Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[Chilli Dipper]

21 minutes ago, baller7345 said:

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.

Here's the point I'd make on that. I don't own a gun, but many of the people I work with do, and I've talked to them about this issue. They worry that with every mass shooting, public opinion on firearms will become more and more negative, until the sentiment for severe gun restrictions become too strong for lawmakers to ignore. These guys aren't gun nuts; they aren't itching for an armed confrontation with the government. When I talk to them about it, the question I ask is, "if you don't want to reach that conclusion, what are you willing to do to stay ahead of the issue?" The gun control debate is so Balkanized, they've never given it much thought.

Ultimately, though, the first move toward reforming gun laws will have to come from normal gun owners, who realize the Second Amendment fundamentalism espoused by the loudest voices on their side leads to a war they don't want any part of. The NRA speaks for the type of individual whose response to tragedy is, "I have to go stockpile guns and ammo before the government takes it all away." The arms industry profits greatly from the fears of that type of customer, so it lobbies for laws that conform to that worldview. That's not representative of most gun owners, though: it's up to them to demand laws that promote responsible gun ownership by private citizens, rather than laws that cater to the survivalists and militia fanatics who currently control the narrative.

[Dave2512]

With each development this isn't a gun issue this guy was nuts. This is so odd but with modern era tech a lot is being revealed about this guy and he was ****ed up. 

[jgreen85]

What happens when things are made illegal? The price increases dramatically. Guns are not nearly as transportable as drugs, the demand for guns would not be driven by human chemical dependence, and thus this black market arms ring would not realistically exist. Don't compare guns to drugs. The profit margins would not be large enough to drive this market.

[baller7345]

8 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

The price increases dramatically. Guns are not nearly as transportable as drugs, the demand for guns would not be driven by human chemical dependence, and thus this black market arms ring would not realistically exist. Don't compare guns to drugs. The profit margins would not be large enough to drive this market.

There already is an extensive black market ring for guns, guns without identification numbers are a pretty lucrative business for the criminal underworld.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/underworld-inc/episodes/ghost-guns/

[natureboy]

23 hours ago, Lihu said:

Based upon what you wrote, you don't seem to respect Muslims nor Christians at all.

Muslims are not criminals, and they should not be treated as such.

Christians are not criminals either.

That first comment is wildly off base. The second one is putting words in my mouth. The last was true in ancient Rome for a time, but I didn't say anything like it.

What I was saying is that there are some very fundamentalist, literal interpreters of ancient religious texts in both Muslim and Christian denominations / sects. Their view of a 'perfect society' would be very different from the societies most of them currently live in. They are also typically not the majority, though I would argue tend to represent a larger share of some population segments in some predominantly Islamic locales than is typical for most western nations.

Those who advocate for all civil society / laws to conform with their 'correct' interpretation of these texts I have less respect for than those who use religion as a medium for personal spiritual growth and to inform their participation as a facet of a pluralistic, tolerant society. I have great respect for a group like the Amish who want to live a very traditional way according to their religious beliefs, but don't seem to have any agenda to politically impose their particular practices and traditions on others even if they find elements of 'English' society distasteful.

Getting closer to being on topic, I find groups like the Westboro Baptist Church distastefully un-Christian. Their biblical interpretations seems fixated on the Old Testament and who knows where they get being anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish from the Bible itself? Sometimes ancient religious texts lend themselves to be a bit of a Rorschach test for extreme POVs. Individuals will fixate on select passages that justify their preferred worldview while ignoring contradictory ones and missing the larger themes. But even the Westboro folks have a right to be wack-jobs. Just at a respectful legal distance.

23 hours ago, Lihu said:

Xenophobia has nothing to do with it, but in our modern society we need to abide by the laws we make. If the only "evidence" we have of potential for a threat is "speculation" then we have no case. We can't act upon anything without potentially violating the rights of innocent people.

