50 shot dead - Orlando shooting

[mmmnaked]

Forum Sponsor

Drugs in general will have after effects. The government gets to decide which ones are accepted (legal) and which ones are not (prescription) aka stricter rules or illegal/banned.

Why can't we have something like that for guns.
Get some experts. Analyze cases "is it really needed in that person's situation, what are they wanting to use it for"
.

Uh... we already have that dude. Handguns are restricted. They're registered and bound by ATTs. You don't buy one legally unless you have a PAL, a clean background, and are a collector or member of a shooting club. How much more strict can it get? Its ridiculous. Beer kills way more people and has only ONE restriction placed on it - age.

Rifles, even the big black scary ones, simply are NOT used in homicides often enough to warrant such restrictions. And that's why the LGR is gone, and that's why when us gun folk hear the liberals touting "assault weapon bans" we wanna strangle them for their stupidity and callousness. Its not REASONABLE to place heavy restrictions on millions of law abiding citizens just for the small chance of saving 20-30 lives, majority of whom are actually individuals known to police (read: criminals). This logic is also why nobody would ever suggest another prohibition of alcohol. We like it, we wanna drink it. The deaths it causes are thus deemed acceptable. That's the price of 'freedom'..

 

[BusaBob]

"Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.

According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/

You do realize that the data covers "all manners of death", INCLUDING: justifiable homicide as in police shooting bad guys, and good guys defending themselves against bad guys, and bad guys shooting other bad guys, right?

Suicide also inflates the numbers since people intent on suicide will kill themselves regardless.


but hey, these are just facts...

 

[nakkers]

Ok ok ok. I'm reading posts about beer and motorcycles and vehicles and linking them to rationalize the right for guns.

Alcohol and vehicles (all of them) kill people. It's not their purpose but used incorrectly or maliciously will cause death by those whom consume it or operate it. And also affect the lives (and deaths) of others.

In the USA, where these mass killings are making headlines and the gun lobby beat the drum that people and terrorist kill, not guns, those dangerous things such as alcohol and vehicles have laws and regulations.

For alcohol, they regulate the alcohol proof or percentage. They regulate the age to buy it. Etc.

For vehicles, they require licensing. Age to operate.

They also regulate the manufacture. With safety requirements. Smog requirements. Insurance requirements etc.

Guns? Unless a felon, it's pretty much a free for all. Pay your money, get your gun.

Are guns for transportation?

Pretty sure guns were designed to shoot things. And people too.

You can restrict the mentally ill, those known to LE as suspicious of terrorist activity etc.

But, at the end of the day, mass shootings will continue to occur in the USA.

What ever changes they make will never satisfy everyone.

Just as MADD continues to fight to mandatory breathalyzers in vehicles, gun lobby will fight for owner rights. And the opposition will fight for restrictions and bans.

But to do nothing? Nothing? Really?

That is the solution?

It's the price American society pays to have the right to bear arms.

Something doesn't seem right about that. And I'm a gun owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LePhillou]

Uh... we already have that dude. Handguns are restricted. They're registered and bound by ATTs. You don't buy one legally unless you have a PAL, a clean background, and are a collector or member of a shooting club. How much more strict can it get? Its ridiculous. Beer kills way more people and has only ONE restriction placed on it - age.

Rifles, even the big black scary ones, simply are NOT used in homicides often enough to warrant such restrictions. And that's why the LGR is gone, and that's why when us gun folk hear the liberals touting "assault weapon bans" we wanna strangle them for their stupidity and callousness. Its not REASONABLE to place heavy restrictions on millions of law abiding citizens just for the small chance of saving 20-30 lives, majority of whom are actually individuals known to police (read: criminals). This logic is also why nobody would ever suggest another prohibition of alcohol. We like it, we wanna drink it. The deaths it causes are thus deemed acceptable. That's the price of 'freedom'..

Nope. Usage of alcohol is restricted too, and if you're caught breaking said restrictions, you get a criminal record. Even if you have an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, a police can decide to ticket you for it. So there are consequences to not following the rules in place and thats part of the reason R.I.D.E program exists.

