Terror attack at Orlando gay club
Quote: rudeboyoiI saw some video of people being carried towards the nightclub from in front of a dunkin donuts like staged actors as victims with the police helping get them there. I try not to get too much into conspiracies because it tends to drive people away from the ideas of liberty but it was a really weird video to see.
Every single time there is a mass shooting, the "false flag" loons come out of the woodwork.
Just ignore them.
Quote: ams288Every single time there is a mass shooting, the "false flag" loons come out of the woodwork.
Just ignore them.
As someone who hasn't made up their mind either way, I don't see how insulting people helps your position.
Quote: RogerKintAs someone who hasn't made up their mind either way, I don't see how insulting people helps your position.
My position is the correct one. It doesn't need any help.
People who think mass shootings are staged by the government need to be put on anti-psychotic medication.
Quote: ams288My position is the correct one. It doesn't need any help.
People who think mass shootings are staged by the government need to be put on anti-psychotic medication.
Again, why do you feel the need to insult at least one member of this forum? Are you a licensed physician?
Quote: RogerKintAgain, why do you feel the need to insult at least one member of this forum? Are you a licensed physician?
Which member am I insulting?
I'm not sure who you are referring to. But I have nothing against them, just their bat-crap crazy beliefs.
Don't pretend your comment was not directed at rudeboyoi. I'm not even saying it was a suspension worthy insult (I was jokingly going to say he forgot to take his meds but I thought someone might take it not as a joke) Just don't insult everyone's intelligence by playing coy.Quote: ams288Which member am I insulting?
I'm not sure who you are referring to. But I have nothing against them, just their bat-crap crazy beliefs.
Quote: AxelWolfDon't pretend your comment was not directed at rudeboyoi. I'm not even saying it was a suspension worthy insult (I was jokingly going to say he forgot to take his meds but I thought someone might take it not as a joke) Just don't insult everyone's intelligence by playing coy.
I read it differently than some folks on here, I guess. AMS was telling rudeboyoi to ignore the folks who claimed it was govt sponsored shooting, not telling the forum to ignore rude . I could be wrong, but I don't see the insult.
FYI I know rudeboyoi in RL and he's a very intelligent person and he's good to his friends always the first person to offer a helping hand and a compassionate person.Quote: AxelWolfDon't pretend your comment was not directed at rudeboyoi. I'm not even saying it was a suspension worthy insult (I was jokingly going to say he forgot to take his meds but I thought someone might take it not as a joke) Just don't insult everyone's intelligence by playing coy.
I don't know where he comes up with some of this stuff sometimes online.
Quote: AxelWolfDon't pretend your comment was not directed at rudeboyoi. I'm not even saying it was a suspension worthy insult (I was jokingly going to say he forgot to take his meds but I thought someone might take it not as a joke) Just don't insult everyone's intelligence by playing coy.
My comment wasn't directed at rudeboyoi. (Go back to the post where I quoted him).
I did not read his post as saying "this is a false flag." I interpreted some skepticism in his post.
Hence me telling him to, "ignore them."
It's ok you already have you're banhammerbabs quota for this month so you can pretend it wasn't meant as a dig on him. (-;Quote: beachbumbabsI read it differently than some folks on here, I guess. AMS was telling rudeboyoi to ignore the folks who claimed it was govt sponsored shooting, not telling the forum to ignore rude . I could be wrong, but I don't see the insult.
Honestly RB's comment was about as conspiracy theorist as you can get. I prefer not to know what he thinks about 9/11.
Quote: AxelWolfAt least 50 people are dead and more than 50 others are wounded after a gunman opened fire and took hostages at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, early Sunday morning, police said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gunman-opens-fire-orlando-gay-club-report-article-1.2670322
The shooter was identified as xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 29, of Port Saint Lucie, Fla a US citizen.
Seizing this terrorist incident, Trump DELIBERATELY lie about the shooter immigration status to spread his demagogue messages about immigration policy, and particularly his policy of banning all Muslims. He used this one bad "apple" (the shooter) to promote his racial hierarchy idea in an effort to paint all Muslims as a threat to America.
Someone must remind Trump that there are bad apples and good apples in all societies, religions, ethics, professions, etc., and that one of the many good apples is Steve Jobs (the Apple Inc. co-founder) who was a son of an immigrant from Syria. Perhaps it is now time for Trump to stop using iPhone and prohibit his staffs and his corporate entities in using iPhone and all other Apple's devises due to this recent horrific incident.
