Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345942 times)

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1200 on: June 13, 2016, 10:21:23 AM »
No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1201 on: June 13, 2016, 10:24:46 AM »
No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

Short of rounding up all the Semi-Auto's in circulation, do you seriously think banning scary looking rifles does anything?

He used a pistol too.  One of the Columbine shooters used a pump shotgun.  Against unarmed people at a close range, almost any semi-auto (or pump shotgun) would be equally devastating.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1202 on: June 13, 2016, 10:36:15 AM »
This was a terrorist action by a extremist ISIS sympathizer/participant.  My sympathies to the victims and their families.

Are you arguing against semi-auto weapons or the AR-15 specifically?

If the AR-15, why do you believe it substantially more deadly than the pistol he also used?

One idea being floated on this that I would actually agree with - If the FBI has suspicions about a subject (this guy was investigated) and they purchase weapons, check up on them.  Same thing could apply to the no fly list.  No ban, just follow up.  Would this have prevented this - Who knows?  But it seems like a good first step that doesn't trample on constitutional rights.

Related question - How did this guy keep his job at a security firm while being investigated by the FBI?  Was he trained?

To add - The media and the the poster above refer to an automatic assault rifle that shoots 700 rounds minute with one trigger pull.  Unless this was an illegal weapon, it is highly likely it was not fully auto.

All guns are deadly in the wrong hands.  The difference is completely that the hand gun could hold 10 or 15 rounds.  The automatic rifle, many many more.  If he had only the handgun, there may have been a chance to rush him during reload and stop the carnage way before 103 were shot.

Make no mistake ISIS or not, this was an attack on the LGBT people.  It took place at a gay bar, and it has been widely reported that the American born shooter was upset because he saw two men kissing in the days prior to this.

Dycker - Modern semi-auto hand guns hold 16+ rounds with the standard magazine.  If you get the extended mags, they hold more.  The rifle holds 30 with the standard mag.  Unfortunately, I think these have similar killing capacity against unarmed drunken targets by a trained marksmen.  I suspect this guy was trained as he worked for a global security firm.

It is highly unlikely this was a legally acquired automatic rifle.  You don't go into the store and buy one of those.

Lastly, I completely agree that gays were targeted.  ISIS (not Muslims in general) hate gays.  The difference between ISIS being involved (or motivating him) and this being some dipshit that hates gay people is that ISIS is an organized group who is targeting Americans and western culture.
Agreed. I posted this comment on furearms and mass shootings several pages up on this thread: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/firearms-in-the-home/msg1041821/#msg1041821
Retired at 42 to play!

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1203 on: June 13, 2016, 10:45:39 AM »
No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

Short of rounding up all the Semi-Auto's in circulation, do you seriously think banning scary looking rifles does anything?

He used a pistol too.  One of the Columbine shooters used a pump shotgun.  Against unarmed people at a close range, almost any semi-auto (or pump shotgun) would be equally devastating.

I'd say an Australian solution would be quite the benefit.  Yea, time to start collecting.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1204 on: June 13, 2016, 10:48:47 AM »
No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

Short of rounding up all the Semi-Auto's in circulation, do you seriously think banning scary looking rifles does anything?

He used a pistol too.  One of the Columbine shooters used a pump shotgun.  Against unarmed people at a close range, almost any semi-auto (or pump shotgun) would be equally devastating.

I'd say an Australian solution would be quite the benefit.  Yea, time to start collecting.

And they say us gun enthusiasts are paranoid for thinking someone's coming to take them.  "If you like your gun, you can keep your gun."
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1205 on: June 13, 2016, 10:50:16 AM »
No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

Short of rounding up all the Semi-Auto's in circulation, do you seriously think banning scary looking rifles does anything?

He used a pistol too.  One of the Columbine shooters used a pump shotgun.  Against unarmed people at a close range, almost any semi-auto (or pump shotgun) would be equally devastating.

I'd say an Australian solution would be quite the benefit.  Yea, time to start collecting.

So, are you going to volunteer for that duty? Or are you going to send other people's sons, armed with guns, to do that dirty work for you?

Also, what does hunting have to do with anything? Can you use AR-15s for hunting? Yes. Do you "need" to? No. Are AR-15s very useful for some types of hunting? Yes, varmint hunting for coyotes and prairie dogs, etc.

But that is totally besides the point. The 2A doesn't have anything to do with hunting. None of my guns are for hunting. I don't hunt.

Also, can I quote you here next time someone says "nobody wants to take your guns, you are being paranoid!" ?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1206 on: June 13, 2016, 10:58:21 AM »
No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

Short of rounding up all the Semi-Auto's in circulation, do you seriously think banning scary looking rifles does anything?

He used a pistol too.  One of the Columbine shooters used a pump shotgun.  Against unarmed people at a close range, almost any semi-auto (or pump shotgun) would be equally devastating.

I'd say an Australian solution would be quite the benefit.  Yea, time to start collecting.

a) Won't happen b) Courts wouldn't permit even if politicians passed c) Good luck getting the criminals to give up their guns d) Bans have worked well in Mexico.

Or you could focus on improving background checks, keeping tabs on suspected terrorists, and actually admitting who the biggest threat is ) -  Boston bombing, San Bernadino, Orlando - See a common thread. 

