of the military wouldn't let it happen, either. So it's a useless argument to say "we need to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government with our guns!"

And if it DID come to the registered hunters of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia to stand up with their guns and defend the people from our own governemnt... those hunters, even in their crazy numbers, wouldn't have a hope or a prayer against the technology that the government has at its disposal.

 

[ulukinatme]

Do you think Omar Mateen would've passed a strict psych evaluation? He didn't have a criminal background, but was still on the FBI watch list twice. Do you think other countries would've just let that small detail slide during his gun purchasing efforts? In some countries these background checks and psych evaluations extend to family members. Do you think his ex-wife would've vouched for him? Do you think his father would have?

You're right, you will never keep every gun away from every criminal. But that doesn't mean you just allow psychos like Omar Mateen to get them easily.

Honestly, anyone that was on the terrorism watch list should be prevented from owning any firearm, at least for a period of 5 years minimum after they've been removed. I realize that what lands some people on the list is often pretty loose guidelines, like a Twitter post. Put together a panel that reviews anyone requesting a firearm that was or is currently on the watch list. If they were previously on the list, minimum 5 years till they can own a firearm, and there should be a vetting process after that. If they're currently on a watch list, no chance, which is the way it currently works I'm told. They can and still will get firearms, but make them jump through the hoops of illegal channels.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

And if it DID come to the registered hunters of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia to stand up with their guns and defend the people from our own governemnt... those hunters, even in their crazy numbers, wouldn't have a hope or a prayer against the technology that the government has at its disposal.

Steelhead might argue otherwise:

 

[NorthDakota]

That was half of my point, though... it would never come to that. The government, as messed up as it can be, wouldn't allow a Tyrant to take the streets of its own country by force. And the members of the military wouldn't let it happen, either. So it's a useless argument to say "we need to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government with our guns!"

And if it DID come to the registered hunters of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia to stand up with their guns and defend the people from our own governemnt... those hunters, even in their crazy numbers, wouldn't have a hope or a prayer against the technology that the government has at its disposal.

I think you vastly overestimate the power of the US military.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Honestly, anyone that was on the terrorism watch list should be prevented from owning any firearm, at least for a period of 5 years after they've been removed. I realize that what lands some people on the list is often pretty loose guidelines, like a Twitter post. Put together a panel that reviews anyone requesting a firearm that was or is currently on the watch list. If they were previously on the list, minimum 5 years till they can own a firearm, and there should be a vetting process after that. If they're currently on a watch list, no chance, which is the way it currently works I'm told. They can and still will get firearms, but make them jump through the hoops of illegal channels.

Yes the criteria that lands some people on this list is trivial. But at the moment, Congress shot down that bill that would deny a person on the watch list their right to buy a firearm. If Mateen had still been on it, he still could've bought a gun.