You can stop people from going through our borders until you can establish their motives for travel, but you can't go rummaging for evidence to somehow incriminate them because they believe in something that past perpetrators did. You don't know that they believe exactly the same thing.

You can't persecute people based upon their beliefs. That's the law.

We can't stop someone from believing anything no matter what. If someone does something illegal for the sake of their religion, that's where we can draw the line.

The only thing we can legally do is to enforce laws based upon their actions.

I never said you can stop someone from believing something. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

I agree that these protections are enshrined in our laws. But remember that these laws - even the Constitution - are amendable. This is partly what drives some of the xenophobic (and IMO irrational) fear of the growth of numbers of those of Islamic faith in our country.

As far as border crossings, I expect as a citizen to be able to enter the U.S. with a bit less scrutiny than someone coming from Yemen, but I'm okay with being selected for a random full check. I think it's rational that travelers with certain higher risk profiles get a more frequent hit rate on the random number generator. A guy wearing a 'Boko Haram forever' t-shirt ought to be given extra scrutiny even if he's just some poser trying to be 'edgy'. The speech of the shirt is protected, but that doesn't mean you can't ask him a few extra questions or look at his luggage more closely.

I think that you are being a little willfully ignorant or black & white about the 'only thing' we can do. Targeted investigation, scrutiny, and watchfulness (based on reason not blind prejudice or over-broad profiles) is not the same as arresting someone. An American resident posting a supportive comment in an ISIS chat room is not necessarily indication of intent to commit terrorism - they may have just had a really bad day - but it is most certainly a red flag.

In the same way that not all Muslims are violent fundamentalist radicals, not all Muslims are peace-loving moderates who are tolerant of other religious beliefs, cultures, or political world views. Outspoken advocates for the former may merit greater official scrutiny. The overwhelming majority of the refugees from Syria are just desperate people hoping for a place to live simple lives in peace. That does not mean there aren't also groups taking advantage of this mass movement of people to try to sneak some terrorists through the borders knowing authorities in some jurisdictions are overwhelmed.

In this specific tragedy of the OP, the individual likely had some deep-seated personal / mental issues for which ISIS / religion may have been just a mask.

19 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

??? bizzare post  

He largely misinterpreted the meaning.

18 hours ago, drmevo said:

Yeah, I don't get it either, sort of like earlier in the thread. 

I thought maybe he was trying to troll me.

On 6/14/2016 at 8:33 PM, drmevo said:

Good post @natureboy and I think I agree with everything you said. Were you responding to anything I said in particular?

I liked your point that there isn't even monolithic agreement among Islamic fundamentalists on what is the 'correct' Sharia.

12 hours ago, Lihu said:

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.

I didn't say you could arrest someone for wearing a Burqa so you seem to be overreacting to an assumption you read into my comment.

But I do hold some personal reservations that it does not fit with our open society culture. I personally don't like what it seems to represent in terms of women's place in a society. Also a Burqa is not a head scarf. Even traditionalist codes in Iran don't require the Burqa. It is predominant only for some sects / interpretations of Islam. It is hardly universal to all Muslim women. So do we recognize it as a religious practice right even though it is not universal to Islam or consider it a traditional dress? That has potentially significant legal implications in this country.

I do think if this practice gains any prevalence (admittedly unlikely - but still possible) it presents some real challenges / issues in our open society where we normally depend on recognizing an individual and reading their facial expressions in everyday and official interactions. Say a police officer pulls over someone driving a car wearing a Burqa and asks them to produce a license. How is that driver's identity verified? What about the license photo itself?...etc. Burqa is functional in ultra traditional Islamic cultures, because a woman has to be escorted everywhere by a man who is personally identifiable / recognizable.

 

To all: BTW, what's with the running gun debates across multiple threads. Is this a golf forum or what?

Edited June 16, 2016 by natureboy

[Lihu]

11 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That first comment is wildly off base. The second one is putting words in my mouth. The last was true in ancient Rome for a time, but I didn't say anything like it.