There are dipshit anti-gov types/white supremacist types who kill, but over the last 20 years they haven't tended to be part of an more organized group or ideology.  Islamic terrorists are a real threat. 

That doesn't mean Muslims are bad, ISIS is kind of like the KKK to white protestant Christians.  99.9% of both groups are horrified by the acts of these lunatics.  The difference is that ISIS is growing more powerful worldwide while the KKK/white supremacists are a declining organization.

I read an article today blaming bullying/hate speech against gays for this act.  Did these poor people get shot because they were gay - yes.  Did bullying have anything to do with someone bringing up ISIS in a 911 call.  No.  Let's quit deluding ourselves about what the threat is.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 11:01:59 AM by Midwest »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1207 on: June 13, 2016, 11:04:15 AM »
...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1208 on: June 13, 2016, 11:09:21 AM »
When people mention that nobody's coming for your guns, what they mean are the many types of guns that would remain unregulated.  Your revolvers, shotguns, derringers, muskets, bolt action hunting rifles, etc would likely all remain unaffected.  This type of limited weapons ban would follow the same precedent where you can't buy a nuke because it's been determined that it's too dangerous.

It may well take fifty or a hundred years until a sales ban becomes effective in minimizing the availability of particular weapons, so it's not an ideal solution.  Better solutions would be to implement skill based licensing, mental health checks, background checks for every weapon sold, exclusions for people currently on terrorist watch-lists, databases of gun owners that can easily be cross-referenced by law enforcement, etc.  Many of those have been partially and half-assedly implemented already . . . it would just be a matter of improving what already exists.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1209 on: June 13, 2016, 11:12:20 AM »
...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

If you believe that there's no difference in deadliness between a semi-auto and bolt action rifle, then you should have no problem with a ban on semi-autos. . . after all, you're claiming that there's no real difference between the two.  Clearly there must be no benefit for hunting, self defense, or fighting off the king's men.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1210 on: June 13, 2016, 11:12:29 AM »
It may well take fifty or a hundred years until a sales ban becomes effective in minimizing the availability of particular weapons, so it's not an ideal solution.  Better solutions would be to implement skill based licensing, mental health checks, background checks for every weapon sold, exclusions for people currently on terrorist watch-lists, databases of gun owners that can easily be cross-referenced by law enforcement, etc.  Many of those have been partially and half-assedly implemented already . . . it would just be a matter of improving what already exists.

Stick with that plan.  It's way better than your other one.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1211 on: June 13, 2016, 11:14:43 AM »
...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

If you believe that there's no difference in deadliness between a semi-auto and bolt action rifle, then you should have no problem with a ban on semi-autos. . . after all, you're claiming that there's no real difference between the two.  Clearly there must be no benefit for hunting, self defense, or fighting off the king's men.

For myself, there wouldn't be, I don't think.  I don't even own a semi-auto rifle, as mine are all bolties.  But that is still besides the point.  What I use is for me to decide.  Not GuitarStv, and not a million of his friends.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1212 on: June 13, 2016, 11:17:29 AM »
...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

If you believe that there's no difference in deadliness between a semi-auto and bolt action rifle, then you should have no problem with a ban on semi-autos. . . after all, you're claiming that there's no real difference between the two.  Clearly there must be no benefit for hunting, self defense, or fighting off the king's men.

For myself, there wouldn't be, I don't think.  I don't even own a semi-auto rifle, as mine are all bolties.  But that is still besides the point.  What I use is for me to decide.  Not GuitarStv, and not a million of his friends.

Are you unhappy that nukes cannot be purchased at your local arms dealer (whether or not you would be prone to using one)?  It wasn't GuitarStv or a million of his friends who decided on that.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1213 on: June 13, 2016, 11:22:33 AM »
...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

If you believe that there's no difference in deadliness between a semi-auto and bolt action rifle, then you should have no problem with a ban on semi-autos. . . after all, you're claiming that there's no real difference between the two.  Clearly there must be no benefit for hunting, self defense, or fighting off the king's men.

For myself, there wouldn't be, I don't think.  I don't even own a semi-auto rifle, as mine are all bolties.  But that is still besides the point.  What I use is for me to decide.  Not GuitarStv, and not a million of his friends.

Are you unhappy that nukes cannot be purchased at your local arms dealer (whether or not you would be prone to using one)? It wasn't GuitarStv or a million of his friends who decided on that.

We have been over this one already.  Try not to rehash bullshit.

And you're right, it wasn't GuitarStv's friends.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1214 on: June 13, 2016, 11:22:38 AM »
A bazooka can come in handing when hunting herd animals.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1215 on: June 13, 2016, 11:23:36 AM »
A bazooka can come in handing when hunting herd animals.

I can actually get one of those.  So this isn't a good example.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1216 on: June 13, 2016, 11:42:18 AM »
A bazooka can come in handing when hunting herd animals.

I can actually get one of those.  So this isn't a good example.

Then I would say it's a perfect example of the Kafkaesque rules we have regarding weapon ownership.

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1217 on: June 13, 2016, 11:52:40 AM »
I think the distingtion between guns and bombs is a very important one. Claiming it's OK to ban (semi-)automatic guns because it's OK to ban bombs is a strawman argument. Most mass shootings happen at locations where the attacker has a low expectation of gun carrying targets. I would not like to see the entire country become such a zone.

