Shooting at gay club Pulse

[Doctor Kaiju]

Citizens with guns are okay, but we won't be safe until every public venue is watched over by some sort of largish robot with vulcan cannons.

[Angra]

Originally Posted by Doctor Kaiju

Citizens with guns are okay, but we won't be safe until every public venue is watched over by some sort of largish robot with vulcan cannons.

The problem is, you don't have enough armed gay people.

[Roiffalo]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

If one or two of these law-abiding people had a conceal-carry permit, there probably wouldn't have been a massacre... but whether guns, knives or home-made devices, evil intentions will take lives. That won't end by disarming law-abiding citizens. It's the collective-good, properly equipped, that protects our loved ones and our constitutional rights.

I'm getting frustrated with everyone trying to take away guns and using shootings as an excuse to do so. If we take away guns from the law-abiding citizens, what's to stop the people with bad intentions to get guns by illegal means? If they want guns for murder reasons, they won't give two shits about getting a firearm illegally!

There will always be gun violence, the question is whether or not you want the innocent to be defenseless or given the option to protect themselves when they become the victims of it. Plain and simple.

[cheebacheeba]

I'm getting frustrated with everyone trying to take away guns and using shootings as an excuse to do so. If we take away guns from the law-abiding citizens, what's to stop the people with bad intentions to get guns by illegal means?

I've always kind of semi-agreed on this point.
I will say this - I feel like there would be less crimes of passion among ordinary folks, less chance of a bad day or bad temper ending in disaster...though I'm sure these are somewhat minimal cases.
I'd say most street level burglars/robbers would be less inclined towards bringing a gun as their weapon of choice - while there would be access to the firearms, if where I live is anything to go by, when they're outlawed they become quite a bit more expensive (not information from first hand experience here).

I think that the best was to address the overall issue would be to kind of means-test to get a permit. Avoid mental illness, periodic testing for those that are prone to it. Veto anyone that's been involved with violent or gang crime...and maybe above all, make it so ordinary people can't go and by automatic weapons, or those that would enable them to mow down a crowd of people, as what's happened here.
Maybe if a person wants a gun for actual protection - Ok, they can get a pistol of some sort?
A licensed hunter can check out a hunting rifle as needed.

Though I do get behind the ordinary citizen having the *same* access.

That kind of thing, not an "end to" but an alteration of the second amendment that would, minimise likelihood of an event, and minimise inflicted damage if such a thing happened.

Just my take - I know I speak from a somewhat outside perspective.

[ferretchucker]

This was a total tragedy and travesty. I was deeply saddened upon hearing about this, not really knowing how to process such massive losses. Attended the London vigil last Monday, it was very moving, but doesn't do much for the victims, their families or friends. Just appalling. Still, while there have been some horrid responses, it's been very uplifting to see the love shared between so many parts of the community since it took place - LGBT, muslim, US, straight etc.

Originally Posted by Roiffalo

If we take away guns from the law-abiding citizens, what's to stop the people with bad intentions to get guns by illegal means? If they want guns for murder reasons, they won't give two shits about getting a firearm illegally!

There will always be gun violence, the question is whether or not you want the innocent to be defenseless or given the option to protect themselves when they become the victims of it. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by cheebacheeba

- I feel like there would be less crimes of passion among ordinary folks, less chance of a bad day or bad temper ending in disaster...though I'm sure these are somewhat minimal cases.
I'd say most street level burglars/robbers would be less inclined towards bringing a gun as their weapon of choice - while there would be access to the firearms, if where I live is anything to go by, when they're outlawed they become quite a bit more expensive (not information from first hand experience here).

I agree with much of what Cheebs has said in response to this, although I would go further and say I totally disagree with ordinary folk having guns. As Cheeba said, not only do guns become more expensive when outlawed, but they become significantly harder to procure. A disillusioned college student or jilted lover will find it FAR more difficult to get hold of distance-death weapons, let alone automatic ones. You think Jim who's pissed because he wasn't invited to prom can just walk down to the dodgy end of the docks to do a deal for an illegal gun.

