50 dead is mass shooting at florida gay club

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.

 

 

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.

 

I fully understand it is a complex issue, but nobody wants to address the issue, they just want to scream that guns have to be taken away, not because it solves the root problem but because it serves their agenda or own beliefs.

 

The issue is there are crazy people, they are everywhere, some are religious zealots and others have a few wires crossed in their brain, but at the end of the day crazy is crazy. Some we can look back and find a path they took that lead them to mass murder, scarier still are the crazy ones we never saw coming and have no idea what triggered them. Until you figure out how to stop CRAZY, you won't stop mass murder, you will just continue to eliminate what you think makes it easy to commit. Take away guns, crazy finds another way to kill. When I go to large sporting events with thousands of people standing on street corners, in parking lots, walking down sidewalks to the stadiums, I am always surprised that no crazy person has come through in a car or truck and started running everyone over. How easy would that be? In my truck there isn't much short of a row of concrete reinforced steel bollards or other such barriers that would even slow me down. Cars are more readily available than guns, you can rent one as long as you have a credit card. What stops that from happening?

 

Taking guns away and thinking crazy stops killing is like me telling you I am going to stop you from driving drunk by removing the spare tire from your car.

 

"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."

 

I will be honest I am not sure what you are trying to prove with this analogy. Drugs have been illegal here for longer than I have been alive, and yet there are some billionaires sitting just south of the US, their fortunes made by supplying illegal drugs to the US. Do you think by saying I can no longer buy guns, or going further I have to turn over all my guns, that people with no concern for laws won't still find a way to get them? Life is a little different where you live, your country shares no borders. If the US waved a magic wand and all guns in the US disappeared tomorrow, the cartels would simply start running more guns across the border with the millions of tons of coke, weed, meth, heroin, etc that they currently bring across.

Everyone keeps mentioning the banning of guns or them being taken away. Who is actually trying to make this happen? From everything I've seen and read, that is not what anyone in the govt. is trying to accomplish. Banning and restricting are completely different.

 

Every argument I've seen is based on guns being banned which just isn't going to happen. So with that said, do any of you really think that there shouldn't be more limitation on who can purchase a gun? Yes, obviously there were multiple fcuk ups in this particular case. The FBI messed up, family messed up, etc. But let's say if the shooter was properly classified as what he was, there's no way he should have been able to get a gun.

 

And yes, we all understand that if someone wants to do damage they will find a way, but why not slow them down? That just seems ridiculous to write it off since they'll find a way regardless.

 

Anyway, I'm on the fence on this issue. I can see both sides. I just went to the extreme to play devils advocate. This forum needed some of that.

Everyone keeps mentioning the banning of guns or them being taken away. Who is actually trying to make this happen? From everything I've seen and read, that is not what anyone in the govt. is trying to accomplish. Banning and restricting are completely different.

 

Every argument I've seen is based on guns being banned which just isn't going to happen. So with that said, do any of you really think that there shouldn't be more limitation on who can purchase a gun? Yes, obviously there were multiple fcuk ups in this particular case. The FBI messed up, family messed up, etc. But let's say if the shooter was properly classified as what he was, there's no way he should have been able to get a gun.

 

And yes, we all understand that if someone wants to do damage they will find a way, but why not slow them down? That just seems ridiculous to write it off since they'll find a way regardless.

 

Anyway, I'm on the fence on this issue. I can see both sides. I just went to the extreme to play devils advocate. This forum needed some of that.

Normally I stay quite on this issue because there is no changing views no matter how much you state. I am in the middle ground here in regards to firearms, I have owned many hand guns but presently none but would like to have in the future. I do validate the need for protection of person and property, however view the need for military grade rapid fire weapons repugnant in our society. Also the deflection that only crazy people commit gun violence is non sense, they come in all state of the minds. I agree with Tony that this forum needs more prospective of the other side and I do think that side is the silent majority (not here). Whenever the term gun control comes up the tone automatically becomes defensive and there no talking to deaf ears. I certainly do not want to take away anyone's guns but come on there needs to be some middle ground and some degree of reasoning of level of firepower we should have. Nothing ever changes after a mass shooting, we talk and debate about it until we lose interest, then debate again until the next one happens.