Here's what I think the gun rules should look like:
Venues where guns are restricted should be required to: 1) search of all entering, 2) provide lockers for owners to store their guns at security checkpoint, 3) have armed guards protect the security checkpoint, and 4) assume civil liability for all violent attacks that occur within the secure area. License to own gun shall be issued based on: lack of past violent behavior, lack of current mental illness, and competancy being responsible for the weapon (safe use and storage). No application fee or cost for verifying critiera allowed; free training need not be provided, but applicants may not be required to pay for any training before submitting themselves for competancy testing. Competancy requirements may vary by type of firearm permitted. No gun registry (it's OK to track who may own guns, it's not OK to track who does own guns).

Rightflyer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Location: Eastern Ontario
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1218 on: June 13, 2016, 12:02:23 PM »
...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

If you believe that there's no difference in deadliness between a semi-auto and bolt action rifle, then you should have no problem with a ban on semi-autos. . . after all, you're claiming that there's no real difference between the two.  Clearly there must be no benefit for hunting, self defense, or fighting off the king's men.

For myself, there wouldn't be, I don't think.  I don't even own a semi-auto rifle, as mine are all bolties.  But that is still besides the point.  What I use is for me to decide.  Not GuitarStv, and not a million of his friends.

Point to GuitarStv!
Six is having problems adjusting to his clone status.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1219 on: June 13, 2016, 12:06:00 PM »

Are you unhappy that nukes cannot be purchased at your local arms dealer (whether or not you would be prone to using one)?  It wasn't GuitarStv or a million of his friends who decided on that.


I'm unhappy that people like you and many others on this thread have decided that restricting freedoms is some kind of solution. People like you, with your mentality, are the very reason that this target rich environment was created. You told these people how they were allowed to defend themselves. You created a gun free zone. You created this scenario and now that the wolf went into the chicken pen, here you are demanding the people who didn't want this to hand you more of our rights.

Once again the government gets a pass. Once again the club that created this very environment gets a pass. Even the man who did it apparently gets a pass. His parents who raised him in a religion taught to hate gays, get a pass.

The more I read the anti-gun arguments the more abundantly clear the ignorance becomes. He'd have been better off with another pistol in this scenario than the rifle/pistol combo.
The AR scary weapon he used, uses the same round that our military went to because it was LESS deadly than the .308 they were using. The rifle and the pistol he used were semi automatic.

We don't have the 2nd amendment for hunting. Unless you count hunting fascist, tyrants and criminals as hunting.
If you think that our government being the only armed populace in our country is a good thing, you're insane.
Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

That's right, you're ignoring the millions of people with guns out there who, given the chance, would put their life on the line with their gun, that you want to take away, to stop this asshole. You're also ignoring the laws, nanny state cowards have been implementing to create these very situations. The gun free zones don't work. You know it. I know it. You don't get to for even a second come after my rights for the bull shit target rich environments YOUR group think have created.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1220 on: June 13, 2016, 12:07:33 PM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

You don't need semi-auto for ANY hunting.

You don't NEED a large/fast car, large house, cell phones, TV, radios, etc.  people lived for a long time without.

What you also don't need, is for someone else to say what you NEED (and vice versa).


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1221 on: June 13, 2016, 12:14:24 PM »

Are you unhappy that nukes cannot be purchased at your local arms dealer (whether or not you would be prone to using one)?  It wasn't GuitarStv or a million of his friends who decided on that.


I'm unhappy that people like you and many others on this thread have decided that restricting freedoms is some kind of solution. People like you, with your mentality, are the very reason that this target rich environment was created. You told these people how they were allowed to defend themselves. You created a gun free zone. You created this scenario and now that the wolf went into the chicken pen, here you are demanding the people who didn't want this to hand you more of our rights.

Once again the government gets a pass. Once again the club that created this very environment gets a pass. Even the man who did it apparently gets a pass. His parents who raised him in a religion taught to hate gays, get a pass.

The more I read the anti-gun arguments the more abundantly clear the ignorance becomes. He'd have been better off with another pistol in this scenario than the rifle/pistol combo.
The AR scary weapon he used, uses the same round that our military went to because it was LESS deadly than the .308 they were using. The rifle and the pistol he used were semi automatic.

We don't have the 2nd amendment for hunting. Unless you count hunting fascist, tyrants and criminals as hunting.
If you think that our government being the only armed populace in our country is a good thing, you're insane.
Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

That's right, you're ignoring the millions of people with guns out there who, given the chance, would put their life on the line with their gun, that you want to take away, to stop this asshole. You're also ignoring the laws, nanny state cowards have been implementing to create these very situations. The gun free zones don't work. You know it. I know it. You don't get to for even a second come after my rights for the bull shit target rich environments YOUR group think have created.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

If you go through my posts carefully, you'll see that I don't believe restricting guns is a great solution.  It's at best a small piece of a larger whole that should be examined.  I am however, living in a 'target rich environment' 24/7 up here in Canada . . . and it doesn't seem to be too bad honestly.  Certainly a lot fewer shootings than in the 'heavily protected' US you are daydreaming about.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1222 on: June 13, 2016, 12:15:16 PM »
I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

You don't need semi-auto for ANY hunting.