Quote: Paradigm
Anyone else been in similar circumstances? How did you feel about owning a gun before and after the incident?
I've been pounded more times than I care to recollect, but surprisingly, that was not the catalyst that made me the ammosexual I am today. My gunner roots come from nothing other than country livin'. All the self defense, begging for a revolution stuff came later.
I had one recent incident I spoke at length about on DT. There was a loaded gun present and though I did not bring it to bear, I absolutely credit it for the assist. The reason being is that a gun gives options. I knew I had it. I knew if I got caught in a compromising position, I had a way out. Knowing that, it gave me time to use my #1 weapon, my head. Because I knew I had "a savior", I was able to take a gamble and rely on my mouth first.
Without that gun present, I could only revert to what I know, and that is to get the upper hand as soon as possible and don't stop until you can't lift your arms anymore. I dunno if he planned to just scare me, beat me, or kill me, but I know in the situation I was in that I would've thrashed with the intent to kill. And I would have to rely on a shoulder that always pops out and a head so soft I can get knocked out by a hard tackle to the chest. It wouldn't have been pretty, any way you slice it.
It's why I carry everywhere. Casino, bank, PO, I don't care. Policies and Procedures ain't got s#$% on Smith and Wesson.
It's all about options. Get yourself some.
- I think background checks should be more thorough. Its crazy that the fact that this Orlando guy was a suspected terrorist, and him purchasing assault riffles does not raise a red flag ANYWHERE.
- I think everyone who owns a firearm should be required to pass a written and practical exam. ESPECIALLY if they want to conceal carry.
- I think it should be much much more difficult to purchase high capacity weapons. There's no reason you need a 100 round magazine to defend your own life and property. This guy in Orlando couldn't have shot 75+ people if he had to stop and reload every 6 rounds.
Everyone should be able to get a gun, except stupid and dangerous people.
Quote: gamerfreakI'm very pro 2nd amendment, but I don't think that has to mean anti-regulation.
- I think background checks should be more thorough. Its crazy that the fact that this Orlando guy was a suspected terrorist, and him purchasing assault riffles does not raise a red flag ANYWHERE.
- I think everyone who owns a firearm should be required to pass a written and practical exam. ESPECIALLY if they want to conceal carry.
- I think it should be much much more difficult to purchase high capacity weapons. There's no reason you need a 100 round magazine to defend your own life and property. This guy in Orlando couldn't have shot 75+ people if he had to stop and reload every 6 rounds.
Everyone should be able to get a gun, except stupid and dangerous people.
2nd Amendment is just like 1st Amendment, they give individual rights that come with responsibilities. For example, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater simply because of the freedom of speech provides by the 1st Amendment.
I agree with your positions on the 2nd Amendment, except for this one major difference in the "high capacity" weapons: I don't support the ordinary citizen right to own machine guns or other military assault type weapons. These weapons belong in the war zones and not in ordinary residence or streets of America, and it is my opinion that the ban of these types of weapons do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
Quote: 777
I agree with your positions on the 2nd Amendment, except for this one major difference in the "high capacity" weapons: I don't support the ordinary citizen right to own machine guns or other military assault type weapons. These weapons belong in the war zones and not in ordinary residence or streets of America, and it is my opinion that the ban of these types of weapons do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
Yeah, the 2nd amendment doesn't specify which guns you have a right to. You just have rights to a gun. I would hope most people would agree with me that military assault weapons go beyond the typical need of self-defense, and if the time comes where they are needed for that, well, bye-bye Earth as we know it.
Quote: 7772nd Amendment is just like 1st Amendment, they give individual rights that come with responsibilities. For example, you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater simply because of the freedom of speech provides by the 1st Amendment.
I agree with your positions on the 2nd Amendment, except for this one major difference in the "high capacity" weapons: I don't support the ordinary citizen right to own machine guns or other military assault type weapons. These weapons belong in the war zones and not in ordinary residence or streets of America, and it is my opinion that the ban of these types of weapons do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If the true purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from our own government should they get out of hand, why would anyone even consider limiting the range of "arms" we are allowed to have? Back when it was written, weapons were simpler but they did have weapons that would cause more destruction than others, like cannons. Read in that context, it seems that the type of arms should not be limited at all.
