Tragic Shooting In Orlando

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Don't tell me all Christians aren't this way, tell them. Tell the Lt governor from Texas.

I, for one, have tried. Multiple times.

[Electric]

Originally Posted by turtle1237

I believe you need the best weapons in order to defend ones self. If we had gun laws like the wild west, I think the mass shootings will go down. Whats the point of defended oneself if they have say a 6 shooter, and the attacker has a assault weapon. It would not be fair for the defender to be able to stand up to that fire power with out a weapon to equal it.

Oh my lord. This has been the dumbest response. NEVER is a private citizen going to be able to defend himself from an assault weapon in a mass shooting, with their own assault weapon.
Jesus Christ. Look at every mass shooting that has not been stopped by guns (Cannot actually think of one mass shooting that has ended from a private citizen pulling a gun), there are none that have ever ended because some heroic citizen pulled out his own assault rifle and took down the shooter. Restraunts, concerts, malls, airports, clubs, an elementary school. No one is going to have an assault weapon on them for defense any of these places, anywhere. It's not fair to the hundreds of people shot and killed instantly in large numbers during these tragedies that we as a country are allowing anyone to freely buy these terrible weapons. They allow you to quite literally slaughter humans at such a rapid and destructive pace.

Majority of all mass shootings with assault rifles were purchased LEGALLY. Sure, if they're banned, there will still be a few that manage to get them illegally, but it sure as hell wouldn't be nearly as many mass murderers able to get them.

I'm not talking about side arms and hunting rifles, whole different argument, though they should be reformed as well. If a shooter can't legally buy an assault rifle, he's either going to have to struggle to get one illegally, risking him getting caught before he kills even 1 person, or attempt it with sidearms, which is still awful, but that sure as hell slows them the **** down, allowing more time for police intervention, victims to escape or attempt to stop him on their owN.


Lord.

[plastroncafe]

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, “Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check.”

A check? That’s right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

In my new book, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, there’s a photograph taken in Dodge City in 1879. Everything looks exactly as you’d imagine: wide, dusty road; clapboard and brick buildings; horse ties in front of the saloon. Yet right in the middle of the street is something you’d never expect. There’s a huge wooden billboard announcing, “The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited.”

[T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!]

Originally Posted by Electric

But tell me, what purpose need or right does any private citizen have to own an assault rifle? None. There's no defense for it other than "we want it," which, sucks, can't have everything you want. they pose a major threat to so many, even if it's just that one person that snaps. Yes, you can ban assault rifles, take them away from everyone because a few (hundreds now) have ruined it for everyone. too bad.

And will it completely stop mass shootings? Hell no. But look at the top 10 or so most fatal mass shootings in the past year. All of them were committed with assault rifles or similar weapons, not pistols and hunting rifles.
It'll take a significantly longer time and more difficult time to slaughter 50 people and injured 53 more in a club with a pistol or two than an assault weapon that can mow them down.

There is no need. There is too big of a threat.

Gun control on the lighter weapons I'll give you, it's a tough situation. But specifically assault weapons, not at all. There is not one good reason any citizen should legally be allowed to own them.

I'm not sure you know this but what's classified as an "assault weapon" is usually nothing more than a semi-auto rifle like a 30-06 that has a grip added to it and things like that. The Second Amendment does not exist just for hunting. It exists as a gesture of goodwill from our Founders to the people. It exists to say that if our gvt was to ever become so tyrannical as the British did that we would have a means of keeping them in check. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Constitution or not but an Amendment can't just be done away with with the strike of a pen or a vote on the House and Senate floors. 2/3 of the states have to agree for that to happen and you would have to have a Constitutional Convention called for that to happen. It is estimated that there are over 320 million guns in America. Even if you do take away the Second Amendment you still can't get rid of all those guns. The gvt can not fix this with legislation. I refer you to the 18th Amendment to illustrate this. The answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That's as close to a solution as you're gonna get. Meth is illegal. Do people have a problem getting it? Alcohol is illegal for people under 21. Do teenagers still get it? Legislation can only punish. It can never prevent. Out of curiosity, I can tell that you are very dedicated to what you believe and I respect that, but can you point to a single piece of legislation that has ever prevented crimes from totally happening? Are you also in favor of abolishing the First Amendment since maybe that would keep people from saying things that might incite violence? Not trying to insult but simply engage.

