Orlando

[Yaeger]

Lone gunman Omar Mateen, 29, left 49 people dead and dozens of others wounded in the massacre at Pulse in the Florida city of Orlando on Sunday. Zimmerman believes there are similarities between the attacks.

But the medical researcher, who was born in the US and moved to Britain in 2001, told the Press Association: “One of the obvious differences was that the Orlando attacker had an assault rifle, my attacker had a bread knife - that is the big difference between living in a enormous, cosmopolitan, urban city like London in the UK and living in the country that does not have strong gun control.

“I think if Mire had access to firearms I would almost certainly not be having this conversation. It is likely other people might also be dead - it was a crowded tube station.

In the evening of March 1, 2014, a knife attack occurred inside the Kunming Railway Station in Kunming, Yunnan, China. At around 21:20, a group of 8 knife-wielding men and women attacked passengers at the city's railway station. Both male and female attackers pulled out long-bladed knives and stabbed and slashed passengers. At the scene, police killed four assailants and captured one injured female.

The incident, targeted against civilians, left 29 civilians and 4 perpetrators dead with more than 140 others injured.

[Northwestie]

Violent death is a serious public health problem in the United States. Among 15- to 24-year-olds, homicide is the second leading cause of death and suicide is the third leading cause; for 25- to 34-year-olds, suicide is the second leading cause and homicide is the third leading cause of fatality, following unintentional injuries for both groups.1


The United States is known to have higher levels of violent death, particularly homicide, compared with other developed nations. Although the United States does not appear to have higher rates of nonlethal crime, the rates of lethal violence and especially gun violence are much higher than in other high-income countries.

 There are many more guns and less strong gun laws in the United States than in other developed nations.


Approximately 2 decades ago, a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used data from the early 1990s to compare the United States with other high-income countries in terms of violent death (ie, suicide, homicide, firearm accidents) for children aged 5 to 14 years.4

 In a previous article, we updated and expanded that comparison to examine all age groups and both sexes using 2003 data. These 2003 data are now more than 12 years old. In this article, we again update the data plus we provide country-level data for each high-income nation and contrast the US levels of lethal violence for whites, who traditionally have lower homicide rates than nonwhites in the United States, with all citizens (ie, whites and nonwhites) of other high-income nations.

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/fulltext

[Northwestie]

Lone gunman Omar Mateen, 29, left 49 people dead and dozens of others wounded in the massacre at Pulse in the Florida city of Orlando on Sunday. Zimmerman believes there are similarities between the attacks.

But the medical researcher, who was born in the US and moved to Britain in 2001, told the Press Association: “One of the obvious differences was that the Orlando attacker had an assault rifle, my attacker had a bread knife - that is the big difference between living in a enormous, cosmopolitan, urban city like London in the UK and living in the country that does not have strong gun control.

“I think if Mire had access to firearms I would almost certainly not be having this conversation. It is likely other people might also be dead - it was a crowded tube station.

In the evening of March 1, 2014, a knife attack occurred inside the Kunming Railway Station in Kunming, Yunnan, China. At around 21:20, a group of 8 knife-wielding men and women attacked passengers at the city's railway station. Both male and female attackers pulled out long-bladed knives and stabbed and slashed passengers. At the scene, police killed four assailants and captured one injured female.

The incident, targeted against civilians, left 29 civilians and 4 perpetrators dead with more than 140 others injured.

And imagine what would have happened if they all had semi-autos.  The premise here seems to be that we can't stop all human-caused mayhem therefore we should do nothing.  Lame-lame-lame.

[Cyaphas]

What if it's based on data?

170,000,000 people were killed by governments in the 20th century. Through genocide, democide and ethnic cleansing. They were unarmed. Their communities felt that they didn't need firearms to defend themselves... you know.. against wolves and stuff.

The 2nd amendment is there to reinforce our natural rights. In those natural rights, you'll see that you have no right to tell someone how they can or cannot defend themselves.

The blood in FL is not on my hands. It is partially on the hands of the people who told the victims how they could or could not defend themselves in public.

Those people obeyed the laws anti-gunners have created. Sadly, a terrorist didn't. I still don't see any of them stepping forward.

Freedom is about our rights. It's not about what you're going to force someone else to do through our laws, citing the very incidents of people who cared nothing for our laws.

[Yaeger]

Nearly all guns owned by criminals are obtained through private sale (http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-where-criminals-get-weapons-412850).  Very few are obtained from gun stores where a background check is mandatory.

Why would making a background check mandatory for all gun sales not also be a deterrent to criminals getting guns?  I don't remember seeing any evidence to the contrary . . .

That's a nice theory, but you're going to have to do much more than that to justify me allowing restrictions to be placed upon my rights. How can you possibly be surprised that we're unwilling to surrender those rights based on such flimsy information?

[Yaeger]

And imagine what would have happened if they all had semi-autos.  The premise here seems to be that we can't stop all human-caused mayhem therefore we should do nothing.  Lame-lame-lame.

I think it's more disturbing that the actions that seem to be suggested copy the actions done in other nations that have decades of data proving, with little doubt, that those methods would not achieve your objective. What's lame-lame-lame is continuing to suggest that we do something that doesn't work, in the vague hope that, against all evidence to the contrary, it just might. That's not something I'd base restrictive public policy around.

[Northwestie]

Freedom is about our rights. It's not about what you're going to force someone else to do through our laws, citing the very incidents of people who cared nothing for our laws.