What I was saying is that there are some very fundamentalist, literal interpreters of ancient religious texts in both Muslim and Christian denominations / sects. Their view of a 'perfect society' would be very different from the societies most of them currently live in. They are also typically not the majority, though I would argue tend to represent a larger share of some population segments in some predominantly Islamic locales than is typical for most western nations.

Those who advocate for all civil society / laws to conform with their 'correct' interpretation of these texts I have less respect for than those who use religion as a medium for personal spiritual growth and to inform their participation as a facet of a pluralistic, tolerant society. I have great respect for a group like the Amish who want to live a very traditional way according to their religious beliefs, but don't seem to have any agenda to politically impose their particular practices and traditions on others even if they find elements of 'English' society distasteful.

Getting closer to being on topic, I find groups like the Westboro Baptist Church distastefully un-Christian. Their biblical interpretations seems fixated on the Old Testament and who knows where they get being anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish from the Bible itself? Sometimes ancient religious texts lend themselves to be a bit of a Rorschach test for extreme POVs. Individuals will fixate on select passages that justify their preferred worldview while ignoring contradictory ones and missing the larger themes. But even the Westboro folks have a right to be wack-jobs. Just at a respectful legal distance.

I never said you can stop someone from believing something. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

I agree that these protections are enshrined in our laws. But remember that these laws - even the Constitution - are amendable. This is partly what drives some of the xenophobic (and IMO irrational) fear of the growth of numbers of those of Islamic faith in our country.

As far as border crossings, I expect as a citizen to be able to enter the U.S. with a bit less scrutiny than someone coming from Yemen, but I'm okay with being selected for a random full check. I think it's rational that travelers with certain higher risk profiles get a more frequent hit rate on the random number generator. A guy wearing a 'Boko Haram forever' t-shirt ought to be given extra scrutiny even if he's just some poser trying to be 'edgy'. The speech of the shirt is protected, but that doesn't mean you can't ask him a few extra questions or look at his luggage more closely.

I think that you are being a little willfully ignorant or black & white about the 'only thing' we can do. Targeted investigation, scrutiny, and watchfulness (based on reason not blind prejudice or over-broad profiles) is not the same as arresting someone. An American resident posting a supportive comment in an ISIS chat room is not necessarily indication of intent to commit terrorism - they may have just had a really bad day - but it is most certainly a red flag.

In the same way that not all Muslims are violent fundamentalist radicals, not all Muslims are peace-loving moderates who are tolerant of other religious beliefs, cultures, or political world views. Outspoken advocates for the former may merit greater official scrutiny. The overwhelming majority of the refugees from Syria are just desperate people hoping for a place to live simple lives in peace. That does not mean there aren't also groups taking advantage of this mass movement of people to try to sneak some terrorists through the borders knowing authorities in some jurisdictions are overwhelmed.

In this specific tragedy of the OP, the individual likely had some deep-seated personal / mental issues for which ISIS / religion may have been just a mask.

He largely misinterpreted the meaning.

I thought maybe he was trying to troll me.

I liked your point that there isn't even monolithic agreement among Islamic fundamentalists on what is the 'correct' Sharia.

I didn't say you could arrest someone for wearing a Burqa so you seem to be overreacting to an assumption you read into my comment.

But I do hold some personal reservations that it does not fit with our open society culture. I personally don't like what it seems to represent in terms of women's place in a society. Also a Burqa is not a head scarf. Even traditionalist codes in Iran don't require the Burqa. It is predominant only for some sects / interpretations of Islam. It is hardly universal to all Muslim women. So do we recognize it as a religious practice right even though it is not universal to Islam or consider it a traditional dress? That has potentially significant legal implications.

