Mass shooting in Orlando - Politics

[jinjuku]

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The right to bare arms dates back was in the days of the War of Independance and yet this outdated right to bear arms still clings on.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 2nd amendment was directly related to the tyranny that made the colonies vote for independence. Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Back then I'm sure there was distrust of a fledgling government.

I'm not an NRA member, I don't even own a firearm.

I'm just point out that the 2nd amendment exists, why it exists. The only way this problem is going to get solved is the 2nd amendment is repealed.

 

[GO-NAD!]

In case anyone is wondering why Canadians should care about the firearms* debate in the USA, here's why:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/dariusz-dziewanski/us-gun-laws-effect-on-canada_b_2495773.html

A high percentage of crimes committed with handguns in Canada are committed with a smuggled weapon from the US.

We had a short-lived non-restricted firearms, AKA "long-gun", registry up here, brought in by the Liberal government back in the 90's, which would cover everything not already covered by the restricted firearms registry. In 2012, the Conservative government ditched it. This was after 100's of millions of dollars were spent to set it up. I had absolutely no issues with every firearm being registered. You have to register your car, why not all your firearms?

This thread contains many mentions of the concept of "self-defence". In Canada, although there have been instances where people have used a firearm to protect themselves, it's rare, and they generally get run through a legal wringer as a result.

Part of the problem with self-defence would be the storage rules:

Non-restricted firearms must be unloaded and either:

• Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock); or
• Locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into.

Restricted and prohibited firearms must be unloaded and:

• Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock); and
• Locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into.
• The bolts or bolt-carriers must be removed, if removable, and stored in a separate locked room that cannot be easily broken into

Ammunition:

• Must not be displayed with a firearm that can discharge it

Not much chance to get that firearm and load it in time, is there? But then, I don't remember the last time I heard about a small child shooting his parent or sibling, because the firearm wasn't secured properly...unlike the US (No offence intended; just pointing out a difference).

Actually, you can get an "Authorization To Carry" permit in Canada. But, that's primarily for Armoured Car employees and people who work in the wilderness and need protection from big-a$$ bears. Theoretically, you can get an ATC for personal protection from individuals who may wish to cause you harm - but, as I understand it, it's practically impossible to get one.

*I find the use of the term "gun" with reference to small arms to be grating. Being ex-military, to me, a gun would be used as field artillery, mounted on a ship or in an armoured vehicle - i.e. not a pistol, rifle, SMG, etc..

 

[GO-NAD!]

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. .....

For self-defence, I think I'd prefer a shotgun.

 

[Steve81]

For self-defence, I think I'd prefer a shotgun.

As with anything, people have their preferences. I prefer a revolver myself. It's reliable, easy to maintain, due to its size it's easy to safely store and hide away from the kids, both my wife and I can handle it easily, etc. Out in the boondocks where my wife's parents and sibling live, rifles have their value for defense as well (and not just for defense against humans).

 

[Alex2507]

British Empire Loyalists weighing in on American gun control ... still.

We didn't give a sh!t what you thought the first time.

For self-defence, I think I'd prefer a shotgun.

Don't anybody go thinking that I think I know anything other than how to please women but this video had stuff to say about shotguns for home-D.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[highfigh]

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.

Admit to a problem with their hallowed House and Senate? Not while they have a 9% approval rating.

Also, if they ever sign a bill that doesn't have all kinds of other crap slipped in, it will come as a complete shock to me and many others. IMO, all of the unrelated stuff is exactly the reason Pelosi wanted the Porkulus to be signed before being read- there was so much in there that should never have been and if we knew it was there, we would never allow them to sign it. The ACA contains laws that have absolutely nothing to do with health care and it's their way of "getting things done" without debate and allowing us to see it on CSPAN.

It also appears that some want the cost of the new B-21 bomber to be hidden. A taxpayer-funded piece of military hardware and they don't want us to see its cost? BS!

 

[highfigh]

Bring the National Guard in.

That brings its own problems. Constitutionally, it's not allowed unless certain conditions exist and those haven't occurred. If it was wide-spread rioting or a natural disaster (not based in people), it would be acceptable but for random shootings, it would be better to add police to the areas where the shootings are most frequent, on loan from the surrounding suburbs. That way, it's funded locally, rather than forcing the rest of the state/country to pay for the problems of one city. The house cleaning should start at the top- get rid of Rahm Emanual and their Police Chief, then get someone who can fix the problems.

 

[GO-NAD!]

As with anything, people have their preferences. I prefer a revolver myself. It's reliable, easy to maintain, due to its size it's easy to safely store and hide away from the kids, both my wife and I can handle it easily, etc. Out in the boondocks where my wife's parents and sibling live, rifles have their value for defense as well (and not just for defense against humans).

Well, I'm thinking home defence against an intruder. In the middle of the night and it's dark - the shotgun is king. Plus, with the shorter range and rapid energy fall-off of shotgun pellets, the likelihood of putting a round through your neighbour's window is reduced. Of course, it's all academic, as I don't feel I need a firearm of any kind.

Don't get me wrong though; I'm not completely against firearms. I used to have a couple of hunting rifles, but when I lost interest in that, I sold them. Years ago, I shot skeet with my buddy's Browning semi-auto 12 gauge - which was fun. In the navy, we had to go out to the range every year or so - far more, if you were on the boarding party - and I always enjoyed that. Pistols, rifles, SMGs - they were all fun. But, it was no obsession, so it didn't carry over into my personal life.

 

[highfigh]

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.

I'm still trying to figure out why a group didn't rush Mateen when he was almost out of ammo and needed to reload. If they thought they were going to die, what did they have to lose? They could have thrown bottles, bar stools, ANYTHING at him, to try to disable him and end the incident.

