50 dead is mass shooting at florida gay club

Things that make you say hmmmm:

 

 

Shooter was investigated by FBI several times.....no arrest.

 

Shooters father is politically connected having met several hi g h level officials.

 

Eyewitnesses said there were more than one person thing firng guns inside club but media has not pursued the story.'

 

Shooter denied purchase a second of BP vest...FBI notified......action taken???.....

 

Shooter was known to be at the club. Drunk, obnoxious behaviour.

 

 

The FBI was aware of this guy and he is STILL able to commit this horrible act.......Either we have gross incompetence, or gov't policy agenda concerns to blame for the manner in which this incident has been handled. If all of the alphabet gov't agencies ( ATF/BLM/CIA/FBI/HSA/TSA) couldn't get someone like this then one has to ask oneself what merit or value they provide given the amount of power and control they have been invested with.

 

And if this is what we have to expect then wouldn't it seem reasonable to demand the return of our rights to individual self defense and protection, the right to privacy and to be fairly taxed and equitably represented by our elected officials in defense of our rights as citizens?????

 

Hmmmmmmm :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Who wants facts when we have so much emotion to deal with!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's ignore gun crimes, homicides & armed robberies are at a 30 year low in the US and continuing to decrease when we can just let our emotions say "it feels like there's more. Let's start banning constitutional rights". Lol

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....

 

When was last time somebody killed 50 people with car? Or when was last time millions of people used guns daily to get to work, do their groceries or used gun to drop their kids into school.

 

I am not saying you dont have point because you have. And I respect you very much as a person.

But problem with simile or juxtaposition is that they rarely really work because apples to oranges.

 

Imho Americans should decide that you love your guns, so that wont be changed. You want to also stomach religion to point. So end of that talk and all derailment around the topic. And then condense focus onto what can be done to these two problems: 1) School massacres, 2) Terrorist Massacres.

 

Another thing is that it is no longer only American thing, these happen now in Europe too.

 

ps. Unfortunately I am really scared that driving will come to end much sooner because of those arguments. Self driving cars are serious danger to our right to drive.

 

pps. Not related but I have never seen sivilian with a hand gun in my life. I dont feel like I will be in ever present danger because of that, actually quite opposite.

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....

 

 

The comparison with cars (or "metal killing machines") is an interesting one. But the problem is that the main purpose of cars is not to kill, as it is with firearms.

 

According to the CDC , motor vehicle deaths and deaths from firearms are close enough to be the same... Same overall number, same rate per 100,000.

 

And that would be extremely troubling, except for the fact that every man, woman and child has more exposure to vehicles than fireams by many (many, many) orders of magnitude...

 

There's licensing for drivers and registration of all cars and no one bats an eye.

 

Cars are also infinitely more 'useful' to society and contribute an equally outsized value to the overall economy, both in terms of the Automobile sector, and also basic productivity. It's not even close.

 

 

Full disclosure - (as if I had to tell you) I'm not a "gun guy"; I don't own a gun and I don't care to own a gun. I've shot lots of guns at the range, shot clays, etc, but it's just not my "thing". It's kinda to how I view people that are into, say, dungeons and dragons; just not my thing... If someone likes it, cool, but I just don't get it. I'm mostly ambivalent to gun laws, but I guess because I "don't get it", I can't understand an aversion to tighter restrictions or at least a higher hurdle to owning certain types of guns...

 

Edit - could've saved myself the trouble of typing and just quoted rmtn

.

Sure the graphs is a good illustration in trends to guns in general crimes, but where are the graphs related to mass shootings. Sorry if I have a slight different view, again I agree hand guns are great form of protection in certain crime prevention; but hand guns I believe is not the topic in proposed regulation, nor is hand guns is what drives high emotion. I see both sides argue their points with great emotions, anti-gun proponents about massacres fueling their emotions and pro guns side fueling their emotions of paranoia that all their guns will be taken away. This is all my observation, I seen the facts and frankly the results can be viewed to benefit each others argument. "Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's look at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults."

"That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "PREMATURE to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear." See how both sides has points when there are results like this.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

 

However none of those studies ever focused on mass shootings or perhaps conducted before mass shootings, so the figures has the potential to be viewed as antiquated or irrelevant.

 

Who wants facts when we have so much emotion to deal with!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's ignore gun crimes, homicides & armed robberies are at a 30 year low in the US and continuing to decrease when we can just let our emotions say "it feels like there's more. Let's start banning constitutional rights". Lol

 

It is true that while events like this happen and it's unfortunate, looking at the big picture of crime we are at an era where crime (especially the violent ones) is at historic lows in this country. I think part of the issue is that media attention and dissection of events is at an all time high. Also social media outrage plays a huge factor. How quickly people forget about the 70's and 80's.

