50 dead is mass shooting at florida gay club

Fires and trampling are still a far more dangerous risk in nightclubs than firearms ever will be....even considering the fact that these are not premeditated violent events.

 

A lot of grandfathered death traps all across the world (super tight spaces, not enough exits, no sprinklers, etc.) that would be as scary or scarier than an active shooter if the crowd is big enough and a fire spreads quickly.

 

Nothing will be done about it, because politically it's not a partisan issue. People sorta accept that you can die in a fire, but to a hand gun is unconscionable.

 

Even though one risk can really be controlled, and the other is unpredictable.

 

 

For a moment, lets assume we create a society with no guns available either legally or illegally. This bastard wasn't out to just kill one or two people, he wanted mass casualties. If guns are no longer an option to a disturbed individual intent on causing maximum losses, they won't just settle for a sharp object, they will go the Timothy McVeigh route and load a moving truck with fertilizer. Then instead of 50 dead, you have possibly lost every life present in the club that night.

 

People hell bent on destruction will find a way to kill. I look at it like the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Yes guns are currently the easy option, but if somehow they weren't, I fear these disturbed minds coming up with far worse options.

Fires and trampling are still a far more dangerous risk in nightclubs than firearms ever will be....even considering the fact that these are not premeditated violent events.

 

A lot of grandfathered death traps all across the world (super tight spaces, not enough exits, no sprinklers, etc.) that would be as scary or scarier than an active shooter if the crowd is big enough and a fire spreads quickly.

 

Nothing will be done about it, because politically it's not a partisan issue. People sorta accept that you can die in a fire, but to a hand gun is unconscionable.

 

Even though one risk can really be controlled, and the other is unpredictable.

 

I go to a lot of concerts and this is always in the back of my head. Most of the venues I go to are over capacity and pretty small. Growing up with a fireman as a dad he always told me to look for the nearest exits wherever you are and look around and try to see what you will have to get around or do to get out as quickly as possible. Now with these asshats going around shooting up these places I take extra note as to exits, etc.

For a moment, lets assume we create a society with no guns available either legally or illegally. This bastard wasn't out to just kill one or two people, he wanted mass casualties. If guns are no longer an option to a disturbed individual intent on causing maximum losses, they won't just settle for a sharp object, they will go the Timothy McVeigh route and load a moving truck with fertilizer. Then instead of 50 dead, you have possibly lost every life present in the club that night.

 

People hell bent on destruction will find a way to kill. I look at it like the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Yes guns are currently the easy option, but if somehow they weren't, I fear these disturbed minds coming up with far worse options.

 

Then the libs will say (and have said):

 

"But if we stopped AR-15s from being so readily available, instead of 100 injured/50 dead, it would be a quarter of that!"....

 

Without acknowledging the fact that these guns are sold to private citizens as semi-auto, not auto. In semi-auto form I highly doubt the AR could have done as much damage.

 

The gun control crowd would make a big stink about a single .22 pistol killing one person, and suddenly make that gun "ok" in comparison to an AR15. Classic human behavior when "arguing".

 

In theory, you could go ahead and go martial law on US citizens and force them to hand over all of these guns...

 

My best guess is that these mass shooter incidents goes down but STILL happens at an intolerable frequency (i.e. more than 0 incidents). You stop some, but not all. Now what?

 

And then the entire 2nd amendment is compromised. The theoretical government tyranny could happen. The "end of days" scenario where it's every man for himself will leave a lot of people exposed.

 

If it got to a really bad point in America, the big cities would be the worst place to be when s*** got real.

 

BTW, I remember years ago Mako was arguing that if the government wanted to overpower its citizenry, the citizens were helpless....even with firearms.

 

After this Orlando incident, not so sure he is right.

 

Your government has one of the biggest military in the world, nukes, drones, planes, tanks, you name them they've got them, do you really think a bunch of disorganized, untrained civilians would stand a chance if shit hits the fan? That might've worked when people were fighting with knives and muskets.

