Mass shooting in Orlando nightclub

[JoeKing]

pretty sure it's illegal to carry in a bar or anywhere that serves alcohol for obvious reasons.

So this shooting in the Orlando nightclub shows how effective making such a place a gun free zone. Bad guys still go to them and do bad things. Would not have been so bad if good guys with guns were there to nip it in the bud.

 

[iceberg]

I'm a proponent of the 2nd amendment but will never understand why military, assault type weapons are seen as necessary right for a civilian population. From my understanding, club security there were armed......this terrorist had a gun that can unload hundreds of rounds in seconds.

not if he just bought them legally the other day, no.

let's let the fact come out before we make them up please.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Of course it does...you think the only people that are crossing are poor immigrants that just want a better life???

Most of the latest shootings have been terror related

These folks didn't sneak into the US.

The incident last night was the result of a home-grown.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

not if he just bought them legally the other day, no.

let's let the fact come out before we make them up please.

what question did I ask that you're answering?

 

[iceberg]

As someone who is not gun savy, can you explain why this is an exaggeration? Is it based on the gun the shooter had or are you saying assault rifles can not shoot hundreds of rounds in seconds?

Because again, I'm not gun savy and Wikipedia could be wrong, but they seem to suggest assault rifles are capable of firing between 600-900 rpm, which would make his statement true and not an exaggeration.

the problem is the forever changing definition of "assault" rifle.

the rifles you can buy legally today w/standard checks are semi-automatic. period. they can look different and they can hold "extras" but they are a semi-automatic weapon.

you cannot buy a gun that can fire that many rounds without the FBI knowing your great great great grandfathers name and that's just to start.

 

[iceberg]

what question did I ask that you're answering?

the one i quoted.

"this terrorist had a gun that can unload hundreds of rounds in seconds."

only reports i've heard is he's using guns he bought, legally, a few days ago. anything you buy in that timeframe will not meet those specifications.

 

[iceberg]

So this shooting in the Orlando nightclub shows how effective making such a place a gun free zone. Bad guys still go to them and do bad things. Would not have been so bad if good guys with guns were there to nip it in the bud.

except that i can't think of any place that sells alcohol that allows guns into their establishment as a matter of policy. this is jsut talking for the sake of hearing yourself talk.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

except that i can't think of any place that sells alcohol that allows guns into their establishment as a matter of policy. this is jsut talking for the sake of hearing yourself talk.

and here I was beginning to think I was the crazy one

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

the one i quoted.

"this terrorist had a gun that can unload hundreds of rounds in seconds."

only reports i've heard is he's using guns he bought, legally, a few days ago. anything you buy in that timeframe will not meet those specifications.

oh, okay....that wasn't a question by me. In any event, I guess it can be turned into semantics on rounds and seconds, etc. but my struggle to understand is why these type of guns are necessary for civilians. Whether it's 100 rounds in 30, 60, 90, whatever amount of seconds seems excessive. It's my opinion, again I support 2nd amendment but I guess it comes down to who has the biggest gun.

 

[JoeKing]

except that i can't think of any place that sells alcohol that allows guns into their establishment as a matter of policy. this is jsut talking for the sake of hearing yourself talk.

Who said anything about allowing patrons of a bar to drink and carry? You can do one or the other, which is why open carry works better than conceal carry in these situations. Plus, in places that have so many patrons like this nightclub, armed guards should be a must.. no drinking for them. I would never advocate mixing booze with firearms.

 

[iceberg]

oh, okay....that wasn't a question by me. In any event, I guess it can be turned into semantics on rounds and seconds, etc. but my struggle to understand is why these type of guns are necessary for civilians. Whether it's 100 rounds in 30, 60, 90, whatever amount of seconds seems excessive. It's my opinion, again I support 2nd amendment but I guess it comes down to who has the biggest gun.

heh - ok. all good and i'll tell you my own thoughts on this and we can compare.

a ruger 10/22 rifle is a .22 rifle. about the most popular out there. it is referred to as a "semi-automatic" rifle in that it will hold 15 rounds (and you can buy larger capacity mags) and once you release the trigger, it will cycle and you can pull it again as it will load another into the chamber for you. pull the trigger and it will fire again until the mag is empty or you get tired of doing it.

a 9mm pistol can hold 8-16 rounds, give or take. same thing, however. it only fires as fast as you can release and pull again.

an AR/15 will fire usually a .223 / 5.53 or .308 round. they can hold 15+ rounds depending on the magazine. however, they fire no faster than the 10/22 or 9mm previously.

the "advantages" of the AT is that you can collapse it down for tighter quarters (in many but not all instances) and you can put things like laser sights on the black rails surrounding the barrel. however, it fires no faster.

a fully automatic gun can fire at different rates but just hold and it fires. you and i can't walk into a store and buy one of these. the odds of us ever owning one, highly remote and even trying will get you checked out in many ways you'd rather not be, regardless of spotless past or not.

so what about "these guns" make it a bad choice for someone vs. a semi-automatic deer rifle shooting a 30-06 or .308 also? what about these guns should be banned from "civilian" guns? which features?

in a close situation like that, several pistols and extra mags would have done the same thing. most people hate AR's and call them "assault rifles" but look up the definition of assault right and see how it's changed w/the agendas. used to be fully automatic but those are hard to come by so now they're the AR-15 and the like. so again, what would you ban from this style of gun to make it like a hunting or other rifle that would stop these kinds of shootings?

btw - no it wasn't a question, it was just incorrect. he did not have such a weapon that i've heard of yet, only store bought guns. you cannot buy a fully automatic weapon in a few days and esp with his history.