How did the gun people get so scared?  Scared of undefined boogey men, the government, black or brown people, their neighbors,  or the last and best ruse - foreign invaders.   

My family hunts, knows and uses guns, and even the women who do so would say these folks are chickenshits.  Fearful people.

[Northwestie]

And imagine what would have happened if they all had semi-autos.  The premise here seems to be that we can't stop all human-caused mayhem therefore we should do nothing.  Lame-lame-lame.

I think it's more disturbing that the actions that seem to be suggested copy the actions done in other nations that have decades of data proving, with little doubt, that those methods would not achieve your objective. What's lame-lame-lame is continuing to suggest that we do something that doesn't work, in the vague hope that, against all evidence to the contrary, it just might. That's not something I'd base restrictive public policy around.

So any action we take "wouldn't work"??? Yea, that is lame.

Gun ownership is not an unlimited right - just as "free speech" is not.  You can't threaten someone or their family, can't libel someone, can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.    So the vast majority of people would like to make some changes and the only reason that you can come up with is it will "inconvenience" folks.  Pfffffft.

[Yaeger]

How did the gun people get so scared?  Scared of undefined boogey men, the government, black or brown people, their neighbors,  or the last and best ruse - foreign invaders.   

My family hunts, knows and uses guns, and even the women who do so would say these folks are chickenshits.  Fearful people.

Okay, try to keep it civil please. No need to insult the other posters because of the opinions they hold.

[Yaeger]

And imagine what would have happened if they all had semi-autos.  The premise here seems to be that we can't stop all human-caused mayhem therefore we should do nothing.  Lame-lame-lame.

I think it's more disturbing that the actions that seem to be suggested copy the actions done in other nations that have decades of data proving, with little doubt, that those methods would not achieve your objective. What's lame-lame-lame is continuing to suggest that we do something that doesn't work, in the vague hope that, against all evidence to the contrary, it just might. That's not something I'd base restrictive public policy around.

So any action we take "wouldn't work"??? Yea, that is lame.

Gun ownership is not an unlimited right - just as "free speech" is not.  You can't threaten someone or their family, can't libel someone, can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.    So the vast majority of people would like to make some changes and the only reason that you can come up with is it will "inconvenience" folks.  Pfffffft.

That's a strawman argument and not comparable to what you're trying to apply towards the 2nd Amendment. I was watching a video by Steven Crowder that explains it pretty well:

"Yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater is not merely speech, but a call to action. An active “call to action” designed to cause physical harm is not the same thing as “free speech.” It’s for that same reason that “freedom of expression” is not protected under the constitution as speech. “Expression” can be subjective, as seen by some people expressing themselves through painting, singing, urinating on a crucifix or even chopping off their testicles and calling themselves women.

Speech on the other hand, even offensive speech, even if you don’t like it, is protected. So can a racist KKK Democrat like Robert Byrd say “I hate black people!!” Yes, he can. Can a racist, KKK Democrat say “Okay everybody, let’s meet at 7:00PM to lynch black people.” No, he can’t. The speech is not the crime, but the accessory to an action."

[JLee]

Freedom is about our rights. It's not about what you're going to force someone else to do through our laws, citing the very incidents of people who cared nothing for our laws.

How did the gun people get so scared?  Scared of undefined boogey men, the government, black or brown people, their neighbors,  or the last and best ruse - foreign invaders.   

My family hunts, knows and uses guns, and even the women who do so would say these folks are chickenshits.  Fearful people.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

[Northwestie]

Freedom is about our rights. It's not about what you're going to force someone else to do through our laws, citing the very incidents of people who cared nothing for our laws.

How did the gun people get so scared?  Scared of undefined boogey men, the government, black or brown people, their neighbors,  or the last and best ruse - foreign invaders.   

My family hunts, knows and uses guns, and even the women who do so would say these folks are chickenshits.  Fearful people.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

Yea - I maintain that a lot of gun owner are scared - that is a valid argument -- are you scared of addressing the issue?

[Northwestie]

Speech on the other hand, even offensive speech, even if you don’t like it, is protected. So can a racist KKK Democrat like Robert Byrd say “I hate black people!!” Yes, he can. Can a racist, KKK Democrat say “Okay everybody, let’s meet at 7:00PM to lynch black people.” No, he can’t. The speech is not the crime, but the accessory to an action."

Hmmm, let's see.  Where to start with this Swiss cheese logic.  You might want to read up on the subject a bit of the SCOTUS weighing in on free speech as a start.  Here's a primer of some limits.

To incite actions that would harm others (shouting fire in a crowed theater) Schenck v. US 1919

To make or distribute obscene materials - Roth v. US 1957

To burn draft cards at a protest.  US v O'Brian 1968.

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objection of school administrators.   Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 1988

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v Fraser 1986

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event Morse v. Frederick __US 2007

Malice standard - libel.  NYT v. Sullivan - 1964


So clearly the right of free speech is not unlimited just as are the rights granted under the second amendment - anything else you're stuck on?

[Yaeger]

Speech on the other hand, even offensive speech, even if you don’t like it, is protected. So can a racist KKK Democrat like Robert Byrd say “I hate black people!!” Yes, he can. Can a racist, KKK Democrat say “Okay everybody, let’s meet at 7:00PM to lynch black people.” No, he can’t. The speech is not the crime, but the accessory to an action."

Hmmm, let's see.  Where to start with this Swiss cheese logic.  You might want to read up on the subject a bit of the SCOTUS weighing in on free speech as a start.  Here's a primer of some limits.

