Mass shooting in Orlando - Politics

[psbfan9]

No. What?

And from our Attorney General yesterday...
Loretta Lynch: "Our most effective response to terror is compassion, unity, and love"

Cool.

I didn't think you would. Typical.

You took that out of context. More, and not unexpected, filth from the extreme right.

Here are her actual comments;

 

[psbfan9]

Unfortunately, even that seems to be a challenge for lawmakers anymore.

It's very unfortunate. They can't even make, or agree on, common sense decisions.
Even the far right supreme court justice Antonin Scalia said the 2nd amendment isn't unlimited.

It shows the amount of money gun lobbyists are spending, and threatening to take away, from lawmakers that's the major cause of this willingness to do nothing.

 

[Rickster71]

I don't think I need to point out that the difference between firearms and other materials used to attack people...but I will. Whereas, things like gasoline, knives, vehicles and pressure cookers have well-established legitimate purposes, firearms are used either to shoot at targets or kill a living being. So, I don't think it's helpful to say "Well, if we're going to ban X-type firearm, we should also ban pick-up trucks". It's a fine example of reductio ad absurdum.

It's just as absurd to infringe the rights of the 99.9% of legal gun owners that don't commit crimes.
The problem is with the illegal use of any inanimate object, not the legal use.
(As far as Rights go.... I'll bet if the subject was Voter ID Cards the tune would change)

Personally, if I thought my neighbourhood was sufficiently dangerous to justify firearms for the purpose of self-defence, I would say that it's time to move.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/guns-self-defense-study_n_7608350.html

Can you imagine having to move, because the Government we pay for isn't doing its job?
And to think I was only half serious when I commented earlier on the Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Rickster71]

It's very unfortunate. They can't even make, or agree on, common sense decisions.
Even the far right supreme court justice Antonin Scalia said the 2nd amendment isn't unlimited.

It shows the amount of money gun lobbyists are spending, and threatening to take away, from lawmakers that's the major cause of this willingness to do nothing.

Since criminals have ignored laws since the beginning of time.
What new law would criminals suddenly follow?

 

[everettT]

Let's add a poll for the thread

 

[psbfan9]

I was born in Florida and have lived in Orlando. I still have family and now one less friend that still live in Orlando and central Florida.
Yeah, one less. I found out over the weekend that I lost a friend in the Pulse shooting. His husband, obviously, is wrecked and all I can do is tell him how very sorry I am and that I love him.
I am also wrecked. I'm angry, VERY ANGRY. The worst part is coming here and seeing the hypocrisy and lies.
I see people who come to this thread to bash Muslims and Islam and talk about how they (Muslims) hate gays when they ignore the fact that this has been going on in the Christian community for eons. And these same people, on this forum, have made derogatory and denigrating remarks about homosexuals.
The thing that carried out this tragedy was self a loathing closeted gay man conflicted by his life style and religion. He was so confused that a few months ago he pledged allegiance to Al Nusra, an enemy of isis, then he pledged allegiance isis. This 'thing' was mentally ill but still able to obtain a military style weapon.

That's wrong.

 

[GO-NAD!]

So personal/home defense, hunting, and recreation aren't "legitimate uses"? I'd also be hesitant to qualify the Huffington Post/The Violence Policy Center as a totally unbiased source. The study in and of itself only looking at people actually killed as a result of self defense. As opposed to murderers, people defending themselves aren't actually trying to kill an assailant. If the bad guy runs away/surrenders after the gun is drawn, or receiving a single non-lethal hit, that's not counted in that study. That's a pretty big flaw in my book if you're trying to qualify how often firearms are used for self defense.

Of course they are legitimate uses - they all fall under target shooting and killing living beings, as I stated. It may be semantics, but when you are shooting at someone - regardless of the reason - you have to have a strong expectation that if you hit them, you are going to kill them. In other words, motivation makes no difference. There is no such thing as "shooting to wound", as I'm sure you're aware. And, to be clear, I do not advocate the banning of firearms (I thought I'd stated that earlier, but I suppose it bears repeating).

Here's another study that produces similar results as the last one I posted.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

A couple of quotes:

"Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal,"

"firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense"

What it boils down to, is that unless there is some corroboration, i.e. police report, self-reported uses of a firearm for self-defence are not reliable. Sometimes, when people claim that having that firearm saved them from being a victim, it was a case of unnecessary escalation of a situation. Or, so-called defence was actually a case of intimidation of someone else who wasn't actually a threat.

A classic - and tragic - case of self-defence that was not justified, is George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin. He may have beaten the charge, but you can't tell me that was justifiable. I think my single biggest beef is that there are far too many Walter Mitty's out there...

