Orlando Nightclub Shooting

[Socialist Nordia]

How could one guy block all the exits if there were guards at the club that he would've had to kill to keep from preventing him from blocking exits. The guards were armed, so he couldn't kill them with no gun.

Armed guards? I was just aware of one(1) armed person inside the club, unless you can show that there were more than just one armed security personnel

I'm sorry. I meant guard. The point is, he was armed and it would be difficult for him to be overpowered by someone without a gun.

[The balkens]

Armed guards? I was just aware of one(1) armed person inside the club, unless you can show that there were more than just one armed security personnel

I'm sorry. I meant guard. The point is, he was armed and it would be difficult for him to be overpowered by someone without a gun.

You know that teach that shit, right?

[Christiaanistan]

Okay, people are still hijacking this thread to make poetry about their dumbass romance with guns?

Realistically, keeping this guy from doing what he chose to do would require...

1) start religiously or ethnically profiling prospective gun-owners, which is unconstitutional, against our national values for the same reason it was really against our national values to detain the Japanese during World War II, and, finally, not very good for our foreign relations because it would show us to be xenophobic, hostile and distrustful...

2) make it illegal to say you're sympathetic with a certain group of people who are currently classified as terrorists, which would arguably be creating a crime of conscience. In the US, we can't even do anything to people who say openly that they are members of the Ku Klux Klan, and by the way, remember the Charleston shooting?...

3) make it relatively impossible for normal, relatively well-behaved people to purchase certain firearms, and we're still trying to figure out if that would even do anything. Gun-hobbyists really are retarded, but we're not even sure if banning the sale of these weapons would really do us any good at all. The entire discussion really just further glamorizes the weapons, when you get right down to it, which I would imagine is more harmful than anything. If nothing else, it's annoying to me because I find them vulgar.

So let's strike off #3 because I think that most rational people are tired of hearing these pin-dick losers making romance poetry about their damn guns.

Besides that, all we are left with, as far as I can see, is either vicious discrimination or creating crimes of conscience.

The truth is that, right now, there is a vicious war going on in the Middle East, and we've just seen a distant echo of that violence in our own country. People in Syria, right now, are very much under stress. Their politics are very weird. They are not even sure whom they are fighting against or what they are fighting for. It is just a horrifying, violent morass of badly spoiled political relations.

Because we are not the almighty lords of the Earth, the only really useful thing we can do is try to be supportive neighbors for them during this time. It is a terrible situation. Unfortunately, some of our own people have lost their lives because one of our own people was apparently reacting, somehow, to that violent atmosphere.

So what are we going to do? Build a wall and keep the world out? That is insanity. The world has been through times of peril before, and the world will go through times of peril again. We are weathering it as well as we realistically can.

[Expectareaction]

For the record, shotgun is the best weapon for home defense, if you own a gun specifically for home defense, it should be a shotgun. Loaded with like #4 buck.

Guns aren't the issue, our culture is the issue. The Swiss don't have our problem and there are literally military rifles everywhere over there. We need to change our culture. Changing our culture, our mental health resources, etc etc would reduce the incidents of mass shootings, likely more than criminalizing any type of fire arm. Just my two cents there.

Swiss military rifles are given because pretty much everyone has to join a militia in case self defence is needed. They have no standing army. Also, ammo is highly restricted to ensure nothing bad happens with the guns. Our culture is a problem. Our culture clings to these inanimate objects so fiercely. People are unwilling to make any compromise for safety. I understand if my proposals go too far, but I would gladly compromise for just a few added regulations. This isn't an all or nothing issue.

The fact remains, the Swiss have guns as readily available as the US, and ammunition is not that hard to get at all over there.
Especially if you were inclined to be a criminal.
Youre blaming for the object for the thought process and not the thought process.
If I want to kill 100 people in an evening, I absolutely don't need a gun.

[Socialist Nordia]

Armed guards? I was just aware of one(1) armed person inside the club, unless you can show that there were more than just one armed security personnel

I'm sorry. I meant guard. The point is, he was armed and it would be difficult for him to be overpowered by someone without a gun.

In fact, clubs all over are increasing security, so that makes a future fire attack on a nightclub very unlikely to succeed. You can't exactly get passed armed guards or even one guard if they have superior weaponry.

[Patridam]

If those methods would have killed more people, the shooter would have used them. But he didn't. That's because guns are the easiest and most effective way to carry this out. A fire could've easily been put out if spotted and if not, there would be time to evacuate.

Ah, yes, because this mentally ill man was so very practical and pragmatic and therefore we must assume all of his decisions were totally logical, and that of course chose the best and most effective method possible.

[Patridam]

I'm sorry. I meant guard. The point is, he was armed and it would be difficult for him to be overpowered by someone without a gun.

In fact, clubs all over are increasing security, so that makes a future fire attack on a nightclub very unlikely to succeed. You can't exactly get passed armed guards or even one guard if they have superior weaponry.