[T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!]

Originally Posted by Electric

Oh my lord. This has been the dumbest response. NEVER is a private citizen going to be able to defend himself from an assault weapon in a mass shooting, with their own assault weapon.
Jesus Christ. Look at every mass shooting that has not been stopped by guns (Cannot actually think of one mass shooting that has ended from a private citizen pulling a gun), there are none that have ever ended because some heroic citizen pulled out his own assault rifle and took down the shooter. Restraunts, concerts, malls, airports, clubs, an elementary school. No one is going to have an assault weapon on them for defense any of these places, anywhere. It's not fair to the hundreds of people shot and killed instantly in large numbers during these tragedies that we as a country are allowing anyone to freely buy these terrible weapons. They allow you to quite literally slaughter humans at such a rapid and destructive pace.

Majority of all mass shootings with assault rifles were purchased LEGALLY. Sure, if they're banned, there will still be a few that manage to get them illegally, but it sure as hell wouldn't be nearly as many mass murderers able to get them.

I'm not talking about side arms and hunting rifles, whole different argument, though they should be reformed as well. If a shooter can't legally buy an assault rifle, he's either going to have to struggle to get one illegally, risking him getting caught before he kills even 1 person, or attempt it with sidearms, which is still awful, but that sure as hell slows them the **** down, allowing more time for police intervention, victims to escape or attempt to stop him on their owN.


Lord.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues...uys-with-guns/
Here's a link to 12 stories detailing people using their concealed carry to save tons of people.

[Netkeeper]

Originally Posted by T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!

The Second Amendment does not exist just for hunting. It exists as a gesture of goodwill from our Founders to the people. It exists to say that if our gvt was to ever become so tyrannical as the British did that we would have a means of keeping them in check.

That was great back then. These days it translates to "the people should have the power to shoot government reps", doesn't it? Giving people guns is not going to give us the power to keep a government in check. Not any more.

Originally Posted by T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!

Are you also in favor of abolishing the First Amendment since maybe that would keep people from saying things that might incite violence?

Somebody doesn't understand how the First Amendment works!

[Electric]

I don't know if you're aware of this Turtle Power, the constitution was made hundreds of years ago when the most deadly gun was a musket. Founders could never have predicted the weapons we have today. And since they understood that times change, that is EXACTLY why the constitution was made to be amended. Sitting there claiming the right to guns because of an amendment is in no way an argument, the document was designed to be changed. I'm fully aware of the process of amending the constitution, do not sit there and patronize me. Never once have I said all they have to do is strike a pen. It'll be a long process but something needs to be done

Also, don't know if you're aware of this, I admitted it wouldn't completely get rid of assault weapons. People who are determined to get them, will. However, rather than this psycho and the one who shot 20 children in an elementary school, or the one who slaughtered people at a midnight movie premiere, who all easily and legally purchased their assault weapons, someone would have to work a lot harder to get them if they really wanted to pull this off, increasing their chance of getting caught before than can harm anyone, or decreasing the risk they'd be able to do it at all.

You're obviously as awful at reading as you are at arguing, because I've said fire arms like pistols are a different issue. I'm sure those have stopped murders. However, assault weapons have not. No one can conceal and carry an assault rifle to defend against a shooter with another legally purchased assault rifle.

Please, give one good reason as to why any private citizen should be able to own an assault weapon capable of slaughtering dozens of people in such a short time, and do not even for a second consider the second amendment as a reason. Like I said, in case you missed it, the document was meant to be changed and altered, like it has been so many times.

In reponse to your first amendment comment: wow you're struggling for a defense? Changing the first amendment has no correlation to altering the second. That's a ridiculously stupid jump to make. The second amendment is completely outdated for our time. That doesn't mean the first is

[T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!]

Originally Posted by Netkeeper

That was great back then. These days it translates to "the people should have the power to shoot government reps", doesn't it? Giving people guns is not going to give us the power to keep a government in check. Not any more.


http://i.imgur.com/tzhujkw.png
Somebody doesn't understand how the First Amendment works!

The people should have the power to shoot gvt reps that enter their house without a warrant. Or any other intruder for that matter. That's why we have the 4th Amendment because the Brits were doing that to people. Again. What legislation has ever prevented a crime? Did the 18th Amendment work?