 

[iceberg]

Who said anything about allowing patrons of a bar to drink and carry? You can do one or the other, which is why open carry works better than conceal carry in these situations. Plus, in places that have so many patrons like this nightclub, armed guards should be a must.. no drinking for them. I would never advocate mixing booze with firearms.

just general stupidity. got it.

have a nice day.

 

[JoeKing]

Does it matter that this was, as CNN is reporting, a "LGBT" nightclub? Does this distinction make it anymore or less of a tragedy? Does this distinction make it anymore or less disgusting? Does this distinction make any difference at all? This is what I'm discerning... being a "LGBT" nightclub may have been the distinction that caused this perpetrator to attack this location. It wasn't just an attack on a perticular community but an attack on a country that allows that community to openly be true to itself. Intolerence at it's worse.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

heh - ok. all good and i'll tell you my own thoughts on this and we can compare.

a ruger 10/22 rifle is a .22 rifle. about the most popular out there. it is referred to as a "semi-automatic" rifle in that it will hold 15 rounds (and you can buy larger capacity mags) and once you release the trigger, it will cycle and you can pull it again as it will load another into the chamber for you. pull the trigger and it will fire again until the mag is empty or you get tired of doing it.

a 9mm pistol can hold 8-16 rounds, give or take. same thing, however. it only fires as fast as you can release and pull again.

an AR/15 will fire usually a .223 / 5.53 or .308 round. they can hold 15+ rounds depending on the magazine. however, they fire no faster than the 10/22 or 9mm previously.

the "advantages" of the AT is that you can collapse it down for tighter quarters (in many but not all instances) and you can put things like laser sights on the black rails surrounding the barrel. however, it fires no faster.

a fully automatic gun can fire at different rates but just hold and it fires. you and i can't walk into a store and buy one of these. the odds of us ever owning one, highly remote and even trying will get you checked out in many ways you'd rather not be, regardless of spotless past or not.

so what about "these guns" make it a bad choice for someone vs. a semi-automatic deer rifle shooting a 30-06 or .308 also? what about these guns should be banned from "civilian" guns? which features?

in a close situation like that, several pistols and extra mags would have done the same thing. most people hate AR's and call them "assault rifles" but look up the definition of assault right and see how it's changed w/the agendas. used to be fully automatic but those are hard to come by so now they're the AR-15 and the like. so again, what would you ban from this style of gun to make it like a hunting or other rifle that would stop these kinds of shootings?

btw - no it wasn't a question, it was just incorrect. he did not have such a weapon that i've heard of yet, only store bought guns. you cannot buy a fully automatic weapon in a few days and esp with his history.

Explained the way you put it, I don't know what should change to try and prevent something like this. I get it that a gun can't kill w/o a person who has intent. These semi automatic guns with high round magazines unfortunately aid this type of person to be so much more lethal. To your point, someone could easily have dozens of magazines and quickly reload a pistol, etc. Maybe if bullets were $20 a piece, or a stricter vetting process, longer wait time, national database on gun/magazines/bullets? I don't know, it really is a perplexing situation.

 

[JoeKing]

just general stupidity. got it.

have a nice day.

Preventing tragedies is never "general stupidity". If one person can be worthy of being protected by armed guard then why can't a crowd of 300?

 

[Reverend Conehead]

I'm not attempting to make any religion look good or look bad. But his family can come out and say it wasn't about religion as much as they want, the FBI WAS NOT tracking him for nothing. His has family outside the US, specifically Afghanistan. I am not saying he has ties to a radical islamic group, but I'll go ahead say it's safe to assume his homophobia was influenced by a certain ideology. I'll gladly admit if I'm wrong.

We have an 80% Christian population and a 1% Muslim population. It took someone from the 1% to cause the worst mass shooting in history. So not only do Muslims now hold the worst terrorist attack, they hold the worst mass shooting.

I think living in a melting pot is beautiful. I love the mixture and influencing of cultures, when it's positive. I have my criticisms with how America has reacted to Islamic terror, but I DO NOT want to see our Muslim population double and triple like it's expected to in the next 15 years. I do not want to become another Germany or Sweden after the progress we have made.

