Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[xcott]

Hunting is one of my great passions. I do it every year and I love doing it. Personally I think we can have an assault weapons ban and still have hunting guns. But I would be more than willing to just bow hunt if that were what was called for. 

[jgreen85]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Unfortunately, people own and or could procure guns. There's no going back to the 15th century. Banning guns is nearly impossible. I demonstrated this in several posts.

you have not demonstrated anything. all your posts have proven is that we could ban guns just like they were banned in Australia. You posted "look, you can make one part of a gun w/ a 3d printer" and in the same post admitted the rest of the gun cannot be made so easily. 

This can happen and has happened in Australia. You don't want it to happen. In your posts going forward just change "can't" to "I don't want." Then you will have finally made an accurate statement.

[Lihu]

16 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

find a new hobby? Lots of changes in the constitution b/c the greater good was served by said change. I'm sure certain people owners didn't want to have to start working. 

 

14 minutes ago, xcott said:

Hunting is one of my great passions. I do it every year and I love doing it. Personally I think we can have an assault weapons ban and still have hunting guns. But I would be more than willing to just bow hunt if that were what was called for. 

 

10 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

you have not demonstrated anything. all your posts have proven is that we could ban guns just like they were banned in Australia. You posted "look, you can make one part of a gun w/ a 3d printer" and in the same post admitted the rest of the gun cannot be made so easily. 

This can happen and has happened in Australia. You don't want it to happen. In your posts going forward just change "can't" to "I don't want." Then you will have finally made an accurate statement.

I'm kind of done pandering to your own brands of "logic".

This is a tragic incident, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are still in shock and leave it at that.

[jgreen85]

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

 

 

I'm kind of done pandering to your own brands of "logic".

This is a tragic incident, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are still in shock and leave it at that.

yep, just flip on fox news and let that torrent of nonsense wash over and comfort you.

[Gunther]

21 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

A lot of those classes are half a day, pay your money, shoot a few rounds, and walk out with a piece of paper. I wouldn't classify that as legitimate training. The responsible people are those who spend time honing their skills using the gun and learn how to defuse the situation before the need for the gun is required. 

 

CCL classes are typically 8 hours and hunter safety classes are often around 40 hours.  The point of the post to which I responded was using the class to identify potential psychos.  As I said, not an answer.

[Mr. Desmond]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

They are "tired refrains" because you don't support them.  Our country isn't good at "banning" things, prohibition was a complete failure, as is the drug war.  Banning only creates a black market for these items which ensures only the bad guys have them.    

 

I get it. Control the people.

They are tired refrains because they are trotted out and then nothing happens. All these tired refrains do is place people in opposition. Tired refrains do not solve the problem. Support or not has nothing to do with anything.

I grew up with those refrains and at one time they made sense, but something about them did not feel right. I can't afford not to take their credibility into account. But I opened my mind to the other side. In fact, did I not agree that people are the problem?

But it seems people are still being killed enmasse by assault weapons, by your admission, in 11% of cases. I think, if we looked closely, you will find that if you limit access to assault weapons, you will find less enmasse killings. So the other side has a valid point.

People are the problem, but if we do nothing to solve that problem or the problem continues to persist, then many think we must take the safety of the population into account. We talk about the freedoms of the second amendment but how about the right of people to live peaceably? We have balancing rights, do we not?

So you only want to attack one side of the issue? Okay, that's your privilege. As to DUI, states have taken action. MADD drives that bus. They have shamed or voted politicians into action. Judges place analyzers on a car before it starts. The privilege to drive is forfeitted.  First time DUI will spend an average of $15k in defending and paying penalties. Those types of violations are accounted for by a diligent PD.

Does that solve this type of crime? No. It reduces them and puts the fear of God in some people. Others must be caught. So how does one catch the mentally ill, or terrorist with an agenda?

How do you do that with guns? NY started the ball rolling - if a doc tells the police the individual is an issue, they can apparently swoop in and take guns.

Don't think that is the resolution either ...

All I know is that if you do nothing for too long, the other side will eventually unite and will start PACs that will donate to politicians who will vote for gun control. (Look at what MADD did for DUI - how about MFGC (Mothers for Gun Control). It is only a matter of time, not if.

