Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[Lihu]

3 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

???

bizzare post  

 

Dude, I'm pretty sure he was talking about investigating people of Muslim origin before they commit any crime through association. Given that, read my post again...

[boogielicious]

8 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Dude, I'm pretty sure he was talking about investigating people of Muslim origin before they commit any crime through association. Given that, read my post again...

I did not read it that way.

[drmevo]

8 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Dude, I'm pretty sure he was talking about investigating people of Muslim origin before they commit any crime through association. Given that, read my post again...

Sorry, I think you completely misunderstood that post if that's what you took away.  That's why we were so confused by your response.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Victims/Potential Victims -- the manner in which I used it, in this particular case, did not matter.

 Your view appears to be only if someone commits a crime do we limit their rights.

1. Let's take that example to the no fly list. Is it your view that an ndividual with no criminal records but behavior that matches the profiles of terrorists can get on a plane, or must we wait until...?

2. What makes the same individual with a gun different, or is it different to you?

In your view, it appears that people who have told their friends that "all I want to do is buy an AR-15 and shoot people"  ... " I can't stand (fill in blank of a particular race or religion of people), all I want to do is kill them," or "they don't deseverve to live," or have abused others, have traveled alone to the ME recently, interviews with several acquaintances corroborate the above events .... BUT have no criminal record, then it's fine for them to purchase any gun?

And what if they have a past criminal record but have served their time, and are post probation - they don't visit the probation officer any longer - do we give them back their rights? How about that individual who is diagnosed as bipolar and schizophrenic? Does he get his AR-15?

Each of us have their own opinion on where someone crosses that line of "no guns for you." You appear to say that line begins and end with a criminal record. Maybe not. If so, Is that your view even with a no fly zone?

It's not my personal view that I'm arguing in favor for, but what I thought was the law.

I see a lot of posts where people are wanting and supporting investigating people because of their faith, then told I'm "bizzare" for objecting to that. Ouch.

If that changes, we're basically no better than Nazis persecuting Jews. The reasons may be for our perceived safety, but the action of doing that are no better.

Unfortunately, people are not criminals until they commit a crime.

 

[drmevo]

Respectfully, maybe it's time to take a breather from this thread and perhaps read it again.  I think you're responding to things that nobody is saying.

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Sorry, I think you completely misunderstood that post if that's what you took away.  That's why we were so confused by your response.

I don't think I am.

He's toning it down, but the message is to not be afraid of being called Xenophobic and to start targeting specific people for pre-crime investigation based upon their faith.

[Jeremie Boop]

17 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Are we so good at telling how people will behave from profiling that we can get it right 100% of the time? Heck there are many issues with the current No-Fly list.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

You can be named a terrorist by someone you don't even know if they tipped off the FBI. You know what this sounds like, the communist witch trials we had during the cold war. Where people were naming people communists out of fear or as a weapon of retaliation. Then the government would take you away and question you. It's really nonsensical. 

You can be unlucky enough to have a false positive. IN 2005 at 4 year old boy was put on the No-Fly list. Guess what the kids name was Edward Allen. In 2004 a Standford University student ended up on the No-Fly list because the FBI checked the wrong box on the form. 

https://www.wired.com/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/

Ibrahim was a Stanford University doctoral student in architecture and design from Malaysia and was headed to Hawaii to give a paper on affordable housing. Wheelchair-bound after just having a hysterectomy, she was handcuffed, detained for hours at San Francisco International Airport and denied her pain medication until paramedics arrived in 2005. She was eventually released and allowed to fly to her home country of Malaysia.

The government tried to cover up the mistake for years. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html

Here's another good one. Lets hope person with a common name doesn't end up on the No-Fly or Selectee list. An 8 year old boy was patted down at an airport because his name ended up on the Selectee list. 

 

 

The polarized political landscape make this issue nearly impossible to compromise on. The right-wing media will say any law is the Democrats wanting to take away your right to own guns, while left-wing media will make it seem like gun bans will solve all the problems concerning gun violence.  

For me, does a person need an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic to protect themselves? Probably not. Could there be a regulated place that has a licence to own those type of guns for people to go and shoot them for sport, sure. I think something like that could be a compromise.

I think in most cases a handgun, shotgun, or a rifle is good enough. 