Remember, that government we are able to protect ourselves from has ALL the largest weapons.
"Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule."
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html
Yes, the Amendment comes with responsibilities...compare not yelling fire in a movie theater to not shooting in a way to cause danger to innocent persons, for example...but taking away the "right" from everyone because some else is not "responsible" does not seem to meet the test...you actually "can" yell "fire" in a movie theater before being arrested. Taking away the right to bear arms without a person individually doing something to violating the law seems not to meet the same test.
Quote: RonC"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If the true purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from our own government should they get out of hand, why would anyone even consider limiting the range of "arms" we are allowed to have? Back when it was written, weapons were simpler but they did have weapons that would cause more destruction than others, like cannons. Read in that context, it seems that the type of arms should not be limited at all.
Remember, that government we are able to protect ourselves from has ALL the largest weapons.
"Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule."
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html
Absolutely, I am negotiating with a Russian today,who claims to have access to a nuclear weapon.
Yes, the Amendment comes with responsibilities...compare not yelling fire in a movie theater to not shooting in a way to cause danger to innocent persons, for example...but taking away the "right" from everyone because some else is not "responsible" does not seem to meet the test...you actually "can" yell "fire" in a movie theater before being arrested. Taking away the right to bear arms without a person individually doing something to violating the law seems not to meet the same test.
Quote: RonC"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If the true purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from our own government should they get out of hand, why would anyone even consider limiting the range of "arms" we are allowed to have? Back when it was written, weapons were simpler but they did have weapons that would cause more destruction than others, like cannons. Read in that context, it seems that the type of arms should not be limited at all.
Remember, that government we are able to protect ourselves from has ALL the largest weapons.
Indeed. All this talk about muskets and breach loaders, well, guess what? Back then, the breach loader was the rapid fire weapon of its day. And we had 'em, because that was the point.
Go ahead and ban your "assault weapons". Guess what? They already are! There was a bill in '94, and another in '68, and yet another in '34, and probably a hundred other bits and pieces hidden in various legislation all along the way. The problem with you antis is ignorance. See those rifles on the top middle of my family portrait? We got 7.62's and 5.56's, there's a 30rd in there, hell, one is even automatic. And not a single assault rifle among them.
You know what kills more people, more innocents, more cops, than any other gun? A .22. The same thing you plunk squirrels and woodchucks with. Guess what's next? The .38/.357. And after that the 9mm. You know where rifles fall? It's not last, but only because of all the wacky, hard-to-find, or insanely expensive calibers take up that spot. Those rifles you keep insisting on calling "assault" account for less than one percent of one percent of all gun homicides. Gun homicides that already number ONLY 20k a year. But who needs facts when you have emotion? I mean, it's only our own country you're attacking.
Education before action. Give it a shot.
Quote: gamerfreak- I think it should be much much more difficult to purchase high capacity weapons. There's no reason you need a 100 round magazine to defend your own life and property. This guy in Orlando couldn't have shot 75+ people if he had to stop and reload every 6 rounds.
I always wonder about this argument (Face with his gun experience I am sure will be able to comment). A Glock 17 pistol has a 17 round magazine standard and look at this video to see how quickly someone trained can re-load: Speed Load. So you get this POS re-loading 3-4 times in what appears to be like 2 secs each and he is able to have fired off 51-68 rounds with a gun that will never be classified/banned as an "assault weapon".
I am all for background checks. closing loopholes to get around them, etc. But he wasn't on any list at the time that would have banned him from buying anything. Even after we institute No Fly/No Buy that is getting all the attention now and assume Congress miraculously passes a ban on "assault weapons", he still walks into a Pulse or any like crowded establishment with a pistol grip shot gun holding 7 rounds & a 6 round side saddle ammo clip....blows holes into the crowd with those first 13 rounds pretty darn quickly and then pulls out his Glock 17 and is capable of unloading another 50-70 rounds all in under 4 minutes...it is quickly a blood bath of epic proportions without an AR 15 even present.
I am not an assault weapon proponent and question our collective sanity making them available to the public. That said, I don't buy that the "No Fly/No Buy" and a ban on assault weapons is going to change the specifics of Orlando happening the day after both measures become law. I guess liberals could say they are steps in the right direction, but you haven't solved the problem by any stretch of the imagination, so now what? And conservatives will say that if you aren't solving the problem, why are you passing any new gun control legislation? I find myself leaning left on this issue, but still feel like even with both laws passing, nothing will have changed to stop Orlando happening again.
