Mass shooting in Orlando - Politics

[Steve81]

If you're caught, of course.

There's always that little catch.

We also have magazine restrictions - five rounds, max. Something like that would slow a shooter down a bit.

I don't know how practical a 5 round max is. Yes, it slows down a criminal, but it also slows down everyone else trying to defend themselves from said criminals. What's worse is when you consider how accurate people are with firearms under stressful situations against a mobile target, i.e. not very. Even police officers, people that undergo considerable firearms and tactical training, on average put less than 20% of their bullets on target in these situations. With only 5 rounds, it's quite possible that a civilian would empty his magazine without actually hitting an assailant, let alone multiple assailants.

In fact, I see no need for private possession of semi-automatic rifles.

I'm not sure they're quite the boogeyman they're made out to be. Ultimately, they're only used in a small fraction of crimes committed. While an AR-15 is much more potent than my pistol, I can conceal my pistol quite easily, which makes it more effective for committing a crime.

 

[Chu Gai]

Supposedly the shooter did not use an AR-15 rather a Sig Sauer MCX. In more developments, his current wife/partner is said to have known of his intentions and tried to dissuade him. Remains to be seen if she'll be charged for withholding that information. This is turning into one hell of a story.

 

[Steve81]

Poke around a bit to get a sense of of what's going on and not what the news here suggests.

Do you suppose all of that hate is simply due to religious differences, or are there other factors at play? Suppose the roles were reversed, i.e. Arab nations were regularly bombing the US, Arab superpowers carved out an "Arab Israel" here, etc. How accepting would our Christian ministers be?

Certainly, but to fairer let's look at matters in the 21st century. Who's largely living in a world 1400 years in the past?

Depends on where you look. Remember the "Eat Da Poo Poo" guy? Yeah, he's a Christian minister from Uganda (~85% Christian). Real progressive, 21st century kind of place too as I understand it.

 

[Chu Gai]

Watch some of the videos. Poke around. Do some searches.

 

[Steve81]

Watch some of the videos. Poke around. Do some searches.

Trust me, I have. I know what the radicals think of us. I also know that not all Muslims feel that way. A wise man once wrote:

It's important to note that the members of a particular religious discipline do not unilaterally subscribe to every position their faith espouses. And it's even more nuanced than that as there are tendencies that vary according to race, age, political ideology, etc.

 

[GO-NAD!]

There's always that little catch.



I don't know how practical a 5 round max is. Yes, it slows down a criminal, but it also slows down everyone else trying to defend themselves from said criminals. What's worse is when you consider how accurate people are with firearms under stressful situations against a mobile target, i.e. not very. Even police officers, people that undergo considerable firearms and tactical training, on average put less than 20% of their bullets on target in these situations. With only 5 rounds, it's quite possible that a civilian would empty his magazine without actually hitting an assailant, let alone multiple assailants.



I'm not sure they're quite the boogeyman they're made out to be. Ultimately, they're only used in a small fraction of crimes committed. While an AR-15 is much more potent than my pistol, I can conceal my pistol quite easily, which makes it more effective for committing a crime.

Of course, every situation is different, but if we just look at this incident, there probably would have been time to tackle this guy while he was changing magazines. And, in what situation would any "good-guy" civilians be hanging out in a public venue with an AR-15, or something similar? The fact that hitting your target in such situations is so difficult does not justify larger magazine capacity, in my mind. If it's a crowded area, many of those rounds are likely hitting innocents, if not the bad guys. The arm-chair psychologist in me says that if you have limited rounds in a magazine, you're apt to aim more carefully, vice getting maximum volume down range. It's certainly debatable.

Rifles such as this may only be used in a small fraction of gun crimes, but they seem to be quite prominent during mass shootings, although I don't track such stats closely.

