Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Lihu said:

NRA is a club, and it wouldn't be a bad idea for all/most gun owners to join.

https://explore.nra.org/

I agree with the organization as a whole and safety training and club and such, and I only disagree with the way they are presenting some things. . .

@Lihu, I'm glad that's your opinion and all, but you've gotta watch saying things like this.

I'm a gun owner, and a responsible one, and I'm generally against the knee-jerk reactions that people propose. I've made the case, for example, that a lot of our "gun violence" is actually economic (inner city minority-on-minority gun crimes), and that even while we have "record numbers of mass shootings," we're also a really large country, and a more apt comparison is not "USA versus Germany" or "USA versus Australia" but rather "USA versus Europe" (at least that's about a 1:2 ratio of population)…

But anyway, I own guns, and may forever, and I don't support the NRA. They don't speak for me. They have adopted pretty extreme views - maybe because the "other side" is so extreme, perhaps, but they're still too extreme for me.

Gun owners don't need to join the NRA, and unfortunately the NRA is as extreme "pro" as the liberals and others are "anti."

(And even with USA vs. Europe, you have to measure the same types of things, and control for economic situations, and all sorts of other things… Anyway, not the point of that post. Just wanted to say not every gun owner supports the NRA, and part of the problem is that people assume the NRA speaks for all or most gun owners. They do not.)

[Gunther]

57 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Sigh, yes. It's a good thing, I suppose. . .

Quote

 

Wait, what?!  Don't leave me now @Lihu.  I bought tons of ammo before I was 18, never in 1,000 round increments, but hey, a kid needs to play, no?  Lol.

[drmevo]

41 minutes ago, iacas said:

@Lihu, I'm glad that's your opinion and all, but you've gotta watch saying things like this.

I'm a gun owner, and a responsible one, and I'm generally against the knee-jerk reactions that people propose. I've made the case, for example, that a lot of our "gun violence" is actually economic (inner city minority-on-minority gun crimes), and that even while we have "record numbers of mass shootings," we're also a really large country, and a more apt comparison is not "USA versus Germany" or "USA versus Australia" but rather "USA versus Europe" (at least that's about a 1:2 ratio of population)…

But anyway, I own guns, and may forever, and I don't support the NRA. They don't speak for me. They have adopted pretty extreme views - maybe because the "other side" is so extreme, perhaps, but they're still too extreme for me.

Gun owners don't need to join the NRA, and unfortunately the NRA is as extreme "pro" as the liberals and others are "anti."

(And even with USA vs. Europe, you have to measure the same types of things, and control for economic situations, and all sorts of other things… Anyway, not the point of that post. Just wanted to say not every gun owner supports the NRA, and part of the problem is that people assume the NRA speaks for all or most gun owners. They do not.)

I don't support the NRA either.  I'm all for the safety and educational aspects, but I can't put up with the politics.  One issue I've run into, however, is that most gun clubs around here require membership in the NRA to join.  I finally found one that doesn't, but the facilities aren't great. If some sort of non-partisan organization sprang up and had the same educational initiatives and so forth I'd consider joining. 

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, drmevo said:

I don't support the NRA either.  I'm all for the safety and educational aspects, but I can't put up with the politics.  One issue I've run into, however, is that most gun clubs around here require membership in the NRA to join.  I finally found one that doesn't, but the facilities aren't great. If some sort of non-partisan organization sprang up and had the same educational initiatives and so forth I'd consider joining. 

I'm a member of the NRA but I don't get involved with much of their politics.  They lobby to keep the democrats from banning guns which I support.  

The politics is ridiculous on both sides.  The democrats voted down two bills from republicans and republican voted down two bills from democrats and the house democrats have a sit in to protest the republicans refusal to put tighter controls on guns.  It's all an act to win votes in November, both sides are corrupt and divisive.  

[Lihu]

4 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

Baby steps. 

 

Hey, I'm a moderate, anyway.

 

3 hours ago, iacas said:

@Lihu, I'm glad that's your opinion and all, but you've gotta watch saying things like this.

I'm a gun owner, and a responsible one, and I'm generally against the knee-jerk reactions that people propose. I've made the case, for example, that a lot of our "gun violence" is actually economic (inner city minority-on-minority gun crimes), and that even while we have "record numbers of mass shootings," we're also a really large country, and a more apt comparison is not "USA versus Germany" or "USA versus Australia" but rather "USA versus Europe" (at least that's about a 1:2 ratio of population)…

But anyway, I own guns, and may forever, and I don't support the NRA. They don't speak for me. They have adopted pretty extreme views - maybe because the "other side" is so extreme, perhaps, but they're still too extreme for me.

Gun owners don't need to join the NRA, and unfortunately the NRA is as extreme "pro" as the liberals and others are "anti."

(And even with USA vs. Europe, you have to measure the same types of things, and control for economic situations, and all sorts of other things… Anyway, not the point of that post. Just wanted to say not every gun owner supports the NRA, and part of the problem is that people assume the NRA speaks for all or most gun owners. They do not.)