 

[GO-NAD!]

British Empire Loyalists weighing in on American gun control ... still.

We didn't give a sh!t what you thought the first time.



Don't anybody go thinking that I think I know anything other than how to please women but this video had stuff to say about shotguns for home-D.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What's this "we" $hit? Shall I out* you for the unaware...?

For the record, United Empire Loyalists left the US to come to Canada. My ancestors were straight off the boat.

*For anyone wondering, that's not related to Alex's sexual preference.

 

[Steve81]

Well, I'm thinking home defence against an intruder. In the middle of the night and it's dark - the shotgun is king. Plus, with the shorter range and rapid energy fall-off of shotgun pellets, the likelihood of putting a round through your neighbour's window is reduced.

It is if you can wield it properly. As a 200 pound guy, I don't have any big problems using a 12 or 20 gauge. That's not the case for many people.

 

[markw]

Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Steve81]

I'm still trying to figure out why a group didn't rush Mateen when he was almost out of ammo and needed to reload. If they thought they were going to die, what did they have to lose? They could have thrown bottles, bar stools, ANYTHING at him, to try to disable him and end the incident.

Thinking about it a bit more... Have you ever heard a .223 being fired? Even outdoors at a reasonable distance, it's something you'd want hearing protection for. Having been to an indoor range, a lane or two away from guys firing long arms, I can assure you even with hearing protection the noise alone is extremely startling if you're not ready for it. Without hearing protection, caught totally unaware at 2AM and presumably having had a few drinks, one imagines it goes from merely "extremely startling" to "poop your pants"/complete shock/deafness. And that's just the sound. Between getting closer to that sound and getting the heck out of dodge...between fight or flight, which do you think is going to tend to win out, assuming you don't just stand there dumbstruck, which apparently quite a few people understandably did.

 

[GO-NAD!]

It is if you can wield it properly. As a 200 pound guy, I don't have any big problems using a 12 or 20 gauge. That's not the case for many people.

True. Although, I'm 160 and I don't have a problem.

 

[markw]

I'm still trying to figure out why a group didn't rush Mateen when he was almost out of ammo and needed to reload. If they thought they were going to die, what did they have to lose? They could have thrown bottles, bar stools, ANYTHING at him, to try to disable him and end the incident.

I'm sure many had this exact same thought. I'll bet the were also thinking "You go first."

 

[GO-NAD!]

Thinking about it a bit more... Have you ever heard a .223 being fired? Even outdoors at a reasonable distance, it's something you'd want hearing protection for. Having been to an indoor range, a lane or two away from guys firing long arms, I can assure you even with hearing protection the noise alone is extremely startling if you're not ready for it. Without hearing protection, caught totally unaware at 2AM and presumably having had a few drinks, one imagines it goes from merely "extremely startling" to "poop your pants"/complete shock/deafness. And that's just the sound. Between getting closer to that sound and getting the heck out of dodge...between fight or flight, which do you think is going to tend to win out, assuming you don't just stand there dumbstruck, which apparently quite a few people understandably did.

And, indoors like that, you probably wouldn't be able to determine the direction the fire is coming from, it would be so loud. Plus, it was probably dimly lit, making it more difficult to see him clearly. I wondered why nobody tackled him, too. But, since we weren't there, it's difficult to judge their action/inaction?

 

[Steve81]

And, indoors like that, you probably wouldn't be able to determine the direction the fire is coming from, it would be so loud. Plus, it was probably dimly lit, making it more difficult to see him clearly. I wondered why nobody tackled him, too. But, since we weren't there, it's difficult to judge their action/inaction?

I try not to judge people's actions in situations I could only barely fathom finding myself in. One story from the tragedy might give you some idea of the mindset of people there:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/06/15/how-a-heroic-marines-military-training-helped-him-save-dozens-from-orlando-gunman/

 

[Chu Gai]

I'm still trying to figure out why a group didn't rush Mateen when he was almost out of ammo and needed to reload. If they thought they were going to die, what did they have to lose? They could have thrown bottles, bar stools, ANYTHING at him, to try to disable him and end the incident.

I'm hoping that as time passes and more people talk about the events we'll come to a better understanding. They have reported that Mateen took a break to make a Facebook post.

 

[Alex2507]

What's this "we" $hit? Shall I out* you for the unaware...?

Hey, I'm here, right?

For the record, United Empire Loyalists left the US to come to Canada. My ancestors were straight off the boat.

Well I wish I could go back 30 years or so with that correction for the idiot who misinformed me ... or did I just file that name incorrectly? Anyway thanks for the correction. The wiki read was clearly needed to round out my information packet.

 

[lsiberian]

Thinking about it a bit more... Have you ever heard a .223 being fired? Even outdoors at a reasonable distance, it's something you'd want hearing protection for. Having been to an indoor range, a lane or two away from guys firing long arms, I can assure you even with hearing protection the noise alone is extremely startling if you're not ready for it. Without hearing protection, caught totally unaware at 2AM and presumably having had a few drinks, one imagines it goes from merely "extremely startling" to "poop your pants"/complete shock/deafness. And that's just the sound. Between getting closer to that sound and getting the heck out of dodge...between fight or flight, which do you think is going to tend to win out, assuming you don't just stand there dumbstruck, which apparently quite a few people understandably did.

There are multiple reasons you don't engage an active shooter as a civilian.
Your best bet is to Get away and or hide. Call the police.

You only fight if you have an obvious advantage and can end the altercation swiftly. For example if I'm directly behind the shooter and can cleanly take his back and choke him out I'd probably engage him.