 

... An AR-15 is a rifle, most handguns are semi-automatic, a lot of rifles are semi-automatic, some shotguns are semi-automatic. There's no reason to restrict AR-15s because they "look like" an assault rifle. People get stuck on the AR-15 and other tactical looking rifles because they look like military weapons, but they are not. Any semi-automatic hunting rifle that doesn't have the fancy stock and rails would be just as deadly as any of those tactical looking weapons. Most hunting rifles are even of higher caliber which would do even more damage. People can modify a ruger 10/22 to be fully automatic, and as far as I'm aware, modifying any civilian weapon to be fully automatic without the proper paperwork and certifications is illegal.

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, Jeremie Boop said:

... An AR-15 is a rifle, most handguns are semi-automatic, a lot of rifles are semi-automatic, some shotguns are semi-automatic. There's no reason to restrict AR-15s because they "look like" an assault rifle. People get stuck on the AR-15 and other tactical looking rifles because they look like military weapons, but they are not. Any semi-automatic hunting rifle that doesn't have the fancy stock and rails would be just as deadly as any of those tactical looking weapons. Most hunting rifles are even of higher caliber which would do even more damage. People can modify a ruger 10/22 to be fully automatic, and as far as I'm aware, modifying any civilian weapon to be fully automatic without the proper paperwork and certifications is illegal.

Agree. The rifle itself was chosen because of the training he took. It was his ability to train and learn things on the internet that made him so deadly, and not the rifle itself.

BTW, I can't imagine what sort of mods would be required to make a 10/22 fully auto, but I'm sure I could look it up.

[Mr. Desmond]

11 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I don't think I am.

He's toning it down, but the message is to not be afraid of being called Xenophobic and to start targeting specific people for pre-crime investigation based upon their faith.

Who said that?

Not I, said the cat.

I think you read into a post what you want to see, and what you see is not real.

I have asked, only to have people consider, what is the balancing point? What amount of evidence or factors do we need before we say the individual's right to that gun is less sacred than the danger he/she poses to society.

I have asked you questions to consider, you choose not to answer, which is your right, but please do not state my position incorrectly when I have only asked for your position for the sake of clarity and thought. There is no right or wrong answers individually or collectively. It is what we as a society decide to do, and right now, our discussion is blocked.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[saevel25]

15 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

... An AR-15 is a rifle, most handguns are semi-automatic, a lot of rifles are semi-automatic, some shotguns are semi-automatic. There's no reason to restrict AR-15s because they "look like" an assault rifle.

I never said we should ban them for looking like an assault rifle. 

17 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Most hunting rifles are even of higher caliber which would do even more damage. 

It's not the type of damage but the quantity. Mass Shootings are mostly up close in confined spaces. Spraying a lot of smaller caliber rounds is good enough for these people. That is why something light weight, affordable, with a moderate amount of rounds is the most popular type of weapon used. 

32 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

People can modify a ruger 10/22 to be fully automatic, and as far as I'm aware, modifying any civilian weapon to be fully automatic without the proper paperwork and certifications is illegal.

Like mass shooters care about what is legal?

 

 

[Ernest Jones]

45 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I did not read it that way.

Me neither, that's why I found it so bizarre. @Lihu's rebuttals didn't seem to make sense in the context of @natureboy's post. 

[14ledo81]

55 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

... An AR-15 is a rifle, most handguns are semi-automatic, a lot of rifles are semi-automatic, some shotguns are semi-automatic. There's no reason to restrict AR-15s because they "look like" an assault rifle. People get stuck on the AR-15 and other tactical looking rifles because they look like military weapons, but they are not. Any semi-automatic hunting rifle that doesn't have the fancy stock and rails would be just as deadly as any of those tactical looking weapons. Most hunting rifles are even of higher caliber which would do even more damage. People can modify a ruger 10/22 to be fully automatic, and as far as I'm aware, modifying any civilian weapon to be fully automatic without the proper paperwork and certifications is illegal.

 

All true.  I would like if people would educate themselves on AR-15's.

[drmevo]

3 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

 

All true.  I would like if people would educate themselves on AR-15's.