To incite actions that would harm others (shouting fire in a crowed theater) Schenck v. US 1919

To make or distribute obscene materials - Roth v. US 1957

To burn draft cards at a protest.  US v O'Brian 1968.

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objection of school administrators.   Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 1988

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v Fraser 1986

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event Morse v. Frederick __US 2007

So clearly the right of free speech is not unlimited just as are the rights granted under the second amendment - anything else you're stuck on?

Most of those are examples of accessory to action, not free speech as defined by the First Amendment.

Others I don't agree with and are legitimate infringements on free speech. Which should be reversed. Do you think I agree, or should agree, with all of the historical First Amendment rulings? I fail to see what point you're trying to prove.

[dycker1978]

Apparently Canadians have pretty easy access to many guns, as well, but for some reason they choose to use them to kill each other far less often than do Americans. Thus, my conclusion that the real problem is, at least partly, to do with something inherent in Americans themselves. Isn't this an argument that gun advocates often put forward themselves? Guns don't kill. People do. Right?

Perhaps we have a traditionally more resistive, and violent, culture.  Perhaps not.  Regardless, how does this change the facts?  I also learned today that a survivor has stated that the shooter was specifically targeting Caucasians in Pulse.

[/b]

I call BS.  These people do not primarily look Caucasian.  Come on this was an attack on LGBT club on Latino night. 

http://www.advocate.com/crime/2016/6/15/49-orlando-victims-and-their-stories

[Northwestie]

I guess you know better than the Supreme Court then who ruled on all these cases as parameters to the 1st Amendment.  They were all filled as 1st Amendment cases and taken on by the court as such.  Where did you get your law degree?

[Cyaphas]

How did the gun people get so scared?  Scared of undefined boogey men, the government, black or brown people, their neighbors,  or the last and best ruse - foreign invaders.   

My family hunts, knows and uses guns, and even the women who do so would say these folks are chickenshits.  Fearful people.

I'm not afraid of anything relating to this discussion. I've just read a few history books... you know.. with facts and stuff. My view on my rights and the actions of governments isn't limited to the last 15 years.

[Northwestie]

How did the gun people get so scared?  Scared of undefined boogey men, the government, black or brown people, their neighbors,  or the last and best ruse - foreign invaders.   

My family hunts, knows and uses guns, and even the women who do so would say these folks are chickenshits.  Fearful people.

I'm not afraid of anything relating to this discussion. I've just read a few history books... you know.. with facts and stuff. My view on my rights and the actions of governments isn't limited to the last 15 years.

Then you would be worthy of displaying some knowledge that the 2nd, like all the amendments, do not offer carte blanche and come with parameters.  There is no reason we can't develop more national and uniform controls - which the majority is in favor of such controls.  Ya know, it's that legal stuff. 

[Yaeger]

Yea - I maintain that a lot of gun owner are scared - that is a valid argument -- are you scared of addressing the issue?

Pro-gun supporters maintain their stance fairly consistently whereas gun control supporters tend to be very reactionary and fear-driven that derive a lot of their support based on shot-term effects of recent events. They realize that the fear generated by the mass shooting will die down over time and their support will fall away with it. I don't know how you can honestly look at the two groups and label pro-gun as being the ones that are 'scared'.

[Yaeger]

Then you would be worthy of displaying some knowledge that the 2nd, like all the amendments, do not offer carte blanche and come with parameters.  There is no reason we can't develop more national and uniform controls - which the majority is in favor of such controls.  Ya know, it's that legal stuff.

Show us proof that these controls will have an impact on violence and we might lean towards accepting a compromise. You keep making these assertions like it's a logical step. Like the War on Drugs will put an end to drug abuse. Or the War on Poverty will eliminate poverty in America. Prove to us that it'll be effective, you know that responsible public policy stuff.

I think there's a general consensus among most of us that the 2nd Amendment does come with some sort of parameters. However, I believe it should have less parameters than it does now. It's a sliding scale and I think we've slid too far towards restricting access to firearms for many people in the country with no measurable benefit.

[Northwestie]

Yea - I maintain that a lot of gun owner are scared - that is a valid argument -- are you scared of addressing the issue?

Pro-gun supporters maintain their stance fairly consistently whereas gun control supporters tend to be very reactionary and fear-driven that derive a lot of their support based on shot-term effects of recent events. They realize that the fear generated by the mass shooting will die down over time and their support will fall away with it. I don't know how you can honestly look at the two groups and label pro-gun as being the ones that are 'scared'.

Given that we have mass shootings so regularly in this country (compared to any other 1st world country) I'd say the idea of folks being worried that there will be a lull is silly.

The personal protection crowd of gun owners are a rather fearful bunch, --- scared of unknown assailants, minorities, the gum'ment, and of course there is the every present danger of the Ruskies.  Didn't they see this movie besides Red Dawn?  http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+russians+are+comming+you+tube&view=detail&mid=31942E69F4615BB6924F31942E69F4615BB6924F&FORM=VIRE

It has a better outcome

I've travelled quite a bit for climbing and work in South America, western Pacific, Alaska, and central America.  I also lived in D.C. and NYC for a bit -- none of the folks I knew found it necessary to own a firearm.  They were all pretty self assured folks.

[Northwestie]

Then you would be worthy of displaying some knowledge that the 2nd, like all the amendments, do not offer carte blanche and come with parameters.  There is no reason we can't develop more national and uniform controls - which the majority is in favor of such controls.  Ya know, it's that legal stuff.

