Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[Lihu]

4 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I never said you classified it as an automatic weapon. The only reason I brought up the fully automatic thing was because the .22 is probably the cheapest and most widely found/used rifle in the US and it's easily modified to be fully automatic. That part was not really directed towards you but towards others who have mentioned how the AR-15 and other tactical rifles can be modified to be fully automatic and that it should be illegal. I apologize for the misunderstanding there. Though I did assume you were picking on it specifically for looking like an assault rifle. So you are OK with restricting loads of guns that are perfectly mundane looking and have many legitimate uses simply because the more exotic looking ones are used by a tiny number of people to commit some pretty heinous crimes. This doesn't make sense. You are basically telling millions of law abiding gun owners that their rights don't matter because of what a handful of people have done instead of saying we need to find a better way to catch this small number of people from falling through the cracks in the system meant to keep weapons out of their hands.

Not "find", so much as to stop them.

[Jeremie Boop]

2 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Not "find", so much as to stop them.

Aka, like I said, find a better way to catch them. That way they never have the weapons in their hands to do what they did. Though I do fear that they'd just find another way, but I wouldn't be opposed to someone who is denied the purchase of a weapon being investigated a little bit more in depth to see if they are potentially a threat for these types of tragedies. Maybe their purchases could be tracked for a small time to see if they being buying other things that could point to them planning some sort of attack.

[drmevo]

34 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Sorry, but I see no other direction that his points were headed. Please enlighten me, I'll freely admit that language is not my strong point, but I think I read it right this time.

I'm not going to explain it because you seem to be the only person who interpreted it that way.  I'd suggest chalking it up to misunderstanding, unless @natureboy comes on here and confirms your interpretation.

8 minutes ago, Lihu said:

AR-15 or any modern rifle is going to have that "assault" look to it.

The traditional wood stock hunting rifle weighs a lot more and is less easy to walk through bush because of the length.

If you want hunters to properly stalk game and take a shot from inside 50 yards for a clean kill, this is what you need. If you want people taking potshots from 300 yards then not bother to chase down the game, then we can go back to the traditional hunting rifles.

Your understanding of hunting is more misinformed than all the misunderstandings of guns being discussed.  Comments like these just take up space on the thread and IMHO don't belong here.

[Mr. Desmond]

28 minutes ago, Lihu said:

 

My position is that there is no balancing point when it comes to our freedoms.

What I got from it is that, we are potentially preparing ourselves for accepting the inevitable. This is my interpretation of the next step: "To allow investigation of individuals associated with a faith or any belief system if we "speculate" based upon potentially weak testimony from anyone in our society? Or for even a lesser reason?"

So, even if the conversation is heading in this direction, I find it necessary to address such sentiments.

Just as others respect my ability to build stuff, I do respect your viewpoints as a litigator and communicator. I just feel strongly that it's wrong to violate the rights of US citizens.

Based on your posts, please correct me, I think you are saying there is no balancing point when it comes to an individual's freedoms unless they have committed a crime. 

The Constitution speaks of probable cause -- and determining probable cause is a balancing of issues as to the standard. 

So the Constitution implies a balancing. I assume, like most citizens, you agree with the Constitution.

[Lihu]

11 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Aka, like I said, find a better way to catch them. That way they never have the weapons in their hands to do what they did. Though I do fear that they'd just find another way, but I wouldn't be opposed to someone who is denied the purchase of a weapon being investigated a little bit more in depth to see if they are potentially a threat for these types of tragedies. Maybe their purchases could be tracked for a small time to see if they being buying other things that could point to them planning some sort of attack.

Sure, but they are already under investigation.

 

6 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Based on your posts, please correct me, I think you are saying there is no balancing point when it comes to an individual's freedoms unless they have committed a crime. 

The Constitution speaks of probable cause -- and determining probable cause is a balancing of issues as to the standard. 

So the Constitution implies a balancing. I assume, like most citizens, you agree with the Constitution.

Yes, I agree with the constitution, or I wouldn't even be posting. I only disagree that "probable cause" could be simply being of a certain faith.

