Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[newtogolf]

1 minute ago, Dave2512 said:

Except that there are many examples where that hasn't happened with regard to the Constitution. IMO the problems stems with the word ban. Substitute regulate and it sounds different.

The media has demonized the AR-15 (even though it wasn't even the gun used in the Orlando shooting) 

What are you supporting the ban or regulation of?  The .223 / 5.56 round, guns with rails, guns that are black, guns that are semi-automatic, guns that use detached magazines, guns with muzzle suppressors, guns that look scary?   

Almost all handguns today are semi automatic use detached magazines and come in black.  Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic, use rails, come in black and have magazines.  

Is an AR-15 style gun that fires 9mm rounds acceptable?  How about AR-15's with fixed magazines?  How about semi-automatic shotguns that accept 16 rounds and don't use magazines?  

What regulations are you supporting and how do you prevent those regulations from being applied to other guns not named AR-15?  You say you don't want to ban all guns but what is it about the AR-15's that you can use to uniquely distinguish it so that the banning of them won't eventually be applied to other guns?  

[Gunther]

16 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Except that there are many examples where that hasn't happened with regard to the Constitution. IMO the problems stems with the word ban. Substitute regulate and it sounds different.

Ugh, worse, I prefer retain.

[Dave2512]

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The media has demonized the AR-15 (even though it wasn't even the gun used in the Orlando shooting) 

What are you supporting the ban or regulation of?  The .223 / 5.56 round, guns with rails, guns that are black, guns that are semi-automatic, guns that use detached magazines, guns with muzzle suppressors, guns that look scary?   

Almost all handguns today are semi automatic use detached magazines and come in black.  Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic, use rails, come in black and have magazines.  

Is an AR-15 style gun that fires 9mm rounds acceptable?  How about AR-15's with fixed magazines?  How about semi-automatic shotguns that accept 16 rounds and don't use magazines?  

What regulations are you supporting and how do you prevent those regulations from being applied to other guns not named AR-15?  You say you don't want to ban all guns but what is it about the AR-15's that you can use to uniquely distinguish it so that the banning of them won't eventually be applied to other guns?  

You have a way of putting words into people's mouths, go back through my posts and other than a link to an article find even one where I typed AR-15. You won't.

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

You have a way of putting words into people's mouths, go back through my posts and other than a link to an article find even one where I typed AR-15. You won't.

What guns do you support regulation or banning of then?  Same question applies, what characteristics do you support the regulation or banning of and how do you prevent the government from banning guns with similar characteristics that are not the guns you support regulation of?  

[Lihu]

12 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

What guns do you support regulation or banning of then?  Same question applies, what characteristics do you support the regulation or banning of and how do you prevent the government from banning guns with similar characteristics that are not the guns you support regulation of?  

Yeah, that's kind of what I meant by the below. Where's the line drawn?

 

3 hours ago, Lihu said:

rifles happen to match some arbitrary and politically motivated description of an assault style weapon.

 

[Dave2512]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

What guns do you support regulation or banning of then?  Same question applies, what characteristics do you support the regulation or banning of and how do you prevent the government from banning guns with similar characteristics that are not the guns you support regulation of?  

Why does regulation have to be solely focused on the guns? I don't have a fix but compared to other regulated privileges guns are pretty easy to obtain. It's more difficult to register a car without emissions equipment than it is to buy a gun. Nobody balks at the driver's license process. 

There certainly could be more to purchasing and owning a gun than ancient rights and not having a record. I wouldn't oppose different classifications for guns and required testing to progress beyond the basics. Wouldn't oppose yearly examinations. If it's a right we should have to earn it and the qualifier should be deeper than it is.

 

 

[iacas]

18 hours ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I challenge you to think outside the box instead of repeating tired refrains.

After you…

12 hours ago, jgreen85 said:

find a new hobby? Lots of changes in the constitution b/c the greater good was served by said change.

No. My family ate the deer and rabbits and turkey we'd shoot.