Not exactly. The point of mentioning other methods of violence isn't that we should ban them as well. It's that even if we ban all firearms, violent/mentally ill people aren't going to change, and they'll still have numerous methods available to them to kill/injure others. Conversely, banning firearms means depriving law abiding citizens of a very powerful tool for self defense. Not a great trade for accomplishing so little IMHO.

Again, I'm not suggesting a ban. My point is that "they will just find some other way" is not an excuse for not placing effective restrictions on firearms. A no-brainer would be if you are on a no-fly list, you should be on a no-firearms list.

 

[Chu Gai]

I was born in Florida and have lived in Orlando. I still have family and now one less friend that still live in Orlando and central Florida.
Yeah, one less. I found out over the weekend that I lost a friend in the Pulse shooting. His husband, obviously, is wrecked and all I can do is tell him how very sorry I am and that I love him.
I am also wrecked. I'm angry, VERY ANGRY. The worst part is coming here and seeing the hypocrisy and lies.
I see people who come to this thread to bash Muslims and Islam and talk about how they (Muslims) hate gays when they ignore the fact that this has been going on in the Christian community for eons. And these same people, on this forum, have made derogatory and denigrating remarks about homosexuals.
The thing that carried out this tragedy was self a loathing closeted gay man conflicted by his life style and religion. He was so confused that a few months ago he pledged allegiance to Al Nusra, an enemy of isis, then he pledged allegiance isis. This 'thing' was mentally ill but still able to obtain a military style weapon.

That's wrong.

Of course it's wrong. So why, with all the signs that we are now finding out about, that the dots weren't connected? Sorry for the loss of your friend. My wife works in NYC and she lost some friends on 9/11. Sure Christians and others behaved abysmally but I don't hear about any Christians in recent memory involved in shootings making statements they did it in accordance with Pope Francis, for the Crusades, or Calvin. To think that all cultures are equivalent is mistaken IMO. And once again, my most sincere condolences.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I was born in Florida and have lived in Orlando. I still have family and now one less friend that still live in Orlando and central Florida.
Yeah, one less. I found out over the weekend that I lost a friend in the Pulse shooting. His husband, obviously, is wrecked and all I can do is tell him how very sorry I am and that I love him.
I am also wrecked. I'm angry, VERY ANGRY. The worst part is coming here and seeing the hypocrisy and lies.
I see people who come to this thread to bash Muslims and Islam and talk about how they (Muslims) hate gays when they ignore the fact that this has been going on in the Christian community for eons. And these same people, on this forum, have made derogatory and denigrating remarks about homosexuals.
The thing that carried out this tragedy was self a loathing closeted gay man conflicted by his life style and religion. He was so confused that a few months ago he pledged allegiance to Al Nusra, an enemy of isis, then he pledged allegiance isis. This 'thing' was mentally ill but still able to obtain a military style weapon.

That's wrong.

Man, I'm sorry to hear that. You have my sympathy. I can no more bash Muslims for events such as these, than I can blame Catholics for IRA bombs. That said, Islam as a whole, has some growing up to do. It doesn't help that the vast majority of Muslims live under despots who have a vested interest in keeping their populations pi$$ed at the West, the Jews and apostates. It deflects attention from the horrendous way their countries are run. There are many moderate Muslims, but nobody pays attention to them...

 

[Chu Gai]

I think it was in Ireland where a Muslim shopkeeper wished his Christian friends a Happy Easter. He was killed.

 

[Steve81]

Of course they are legitimate uses - they all fall under target shooting and killing living beings, as I stated.

So why state that all these other things (gasoline, automobiles, pressure cookers) have a legitimate use, but somehow firearms are different? As you now say, firearms have a legitimate use, and I'd add a non-trivial one at that.

but when you are shooting at someone - regardless of the reason - you have to have a strong expectation that if you hit them, you are going to kill them. In other words, motivation makes no difference. There is no such thing as "shooting to wound", as I'm sure you're aware.

In spite of what you've seen on TV/watched in movies, firearms aren't death rays. No doubt they can be lethal, but oftentimes they aren't. Going by the Brady Campaign's statistics (a pro-gun control group if you're worried about bias) the vast majority (70%) of people shot survive, and those numbers include suicide. If you remove those, you'll find that 85% of people survive being shot. Critical factors in survival include shot placement, number of hits, and speed of emergency response among other things. If a bad guy is shooting to kill, he's not stopping until his target is dead, and he's not liable to call 911 to get an ambulance to help you. An individual shooting to defend themselves isn't shooting to kill. They're shooting to stop the attack, and are obligated by law to cease firing if the threat ceases. Also presuming they aren't interested in being accused of murder, they'll dial 911 for emergency assistance. See how that might skew the results a bit, even ignoring cases of self defense where one doesn't have to shoot an intruder ala the grandma story I posted?