Show us proof that these controls will have an impact on violence and we might lean towards accepting a compromise. You keep making these assertions like it's a logical step. Like the War on Drugs will put an end to drug abuse. Or the War on Poverty will eliminate poverty in America. Prove to us that it'll be effective, you know that responsible public policy stuff.

Show me that they won't.    Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.  We can try something different - there's a proven track record in the rest of the world.

[Yaeger]

Yea - I maintain that a lot of gun owner are scared - that is a valid argument -- are you scared of addressing the issue?

Pro-gun supporters maintain their stance fairly consistently whereas gun control supporters tend to be very reactionary and fear-driven that derive a lot of their support based on shot-term effects of recent events. They realize that the fear generated by the mass shooting will die down over time and their support will fall away with it. I don't know how you can honestly look at the two groups and label pro-gun as being the ones that are 'scared'.

Given that we have mass shootings so regularly in this country (compared to any other 1st world country) I'd say the idea of folks being worried that there will be a lull is silly.

The personal protection crowd of gun owners are a rather fearful bunch, --- scared of unknown assailants, minorities, the gum'ment, and of course there is the every present danger of the Ruskies.  Didn't they see this movie besides Red Dawn?  http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+russians+are+comming+you+tube&view=detail&mid=31942E69F4615BB6924F31942E69F4615BB6924F&FORM=VIRE

It has a better outcome

I've travelled quite a bit for climbing and work in South America, western Pacific, Alaska, and central America.  I also lived in D.C. and NYC for a bit -- none of the folks I knew found it necessary to own a firearm.  They were all pretty self assured folks.

Good for them and good for you? I don't see why you feel the need to use force to impose your beliefs upon me and mine. Their personal decision to not own a firearm doesn't involve the government passing gun control laws especially since you can't even prove that these laws would be effective.

That seems to be the crux of your argument. It's based on an appeal to emotion: fear.

[MoonShadow]

Then you would be worthy of displaying some knowledge that the 2nd, like all the amendments, do not offer carte blanche and come with parameters.  There is no reason we can't develop more national and uniform controls - which the majority is in favor of such controls.  Ya know, it's that legal stuff.

Show us proof that these controls will have an impact on violence and we might lean towards accepting a compromise. You keep making these assertions like it's a logical step. Like the War on Drugs will put an end to drug abuse. Or the War on Poverty will eliminate poverty in America. Prove to us that it'll be effective, you know that responsible public policy stuff.

Show me that they won't.    Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.  We can try something different - there's a proven track record in the rest of the world.

This is gun control in a nutshell.  We already know what happens, and generally how it happens.  That is why the 2nd exists in the first place.  If you honestly believe that this world has evolved past all that, show your work. 

[Northwestie]

Yea - I maintain that a lot of gun owner are scared - that is a valid argument -- are you scared of addressing the issue?

Pro-gun supporters maintain their stance fairly consistently whereas gun control supporters tend to be very reactionary and fear-driven that derive a lot of their support based on shot-term effects of recent events. They realize that the fear generated by the mass shooting will die down over time and their support will fall away with it. I don't know how you can honestly look at the two groups and label pro-gun as being the ones that are 'scared'.

Given that we have mass shootings so regularly in this country (compared to any other 1st world country) I'd say the idea of folks being worried that there will be a lull is silly.

The personal protection crowd of gun owners are a rather fearful bunch, --- scared of unknown assailants, minorities, the gum'ment, and of course there is the every present danger of the Ruskies.  Didn't they see this movie besides Red Dawn?  http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+russians+are+comming+you+tube&view=detail&mid=31942E69F4615BB6924F31942E69F4615BB6924F&FORM=VIRE

It has a better outcome

I've travelled quite a bit for climbing and work in South America, western Pacific, Alaska, and central America.  I also lived in D.C. and NYC for a bit -- none of the folks I knew found it necessary to own a firearm.  They were all pretty self assured folks.

Good for them and good for you? I don't see why you feel the need to use force to impose your beliefs upon me and mine. Their personal decision to not own a firearm doesn't involve the government passing gun control laws especially since you can't even prove that these laws would be effective.

That seems to be the crux of your argument. It's based on an appeal to emotion: fear.

Well I'd say the folks pushing for some reasonable restrictions are tired - tired of seeing their friends and family members mowed down by folks who can waltz into a store and pick up a light weight, easy to use, killing machine as easy as picking up a six pack.  It's not fear but weariness and wanting to stop the deaths of innocents. 
 
The fear factor is on the gun proponent side that appears to be against any changes because it could prevent them from protecting themselves from the muslim in the white house, the gob'ment in general, brown people, general bad guys, or Putin.  Jesus - the string of insecurities here would make Donald Trump blush.

If you're inconvenienced a bit??  In the sum total of things I'd say it's pencil dust son.

[Northwestie]

Then you would be worthy of displaying some knowledge that the 2nd, like all the amendments, do not offer carte blanche and come with parameters.  There is no reason we can't develop more national and uniform controls - which the majority is in favor of such controls.  Ya know, it's that legal stuff.

Show us proof that these controls will have an impact on violence and we might lean towards accepting a compromise. You keep making these assertions like it's a logical step. Like the War on Drugs will put an end to drug abuse. Or the War on Poverty will eliminate poverty in America. Prove to us that it'll be effective, you know that responsible public policy stuff.