9 hours ago, boogielicious said:

My Dad served in the military and achieved the highest marksmanship level in the military in boot camp. He owned many guns from muskets to hunting rifles. He taught me how to shoot when I was 10. He would have never owned an AR-15 because it serves no purpose other than it's intended military use.

An AR-15 is not remarkably different than a hunting rifle. So given that you can't just "ban AR-15s" what's your solution that doesn't ban my hunting rifles?

8 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Of course you know more than them, right?

Why isn't that conceivable?

Golfers can know more than some "top" instructors. Don't use appeals to authority.

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

An AR-15 is not remarkably different than a hunting rifle. So given that you can't just "ban AR-15s" what's your solution that doesn't ban my hunting rifles?

 

If you saw my other posts, I have not called for banning them. I've posted links to articles, but I have not made that statement. I have called for additional training being required to be able to acquire them. We saw that progression with automobiles when they first came out. Many use the auto example in discussions. In MA, you need 40 hours of supervised driving between a parent or instructor before taking your final test. Cars kill a lot of people each year and I think most of us agree that the training is important.

To move to the next level of driving, such as large trucks, you need even more training. A NASCAR race car is a car. Most of us could drive it. But it is not street legal because it is too powerful for someone who has not been extensively trained. And many would abuse the speed capability.

I don't think it is unreasonable to require that you must show safety proficiency and ability to use a rifle or handgun. In Florida, you don't even need a license, which seems very lax to me. When my Dad taught me to shoot, I didn't even get to pull the trigger until after maybe a half hour of safety talk. That was tough for a 10 year old, but he burned it in my head.

I also think that gun safety trainers could be taught to look for signs in people that may indicate that they have issues. It could be a big step. We all can be vigilant. My next door neighbor is a regular range member. He stopped going to one range because he described the members as vigilantes and my friend is conservative. That worries me.

 There also should be a way of suspending a license with bad behavior. Some states have this but others don't. The Orlando shooter showed domestic violence tendencies. If the OPD had the power, or were notified (reports vary), they could have investigated and removed the firearms. It may have helped prevent this.

 

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

If you saw my other posts, I have not called for banning them. I've posted links to articles, but I have not made that statement. I have called for additional training being required to be able to acquire them. We saw that progression with automobiles when they first came out. Many use the auto example in discussions. In MA, you need 40 hours of supervised driving between a parent or instructor before taking your final test. Cars kill a lot of people each year and I think most of us agree that the training is important.

Boston has the worst drivers in the world. I'd even rate driving in Hong Kong easier. They're taught something, but safety isn't one of them.

 

Quote

To move to the next level of driving, such as large trucks, you need even more training. A NASCAR race car is a car. Most of us could drive it. But it is not street legal because it is too powerful for someone who has not been extensively trained. And many would abuse the speed capability.

I don't think it is unreasonable to require that you must show safety proficiency and ability to use a rifle or handgun. In Florida, you don't even need a license, which seems very lax to me. When my Dad taught me to shoot, I didn't even get to pull the trigger until after maybe a half hour of safety talk. That was tough for a 10 year old, but he burned it in my head.

I also think that gun safety trainers could be taught to look for signs in people that may indicate that they have issues. It could be a big step. We all can be vigilant. My next door neighbor is a regular range member. He stopped going to one range because he described the members as vigilantes and my friend is conservative. That worries me.

 There also should be a way of suspending a license with bad behavior. Some states have this but others don't. The Orlando shooter showed domestic violence tendencies. If the OPD had the power, or were notified (reports vary), they could have investigated and removed the firearms. It may have helped prevent this.

 

I agree with your premise on training, but most of the places I know teach gun defense classes. They teach you how to become more effective in a defense situation.

Anything but a basic CCW or NRA safety class would teach similar things.

Training is good, but I think it would have the opposite effect of what you are arguing. It would make the other mass shootings you listed in other posts even more deadly. Trainers teach you how to shoot a gun more effectively, and they're pretty good at that.