[T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!]

Originally Posted by Electric

I don't know if you're aware of this Turtle Power, the constitution was made hundreds of years ago when the most deadly gun was a musket. Founders could never have predicted the weapons we have today. And since they understood that, that is EXACTLY why the constitution was made to be amended. Sitting there claiming the right to guns because of an amendment is in no way an argument, the document was designed to be changed.

Also, don't know if you're aware of this, I admitted it wouldn't completely get rid of assault weapons. People who are determined to get them, will. However, rather than this psycho and the one who shot 20 children in an elementary school, or the one who slaughtered people at a midnight movie premiere, who all easily and legally purchased their assault weapons, someone would have to work a lot harder to get them if they really wanted to pull this off, increasing their chance of getting caught before than can harm anyone, or decreasing the risk they'd be able to do it at all.

The guy that done the Newtown shooting got the guns from his mother who got them legally. These guns are all over the place. I know a lot of people that have AR-15's and now those things are literally almost worthless because there are so many of them available. The term "assault rifle" is used as a legal term and what it does is portrays all guns as something that only top secret Spec Ops units use. They aren't. Even the color of a gun can classify it as "tactical". But the perception that causes for people that aren't educated on the situation is that it's some weapon of mass destruction. The age of the Constitution has nothing to do with it. It's the law and if you want it changed the mechanism in it is the Amendment process. That is correct. But until then that is the law but doing away with it will never stop these things from happening. The same way the 18th Amendment didn't do away with alcoholism. I'm not saying that everyone against the Second Amendment has an ulterior or tyrannical motive but I just think sometimes there's such a visceral reaction that it clouds judgement. I can't think of a single piece of legislation that has ever prevented crime. Even when it was with the best of intention. The Patriot Act was an enormous piece of legislation and yet there is still terrorism. What ultimately happens in those situations is just the law abiding citizens wind up paying the price for the morons crimes. Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". The right to self preservation and defense, which is what the Second Amendment is, is an essential liberty. So are the other 9 Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

[Electric]

Originally Posted by T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!

The people should have the power to shoot gvt reps that enter their house without a warrant. Or any other intruder for that matter. That's why we have the 4th Amendment because the Brits were doing that to people. Again. What legislation has ever prevented a crime? Did the 18th Amendment work?

Not sure if you're aware, there's a slight difference between alcohol, and semi automatic assault rifles.

can you give any solid proof that banning assault rifles and similar weapons would NOT decrease people's access to them? Because basic logic seems to support that it would.

You use drugs as an example. Sure fine, people who really want them find a way to get them. But you know what else happens? A lot of those people get caught. A lot of people are deterred. Usage would significantly increase if it was legal, as anyone could feel no deterrent from it.

We all understand there is no permanent fix to these problems. But the goal should be to reduce it. And by making it illegal to own assault rifles would most certainly make using one more difficult.

Basic. Logic.

the age of the document has every ****ing thing to do with it. Times change. So much. To sit there and say basic laws that applied back then should still be there today is idiotic. You know what else was legal back then? Slavery. To make as ridiculous a generalization as you have made, then you are saying slavery should still be allowed. It was then. Women weren't allowed to vote. Why are they now?

Times ****ing change, people back then were wrong about things.

If you're so against legislation, what the **** do we do then? We've never tried this before, on this scale, so to arbitrarily claim it won't work is completely unsupported. we can't do nothing? We've had more mass shootings than days in this past year. Obviously your "defense with equal force" isn't doing ****. It'd be a damn smart thing to try something else

[plastroncafe]

Laws don't exist solely to discourage bad behavior, but also as a means by which people wronged by that bad behavior can seek redress for those wrongs.

It's foolish to assume that laws will keep bad things from happening, because....bad things will always happen. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Putting a fence before the cliff is far more effective than keeping an ambulance at the bottom of the ravine.
And in many cases that fence requires more than just one piece of legislation.
But Americans aren't exactly known for having a good long game.

[T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!]

Originally Posted by Electric

Not sure if you're aware, there's a slight difference between alcohol, and semi automatic assault rifles.

can you give any solid proof that banning assault rifles and similar weapons would NOT decrease people's access to them? Because basic logic seems to support that it would.