Yeah, I'm surprised by what I am seeing in print and in the interviews. Especially the stuff coming out now.

The funny thing is I know a lot of NRA members and I have yet to meet anyone in the NRA who talks or even thinks like any of the rhetoric that is being conveyed publicly?

It's very strange to me. Most are very careful, methodical and friendly individuals, especially when it comes to firearms.

 

3 hours ago, Gunther said:

Wait, what?!  Don't leave me now @Lihu.  I bought tons of ammo before I was 18, never in 1,000 round increments, but hey, a kid needs to play, no?  Lol.

Yes, I remember buying ammunition and explosives "legally". Of course, I lived in a rural area for a while, so it was not uncommon. I really liked my trips to Missouri, they had the "play" stuff.

 

2 hours ago, drmevo said:

I don't support the NRA either.  I'm all for the safety and educational aspects, but I can't put up with the politics.  One issue I've run into, however, is that most gun clubs around here require membership in the NRA to join.  I finally found one that doesn't, but the facilities aren't great. If some sort of non-partisan organization sprang up and had the same educational initiatives and so forth I'd consider joining. 

Yes, and what's funny is that most NRA people are friendly, even to a person of foreign origin like myself. Joining a club is a good reason to join NRA, but there are plenty of public shooting ranges as well.

 

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

I'm a member of the NRA but I don't get involved with much of their politics.  They lobby to keep the democrats from banning guns which I support.  

The politics is ridiculous on both sides.  The democrats voted down two bills from republicans and republican voted down two bills from democrats and the house democrats have a sit in to protest the republicans refusal to put tighter controls on guns.  It's all an act to win votes in November, both sides are corrupt and divisive.  

You are more or less the type of person I've met when going shooting or whatever. Most people are friendly and enjoy shooting. The common topic is guns and shooting.

It's actually very technical. People really like talking about the specific technologies and materials. It's not at all about how to quickly kill anything, but mostly discussions about trigger types, what doesn't work, optics, etc.

[boogielicious]

15 hours ago, Dave2512 said:

I'd be okay with ammo being behind counters and having to show ID before making the purchase. I get carded to order a drink all the time and I am pushing 50.

Do you say, "Thank you!" like I do? 

FWIW, my late-father, mother and one brother all own guns. My mother has a license to carry and she's 82. She likes going to the range to target shoot. My brother and father left the NRA a long time ago when they became political. They don't necessarily speak for all gun owners either. There are many that support more restrictions or at least more required training for safety. 

We are drifting a bit off topic here though. 

[newtogolf]

8 hours ago, Lihu said:

You are more or less the type of person I've met when going shooting or whatever. Most people are friendly and enjoy shooting. The common topic is guns and shooting.

It's actually very technical. People really like talking about the specific technologies and materials. It's not at all about how to quickly kill anything, but mostly discussions about trigger types, what doesn't work, optics, etc.

Exactly!!! I like learning new things and discussing technology, golf, guns, computers, anything.  The politics actually takes away much of the fun for me.  When I joined the NRA, they sent me an overnight bag with their logo, I threw it out.  

I'm not blindly loyal to any organization, not the NRA, GOP, USGA, etc.  When I no longer believe they are representing my best interests I'll terminate my membership.  This year I've reconsidered my membership to all three named above and all three are on thin ice with me.  

I hope to never kill anything with my gun.  As I said, I'm not a hunter and while I'm trained in home defense I hope it's a skill I never have to test.  Now if you want to go shoot some paper targets, talk triggers, optics, uppers, etc I'm your guy.  

 

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

Do you say, "Thank you!" like I do? 

FWIW, my late-father, mother and one brother all own guns. My mother has a license to carry and she's 82. She likes going to the range to target shoot. My brother and father left the NRA a long time ago when they became political. They don't necessarily speak for all gun owners either. There are many that support more restrictions or at least more required training for safety. 

We are drifting a bit off topic here though. 

Damn, I never get carded anymore, must be the receding hair line.  

I would never want ammo or a real gun to be sold to anyone under 18.  If it wasn't for military service starting at 18 I'd push it to 21.  

[Elmer]

As a historian with a degree in early American/Colonial history, I found this to make a valid point!
 

 

[Lihu]

That ad is not quite accurate. He would've had a bayonet attached to the gun, and probably wouldn't have missed from 10 yards even with a Brown Bess.

 

12 minutes ago, Elmer said:

As a historian with a degree in early American/Colonial history, I found this to make a valid point!
 

 

 

Since we're dealing with fiction anyway. . .

Plus, a saber would have been more effective against unarmed civilians.

[Abu3baid]

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

That ad is not quite accurate. He would've had a bayonet attached to the gun, and probably wouldn't have missed from 10 yards even with a Brown Bess.

Yeah, I don't think that was the intent of the ad there.  Lets say he didn't miss, it wouldn't change the understanding of what the ad is trying to say.  