I do think if this practice gains any prevalence (admittedly unlikely - but still possible) it presents some real challenges / issues in our open society where we normally depend on recognizing an individual and reading their facial expressions in everyday and official interactions. Say a police officer pulls over someone driving a car wearing a Burqa and asks them to produce a license. How is that driver's identity verified? What about the license photo itself?...etc. Burqa is functional in ultra traditional Islamic cultures, because a woman has to be escorted everywhere by a man who is personally identifiable / recognizable.

 

To all: BTW, what's with the running gun debates across multiple threads. Is this a golf forum or what?

 

This is all starting to become moot anyway. Religion possibly had little to do with his actions as noted by the shooter's father. Apparently, his son was not all that religious.

We'll see.

[boogielicious]

http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/florida-gun-laws

Quote

Florida gun laws do not necessitate the registration of shotguns, rifles, or handguns. Also, there is no required Florida gun permit to purchase firearms. Under Florida gun laws, individuals that classify as eligible to purchase and possess firearms must be no less than 18 years of age. Though it is illegal for a minor to purchase or possess a firearm, the exception is that a minor may do so only with the permission of the parent or legal guardian.

 

Quote

There is no required permit to carry shotguns or rifles under Florida law on gun. However, those wishing to carry handguns must apply for a license or permit to do so. To carry a concealed handgun, one must apply for a license to the Department of Agriculture. The requirements of an eligible applicant are that the individual must be at least 21 years of age, a legal U.S. resident, not a convicted felon, has not been convicted of a crime in the past three years under misdemeanor, felony, or domestic violence statutes, and can provide for adequate and appropriate reasons to carry a concealed weapon.

Food for thought. Being from MA, it seems a bit lax to not require a license to buy a rifle.

[newtogolf]

9 hours ago, baller7345 said:

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.

You mean the cell phone ban like we have in NY where just about every driver I see still holds a cell phone?  Or do you mean like the drunk driving laws where I see at least 1 - 2 news reports a day about drunk drivers getting into accidents and / or killing innocent people.  Maybe you mean like the illegal drug laws that ban heroin and other deadly drugs where I see at least one or two stories a night about people overdosing.  Or you could be talking about really strict gun control laws like in Chicago where more people are killed by guns than anywhere else in the country.  

News flash, criminals don't care about laws.  When you talk about passing laws to ban or restrict guns, you're talking about taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and making them unarmed victims to criminals who are not concerned about the extra time a gun law violation is going to result in on top of their rape, robbery or murder charges. 

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/florida-gun-laws

 

Food for thought. Being from MA, it seems a bit lax to not require a license to buy a rifle.

What they aren't telling you is that Florida still cannot sell a gun without a background check.  The Federal government requires all gun stores in the country to do a background check before any gun is purchased.  So while you don't have to "register" the gun, the government has record of you purchasing a gun and getting a background check on a certain date and the gun shops are required to keep records of who bought what gun on what day so they can provide that information to the government with a warrant.  

Legally the Federal government is not supposed maintain lists of gun owners and the guns they own so they created this loophole to get around it.  Kind of how they're not supposed to have access to your cell phone records and texts but with a warrant they can get any information they want.  

[Lihu]

On a side note, many of the tactical and defense training classes in my area are completely booked and gun stores are packed, mainly because of this event.

Not sure if applications for CCW went up or not?

It seems like the weeks events have gotten more people to want to purchase more guns and training if anything.

Anyone who thinks stronger and more heavily enforced anti-gun laws will prevent events like this from happening is very naive.

[baller7345]

29 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

You mean the cell phone ban like we have in NY where just about every driver I see still holds a cell phone?  Or do you mean like the drunk driving laws where I see at least 1 - 2 news reports a day about drunk drivers getting into accidents and / or killing innocent people.  Maybe you mean like the illegal drug laws that ban heroin and other deadly drugs where I see at least one or two stories a night about people overdosing.  Or you could be talking about really strict gun control laws like in Chicago where more people are killed by guns than anywhere else in the country.  