You use drugs as an example. Sure fine, people who really want them find a way to get them. But you know what else happens? A lot of those people get caught. A lot of people are deterred. Usage would significantly increase if it was legal, as anyone could feel no deterrent from it.

We all understand there is no permanent fix to these problems. But the goal should be to reduce it. And by making it illegal to own assault rifles would most certainly make using one more difficult.

Basic. Logic.

the age of the document has every ****ing thing to do with it. Times change. So much. To sit there and say basic laws that applied back then should still be there today is idiotic. You know what else was legal back then? Slavery. To make as ridiculous a generalization as you have made, then you are saying slavery should still be allowed. It was then. Women weren't allowed to vote. Why are they now?

Times ****ing change, people back then were wrong about things.

If you're so against legislation, what the **** do we do then? We've never tried this before, on this scale, so to arbitrarily claim it won't work is completely unsupported. we can't do nothing? We've had more mass shootings than days in this past year. Obviously your "defense with equal force" isn't doing ****. It'd be a damn smart thing to try something else

You know what stopped slavery? A Constitutional Amendment. More than even a war did. Whenever these people come out and use "statistics" about "gun deaths" one thing they often omit is that the vast majority of those numbers are from suicides. When the CDC had last released a gun death number in 2011 over 20,000 of the 32,000 deaths that year were suicides. However, that destroys the narrative that guns are an epidemic so it doesn't get stated. Last year it was estimated that 88,000 people died by alcohol related disease and alcohol poisoning and such. That's not even counting the thousands of innocent people killed by drunk drivers. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation and more people are killed there than in Afghanistan. I was told by some Chicagoan's last month that it is now the "murder capital of the world". I think just a couple of weeks ago there were like 65 people killed in one weekend. That's in a city that has the strictest gun laws in America. Again what would you do with the 320 million guns that are estimated to be on the streets at this very moment? That's literally more than a gun per citizen in America. I just don't know that there's a legislative basis to show that this will stop things like this from happening. I've given the example of Chicago. Can you give me an example where it has worked. Not just from a visceral, ad hominem, emotional angle but from an actual, tangible, piece of legislation that has stopped this. I even gave you an article of 12 instances of concealed carry stopping more people from dying. Did you also know that when Holmes killed the people in Colorado he chose that theater specifically because guns weren't permitted there? Maybe businesses should start saying they DO allow concealed carry and see how many people wanna go in there shooting? Ultimately dude if a person wants to kill people they are gonna do it and that's just the sad reality. If you are willing to die then there is no law that can stop that. There's just not.

[plastroncafe]

We don't have accurate studies on other forms of gun deaths because the CDC isn't allowed to record that data.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-0...h-gun-violence

[Electric]

Originally Posted by T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!

You know what stopped slavery? A Constitutional Amendment. More than even a war did. Whenever these people come out and use "statistics" about "gun deaths" one thing they often omit is that the vast majority of those numbers are from suicides. When the CDC had last released a gun death number in 2011 over 20,000 of the 32,000 deaths that year were suicides. However, that destroys the narrative that guns are an epidemic so it doesn't get stated. Last year it was estimated that 88,000 people died by alcohol related disease and alcohol poisoning and such. That's not even counting the thousands of innocent people killed by drunk drivers. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation and more people are killed there than in Afghanistan. I was told by some Chicagoan's last month that it is now the "murder capital of the world". I think just a couple of weeks ago there were like 65 people killed in one weekend. That's in a city that has the strictest gun laws in America. Again what would you do with the 320 million guns that are estimated to be on the streets at this very moment? That's literally more than a gun per citizen in America. I just don't know that there's a legislative basis to show that this will stop things like this from happening. I've given the example of Chicago. Can you give me an example where it has worked. Not just from a visceral, ad hominem, emotional angle but from an actual, tangible, piece of legislation that has stopped this. I even gave you an article of 12 instances of concealed carry stopping more people from dying. Did you also know that when Holmes killed the people in Colorado he chose that theater specifically because guns weren't permitted there? Maybe businesses should start saying they DO allow concealed carry and see how many people wanna go in there shooting? Ultimately dude if a person wants to kill people they are gonna do it and that's just the sad reality. If you are willing to die then there is now law that can stop that. There's just not.

You just gave me an example of legislation fixing a problem in society.

