Mass shooting in Orlando - Politics

[everettT]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-life-of-violent-threats-paved-way-for-orlando-attack-1466127324

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/06/16/thought-alt-right-bad/

 

[herbu]

I've encountered a ton of stupidity today.

So, another quiet day at home alone, huh?

 

[GO-NAD!]

I'm 260 so one for each hand?

Sure, Arnold.

 

[herbu]

Sure is nice to see a civil discussion on gun control. No new arguments being made, and no minds being changed, but the civil discourse is uncommon. Thanks.

 

[KEW]

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.

Is there someplace where this holistic approach is detailed, or being promoted (or lobbied for)? Sounds promising, but I have not seen mention of it!

I am a proponent of Assault Weapons ban because I do not see a practical alternative for our society.

Understand that I, and I think most people here, have been using the term assault weapon loosely, I know the wording would ultimately be along the lines of "weapons which can fire over x rounds at a rate of over y per minute" (and perhaps, some qualifier about ability to penetrate body armour). It is much easier to say assault weapon.

Also, I think it is worthy of note that the people in that bar would not need an assault weapon to defend themselves. Assault weapons are for killing many people and that kind of sums up the problem. The reason to need an assault weapon for defense is if you expect a mob of people (SWAT team? Gang?) to be coming after you. Aside from being a fun toy to play with (and they are), I don't see the practical justification.

(If Dr. Frankenstein had a good assault weapon, the story may have ended differently).

 

[Alex2507]

The reason to need an assault weapon for defense is if you expect a mob of people (SWAT team?)

Exactly. I don't care about what gun laws say I am allowed to do and I don't have guns but I like the fact that cops in general understand that they aren't the only ones with that sort of lethal force. Between that and video cameras, cops are better behaved. I like living with an armed civilian population.

It just occurred to me that cops and criminals are both armed while all I bring to the table is having watched a bunch of Kung Fu movies. It works for me because I do my best to avoid both groups. So far so good.

 

[Steve81]

Is there someplace where this holistic approach is detailed, or being promoted (or lobbied for)?

It comes down to the whole party platform, i.e. improving education and opportunity for those living in poverty, addressing the mental health problems in this country, foreign relations, and so on, and so on. Unfortunately, it tends to be easier to stick our head in the sand and offer up do-nothing feel good proposals.

Understand that I, and I think most people here, have been using the term assault weapon loosely, I know the wording would ultimately be along the lines of "weapons which can fire over x rounds at a rate of over y per minute" (and perhaps, some qualifier about ability to penetrate body armour). It is much easier to say assault weapon.

That's the problem: that's not what anybody in Washington is discussing. What they're doing is worse than nothing. By calling their law an assault weapon ban, they make it sound like they're meaningfully addressing things related to actual firepower when in reality they're talking about BS like bayonet lugs.

Assault weapons are for killing many people and that kind of sums up the problem. The reason to need an assault weapon for defense is if you expect a mob of people (SWAT team? Gang?) to be coming after you.

So a situation like living out on a farm, and getting a visit from a few meth heads looking for trouble?

 

[KEW]

Exactly. I don't care about what gun laws say I am allowed to do and I don't have guns but I like the fact that cops in general understand that they aren't the only ones with that sort of lethal force. Between that and video cameras, cops are better behaved. I like living with an armed civilian population.

It just occurred to me that cops and criminals are both armed while all I bring to the table is having watched a bunch of Kung Fu movies. It works for me because I do my best to avoid both groups. So far so good.

Around here, cops just carry pistols and I would think a pistol would be the preferred weapon of defense (assuming they don't call ahead so you can get ready).

I agree about liking an armed population, but why do they need to be armed with weapons designed for mass shooting/warfare? Why isn't a "six shooter" enough? If the police come knocking at your door, knowing there might be a simple gun on the other side should meet your intent. An assault weapons only adds if you plan to attack many from afar if a rifle).

PS-I use "six shooter" because everyone knows what that is. I'm sure the term semi-automatic pistol includes weapons which are capable of a massacre such as the Orlando incident.

 

[Chu Gai]

A lot of the talk in this thread as well as by politicians, news outlets, talk shows, etc. has focused on weapons loosely termed assault rifles. Ban them, restrict magazine sizes, put additional restrictions on their purchase, and so forth. Certainly, it is a fierce looking weapon. However, in the Orlando situation, Mateen, a follower of the religion of peace, had two weapons at his disposal - a rifle and a handgun. 49 people died, a mind boggling number. Now, autopsies were performed, so I ask, we're both weapons used used? Equally? One exclusively? One more than the other? What about other mass shootings? For if it was the pistol that was used, why is the talk about rifles?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Sure is nice to see a civil discussion on gun control. No new arguments being made, and no minds being changed, but the civil discourse is uncommon. Thanks.

Ran out of new discourse to discuss.

 

[Alex2507]

If the police come knocking at your door, knowing there might be a simple gun on the other side should meet your intent.

Them knowing I might have a bazooka also meets my intent. Basically I want the population having access to what the police have access to ... mostly, more or less but what about that video? That AR15 was pitched pretty effectively for home-D. To be clear, the AR15 is a weapon that you would like to see removed from public access? The only reason I don't have one is that they're $800 and I'd rather have good speakers. I want one of those hand canon 50 cal Desert Eagle monsters too. How much are they?