 

[everettT]

It seems that the new push for gun control will center on the term "weapons of war" . The POTUS and the former SecState have used they phrase multiple times in the last two days and in the Presidential press conference minutes ago. Still no conversation on the persons involved with *#;&¿^% terrorism. Listened to the argument about an entire religion can't be blamed for a few, but when it comes to weapons we can for all of the non violent, lawful, and registered gun owners to be lumped in with those with evil intentions. I hope we are not sending our military into war with the "weapons of war" he spoke of.

 

[everettT]

Fox News is reporting that Omar's wife knew about his plan, more to follow.

 

[j_garcia]

Supposedly the shooter did not use an AR-15 rather a Sig Sauer MCX.

Same difference. Still an "assault" rifle. Banning assault rifles will not prevent this.

I don't know how practical a 5 round max is. Yes, it slows down a criminal, but it also slows down everyone else trying to defend themselves from said criminals. What's worse is when you consider how accurate people are with firearms under stressful situations against a mobile target, i.e. not very. Even police officers, people that undergo considerable firearms and tactical training, on average put less than 20% of their bullets on target in these situations. With only 5 rounds, it's quite possible that a civilian would empty his magazine without actually hitting an assailant, let alone multiple assailants.

5 rounds of a sufficient caliber is plenty to end most situations in a defensive action. In an assault action, it will be a limiting factor, but reloading loaded mags doesn't really take that long. Mag limits are almost always reversible or non-restricted, illegal mags are also readily available if one knows where to look. Someone committing a crime is not always going to be working with "legal" gear, because they clearly aren't right in the mindset to begin with. One can get 33rd mags for a Glock pistol which can be fired semi-auto just as quickly as a semi-auto rifle and at close range both are equally lethal. One does not need to be particularly accurate in a room full of people.

This guy worked for a government contractor dooing security and likely had the ability to purhcase things that the public would not have available. He should have been weeded out of that line of work. That means he had some level of training.

I'm not sure they're quite the boogeyman they're made out to be. Ultimately, they're only used in a small fraction of crimes committed. While an AR-15 is much more potent than my pistol, I can conceal my pistol quite easily, which makes it more effective for committing a crime.

The idea of concealing likely also doesn't matter to an assailant of this type for this sort of attack. Pistol/revolver are more likely to be used in minor crimes due to concealability. A terror attack, they're just going to walk up with the weapon in full view most likely. This incident began outside the club.

 

[Steve81]

Of course, every situation is different, but if we just look at this incident, there probably would have been time to tackle this guy while he was changing magazines.

In this instance, he had more than just the rifle and people in general were mostly fleeing for their lives as opposed to trying to bum rush him.

And, in what situation would any "good-guy" civilians be hanging out in a public venue with an AR-15, or something similar?

That's the point: most people don't break out the long arms for hanging out in public. It's far too conspicuous. Side note: it's worth pointing out in this case given the venue, there shouldn't have been many responsible gun owners packing heat anyway. Guns and alcohol don't mix after all.

The fact that hitting your target in such situations is so difficult does not justify larger magazine capacity, in my mind.

Your mind might change if you're ever unlucky enough to find yourself in such a situation.

If it's a crowded area, many of those rounds are likely hitting innocents, if not the bad guys.

In a crowded area, sure. But if its that crowded, what are the odds you need to draw a firearm vs calling out for help? Of course, not all areas are crowded.

The arm-chair psychologist in me says that if you have limited rounds in a magazine, you're apt to aim more carefully, vice getting maximum volume down range. It's certainly debatable.

Ever been in a situation where you're being attacked and you're given little option but to actually shoot another human being? I can assure you, any psychology you might associate with a "reasonable person" goes right out the window.

 

[markw]

The dozens of links you could provide don't really matter in the context of what we're talking about. Nobody denies that groups like ISIS commit great acts of evil in the name of Islam. The point is that Islamic radicals don't have a monopoly on violence.

Compared to other religions, yeah, they do.

...and this is an old list. There are many more.