Show me that they won't.    Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.  We can try something different - there's a proven track record in the rest of the world.

This is gun control in a nutshell.  We already know what happens, and generally how it happens.  That is why the 2nd exists in the first place.  If you honestly believe that this world has evolved past all that, show your work.

Switzerland
France
Belgum
Netherlands
Germany
Spain
Portugual
England
Ireland
Italy
Australia
Japan

Yea, no evidence that stricter gun control works.  None at all

[Yaeger]

Yea - I maintain that a lot of gun owner are scared - that is a valid argument -- are you scared of addressing the issue?

Pro-gun supporters maintain their stance fairly consistently whereas gun control supporters tend to be very reactionary and fear-driven that derive a lot of their support based on shot-term effects of recent events. They realize that the fear generated by the mass shooting will die down over time and their support will fall away with it. I don't know how you can honestly look at the two groups and label pro-gun as being the ones that are 'scared'.

Given that we have mass shootings so regularly in this country (compared to any other 1st world country) I'd say the idea of folks being worried that there will be a lull is silly.

The personal protection crowd of gun owners are a rather fearful bunch, --- scared of unknown assailants, minorities, the gum'ment, and of course there is the every present danger of the Ruskies.  Didn't they see this movie besides Red Dawn?  http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+russians+are+comming+you+tube&view=detail&mid=31942E69F4615BB6924F31942E69F4615BB6924F&FORM=VIRE

It has a better outcome

I've travelled quite a bit for climbing and work in South America, western Pacific, Alaska, and central America.  I also lived in D.C. and NYC for a bit -- none of the folks I knew found it necessary to own a firearm.  They were all pretty self assured folks.

Good for them and good for you? I don't see why you feel the need to use force to impose your beliefs upon me and mine. Their personal decision to not own a firearm doesn't involve the government passing gun control laws especially since you can't even prove that these laws would be effective.

That seems to be the crux of your argument. It's based on an appeal to emotion: fear.

Well I'd say the folks pushing for some reasonable restrictions are tired - tired of seeing their friends and family members mowed down by folks who can waltz into a store and pick up a light weight, easy to use, killing machine as easy as picking up a six pack.  It's not fear but weariness and wanting to stop the deaths of innocents. 
 
The fear factor is on the gun proponent side that appears to be against any changes because it could prevent them from protecting themselves from the muslim in the white house, the gob'ment in general, brown people, general bad guys, or Putin.  Jesus - the string of insecurities here would make Donald Trump blush.

If you're inconvenienced a bit??  In the sum total of things I'd say it's pencil dust son.

Okay, please stop the ad hominem attacks on gun supporters, it's a clear bias. If that's your opinion of them, of me, you need to get out more, stop being a bigot, and let go of this textbook level of irrational hatred. In addition, your definition of 'reasonable restrictions' are a joke, it's not based on an semblance of reason supported by facts or logic, you're just using cheap buzzwords that you think have an impact on the uninformed.

I'm done talking with you. All your arguments are based on emotion and your feelings, it's like arguing with someone that uses bible verses to make all their points.

[Yaeger]

Switzerland
France
Belgum
Netherlands
Germany
Spain
Portugual
England
Ireland
Italy
Australia
Japan

Yea, no evidence that stricter gun control works.  None at all

Switzerland ranks #4 in the world in the highest amount of firearms per 100 residents. It's a very liberal gun country with fewer deaths from firearms than all of its neighbors, which have tighter gun controls laws. I'm confused by your example, it doesn't make sense.

[Northwestie]

Bigot huh?  Now you are running out of even unreasonable arguments.  I've owned guns for years - my family comes from a long line of western hunters where life with a rifle was just part of the deal in the open spaces.  All of them are advocates for tighter controls. 

I think it comes down to this -- mine and a wide range of folks say - -look - this just isn't working and we can do better given examples around the world.

You and your ilk dig in your heels and say - we can't make a difference and it's the price of freedom, or whatever.   

Clearly the current system isn't working and your fear of the future or an inconvenience should not out-weigh reasonable changes that are desired across the country.

[Northwestie]

Switzerland
France
Belgum
Netherlands
Germany
Spain
Portugual
England
Ireland
Italy
Australia
Japan

Yea, no evidence that stricter gun control works.  None at all

Switzerland ranks #4 in the world in the highest amount of firearms per 100 residents. It's a very liberal gun country with fewer deaths from firearms than all of its neighbors, which have tighter gun controls laws. I'm confused by your example, it doesn't make sense.

Ummmm, it's a very well controlled system.  Every been there?  I spent two months there climbing with Swiss friends - hand guns are virtually absent as are military style semi-automatics.

[Cyaphas]

Bigot huh?  Now you are running out of even unreasonable arguments.  I've owned guns for years - my family comes from a long line of western hunters where life with a rifle was just part of the deal in the open spaces.
 

Ok, thanks Uncle Tom.

[MoonShadow]

Then you would be worthy of displaying some knowledge that the 2nd, like all the amendments, do not offer carte blanche and come with parameters.  There is no reason we can't develop more national and uniform controls - which the majority is in favor of such controls.  Ya know, it's that legal stuff.

Show us proof that these controls will have an impact on violence and we might lean towards accepting a compromise. You keep making these assertions like it's a logical step. Like the War on Drugs will put an end to drug abuse. Or the War on Poverty will eliminate poverty in America. Prove to us that it'll be effective, you know that responsible public policy stuff.