Quote: RonC"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If the true purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from our own government should they get out of hand, why would anyone even consider limiting the range of "arms" we are allowed to have? Back when it was written, weapons were simpler but they did have weapons that would cause more destruction than others, like cannons. Read in that context, it seems that the type of arms should not be limited at all.
Remember, that government we are able to protect ourselves from has ALL the largest weapons.
"Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule."
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html
Yes, the Amendment comes with responsibilities...compare not yelling fire in a movie theater to not shooting in a way to cause danger to innocent persons, for example...but taking away the "right" from everyone because some else is not "responsible" does not seem to meet the test...you actually "can" yell "fire" in a movie theater before being arrested. Taking away the right to bear arms without a person individually doing something to violating the law seems not to meet the same test.
Unanimous SCOTUS decisions on important and controversial constitutional issues are rare, and you and I will never agree on the interpretation of limitation on gun regarding the 2nd amendment, so let's not waste time on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Since our constitution can be changed or amended as it was done in the past on many occasions for the benefit of a better society, we can talk about sensible law and human behavior in the context of betterment for society.
Nearly most, if not all laws were enacted because of few bad apples or from many lessons learned in order to make a better or an orderly society. And yes, everyone must be forced or be willing to take some sacrifice in civil liberty or other inconveniences in order to have a better or an orderly society. Take the current airport screening around the world as an example. Because of Osama and other fanatics, all travelers now have to subject to tight scrutiny at the airport. Is this too much of a inconvenience or a sacrifice in civil liberty to ask for?
We don’t know who the terrorist are or WILL BE, that is why all passengers are subject to scrutiny, or are looked at with a certain degree of suspicion. You are a responsible and law abiding citizen (and gun owner if applicable) right now, but we don’t know your mental state tomorrow or in the FUTURE with regarding to your hatred of Hillary, distrust of government, or your mental state in the heat of passion in other matters? It is worth noting that Tim McVeigh, Osama and other mass murders were once responsible and law abiding citizens and gun owners just like you and all others. Will Trump or other life/personal factors turn you into a fanatic with full hatred of government just like Tim McVeigh’s hatred of government, or other in the like of other mass murderers? My personal answer is no and I wholeheartedly believe you when you say answer is no. Even though my personal answer to the question I posed is no, but the real answer in the interest the public good is I don’t know.
Because of so many incidents of mass murders involving the use of highly mechanized weapons/guns, and the unknown of FUTURE human behaviors and mental states, I’m willing to sacrifice by civil liberty of owing a HIGHLY MECHANIZED gun/weapon for the betterment of the society and I’m strongly support legislation banning highly mechanized weapons/guns. I don’t believe such legislation is in violation of the 2nd Amendment, but if it does violate the constitution, then I’m in favor of amending the constitution to make the banning g of military assault type of weapons constitutional.
Quote: ams288My position is the correct one. It doesn't need any help.
People who think mass shootings are staged by the government need to be put on anti-psychotic medication.
More people die at the hands of "their" own government than other nations's government. Check out some stats on democide.
Quote: ParadigmI always wonder about this argument (Face with his gun experience I am sure will be able to comment). A Glock 17 pistol has a 17 round magazine standard and look at this video to see how quickly someone trained can re-load: Speed Load. So you get this POS re-loading 3-4 times in what appears to be like 2 secs each and he is able to have fired off 51-68 rounds with a gun that will never be classified/banned as an "assault weapon".
I am all for background checks. closing loopholes to get around them, etc. But he wasn't on any list at the time that would have banned him from buying anything. Even after we institute No Fly/No Buy that is getting all the attention now and assume Congress miraculously passes a ban on "assault weapons", he still walks into a Pulse or any like crowded establishment with a pistol grip shot gun holding 7 rounds & a 6 round side saddle ammo clip....blows holes into the crowd with those first 13 rounds pretty darn quickly and then pulls out his Glock 17 and is capable of unloading another 50-70 rounds all in under 4 minutes...it is quickly a blood bath of epic proportions without an AR 15 even present.
