Mass shooting in Orlando - Politics

[Alex2507]

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

I'm 260 so one for each hand?

 

[highfigh]

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.

I have read/heard that he made many posts and some phone calls- he may have locked some in the rest rooms but I don't know the capacity of the place, either.

 

[highfigh]

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.

I have heard the sound of many guns, but at some point, survival instincts have to kick in.

 

[highfigh]

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.

If 20 people start throwing bottles and glasses at someone, they have a good chance of hurting them, or distracting them enough to charge them. Again, if they had come to the conclusion that they may not survive, I would think that someone would step up.

 

[everettT]

Fight or flight. Everyone must make a choice.

 

[KEW]

I'll stop as trying to explain how guns don't kill people but people do is fruitless.

It is fruitless because it is a pointless argument.

Of course people are behind the deaths, but saying that "Grenades don't kill people, people do" is hardly an argument to allow people to carry grenades (Although road rage would be a bit more exciting!).

It is really a question of "how easy do you want it to be for those few people that want to kill as many people as they can, to do so?"

Note: I could also argue that your point is mistaken, because in the case of a toddler that shoots someone (and is too young to really understand the idea of death or recognize the real gun is not a toy), I would argue that it is the presence of the gun that causes the death more than the child.

 

[everettT]

I get where you are coming from, I just see it differently. Example how did the toddler get the gun? From irresponsible parents? All of my firearms are locked in a finger print safe, the two that are not have the clips seperate from the hardware, when I'm not at home both are in the lock box. Crazy people will find a way. As I've stated, Im for all responsible gun control. I can go on for hours about this topic, but as Steve stated before: you can't restrict a nation for a few idiots. Do we ban cars when someone commits vehicular homicide? The tool of murder is just that , a tool and there are many. I won't argue that there is need for regulations or whatever is necessary to keep weapons out of nut jobs hands, as long as I have mine. I don't intend any harm, but as a right , I will defend myself and my family and my neighbor. I wish there was an easy answer for when these carnages occur, but usually not. As long as there is reasonable gun laws I'm good, but to want to ban my "semi" automatic units is political without merit or base

It is fruitless because it is a pointless argument.

Of course people are behind the deaths, but saying that "Grenades don't kill people, people do" is hardly an argument to allow people to carry grenades (Although road rage would be a bit more exciting!).

It is really a question of "how easy do you want it to be for those few people that want to kill as many people as they can, to do so?"

Note: I could also argue that your point is mistaken, because in the case of a toddler that shoots someone (and is too young to really understand the idea of death or recognize the real gun is not a toy), I would argue that it is the presence of the gun that causes the death, not the child.

 

[KEW]

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).

How would you even start to solve extremism? Is that something you believe is feasible?
I can think of a few movies which address societies of people in accord with other, such as the Borg, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Stepford Wives, etc.

As far as ensuring the wrong people don't get their hands on firearms, do you think that can really be done? Most of the "going-postal" situations I have read about seem to be people who would not raise any red flags until after some major life event happened and they snapped.
Then there are people who are totally reasonable until they start drinking, but they do drink.
Then there are simply people who are easily provoked.

 

[Alex2507]

Note: I could also argue that your point is mistaken, because in the case of a toddler that shoots someone (and is too young to really understand the idea of death or recognize the real gun is not a toy), I would argue that it is the presence of the gun that causes the death more than the child.

I'd say that a death like that is still the fault of the gun owner because they failed to keep their weapon secure. Giving a 2 year old access to a running automobile that he slips into gear is no different but you wouldn't blame the car if the owner got run over by the 2 year old.

Then there are people who are totally reasonable until they start drinking, but they do drink.
Then there are simply people who are easily provoked.

Look, if you're going to talk about me then just use my name already.

 

[KEW]

I get where you are coming from, I just see it differently. Example how did the toddler get the gun? From irresponsible parents? All of my firearms are locked in a finger print safe, the two that are not have the clips seperate from the hardware, when I'm not at home both are in the lock box. Crazy people will find a way. As I've stated, Im for all responsible gun control. I can go on for hours about this topic, but as Steve stated before: you can't restrict a nation for a few idiots. Do we ban cars when someone commits vehicular homicide? The tool of murder is just that , a tool and there are many. I won't argue that there is need for regulations or whatever is necessary to keep weapons out of nut jobs hands, as long as I have mine. I don't intend any harm, but as a right , I will defend myself and my family and my neighbor. I wish there was an easy answer for when these carnages occur, but usually not. As long as there is reasonable gun laws I'm good, but to want to ban my "semi" automatic units is political without merit or base

I'm very glad that you exercise responsible gun ownership. Unfortunately, not all gun owners are so careful.

"I won't argue that there is need for regulations or whatever is necessary to keep weapons out of nut jobs hands, as long as I have mine."
How can you be so sure you won't be a nut-job 10 years from now?
I cannot be certain that I would not become a nut-job if I were subjected to the right combination of major life events, or perhaps the right combination of prescription drugs when combined.