Show me that they won't.    Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.  We can try something different - there's a proven track record in the rest of the world.

This is gun control in a nutshell.  We already know what happens, and generally how it happens.  That is why the 2nd exists in the first place.  If you honestly believe that this world has evolved past all that, show your work.

Switzerland
France
Belgum
Netherlands
Germany
Spain
Portugual
England
Ireland
Italy
Australia
Japan

Yea, no evidence that stricter gun control works.  None at all

Every single one of those nations, excepting *maybe* Netherlands, has had a tyrannical government that oppressed it's own people within recorded history.  That is actually the founding story of Switzerland, and the core reason that every able bodied male in the nation is expected to keep, maintain & train annually using a sub-machine gun and a semi-automatic handgun; although those are government issued, so they are not personally owned weapons.

Also, among that list, only England & Switzerland has had a continuous government older than the United States.  Germany, France, Italy & Spain all have governments that are only as old as 1945.  Your sample size is too small, and your test period too short, for your conclusions to have meaningful basis.  I understand that you believe that you are being reasonable, but your worldview is limited by your own experiences.  Broaden your understanding of world history, and human nature, and you might come to understand how very blessed all of us who have lived on the North American continent have been for the past 50+ years.  The framers of the Constitution were bluntly aware of the tendencies of human beings to inflict suffering upon their fellow human beings, and they recognized that human beings should reasonably have the means to defend themselves.  I'm not ruling out the possibility that humanity has moved past our violent natures, but both history and current events tells me that is unlikely.  As far as I am concerned, the natural state of mankind is still conflict, and the veneer of civilization is both thin, and largely maintained because of rough men willing to inflict violence.  When the day comes that is no longer necessary, we may not have need for weapons for the purpose of self-defense from one another, but nor will we need a government to tell us that we cannot.

[MoonShadow]

Switzerland
France
Belgum
Netherlands
Germany
Spain
Portugual
England
Ireland
Italy
Australia
Japan

Yea, no evidence that stricter gun control works.  None at all

Switzerland ranks #4 in the world in the highest amount of firearms per 100 residents. It's a very liberal gun country with fewer deaths from firearms than all of its neighbors, which have tighter gun controls laws. I'm confused by your example, it doesn't make sense.

Ummmm, it's a very well controlled system.  Every been there?  I spent two months there climbing with Swiss friends - hand guns are virtually absent as are military style semi-automatics.

Where have you traveled that this is not the case?

[JLee]

Have fun, guys. I'm going out to NYC for the night.

[Northwestie]

Bigot huh?  Now you are running out of even unreasonable arguments.  I've owned guns for years - my family comes from a long line of western hunters where life with a rifle was just part of the deal in the open spaces.
 

Ok, thanks Uncle Tom.

Speaking of uncles. One of mine from Dillon came out on a western swing last year.  He knows his way around a tool box so offered to help me with a construction project so we went over to Home Depot to pick up some lumber.  Wouldn't you know it we run into some 300 lb open carry guy with a holster.   Oh my - my uncle almost crapped in his pants with laughter.  He thought that was the funniest thing - some lost, scarred puppy needed to shore up his pants with a gun in public. 

God he couldn't wait to get back and share it with the family.  What a hoot.

[Northwestie]

Have fun, guys. I'm going out to NYC for the night.

cheers  -- hoist one for me McSorley's

[MoonShadow]

Clearly the current system isn't working and your fear of the future or an inconvenience should not out-weigh reasonable changes that are desired across the country.

How, exactly, is that clear?  The shooter at Pulse was a government checked security professional, who was investigated by the FBI twice, including once because he was observed "casing" out Walt Disney World.  He had no history of criminal behavior, even though he had openly professed sympathy for a military/religious movement that has openly declared war upon the United States.  That's something we used to call treason.  If only a couple people in Pulse had been permitted to carry a firearm beyond the *one* armed guard, this disaster may have been cut short early.  Maybe, maybe not; but the odds are greater than the nothing that actually occurred, because carrying a firearm into the nightclub was prohibited by law.  Notice that didn't bother the shooter.

[MoonShadow]

Bigot huh?  Now you are running out of even unreasonable arguments.  I've owned guns for years - my family comes from a long line of western hunters where life with a rifle was just part of the deal in the open spaces.
 

Ok, thanks Uncle Tom.

Speaking of uncles. One of mine from Dillon came out on a western swing last year.  He knows his way around a tool box so offered to help me with a construction project so we went over to Home Depot to pick up some lumber.  Wouldn't you know it we run into some 300 lb open carry guy with a holster.   Oh my - my uncle almost crapped in his pants with laughter.  He thought that was the funniest thing - some lost, scarred puppy needed to shore up his pants with a gun in public. 

God he couldn't wait to get back and share it with the family.  What a hoot.

I don't know where you are, but in Kentucky more than 10% of the population now has a concealed carry license.  For every 10 people that you pass in the city, one average, on of them may have been armed that day, and you wouldn't have known it.  Open carry people are trying to make a statement, I have never met one that was afraid.  It's just different than carrying a protest sign down main street, while being protected by police.

[beltim]

If only a couple people in Pulse had been permitted to carry a firearm beyond the *one* armed guard, this disaster may have been cut short early.  Maybe, maybe not; but the odds are greater than the nothing that actually occurred, because carrying a firearm into the nightclub was prohibited by law.  Notice that didn't bother the shooter.

Isn't that analogous to try to reduce fun violence by banning "assault weapons" when most gun violence is a result of handguns?