I am not an assault weapon proponent and question our collective sanity making them available to the public. That said, I don't buy that the "No Fly/No Buy" and a ban on assault weapons is going to change the specifics of Orlando happening the day after both measures become law. I guess liberals could say they are steps in the right direction, but you haven't solved the problem by any stretch of the imagination, so now what? And conservatives will say that if you aren't solving the problem, why are you passing any new gun control legislation? I find myself leaning left on this issue, but still feel like even with both laws passing, nothing will have changed to stop Orlando happening again.
I think you are comparing apple and orange. In a control environment (no pressure, one target, no fear of resisters or victims' counter attack, and other favorable factors) for youTube viewing pleasure, one can theoretically fire many rounds accurately and quickly. But let’s be realistic, in the real world situation where there many targets, shooter panic/pressure mental state, shooter hiding/running, shooter looking out for other potential resisters, shooter defensive gesture, etc. it would be very difficult to fire that many shots and hit multiple targets with high degree of certainty.
It is true that no one gun legislation or any other legislation will solve all the problems. But at least sensible gun legislation can greatly minimize the frequency of tragedies and casualties if gun ownership is highly scrutinized and highly mechanized guns/weapons are not used.
Quote: Paradigm777....so what? Why are you so willing to give up your civil liberties and accomplish essentially nothing in making this country safer. Recall Tim V used a bomb, not a highly mechanized gun/weapon. I don't disagree with your thinking on the "ban of HIGHLY MECHANIZED gun/weapons"...but the problem is as I stated in my shotgun/Glock 17 example...I don't think it solves ANY of the problems we faced in Orlando, Sandy Hook, etc. I generally don't favor action that doesn't lead to the intended result.
I lived down the block from the Merillion Ave train station where Colin Ferguson opened fire on a car loaded with a hundred commuters. Several of my neighbors died and another was shot in the head. He was tackled while reloading after firing two fourteen round clips.
Same thing happened in Arizona with Gabby Gifford.
A good friend is a retired NYPD officer who was one of several officers shot in a shootout with a drug dealer armed with a banana clip in a rifle. The guy dropped the new clip while trying to reload and one of the wounded cops managed to kick it away.
While I'm a firm believer that the best gun control is being able to hit your intended target, I am totally for limiting the capacity of clips.
If for no other reason than this- If you can't hit your target in the first five or six shots, I don't want you having another ten misses left.
Quote: Paradigm777....so what? Why are you so willing to give up your civil liberties and accomplish essentially nothing in making this country safer. Recall Tim V used a bomb, not a highly mechanized gun/weapon. I don't disagree with your thinking on the "ban of HIGHLY MECHANIZED gun/weapons"...but the problem is as I stated in my shotgun/Glock 17 example...I don't think it solves ANY of the problems we faced in Orlando, Sandy Hook, etc. I generally don't favor action that doesn't lead to the intended result.
I cited Tim McVeigh to raise issue about a person mental state factor.
I think you are comparing apple and orange. In a control environment (no pressure, one target, no fear of resisters or victims counter attack, and other favorable factor) for youTube viewing pleasure, one can theoretically fire that many rounds. But let’s be realistic, in the real world situation where there many targets, shooter panic/pressure mental state, shooter hiding/running, shooter looking out for other potential resisters, shooter defensive gesture, etc. it would be very difficult to fire that many shots and hit multiple targets with high degree of certainty.
It is true that no one gun legislation or any other legislation will solve all the problems. But at least sensible gun legislation can greatly minimize the frequency of tragedies and casualties if gun ownership is highly scrutinized and highly mechanized guns/weapons are not used.
DON'T CARE.Quote: 777Seizing this terrorist incident, Trump DELIBERATELY lie about the shooter immigration status to spread his demagogue messages about immigration policy, and particularly his policy of banning all Muslims. He used this one bad "apple" (the shooter) to promote his racial hierarchy idea in an effort to paint all Muslims as a threat to America.
Someone must remind Trump that there are bad apples and good apples in all societies, religions, ethics, professions, etc., and that one of the many good apples is Steve Jobs (the Apple Inc. co-founder) who was a son of an immigrant from Syria. Perhaps it is now time for Trump to stop using iPhone and prohibit his staffs and his corporate entities in using iPhone and all other Apple's devises due to this recent horrific incident.
GO TRUMP GO. Build that wall, deport them all
....the Illegal ones, unless their hotties of course.
Quote: billryanI lived down the block from the Merillion Ave train station where Colin Ferguson opened fire on a car loaded with a hundred commuters. Several of my neighbors died and another was shot in the head. He was tackled while reloading after firing two fourteen round clips.
