Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[Lihu]

Quote

Father baffled by killings

 

Mateen's father, Seddique Mateen, said he had no idea his son was about to commit an act of mass violence.

"I am as shocked as you are," he told CNN.

The father had an occasional television show on an Afghan satellite channel in which he regularly criticized Afghanistan's government and Pakistan.

Seddique Mateen said he doesn't believe religion motivated his son's attack.

 

"Radicalism? No. He doesn't have a beard even. When someone becomes radical, they grow long beards and they wear clothes that you know, long clothes, and I don't think religion or Islam had nothing to do with this," he said.

He said his son may have pledged allegiance to ISIS because "he wanted to boost himself."

But the father condemned the terror group.

"The way they conduct themselves, they're harming everybody. They're not a religious group. I don't know what they are," he said. "They're a killer group."

 

Interesting comments from the shooter's father. Faith might not have motivated his son.

 

 

7 minutes ago, colin007 said:

arent these types of guns actually easier to buy than handguns in certain areas?

Yes.

[Dave2512]

3 minutes ago, colin007 said:

arent these types of guns actually easier to buy than handguns in certain areas?

Depends on the state. Some have waiting periods for certain types of guns others do not. In CO it's yours as soon as the background check comes back clean. Last gun I bought the longest part of it was waiting in the line at Gander Mountain.

[newtogolf]

2 hours 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.

A semi-automatic AR-15 cannot fire off 700 rounds a minute.  At best 180 rounds a minute by an experienced user. 

1 hour ago, xcott said:

The AR-15 is specifically designed to kill the maximum number of humans as fast as possible. IT has no legitimate hunting purpose and is specifically outlawed for such activities in many states. It is no different than a mine which would be a good home protection device but has no purpose other than killing humans. 

I can more easily wrap my head around someone who says people should have grenades AND ar-15s rather than just the AR-15. There is no real difference in their intended use. 

Stop watching CNN and HBO Real Sports for your information on the AR-15.  

[14ledo81]

@xcott, in your opinion, is there much difference between these two guns?

Other than looks, there is no functional difference.  Both are 223 caliber semi-automatic guns.  Would you define one, both, or none as "assault rifles"??

 

[xcott]

bolt action is nowhere near as rapid-fire as a magazine. I can't see the top picture to know well enough if it's capable of holding a magazine or not. The material a stock is made out of or looks are irrelevant.  What is relevant is

 

1. how fast can bullets be shot

2. how large of a bullet capacity can it hold

 

if it's fast and a lot, it's an assault rifle regardless of the look. 

"Stop watching CNN and HBO Real Sports for your information on the AR-15."

I don't have cable, so I dont watch either of those. I've personally shot an AR-15 and other assault rifles on many occasions, along with numerous other types of hand guns, rifles and shotguns.

" At best 180 rounds a minute by an experienced user."

 

There is no legitimate hunting reason for firing off 180 rounds a minute, so the only reason is for fun on the range. Which I will admit is fun, but does the right to have that fun trump the negatives? I say no.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

bolt action is nowhere near as rapid-fire as a magazine. I can't see the top picture to know well enough if it's capable of holding a magazine or not. The material a stock is made out of or looks are irrelevant.  What is relevant is

 

1. how fast can bullets be shot

2. how large of a bullet capacity can it hold

 

if it's fast and a lot, it's an assault rifle regardless of the look. 

In NY you can't have an AR-15 with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, semi automatic pistols can carry the same number of rounds and they both can fire up to 3 per second max so are they both assault weapons or is neither?  

[saevel25]

Just now, xcott said:

1. how fast can bullets be shot

For an AR-15 that would be realistically be near 45-60 rounds per minute if you are good at using it.

The M-16 has a rate of fire of 45-60 when set in semi-automatic mode. That is all dependent on how good the person is shooting. 

You are looking at two magazines a minute at a good clip. This guy probably was much less. I doubt he had military training. 

5 minutes ago, xcott said:

if it's fast and a lot, it's an assault rifle regardless of the look. 

You are making up definitions. I've posted above what the military defines as an assault rifle.

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. I might be classified as an Assault Weapon by the 1994 Assault Weapon's Ban. That is what congress defined assault weapons as, not gun experts. 

[xcott]

" In NY you can't have an AR-15 with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, semi automatic pistols can carry the same number of rounds and they both can fire up to 3 per second max so are they both assault weapons or is neither? "

 

The question here is whether 10 is a "large" capacity or not. NY has seemed to define it as the breakpoint, it seems relatively reasonable as a break point on what is and is not a large capacity. I think 5 seems reasonable as a max capacity from a hunting perspective. But if 10 is an agreed upon capacity which is large, then certainly you are defining an assault weapon. Not an assault rifle as it isn't a rifle.  

I'm still wondering about the legitimate purpose of shooting even 45 rounds a second from a gun with a capacity over 30 or even 10 bullets.

[newtogolf]

9 minutes ago, xcott said:

" In NY you can't have an AR-15 with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, semi automatic pistols can carry the same number of rounds and they both can fire up to 3 per second max so are they both assault weapons or is neither? "

 

The question here is whether 10 is a "large" capacity or not. NY has seemed to define it as the breakpoint, it seems relatively reasonable as a break point on what is and is not a large capacity. I think 5 seems reasonable as a max capacity from a hunting perspective. But if 10 is an agreed upon capacity which is large, then certainly you are defining an assault weapon. Not an assault rifle as it isn't a rifle.  

I'm still wondering about the legitimate purpose of shooting even 45 rounds a second from a gun with a capacity over 30 or even 10 bullets.