 

There was a good and concerning point raised earlier, about the possibility of a second shooter (which given the casualty count would make a lot of sense). I feel it plays better in the media for it be a lone gunman to hype up the danger of "assault" weapons.

\

 

Cars are also infinitely more 'useful' to society and contribute an equally outsized value to the overall economy, both in terms of the Automobile sector, and also basic productivity. It's not even close.

 

Do you have any facts to back this up? Or is this your opinion?

 

Or far as exposure to guns versus cars...

I generally don't wade into this discussion when it is raised here. I am a naturalized citizen, I immigrated to the US almost 30 years and consider it my home. I met my wife here and raised my children here. I did not grow up with guns, regular LE didn't carry weapons. However I am a gun owner, specifically because I have lived in rural areas for the last 10 years where the response time from the Sheriff Dept when needed has been over 30 minutes. Neither area was dangerous at all, but both homes were somewhat isolated and as others have noted, waiting on help even if it is only minutes can seem an eternity when you need to protect your family.

 

That said if you want to Scuba dive in this country, you can't without going through a training and testing process. Candidly as a licensed divemaster, the basic training and testing to get your dive card is dangerously inadequate. Still no dive card, no diving and nobody has a problem with it.

 

I have no problem with people owning guns, even assault rifles if they feel that is necessary. Not my choice, but obviously all guns are designed to kill. Why there is not a full background screen for all purchases, limits on who can buy them - like being or have been on a terrorist/no fly watch list for some prior period of time or the mentally ill, cooling off periods after purchases, basic requirements to safely secure weapons, manufacturers providing gun locks with every new purchase, some basic training requirements, testing/licensing required to ensure some level of competency safely handing weapons at a Federal level is beyond me.

 

As with most laws, they are designed to deal with the 1-2% of the population that are idiots/sociopaths/mentally ill, not the vast majority of the law abiding.

 

I am no way implying that doing what I suggested will be a magic bullet and if applied by the government you can bet many will still slip through. But if it prevents one less Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora or Orlando a year, it would be worth it.

 

I also agree, crime is down historically on the whole (though there are some glaring exceptions), however the frequency of these mass shootings are more prevalent here than in any other first world country. At least some were preventable if we applied a modicum of common sense and stopped viewing guns like most view politics or religion. I feel that there can be no middle ground, no compromise - a strawman argument.

The comparison with cars (or "metal killing machines") is an interesting one. But the problem is that the main purpose of cars is not to kill, as it is with firearms.

 

According to the CDC , motor vehicle deaths and deaths from firearms are close enough to be the same... Same overall number, same rate per 100,000.

 

And that would be extremely troubling, except for the fact that every man, woman and child has more exposure to vehicles than fireams by many (many, many) orders of magnitude...

 

There's licensing for drivers and registration of all cars and no one bats an eye.

 

Cars are also infinitely more 'useful' to society and contribute an equally outsized value to the overall economy, both in terms of the Automobile sector, and also basic productivity. It's not even close.

 

There is licensing and registration of cars, but no one bats an eye because no one is hellbent on outlawing them (although the Left has had a hatred for SUVs for a long time). In addition, you do not need a license to own and operate an automobile on private property. You only need it to operate the vehicle on public grounds. Automotive licensing is Shall Issue, meaning that if you want one, you just go and take the test and get it. There is no demanding by the government that you give "Good cause" or anything like that. Automotive licensing is done at the state level, not the federal government level, and there is reciprocity between all the states. So if you get a license to drive in Texas, it works fine in New York City. By contrast, there is no such thing with gun licensing, where for example New York state does not accept Texas gun licenses and New York City does not even accept New York state licenses, but has its own. Some states accept others gun licenses, but many do not.

 

Regarding the deaths of people by guns and cars, they are not very comparable. Because most deaths by gun are due to suicides and homicides. Most deaths by car are due to accidents. The amount of deaths by gun accidents in the United States is very small. If anything, statistically, owning and using a gun is far more safer than owning and driving a car. We do not have a problem of tens of thousands of people getting shot and killed each year by accident in the United States.

 

Full disclosure - (as if I had to tell you) I'm not a "gun guy"; I don't own a gun and I don't care to own a gun. I've shot lots of guns at the range, shot clays, etc, but it's just not my "thing". It's kinda to how I view people that are into, say, dungeons and dragons; just not my thing... If someone likes it, cool, but I just don't get it. I'm mostly ambivalent to gun laws, but I guess because I "don't get it", I can't understand an aversion to tighter restrictions or at least a higher hurdle to owning certain types of guns...

 

Edit - could've saved myself the trouble of typing and just quoted rmtn

 

Do not confuse being for the right to guns with being into guns. You can very much not care all that much at all about shooting guns yet believe very much in the right. Same as you can believe in gay rights without wanting to have sex with men, or believe in the right to free speech without having any interest in becoming an author or journalist.