The reason that clubs don't allow guns isn't to prevent mass shootings, it's to prevent much more common "regular" shootings.  It doesn't work perfectly, because they still happen, but how often does having a gun prevent a first gun from being fired?

[Cyaphas]

If only a couple people in Pulse had been permitted to carry a firearm beyond the *one* armed guard, this disaster may have been cut short early.  Maybe, maybe not; but the odds are greater than the nothing that actually occurred, because carrying a firearm into the nightclub was prohibited by law.  Notice that didn't bother the shooter.

Isn't that analogous to try to reduce fun violence by banning "assault weapons" when most gun violence is a result of handguns?

The reason that clubs don't allow guns isn't to prevent mass shootings, it's to prevent much more common "regular" shootings.  It doesn't work perfectly, because they still happen, but how often does having a gun prevent a first gun from being fired?

Garland Texas could've been a much worse scenario. The two terrorists died before they could even get out of the car. It was armed men who shot them. It was a footnote on the news instead of a massacre.

[randymarsh]

Clearly the current system isn't working and your fear of the future or an inconvenience should not out-weigh reasonable changes that are desired across the country.

How, exactly, is that clear?  The shooter at Pulse was a government checked security professional, who was investigated by the FBI twice, including once because he was observed "casing" out Walt Disney World.  He had no history of criminal behavior, even though he had openly professed sympathy for a military/religious movement that has openly declared war upon the United States.  That's something we used to call treason.  If only a couple people in Pulse had been permitted to carry a firearm beyond the *one* armed guard, this disaster may have been cut short early.  Maybe, maybe not; but the odds are greater than the nothing that actually occurred, because carrying a firearm into the nightclub was prohibited by law.  Notice that didn't bother the shooter.

I sort of agree with this, but do we have any data on how many people would actually carry in nightclub if it were legal?

[beltim]

If only a couple people in Pulse had been permitted to carry a firearm beyond the *one* armed guard, this disaster may have been cut short early.  Maybe, maybe not; but the odds are greater than the nothing that actually occurred, because carrying a firearm into the nightclub was prohibited by law.  Notice that didn't bother the shooter.

Isn't that analogous to try to reduce fun violence by banning "assault weapons" when most gun violence is a result of handguns?

The reason that clubs don't allow guns isn't to prevent mass shootings, it's to prevent much more common "regular" shootings.  It doesn't work perfectly, because they still happen, but how often does having a gun prevent a first gun from being fired?

Garland Texas could've been a much worse scenario. The two terrorists died before they could even get out of the car. It was armed men who shot them. It was a footnote on the news instead of a massacre.

It was one police officer acting as security who shot them – I haven't seen anyone here advocate disarming the police.  Regardless, you missed my point, which is that "regular" gun violence is much more common, and that reducing regular gun violence is the reason for the gun control policy of clubs.

[MoonShadow]

If only a couple people in Pulse had been permitted to carry a firearm beyond the *one* armed guard, this disaster may have been cut short early.  Maybe, maybe not; but the odds are greater than the nothing that actually occurred, because carrying a firearm into the nightclub was prohibited by law.  Notice that didn't bother the shooter.

Isn't that analogous to try to reduce fun violence by banning "assault weapons" when most gun violence is a result of handguns?

The reason that clubs don't allow guns isn't to prevent mass shootings, it's to prevent much more common "regular" shootings.  It doesn't work perfectly, because they still happen, but how often does having a gun prevent a first gun from being fired?

Garland Texas could've been a much worse scenario. The two terrorists died before they could even get out of the car. It was armed men who shot them. It was a footnote on the news instead of a massacre.

It was one police officer acting as security who shot them – I haven't seen anyone here advocate disarming the police.  Regardless, you missed my point, which is that "regular" gun violence is much more common, and that reducing regular gun violence is the reason for the gun control policy of clubs.

There were more employees of the club than just the bouncer.  IF the law permitted it, any one of them might have had a concealed carry license of their own.  Of course, it would still be the choice of the club owner to decide whether or not to allow employees to pack heat, but as it stands, the state says that is not allowed.  Only police officers inside a drinking establishment with a firearm.  This created a rather large 'soft target' for the shooter.  He wasn't getting inside WDW.

As Cyaphas pointed out, attacks in locations wherein people are legitimately carrying firearms don't result in the kind of mass casualties that make the news cycle for days at a time.  Police or not police, shouldn't matter much.  Police are still just people, just as fallible and prone to error.  Concealed carry license holders actually commit crimes at a much lower rate than cops, probably because they are a self-selecting group that is not motivated by an income.

[MoonShadow]

Clearly the current system isn't working and your fear of the future or an inconvenience should not out-weigh reasonable changes that are desired across the country.

How, exactly, is that clear?  The shooter at Pulse was a government checked security professional, who was investigated by the FBI twice, including once because he was observed "casing" out Walt Disney World.  He had no history of criminal behavior, even though he had openly professed sympathy for a military/religious movement that has openly declared war upon the United States.  That's something we used to call treason.  If only a couple people in Pulse had been permitted to carry a firearm beyond the *one* armed guard, this disaster may have been cut short early.  Maybe, maybe not; but the odds are greater than the nothing that actually occurred, because carrying a firearm into the nightclub was prohibited by law.  Notice that didn't bother the shooter.

I sort of agree with this, but do we have any data on how many people would actually carry in nightclub if it were legal?