 

10 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Your understanding of hunting is more misinformed than all the misunderstandings of guns being discussed.  Comments like these just take up space on the thread and IMHO don't belong here.

My first hunt was when I was 15 with a bow over 30 years ago, the kill was from under 20 yards because I can stalk. I've been backpacking in the woods and sleeping under the stars since I was 8 or 9, when I first came back to this country.

You are only correct that these posts don't belong here, because they are

[xcott]

" You are basically telling millions of law abiding gun owners that their rights don't matter because of what a handful of people have done"

This is exactly what's happening now with restrictions on bomb making items and grenades, c-4, dynamite, nukes, etc. Their rights matter, but they don't trump the common sense safety of the much, much larger millions of americans. 

Edited June 15, 2016 by xcott

[Mr. Desmond]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

 

Yes, I agree with the constitution, or I wouldn't even be posting. I only disagree that "probable cause" could be simply being of a certain faith.

Agree. I don't think anyone in this thread has said or implied that being Catholic or of the Islamic faith is sufficient probable cause to name you as an IRA Member or a Jihadist. The determination of probable cause is based on several to many factors other than religion, which of itself is not probable cause.

You've said more than the quoted piece in this thread about the sanctity of individual freedom, but let's drop it.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[Jeremie Boop]

7 minutes ago, xcott said:

" You are basically telling millions of law abiding gun owners that their rights don't matter because of what a handful of people have done"

This is exactly what's happening now with restrictions on bomb making items and grenades, c-4, dynamite, nukes, etc. Their rights matter, but they don't trump the common sense safety of the much, much larger millions of americans. 

Except there are very few legitimate reasons for anyone to be purchasing items to make bombs, c-4, grenades, dynamite, nukes, etc so it makes perfect sense to restrict that stuff.... Not even in the same realm as civilian style gun ownership. Restricting certain semi-auto weapons is more akin to restricting people from buying pipe, gunpowder, nails, ball bearings etc because that stuff can be used to make a homemade bombs. We already restrict military style guns because they fall into the same category as c-4, grenades, nukes etc being that there's no real purpose for civilians to own them.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Jeremie Boop

[Lihu]

13 minutes ago, xcott said:

" You are basically telling millions of law abiding gun owners that their rights don't matter because of what a handful of people have done"

This is why there are restrictions on bomb making items and grenades, c-4, dynamite, nukes, etc.

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

The there's lots of stuff on the internet makes this look like a children's book.

You can't outlaw everything potentially used for bomb making. If there is a way to make something, someone will figure it out.

 

11 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Agree. I don't think anyone in this thread has said or implied that being Catholic or of the Islamic faith is sufficient probable cause to name you as an IRA Member or a Jihadist. The determination of probable cause is based on several to many factors other than religion, which of itself is not probable cause.

We finally agree on something, possibly a first outside of golf.

The thing that worries me is that anyone can potentially alert authorities about a specific family, and have them investigated even if they are innocent. That's where it could potentially be an issue with people's rights.

The main triggering issue I had/have with @natureboy's post is his feeling that Burqa do not belong in our society. Personally, I'm not bothered by people wearing them, if I even notice it.

[drmevo]

5 minutes ago, Lihu said:

My first hunt was when I was 15 with a bow over 30 years ago, the kill was from under 20 yards because I can stalk. I've been backpacking in the woods and sleeping under the stars since I was 8 or 9, when I first came back to this country.

That's great, I bow hunt as well.  But, I also rifle hunt on other occasions, and I can tell you that no responsible hunter is taking shots from 300 yards (unless they are a total expert) or leaving wounded game, no matter what they are using.   Most hunters I know use bolt action, lever, or semi-auto rifles with a traditional shaped stock (either wood or synthetic) with a much larger caliber than 5.56/.223.  You can use it, sure, but it's far from the norm and many people don't consider it to be ideal for larger game.

Your insinuation that people hunting with wood-stocked rifles are irresponsible poachers is ridiculous.

[xcott]

There are very few legitimate uses for an assault rifle and only 1 which is different from the "legitimate" uses of a grenade. That would be hunting, but even then it's not true. I'm an avid hunter and there is no need for the ability to shoot bullets in the numbers and speed of modern assault rifles. In fact in many states those are outlawed for hunting. And in all cases there are viable altertatives which do not in any way detriment the ability for one to hunt.