You don't NEED a large/fast car, large house, cell phones, TV, radios, etc.  people lived for a long time without.

What you also don't need, is for someone else to say what you NEED (and vice versa).

I was taking a somewhat sarcastic jab at hunters that need multiple shots to kill something.  Good hunters follow and one shot one kill philosophy.  Building on the moose hunting comment, I felt my comment had just enough zing to irritate some trophy "hunters"

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1223 on: June 13, 2016, 03:51:16 PM »
Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

This shooting happened with an armed off-duty police officer standing by. The "good guy with a gun" wasn't too effective. The ship has pretty much sailed on gun control in the US at this point, but I find it kind of messed up that a suggested solution to these things is "we should all carry guns because we might need to defend ourselves from other people with guns!"

It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.

That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1224 on: June 13, 2016, 04:45:51 PM »
It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.
That's a prety broad brush you're painting with. While I do expect many (not all) gun rights supporters would also be against abortion (arguing rights of the unborn) and against same-sex marriage (arguing based on religious rights); I would be surprised to see a strong corrolation between gun rights supporters and the police state mentality of abriging due process and subjecting people to the TSA's archane rules about what can be taken on airplanes. Among politicians, such a corrolation might be more based on comprimising within a party in a two-party political system than a tendancy to care only for their own rights and not for the rights of others.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1225 on: June 13, 2016, 04:51:14 PM »

This shooting happened with an armed off-duty police officer standing by. The "good guy with a gun" wasn't too effective. The ship has pretty much sailed on gun control in the US at this point, but I find it kind of messed up that a suggested solution to these things is "we should all carry guns because we might need to defend ourselves from other people with guns!"


That officer's gun fire exchange may have saved a lot of lives. If the gunmen had made it into the club unchallenged there could've been a much higher number of fatalities. Not to mention, at least he got the chance to try to stop him. All of those dead and wounded people didn't get to try anything. If one person in 50 were to carrying that's 7 more guns in the crowd. But those 7 guns weren't there. If there were another gun at the door with the police officer the chance of success in a fire fight goes up exponentially in a 2 on 1 scenario. If the officer had just killed him at the door, this would've been a foot-note on the news, like Garland Texas.


It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.


I like freedom. If you want to talk about all of the other various freedom's our government has forcefully taken away from us, we can start another thread.

It's a lot more exhausting protecting people's freedoms than it is to advocate giving them away. History has proven that time and time again. Personal freedoms don't usually stand up to intellectually lazy populaces and time. Governments and the people that own them, always win.   



That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.


There aren't consequences to your rights. Get that shit out of your head. Free people are not responsible for when someone else commits murder or breaks any other law. They are responsible for when they force the person being murdered to submit to their murderer. That's what everyone seems to be missing here.

Not one person who is responsible for creating such a huge soft target has stepped forward to apologize. No one has stepped forward to apologize for forcing these people to give up their rights to self defense and then standing by while they're slaughtered.

It's disgusting that those very same people are now asking others to become more defenseless too.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1226 on: June 13, 2016, 05:03:45 PM »
That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
You may be right that there would be fewer shootings and less gun violence if the population were disarmed, but there is no evidence that there would be fewer murders and less violence overall. I personally do not believe that there would be any increase in safety within the United States by repealing or abriding the 2nd amendment in any way that is not already currently considered constitutional based on Supreme Court case law. My personal interpretation of the words "The right to keep or bear arms shall not be infringed" would further restrict the constitutionallity of many current gun and weapon laws (I may agree with a few current laws that I consider "infinging" on the right to keep or bear arms).

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1227 on: June 13, 2016, 05:06:15 PM »
Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

This shooting happened with an armed off-duty police officer standing by. The "good guy with a gun" wasn't too effective. The ship has pretty much sailed on gun control in the US at this point, but I find it kind of messed up that a suggested solution to these things is "we should all carry guns because we might need to defend ourselves from other people with guns!"

It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.

That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
I happen to be a socially liberal Democrat and a gun rights advocate. Lots of us out there. Not all of us agree with everything either Party supports, many have strong liberal leaning on some issues and strong conservative leanings on others. Don't pigeon hole everyone based on one issue.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 05:08:57 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1228 on: June 13, 2016, 05:30:19 PM »
I like freedom. If you want to talk about all of the other various freedom's our government has forcefully taken away from us, we can start another thread.

It's a lot more exhausting protecting people's freedoms than it is to advocate giving them away. History has proven that time and time again. Personal freedoms don't usually stand up to intellectually lazy populaces and time. Governments and the people that own them, always win.   


This is sort of what I'm talking about. You view gun ownership as THE right and if you don't have it, then you aren't free.  It's supposed to be a check against a tyrannical government right? But like you mentioned, our government has taken away or reduced other freedoms so gun ownership doesn't seem to be very useful for that purpose.

Tens of millions of Europeans don't have the right to own a gun and I presume most of them still consider themselves free. I don't think we can definitively say they aren't. Rights aren't inherently fixed. Many European countries have stated healthcare is a right. We haven't...who's correct? Who is free?

