Mass shooting in Orlando - Politics

[Steve81]

I guess its ok to maintain status quo and keep semi and automatic weapons available to the general populous for those infrequent mass shootings because they have been so effective by the laymen to stop all those bombings (only two I remember making the news), poisonings and driving car into crowds.

Who said anything about maintaining the status quo or automatic weapons? Why would semi-auto guns be expected to stop bombing attacks, arson, etc?

Its the automatic nature, the ability to shoot so quickly that made it so deadly. Seriously?

They aren't automatic. Seriously. And as implied before, if you can only fire one shot every few seconds or so (if you're lucky enough to actually cycle the action before you're getting stabbed, beaten, whatever), what good is it in a self defense situation?

 

[everettT]

I'm stating assault rifles (and let me be clear...semi automatic and automatic weapons) should be banned. If the shooter brought the rifle you use for deer hunting into that night club, he would not have killed as many people as he did. So my answer to this is no.

No but from a half mile up to 3/4 at an outdoor event , yes. If he had 8 glock 17s , instead of a riffle the loss of life would still be great. What about shotguns like the AA12? Put a 30rd illegal drum on it it an the massacre would have been much worse. I'll stop as trying to explain how guns don't kill people but people do is fruitless. Maybe this shouldn't be an argument for stable caring individuals, but lunatics debating whats gonna to be more lethal. My sig 522 with its green and red laser sights looks badass, is semi auto and at .22 caliber can be as deadly as a sig 556.

 

[3db]

Who said anything about maintaining the status quo or automatic weapons? Why would semi-auto guns be expected to stop bombing attacks, arson, etc?

My point is they won't but for some reason, other means of killing keeps getting tossed out to trivialize the effect of semi automatic weapons.

They aren't automatic. Seriously. And as implied before, if you can only fire one shot every few seconds or so (if you're lucky enough to actually cycle the action before you're getting stabbed, beaten, whatever), what good is it in a self defense situation?

And as stated before.. good luck going on a shoot spree with a manual weapon.

 

[3db]

No but from a half mile up to 3/4 at an outdoor event , yes. If he had 8 glock 17s , instead of a riffle the loss of life would still be great. What about shotguns like the AA12? Put a 30rd illegal drum on it it an the massacre would have been much worse. I'll stop as trying to explain how guns don't kill people but people do is fruitless. Maybe this shouldn't be an argument for stable caring individuals, but lunatics debating whats gonna to be more lethal. My sig 522 with its green and red laser sights looks badass, is semi auto and at .22 caliber can be as deadly as a sig 556.

I get that point and its valid. The problem is how to prevent access of these weapons to the crazies. If you can't prevent the crazies from gaining access, then try your best not to make them available by banning their sale.

 

[everettT]

I get that point and its valid. The problem is how to prevent access of these weapons to the crazies. If you can't, then try your best not to make them available.

With 100s of millions already out there , you can't unfortunately

 

[Steve81]

My point is they won't but for some reason, other means of killing keeps getting tossed out to trivialize the effect of semi automatic weapons.

Because like those other means of injuring people, semi-automatic weapons have very legitimate uses. Should we ban gasoline because it can be used with arsonist intent? Of course not. Should we ban motor vehicles because a whack job might drive one into a crowd of people? Of course not. More to the point...

And as stated before.. good luck going on a shoot spree with a manual weapon.

So hundreds of millions of people should sacrifice their right to self defense because a few tens of people will abuse it? Or is it perhaps better to find other means to deny those psychopaths the ability to get a firearm?

 

[3db]

With 100s of millions already out there , you can't unfortunately

Banning them now will prevent further proliferation of these weapons from being available. Only time will reduce whats out there now. The cost of doing nothing will only make matters much worse for future generations.

 

[3db]

Because like those other means of injuring people, semi-automatic weapons have very legitimate uses. Should we ban gasoline because it can be used with arsonist intent? Of course not. Should we ban motor vehicles because a whack job might drive one into a crowd of people? Of course not. More to the point...

The same circular argument.... weapons can be made of other things so that is a reason to keep semi automatic fire arms around..

So hundreds of millions of people should sacrifice their right to self defense because a few tens of people will abuse it? Or is it perhaps better to find other means to deny those psychopaths the ability to get a firearm?

I didn't see hundreds of millions of people threatened by these few tens of wack jobs. So far every attempt has been thwarted by the NRA .. How's that working out? How many people will have to die by the hands of wack jobs with access to these weapons?

 

[Steve81]

The same circular argument.... weapons can be made of other things so that is a reason to keep semi automatic fire arms around..I didn't see hundreds of millions of people threatened by these few tens of wack jobs.

In case you missed the argument, we keep semi-automatic firearms around because they're good for more than killing sprees, self defense being prime among those beneficial uses. Your suggestion is that we take away the rights of everyone in this country because a few abuse them. Good luck with that. Further, the reason those other means of hurting other people keep coming up is because people intent on hurting others aren't just going to stop just because guns get banned. IOW, you solve nothing.

To put it another way, suppose there were no guns. Would Omar Mateen just have sat home watching TV instead of plotting another way to attack? Would Adam Lanza? Would James Holmes? I seriously doubt it.

So far every attempt has been thwarted by the NRA .. How's that working out? How many people will have to die by the hands of wack jobs with access to these weapons?

And you believe that somehow banning all semi-automatic weapons will be politically viable in the US? It won't just be the NRA opposing that kind of legislation/constitutional amendment.

 

[Chu Gai]

Banning them now will prevent further proliferation of these weapons from being available. Only time will reduce whats out there now. The cost of doing nothing will only make matters much worse for future generations.