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.

 

I guess you've missed his last post in which he admits he lacks common sense but everyone should trust him with a gun LOL

 

I won't entertain him any longer because he just can't help himself.

I fully understand it is a complex issue, but nobody wants to address the issue, they just want to scream that guns have to be taken away, not because it solves the root problem but because it serves their agenda or own beliefs.

 

Exactly what I said in my first few posts, it will never happen, people look for an easy way out and a scapegoat. Addressing the root issue is complex and costly, you can't be politically correct and it will make you hated and unpopular, show me one politician who will do that.

 

I don't know how this will be solved and if it will ever be solved all I know that it is heartbreaking to witness, makes me sick to my stomach and sad to says that I am part of the human race. I thought we've evolved but we haven't one bit we are still savages just with more advanced technology.

 

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 doubt the FBI interviewed him because of immigrant parents.

 

Its this very mentality of "this type of people think such and such" and "its left vs right and anything the other side says is either wrong/stupid/evil/etc " is the very reason the US cant seem to make progress on so many issues including guns and terrorism.

 

The idea that guns dont kill people, people kill people is 100% correct but only really in a perfect world where people arent actually people... The reality is that people make mistakes, people are prone to influence (support for ISIS doesnt appear out of nowhere, people are influenced slowly) and people are prone to illness (physical AND mental). In the US its possible for the negatively influenced, radicalized, mentally ill people to get a hold of some serious artillery and thats the catalyst here. The guns are not the problem but they are the easily accessible catalyst, whether you look at this shooter or any non-muslim terrorist. In the real world the negative influence may be reduced but the mental illness and psychopathic behaviour which would stem from a million potential places such as childhood abuse isnt something that can be addressed right away, or even observed unless its really extreme. What can be controlled a lot more easily is the ability for someone to purchase guns.

 

From my perspective the narrative from the pro-gun side of this debate is one based in ideals...you see yourselves as good and know you would never commit something so horrible, and you extend that presumption to other gun owners. It may not be the case however that others' intentions are as good or that they're as mentally sound as you or that they share the same ideals as you. Heck someone who passes even the strictest background checks and mental health checks at one point in their life can develop an illness AFTER theyve gotten a hold of plently of firepower.

 

Is this an issue of Islam and homophobia? It certainly is but that doesn't mean its not also a gun issue at the same time. So many of the mass shootings have been by non-muslims and to paint this issue as one solely of terrorism and ISIS despite all the previous non-ISIS shootings is a huge diservice to everyone who personally has had to suffer from these incidents, and would show that nothing has been learned.

 

Its mainly an issue of mental illness however and I think most would agree from both sides. But the reality is that you cant just get rid of mental illness. You can much more easily and effectively control the guns however.

 

Just my 2 cents here

Exactly what I said in my first few posts, it will never happen, people look for an easy way out and a scapegoat. Addressing the root issue is complex and costly, you can't be politically correct and it will make you hated and unpopular, show me one politician who will do that.

 

I don't know how this will be solved and if it will ever be solved all I know that it is heartbreaking to witness, makes me sick to my stomach and sad to says that I am part of the human race. I thought we've evolved but we haven't one bit we are still savages just with more advanced technology.

 

Couldn't agree more, political correctness has a big part of this. God forbid you hurt someone's emotions, but sometimes the truth hurts, deal with it. Not to completely derail us, but that is part of why Donald Trump has had the success he has had so far in the political season, he doesn't talk like a politician, he speaks his mind the way I would with my friends sitting on my deck drinking whiskey. What he says, I don't always agree with or it can be cringe worthy, but at the same time I like that he doesn't talk for 30 minutes without every saying a word.

 

I am going nerd out for a moment and quote The Matrix:

 

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

 

Unfortunately, I think that monologue from the movie nails it.