The restrictions you are mentioning that i've underlined, i'm basically saying it needs to be applied to our neighhhhbouuurrsss. I've repeated countless times that Canada has it right in terms of restriction / enforcement of firearms ownership.

Free for all on weapons doesn't make sense.

and @BusaBob regarding suicide, suicide is a low that usually, and in most cases is temporary. You success rate at suicide increases greatly when
a) the method you use is very efficient and almost fail safe
b) it's already in your household or easily available within the next hour or so
c) not much thinking has to go into the action and the planning of it.

Someone who wants to jump off something (tall building, bridge, overpass etc) has all the time to actually rethink it through from the time that he makes the decision to the time he actually has to act on it.
Someone who wants to take a rope and jump off a stool... well, it takes a LOT of dedication and drive to actually convince your brain that it's the right thing to do...

And these methods aren't always fail safe as some people survive.
Out of the few survivors i know, they're still living years after the incident.
The gun reduces the chances of survival by a lot. Usually in that state you'll look for the easiest way out. Oh there's a gun in my house, lets just use that. Once you add layers of complexity and chances of survival to the act, that will act as enough of a deterrent to stop a person from going through with it.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Guns? Unless a felon, it's pretty much a free for all. Pay your money, get your gun.

Do you really believe it's like this in the US? If so, you really don't have a clue.

Something doesn't seem right about that. And I'm a gun owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't sound like one, or if you are some would call you a Fudd. Legal gun owners know that all of the terrible things one can do with any tool is not based on the tool itself.

Can you explain the following:

1. When acts of gun or any violence occur, do you not find it ironic that the people that get called are people with guns
2. Why is the per capita murder rate the lowest its been in 1/2 a century while gun ownership is up by tens of millions?
3. Why do you like most others dodge the fact that fundamentally Orlando was a terrorist act?

 

[Snobike Mike]

and @BusaBob regarding suicide, suicide is a low that usually, and in most cases is temporary. You success rate at suicide increases greatly when
a) the method you use is very efficient and almost fail safe
b) it's already in your household or easily available within the next hour or so
c) not much thinking has to go into the action and the planning of it.

Someone who wants to jump off something (tall building, bridge, overpass etc) has all the time to actually rethink it through from the time that he makes the decision to the time he actually has to act on it.
Someone who wants to take a rope and jump off a stool... well, it takes a LOT of dedication and drive to actually convince your brain that it's the right thing to do...

And these methods aren't always fail safe as some people survive.
Out of the few survivors i know, they're still living years after the incident.
The gun reduces the chances of survival by a lot. Usually in that state you'll look for the easiest way out. Oh there's a gun in my house, lets just use that. Once you add layers of complexity and chances of survival to the act, that will act as enough of a deterrent to stop a person from going through with it.

Are you for or against the assisted suicide legislation?

 

[RockerGuy]

"Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.

According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/

Out of a population of 319 million, not bad

 

[nakkers]

Do you really believe it's like this in the US? If so, you really don't have a clue.



You don't sound like one, or if you are some would call you a Fudd. Legal gun owners know that all of the terrible things one can do with any tool is not based on the tool itself.

Can you explain the following:

1. When acts of gun or any violence occur, do you not find it ironic that the people that get called are people with guns
2. Why is the per capita murder rate the lowest its been in 1/2 a century while gun ownership is up by tens of millions?
3. Why do you like most others dodge the fact that fundamentally Orlando was a terrorist act?

I was being flippant with my comment regarding the ease to acquire a gun in the USA.


It's not easy to follow federal and state regs regarding gun purchases.


As far as the rest, I know it's hard to believe but, there are legal and responsible gun owners that support tougher laws and regulations.

I don't have to drink the gun lobby koolaid.

Don't want to argue or diminish the issue.

Doesn't matter the reason. You can label it a terrorist act and let's say it is. What ever the motivator, a fella murdered 49 people. Is the solution to have every citizen armed so if another terrorist or nut job decides to pull a trigger, they can protect themselves?

I don't want armed security guards patrolling every public place or everyone having a concealed weapon as a solution.