News flash, criminals don't care about laws.  When you talk about passing laws to ban or restrict guns, you're talking about taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and making them unarmed victims to criminals who are not concerned about the extra time a gun law violation is going to result in on top of their rape, robbery or murder charges.

If we really want to jump down this rabbit hole then why do we have any laws at all?  As you say criminals are not concerned about the law.  You regulate and attempt to control anything that is harmful in order to deter people from pursing the harmful activity in a manner that will cause other people harm (in the case of cell phones) or cause themselves harm).

That does not mean everybody is going to follow them, nor does it mean an end to all the negative effects of such actions.  What it does do is provide a deterrent.  Not all criminals are created equal, not everybody will want to jump through the hoops to get an illegal firearm if they are in a situation where they need a gun to accomplish their goals.  It's about reducing the possibility of an event occurring not completely preventing (as that is a pipe dream).

As for taking guns out of law abiding citizens and disarming this country, you're going to have to do much more than simply add restricting access through things like required safety courses or smart gun technology.  There are so many privately owned guns in this country that there is no feasible way for any action by the government to disarm a citizen.  If a law abiding citizen wants a gun then they can have it, they simply might have to go through a couple of extra steps (For me personally most of these steps would be aimed at safety rather than just putting it behind red tape). 

Finally, do you go through life feeling you need a gun on you to feel safe?  That seems absurd to me (unless you are in a particularly bad part of a city), I do own 2 guns, but not once have I ever stepped outside my house and thought that I needed a firearm to feel safe.

Edited June 16, 2016 by baller7345

[Lihu]

At least for me, it's a recreational  activity and yes I wouldn't care if I had to fill out more forms or take more training classes to own a gun.

[jgreen85]

9 hours ago, baller7345 said:

There already is an extensive black market ring for guns, guns without identification numbers are a pretty lucrative business for the criminal underworld.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/underworld-inc/episodes/ghost-guns/

not going to watch the documentary; do you have the cliffs notes?

I stand by my argument that if an AR:15 sold for $20k rather than $800 or so, there would be much fewer of these in circulation. Simple economics and income would prevent the vast majority of people from having one. Very difficult for your average American to come up w/ $20k especially $20k cash. And then to have the guts to take that kind of cash in to a back alley to purchase a gun? I can't see it happening.

[Lihu]

29 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

not going to watch the documentary; do you have the cliffs notes?

I stand by my argument that if an AR:15 sold for $20k rather than $800 or so, there would be much fewer of these in circulation. Simple economics and income would prevent the vast majority of people from having one. Very difficult for your average American to come up w/ $20k especially $20k cash. And then to have the guts to take that kind of cash in to a back alley to purchase a gun? I can't see it happening.

My coworker's match grade AR15 cost about 5K (including optics), and all the critical components (possibly all) are custom made in the USA. Unlikely, to ever be that high. If they made it such that purchasing a gun cost that high, many people would make them themselves for a lot less money. People would likely just make them from kits.

If there is a demand for something, people will find a way to work around any laws.

Most of the gun owners I know are very bright people, most of the anti-gun people I know think they're all dumb. That's what irks many gun owners. From my personal experience, most anti-gun people have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to gun control.

[baller7345]

39 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

not going to watch the documentary; do you have the cliffs notes?

That link was the cliffnotes, it was a summary of the documentary.

It simply covers the illegal buying and selling of guns that are untraceable (no serial number, etc).

[jgreen85]

56 minutes ago, Lihu said:

My coworker's match grade AR15 cost about 5K (including optics), and all the critical components (possibly all) are custom made in the USA. Unlikely, to ever be that high. If they made it such that purchasing a gun cost that high, many people would make them themselves for a lot less money. People would likely just make them from kits.

If there is a demand for something, people will find a way to work around any laws.

Most of the gun owners I know are very bright people, most of the anti-gun people I know think they're all dumb. That's what irks many gun owners. From my personal experience, most anti-gun people have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to gun control.