What do you mean by "superior weaponry"? What more effective weapon are you letting this *one* security guard buy that will make him guaranteed to not be passed,killed, or overpowered?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Who are you to tell me what rights aren't important?

BTW, Title 36 U. S. Code, 40701-40733 disagrees with you. The federal government thought that marksmanship was important enough to create a federally chartered 501(c)(3) corporation promoting it.

The federal government is practically owned by the NRA

Bwahahaha.

Yeah, please educate yourself.

[Socialist Nordia]

Swiss military rifles are given because pretty much everyone has to join a militia in case self defence is needed. They have no standing army. Also, ammo is highly restricted to ensure nothing bad happens with the guns. Our culture is a problem. Our culture clings to these inanimate objects so fiercely. People are unwilling to make any compromise for safety. I understand if my proposals go too far, but I would gladly compromise for just a few added regulations. This isn't an all or nothing issue.

The fact remains, the Swiss have guns as readily available as the US, and ammunition is not that hard to get at all over there.
Especially if you were inclined to be a criminal.
Youre blaming for the object for the thought process and not the thought process.
If I want to kill 100 people in an evening, I absolutely don't need a gun.

100 people? That's ridiculous. If any average joe could kill a hundred people in an evening at all, much less with no guns, why haven't terror groups caught on to your genius killing methods. I'm calling bs on this.

[Paddy O Fernature]

The fact remains, the Swiss have guns as readily available as the US, and ammunition is not that hard to get at all over there.
Especially if you were inclined to be a criminal.
Youre blaming for the object for the thought process and not the thought process.
If I want to kill 100 people in an evening, I absolutely don't need a gun.

100 people? That's ridiculous. If any average joe could kill a hundred people in an evening at all, much less with no guns, why haven't terror groups caught on to your genius killing methods. I'm calling bs on this.

Timothy McVeigh says hello.

[Gun Manufacturers]

From this debate, I've determined that my best course of action is to leave the country. After all, we are so oppressed. The government could begin killing us all at any moment. Oh my god, I need to stockpile weapons. The military is going to kill me(intense sarcasm). Nowhere else in the developed world are people this paranoid. Canadians and Europeans have no worries about such things, because it's irrational. Their people feel no need to own an ar15. But hey, America is "special." The rationalism in the rest of the world doesn't matter.

Bye.

BTW, I don't need to stockpile weapons. I have a very specific set of firearms that I can use for different target shooting categories. As of now, there is no overlap except in 1 category, as I have 2 centerfire semi auto pistols. I don't own them because I'm paranoid, and I don't carry (either concealed or open), even though I have a CT pistol permit that legally allows me.

[Socialist Nordia]

In fact, clubs all over are increasing security, so that makes a future fire attack on a nightclub very unlikely to succeed. You can't exactly get passed armed guards or even one guard if they have superior weaponry.

What do you mean by "superior weaponry"? What more effective weapon are you letting this *one* security guard buy that will make him guaranteed to not be passed,killed, or overpowered?

What? Is this guard going to be disabled with fists? Come on, let's get real here. Even with a knife, a stab is far from a garunteed kill. He would likely still be able enough to shoot the terrorist. Anyway, now clubs know to have multiple guards, making a knife even less effective.

[Socialist Nordia]

100 people? That's ridiculous. If any average joe could kill a hundred people in an evening at all, much less with no guns, why haven't terror groups caught on to your genius killing methods. I'm calling bs on this.

Timothy McVeigh says hello.

Timothy McVeigh was one, but now there are fertiliser restrictions, making this harder. I'm saying you can't just kill 100 that easily anymore. If it was even remotely easy, it would happen all the time, like mass shootings do.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Politicians definition what an "assault weapon" is encompasses handguns and shotguns as well.

what.

Yep. A threaded barrel on a pistol makes it an "assault weapon" in CT. And a removable magazine on a semi-auto shotgun makes it an "assault weapon" in CT. IIRC, the AWB that Feinstein put forth after Newtown was similar.

[Socialist Nordia]

From this debate, I've determined that my best course of action is to leave the country. After all, we are so oppressed. The government could begin killing us all at any moment. Oh my god, I need to stockpile weapons. The military is going to kill me(intense sarcasm). Nowhere else in the developed world are people this paranoid. Canadians and Europeans have no worries about such things, because it's irrational. Their people feel no need to own an ar15. But hey, America is "special." The rationalism in the rest of the world doesn't matter.

Bye.

BTW, I don't need to stockpile weapons. I have a very specific set of firearms that I can use for different target shooting categories. As of now, there is no overlap except in 1 category, as I have 2 centerfire semi auto pistols. I don't own them because I'm paranoid, and I don't carry (either concealed or open), even though I have a CT pistol permit that legally allows me.

I was mainly responding to those concerned with oppressive government instituting dictatorial control.

[The balkens]

what.

Yep. A threaded barrel on a pistol makes it an "assault weapon" in CT. And a removable magazine on a semi-auto shotgun makes it an "assault weapon" in CT. IIRC, the AWB that Feinstein put forth after Newtown was similar.