I think you can restrict the type of weapon people have access to and you can regulate who should own a firearm and why these restrictions should be imposed.

How to go about it is a wonderful topic for discussion. But, to continue to deflect and defend isn't working and we still have folks getting shot.

 

[LePhillou]

Are you for or against the assisted suicide legislation?

I'm for it.
So that it gets done in a humane way with knowledge of what's happening and what options are there for the patient provided by expert/professionals. Instead of being done on a hunch by butchering yourself in despair (and most likely alone).
Obviously, i support it if there's a medical condition that warrants it.

 

[inreb]

If this gunning people down americun style ever becomes popular here I'm going to swap my propeller beanie for an indoor/outdoor carpeted surrogate drone. This way I can velcro (hook and loop for our americun friends) various armaments to suit my immediate level of discomfort. I think we should have 30,000,000 armed drones in the sky and indoors for our personal safety.

 

[LePhillou]

I was being flippant with my comment regarding the ease to acquire a gun in the USA.


It's not easy to follow federal and state regs regarding gun purchases.


As far as the rest, I know it's hard to believe but, there are legal and responsible gun owners that support tougher laws and regulations.

I don't have to drink the gun lobby koolaid.

Don't want to argue or diminish the issue.

Doesn't matter the reason. You can label it a terrorist act and let's say it is. What ever the motivator, a fella murdered 49 people. Is the solution to have every citizen armed so if another terrorist or nut job decides to pull a trigger, they can protect themselves?

I don't want armed security guards patrolling every public place or everyone having a concealed weapon as a solution.

I think you can restrict the type of weapon people have access to and you can regulate who should own a firearm and why these restrictions should be imposed.

How to go about it is a wonderful topic for discussion. But, to continue to deflect and defend isn't working and we still have folks getting shot.

The way i see it, with the regulations that they were trying to push to a vote last week,
"Banning terrorist watch list individuals from getting guns
Requiring better, stricter background checks"

Most of these gun owners wouldn't be affected, but it would marginally make things safer don't we agree?

 

[Neil_V]

and @BusaBob regarding suicide, suicide is a low that usually, and in most cases is temporary. You success rate at suicide increases greatly when
a) the method you use is very efficient and almost fail safe
b) it's already in your household or easily available within the next hour or so
c) not much thinking has to go into the action and the planning of it.

Are you for or against the assisted suicide legislation?

The straws are getting harder to grasp there Mike.

I've had a bad day; lost my job; wife left me, so I'm gonna blow my brains out vs. I have terminal cancer or similar and a doctor is going help me pass peacefully... common man, back to reality.

 

[-D-]

Yes, it is easy getting a gun in the US.
In West Virginia you can go to a gun show and buy a gun with no id from someone's trunk in the parking lot.
When you are inside they would like for you to show some id to buy a gun.
No background checks...and I guess there are no such thing as fake id's.

You can buy a gun on Craig's List in the US.

Was it Norway that had that mass shooting and in response the society agreed to implement serious gun control to which nothing of the like has occurred again.

I get the impression that if a school of little kids were slaughtered in Australia they would pretty much remove all guns and make you prove that you really need one and limit to what you get e.g. live in the rural areas, 1 pistol or shotgun etc...

The purpose of a gun is to kill. The purpose of a gun that sprays bullets like rain is designed to kill more faster.

Some of you think that we can wipe out mental health issues...or crimes of passion...or just plain and simple thrill killing...one can argue that you also suffer from delusions.

 

[Baggsy]

The straws are getting harder to grasp there Mike.

I've had a bad day; lost my job; wife left me, so I'm gonna blow my brains out vs. I have terminal cancer or similar and a doctor is going help me pass peacefully... common man, back to reality.

Vs grandpa is a financial drain on the family which is depressing everyone including him. But let's keep on topic.

Some seem to be missing that this isn't really about individual murders, but mass killings.
Are they on the decline? Rising? Or isn't there enough data at the moment?

 

[-D-]

If this gunning people down americun style ever becomes popular here I'm going to swap my propeller beanie for an indoor/outdoor carpeted surrogate drone. This way I can velcro (hook and loop for our americun friends) various armaments to suit my immediate level of discomfort. I think we should have 30,000,000 armed drones in the sky and indoors for our personal safety.