Again, you have this completely false idea that I believe banning assault and similar weapons would eliminate gun violence. Not at All. But it would most definitely reduce these horrific mass shootings, committed with these terrible legal weapons more often than not.

You want an example?

Australia. Had a mass shooting and said that was it. Banned semi automatic weapons and shotguns, those that were owned were sold back to the government and destroyed. To even own another gun, a good reason had to be given, self defense did not count.

You know how that's worked out? Fantastically. Number of mass shootings since that one in the 90s? Zero. None.
Also included a decrease in the homicide rate.

What can you possibly say to that?

[plastroncafe]

Point of order:
El Salvador is the Murder Capitol of the world.

And according to THIS Wikipedia article, Chicago doesn't even break the top 50, but St. Louis does.

[T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!]

Originally Posted by Electric

You just gave me an example of legislation fixing a problem in society.

Again, you have this completely false idea that I believe banning assault and similar weapons would eliminate gun violence. Not at All. But it would most definitely reduce these horrific mass shootings, committed with these terrible legal weapons more often than not.

You want an example?

Australia. Had a mass shooting and said that was it. Banned semi automatic weapons and shotguns, those that were owned were sold back to the government and destroyed. To even own another gun, a good reason had to be given, self defense did not count.

You know how that's worked out? Fantastically. Number of mass shootings since that one in the 90s? Zero. None.
Also included a decrease in the homicide rate.

What can you possibly say to that?

Australia didn't have 320 million guns already in existence. Australia also didn't have 300 million people. They have less people on that entire continent than live in the state of California alone. It's complete apples to oranges. If the people of Australia don't want to own guns then that is fine. But this is not Australia and we have a Constitution and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Thankfully. I just told you how to "Constitutionally" do things. I don't believe any legislation or Constitutional Amendment will stop crazy muslims, that are willing to strap bombs to themselves, from killing people. It's just that people paint with a broad brush and say "Assault Weapons". How is that classified? Does that put an AR in the same class as a bazooka? It's not in the same class as a bazooka in reality but when the gvt tried an "Assault Weapons ban" they actually did try and classify a simple weapon like an AR with a bazooka. They called it an "Assault Rifle". The main reason most gun owners like to use them is because they are highly customizable and they enjoy using them at gun ranges. The AR 15 is semi automatic. A 30-30 is also semi automatic. It's just that an AR can hold more ammo.

[Electric]

I'm gonna say this argument is over. You cannot simply get off that "it's our second amendment!!!!" ******** which means absolutely nothing. It can be changed.

Yes Australia has more people. And? Again, you sit here saying these things won't work because of this or that yet you have no proof. You're going in circles which means trying to convince you otherwise is a waste of
Time

[T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

We don't have accurate studies on other forms of gun deaths because the CDC isn't allowed to record that data.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-0...h-gun-violence

That legislation only prevented them from looking in to the underlying causes. Not from releasing the numbers of gun related deaths. Even if they did try to do that FOIA could probably override it anyway.

[T-U-R-T-L-E POWA!]

Originally Posted by Electric

I'm gonna say this argument is over. You cannot simply get off that "it's our second amendment!!!!" ******** which means absolutely nothing. It can be changed.

Yes Australia has more people. And? Again, you sit here saying these things won't work because of this or that yet you have no proof. You're going in circles which means trying to convince you otherwise is a waste of
Time

Yes. You are correct. You are not gonna convince me that we don't have a Second Amendment that says our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The answer to crazy muslims is not to take rights from law abiding people with no ulterior motive. I have shown you clearly where lives were saved by law abiding gun owners but that is disregarded for the "we just have to do something...ANYthing" argument. That kind of thinking is why when we go to the airport we have to be all but anally probed by some stupid bureaucrat. That's totally against the 4th Amendment but people don't seem to care that it's the Constitution that is under more assault than anything in this country. So suppose you repeal the 2nd Amendment just as the 18th Amendment outlawed alcohol. Then when it was demonstrably proven that you can't legislate morality we got the 21st Amendment. IF the Second Amendment got repealed and gun violence spiked would you then be for reinstating it?

[sdp]

I don't really want to get into the debate but I'll say that ignoring islam as a problem because not all Muslims are murderers is the same defense gun activists use that guns aren't a problem it's the people who use them to kill.