Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[baller7345]

16 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I'm kind of glad we don't have enough data, and would like to keep it that way.

I can't agree with this.  Data is everything, the more data you have the better conclusions you can draw.  If you haven't accumulated enough data to come to a statistically significant conclusion then for the most part what we do have supporting one view is useless and this goes both ways.

Now, as I'm sure its because you want to be able to keep your AR-15 then I guess that goes an entirely different direction.

[Lihu]

5 minutes ago, baller7345 said:

I can't agree with this.  Data is everything, the more data you have the better conclusions you can draw.  If you haven't accumulated enough data to come to a statistically significant conclusion then for the most part what we do have supporting one view is useless and this goes both ways.

Now, as I'm sure its because you want to be able to keep your AR-15 then I guess that goes an entirely different direction.

In this case, more data means more shootings to provide more data to compare. I'd rather there was no more data.

The issue with this case is the perpetrator's intent was not religious in nature, and he would have been exempted even from the strictest gun laws because of his profession. It's not a data point that could give us any new statistical information to make any decisions. Keep in mind that he also went through all the profile makeup tests we could give, and he was trained shoot people if needed.

How do we stop people like him with new laws?

[xcott]

I'm comfortable with the position that trying to keep mass murdering weapons out of mass murderers hands is a good idea. Not sure how anyone could be comfortable with a different position.

[baller7345]

14 minutes ago, Lihu said:

In this case, more data means more shootings to provide more data to compare. I'd rather there was no more data

Okay, I can get behind that...I'm very grey when it comes to ethics and science but I'm not completely heartless

[14ledo81]

6 minutes ago, xcott said:

I'm comfortable with the position that trying to keep mass murdering weapons out of mass murderers hands is a good idea. Not sure how anyone could be comfortable with a different position.

Agreed..

How we go about it though.... I am going to guess we might disagree.

[xcott]

3 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

Agreed..

How we go about it though.... I am going to guess we might disagree.

I'm for whatever works. 

20 minutes ago, Lihu said:

In this case, more data means more shootings to provide more data to compare. I'd rather there was no more data.

The issue with this case is the perpetrator's intent was not religious in nature, and he would have been exempted even from the strictest gun laws because of his profession. It's not a data point that could give us any new statistical information to make any decisions. Keep in mind that he also went through all the profile makeup tests we could give, and he was trained shoot people if needed.

How do we stop people like him with new laws?

Data did show the police confiscated fewer and fewer assault weapons after the assault weapons ban and then after it was repealed it jumped up again.

I don't know that private security guards need to carry assault weapons either. Police in london I believe do not carry guns. The assumption that law enforcement and private security must have access to extreme levels of firepower is potentially a flawed one. 

 

For example, we know that allowing a private security guard access to assault weapons has potentially caused 50 deaths. How many lives have such access saved? Any?

Edited June 16, 2016 by xcott

[Lihu]

17 minutes ago, xcott said:

I'm for whatever works. 

Data did show the police confiscated fewer and fewer assault weapons after the assault weapons ban and then after it was repealed it jumped up again.

I don't know that private security guards need to carry assault weapons either. Police in london I believe do not carry guns. The assumption that law enforcement and private security must have access to extreme levels of firepower is potentially a flawed one. 

For example, we know that allowing a private security guard access to assault weapons has potentially caused 50 deaths. How many lives have such access saved? Any?

You are incorrect. Police all over the world carry similar weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

The real issue is the fact that this security guard went crazy. IDK, how you can detect this form of mental illness that early on to prevent it?

Again, it wasn't the gun that killed all those people. If I gave you such a gun in his place you'd probably not even get one shot off before being taken down by someone seeing you pull out the weapon. Assuming you even had the ability to transport it into the club.

The man was trained, and you're not.

[rehmwa]

4 minutes ago, Lihu said:

If I gave you such a gun in his place surroundings you'd probably not even get one shot off before being taken down by someone seeing you pull out the weapon.

It's an interesting point you make that one could MIS-interpret that guns in untrained hands are safer.......however,,,

If you gave xcott such a gun in the same scenario, he'd not get off one shot probably because he'd just 'choose' not to fire the thing.  He'd just hang out at the club with a gun and dramatically not shoot person after person after person - I'm sure there's a point that can be made from this.

[xcott]

" In Northern Ireland, all police officers carry firearms. In the rest of the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, that duty is instead carried out by specially-trained firearms officers.  "

 

this would be unthinkable in the US, the flat idea that we need to arm and train thousands of police and private civilian security guards is one that should not be taken as gospel. 

I've downed  hundreds of live game and thousands and thousands of targets with firearms of all shapes and sizes. I would consider myself a pretty decent marksman.However that is pretty much irrelevant. 

[xcott]

" Again, it wasn't the gun that killed all those people."

 

f he had run in there with a can lf Play dough, I bet fewer people would have died. 