The only reason one would need an assault rifle is to kill many human beings very quickly. 

Hunting for deer with a rifle in Illinois is illegal, one must use a shotgun if you are going to kill one with a gun. 

[Lihu]

15 minutes ago, drmevo said:

That's great, I bow hunt as well.  But, I also rifle hunt on other occasions, and I can tell you that no responsible hunter is taking shots from 300 yards (unless they are a total expert) or leaving wounded game, no matter what they are using.   Most hunters I know use bolt action, lever, or semi-auto rifles with a traditional shaped stock (either wood or synthetic) with a much larger caliber than 5.56/.223.  You can use it, sure, but it's far from the norm and many people don't consider it to be ideal for larger game.

Your insinuation that people hunting with wood-stocked rifles are irresponsible poachers is ridiculous.

Okay, I'll admit that was a little over the top. Sorry for that.

Many of those "assault style" rifles come in 7.62mm ammo. Then on the other side Henry .44 lever action for big game as well. All I'm saying is that for following deer trails through thick brush, for example, it is often tight and difficult to navigate with a larger weapon.

 

13 minutes ago, xcott said:

There are very few legitimate uses for an assault rifle and only 1 which is different from the "legitimate" uses of a grenade. That would be hunting, but even then it's not true. I'm an avid hunter and there is no need for the ability to shoot bullets in the numbers and speed of modern assault rifles. In fact in many states those are outlawed for hunting. And in all cases there are viable altertatives which do not in any way detriment the ability for one to hunt.

The only reason one would need an assault rifle is to kill many human beings very quickly. 

Hunting for deer with a rifle in Illinois is illegal, one must use a shotgun if you are going to kill one with a gun. 

I'm not sure I agree. Home protection is easier with a shorter rifle or carbine***, with an expanding bullet. A pistol is not a good weapon of choice especially if you are groggy after being woken up, and a shotgun or rifle are much longer and difficult to navigate around the home. I suppose you could use a short shotgun as in this article, but they're starting to look kind of "assault-like".

 

***Crap, I'm starting to sound like a wild eyed NRA member, that's not on purpose, really.

[xcott]

Assault rifles are defined by the speed at which rounds can be fired off and the capacity of rounds in a gun. The look or material in the stock is irrelevant. 

 

There is no reason to use an assault rifle in hunting. The only "legitimate: use of an assault rifle is for having fun shooting it at targets. I say it would be fun to blow up a stick of dynamite, but I'm not allowed to have one. In that vein an assault rifle is exactly the same as dynamite or a grenade. 

 

It's long precedence that not all arms should be available to all people. that's not debateable. The question is whether the legitimate use of that assault rifle outweigh the potential harm, and I dont know how anyone could argue that it is. 

How many homes and people have been saved by assault rifles used in "home protection"? is that number greater than those killed by assault rifles?

If you mistakenly beieve you need a gun for home protection, then you can do so with anything out there and be as effective. Your home is much more dangerous with an easy to get to loaded assault rifle than with nothing. 

[Jeremie Boop]

5 minutes ago, xcott said:

There are very few legitimate uses for an assault rifle and only 1 which is different from the "legitimate" uses of a grenade. That would be hunting, but even then it's not true. I'm an avid hunter and there is no need for the ability to shoot bullets in the numbers and speed of modern assault rifles. In fact in many states those are outlawed for hunting. And in all cases there are viable altertatives which do not in any way detriment the ability for one to hunt.

The only reason one would need an assault rifle is to kill many human beings very quickly. 

Hunting for deer with a rifle in Illinois is illegal, one must use a shotgun if you are going to kill one with a gun. 

Very few people own an assault rifle. Assault rifles are military use weapons which require a special permit to acquire/own. So, stop putting the AR-15 and other "tactical" looking semi-automatic rifles into the the same category as assault rifles. The restriction of rifles for hunting in many places is due to the long distance which a rifle round can travel. Just recently they allowed straight jacketed rifle rounds to be used in my part of Ohio. Many states that are heavily wooded and/or hilly/mountainous allow the use of rifles because there are enough obstacles in the way to stop the bullet. At least, that's the way it was explained to me. Rifles are much more effective for taking game at longer ranges than shotguns, muzzle loaders, and bows.