There aren't consequences to your rights. Get that shit out of your head. Free people are not responsible for when someone else commits murder or breaks any other law. They are responsible for when they force the person being murdered to submit to their murderer. That's what everyone seems to be missing here.

Not one person who is responsible for creating such a huge soft target has stepped forward to apologize. No one has stepped forward to apologize for forcing these people to give up their rights to self defense and then standing by while they're slaughtered.

It's disgusting that those very same people are now asking others to become more defenseless too.

Huh? There are consequences to everything, yes including legal rights. Some are negative and some are positive. I don't see how that's controversial.

Who do you want to take responsibility? Lawmakers, elected by the people, for creating gun free zones? The club owner? I could argue that no one forced those people to give up to right to self defense. They willingly went to a gun free zone right?

Even if gun free zones didn't exist, I suspect most businesses still would prohibit weapons. Unless you think the right to possess a gun rises to the level of trumping private property ownership?
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1229 on: June 13, 2016, 05:50:35 PM »
Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

This shooting happened with an armed off-duty police officer standing by. The "good guy with a gun" wasn't too effective. The ship has pretty much sailed on gun control in the US at this point, but I find it kind of messed up that a suggested solution to these things is "we should all carry guns because we might need to defend ourselves from other people with guns!"

It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.

That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
I happen to be a socially liberal Democrat and a gun rights advocate. Lots of us out there. Not all of us agree with everything either Party supports, many have strong liberal leaning on some issues and strong conservative leanings on others. Don't pigeon hole everyone based on one issue.

I'm saying the loudest 2nd amendment supporters pigeon hole themselves on this issue. You hear this repeated argument that "I should have a gun because the Constitution says I can". I rarely hear "I should have freedom of speech because the Constitution says I can", but rather "I should have freedom of speech because it allows corruption to be exposed."
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1230 on: June 13, 2016, 06:04:20 PM »

This is sort of what I'm talking about. You view gun ownership as THE right and if you don't have it, then you aren't free.  It's supposed to be a check against a tyrannical government right? But like you mentioned, our government has taken away or reduced other freedoms so gun ownership doesn't seem to be very useful for that purpose.

Tens of millions of Europeans don't have the right to own a gun and I presume most of them still consider themselves free. I don't think we can definitively say they aren't. Rights aren't inherently fixed. Many European countries have stated healthcare is a right. We haven't...who's correct? Who is free?


Ukraine is part of Europe. Russia just walked in and took half of it away. Notice how it isn't in the news anymore? What did the other countries do about it again? Who went and saved all those little people? I bet they're glad they trusted their communities.





Huh? There are consequences to everything, yes including legal rights. Some are negative and some are positive. I don't see how that's controversial.

Who do you want to take responsibility? Lawmakers, elected by the people, for creating gun free zones? The club owner? I could argue that no one forced those people to give up to right to self defense. They willingly went to a gun free zone right?

Even if gun free zones didn't exist, I suspect most businesses still would prohibit weapons. Unless you think the right to possess a gun rises to the level of trumping private property ownership?

If someone uses a gun to commit murder, that's not a consequence of the 2nd amendment... that's murder.
If someone slanders someone else in public to effect harm on them, that's not a consequence of the 1st amendment... that's slander.


Who do you want to take responsibility? Lawmakers, elected by the people, for creating gun free zones? - YES, You don't?

The club owner? - YES, his negligence isn't without fault. Why was there one armed person for an event with 350+ people?

I could argue that no one forced those people to give up to right to self defense. They willingly went to a gun free zone right?

I would argue that if it's open to the public, it's a public place, the property owner has no right to infringe on your rights in a public place. Further, I would argue that if the property owner invites the public into their establishment but limits their rights while in that establishment, they should be responsible for what happens to that person account of the limiting of their rights. The 2nd amendment has become ridiculously restricted because of all of these gun free zones and the penalties that back them.

So, law abiding citizens abide by the law... terrorists and criminals do not. You know that. I know that. The government knows that. Lawmakers know that. Anti Gun advocates know that. Yet here we are, in a  gun free zone, 50 dead and everyone is arguing about taking away more rights. I think we should be arguing about restoring people's right to defend themselves in public.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1231 on: June 13, 2016, 06:18:38 PM »

This is sort of what I'm talking about. You view gun ownership as THE right and if you don't have it, then you aren't free.  It's supposed to be a check against a tyrannical government right? But like you mentioned, our government has taken away or reduced other freedoms so gun ownership doesn't seem to be very useful for that purpose.

Tens of millions of Europeans don't have the right to own a gun and I presume most of them still consider themselves free. I don't think we can definitively say they aren't. Rights aren't inherently fixed. Many European countries have stated healthcare is a right. We haven't...who's correct? Who is free?

Ukraine is part of Europe. Russia just walked in and took half of it away. Notice how it isn't in the news anymore? What did the other countries do about it again? Who went and saved all those little people? I bet they're glad they trusted their communities.[/quote]

What the Ukraine proves is that small arms are pretty useless against a modern military.  The Ukrainians had plenty of small arms in private ownership.  Rifles, hand guns, shotguns.  They didn't stand a chance against armoured vehicles, tanks, mortar rounds blasting their homes.  The situation there really exposed the lie that small arms are useful when a real military rolls in.




