Mass shooting in Orlando nightclub

[JoeKing]

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.

Thank you for spitballing all these ideas. No offense intended but you sound like you have no experience with firearms. I can fire 30 rounds with a 30 round magazine about three seconds faster than I can fire 30 rounds from three 10 round magazines. And if I want to fire a hundred rounds, whether I do it from a hundred round magazine or ten 10 round magazine, I can do it within a 10 second difference. So the magazine capacity argument you are making doesn't really matter. Making ammo more expensive for the sake of making it less attainable is about the most facetious idea I've heard in a long time. Would you recommend saving lives from car accidents by making fuel unaffordable? Background checks are a good thing but they already exist. The problem with background checks is they are only as good as the people doing them. As for a national database, this has already been tried. It was called the National Firearms(NFA) act of 1934. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934.

As structured in 1934, the NFA imposed a duty on persons transferring NFA firearms, as well as mere possessors of unregistered firearms, to register them with the Secretary of the Treasury. If the possessor of an unregistered firearm applied to register the firearm as required by the NFA, the Treasury Department could supply information to State authorities about the registrant’s possession of the firearm. State authorities could then use the information to prosecute the person whose possession violated State laws. For these reasons, the Supreme Court in 1968 held in the Haynes case that a person prosecuted for possessing an unregistered NFA firearm had a valid defense to the prosecution — the registration requirement imposed on the possessor of an unregistered firearm violated the possessor’s privilege from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Haynes decision made the 1934 Act virtually unenforceable.

 

[Nova]

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.

Nailed it.

Thank you. The legal "Assault Rifles" not only fire like regular semi automatics, but they don't even fire the same ammo as ther military counterparts.

In addition, I regret to remind everyone that the VA tech shooting was carried out with regular semi automatic pistols. This was previously the deadliest shooting in America.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Thank you for spitballing all these ideas. No offense intended but you sound like you have no experience with firearms. I can fire 30 rounds with a 30 round magazine about three seconds faster than I can fire 30 rounds from three 10 round magazines. And if I want to fire a hundred rounds, whether I do it from a hundred round magazine or ten 10 round magazine, I can do it within a 10 second difference. So the magazine capacity argument you are making doesn't really matter. Making ammo more expensive for the sake of making it less attainable is about the most facetious idea I've heard in a long time. Would you recommend saving lives from car accidents by making fuel unaffordable? Background checks are a good thing but they already exist. The problem with background checks is they are only as good as the people doing them. As for a national database, this has already been tried. It was called the National Firearms(NFA) act of 1938. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934.

As structured in 1934, the NFA imposed a duty on persons transferring NFA firearms, as well as mere possessors of unregistered firearms, to register them with the Secretary of the Treasury. If the possessor of an unregistered firearm applied to register the firearm as required by the NFA, the Treasury Department could supply information to State authorities about the registrant’s possession of the firearm. State authorities could then use the information to prosecute the person whose possession violated State laws. For these reasons, the Supreme Court in 1968 held in the Haynes case that a person prosecuted for possessing an unregistered NFA firearm had a valid defense to the prosecution — the registration requirement imposed on the possessor of an unregistered firearm violated the possessor’s privilege from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Haynes decision made the 1934 Act virtually unenforceable.

nothing about this topic is facetious and yes, I have very little experience with guns. The question to me was what would I change and they were spitball ideas. Do you have any ideas on what changes could be made to lessen the potential for high powered gun aiding dangerous people being so lethal? I'm seriously interested.

 

[Nova]

Today was terrible.

It's really starting to sink in for me.

I just don't understand why this happened and I don't think anyone ever will.

How can someone be that outraged or that sick to slip through the cracks like that?

Like, nothing those people were doing actually affected that guy in any way shape or form.

And in large part that's how all of these things go.

Completely innocent people are being killed for no reason.

It's sickening.

 

[Tabascocat]

Today was terrible.

It's really starting to sink in for me.

I just don't understand why this happened and I don't think anyone ever will.

How can someone be that outraged or that sick to slip through the cracks like that?

Like, nothing those people were doing actually affected that guy in any way shape or form.

And in large part that's how all of these things go.

Completely innocent people are being killed for no reason.

It's sickening.

Even more worrisome that the FBI has been watching him for three years

 

[JoeKing]

nothing about this topic is facetious and yes, I have very little experience with guns. The question to me was what would I change and they were spitball ideas. Do you have any ideas on what changes could be made to lessen the potential for high powered gun aiding dangerous people being so lethal? I'm seriously interested.

Yes I do... An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

 

[Nova]

Yes I do... An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

I disagree but we aren't going to solve this problem today on a Dallas Cowboys message board.

You can't arm society for a multitude of reasons-- about as many reasons why you can't disarm society.

We, as a United States society, need to evolve. Not our policies.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Yes I do... An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

reports I hear say there was armed security at the club at the time, they were obviously out armed by bigger guns. Your idea is certainly playing out as gun sales over the past several years have skyrocketed. It's a viscous cycle.....

 

[Tabascocat]

reports I hear say there was armed security at the club at the time, they were obviously out armed by bigger guns. Your idea is certainly playing out as gun sales over the past several years have skyrocketed. It's a viscous cycle.....

Take a class, buy a gun and register it. Go to the range and learn how to use/practice with it. Better to be safe than sorry IMO.

Something as simple as a 38 Special will suffice

 

[JoeKing]

I disagree but we aren't going to solve this problem today on a Dallas Cowboys message board.

You can't arm society for a multitude of reasons-- about as many reasons why you can't disarm society.

We, as a United States society, need to evolve. Not our policies.

I disagree but we aren't going to solve this problem today on a Dallas Cowboys message board.