I suggest the NRA and other Sporting Groups get together before the percentage of the public that is fed up begin uniting. Because when that happens, the Second Amendment will erode as we tread down that slippery slope.  I see the balancing point as eventually tipping to the other side if you stick to the same old do nothing policies that do nothing. Control your destiny before the opposition controls it for you.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[newtogolf]

31 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Accountability does not matter when these people typically commit suicide or look to be shot by the police. They don't want accountability. 

When you criminalize the people who are trying their best to help these people then all you do is hurt the situation. 

 

The Orlando shooter tried to purchase body armor, that is not the action of someone who wants to die.  People can try their best, but when the wife and father or the Orlando killer both knew he was unstable and had radical thoughts they should legally been obligated to do more than stand by and watch him shoot over 100 people.   They are certainly more responsible that the gun he used.  

31 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Does it take extra effort to care for an autistic child, yes. My brother is autistic. He's is on of the kindest souls I know. We give him great leeway to do a lot of stuff normal people can do. My mom has dedicated her life to work with autistic people so they can function normally as possible in the real world, so people in this world do not take advantage of Autistic people who want to function in this world. You can take pill popping mentality and shove it. That is some ****ed up logic there Joe. 

It's not my logic, it's the current approach taken with most mentally ill people.  Your mom sounds like a great woman and your brother is lucky to have someone like her to care for him.  Unfortunately your mom is the exception, it many cases parents just want doctors to prescribe their kids some pills.   Take a look at how many kids and adults are being treated with prescription drugs, doctors are all too quick to write a prescription if the parents say the child is hyperactive, doesn't pay attention well in school, has violent outbursts, etc.  

 

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It's not my logic, it's the current approach taken with most mentally ill people.

I got ya, sorry for the outburst. 

[newtogolf]

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I got ya, sorry for the outburst. 

No problem Matt, I had no idea that my post would hit so close to home, sorry.  

[Jeremie Boop]

1 hour ago, jgreen85 said:

you have not demonstrated anything. all your posts have proven is that we could ban guns just like they were banned in Australia. You posted "look, you can make one part of a gun w/ a 3d printer" and in the same post admitted the rest of the gun cannot be made so easily. 

This can happen and has happened in Australia. You don't want it to happen. In your posts going forward just change "can't" to "I don't want." Then you will have finally made an accurate statement.

You think that something that was "successful" for a country with a fraction of our population and gun ownership numbers would be successful here. That's a huge stretch. You also say things like "find another hobby" for people who hunt? For some people it is a way they supplement their food supply instead of buying food from the store. Not only that, but meat from wild game is typically much lower in fat and much healthier for you. 

 

50 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

yep, just flip on fox news and let that torrent of nonsense wash over and comfort you.

Then you say something like this.... Basically assuming anyone who cares about gun rights for the MASSIVE majority of gun owners must be some right wing nut job or ultra conservative who doesn't have a mind of their own. It just proves you are just as closed minded as anyone you accuse of being close minded.

[boogielicious]

57 minutes ago, Lihu said:

 

 

I'm kind of done pandering to your own brands of "logic".

This is a tragic incident, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are still in shock and leave it at that.

Please respect other's opinions and don't talk down to them like they are idiots.

[Dave2512]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

A lot of those classes are half a day, pay your money, shoot a few rounds, and walk out with a piece of paper. I wouldn't classify that as legitimate training. The responsible people are those who spend time honing their skills using the gun and learn how to defuse the situation before the need for the gun is required. 

When the gun shows come around they advertise CCW classes. I know 3 people (my secretary and her kids) that completed the class and were granted a permit and it was more like 2-3 hours. It's classroom stuff not firing range training, mostly covering restricted zones and intoxication are the meat of the class. None of the 3 own a gun, they took their certificates of completion to the Sheriff's Dept. and a couple weeks later received permits in the mail. I'd wager my secretary has fired a gun maybe a half dozen times in her life. No freakin' way I want her waving a gun around.