Where do you get your numbers of 45 rounds a second?  What's the legitimate purpose of producing cars that go 200 mph when the fastest the law allows is 75 mph in the US.  

[Lihu]

5 minutes ago, xcott said:

The question here is whether 10 is a "large" capacity or not. NY has seemed to define it as the breakpoint, it seems relatively reasonable as a break point on what is and is not a large capacity. I think 5 seems reasonable as a max capacity from a hunting perspective. But if 10 is an agreed upon capacity which is large, then certainly you are defining an assault weapon. Not an assault rifle as it isn't a rifle.  

 

I'm still wondering about the legitimate purpose of shooting even 45 rounds a second minute from a gun with a capacity over 30 or even 10 bullets.

10 is not a large capacity. People also have rifle competitions. It's a hobby like golf.

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, xcott said:

I'm still wondering about the legitimate purpose of shooting even 45 rounds a second from a gun with a capacity over 30 or even 10 bullets.

45 rounds a minute.

[xcott]

minute...miss-type.

 

"10 is not a large capacity. People also have rifle competitions. It's a hobby like golf."

 

Yes, I've been in shooting competitions, it's fun. But it would be fun to have grenade or dynamite competitions too. I don't think that a fun activity is justificaiton enough for allowing the sale of items whose sole purpose is the destruction of as many humans as possible. I've shot rapid fire weapons on many, many occasions. 

 

[Lihu]

7 minutes ago, xcott said:

"10 is not a large capacity. People also have rifle competitions. It's a hobby like golf."

Yes, I've been in shooting competitions, it's fun. But it would be fun to have grenade or dynamite competitions too. I don't think that a fun activity is justificaiton enough for allowing the sale of items whose sole purpose is the destruction of as many humans as possible. I've shot rapid fire weapons on many, many occasions. 

You missed my point. They might be purchasing them for the sole purpose of shooting as many targets as possible. You are incorrect in assuming that the sole purpose of these weapons is to "kill as many humans as possible".

Which rapid fire weapons did you fire and where?

[14ledo81]

I owned an AR for a bit. The recoil was minimal, I could collapse the stock a bit to make it easier for the kids, it broke down and cleaned easy, etc..

The list of practical "niceties" is long, and had nothing to do with "killing as many humans as possible"...

People love them for varmint/predator hunting. The low recoil allows the target to stay in the scope, and the 10 round (or better) clip gives them more chances at moving targets.

Please educate yourself.  There is a lot of practical uses for these weapons.

Also, what do you feel about  @newtogolf's question about cars?  There are a lot of things out there that have the capability to do a lot of things that people (most) do not use them for.

How many people do cell phones kill due to inattentive driving?  For some reason none of the solutions have to do with banning them.

[iacas]

@xcott, please consider this your final warning. Quote properly. That doesn't mean copying text and pasting it between quotation marks. Here is an example of quoting properly:

8 hours ago, xcott said:

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

Not true.

5 hours ago, xcott said:

bolt action is nowhere near as rapid-fire as a magazine.

Pretty sure that wasn't a bolt action rifle.

https://thesandtrap.com/how-to/quote-posts

P.S. The simple fact of the matter is this, too: you can make a certain type of gun illegal, but murdering people is already illegal, and that didn't stop these wacko types. So why would they care that the gun they're using to kill a bunch of people is illegal, if they're already planning to break other laws and, you know, murder people?

[baller7345]

3 hours ago, 14ledo81 said:

How many people do cell phones kill due to inattentive driving?  For some reason none of the solutions have to do with banning them.

I didn't really want to get in this conversation, but many of the solutions that people have proposed or enforced for the cell phone problem is similar to what many people want out of gun control laws.  For instance in WV there is an outright ban on using hand set while driving as well as a ban extending to people under the age of 18 for hands free sets.

Restrictions on Cell Phone Use - Wikipedia

Thing's like the CDC not being allowed to research gun violence as well as many people's reluctance to consider even the least intrusive gun control laws (requiring a safety course for instance) baffles me.  I understand the fear banning guns outright, I don't share it as I don't believe its feasible, and is mostly fear mongering by the far right with members of the far left exacerbating it.

I can't see any reason why requiring more safety features (think things like smart guns) or requiring something akin to a driver's test for gun usage is such a taboo for some people.  Even if you truly believe it won't help reduce shooting rates, it definitely could help reduce suicide rates.

[baller7345]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

P.S. The simple fact of the matter is this, too: you can make a certain type of gun illegal, but murdering people is already illegal, and that didn't stop these wacko types. So why would they care that the gun they're using to kill a bunch of people is illegal, if they're already planning to break other laws and, you know, murder people?

They may not care, but you can make it more difficult to obtain that weapon.  Not everybody who commits these shootings has the means or the dedication required to contact an illegal arms broker to get  a weapon that they can't get through other legal means.  It won't stop all criminals from shooting people, but it can help limit the damage that can be easily achieved.  That's always been my view of the situation.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, baller7345 said:

They may not care, but you can make it more difficult to obtain that weapon.  Not everybody who commits these shootings has the means or the dedication required to contact an illegal arms broker to get  a weapon that they can't get through other legal means.  It won't stop all criminals from shooting people, but it can help limit the damage that can be easily achieved.  That's always been my view of the situation.

That's the type of thing that seems to make common sense, but at the same time, maybe they just blow something up instead? You never know. The fact remains that someone willing to commit murder isn't going to worry much about whether they have 15-round or 10-round clips, or what style semi-auto rifle they have, etc.