 

2 minutes ago, xcott said:

Assault rifles are defined by the speed at which rounds can be fired off and the capacity of rounds in a gun. The look or material in the stock is irrelevant. 

 

There is no reason to use an assault rifle in hunting. The only "legitimate: use of an assault rifle is for having fun shooting it at targets. I say it would be fun to blow up a stick of dynamite, but I'm not allowed to have one. In that vein an assault rifle is exactly the same as dynamite or a grenade. 

 

It's long precedence that not all arms should be available to all people. that's not debateable. The question is whether the legitimate use of that assault rifle outweigh the potential harm, and I dont know how anyone could argue that it is. 

I'm not sure where you got your definition of an assault rifle but:

as·sault ri·fle

noun

noun: assault rifle; plural noun: assault rifles

1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

    

    

   --this is what an assault rifle is, which does not match the AR-15 or any other tactical looking semi-automatic rifle on the market for civilian purchase. Many people use .223 and other such rifles for hunting, some use the AR-15 style and others use the traditional stock styles. They use them because they are accurate and powerful, both of which are ideal qualities for hunting rifles. Just because your opinion is that they aren't reasonable for hunting doesn't change anything.

[Lihu]

11 minutes ago, xcott said:

Assault rifles are defined by the speed at which rounds can be fired off and the capacity of rounds in a gun. The look or material in the stock is irrelevant. 

 

There is no reason to use an assault rifle in hunting. The only "legitimate: use of an assault rifle is for having fun shooting it at targets. I say it would be fun to blow up a stick of dynamite, but I'm not allowed to have one. In that vein an assault rifle is exactly the same as dynamite or a grenade. 

 

It's long precedence that not all arms should be available to all people. that's not debateable. The question is whether the legitimate use of that assault rifle outweigh the potential harm, and I dont know how anyone could argue that it is. 

Disagree, not everyone hunting is a good under pressure.

If they can squeeze more rounds in or near the kill zone to take down a deer before it jumps and runs away it's better than letting it suffer longer when you need to chase it down with one punctured lung and/or a grazed heart or something like that.

There's only a split second firing time.

This stuff is getting severely off topic, I'm kind of half waiting for a mod or admin to put a stop to us.

[xcott]

An ar15 can fire about 700 rounds a minute.  Is that rapid fire?  Yes

Does an ar 15 magazine fed? Yes

The AR15 is a branded name for a gun which was originally the m-16 designed for infantry use.

 

So....

I get the feeling you don't know what an AR-15 is. You seem to believe that it is a style of look, rather than an actual thing.

[Jeremie Boop]

1 minute ago, xcott said:

An ar15 can fire about 700 rounds a minute.  Is that rapid fire?  Yes

Does an ar 15 magazine fed? Yes

The AR15 is a branded name for a gun which was originally the m-16 designed for infantry use.

 

So....

You are leaving out the "automatic" portion of the definition, being able to pull the trigger 700 times a minute is a pretty incredible feat. The AR-15 is a .223 rifle that is similar in appearance to the military rifle, yes, but it is not an assault rifle. You can't choose to leave out one part of the definition in order to make it fit your argument, sorry, because then you are basically making up your own definition. If you are going to do that then there's no point in having a discussion with you.

[chspeed]

6 minutes ago, xcott said:

An ar15 can fire about 700 rounds a minute.  Is that rapid fire?  Yes

Does an ar 15 magazine fed? Yes

The AR15 is a branded name for a gun which was originally the m-16 designed for infantry use.

 

So....

I get the feeling you don't know what an AR-15 is. You seem to believe that it is a style of look, rather than an actual thing.

Actually it's a bit of both. The AR-15 was the rebranded M-16, but has a number of modifications. The most important modifications have to do with making it harder to turn it into an automatic, which used to be simple when it first came out.

Edited June 15, 2016 by chspeed