That woman wouldnt know a "assault weapon" if she was holding one with her finger on the trigger, displaying a lack of regard for others nearby.....

[Patridam]

Bye.

BTW, I don't need to stockpile weapons. I have a very specific set of firearms that I can use for different target shooting categories. As of now, there is no overlap except in 1 category, as I have 2 centerfire semi auto pistols. I don't own them because I'm paranoid, and I don't carry (either concealed or open), even though I have a CT pistol permit that legally allows me.

I was mainly responding to those concerned with oppressive government instituting dictatorial control.

It's ammunition they should be stockpiling, really, not weapons.

[Patridam]

Yep. A threaded barrel on a pistol makes it an "assault weapon" in CT. And a removable magazine on a semi-auto shotgun makes it an "assault weapon" in CT. IIRC, the AWB that Feinstein put forth after Newtown was similar.

That woman wouldnt know a "assault weapon" if she was holding one with her finger on the trigger, displaying a lack of regard for others nearby.....

They also described what the Colorado shooter wore as "assault clothing".

[Gun Manufacturers]

Only actual assault weapons and semi automatic rifles should be banned. Most handguns should be fair game to own to protect your home and family. They need to work on their definitions.

Actual assault rifles are banned heavily regulated.

And way more people are killed with semi auto handguns than rifles. This guy could have killed just as many people with a hand gun (he used one as well).

Fixed. Civilians are allowed to buy/own full auto/select fire weapons made and registered with ATF before May 19, 1986.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Actual assault rifles are banned.

And way more people are killed with semi auto handguns than rifles. This guy could have killed just as many people with a hand gun (he used one as well).

Semi autos should all be banned then. A normal handgun is enough to protect from a burglary or whatever else threatens your home.

But it's not JUST about self/home defense. Semi auto rifles are also used for target shooting, hunting, and collecting.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Timothy McVeigh says hello.

Timothy McVeigh was one, but now there are fertiliser restrictions, making this harder. I'm saying you can't just kill 100 that easily anymore. If it was even remotely easy, it would happen all the time, like mass shootings do.

Tannerite. Fun stuff.

As for "fertilizer" restrictions, you should look up what "stump remover" is made from. I'll give you a hint.... the bad stuff in higher concentration in a easier to separate medium.

[Patridam]

Actual assault rifles are banned.

And way more people are killed with semi auto handguns than rifles. This guy could have killed just as many people with a hand gun (he used one as well).

Semi autos should all be banned then. A normal handgun is enough to protect from a burglary or whatever else threatens your home.

Semiautomatic handguns are "normal handguns", there are more semiautomatic handguns in the USA than there are revolvers/other handguns.

It's not the semiautomatic part that makes them popular in crime, its the convenience and concealability - it just happens that the semi auto ones are used in more crimes because there are more of them.

[Socialist Nordia]

Semi autos should all be banned then. A normal handgun is enough to protect from a burglary or whatever else threatens your home.

But it's not JUST about self/home defense. Semi auto rifles are also used for target shooting, hunting, and collecting.

People can hunt without semi autos, it's been done. Targets can afford to wait before being hit. There could be exceptions for both of these if needed for sporting I guess. I'm fine with collecting, but in that case, mere collectables shouldn't need ammo if they are just to collect and not for practical use. I'm not totally unreasonable.

[Expectareaction]

I'm sorry. I meant guard. The point is, he was armed and it would be difficult for him to be overpowered by someone without a gun.

In fact, clubs all over are increasing security, so that makes a future fire attack on a nightclub very unlikely to succeed. You can't exactly get passed armed guards or even one guard if they have superior weaponry.

They don't need superior weapons, usually the presence is enough. That's the real point.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Umm, My father's, Uncle's, Cousin's, friend's guns havnt killed anyone...so no we're not going to play that stupid little game.
Why should any law abiding citizen turn over their property when they have done nothing wrong--its rhetorical, they shouldn't.
Exercise of rights is maintenance of rights. Nobody is dying from legal gun owners owning guns responsibly.

Additionally I would be interested to know where all the fully automatic weapons in my City come from...not legal gun owners, and there is an abundance of those, quite literally a pistol is a laughable weapon in the city.

There is no telling whether a seemingly innocent person will become a shooter. First we need to get guns off the streets, then make it really hard to get a gun. We'll have buy back programs to get people to willingly exchange their guns. It'll be like eminent domain, where you get paid more than it's worth. Anyway, we can't see the future and don't know who could be a shooter. It's better to be safe than risk another tragic event like this. You may feel you're losing rights, but we can't make everyone happy. This is what I'd ideally like, but I'm afraid Americans are too stubborn to stop clinging to their killing machines to stop this. These proposals aren't out-there on a global perspective. It's common sense in many countries. When people lose their guns, oppression doesn't necessarily result, unless you're like that one person on here that actually labelled Canada as oppressive.

There's somewhere around 400 million firearms in the US right now. Who would pay for this buyback? You?