I guess you've missed his last post in which he admits he lacks common sense but everyone should trust him with a gun LOL

 

I won't entertain him any longer because he just can't help himself.

 

On certain things I do lack common sense, but safety-related issues have never been one of them. I would say such common sense there has always been one of my strongpoints. Whether guns, power tools, operating a forklift, etc...I am among the best of people for safety. It is sad to me that unfortunately you have a impartial understanding of me, but I suppose that is my fault.

Normally I stay quite on this issue because there is no changing views no matter how much you state. I am in the middle ground here in regards to firearms, I have owned many hand guns but presently none but would like to have in the future. I do validate the need for protection of person and property, however view the need for military grade rapid fire weapons repugnant in our society. Also the deflection that only crazy people commit gun violence is non sense, they come in all state of the minds. I agree with Tony that this forum needs more prospective of the other side and I do think that side is the silent majority (not here). Whenever the term gun control comes up the tone automatically becomes defensive and there no talking to deaf ears. I certainly do not want to take away anyone's guns but come on there needs to be some middle ground and some degree of reasoning of level of firepower we should have. Nothing ever changes after a mass shooting, we talk and debate about it until we lose interest, then debate again until the next one happens.

 

 

You should continue to stay quiet. You don't have a clue WTF you're talking about. Simply based on your statement, "however view the need for military grade rapid fire weapons repugnant in our society." Automatic weapons were banned in 1986. You can own them but the government will look up your ass like there is no tomorrow. And can enter your property at any time for any reason and without cause. Class 3 weapon permits are NOT easy to secure. Second, NONE, NOTA, ZILTCH of the mass shootings were committed with "automatic weapons". As previously stated. You should stay quiet !!!!!

 

Further more some hunting rifles are more powerful than what the media calls "assault weapons". Get a clue!!!

Exactly what I said in my first few posts, it will never happen, people look for an easy way out and a scapegoat. Addressing the root issue is complex and costly, you can't be politically correct and it will make you hated and unpopular, show me one politician who will do that.

 

I don't know how this will be solved and if it will ever be solved all I know that it is heartbreaking to witness, makes me sick to my stomach and sad to says that I am part of the human race. I thought we've evolved but we haven't one bit we are still savages just with more advanced technology.

 

 

Welcome to humanity !!!

I doubt the FBI interviewed him because of immigrant parents.

 

Its this very mentality of "this type of people think such and such" and "its left vs right and anything the other side says is either wrong/stupid/evil/etc " is the very reason the US cant seem to make progress on so many issues including guns and terrorism.

 

The idea that guns dont kill people, people kill people is 100% correct but only really in a perfect world where people arent actually people... The reality is that people make mistakes, people are prone to influence (support for ISIS doesnt appear out of nowhere, people are influenced slowly) and people are prone to illness (physical AND mental). In the US its possible for the negatively influenced, radicalized, mentally ill people to get a hold of some serious artillery and thats the catalyst here. The guns are not the problem but they are the easily accessible catalyst, whether you look at this shooter or any non-muslim terrorist. In the real world the negative influence may be reduced but the mental illness and psychopathic behaviour which would stem from a million potential places such as childhood abuse isnt something that can be addressed right away, or even observed unless its really extreme. What can be controlled a lot more easily is the ability for someone to purchase guns.

 

From my perspective the narrative from the pro-gun side of this debate is one based in ideals...you see yourselves as good and know you would never commit something so horrible, and you extend that presumption to other gun owners. It may not be the case however that others' intentions are as good or that they're as mentally sound as you or that they share the same ideals as you. Heck someone who passes even the strictest background checks and mental health checks at one point in their life can develop an illness AFTER theyve gotten a hold of plently of firepower.

 

Is this an issue of Islam and homophobia? It certainly is but that doesn't mean its not also a gun issue at the same time. So many of the mass shootings have been by non-muslims and to paint this issue as one solely of terrorism and ISIS despite all the previous non-ISIS shootings is a huge diservice to everyone who personally has had to suffer from these incidents, and would show that nothing has been learned.