We've had terrorism in the United States since at least the 19th Century. Many of the terrorist assaults have been from extremist groups like the KKK who use Christianity as their excuse for the violence. In other words, it's not just Muslims committing acts of terror. Of course, it would be completely unfair to blame Christians in general for the acts of the KKK. Almost all Christians abhor that kind of violence. The same is true of Muslims. After every terrorist attack in the name of Islam, Muslims around the world have condemned it in protest, insisting that that's not what their faith is about. They were protesting in the streets of Paris after the attack there. Unfortunately, our incredibly biased news sources either ignore or under report that. Terrorism isn't about Islam. It's not about Christianity. It's about politics. Someone attempts to advance an agenda via violence against the public; then they use the lame excuse that God supposedly wanted them to do it.

Do you know any Muslims? I do. I Skype every week with a woman from Morocco who now lives in the south of France. She helps me with my French and I help her with her English. She's a terrific lady. I can 100 percent guarantee you she abhors all of the terrorist attacks made supposedly in the name of her religion. Thanks to the Paris attack, she often gets treated like crap in France for something that's totally not her fault.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Thanks to the Paris attack, she often gets treated like crap in France for something that's totally not her fault.

That's another sad part of all this...

An ethnic group is going to continue taking it on the chin for the rare "bad apple".

And then you have the folks that have lost loved ones to these events... Each new event must be like ripping off a scab.

 

[mattjames2010]

We've had terrorism in the United States since at least the 19th Century. Many of the terrorist assaults have been from extremist groups like the KKK who use Christianity as their excuse for the violence. In other words, it's not just Muslims committing acts of terror. Of course, it would be completely unfair to blame Christians in general for the acts of the KKK. Almost all Christians abhor that kind of violence. The same is true of Muslims. After every terrorist attack in the name of Islam, Muslims around the world have condemned it in protest, insisting that that's not what their faith is about. They were protesting in the streets of Paris after the attack there. Unfortunately, our incredibly biased news sources either ignore or under report that. Terrorism isn't about Islam. It's not about Christianity. It's about politics. Someone attempts to advance an agenda via violence against the public; then they use the lame excuse that God supposedly wanted them to do it.

Do you know any Muslims? I do. I Skype every week with a woman from Morocco who now lives in the south of France. She helps me with my French and I help her with her English. She's a terrific lady. I can 100 percent guarantee you she abhors all of the terrorist attacks made supposedly in the name of her religion. Thanks to the Paris attack, she often gets treated like crap in France for something that's totally not her fault.

It's not up to you to consider what is or isn't a "true Muslim" - Muslim has branches, all of which believe to be "true Muslims" and fight among one another. Secondly, the KKK was not just motivated by Christianity, it was a racist and bigoted movement, but it's not equatable to modern day Islam and attempting to equate it is...absurd. Heck, it's not even equatable to modern day Christianity in Africa.

And NO ONE here said "all Muslims", easily the most overused counter-arguments out there right now after these events.

I'd advise you to, instead of simply "skyping" a friend, actually doing some research. How about starting with Pew Research? http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

 

[Manwiththeplan]

It's not up to you to consider what is or isn't a "true Muslim" - Muslim has branches, all of which believe to be "true Muslims" and fight among one another. Secondly, the KKK was not just motivated by Christianity, it was a racist and bigoted movement, but it's not equatable to modern day Islam and attempting to equate it is...absurd. Heck, it's not even equatable to modern day Christianity in Africa.

And NO ONE here said "all Muslims", easily the most overused counter-arguments out there right now after these events.

I'd advise you to, instead of simply "skyping" a friend, actually doing some research. How about starting with Pew Research? http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Funny how that works, the Christian terrorist groups aren't ever Christian groups, but the Islamic ones are. When ever they got the opportunity, the KKK would claim they were doing God's work, yet it's apparently up to you to say they aren't a Christian group, yet the groups claiming to be doing Allah's work are "true Muslims," as well as cases where the person makes no claim.

People do a lot of great things in the name of their God, but they also do a lot of ****** up things in the name of God, despite what they call their God. And no race or religion has a monopoly on the good or the bad.

 

[mattjames2010]

Funny how that works, the Christian terrorist groups aren't ever Christian groups, but the Islamic ones are. When ever they got the opportunity, the KKK would claim they were doing God's work, yet it's apparently up to you to say they aren't a Christian group, yet the groups claiming to be doing Allah's work are "true Muslims," as well as cases where the person makes no claim.

People do a lot of great things in the name of their God, but they also do a lot of ****** up things in the name of God, despite what they call their God. And no race or religion has a monopoly on the good or the bad.

When did I say there hasn't been a Christian terrorist group? I just mentioned Africa, where Christianity is at it's worst right now. It's eating away there, it's killed yes...Muslims. I mean, Islam isn't helping there either sadly, they are also taking lives. But there are Christian terrorists in Africa. But the KKK is simply NOT comparable to Islamic terrorism, and it's irrelevant today. I don't understand why ANYONE would bring up the KKK when talking about a religion of a billion people, with millions that sympathize with extremism, and one with multiple extremist groups.

A better example of Christian terrorism? How about abortion clinic bombings? But the KKK? This is why debates get shut down, it gets so completely derailed with little fact checking. Again, head over to PEW research, do a little reading, and come back. I'm all about discussing this.