[Elmer]

28 minutes ago, Lihu said:

That ad is not quite accurate. He would've had a bayonet attached to the gun, and probably wouldn't have missed from 10 yards even with a Brown Bess.

 

 

Since we're dealing with fiction anyway. . .

Plus, a saber would have been more effective against unarmed civilians.

Bayonets threw off the accuracy to the musket. Infantry would only "fix bayonets" when they were close enough to use them. many times a musket made a better club than a rifle!

18 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

Yeah, I don't think that was the intent of the ad there.  Lets say he didn't miss, it wouldn't change the understanding of what the ad is trying to say.  

Right,
The point was that if he did or didn't miss, it would take at least 30 seconds to a min to reload!
The founders were really not afraid of a guy with a musket.
But I bet they would be horrified at what has been taking place as of recently.

The major point is, that law was written (once again by people who owned people) when the world was a very different place!

Edited June 24, 2016 by Elmer

[Lihu]

55 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

Yeah, I don't think that was the intent of the ad there.  Lets say he didn't miss, it wouldn't change the understanding of what the ad is trying to say.  

Sure, I can see the point, but I still think it's fiction***.

 

36 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Bayonets threw off the accuracy to the musket. Infantry would only "fix bayonets" when they were close enough to use them. many times a musket made a better club than a rifle!

Right,
The point was that if he did or didn't miss, it would take at least 30 seconds to a min to reload!
The founders were really not afraid of a guy with a musket.
But I bet they would be horrified at what has been taking place as of recently.

The major point is, that law was written (once again by people who owned people) when the world was a very different place!

Not at that range. People would panic and likely freeze if their coworker was shot with a Brown Bess. It's a pretty messy proposition from what I've read. A bayonet would kill slowly. Long enough a death to warrant hope from the coworkers to stick around to try to help them.

I'm trying to not go off topic again, but that the ad in your post is totally inaccurate. Plus, there are technologies from the 1930s like the Garand Rifle that could be just as deadly or even more so with 40-50 per minute of 30-06 rounds.

It's got nothing to do with modern AR-15 style technology.

 

***I have no real motive for or against guns, since I find archery more challenging anyway. The thing I don't like is an incorrect depiction of something that could never happen. Same thing as I don't like seeing the current ads from the NRA and GOP.

[Elmer]

4 minutes ago, Lihu said:

 

Not at that range. People would panic and likely freeze if their coworker was shot with a Brown Bess. It's a pretty messy proposition from what I've read. A bayonet would kill slowly. Long enough a death to warrant hope from the coworkers to stick around to try to help them.

I'm trying to not go off topic again, but that the ad in your post is totally inaccurate. Plus, there are technologies from the 1930s like the Garand Rifle that could be just as deadly or even more so with 40-50 per minute of 30-06 rounds.

It's got nothing to do with modern AR-15 style technology.

Once again, when the founders decided that everyone has a right to "bare arms" they were talking about a muzzleloader musket.
They did not fear "mass shootings" from a musket.
But because they founder said we could "bear arms" in the 1780's, we refuse to change the law.

The founders also said we would count a certian group as 3/5ths, yet that changed with the times?
So why not this law?

[Lihu]

17 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Once again, when the founders decided that everyone has a right to "bare arms" they were talking about a muzzleloader musket.
They did not fear "mass shootings" from a musket.
But because they founder said we could "bear arms" in the 1780's, we refuse to change the law.

The founders also said we would count a certian group as 3/5ths, yet that changed with the times?
So why not this law?

 

What do the founding fathers have to do with the current constitution which allows the right to bear arms? There are other amendments in there as well at this point in time.

So, what happens if we go to war with some really unfriendly nation and we desperately need 18 year old kids who can shoot guns effectively? That's why the 2nd amendment was created, and that's unlikely to go "out of fashion" any time soon. People will always hate other people.

 

[Gunther]

18 minutes ago, Elmer said:

So why not this law?

You know all the answers to this question as they've been discussed in the thread ad nauseum.  You haven't changed any minds with your logic and I haven't with mine.  I don't understand why you persist in repeating yourself and asking the pro-gun side to do the same.

 

[Dave2512]

13 hours ago, newtogolf said:

 It's all an act to win votes in November, both sides are corrupt and divisive.  

This is what I hate about guns and politics.

[Lihu]

8 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

This is what I hate about guns and politics.

I'd give you a rep point for this, but there are none in this thread.

The main issue is oversimplification of any issue. People are still looking for scapegoats. There are none. It's complicated, and we need to figure out better answers to stop this type of thing from happening. The answers are certainly not taking away anyone's rights.

Religion and guns are our rights, and we should not made to feel uncomfortable about either.

Politics and politicians, sigh. . .

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Religion and guns are our rights, and we should not made to feel uncomfortable about either.

I would say religion is a right, guns are a privilege. I wouldn't put religion in the same category as guns. The 1st amendment outright bans the government from impeding freedom of speech and religion. The 2nd amendment allows for regulations.