Just like any other self defense type of class, they have no idea if someone has "signs" that they could be mass killers. I don't even see how they could detect it?

The real problem is once again, mental illness. That's what needs to be addressed, but everyone seems to ignore it. Politicians ignore it because they want something they can blame and change within one election cycle.

I think we all agree that the shooter was mentally ill, and yet he was cleared for duty and received extensive training in a profession that entails use of deadly firearms. What can we do about that?

[Dave2512]

35 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Boston has the worst drivers in the world. I'd even rate driving in Hong Kong easier. They're taught something, but safety isn't one of them.

 

I agree with your premise on training, but most of the places I know teach gun defense classes. They teach you how to become more effective in a defense situation.

Anything but a basic CCW or NRA safety class would teach similar things.

Training is good, but I think it would have the opposite effect of what your are arguing. It would make the other mass shootings you listed in other posts even more deadly.

I kinda agree and know from experience self defense training is mostly fear based nonsense taught by jacked up meatheads. I quit Krav Maga because the ratio or tactical wannabes to normal people was 10:1. I took the gun class and nuts, lots of fantasy. 

[Chilli Dipper]

20 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Boston has the worst drivers in the world. I'd even rate driving in Hong Kong easier. They're taught something, but safety isn't one of them.

 

I agree with your premise on training, but most of the places I know teach gun defense classes. They teach you how to become more effective in a defense situation.

Anything but a basic CCW or NRA safety class would teach similar things.

Training is good, but I think it would have the opposite effect of what you are arguing. It would make the other mass shootings you listed in other posts even more deadly. Trainers teach you how to shoot a gun more effectively, and they're pretty good at that.

Just like any other self defense type of class, they have no idea if someone has "signs" that they could be mass killers. I don't even see how they could do it?

The real problem is once again, mental illness. That's what needs to be addressed, but everyone seems to ignore it. Politicians ignore it because they want something they can blame and change within one election cycle.

I think we all agree that the shooter was mentally ill, and yet he was cleared for duty and received extensive training in a profession that entails use of deadly firearms. What can we do about that?

Mental health is part of the problem; I wouldn't say it's the whole problem around gun violence, but it's an issue that stretches far beyond that narrow scope. A talking point in right-wing media circles has been the increasing death rate among middle-aged white men. This can be attributed to the fact that white men, particularly working-class white men, don't seek help for depression or other mental health problems; most of the time, it's because they view seeking help as weakness, or that they just distrust the entire profession. Instead, they are drawn to alcoholism, narcotics abuse, and even suicide.

Ultimately, I don't have a lot of faith in the people who say "we don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem." We can't even use federal funding to study gun violence as a mental health problem, because the gun lobby has dictated that even studying gun violence is the first step on the slippery slope toward the government taking everybody's guns away. I have no confidence that the people saying it's a mental health problem will respond to a large-scale public policy initiative toward mental health awareness (which would be the solution to the problem) in any way but screaming that the government is trying to control their brains. So we end up right back where we started.

[Gunther]

I found this interesting.  Not sure I have a take on it, other than I hope we see similar results in Nov.  

[newtogolf]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

If you saw my other posts, I have not called for banning them. I've posted links to articles, but I have not made that statement. I have called for additional training being required to be able to acquire them. We saw that progression with automobiles when they first came out. Many use the auto example in discussions. In MA, you need 40 hours of supervised driving between a parent or instructor before taking your final test. Cars kill a lot of people each year and I think most of us agree that the training is important.

To move to the next level of driving, such as large trucks, you need even more training. A NASCAR race car is a car. Most of us could drive it. But it is not street legal because it is too powerful for someone who has not been extensively trained. And many would abuse the speed capability.

I don't think it is unreasonable to require that you must show safety proficiency and ability to use a rifle or handgun. In Florida, you don't even need a license, which seems very lax to me. When my Dad taught me to shoot, I didn't even get to pull the trigger until after maybe a half hour of safety talk. That was tough for a 10 year old, but he burned it in my head.