 

[Rickster71]

Since the thread name was changed to include the word "Politics"

I'll just add my favorite site here: http://www.owl232.net/irrationality.htm

Why are people are especially irrational about politics?

Abstract: Looking for explanations for the phenomenon of widespread, strong, and persistent disagreements about political issues.
The best explanation is provided by the hypothesis that most people are irrational about politics and not, for example, that political issues are particularly difficult or that we lack sufficient evidence for resolving them. I discuss how this irrationality works and why people are especially irrational about politics.

 

[Rickster71]

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.

I think the problem is plain Political Bias.
The way that's easily exposed, is below:
If we were all truly interested in saving lives.... we would outlaw everything that has caused multiple deaths.

If we were free of bias we would research the death rate from medical mistakes, and learn they supplant the death rate of guns.... so do drownings.
We would outlaw alcohol.
We would ban swimming.
We would ban box cutters, since they we responsible for 3,000 deaths during Sept 11, 2001
We would ban ice cream and bacon cheese burgers... (sorry Oscar)

 

[Chu Gai]

I think the problem is plain Political Bias.
The way that's easily exposed, is below:
If we were all truly interested in saving lives.... we would outlaw everything that has caused multiple deaths.

If we were free of bias we would research the death rate from medical mistakes, and learn they supplant the death rate of guns.... so do drownings.
We would outlaw alcohol.
We would ban swimming.
We would ban box cutters, since they we responsible for 3,000 deaths during Sept 11, 2001
We would ban ice cream and bacon cheese burgers... (sorry Oscar)

And one more! See if you can spot the commonality.

– Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
– Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
– Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
– James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
– Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
– Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat
– James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.

And of course, Mateen, a democrat.

 

[herbu]

While there are modern instances of Far Right Extremists visiting violence, it does seem the majority are Democrats. Strange for a couple reasons.

1) You can't get much more "conservative" than radical Muslims, yet it is the Democrats by in large that defend them.

2) It is the Democrats that claim to be the party of tolerance, yet the majority of murderers and mass murderers identify with them.

Here we go...

 

[Chu Gai]

Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma Bomber, was also a Democrat.

There's been a lot of talk about how the Orlando shootings were the act of a lone wolf. As information makes itself available, unless we're dealing with a peculiar definition of lone wolf, this does not seem to be the case.

 

[Steve81]

Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma Bomber, was also a Democrat.

Source? CNN seems to suggest different:
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/03/29/profile.mcveigh/

His only known affiliations are as a registered Republican in his New York days, and as a member of the National Rifle Association while he was in the Army.

 

[Steve81]

And one more! See if you can spot the commonality.

– Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
– Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
– Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
– James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
– Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
– Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat
– James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.

And of course, Mateen, a democrat.

Also a dubious list. Take the VA Tech shooter for example...

1. Seung Hui Cho was a South Korean national w/ residency in the US, not a US citizen.
2. Virginia doesn't register voters by party. (last item in FAQ)

#2 also applies to Nidal Hasan since he was technically a Virginia resident.

 

[highfigh]

Exactly. I don't care about what gun laws say I am allowed to do and I don't have guns but I like the fact that cops in general understand that they aren't the only ones with that sort of lethal force. Between that and video cameras, cops are better behaved. I like living with an armed civilian population.

It just occurred to me that cops and criminals are both armed while all I bring to the table is having watched a bunch of Kung Fu movies. It works for me because I do my best to avoid both groups. So far so good.

Your first point about liking the fact that the police understand they aren't the only ones with that sort of lethal force goes two ways and in the other one, it's fear that they aren't the only ones because, when someone goes off the rails and has these guns, it's a problem for the police and the general public. We already have people taking pot shots at Police, Fire and EMS members and so far, I don't remember the police marauding through the streets of any city, mowing down people in large numbers.

 

[highfigh]

I think the problem is plain Political Bias.
The way that's easily exposed, is below:
If we were all truly interested in saving lives.... we would outlaw everything that has caused multiple deaths.

If we were free of bias we would research the death rate from medical mistakes, and learn they supplant the death rate of guns.... so do drownings.
We would outlaw alcohol.
We would ban swimming.
We would ban box cutters, since they we responsible for 3,000 deaths during Sept 11, 2001
We would ban ice cream and bacon cheese burgers... (sorry Oscar)

Where do you want to stop- choking on food kills about 4000 people, annually. Being a pedestrian is dangerous, too- more than 4000/year die from being hit by a car.

We can ban anything, but someone will always find a substitute. However, if someone has been flagged by the FBI, that flag should show up in an NICS background check. It's not hard to do with computers- not as easy before.

I'd like to see the facts laid out WRT gun shows and internet sales- gun dealers CAN'T ship a gun directly to a buyer unless that person has an FFL. Private sellers/buyers like to operate this way because it allows them to "operate under the radar", but it would be almost impossible to stop because, once some law is written that requires a background check and tax on one kind of gun or another, the weapon can be broken down and sold as parts and in fact, AR-15 type guns are often assembled from a list of parts, rather than sold as a whole gun.