 

Its mainly an issue of mental illness however and I think most would agree from both sides. But the reality is that you cant just get rid of mental illness. You can much more easily and effectively control the guns however.

 

Just my 2 cents here

 

I never said the FBI actually interviewed him because he had immigrant parents. I was making the point that IF the FBI denied his constitutional right to bear arms, which they didn't do because they said their investigation came up with nothing actionable, IF the media caught wind of the story they would have aired sensational stories about how he was unjustly profiled based on having immigrant parents.

 

 

Everyone keeps mentioning the banning of guns or them being taken away. Who is actually trying to make this happen? From everything I've seen and read, that is not what anyone in the govt. is trying to accomplish. Banning and restricting are completely different.

 

Not true. When as a child if you were put on restriction, were you banned from anything? Ie--Your on restriction young man, so NO television !!! They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

 

Every argument I've seen is based on guns being banned which just isn't going to happen. So with that said, do any of you really think that there shouldn't be more limitation on who can purchase a gun? Yes, obviously there were multiple fcuk ups in this particular case. The FBI messed up, family messed up, etc. But let's say if the shooter was properly classified as what he was, there's no way he should have been able to get a gun.

 

Sounds like a government failure. The SAME government you think should restrict our rights!

 

And yes, we all understand that if someone wants to do damage they will find a way, but why not slow them down? That just seems ridiculous to write it off since they'll find a way regardless.

 

Again, it was the government who didn't "slow" them down. It's ridiculous you entrust the same government to protect you (gun bans/restrictions), that has failed you !!! (see YOUR comment above).

 

Anyway, I'm on the fence on this issue. I can see both sides. I just went to the extreme to play devils advocate. This forum needed some of that.

 

With all due respect you didn't do a good job at it !!!

For those thinking "military grade" weapons should be banned, what exactly does that even mean? Technically, almost ALL guns that are commonly owned by American civilians are military, or functionally identical to military guns or grounded in military designs:

 

AR-15: Semiautomatic version of the M-16 (actual assault rifle, capable of automatic fire); as such is not technically a "military-grade" weapon.

 

12 Gauge Pump-Action Shotgun: Extremely common gun among civilians, law enforcement, and the military. Has been used in every military conflict since World War I, where the Germans nicknamed it the "Trench Broom" and wanted its use banned, and wanted to try American soldiers captured using it for war crimes. Design dates to 1885.

 

Remington 700: Bolt-action hunting rifle. Design grounded in original military bolt-action rifles, which consequently also themselves make excellent hunting rifles. Used by the military and law enforcement in the form of the M24 and M40 sniper rifles. Bolt-actions date back to the 19th century.

 

9mm handgun: Very popular among civilians, also carried by law enforcement and standard sidearm of the military for many years

 

.45 caliber handgun: Design dates to 1911 (Colt 1911, hence the name). Very powerful handgun and standard military sidearm for many decades.

 

Lever-action rifles: Straight-up military firearm, design dates back to mid-19th century. First used by the North in the Civil War. Still extremely popular for self-defense, law enforcement use, and hunting.

 

And then of course, going back to the Revolution, muskets were military arms, built to be rugged. Many civilians at the time had hunting long guns that were rifled, and thus significantly more accurate than muskets, which were used for volley fire.

You should continue to stay quiet. You don't have a clue WTF you're talking about. Simply based on your statement, "however view the need for military grade rapid fire weapons repugnant in our society." Automatic weapons were banned in 1986. You can own them but the government will look up your ass like there is no tomorrow. And can enter your property at any time for any reason and without cause. Class 3 weapon permits are NOT easy to secure. Second, NONE, NOTA, ZILTCH of the mass shootings were committed with "automatic weapons". As previously stated. You should stay quiet !!!!!

 

Further more some hunting rifles are more powerful than what the media calls "assault weapons". Get a clue!!!