 

[Steve81]

5 rounds of a sufficient caliber is plenty to end most situations in a defensive action.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. One or two penetrating hits center of mass with a sufficient caliber tends to end most defensive actions where you actually need to fire, at least those that involve a single assailant. Even then, that's not a guarantee, and as noted above, that's better than average shooting with only 5 rounds.

Someone committing a crime is not always going to be working with "legal" gear, because they clearly aren't right in the mindset to begin with. One can get 33rd mags for a Glock pistol which can be fired semi-auto just as quickly as a semi-auto rifle and at close range both are equally lethal. One does not need to be particularly accurate in a room full of people.

Agreed.

The idea of concealing likely also doesn't matter to an assailant of this type for this sort of attack...This incident began outside the club.

It still matters, at least to the point where an assailant reaches his target. In this particular case, the incident also occurred at ~2AM, which aids not being seen until its too late.

 

[Steve81]

Compared to other religions, yeah, they do.

...and this is an old list. There are many more.

Remind me, how many Muslims has the US killed over the past few decades? How many have our good friends in Israel killed with US supplied weapons and support? You might start there to help figure out why some Muslims hate us.

 

[KEW]

In fact, I see no need for private possession of semi-automatic rifles.

You are not alone:

 

[Steve81]

You are not alone:

There's a big difference between a fully automatic AK-47 and something like this:
http://www.remington.com/rifles/rimfire/model-597
or the scarier looking version:
http://www.ruger.com/products/sr22Rifle/models.html

 

[GO-NAD!]

In this instance, he had more than just the rifle and people in general were mostly fleeing for their lives as opposed to trying to bum rush him.



That's the point: most people don't break out the long arms for hanging out in public. It's far too conspicuous. Side note: it's worth pointing out in this case given the venue, there shouldn't have been many responsible gun owners packing heat anyway. Guns and alcohol don't mix after all.



Your mind might change if you're ever unlucky enough to find yourself in such a situation.



In a crowded area, sure. But if its that crowded, what are the odds you need to draw a firearm vs calling out for help? Of course, not all areas are crowded.



Ever been in a situation where you're being attacked and you're given little option but to actually shoot another human being? I can assure you, any psychology you might associate with a "reasonable person" goes right out the window.

That's the most important variable, I would say. But, not being able to spray rounds indiscriminately with a high capacity magazine is a good thing in my books. Of course, the bad guys won't follow any magazine restrictions, but we can't help that....

 

[everettT]

Any autoloader that is single shot, is considered semi-automatic. The term assault rifle is a very loose term. Automatic weapons with out a hard to get federal license are all but illegal. Just because the look of a weapon looks like a milatary weapon doesn't mean it is.

 

[j_garcia]

Private posession of assault rifles I have mixed feelings about. I don't see an actual "need" for a high caliber assault type rifle for home defense. Sure it is a good tool for the job, but "necessary" not really, and not the only option. That said, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy shooting them and I would not say I see no reason to own them.

 

[markw]

Remind me, how many Muslims has the US killed over the past few decades? How many have our good friends in Israel killed with US supplied weapons and support? You might start there to help figure out why some Muslims hate us.

Nowhere near as many as they have killed themselves. Checked out sub saharan Africa lately? How about Syria nd Iraq?

And, wanna talk about the Barbaty coast pirates* in the 1800's? ...and the slave trade they still engage in?

...and you KNOW I could go on and on and on.

And, it looks to me like the "Palestinians" are doing much worse to Israel. Are you saying they have no right to defend themselves?

Yeah, a real stand up bunch of guys.

* Which, BTW, was the reason for the creaton of our Marines.

 

[Steve81]

Nowhere near as many as they have killed themselves. Checked out sub saharan Africa lately? How about Syria nd Iraq?

...and you KNOW I could go on and on and on.

Because Christians haven't killed each other in droves through the centuries over petty differences, right?

And, it looks to me like the "Palestinians" are doing much worse to Israel. Are you saying they have no right to defend themselves?

Spend a couple months living in a Palestinian refugee camp. See if it makes you just a little angry. Never mind all the other issues with that debacle....