[Lihu]

17 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

It's an interesting point you make that one could MIS-interpret that guns in untrained hands are safer.......however,,,

If you gave xcott such a gun in the same scenario, he'd not get off one shot probably because he'd just 'choose' not to fire the thing.  He'd just hang out at the club with a gun and dramatically not shoot person after person after person - I'm sure there's a point that can be made from this.

I'm sure, you're right. . .

 

16 minutes ago, xcott said:

" In Northern Ireland, all police officers carry firearms. In the rest of the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, that duty is instead carried out by specially-trained firearms officers.  "

 

this would be unthinkable in the US, the flat idea that we need to arm and train thousands of police and private civilian security guards is one that should not be taken as gospel. 

I've downed  hundreds of live game and thousands and thousands of targets with firearms of all shapes and sizes. I would consider myself a pretty decent marksman.However that is pretty much irrelevant. 

 

Yes, I'm sure the people giving out parking violations are not carrying firearms as they don't in most safer cities here.

However, the number of AFO are on the rise with many of them carrying fully automatic weapons.

 

 

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

[xcott]

Just now, Lihu said:

However, the number of AFO are on the rise with many of them carrying fully automatic weapons.

 

I'm sure the gun lobby is making headway everywhere. they've been remarkably good at convincing the general public to fatten their bottom line at the expense of their safty. It's actually remarkable. I'm not sure of a corporate lobby more successful than that of the gun manufacturers. 

[Lihu]

4 minutes ago, xcott said:

I'm sure the gun lobby is making headway everywhere. they've been remarkably good at convincing the general public to fatten their bottom line at the expense of their safty. It's actually remarkable. I'm not sure of a corporate lobby more successful than that of the gun manufacturers. 

The guns are not that profitable, most people are doing it because they enjoy it. If they want to fatten their bottom line, they would all have been making smart phones back in the early 2000s.

[jgreen85]

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

He wouldn't need to pay black market prices, he had the ability to purchase guns legally. Wouldn't have made a difference in his case even if we had the strictest gun laws in place for civilian use.

the entire premise smart guy is "if guns were illegal." that's the whole conversation. he can't buy a gun legally, IF they are illegal. So it would work in his case b/c we're assuming guns are illegal for everybody.

Again, you wish these things didn't happen, but you're unwilling to do anything about it. Save, had you been there with your own gun, you would've tried to shoot him. 

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, jgreen85 said:

the entire premise smart guy is "if guns were illegal." that's the whole conversation. he can't buy a gun legally, IF they are illegal. So it would work in his case b/c we're assuming guns are illegal for everybody.

Again, you wish these things didn't happen, but you're unwilling to do anything about it. Save, had you been there with your own gun, you would've tried to shoot him. 

Would you rather have police or a security guard that could take down a criminal by force when he is about to kill you and your family, or would you rather they have a "discussion" about why they shouldn't be breaking the law and kill an innocent family?

[jgreen85]

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

Would you rather have police or a security guard that could take down a criminal by force when he is about to kill you and your family, or would you rather they have a "discussion" about why they shouldn't be breaking the law and kill an innocent family?

those are my choices?

[xcott]

I don't suffer under the delusion that my family is in any danger from someone trying to kill us. We're more in danger of the police and the security guards than this mythical murder you're thinking of. And even if there was such a killer on the loose trying to kill my family, there is an almost 0% chance that a policeman or security guard would be in a position to stop it whether they had a gun or not. 

this self defense shooter scenario is just not the reality. It's an interesting video game, but it's just not something I'm concerned about.

Not one time in my entire life have I ever thought

"good thing that guy had a gun right there"

Never. That just doesn't happen. I've certainlly been in situations and known people in situations where it would have been much better if there were NOT guns present. 

[Lihu]

9 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

those are my choices?

Well, you hypothesized making guns completely illegal but criminals would likely still have them.

How would making them illegal work anyway? They would have to be banned worldwide. What's the punishment for owning one? Death? Because adding a year or two to an robbery sentence isn't going to be very persuasive.

 

7 minutes ago, xcott said:

I don't suffer under the delusion that my family is in any danger from someone trying to kill us. We're more in danger of the police and the security guards than this mythical murder you're thinking of. And even if there was such a killer on the loose trying to kill my family, there is an almost 0% chance that a policeman or security guard would be in a position to stop it whether they had a gun or not. 

this self defense shooter scenario is just not the reality. It's an interesting video game, but it's just not something I'm concerned about.

Not one time in my entire life have I ever thought

"good thing that guy had a gun right there"

Never. That just doesn't happen. I've certainlly been in situations and known people in situations where it would have been much better if there were NOT guns present. 

I don't either, I was only asking a simple question if we banned guns completely.

You say we're in more in danger of police and security guards than criminals? That's a new one. . .your arguments are getting stranger and stranger.