 

Again with the defensive tone, I don't know you and never meet you. Where in my post did I say "Automatic" You are not proving anything being irate nor hold credibility with all that chip on your shoulder attitude replies.

Again with the defensive tone, I don't know you and never meet you. Where in my post did I say "Automatic" You are not proving anything being irate nor hold credibility with all that chip on your shoulder attitude replies.

 

 

Ok we'll play semantics. RAPID FIRE implies automatic! Which you DID say!! Again, it's YOU who has no credibility.

 

For those thinking "military grade" weapons should be banned, what exactly does that even mean? Technically, almost ALL guns that are commonly owned by American civilians are military, or functionally identical to military guns or grounded in military designs:

 

AR-15: Semiautomatic version of the M-16 (actual assault rifle, capable of automatic fire); as such is not technically a "military-grade" weapon.

 

12 Gauge Pump-Action Shotgun: Extremely common gun among civilians, law enforcement, and the military. Has been used in every military conflict since World War I, where the Germans nicknamed it the "Trench Broom" and wanted its use banned, and wanted to try American soldiers captured using it for war crimes. Design dates to 1885.

 

Remington 700: Bolt-action hunting rifle. Design grounded in original military bolt-action rifles, which consequently also themselves make excellent hunting rifles. Used by the military and law enforcement in the form of the M24 and M40 sniper rifles. Bolt-actions date back to the 19th century.

 

9mm handgun: Very popular among civilians, also carried by law enforcement and standard sidearm of the military for many years

 

.45 caliber handgun: Design dates to 1911 (Colt 1911, hence the name). Very powerful handgun and standard military sidearm for many decades.

 

Lever-action rifles: Straight-up military firearm, design dates back to mid-19th century. First used by the North in the Civil War. Still extremely popular for self-defense, law enforcement use, and hunting.

 

And then of course, going back to the Revolution, muskets were military arms, built to be rugged. Many civilians at the time had hunting long guns that were rifled, and thus significantly more accurate than muskets, which were used for volley fire.

 

For once Wheels is the moderate and sensible one in a thread...Loving it

For once Wheels is the moderate and sensible one in a thread...Loving it

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.

 

Your loss then.

 

Objectively speaking, Wheels is making a point by point discussion with a level head and without emotion on a very volatile subject matter.

 

Like him or not he's not ribbing for "atta boys" from the peanut gallery, he's making a case for his perspective and opinions.

 

I for one say, "Bravo Wheels".

Your loss then.

 

Objectively speaking, Wheels is making a point by point discussion with a level head and without emotion on a very volatile subject matter.

 

Like him or not he's not ribbing for "atta boys" from the peanut gallery, he's making a case for his perspective and opinions.

 

I for one say, "Bravo Wheels".

 

This is one loss I'm happy and willing to take.

Welcome to humanity !!!

 

 

I know, it sucks!

From my perspective the narrative from the pro-gun side of this debate is one based in ideals...you see yourselves as good and know you would never commit something so horrible, and you extend that presumption to other gun owners.

 

Close... We extend that presumption to the vast majority of other gun owners, and justifiably so, since the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding throughout their lives.

 

Its a big country... Almost 400 Million people. The fact is in a country this large there is going to be homicides... But when you look at the numbers as a % of the population and put things in their proper perspective, its an infinitesimally small number, especially compared to other, less "exciting" societal ills. And the 24 hour infotainment news cycle has amplified the problem (and, in my guess, created a lot of copycats).

 

If JUST your LOCAL news, covered every fatal car wreck with the endless breathless coverage they devote to an incident like this, and we lowered the flags to half staff, and the president visited the scene, thats ALL any of them would ever report on...

 

 

And within a few years youd have serious calls to ban the "metal killing machines" from coast to coast... And yet none of us, even knowing the risks, think twice about driving anywhere....

.

.

 

 

Less guns= More crime?

Less guns= More crime?

 

You've never read John Lotts book of that same title? It's a compelling and interesting lead for statisticians and people interested in fact.