 

I generally don't wade into this discussion when it is raised here. I am a naturalized citizen, I immigrated to the US almost 30 years and consider it my home. I met my wife here and raised my children here. I did not grow up with guns, regular LE didn't carry weapons. However I am a gun owner, specifically because I have lived in rural areas for the last 10 years where the response time from the Sheriff Dept when needed has been over 30 minutes. Neither area was dangerous at all, but both homes were somewhat isolated and as others have noted, waiting on help even if it is only minutes can seem an eternity when you need to protect your family.

 

That said if you want to Scuba dive in this country, you can't without going through a training and testing process. Candidly as a licensed divemaster, the basic training and testing to get your dive card is dangerously inadequate. Still no dive card, no diving and nobody has a problem with it.

 

I have no problem with people owning guns, even assault rifles if they feel that is necessary. Not my choice, but obviously all guns are designed to kill. Why there is not a full background screen for all purchases, limits on who can buy them - like being or have been on a terrorist/no fly watch list for some prior period of time or the mentally ill, cooling off periods after purchases, basic requirements to safely secure weapons, manufacturers providing gun locks with every new purchase, some basic training requirements, testing/licensing required to ensure some level of competency safely handing weapons at a Federal level is beyond me.

 

1) Possession of arms is considered a right in the U.S. Becoming a divemaster is not. Also I would imagine (correct me if wrong) that how to dive safely is significantly more technical than how to use a gun safely.

 

2) Not sure what you mean by a "full background screen?" We do have a federal background check system in place.

 

3) The terror watch lists and no fly lists are secret, unaccountable lists and you can't just deny a person their right with no due process.

 

4) There are restrictions on the mentally ill. If you have been forced by a court to be committed to a mental institution, you can be denied a gun

 

5) Why requirements to safely secure guns? Should there be such requirements for matches, lighters, power tools, household chemicals, etc...? All are a concern with children in particular, and any responsible parent will make sure all are not easily reached by children. Yes guns are machine for killing, but a kid who finds matches or laundry detergent can be just as harmed as one who finds a loaded gun

 

6) You can't license a right (or you aren't supposed to). Should we require a license to vote, complete with English competency test and civics test? Or a license to exercise the right to free speech?

 

As with most laws, they are designed to deal with the 1-2% of the population that are idiots/sociopaths/mentally ill, not the vast majority of the law abiding.

 

I am no way implying that doing what I suggested will be a magic bullet and if applied by the government you can bet many will still slip through. But if it prevents one less Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora or Orlando a year, it would be worth it.

 

Such restrictions wouldn't be as resisted if there weren't so many bent on outlawing guns altogether.

 

I also agree, crime is down historically on the whole (though there are some glaring exceptions), however the frequency of these mass shootings are more prevalent here than in any other first world country. At least some were preventable if we applied a modicum of common sense and stopped viewing guns like most view politics or religion. I feel that there can be no middle ground, no compromise - a strawman argument.

 

There is no middle-ground IMO, as gun rights proponents want guns to be treated the same as the other rights protected in the Constitution. Also, "compromise" is a mis-used term IMO, as real compromise means both sides give something up. What gun controllers want is for the gun rights proponents to constantly give up more and more of their rights with nothing in return.

 

1) Possession of arms is considered a right in the U.S. Becoming a divemaster is not. Also I would imagine (correct me if wrong) that how to dive safely is significantly more technical than how to use a gun safely.

 

2) Not sure what you mean by a "full background screen?" We do have a federal background check system in place.

 

3) The terror watch lists and no fly lists are secret, unaccountable lists and you can't just deny a person their right with no due process.

 

4) There are restrictions on the mentally ill. If you have been forced by a court to be committed to a mental institution, you can be denied a gun

 

5) Why requirements to safely secure guns? Should there be such requirements for matches, lighters, power tools, household chemicals, etc...? All are a concern with children in particular, and any responsible parent will make sure all are not easily reached by children. Yes guns are machine for killing, but a kid who finds matches or laundry detergent can be just as harmed as one who finds a loaded gun

 

6) You can't license a right (or you aren't supposed to). Should we require a license to vote, complete with English competency test and civics test? Or a license to exercise the right to free speech?

 

 

 

Such restrictions wouldn't be as resisted if there weren't so many bent on outlawing guns altogether.

 

 

 

There is no middle-ground IMO, as gun rights proponents want guns to be treated the same as the other rights protected in the Constitution. Also, "compromise" is a mis-used term IMO, as real compromise means both sides give something up. What gun controllers want is for the gun rights proponents to constantly give up more and more of their rights with nothing in return.