Yes, I think that is one reason the gun debate gets shut down so quickly, among others.  People are outraged about a lot of things that aren't true (not to say all of their concerns are invalid).  I've seen a lot of memes and things like that wondering why we allow people to possess the same automatic weapons the military uses.  If we're not all on the same page in terms of facts, how are we supposed to debate what can be done?

[Jeremie Boop]

15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I never said we should ban them for looking like an assault rifle.

You specified AR-15 or any semi-auto weapon, but then said handgun, rifle, or shotgun even should be fine. The only thing that makes the AR-15 different than any other semi-automatic weapon is that it looks like an assault rifle. There are a lot of semi-automatic rifles that are used for hunting, anything from a .22 to a .308 and they would be caught in your "any semi-auto weapon" restriction.

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It's not the type of damage but the quantity. Mass Shootings are mostly up close in confined spaces. Spraying a lot of smaller caliber rounds is good enough for these people. That is why something light weight, affordable, with a moderate amount of rounds is the most popular type of weapon used.

The most effective and efficient legal weapon would be a semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot or deer slugs, because they could just walk in and shoot from the hip hitting multiple people.

Like this:

or this

Yes, those are both shotguns, and 100% ridiculous. These types of guns have much more possibility for mass destruction than any semi-auto rifle and I am very happy that none of these psychos have realized it.

19 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Like mass shooters care about what is legal?

Exactly, so what's the point in trying to restrict certain types of guns simply because a mass shooting was perpetrated with one??

 

In the end, really what needs to happen, as I said before, is that the current laws on the books need to be enforced. We don't need new restrictions and laws to try to stop people who aren't following the laws already. Stop focusing on the weapons used and more on how to identify and stop the people who wish to cause harm.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, drmevo said:

Respectfully, maybe it's time to take a breather from this thread and perhaps read it again.  I think you're responding to things that nobody is saying.

There's no need to be "respectful"

I read the same thing that you read and just didn't like the direction the conversation was headed.

Anyway, what I read is it's time for all of us to stop being afraid of being called Xenophobes, then he went on to say that there is no place in our society for wearing traditional clothing associated with a particular faith.

My issue is that many of us are so willing to take away the rights of other individuals without thinking about the ramifications. We're so caught up in our current emotions that we are willing to let the government potentially take away even more of our rights.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I have asked, only to have people consider, what is the balancing point? What amount of evidence or factors do we need before we say the individual's right to that gun is less sacred than the danger he/she poses to society.

I have asked you questions to consider, you choose not to answer, which is your right, but please do not state my position incorrectly when I have only asked for your position for the sake of clarity and thought. There is no right or wrong answers individually or collectively. It is what we as a society decide to do, and right now, our discussion is blocked.

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.

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

You specified AR-15 or any semi-auto weapon, but then said handgun, rifle, or shotgun even should be fine.

Still, I did not classify an AR-15 as an automatic rifle. You just assume it. My wording was, AR-15 or any other semi-automatic. Meaning that I considered the AR-15 a semi-automatic weapon which it is. 

3 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

There are a lot of semi-automatic rifles that are used for hunting, anything from a .22 to a .308 and they would be caught in your "any semi-auto weapon" restriction.

Sure

4 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Exactly, so what's the point in trying to restrict certain types of guns simply because a mass shooting was perpetrated with one??

Because certain types of guns lend themselves to being easily accessible, easily portable, and produce higher casualty rates than others.  

[Lihu]

14 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Still, I did not classify an AR-15 as an automatic rifle. You just assume it. My wording was, AR-15 or any other semi-automatic. Meaning that I considered the AR-15 a semi-automatic weapon which it is. 

Sure

Because certain types of guns lend themselves to being easily accessible, easily portable, and produce higher casualty rates than others.  

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, the cleaner lighter more compact rifle or carbine is what you need. If you want people taking potshots from 300 yards then not bother to chase down the game because they start off 300 yards away, then we can go back to the traditional hunting rifles.

[Jeremie Boop]

Just now, saevel25 said:

Still, I did not classify an AR-15 as an automatic rifle. You just assume it. My wording was, AR-15 or any other semi-automatic. Meaning that I considered the AR-15 a semi-automatic weapon which it is. 

Sure

Because certain types of guns lend themselves to being easily accessible, easily portable, and produce higher casualty rates than others.  

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.