More than anything, I find the argument that ordinary people need the guns to stop these mass shootings falls down when you consider that approximately (and I know it varies state to state) 1/3 households in the US own a gun...and there are still mass shootings almost every single day. Clearly, ordinary people owning guns isn't working very much. I don't doubt that occasionally a decent person with a gun stops a bad situation from getting worse, but 475 people dying in mass shootings alone in ONE YEAR is too many. Look at similar countries with tighter gun control - the UK, Australia, most of Europe in general! Does gun crime happen? Of COURSE it does, but it is so signicantly reduced. Including suicide, accidental deaths and justifiable homicides, the rate of gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the US is 50x higher than in the UK. That's staggering.

Clearly, guns are a large part of US culture that people hold dear, and for many I think it forms some kind of symbol of american power/freedom from state. With that in mind, while I believe taking all guns would MASSIVELY improve the situation, it's unrealistic. It's too much of a political power play to block that sort of thing and keep them in. But this...

Originally Posted by cheebacheeba

I think that the best was to address the overall issue would be to kind of means-test to get a permit. Avoid mental illness, periodic testing for those that are prone to it. Veto anyone that's been involved with violent or gang crime...and maybe above all, make it so ordinary people can't go and by automatic weapons, or those that would enable them to mow down a crowd of people, as what's happened here.
Maybe if a person wants a gun for actual protection - Ok, they can get a pistol of some sort?
A licensed hunter can check out a hunting rifle as needed.

This makes sense. Obviously the 2nd amendment is indiscriminate in the Americans it proclaims have a right to bear arms. But 230 years ago, arms were different and people were different. Culture was different, the world was different, cities were different. To still hold onto that and not think it's about time that some significant adjustments and additions need to be made...it just seems baffling to me, and just about any non-US citizen I speak to.

I'm not sure exactly how many of my views you agree/disagree with, so please don't think I'm lecturing you or telling you anything you haven't heard before, but I felt as though much of it needed to be said.

[Doctor Kaiju]

Guns will not become significantly harder to procure in the USA, regardless of any laws passed (which never have teeth, as congress knows who butters the bread).

The USA produces arms for the entire world. Although you won't hear this on the news, we produce more firearms than China, Russia, Germany, Austria, UK, and France COMBINED. Blaming the NRA for this is cute, but that's just the tiniest tip of the iceberg.

Not only does the USA produce over 5 million guns a year, there are already more than 300 million guns in circulation.

Australia comparisons are well meant, but ridiculous.

[cheebacheeba]

Guns will not become significantly harder to procure in the USA, regardless of any laws passed (which never have teeth, as congress knows who butters the bread).

How do you know this though?
I mean, it would be entirely new ground.

Not only does the USA produce over 5 million guns a year, there are already more than 300 million guns in circulation.

Another comparison - but here, there was a paid hand-in. Yielded a lot of results.


But yeah either way agree with it or not, The second has been in place for a long damn time - I don't see it going anyplace. I just think that moves ought to be made to regulate things a little bit more.
Like really, there's no reason for a person to own a weapon that can rack up *that* high a headcount. It's not as though the US is at risk of a full scale military invasion . Right now, altering the specifics of the amendment would only really result in less life lost.
But hey, I agree - if there's that many weapons circulating legal and otherwise, if you're gonna own a gun, sure. Owning an arsenal or death machine? Just not really well advised.

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by cheebacheeba

Veto anyone that's been involved with violent or gang crime...

Federal law bans those who have been convicted of certain crimes from ever possessing firearms. Included in those crimes are all felonies and misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. (The law also prohibits those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having a gun.) State law often overlaps with this ban; for example, in California, convictions for misdemeanor domestic violence offenses bar offenders from owning or possessing guns within 10 years of conviction.

Originally Posted by cheebacheeba

and maybe above all, make it so ordinary people can't go and by automatic weapons, or those that would enable them to mow down a crowd of people, as what's happened here.

The Pulse Club murderer did not have an automatic gun. They are illegal for pubic ownership.

He had a semi-automatic pistol and rifle (SIG Sauer MCX). Semi-automatic means one shot per trigger pull, and gun auto-resets to fire again (even revolvers do that). The MCX magazine held 30 rounds. He obviously had multiple magazines -- and his pistol was there to make sure he could defend while changing mags.

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear citizens prevent "absolute Despotism". I dig Gandhi's nonviolence/passive resistance methods, but the founding fathers planned on armed citizens as a bulwark.