Also there is less than zero chance the US government will turn on their citizens and try to wipe them all out, let's get serious for a second here.

 

Not having a go at you but most of the pro or con gun arguments are just weak nonsense, people want guns because they like having them end of story, the law allows it and they have them no additional BS explanation needed.

For a moment, lets assume we create a society with no guns available either legally or illegally. This bastard wasn't out to just kill one or two people, he wanted mass casualties. If guns are no longer an option to a disturbed individual intent on causing maximum losses, they won't just settle for a sharp object, they will go the Timothy McVeigh route and load a moving truck with fertilizer. Then instead of 50 dead, you have possibly lost every life present in the club that night.

 

People hell bent on destruction will find a way to kill. I look at it like the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Yes guns are currently the easy option, but if somehow they weren't, I fear these disturbed minds coming up with far worse options.

 

Funny you should mention that because before this past weekend, the deadliest mass killing in U.S. history was carried out with bombs at a school in Michigan, killing 45. In 1927. But that is rarely mentioned today because no guns were involved.

From the amount of rounds fired it seems there had to be more than one gunman.

Funny you should mention that because before this past weekend, the deadliest mass killing in U.S. history was carried out with bombs at a school in Michigan, killing 45. In 1927. But that is rarely mentioned today because no guns were involved.

 

 

What about Wounded Knee? 150 killed in 1890.

For a moment, lets assume we create a society with no guns available either legally or illegally. This bastard wasn't out to just kill one or two people, he wanted mass casualties. If guns are no longer an option to a disturbed individual intent on causing maximum losses, they won't just settle for a sharp object, they will go the Timothy McVeigh route and load a moving truck with fertilizer. Then instead of 50 dead, you have possibly lost every life present in the club that night.

 

People hell bent on destruction will find a way to kill. I look at it like the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Yes guns are currently the easy option, but if somehow they weren't, I fear these disturbed minds coming up with far worse options.

 

I think you are oversimplifying an extremely complex issue, things aren't always black and white, statistically there is some truth on both sides of the argument, I am not against guns but I see both sides of the argument.

 

Think about it for a second and try not to allow your emotions to get in your way, how many people in your circle you know that you think you'd rather not see with a gun in their hand, an angle grinder, nail gun or behind the wheel of an 18 wheeler?

 

Not everyone is fit for purpose, the majority is incapable and I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them.

 

The other argument which makes me laugh, if you make guns illegal to own the criminals will still have them, but Judge the only reason I am sitting on 2 kg of cocaine is because I don't want the criminals to be the only ones to have it LOL.

 

There is no denying easy and fast access to anything is more accommodating than the opposite, the more difficult you make it for the average someone the more likely it is that they will not go that route.

 

To me the gun issue is simple, the law allows guns end of discussion, there is no need for BS justifications, the only things which should be said, I have guns because they are legal, I like them, I want them and I can afford to by myself some.

 

Would I have guns? if the law permitted it I would, what I would do is more stringent checks and tests before I'd hand one over to every idiot with a heartbeat and a credit card, that's all.

Your government has one of the biggest military in the world, nukes, drones, planes, tanks, you name them they've got them, do you really think a bunch of disorganized, untrained civilians would stand a chance if shit hits the fan? That might've worked when people were fighting with knives and muskets.

Also there is less than zero chance the US government will turn on their citizens and try to wipe them all out, let's get serious for a second here.

 

Not having a go at you but most of the pro or con gun arguments are just weak nonsense, people want guns because they like having them end of story, the law allows it and they have them no additional BS explanation needed.

 

Sure, America has all of that, but hasn't used it in that capacity since WW2 against Japan. If they ever were going to wage it, we wouldn't have a Middle East problem right now.

 

The US isn't going to wage an outright war to kill its own citizens but there could come a point in time to want to disarm them. Guerilla warfare is hard to win......which is what you'd probably get if you wanted to take on civilians 1 by 1.