Huh? There are consequences to everything, yes including legal rights. Some are negative and some are positive. I don't see how that's controversial.

Who do you want to take responsibility? Lawmakers, elected by the people, for creating gun free zones? The club owner? I could argue that no one forced those people to give up to right to self defense. They willingly went to a gun free zone right?

Even if gun free zones didn't exist, I suspect most businesses still would prohibit weapons. Unless you think the right to possess a gun rises to the level of trumping private property ownership?

If someone uses a gun to commit murder, that's not a consequence of the 2nd amendment... that's murder.
If someone slanders someone else in public to effect harm on them, that's not a consequence of the 1st amendment... that's slander.


Who do you want to take responsibility? Lawmakers, elected by the people, for creating gun free zones? - YES, You don't?

The club owner? - YES, his negligence isn't without fault. Why was there one armed person for an event with 350+ people?

I could argue that no one forced those people to give up to right to self defense. They willingly went to a gun free zone right?

I would argue that if it's open to the public, it's a public place, the property owner has no right to infringe on your rights in a public place. Further, I would argue that if the property owner invites the public into their establishment but limits their rights while in that establishment, they should be responsible for what happens to that person account of the limiting of their rights. The 2nd amendment has become ridiculously restricted because of all of these gun free zones and the penalties that back them.

So, law abiding citizens abide by the law... terrorists and criminals do not. You know that. I know that. The government knows that. Lawmakers know that. Anti Gun advocates know that. Yet here we are, in a  gun free zone, 50 dead and everyone is arguing about taking away more rights. I think we should be arguing about restoring people's right to defend themselves in public.

It is ironic that a campaigner for 'freedom' wants to take away freedom as a first course of action.  Under your rules, the bar owner is no longer free to keep weapons out of his bar . . . and is punished for trying.  Everyone has to carry a gun or else he/she is being negligent in the perpetual state of fear that you've created.

Doesn't really sound very free . . .

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1232 on: June 13, 2016, 06:39:04 PM »

What the Ukraine proves is that small arms are pretty useless against a modern military.  The Ukrainians had plenty of small arms in private ownership.  Rifles, hand guns, shotguns.  They didn't stand a chance against armoured vehicles, tanks, mortar rounds blasting their homes.  The situation there really exposed the lie that small arms are useful when a real military rolls in.


We've gone over this many times before in this thread, including the fact that the Ukranian population isn't armed. I know your memory isn't that short.



It is ironic that a campaigner for 'freedom' wants to take away freedom as a first course of action.  Under your rules, the bar owner is no longer free to keep weapons out of his bar . . . and is punished for trying.  Everyone has to carry a gun or else he/she is being negligent in the perpetual state of fear that you've created.

Doesn't really sound very free . . .


"Under your rules, the bar owner is no longer free to keep weapons out of his bar."

Yes, it's a public place. He wants to open his business to the public, he should abide by the rules of the public. The more difficult you make it for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, the more likely a terrorist or criminal is going to succeed.

Perpetual state of fear? From who? Terrorists and criminals care nothing for the law. Law abiding citizens? You fear them?

I didn't say everyone has to carry a gun... Surprise, surprise, you're putting words in my mouth. When you tell someone how they can or can't defend themselves you take responsibility for that persons safety. Period. I don't want to tell somoene how they can or can't defend themselves.

When they're bleeding out in the dark and the smell of piss and shit is overtaking their senses from their dead friends lying around them, I'm sure they're so glad that 350+ other people weren't armed and couldn't legally be.


“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1233 on: June 13, 2016, 06:49:52 PM »
Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

This shooting happened with an armed off-duty police officer standing by. The "good guy with a gun" wasn't too effective. The ship has pretty much sailed on gun control in the US at this point, but I find it kind of messed up that a suggested solution to these things is "we should all carry guns because we might need to defend ourselves from other people with guns!"

It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.

That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
I happen to be a socially liberal Democrat and a gun rights advocate. Lots of us out there. Not all of us agree with everything either Party supports, many have strong liberal leaning on some issues and strong conservative leanings on others. Don't pigeon hole everyone based on one issue.

I'm saying the loudest 2nd amendment supporters pigeon hole themselves on this issue. You hear this repeated argument that "I should have a gun because the Constitution says I can". I rarely hear "I should have freedom of speech because the Constitution says I can", but rather "I should have freedom of speech because it allows corruption to be exposed."
Probably because there isn't a need. We recognize that when one lone person says something harmful it is "their" sole actions/words that cause harm and no one tries to take away or limit the right to free speech from everyone else because of that one person's actions.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 06:55:39 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1234 on: June 13, 2016, 07:08:13 PM »
Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

This shooting happened with an armed off-duty police officer standing by. The "good guy with a gun" wasn't too effective. The ship has pretty much sailed on gun control in the US at this point, but I find it kind of messed up that a suggested solution to these things is "we should all carry guns because we might need to defend ourselves from other people with guns!"

It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.

That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
I happen to be a socially liberal Democrat and a gun rights advocate. Lots of us out there. Not all of us agree with everything either Party supports, many have strong liberal leaning on some issues and strong conservative leanings on others. Don't pigeon hole everyone based on one issue.