You can't arm society for a multitude of reasons-- about as many reasons why you can't disarm society.

We, as a United States society, need to evolve. Not our policies.

We can't arm society? I'm curious what the massive increase in firearms sales is all about then?

 

[Nova]

reports I hear say there was armed security at the club at the time, they were obviously out armed by bigger guns. Your idea is certainly playing out as gun sales over the past several years have skyrocketed. It's a viscous cycle.....

I don't know the guns used, but it cannot be stressed enough that guns that are legal to buy are only situationally more advantageous in combat than others.

VS a home intruder, I would not grab my twelve gauge for fear that the barrel is too long and could be grabbed by an assailant. I would likely grab my inferior powered 9mm.

The reason why attacks like this should be harder is that you can see an assault rifle coming. And honestly it works no differently than a hunting rifle if someone is skilled enough.

There are barrel length restrictions and rate of fire is identical, as well as magazine capacity.

(Edit: the example I gave is an example only. I actually do not keep guns in an accessible area of my home and likely wouldn't rush to find one in that situation. I am not trained in combat and it would likely only be a hindrance for me)

 

[Nova]

We can't arm society? I'm curious what the massive increase in firearms sales is all about then?

Wait, what?

People like guns. I am a multiple gun owner.

I'm not anti gun.

I am anti arming everyone though, or making it easier for everyone to be armed for obvious reasons.

Not as simple as just "making the playing field even".

 

[JoeKing]

reports I hear say there was armed security at the club at the time, they were obviously out armed by bigger guns. Your idea is certainly playing out as gun sales over the past several years have skyrocketed. It's a viscous cycle.....

I'd like to know more about this "armed security" that failed the victims in Orlando. If they were doing their job properly, the "bigger gun" wouldn't make a difference. I'm going to research this alleged "armed security" for this nightclub. Something sounds fishy.

 

[rynochop]

reports I hear say there was armed security at the club at the time, they were obviously out armed by bigger guns.....

Yeah, I wonder about the accuracy of that report. Like, where are they now? Were they killed? Did they haul butt when the shooting started? Probably 'armed security ', were actually bouncers

 

[Tabascocat]

I'd like to know more about this "armed security" that failed the victims in Orlando. If they were doing their job properly, the "bigger gun" wouldn't make a difference. I'm going to research this alleged "armed security" for this nightclub. Something sounds fishy.

Think it was one guy, in a loud and crowded nightclub. He had no chance........

If I recall, he might have been at the front door. Pretty sure he wasn't expecting something like this

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

I'd like to know more about this "armed security" that failed the victims in Orlando. If they were doing their job properly, the "bigger gun" wouldn't make a difference. I'm going to research this alleged "armed security" for this nightclub. Something sounds fishy.

Timeline of the Attack
Before 2 a.m. Omar Mateen, a resident of Fort Pierce, a city about 120 miles from Orlando, parked his van outside Pulse, a gay nightclub. He called 911 shortly before the attack and swore allegiance to the Islamic State.

2:02 a.m. He entered the club armed with an AR-15-type assault rifle, a handgun and many rounds of ammunition, and opened fire, said John Mina, the Orlando police chief.

An armed off-duty officer working security at the club confronted Mr. Mateen and engaged in a “gun battle,” Chief Mina said.

The gunman was outside the club at some point after the initial shots were fired, the chief said, then returned inside, and “this did turn into a hostage situation.”

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...d-at-the-orlando-nightclub-shooting.html?_r=0

 

[JoeKing]

Wait, what?

People like guns. I am a multiple gun owner.

I'm not anti gun.

I am anti arming everyone though, or making it easier for everyone to be armed for obvious reasons.

Not as simple as just "making the playing field even".

As a multiple gun owner then you already know what its like to get a bacxkground check. Not "eveyone" passes. I don't want to arm everyone either but I do want everyone that is educated in their use and can do so responsibly to be allowed the right to do so.

 

[Nova]

Yeah, I wonder about the accuracy of that report. Like, where are they now? Were they killed? Did they haul butt when the shooting started? Probably 'armed security ', were actually bouncers

You never know. Security forces are just people too. They likely were not thinking "mass shooter tonight; gotta be on top of things".

They were probably as shocked and scared as anyone. Unless someone's been in a situation like that as part of a police (or more accurately SWAT force) or military-- I don't know how you'd actually be prepared.

Not like security makes top dollars.

 

[JoeKing]

Think it was one guy, in a loud and crowded nightclub. He had no chance........

If I recall, he might have been at the front door. Pretty sure he wasn't expecting something like this

Wow... bad security plan. Dude didn't stand a chance.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

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.

and conveniently enough, there's no pew research dating back to when the KKK was at it's peak or even as recently as the 1960s. It's easy to point out fundamentalists that belong to a different religion, or even fundamentalists that belong to your religion, but are half way around the world.

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.

The link you posted with the research, shows that "Muslims around the world strongly reject suicide bombing." Many of the countries with numbers higher than 10% are countries that have seen repeated bombings from other countries, many of which are majority Christian/Jewish, coincidence, right? We see it all the time, even seen it in this thread, where when blood is spilled, the only option some are willing to turn to, is more blood. Kill their innocents, maybe then they'll stop. Well, news flash, we've been killing their innocents. Don't get me wrong, clearly people who are willing to carry out these acts aren't innocent and deserve death and you *could* even make the argument that some of the children would grow up and become terrorists as well (I wouldn't, but many would), but we have undoubtedly killed scores of innocents in that region and then we blame the religion for preaching violence. If Islam dominated the world the way Christianity does, it very well could be the same type/level of violence, you can easily point out portions