 

You can win but still lose.

 

Secondly, the argument about civilians going against each other is a far more realistic scenario that should be honored.

 

I personally could do without guns on the planet, but since they're everywhere it's not a simple solution.

 

 

My best guess is that these mass shooter incidents goes down but STILL happens at an intolerable frequency (i.e. more than 0 incidents). You stop some, but not all. Now what?

 

 

So in your own mind gun control would reduce potential incidents? Surely that is already a good start then is it not?

 

It will be impossible to stop heinous acts completely, but making the most impact we (people in civilised society) can with the tools at our disposal surly is a step in the right direction?

Just curious if there are other countries with their own version of the 2nd amendment like the US?

 

The gun culture in America seems to be unique in a way that no other country could relate. When they publish the favorable gun control stats of certain European and Asian countries.....I'm pretty sure we could never replicate that if we went with their gun control laws.

 

That's a huge assumption being made that we have no evidence if it would be true.

 

Then if it turns out to be a mistake and you want to go back, what are the chances that will happen? Zero is my guess.

 

 

 

 

Just curious if there are other countries with their own version of the 2nd amendment like the US?

 

The gun culture in America seems to be unique in a way that no other country could relate. When they publish the favorable gun control stats of certain European and Asian countries.....I'm pretty sure we could never replicate that if we went with their gun control laws.

 

That's a huge assumption being made that we have no evidence if it would be true.

 

Then if it turns out to be a mistake and you want to go back, what are the chances that will happen? Zero is my guess.

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-do...ther-countries/

.I'm pretty sure we could never replicate that if we went with their gun control laws.

 

I agree that it may have some differences that other western societies, that is probably due to social issues in relation to poverty, drugs & crime which are also major issues that need to be addressed.

So in your own mind gun control would reduce potential incidents? Surely that is already a good start then is it not?

 

It will be impossible to stop heinous acts completely, but making the most impact we (people in civilised society) can with the tools at our disposal surly is a step in the right direction?

 

Yes, but it comes with consequences.

 

You don't get something for nothing.

 

I've already outlined the consequences above. And then you might potentially create other problems too.

 

And consequences actually happening or not....there's something very disturbing to submitting to a higher authority (government, law enforcement, criminals). If the US is to stand as a model of freedom then it cannot break this principle.

 

Also, this is going to sound callous to some, but humans are moved far too much by emotion and not too much by rational thinking. 49 people died. That's very sad, but in the grand scheme of humanity that's nothing.

 

Life goes on.

 

The bigger issue as I see it is the need for partisan politics to "win" at every instance of a tragedy.

 

We don't attempt to tackle issues holistically...root causes. We just take things on the surface.....criminals are bad......make sure you have guns to fight them back (or enough police on the streets). Trying to systemically reduce crime is something we don't do.

 

Same goes for foreign policy with ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc. To wipe them out or not? That's the only question we ask.

 

These people are POS indeed but to not even attempt to get into their minds and see why they do what they do....that's a bit of a fail on western nations, the US probably more than most.

Okay multiple-paragraph post from me as I want to respond to Fortis's point, and the following points are my opinion. Also Fortis you can write a disagreement and I will just agree to disagree if so, I promise everyone I will not start peppering the thread with book-length posts!

 

Your government has one of the biggest military in the world, nukes, drones, planes, tanks, you name them they've got them, do you really think a bunch of disorganized, untrained civilians would stand a chance if shit hits the fan? That might've worked when people were fighting with knives and muskets.

 

My answer would be yes. Because of their sheer numbers. Did you see the debate on ISIS when it was early on? 40,000 terrorists, most of whom were just untrained civilians and not very well armed. Yeah they had some tanks and such, but even then, they lacked the logistical chain to keep them running well and the training to operate them properly. So should have been a piece of cake for the mighty U.S. military to take out ISIS, right? Just bomb them into oblivion. So instead, all we hear is, "You cannot take out a force like that with air power alone. You're going to need ground troops. Those saying you can just bomb them out don't know what they're talking about." So why not ground troops? No one will support that because it would involve too much bloodshed. So for the U.S. to send in ground troops to take out a force of 40,000 would involve too many soldiers getting maimed and/or killed.