Same thing happened in Arizona with Gabby Gifford.
A good friend is a retired NYPD officer who was one of several officers shot in a shootout with a drug dealer armed with a banana clip in a rifle. The guy dropped the new clip while trying to reload and one of the wounded cops managed to kick it away.
While I'm a firm believer that the best gun control is being able to hit your intended target, I am totally for limiting the capacity of clips.
If for no other reason than this- If you can't hit your target in the first five or six shots, I don't want you having another ten misses left.
If I'm not mistaken there were several hundred people (patrons and employees) in the somewhat crowd and dark inside the Pulse. Had he used Glock 17, it is my opinion that the number of casualty would have been much smaller and the shooter most likely will be tackled by the patrons and employees because of the large crowd (big and/or strong male customers) and the not well lit environment.
Quote: CalderA thread about a terror attack devolves into a gun control debate.
You can blame it on the shooter for not using Swiss Army knife or Samurai blade in the attack ...
Can one of those be true and the other one not?
I'm suggesting we shouldn't make it so easy for people to legally get guns.Quote: CalderYour assumption is if the gun were banned, he wouldn't have the gun?
Quote: rxwineIf we ban all Muslims, the bad ones will still get in. Just like bad guys still get the guns, if we ban guns.
Can one of those be true and the other one not?
Nobody really wants to "ban" all Muslims. Many do want to check them out before they come in.
It is silly assumption to think that no "bad ones" will get in...the idea is to trim the number of "bad ones" as best we can.
Imperfect? Yep. Better than doing nothing more than we are now? Yep.
Quote: 777If I'm not mistaken there were several hundred people (patrons and employees) in the somewhat crowd and dark inside the Pulse. Had he used Glock 17, it is my opinion that the number of casualty would have been much smaller and the shooter most likely will be tackled by the patrons and employees because of the large crowd (big and/or strong male customers) and the not well lit environment.
So maybe one safety measure for a large club would be to have places where staff can light up the whole place and take away the shooter's cover. I assume that, as in many cases, some would attack the shooter at risk of death if they had a good visual on him. Lit up, they could see when he had to change magazines. Some risks to this (duh) but it is an idea.
Quote: AxelWolfI'm suggesting we shouldn't make it so easy for people to legally get guns.
He was a terrorist, Axel. He sought to kill people in a nightclub; he wasn't sweating whether the gun was legal. Banning the gun would not have prevented this.
I'm confident you don't think this way, but some people calling for gun bans seem to believe a law is like a magic wand -- one wave and they all go away.
That heroin ban sure is working well. We can't even keep people from getting into the country illegally, and there's a law against that, too.
The problem is nasty people who want to kill us because we don't believe what they believe.
And I think that "us" is important. They want to kill you, me, ams288, and AZDuffman for one reason: we're Americans.
That system is really working well in Chicago, especially on weekends, right?Quote: 777It is true that no one gun legislation or any other legislation will solve all the problems. But at least sensible gun legislation can greatly minimize the frequency of tragedies and casualties if gun ownership is highly scrutinized and highly mechanized guns/weapons are not used.
Quote: TankoTony owned a candy store.
One day, a customer he never saw before, comes in and asks for a carton of Winstons.
As Tony places the carton on the counter, the customer reaches into his waistband and pulls out a gun.
"And give me your money."
Tony gave him the money, and the robber fled.
The following week, another customer who Tony never saw before, comes in and asks for a carton of Winstons.
No one fools Tony twice.
As Tony puts the carton on the counter with one hand, he reaches under the counter with the other.
Customer reaches for his waistband.
"And give me..."
He never got a chance to finish his sentence.
Tony came up with a baseball bat and slammed him in the head for all he was worth.
The would be robber went down, and as Tony came around the counter for more batting practice, the thief managed to scramble out the door to his awaiting getaway car.
Quote: sammydv... and as Tony came around the counter for more batting practice, Tony found a note from the customers wife clutched in his unconscious hand.."Honey, please pick up a box of Tampons when you get your cigs. Love you!!.
...
After realizing that he had mistakenly shot an innocent customer who was later identified by the police as Paul Harvey, Tony felt remorseful for what he had done, he then proceed to putting a Glock 17 to his head … And now you know the rest of the story.
Quote: ams288My position is the correct one. It doesn't need any help.