[newtogolf]

31 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

You think that something that was "successful" for a country with a fraction of our population and gun ownership numbers would be successful here. That's a huge stretch. You also say things like "find another hobby" for people who hunt? For some people it is a way they supplement their food supply instead of buying food from the store. Not only that, but meat from wild game is typically much lower in fat and much healthier for you. 

 

Then you say something like this.... Basically assuming anyone who cares about gun rights for the MASSIVE majority of gun owners must be some right wing nut job or ultra conservative who doesn't have a mind of their own. It just proves you are just as closed minded as anyone you accuse of being close minded.

People who want to ban guns are not gun owners, so for them, they have no problem sacrificing a Constitutional right because they don't exercise it.  

All the politicians who are filibustering against guns go home every night with an armed security team, it's hypocrisy.  A politicians life is no more important than the people they serve.  If they feel the need to be protected with guns, we should have the same right.  The argument that that they are at more risk is crap, how many politicians have been killed over the last 10 years compared to how many law abiding citizens?  

If politicians want to stop gun crimes they need to impose an automatic death penalty for anyone using a gun to commit a violent crime.    Let's start there and see what the impact is.  

 

[Dave2512]

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

People who want to ban guns are not gun owners, so for them, they have no problem sacrificing a Constitutional right because they don't exercise it.  

I own many guns. I'd be okay with bans on certain guns.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

The Orlando shooter tried to purchase body armor, that is not the action of someone who wants to die.  People can try their best, but when the wife and father or the Orlando killer both knew he was unstable and had radical thoughts they should legally been obligated to do more than stand by and watch him shoot over 100 people.   They are certainly more responsible that the gun he used.  

The use of body armor was also possibly just desired to prolong his life longer just to increase the casualties.

I'm not that quick to blame the father and wife. They are only really guilty of not knowing how far over the edge the shooter's mental illness was.

 

25 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Please respect other opinions and don't talk down to them like they are idiots.

We weren't getting anywhere. One of them wants to ban guns outright, which I told him was impossible. Yet he still persisted in the same argument. The other one's arguments were completely unsupported except by emotion, and made outrageous statements that he knows a lot about guns.

That's why it's impossible for us to understand each other, and make an intelligent argument for or against gun control.

I completely sympathize with gun control advocates, and I understand where they (including you) are coming from. The issue I have like all the gun people is that the guns themselves are not an enabler. People with so much hatred for society can still find many ways to commit mass murder without guns. The people who committed the mass murders were not dumb. In fact, the perpetrators at Columbine were both very smart.

The issue with all these cases is simply mental illness. The fact that guns were readily available is only a side issue. Most of the people who do these things are mentally ill, but not dumb.

The argument for gun control assumes that the perpetrators would not have any other means to cause mass killings. That's quite simply incorrect.

The root of the issue is mental illness and what to do about it.

[newtogolf]

15 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

I own many guns. I'd be okay with bans on certain guns.

Do you own any guns that you'd be okay with having banned?  

[Elmer]

25 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

People who want to ban guns are not gun owners, so for them, they have no problem sacrificing a Constitutional right because they don't exercise it.  

All the politicians who are filibustering against guns go home every night with an armed security team, it's hypocrisy.  A politicians life is no more important than the people they serve.  If they feel the need to be protected with guns, we should have the same right.  The argument that that they are at more risk is crap, how many politicians have been killed over the last 10 years compared to how many law abiding citizens?  

If politicians want to stop gun crimes they need to impose an automatic death penalty for anyone using a gun to commit a violent crime.    Let's start there and see what the impact is.  

 

"People who want to ban guns are not gun owners, so for them, they have no problem sacrificing a Constitutional right because they don't exercise it. "

I should remind you that Abolitionist did not own slaves!!!!

 

 

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/15/seth-moulton-cover-ny-daily-news-anti-assault-rifle

Edited June 17, 2016 by Elmer

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, Elmer said:

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/15/seth-moulton-cover-ny-daily-news-anti-assault-rifle

NY Daily Trash finds one marine to speak out against the AR-15 so we should just hand over our rifles?  C'mon you're going to have to try much harder and use more reliable sources than the Daily Trash.