 

Or the idea of invading Iran. Joe Biden (Vice President) said in the 2012 VP debate to Paul Ryan that the idea of invading Iran would be nuts because the country is 80 million people. Okay fine. So we are to believe that if a tyranny formed in America with a military of equivalent capability to the U.S. military, that this same military would be able to run roughshod over a population of 320 million with lots of arms, and would be able to do so because of tanks, bombs, planes, helicopters, etc...when we were told by the experts that a force of 40,000 could not be destroyed by said might and controlling a country of 80 million would be impossible? Even Iraq spiraled out of control on the U.S. It wasn't brought under control in 2007 via The Surge due to brute military force, but rather by co-opting the Iraqis who turned on the terrorists.

 

The reality is that there are only so many places you can send tanks, aircraft, drop bombs, etc...in a country. There are only so many troops, and of those, only so many actual infantry troops. When the people are armed and can shoot at the military, it will create all manner of havoc for the military. The people can attack the supply lines, and fight indirectly. A tyrannical government in the U.S. would be EXTREMELY hard-pressed to establish any kind of dictatorial control over the population. Remember Assad in Syria was going all-out attacking the resistance there, with tanks, planes, helicopters, infantry killing squads, etc...and those people, without guns like Americans have, were still beating him. He only was able to turn it around because he got help from Iran and Russia.

 

Also there is less than zero chance the US government will turn on their citizens and try to wipe them all out, let's get serious for a second here.

 

Sure not now, but who can predict the future?

I think you are oversimplifying an extremely complex issue, things aren't always black and white, statistically there is some truth on both sides of the argument, I am not against guns but I see both sides of the argument.

 

Think about it for a second and try not to allow your emotions to get in your way, how many people in your circle you know that you think you'd rather not see with a gun in their hand, an angle grinder, nail gun or behind the wheel of an 18 wheeler?

 

Yeah, but you could apply that same argument to driving, yet pretty much anybody can get a driver's license and go buy anything from a Lambo to a big tank SUV. But we don't outlaw sports cars and SUVs. We don't say that one must get a special license to operate a sports car. Also anyone can buy angle grinders and nail guns too.

 

So in your own mind gun control would reduce potential incidents? Surely that is already a good start then is it not?

 

It will be impossible to stop heinous acts completely, but making the most impact we (people in civilised society) can with the tools at our disposal surly is a step in the right direction?

 

The gun violence in the U.S. is rarely due to guns. We could outlaw all sports cars and require a special license, only granted provided the person could show "good cause," before purchase of an SUV or pickup truck. We could limit all cars to 50 horsepower, a top speed of 60 mph, and no 0-60 mph acceleration in any less than 12 seconds. I am sure all of that would cut down on automobile accidents. But it doesn't mean we should do it. We could outlaw multi-story homes, so that people can't fall down the stairs. We could require a special license before ownership of power tools, like power saws or nail guns. And so forth.

 

Also, to the extend gun control might reduce certain incidents, it would increase others, as many would be defenseless and at the mercy of criminals. The low estimates of defensive gun uses in the United States, by gun control organizations, are at about 300,000. That is much higher than the number of gun murders (around 12,000). That's the thing, too many focus solely on the negative guns have in a society, and think the argument is about the right to arms meaning we must accept that negative, while ignoring the positive that guns in a society have.

Yeah, but you could apply that same argument to driving, yet pretty much anybody can get a driver's license and go buy anything from a Lambo to a big tank SUV. But we don't outlaw sports cars and SUVs. We don't say that one must get a special license to operate a sports car. Also anyone can buy angle grinders and nail guns too.