Don't joke, mark my words, someone will hook something up to some drones and unleash into a group of people e.g. music concert, sporting event.
Remember the kids that started off killing squirrels and cats for fun (psychos), well this will give them more options.

 

[griff2]

Suicide also inflates the numbers since people intent on suicide will kill themselves regardless.


but hey, these are just facts...

Really? These are facts.

It is worth considering, as one data point in the pool of evidence about what sorts of gun control policies do and do not work, the experience of Australia. Between October 1996 and September 1997, Australia responded to its own gun violence problem with a solution that was both straightforward and severe: It collected roughly 650,000 privately held guns. It was one of the largest mandatory gun buyback programs in recent history.


And it worked. That does not mean that something even remotely similar would work in the US — they are, needless to say, different countries — but it is worth at least looking at their experience.

According to one academic estimate, the buyback took in and destroyed 20 percent of all privately owned guns in Australia. Analysis of import data suggests that Australians haven't purchased nearly enough guns in the past 18 years to make up for the initial decline.

In 2011, Harvard's David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis reviewed the research on Australia's suicide and homicide rate after the NFA. Their conclusion was clear: "The NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.

Now, Australia's homicide rate was already declining before the NFA was implemented — so you can't attribute all of the drops to the new laws. But there's good reason to believe the NFA, especially the buyback provisions, mattered a great deal in contributing to those declines.

"First," Hemenway and Vriniotis write, "the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."

There is also this: 1996 and 1997, the two years in which the NFA was actually implemented, saw the largest percentage declines in the homicide rate in any two-year period in Australia between 1915 and 2004.

Pinning down exactly how much the NFA contributed is harder. One study concluded that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides. But as Dylan Matthews points out, the results were not statistically significant because Australia has a pretty low number of murders already.

However, the paper's findings about suicide were statistically significant — and astounding. Buying back 3,500 guns correlated with a 74 percent drop in firearm suicides. Non-gun suicides didn't increase to make up the decline.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

 

[nakkers]

The way i see it, with the regulations that they were trying to push to a vote last week,
"Banning terrorist watch list individuals from getting guns
Requiring better, stricter background checks"

Most of these gun owners wouldn't be affected, but it would marginally make things safer don't we agree?

I don't know the specifics of what was trying to be passed. It's politics and I'm sure there was some things that were good and other stuff that was bad.

I think what we all can agree upon is people killing innocent people no matter their motives is unacceptable.

I also think there should be a willingness no matter what your position is, to find common ground on ways to bring it to an end and stop pointing fingers.

We don't ban busses or trains when involved in high casualty accidents. But they do regulate the vehicles themselves and who can operate them and even who can travel on them.

Deaths still occur.

I don't know how to keep guns out of the hands of people that are determined to kill other people?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[inreb]

I think what we all can agree upon is people killing innocent people no matter their motives is unacceptable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Terrorists know it's unacceptable, that's why they do it. They know the west is depraved thru cultural marxism but we're still squeamish about killing innocent people. Unless over there by unjust invasion, then we're coming around to accepting that. They think most of our women are whores. I don't agree with that.

 

[mmmnaked]

The way i see it, with the regulations that they were trying to push to a vote last week,
"Banning terrorist watch list individuals from getting guns
Requiring better, stricter background checks"

Most of these gun owners wouldn't be affected, but it would marginally make things safer don't we agree?

How could they possibly make any of those regulations work without licencing and registration? Its a joke. Politicians pandering to the clueless masses for voter gains.

 

[Snobike Mike]

The straws are getting harder to grasp there Mike.

LePhillou is ranting against guns because they can be easily used in suicides, and claims if there weren't guns then they'd just get over their depression and carry on with life (which is a pretty good indicator that he doesn't understand mental illness but that's a whole topic in itself.....)

But wait, LePhillou is for assisted suicide. Just a week bit ironic to be against gun suicide but for "assisted" suicide considering the net result is the person is dead regardless of how it's couched relating to medical situations or whatnot.

Forum Sponsor