Chaos is integral to humanity.

 

[KEW]

Oh I agree that the owner of the gun accessed by a child is ultimately responsible for that death, but it is usually a matter of sheer stupidity rather than evil intent.
So what level of intelligence do we require and how do we measure it?

 

[KEW]

Look, if you're going to talk about me then just use my name already.

Excellent point!
Then, there is Alex!
'Nuff said.

 

[everettT]

Thanks for giving me 10 years for the first 50 I've been here I've managed not to do another individual harm, taught my kids to be responsible and teach gun safety classes twice a month. My kids have been around guns since they were young. Boy's hunt, the girl shots sporting clays. I have no doubt they will be great parents. The argument for the mentally ill is a tough debate, as some of these mass murders seem to have a clear head for what they do (even if we think it's insane). Currently handguns have the toughest laws, if we apply those laws to all guns, I'd have no problems with it. My oldest can walk into a bass pro shop and purchase a shotgun in a few states, which I don't agree with.

I'm very glad that you exercise responsible gun ownership. Unfortunately, not all gun owners are so careful.

"I won't argue that there is need for regulations or whatever is necessary to keep weapons out of nut jobs hands, as long as I have mine."
How can you be so sure you won't be a nut-job 10 years from now?
I cannot be certain that I would not become a nut-job if I were subjected to the right combination of major life events, or perhaps the right combination of prescription drugs when combined.

Chaos is integral to humanity.

 

[everettT]

Isn't it great we can all sit around and sip our favorite, insert preferred alcohol, drink and discuss firearms. Just think the boys from Monroe LA don't drink, so they can't join us

 

[KEW]

Thanks for giving me 10 years for the first 50 I've been here I've managed not to do another individual harm...

Glad to hear it and hope you can maintain that.
Statistics are in your favor, but there are lots of ways to "lose it"!
Here is one that doesn't get much attention:
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2011/09/12/in-the-magazine/health-in-the-magazine/viral-link-mental-illness.html

 

[Steve81]

How would you even start to solve extremism? Is that something you believe is feasible?

As far as ensuring the wrong people don't get their hands on firearms, do you think that can really be done?

To answer both questions, to a reasonable extent that significantly reduces events like this, yes I believe it is feasible. How to even start to solve extremism? As with most complex problems, it takes a multi-prong approach. The critical step is understanding why the issue exists in the first place (which of course depends on the particular brand of extremism).

Most of the "going-postal" situations I have read about seem to be people who would not raise any red flags until after some major life event happened and they snapped. Then there are people who are totally reasonable until they start drinking, but they do drink. Then there are simply people who are easily provoked.

You'll never prevent all violence Kurt. People were killing each other long before gunpowder was invented, and we'll continue killing each other if guns get banned. As you said, chaos is integral to humanity. The question is whether or not we can improve on the status quo without sacrificing a right many (including myself) view as fundamental. I believe with a holistic approach to the issue of gun violence, we absolutely can improve upon that situation. The problem is such an approach isn't as easy or obviously appealing to the masses as an "assault weapons" ban or other such feel good legislation.

 

[everettT]

Interesting read , thanks

Glad to hear it and hope you can maintain that.
Statistics are in your favor, but there are lots of ways to "lose it"!
Here is one that doesn't get much attention:
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2011/09/12/in-the-magazine/health-in-the-magazine/viral-link-mental-illness.html

 

[Alex2507]

So what level of intelligence do we require and how do we measure it?

I've encountered a ton of stupidity today. That brutal, thick headed, inconsiderate, shameless stupidity that baffles me. How about we do like the cops do with tazers? Part of the training is getting tazed.

You want a gun? Well, we're gonna have to shoot you first.

 

[Steve81]

The problem is such an approach isn't as easy or obviously appealing to the masses as an "assault weapons" ban or other such feel good legislation.

And just to clarify what I mean by this for those that don't shoot...

This is classified as an assault weapon. This isn't. The assault weapon shoots the round on the right. The regular rifle shoots the round on the left. In terms of raw muzzle energy, the round utilized by the regular rifle is on the order of 10-20x more powerful than that used by this particular assault weapon. Both are semi-auto weapons with detachable magazines. Makes perfect sense, right?

 

[everettT]

I don't consider myself a ton, maybe a bushel. . Before I go I might be. I think a ton might be more regulated more than firearms, see any County Road.
Last sip of bourbon and I'll say that even my friends that I consider a little off kilter are responsible gun owners and respect the laws that apply as such.

I've encountered a ton of stupidity today. That brutal, thick headed, inconsiderate, shameless stupidity that baffles me. How about we do like the cops do with tazers? Part of the training is getting tazed.

You want a gun? Well, we're gonna have to shoot you first.