I'm saying the loudest 2nd amendment supporters pigeon hole themselves on this issue. You hear this repeated argument that "I should have a gun because the Constitution says I can". I rarely hear "I should have freedom of speech because the Constitution says I can", but rather "I should have freedom of speech because it allows corruption to be exposed."
Probably because there isn't a need. We recognize that when one lone person says something harmful it is "their" sole actions/words that cause harm and no one tries to take away or limit the right to free speech from everyone else because of that one person's actions.

Probably because one person's speech doesn't result in 50 murders.
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1235 on: June 13, 2016, 07:20:03 PM »
Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

This shooting happened with an armed off-duty police officer standing by. The "good guy with a gun" wasn't too effective. The ship has pretty much sailed on gun control in the US at this point, but I find it kind of messed up that a suggested solution to these things is "we should all carry guns because we might need to defend ourselves from other people with guns!"

It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.

That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
I happen to be a socially liberal Democrat and a gun rights advocate. Lots of us out there. Not all of us agree with everything either Party supports, many have strong liberal leaning on some issues and strong conservative leanings on others. Don't pigeon hole everyone based on one issue.

I'm saying the loudest 2nd amendment supporters pigeon hole themselves on this issue. You hear this repeated argument that "I should have a gun because the Constitution says I can". I rarely hear "I should have freedom of speech because the Constitution says I can", but rather "I should have freedom of speech because it allows corruption to be exposed."
Probably because there isn't a need. We recognize that when one lone person says something harmful it is "their" sole actions/words that cause harm and no one tries to take away or limit the right to free speech from everyone else because of that one person's actions.

Probably because one person's speech doesn't result in 50 murders.
Probably more. Hate speech, and the actions by people that often follow it, have had a massive destructive impact on human lives.
Retired at 42 to play!

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1236 on: June 13, 2016, 07:23:02 PM »

Probably because one person's speech doesn't result in 50 murders.


I'm sure his father's hatred of homo sexuals and those rosy quotes from the Quran had nothing to do with this.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1237 on: June 13, 2016, 07:30:51 PM »
Probably because one person's speech doesn't result in 50 murders.
Probably more. Hate speech, and the actions by people that often follow it, have had a massive destructive impact on human lives.
[/quote]

That's a big reach, IMO. The availability & access to guns Americans enjoy allow us to take those destructive actions with great speed and efficiency. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1238 on: June 13, 2016, 08:17:12 PM »
There is something that I've been wondering about this whole Pulse mass murder event.  Pulse was a huge public bar, in effect.  Something like 300 people were in there at the start of the shooting, and the only person who had a gun was the off-duty cop working as a bouncer?  Why?  First of all, a bar that size really needed more than one bouncer.  And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did.  It took the cops 3 hours to raid the place.  This nutter was taking his sweet time killing gays.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1239 on: June 13, 2016, 08:20:50 PM »
Please explain to me why your ability to have AR-type rifle is so much more important than these people's death?  Please.  More people died because he had access to this rifle than one that was slower on shooting AND reload. 
"The AR-15 was used by the couple in San Bernardino, California, who killed 14 people at a workplace holiday party in December. Similarly, the man who mowed down 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in 2012 was armed with an AR-15.
And the man who killed 20 first-grade children and six school staff members at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut, in 2012 used the same kind of weapon."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-gunman-kind-assault-rifle-popular-mass-shooters/story?id=39804742
Why not have guns that require more training, that are slower to reload and don't allow you to shoot your entire magazine in one shot?   Why is your rights to these types of guns more important than all the lives lost?

The tragic event that took place yesterday in Orlando a automatic assault rifle was used.  103 lives changes forever.... just the victims. Never mind the family of the victims and the countless other in the LGBT community that are now afraid.  If there were laws in place to limit these crazy assault rifles, and the shooter brought a different, hunting rifle.  Yes this would still be a tragedy, but we would be talk 10 people hurt maybe, not 103.

I hope this can start a conversation about realistic weapon control in the US.

None of the weapons used in any of the incidents named were automatic rifles.  Please educate yourself before jumping to conclusions.  Ignorance is half the reason why we had the ridiculous assault ban the first time.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1240 on: June 13, 2016, 08:22:50 PM »
There is something that I've been wondering about this whole Pulse mass murder event.  Pulse was a huge public bar, in effect.  Something like 300 people were in there at the start of the shooting, and the only person who had a gun was the off-duty cop working as a bouncer?  Why?  First of all, a bar that size really needed more than one bouncer.  And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did.  It took the cops 3 hours to raid the place.  This nutter was taking his sweet time killing gays.

CCW is legal in Florida but not in bars.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1241 on: June 13, 2016, 08:31:09 PM »
There is something that I've been wondering about this whole Pulse mass murder event.  Pulse was a huge public bar, in effect.  Something like 300 people were in there at the start of the shooting, and the only person who had a gun was the off-duty cop working as a bouncer?  Why?  First of all, a bar that size really needed more than one bouncer.  And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did.  It took the cops 3 hours to raid the place.  This nutter was taking his sweet time killing gays.

CCW is legal in Florida but not in bars.

So this bar would basiclly have been another gun free zone?