Here's another study that produces similar results as the last one I posted.

You might consider that if you go looking for a study to "prove" something, you'll probably find what you're looking for. The reality is there's no 100% (or even 50%) reliable measure of how often firearms are used in self defense, because no one is really attempting to track it, nor are all incidents reported.

firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense

Aside from the lack of reliable statistics on the subject, this statement is fundamentally flawed in any case. If I get a CCW permit and carry a gun, I'm using it for defense. If I have a gun locked away safely at home, I'm using it for defense. I may not be *actively* using it, but that's beside the point. To put it another way, hundreds of millions of guns are used legally in the US. A small fraction aren't.

Again, I'm not suggesting a ban. My point is that "they will just find some other way" is not an excuse for not placing effective restrictions on firearms. A no-brainer would be if you are on a no-fly list, you should be on a no-firearms list.

As mentioned previously, I don't disagree with reasonable, effective restrictions on firearm ownership.

 

[GO-NAD!]

So why state that all these other things (gasoline, automobiles, pressure cookers) have a legitimate use, but somehow firearms are different? As you now say, firearms have a legitimate use, and I'd add a non-trivial one at that.

Poor choice of term, that's all.

In spite of what you've seen on TV/watched in movies, firearms aren't death rays....

I think you know I wasn't claiming that. I don't think anyone can honestly claim that they can shoot somebody thinking that they probably won't kill them. In Orlando, I believe it was about 50/50 killed vs wounded. So, in spite of what you have seen on TV/watched in movies (see what I did there?), "shooting to wound" is NOT a thing. That is, you are shooting to kill, whether you want to or not.

You might consider that if you go looking for a study to "prove" something, you'll probably find what you're looking for. The reality is there's no 100% (or even 50%) reliable measure of how often firearms are used in self defense, because no one is really attempting to track it, nor are all incidents reported.

Absolutely. But, I will grant more credibility to studies conducted with some kind of academic/scientific method, which seem to deflate the numbers being tossed around.

 

[Steve81]

I think you know I wasn't claiming that. I don't think anyone can honestly claim that they can shoot somebody thinking that they probably won't kill them.

Going by the hard numbers, it's possible you will kill them, but not probable. It's even less probable if you're not a murderer like Omar Mateen.

In Orlando, I believe it was about 50/50 killed vs wounded.

He wasn't shooting in self defense, was he?

So, in spite of what you have seen on TV/watched in movies (see what I did there?), "shooting to wound" is NOT a thing. That is, you are shooting to kill, whether you want to or not.

Who said "shooting to wound" was a thing? "Shooting to stop" absolutely is a thing, and it's very different from "shoot to kill". If you don't understand the difference, talk with a police officer or firearms instructor to learn it. These are things that law enforcement officers and responsible gun owners are expected to understand, along with the repercussions of not adhering to that standard.

But, I will grant more credibility to studies conducted with some kind of academic/scientific method, which seem to deflate the numbers being tossed around.

I don't think I've tossed any numbers around about how many times guns are used for self defense. That they're used for self/home defense is absolutely indisputable. That many gun owners have purchased firearms specifically for self/home defense is also indisputable. I also understand that firearms get misused fairly regularly, but that it's a drop in the bucket next to the number of law abiding gun owners who don't misuse their weapons. As for the study itself, I can't claim to give much credence to something that relies upon random digit dial phone surveys vs actually combing through hard data, i.e. police reports and actual judgements in a court of law, incomplete as even that may be. And as mentioned, it still ignores the fact that passive use is still use.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Steve, I don't think we're that far apart in how we regard firearms. It's the fine details that separate us. Maybe it's the lower level of gun violence up here, but I refuse to worry about the boogie man around the corner. Regardless, I shall bow out of this discussion, as I don't see anything productive coming from my participation.

 

[Steve81]

Steve, I don't think we're that far apart in how we regard firearms. It's the fine details that separate us.

Practically speaking, I agree. And hey, we broached a sensitive topic without name calling, so that's a win.

 

[Alex2507]

So where can I get a death ray?

 

[Steve81]

So where can I get a death ray?

I saw a Flash Gordon ray gun on my museum visit this past weekend. Does that count?

 

[GO-NAD!]

So where can I get a death ray?

Well, if Mateen shouldn't have had access for firearms, you definitely shouldn't have access to a death ray.

 

[highfigh]

Since criminals have ignored laws since the beginning of time.
What new law would criminals suddenly follow?

How about "Please don't do that"?

 

[highfigh]

So where can I get a death ray?