 

So my ideas are worthless, please I would like to hear what your solutions are to stop mass shootings in the USA rather than perpetuate the current normal. As I stated in my previous post, politics, religion and guns. I just don't get it. But I will give you kudos for staying on topic.

Increase funding for mental health. (Where most of the mass shootings and violent crimes stem from, putting aside these recent Islamic terrorist attacks which are a whole other issue. Notice the media hasn't brought up the Boston bombings *no guns but more closely related*) Enforce the laws we already have better. Arm the populace further to detour aggressors and empower victims. *straps on my revolver to head out to dinner* MURICA

 

Wheels. Great post above

So my ideas are worthless, please I would like to hear what your solutions are to stop mass shootings in the USA rather than perpetuate the current normal. As I stated in my previous post, politics, religion and guns. I just don't get it. But I will give you kudos for staying on topic.

 

I think the solutions are complicated. We had decades in this country with guns freely available and no problem of mass shootings, so it can't be the guns. I think the real problem is as said, the long-term ramifications of limiting the mental health system and radical Islam. How to reverse this with the mental health system I don't know, because it would mean making it easier to commit people, and that would cause a battle over people's rights as well. And radical Islam is not something that is going to be taken care of overnight either.

 

I do however think that President Obama's policies are partially to blame. He left the big power vacuum for terrorists to fill in Iraq. Then when ISIS began forming, he didn't take it seriously, referring to it as a "J.V. squad." Now it is inspiring and/or doing attacks like the Paris attack and Orlando. To be fair, maybe Orlando would have happened if troops had stayed in Iraq, it remained peaceful, and there was no ISIS, but it may well not have as well. However, in terms of how to actually destroy ISIS, I don't know. Some say bomb them to smithereens, others say that won't work, some say ground troops are needed, etc...

The culture in the US is so much different from every other country.

 

We produce the vast majority of violent movies, violent video games....this stuff is glorified here, gun violence in particular. What is Sweden or Denmark's contribution in this regard?

 

The Far East extent is martial arts.

 

We also had a "Wild West" period in this country that not many other countries had.

 

To me, it's just not an apples to apples comparison. I look at human beings being the same, the environment you're raised in is everything.

 

I could move to Singapore right now and not only not care about gun rights but maybe even advocate gun control over there -- because it's so different from the US. Extremely clean place and well behaved people....you have to worry about chewing gum, and god forbid you vandalize a few cars like that idiot kid who got caned years back....

 

We love embracing our uniqueness in the world, and this is part of that for better or worse.

 

Without major systemic change in our culture, I can't see a major change in the right's stance on guns in the US. It's probably unrealistic to expect it that level of culture change either.

Do you have any facts to back this up? Or is this your opinion?

 

Or far as exposure to guns versus cars...

My OP said: "Cars are also infinitely more 'useful' to society and contribute an equally outsized value to the overall economy, both in terms of the Automobile sector, and also basic productivity. It's not even close."

 

I just want to be clear that I was claiming that, at the most basic level, the car (industry, utilization, spinoffs, etc) is more beneficial than the gun (industry, utilization, spinoffs, etc).

 

Were you arguing against that? Do you have any stats to refute it? Because...

 

According to Time, gun and ammo manufacturing in the US is a $6B industry.

 

And this says that the total revenue for the big three is in the range of $350B...

 

I'm not taking the time to look up stats on the contribution to US economic productivity based on automobile usage... You weren't honestly questioning whether personal automobile use is more beneficial to society and that use contributes more indirectly to the economy than guns and their manufacture do... Were you?

.

My OP said: "Cars are also infinitely more 'useful' to society and contribute an equally outsized value to the overall economy, both in terms of the Automobile sector, and also basic productivity. It's not even close."

 

I just want to be clear that I was claiming that, at the most basic level, the car (industry, utilization, spinoffs, etc) is more beneficial than the gun (industry, utilization, spinoffs, etc).

 

Were you arguing against that? Do you have any stats to refute it? Because...

 

According to Time, gun and ammo manufacturing in the US is a $6B industry.

 

And this says that the total revenue for the big three is in the range of $350B...

 

I'm not taking the time to look up stats on the contribution to US economic productivity based on automobile usage... You weren't honestly questioning whether personal automobile use is more beneficial to society and that use contributes more indirectly to the economy than guns and their manufacture do... Were you?

 

 

So the value of a right is based on its economic impact on GDP? Do I have that right?

 

Some a-hole priest is now praising the murders in his cermon

The "gun problem" in the USA only exists because there is an agenda fueled by the media.

 

The media is not in the business of reporting the news.

 

It's in the business of manipulating the masses with fear and anger.

 

I do feel for anyone who has been a victim of a gun related crime but you cannot punish everyone for the actions of a few.