If it were illegal, it would be that high and even higher really. I didn't know that one could cost up to $5k today when it's perfectly legal. It would be much more expensive, up to $50k even $100k, if acquiring those components raised the attention of law enforcement. Drugs are not expensive to make!!! yet they sale for a 2000% markup. Partly b/c even with that markup, they are relatively inexpensive, but also b/c there's a very expensive black market infrastructure the sales have to support. The risk premium is huge. The same premium would apply to guns. 

I agree some people would make their own, but making their own wouldn't be much cheaper. Simply read Adam Smith the Wealth of Nations to understand why we've gone to mass production/specialization: makes things cheaper. Custom and now self-made, your co-worker's gun would've cost him at least $50k and then the moment he brings it out, it's confiscated. What a way to blow $50k. The "very bright people" would realize that's a huge waste of resources. Better off spending your money on self-defense classes. Or hiring a bodyguard.

[14ledo81]

2 hours ago, baller7345 said:

If we really want to jump down this rabbit hole then why do we have any laws at all?  As you say criminals are not concerned about the law.  You regulate and attempt to control anything that is harmful in order to deter people from pursing the harmful activity in a manner that will cause other people harm (in the case of cell phones) or cause themselves harm).

That does not mean everybody is going to follow them, nor does it mean an end to all the negative effects of such actions.  What it does do is provide a deterrent.  Not all criminals are created equal, not everybody will want to jump through the hoops to get an illegal firearm if they are in a situation where they need a gun to accomplish their goals.  It's about reducing the possibility of an event occurring not completely preventing (as that is a pipe dream).

As for taking guns out of law abiding citizens and disarming this country, you're going to have to do much more than simply add restricting access through things like required safety courses or smart gun technology.  There are so many privately owned guns in this country that there is no feasible way for any action by the government to disarm a citizen.  If a law abiding citizen wants a gun then they can have it, they simply might have to go through a couple of extra steps (For me personally most of these steps would be aimed at safety rather than just putting it behind red tape). 

Finally, do you go through life feeling you need a gun on you to feel safe?  That seems absurd to me (unless you are in a particularly bad part of a city), I do own 2 guns, but not once have I ever stepped outside my house and thought that I needed a firearm to feel safe.

I agree that laws provide deterrents.  Many people need these deterrents to keep them "on the straight".  Most people do not need deterrents to kill somebody.  This goes beyond law.  Killing people is/should be morally wrong.  I don't think laws help that.

[Lihu]

27 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

If it were illegal, it would be that high and even higher really. I didn't know that one could cost up to $5k today when it's perfectly legal. It would be much more expensive, up to $50k even $100k, if acquiring those components raised the attention of law enforcement. Drugs are not expensive to make!!! yet they sale for a 2000% markup. Partly b/c even with that markup, they are relatively inexpensive, but also b/c there's a very expensive black market infrastructure the sales have to support. The risk premium is huge. The same premium would apply to guns. 

I agree some people would make their own, but making their own wouldn't be much cheaper. Simply read Adam Smith the Wealth of Nations to understand why we've gone to mass production/specialization: makes things cheaper. Custom and now self-made, your co-worker's gun would've cost him at least $50k and then the moment he brings it out, it's confiscated. What a way to blow $50k. The "very bright people" would realize that's a huge waste of resources. Better off spending your money on self-defense classes. Or hiring a bodyguard.

You're not getting what I stated. I was saying that even a match rifle that's custom made in the USA only costs 5K. No one will ever have to pay $20K for a rifle.

Proposing to out price rifles from the poor isn't going to stop this type of mass killing. Mental illness occurs in non-poor people as well, and as far as I know Omar Mateen was not poor and could have afforded the same rifle at $20K anyway. It's not like he was saving for the future or anything. . .

[xcott]

The litmus test for laws isn't whether some people will still break them. Otherwise we would have no laws.