 

The only driving related example I gave you was about the 18 wheeler and the reason I gave you that example is to emphasize my point on specialized training required when operating complicated and potentially hazardous machinery, why the hell are you talking about special licenses for sports cars?

 

To be perfectly honest with you, based on your online behavior and what I've learned about you over so many years of online interaction direct and indirect you'd be the last person I'd trust with a gun, don't ask why just my opinion, that's the root of my argument, you might have the right but are you capable or should you have one?

 

Do you remember when you came online and asked how to defrost a fridge? You telling me you are fit to carry and handle an assault wepon?

We could limit all cars to 50 horsepower, a top speed of 60 mph, and no 0-60 mph acceleration in any less than 12 seconds. I am sure all of that would cut down on automobile accidents. But it doesn't mean we should do it. We could outlaw multi-story homes, so that people can't fall down the stairs. We could require a special license before ownership of power tools, like power saws or nail guns. And so forth.

 

You might want those cars parked because your solution has few holes in it.

 

http://mpainesyd.com/idisk/Public/carsafet...peeds_jan07.pdf

The only driving related example I gave you was about the 18 wheeler and the reason I gave you that example is to emphasize my point on specialized training required when operating complicated and potentially hazardous machinery, why the hell are you talking about special licenses for sports cars?

 

To be perfectly honest with you, based on your online behavior and what I've learned about you over so many years of online interaction direct and indirect you'd be the last person I'd trust with a gun, don't ask why just my opinion, that's the root of my argument, you might have the right but are you capable or should you have one?

 

Do you remember when you came online and asked how to defrost a fridge? You telling me you are fit to carry and handle an assault wepon?

 

One thing, but "Assault weapon" is an arbitrary term made up by gun control proponents and defined arbitrarily by them. Also guns are not complicated pieces of machinery when it comes to their handling. They are most definitely not the equivalent of driving an 18 wheeler or anything like that. Weapons with a lot of recoil require training and practice, but others, like the AR-15, have very little recoil.

 

The fridge question was just a lack of commonsense on my part, but I would tell you I am plenty trustworthy with a gun, as I handle it with care and adhere religiously to the rules of proper gun safety. I would also say I am plenty of sound mind to possess one, I am not some impulsive maniac. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I would be one of the main people whom you could trust with a gun in your presence.

 

 

You might want those cars parked because your solution has few holes in it.

 

http://mpainesyd.com/idisk/Public/carsafet...peeds_jan07.pdf

 

Good to know, but the gun equivalent to that is that the vast majority of gun violence in the U.S. occurs with handguns, not so-called assault weapons.

It's clear now that there were multiple opportunities to stop this deranged fool from carrying out this murderous rampage. The government and all of it's current resources, plus the guy's family let us all down. We found the killer in plenty of time to stop him and did nothing about it. They closed the book on him and basically said "not my problem". Well, there you go. Gun control was not the problem. Here in Chicago we celebrated Memorial Day weekend with nearly 100 shot and we have very tight restrictions on guns. I know you guys get it, but not sure the politicos in this country really do.

 

It's clear now that there were multiple opportunities to stop this deranged fool from carrying out this murderous rampage. The government and all of it's current resources, plus the guy's family let us all down. We found the killer in plenty of time to stop him and did nothing about it. They closed the book on him and basically said "not my problem". Well, there you go. Gun control was not the problem. Here in Chicago we celebrated Memorial Day weekend with nearly 100 shot and we have very tight restrictions on guns. I know you guys get it, but not sure the politicos in this country really do.

 

Ironically, the same people screaming to ban guns would be the very same people saying the shooters rights had been violated by the government had they taken away any of his rights simply based on an investigation that ultimately produced nothing the FBI could act on. The ACLU and media would have a field day proclaiming his rights were violated because of profiling a person with immigrant parents.

I'm so glad I blocked wheels. Can't see his posts, except when Fortis quoted him. I still see that he's back to his multiple posts thing and this thread may soon be derailed.