A civilian defending themselves and loved ones from murderous home invaders, when police are 20 mins away, is a good enough reason. But preventing a totalitarian government requires freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the right to bear arms.

In China 2010 a man killed 8 children at a school with only a knife.There would be 10 more similar attacks in the next 2 years. Let's not look for "magic solutions" that lead to Big Brother.

[ImmortalSlasher]

Originally Posted by Roiffalo

I think what disgusts me the most about the whole thing is the people's reaction to it. I of course don't mean the line of people outside local hospitals and Red Cross ready to donate blood, bless them. I mean the assholes on Twitter who post shit like "this guy's doing God's work" and "lol, wonder how much of the blood on the floor is HIV+". I hope these people suffer just like the families of the victims and know their pain. It just makes me sick to see how far we as a species still have to go in humility.

I tend to avoid Twitter, Youtube, and other quick type commenting places. It's the new home of the worst sort of people.

Originally Posted by MichaelMyers

Would like a link to this.

The CNN thing was on TV. But I imagine that someone probably posted it to youtube.

Originally Posted by Ferox13

Isn't violent crime down in the USA - I don't think it is near as bad as the 80's (the homicide rate at least).

Here in Ireland Gun related murders is probably at all time high (ie we had a few this year) as 2 rival gangs feud.

The Media likes to portray a world on the brink of the 'worse times ever' when the truth may not be so..

I think Chicago, where the current President lived has extraordinary gun crime.

Originally Posted by Sculpt

If one or two of these law-abiding people had a conceal-carry permit, there probably wouldn't have been a massacre... but whether guns, knives or home-made devices, evil intentions will take lives. That won't end by disarming law-abiding citizens. It's the collective-good, properly equipped, that protects our loved ones and our constitutional rights.

Isn't that the Donald Trump theory? I was going through channels and heard people talking about how it would literally be the Wild West letting people carry guns in bars. I've met people that wouldn't even be alive today if the other person was armed with a gun.

The simple fact is there are people in America who love guns. I believe it was that actor from Planets of the Apes that said something like you'll never take this gun from my hands or something like that. Honestly you could have a shooting everyday, and in many cases there are, and Americans would still want their guns.

And not to make light of a bad situation. But I believe in the Predator 2 situation. It should never become that bad.

[ferretchucker]

Originally Posted by Doctor Kaiju

Guns will not become significantly harder to procure in the USA, regardless of any laws passed (which never have teeth, as congress knows who butters the bread).

Not only does the USA produce over 5 million guns a year, there are already more than 300 million guns in circulation.

Australia comparisons are well meant, but ridiculous.

But of course, if it becomes illegal to have a gun on your posession, you immediately reduce the amount of people who will take that risk - the sort of people who at the moment bring a gun "just in case" and who may end up using it in the wrong situations.

At this point I just find it baffling that it is absolutely demonstrably clear from every country that have gun restrictions, that doing so reduces the deaths caused by gun crime.

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear citizens prevent "absolute Despotism". I dig Gandhi's nonviolence/passive resistance methods, but the founding fathers planned on armed citizens as a bulwark.

A civilian defending themselves and loved ones from murderous home invaders, when police are 20 mins away, is a good enough reason. But preventing a totalitarian government requires freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the right to bear arms.

It's 2016 - people are eating kale like nobody's business, the UN exists, every law abiding citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote. As much as I think Trump is a maniac with a chance of winning, America's not becoming totalitarian any time soon. And if it does, do you REALLY think an organised militia using their arsenal from Wal*Mart has any chance of overthrowing what the government would have at their disposal?

In China 2010 a man killed 8 children at a school with only a knife.There would be 10 more similar attacks in the next 2 years. Let's not look for "magic solutions" that lead to Big Brother.

The knife comparison has always bothered me. Of course you can do damage with a knife - you could with a chainsaw, a car, a match and a deodrant can, a screwdriver, a hammer, a vial of sulphuric acid. The difference is all of those things are tools with a purpose OTHER than to hurt/kill. A gun is purely a tool of pain and death, and buying one gives people the knowledge that they can now inflict pain and death at a distance with minimal effort. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and a gun is pretty damn powerful.

It's not about coming up with a magic solution to end all murder and crime, it's just about significantly reducing these things.