I also think that gun safety trainers could be taught to look for signs in people that may indicate that they have issues. It could be a big step. We all can be vigilant. My next door neighbor is a regular range member. He stopped going to one range because he described the members as vigilantes and my friend is conservative. That worries me.

 There also should be a way of suspending a license with bad behavior. Some states have this but others don't. The Orlando shooter showed domestic violence tendencies. If the OPD had the power, or were notified (reports vary), they could have investigated and removed the firearms. It may have helped prevent this.

 

Unlike motorcycles, cars, mid-size transport trucks, 18 wheelers, and buses, guns don't have increasing levels of difficulty to handle.  If you want to require someone take handgun training and rifle training I'd be agreeable to that because there are differences between rifles and handguns but beyond that it's just needless hoop jumping.  

My heart goes out to the people who lost family members in mass shootings, especially the children in CT.  I'm a dad, tomorrow is Fathers Day, I'd be heart broken if one of my children was murdered by a maniac with a gun.  If I honestly believed that banning guns or giving the government more power to restrict gun ownership would reduce the number of innocent people being killed by guns I would likely support it.

My politics doesn't make life decisions for me, I'm fiscally conservative, socially more liberal.  I don't own guns because  I'm a card carrying NRA conservative, I don't hunt (because I would only kill an animal for food and I'm not a fan of deer meat or small game)  I own guns because my wife who was completely against guns said she'd feel safer if we did.  I learned about guns, took gun safety courses did research and bought the gun that I felt most comfortable using and would enjoy target practicing with.  After I purchased my gun, I took home defense classes, I bought a gun safe for my bedroom.  I'd have likely bought a handgun if given the option but NY takes about 6 months to get a pistol permit so I bought an AR-15.

You look at Chicago, NY and DC that have the toughest gun laws in the country and yet Chicago is like a war zone on the weekends.  No one talks about it because it's typically drug dealers and gang members killing each other but the fact remains, the bad guys still get guns and have no regard for the law.  

The shooter in Orlando should have NEVER been approved to buy a slingshot, no less a Sig MCX.  Not only was he investigated twice by the FBI as a suspected terrorist but a gun shop in Orlando reported him to the FBI (a week before he actually bought his gun) when he tried to buy body armor and a large quantity of ammo.  This means we either have incompetents working in these jobs or for conspiracy theorists, guys like this are being approved so that the government can pass even stricter laws.  Either answer is unacceptable, why does our government believe it's acceptable to have incompetent people working in such critical positions like this in the FBI and TSA?

When politicians show me they really want to get tough on crime (enact the death penalty for violent crimes that use a gun), stop releasing criminals from prison short of their sentence, when they force disclosure of mental illnesses that could be harmful to others, when they make a real effort to clean up the drug problem (either through tougher user laws or legalization) and really enforce the current gun laws on the books, then we can talk about additional gun laws and restrictions.  

 

 

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Boston has the worst drivers in the world. I'd even rate driving in Hong Kong easier. They're taught something, but safety isn't one of them.

Wow? Using this thread to crap on my hometown is poor form on your part and  And it is not correct.

 

 

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, Dave2512 said:

I kinda agree and know from experience self defense training is mostly fear based nonsense taught by jacked up meatheads. I quit Krav Maga because the ratio or tactical wannabes to normal people was 10:1. I took the gun class and nuts, lots of fantasy. 

We have the "action genre" entertainment to thank for that.

Just like so many beginning golfers think it's easy to become scratch, there are plenty of people thinking they can become expert shooters. 

 

1 hour ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Mental health is part of the problem; I wouldn't say it's the whole problem around gun violence, but it's an issue that stretches far beyond that narrow scope. A talking point in right-wing media circles has been the increasing death rate among middle-aged white men. This can be attributed to the fact that white men, particularly working-class white men, don't seek help for depression or other mental health problems; most of the time, it's because they view seeking help as weakness, or that they just distrust the entire profession. Instead, they are drawn to alcoholism, narcotics abuse, and even suicide.