So long as people, like his wife who did not inform authorities, similar incidents will occur. So long as agencies are loathe to act on information because they look through the lens of offending Muslims, they'll occur. So long as companies don't take claims of disturbing behavior seriously because they don't want to face discrimination claims supported by CAIR and the Feds, they'll occur. A person hell bent on committing massive loss of life will choose whatever means are available. Get rid of semi-automatics, hello bombs, pressure cookers, poison, you name it.

 

[highfigh]

Sometimes, you need to step outside a situation to see the truth..

The right to bare arms dates back was in the days of the War of Independance and yet this outdated right to bear arms still clings on. Hell, the British are the American's number one ally. With today's human and civil rights, the original reason to bear arms in the US in today's world no longer holds true and its just a crutch for boys to keep their toys. Nothing more. Spouting protection of civil rights is nothing more than NRA propaganda. Unfortunately, with NRA controlling the interests and pockets of of politicians, the truth will never be seen.

The Magna Carta is seen as the basis for civil law WRT many things, including what a government can and can't do. Whether a King followed it was their decision and it was over 350 years from the signing of the document to 1776. I hope you're right if you think people won't have to protect themselves from the US government in another 100+ years. I think that at the rate we're going, those who are here will need to do something before that point in time.

The Constitution was more about what the government CAN'T do than what citizens can do. We need to return to that model because by the time they're done, almost everything will be illegal.

IMO.

 

[everettT]

Without offending, I won't try to change anyone's mind. But if your not a US citizen I'll take all comments with a grain of salt. I appreciate all advice no matter where it's from. For the sake of this discussion anyone who isn't affected by our gun laws should probably take that into account. We may not be perfect as a county but at this time I still wholeheartedly believe in it and the laws that define it.

 

[highfigh]

This is ridiculous:
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/06/15/this-reporter-bought-an-ar-15-assault-rifle-in-7-minutes.html

I understand that processes vary state-to-state, but if this is typical, it's wrong. I would guess that the "background check" consisted of a quick search in some database(s). Of course, we all understand the limitations of databases - $hit in, $hit out. Up here, you Possession and Acquisition Licence application will go to the RCMP and there will be a real background check. You have to provide character references and if your spouse nixes the idea, your application goes into the shredder. If you are getting separated, or there's been a recent separation, expect your application to receive added scrutiny. This process will take several weeks. Even if you changed nothing else, but had a mandated waiting period, it might save many lives. Because, the greatest number of gun deaths in the US - by a wide margin - are suicides.

If you think that her buying a gun in 7 minutes is bad, look at the details of what she did, which technically, was to act as a straw buyer. She also violated Pennsylvania's weapon transportation laws-

https://blog.princelaw.com/2016/06/14/philadelphia-daily-news-columnist-helen-ubinas-seemingly-violates-state-and-federal-law-in-straw-purchase-of-firearm/

If the dealer acted illegally, they should lose their FFL and that goes for any dealer. I went to one place and a guy who was looking at guns wanted one, in a bad way. He wanted to take the application with him and have his mother fill it out and the guy from the shop told him that's not how it's done. At one point, the guy who wanted the gun without waiting asked if he could use an American Express card- the reply was "I'd take a library card if I got money for it".

This place just lost a $250K suit brought by two Milwaukee Police officers who were both shot by a turd in illegal possession of a gun sold by that shop. Other suits are coming. Bad dealers need to go but ultimately, it's people who are making the decisions to commit crimes.

Fortunately for many shooting victims, guns aren't 100% effective.

 

[3db]

And you believe that somehow banning all semi-automatic weapons will be politically viable in the US? It won't just be the NRA opposing that kind of legislation/constitutional amendment.

Politically it won't fly. I know this already. You and I will never reach an agreement on the banning of these weapons. Something has to be done because its going to be worse for future generations

 

[Steve81]

Something has to be done

That much I agree. Ultimately, I believe you have to solve the root of the problem (extremism, illicit drug trade, better mental health care in the US, etc), ensure that the wrong people don't get their hands on firearms(stringent background checks), and remain vigilant in the face of an imperfect world (and that applies to everyone, not just the FBI/police).

 

[markw]

while these mass murders are a thing of concern, there are other, worse, unreported things to worry about.

Anyone care about Chicago? ...and I don't think there were any assault weapons involved.

http://heyjackass.com/

 

[Chu Gai]

Politically it won't fly. I know this already. You and I will never reach an agreement on the banning of these weapons. Something has to be done because its going to be worse for future generations

Absolutely, something ought to be done. In my quote of Mike Rowe, the guy who has that TV show Dirty Jobs, he indicates that the US has a dysfunctional and poorly implemented infrastructure that is broken on both the State and Federal level. That needs to be fixed and IMO, not by passing amendments to bills that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. A stand alone bill that strengthens and fixes what's already in place. I want politicians on both sides to publicly admit to the existing problems and stop pandering and worrying so much about being reelected. I want them to man and woman up. Show some spine.

 

[Chu Gai]

while these mass murders are a thing of concern, there are other, worse, unreported things to worry about.

Anyone care about Chicago? ...and I don't think there were any assault weapons involved.

http://heyjackass.com/

Bring the National Guard in.

 

[Chu Gai]

As is usually the case, gun sales have spiked with a notable increase in gays and lesbians arming themselves. The Pink Pistols, an international club for gay and lesbian gun owners, report seeing membership jump from around 1,500 members to 3,500 by Monday.

 

[Chu Gai]

Seen in West Hollywood.