People who think mass shootings are staged by the government need to be put on anti-psychotic medication.
The comment that you believe your position is correct, instantly puts you in the group of those that should be questioned and watched.
Quote: CalderBanning the gun would not have prevented this.
So do you think if AR-15's had been banned, and he went to the gun store to buy a rifle, and because he couldn't get an AR-15 he got, say, a Winchester 30/30 instead, 49 people would still have died and 53 others injured?
Quote: sammydvThe comment that you believe your position is correct, instantly puts you in the group of those that should be questioned and watched.
Sick burn, bro!
Quote: TigerWuSo do you think if AR-15's had been banned, and he went to the gun store to buy a rifle, and because he couldn't get an AR-15 he got, say, a Winchester 30/30 instead, 49 people would still have died and 53 others injured?
That cowardly, evil, pos did not use an AR-15, hey hey.
Quote: AxelWolfDon't pretend your comment was not directed at rudeboyoi. I'm not even saying it was a suspension worthy insult (I was jokingly going to say he forgot to take his meds but I thought someone might take it not as a joke) Just don't insult everyone's intelligence by playing coy.
Actually, a random reader could have taken your response as a direct insult at rudeboy...
"Oh boy!!
Move away from the keyboard."
Because it was open ended and can easily be taken out of context. I did, but knowing now that you know rudeboy and looking at the comment, you could have been referring to the actual author of the video, and not even rudeboy or his comments.
This tendency for most everyone to read things into posts incorrectly is probably one of the biggest problems of forums. This few responses is a great example of that. However, AMS isn't transparent, nor tries to be.
Quote: soxfanThat cowardly, evil, pos did not use an AR-15, hey hey.
I stand corrected, and revise my question:
So do you think if AR-15's and similar rifles such as the Sig Sauer that Mateen used had been banned, and he went to the gun store to buy a rifle, and because he couldn't get a Sig he got, say, a Winchester 30/30 instead, 49 people would still have died and 53 others injured?
Quote: TigerWuSo do you think if AR-15's had been banned...
If he only killed 12 people with the Winchester you'd be relieved? Or would you advocate the banning of 30/30s?
What I think is someone who is interested in killing as many people as he can will get the AR-15, if that is his weapon of choice. Making them illegal doesn't make them disappear from the face of the earth.
You're concerned about rate of fire, I'm concerned about terrorism.
No I actually thought he should move away from the keyboard before he says something to crazy, he sometimes says some crap on here that is mind boggling. I think he's is misunderstood and people get the wrong impression, i can see why that is.Quote: sammydvActually, a random reader could have taken your response as a direct insult at rudeboy...
"Oh boy!!
Move away from the keyboard."
Because it was open ended and can easily be taken out of context. I did, but knowing now that you know rudeboy and looking at the comment, you could have been referring to the actual author of the video, and not even rudeboy or his comments.
This tendency for most everyone to read things into posts incorrectly is probably one of the biggest problems of forums. This few responses is a great example of that. However, AMS isn't transparent, nor tries to be.
Even during a few private e-communications with him, I totally misunderstood him as it came off as dry and or serious but once i talked to him i got an entirely different understanding.
Not sure how telling someone to stop typing could be an insult. I have higher tolerance for what I consider and insult than Mike and or some Mod's do. I think it's all in the context and how it's meant, and the history of the posters, or if it's seriously meant to be attacking someone in a vicious manner. I see nothing wrong with semi friendly banter and even calling someone an idiot from time to time. RS called himself retarded the other day, had someone else like Rome's said he was retarded first I wouldn't think that's a big deal.
Anyone know what happened to the security guard??
Suppression fire? No one was firing at them at the time.
If a Santa Claus set up a kettle and rang a bell for ISIS contributions, how long would it take the Orlando police and the FBI to notice?
What's he Chuck Connors or something? (yes i know that's not a 30/30 but you get the point)Quote: TigerWuI stand corrected, and revise my question:
So do you think if AR-15's and similar rifles such as the Sig Sauer that Mateen used had been banned, and he went to the gun store to buy a rifle, and because he couldn't get a Sig he got, say, a Winchester 30/30 instead, 49 people would still have died and 53 others injured?
There's a big difference in getting a 30/30 and some other guns that are made for one thing, killing lots of people.
And no, I didn't say that's the only thing you can do with them, but that's basically what some guns are designed for.