Ultimately, I don't have a lot of faith in the people who say "we don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem." We can't even use federal funding to study gun violence as a mental health problem, because the gun lobby has dictated that even studying gun violence is the first step on the slippery slope toward the government taking everybody's guns away. I have no confidence that the people saying it's a mental health problem will respond to a large-scale public policy initiative toward mental health awareness (which would be the solution to the problem) in any way but screaming that the government is trying to control their brains. So we end up right back where we started.

The numbers don't support your statements. Many people own guns without any issues. Statistically, only a small sub-tenth percentage of gun owners have any kind of issues with them.

Approximately 7% of the general population has anywhere from mild forms of mental health issues to strong ones according to many studies. 26.2% of the population has some form that is diagnosable.

Mental illness does not mean those people are dumb. In fact, http://www.medicaldaily.com/why-smarter-people-are-more-likely-be-mentally-ill-270039

The reason anti gun people think controlling guns will control mass killings and violence in general is because they assume the perpetrators are less intelligent than average. The logic is that take away the guns and you take away the main enabler for these crimes, and that's simply not true. Smart vindictive people will find alternatives.

Taking guns away from the >99.9% of the people who own guns without any issues versus helping cure mental illness in the 7% of the population, doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not logical, nor rational.

[Lihu]

41 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I found this interesting.  Not sure I have a take on it, other than I hope we see similar results in Nov.  

I don't fit the mold and think that faith had little to do with this incident, but I see ISIS as the scapegoat when Trump gets elected.

34 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Wow? Using this thread to crap on my hometown is poor form on your part and  And it is not correct.

I rated it higher than Rome and China.

BTW, I was driving in downtown Boston just last week, and all my coworkers from there agree with me, but that's just how we feel.

Sorry, for insulting you. . .

[boogielicious]

56 minutes ago, Lihu said:

 

I rated it higher than Rome and China.

BTW, I was driving in downtown Boston just last week, and all my coworkers from there agree with me. Sorry, for insulting you. . .

No you're not. That's why you did it again. 

Back on topic. Thoughtful article by an AR-15 owner.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-hayes/2016/06/i-am-an-ar-15-owner-and-ive-had-enough/

[Chilli Dipper]

44 minutes ago, Lihu said:

We have the "action genre" entertainment to thank for that.

Just like so many beginning golfers think it's easy to become scratch, there are plenty of people thinking they can become expert shooters. 

 

The numbers don't support your statements. Many people own guns without any issues. Statistically, only a small sub-tenth percentage of gun owners have any kind of issues with them.

Approximately 7% of the general population has anywhere from mild forms of mental health issues to strong ones according to many studies. 26.2% of the population has some form that is diagnosable.

Mental illness does not mean those people are dumb. In fact, http://www.medicaldaily.com/why-smarter-people-are-more-likely-be-mentally-ill-270039

The reason anti gun people think controlling guns will control mass killings and violence in general is because they assume the perpetrators are less intelligent than average. The logic is that take away the guns and you take away the main enabler for these crimes, and that's simply not true. Smart vindictive people will find alternatives.

Taking guns away from the >99.9% of the people who own guns without any issues versus helping cure mental illness in the 7% of the population, doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not logical, nor rational.

Nowhere did I say that gun owners are more susceptible to mental illness than the general population. Nowhere did I say that mentally ill people are dumb. Nowhere did I say we have to take away guns from 99 percent of gun owners. I did not even imply any of those opinions. You've put those words into my mouth, and I don't appreciate that.

What I said was, if gun violence is a mental health problem, then the CDC and the NIH should be allowed to study gun violence as a mental health problem, which they are currently not allowed to do. Furthermore, identifying every American with a mental health issue and making sure they get treatment is bound to be more intrusive and expensive than any gun control measure, so I can't just expect that conservatives will actually be willing to go along with that.