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1242 on: June 13, 2016, 08:31:27 PM »
What about shotguns?  This is almost universally accepted as a good self-defense weapon (even Joe Biden has said as much).  Do you think you couldn't kill 50 people with a Vepr-12 and some 00 buckshot?  I'd venture to guess you could kill a lot more.  So do we ban shotguns now?  See, slippery slope.

As for the AR-15, if you look at the pictures of all the responding officers, what rifle are they carrying?  Yup, the AR-15.  Why?  Because it's good in defense situations for a number of reasons including less over penetration than even handgun rounds.  None of them are carrying bolt actions except maybe SWAT snipers. 

The AR-15 is an efficient weapon.  No argument there.  It's not a hunting rifle (most states don't even allow you to hunt with a .22 caliber).  It's a good defensive weapon that in the hands of the wrong person can be misused but that is entirely beside the point.  If one has the right to self-defense, doesn't one have the right to use the best method out there? 

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1243 on: June 13, 2016, 08:31:58 PM »
There is something that I've been wondering about this whole Pulse mass murder event.  Pulse was a huge public bar, in effect.  Something like 300 people were in there at the start of the shooting, and the only person who had a gun was the off-duty cop working as a bouncer?  Why?  First of all, a bar that size really needed more than one bouncer.  And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did.  It took the cops 3 hours to raid the place.  This nutter was taking his sweet time killing gays.

CCW is legal in Florida but not in bars.

So this bar would basiclly have been another gun free zone?

Basically.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1244 on: June 13, 2016, 08:32:44 PM »
And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did. 

FL law says guns are banned on:

Quote
Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1245 on: June 13, 2016, 08:34:10 PM »
There is something that I've been wondering about this whole Pulse mass murder event.  Pulse was a huge public bar, in effect.  Something like 300 people were in there at the start of the shooting, and the only person who had a gun was the off-duty cop working as a bouncer?  Why?  First of all, a bar that size really needed more than one bouncer.  And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did.  It took the cops 3 hours to raid the place.  This nutter was taking his sweet time killing gays.

CCW is legal in Florida but not in bars.

So this bar would basiclly have been another gun free zone?

Basically.

Well, then.  I guess there still is a pattern here worth taking note of.  All of the newsworthy shootings that have occurred in my recent memory have all occurred in locations wherein personally owned firearms were actually banned.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1246 on: June 13, 2016, 08:41:32 PM »
That's a big reach, IMO. The availability & access to guns Americans enjoy allow us to take those destructive actions with great speed and efficiency. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
If not hate speech, what influences would've driven the motivation for someone to shoot up a gay bar?

There is something that I've been wondering about this whole Pulse mass murder event.  Pulse was a huge public bar, in effect.  Something like 300 people were in there at the start of the shooting, and the only person who had a gun was the off-duty cop working as a bouncer?  Why?  First of all, a bar that size really needed more than one bouncer.  And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did.  It took the cops 3 hours to raid the place.  This nutter was taking his sweet time killing gays.

No competent and reasonable gun owner will carry a gun when they're going out to a bar to drink.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1247 on: June 13, 2016, 08:48:00 PM »


There is something that I've been wondering about this whole Pulse mass murder event.  Pulse was a huge public bar, in effect.  Something like 300 people were in there at the start of the shooting, and the only person who had a gun was the off-duty cop working as a bouncer?  Why?  First of all, a bar that size really needed more than one bouncer.  And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did.  It took the cops 3 hours to raid the place.  This nutter was taking his sweet time killing gays.

No competent and reasonable gun owner will carry a gun when they're going out to a bar to drink.

Why?  Are there no designated drivers at a place like this?  I drink free soft drinks every time I enter a bar.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1248 on: June 13, 2016, 08:56:56 PM »
That's a big reach, IMO. The availability & access to guns Americans enjoy allow us to take those destructive actions with great speed and efficiency. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
If not hate speech, what influences would've driven the motivation for someone to shoot up a gay bar?


Maybe he hated himself.  https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/report-orlando-nightclub-shooter-visited-222620444.html

If this is true, it just gets weirder and weirder.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1249 on: June 13, 2016, 09:07:03 PM »


There is something that I've been wondering about this whole Pulse mass murder event.  Pulse was a huge public bar, in effect.  Something like 300 people were in there at the start of the shooting, and the only person who had a gun was the off-duty cop working as a bouncer?  Why?  First of all, a bar that size really needed more than one bouncer.  And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did.  It took the cops 3 hours to raid the place.  This nutter was taking his sweet time killing gays.

No competent and reasonable gun owner will carry a gun when they're going out to a bar to drink.

Why?  Are there no designated drivers at a place like this?  I drink free soft drinks every time I enter a bar.
See bolded. There may have been a few DD's...who knows -- but with Uber/Lyft being so prevalent these days I would not be surprised if they were an incredibly small population.

That's a big reach, IMO. The availability & access to guns Americans enjoy allow us to take those destructive actions with great speed and efficiency. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
If not hate speech, what influences would've driven the motivation for someone to shoot up a gay bar?


Maybe he hated himself.  https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/report-orlando-nightclub-shooter-visited-222620444.html

If this is true, it just gets weirder and weirder.
"A photo of Omar Mateen taken from his MySpace page."

holy shit, people still use myspace?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 09:09:17 PM by JLee »