No, we don't.  But the same argument could be made for a college campus, and those people are sober most of the time.  One usually has to be over 21 to get a concealed carry license, so not everyone on a campus would even qualify, and certainly some shouldn't, but (again) a concealled carry license is annoying enough that those who pursue it are a self-selecting group, and tend to be incredibly responsible people.  I would think that the Pink Pistols would have data on how many of their members actually carry, though.

[lithy]

Since I feel like the discussion, besides from allegations of penis size (or lack thereof), has made a distinct shift toward discussing the efficacy of changes to gun law, I thought I would chime in.

I honestly do not care whether or not gun crime continues in this country at least regarding how it falls under the purview of the federal government.  Living under a constitution that protects natural rights does not guarantee the safety of the people.  The government has no obligation to provide for your safety, only to enable the people to live freely and prosecute crime in the event of harm to life or property.

And just a reminder for the entire thread, the second amendment does not create the right to keep and bear arms, it merely reinforces the inability of the government to infringe that right in case anyone ever forgot.  Even in the absence of 2A, the right still exists.

[beltim]

If only a couple people in Pulse had been permitted to carry a firearm beyond the *one* armed guard, this disaster may have been cut short early.  Maybe, maybe not; but the odds are greater than the nothing that actually occurred, because carrying a firearm into the nightclub was prohibited by law.  Notice that didn't bother the shooter.

Isn't that analogous to try to reduce fun violence by banning "assault weapons" when most gun violence is a result of handguns?

The reason that clubs don't allow guns isn't to prevent mass shootings, it's to prevent much more common "regular" shootings.  It doesn't work perfectly, because they still happen, but how often does having a gun prevent a first gun from being fired?

Garland Texas could've been a much worse scenario. The two terrorists died before they could even get out of the car. It was armed men who shot them. It was a footnote on the news instead of a massacre.

It was one police officer acting as security who shot them – I haven't seen anyone here advocate disarming the police.  Regardless, you missed my point, which is that "regular" gun violence is much more common, and that reducing regular gun violence is the reason for the gun control policy of clubs.

There were more employees of the club than just the bouncer.  IF the law permitted it, any one of them might have had a concealed carry license of their own.  Of course, it would still be the choice of the club owner to decide whether or not to allow employees to pack heat, but as it stands, the state says that is not allowed.  Only police officers inside a drinking establishment with a firearm.  This created a rather large 'soft target' for the shooter.  He wasn't getting inside WDW.

As Cyaphas pointed out, attacks in locations wherein people are legitimately carrying firearms don't result in the kind of mass casualties that make the news cycle for days at a time.  Police or not police, shouldn't matter much.  Police are still just people, just as fallible and prone to error.  Concealed carry license holders actually commit crimes at a much lower rate than cops, probably because they are a self-selecting group that is not motivated by an income.

None of this addresses my question, which has nothing to do with Garland Texas.

[MoonShadow]

If only a couple people in Pulse had been permitted to carry a firearm beyond the *one* armed guard, this disaster may have been cut short early.  Maybe, maybe not; but the odds are greater than the nothing that actually occurred, because carrying a firearm into the nightclub was prohibited by law.  Notice that didn't bother the shooter.

Isn't that analogous to try to reduce fun violence by banning "assault weapons" when most gun violence is a result of handguns?

The reason that clubs don't allow guns isn't to prevent mass shootings, it's to prevent much more common "regular" shootings.  It doesn't work perfectly, because they still happen, but how often does having a gun prevent a first gun from being fired?

Garland Texas could've been a much worse scenario. The two terrorists died before they could even get out of the car. It was armed men who shot them. It was a footnote on the news instead of a massacre.

It was one police officer acting as security who shot them – I haven't seen anyone here advocate disarming the police.  Regardless, you missed my point, which is that "regular" gun violence is much more common, and that reducing regular gun violence is the reason for the gun control policy of clubs.

There were more employees of the club than just the bouncer.  IF the law permitted it, any one of them might have had a concealed carry license of their own.  Of course, it would still be the choice of the club owner to decide whether or not to allow employees to pack heat, but as it stands, the state says that is not allowed.  Only police officers inside a drinking establishment with a firearm.  This created a rather large 'soft target' for the shooter.  He wasn't getting inside WDW.

As Cyaphas pointed out, attacks in locations wherein people are legitimately carrying firearms don't result in the kind of mass casualties that make the news cycle for days at a time.  Police or not police, shouldn't matter much.  Police are still just people, just as fallible and prone to error.  Concealed carry license holders actually commit crimes at a much lower rate than cops, probably because they are a self-selecting group that is not motivated by an income.

None of this addresses my question, which has nothing to do with Garland Texas.

If you are referring to "how often does having a gun prevent the first gun from being fired?"  The answer is, maybe never, but that wasn't the point and you know it.  The second gun present might, just might, prevent the first gun from being fired 100+ times, unchallenged.  Mass killings almost always end the same way, with someone with a weapon of their own attacking the attacker.  Your core argument is that you want those people to only be the agents of the state, because for some strange reason, you inherently trust their judgement better than you would a random person in a crowd.  The silly notion there is, there is no reason that you should trust an agent of the state over a random person in a crowd, and most people are inclined to avoid police in their daily lives, so when the bovine fecal matter makes contact with the rotary cooling device, those state agents are unlikely to be nearby.  Nor are they certain to put themselves into harm's way on your behalf, they are certainly not obligated to do so.

[Cyaphas]

None of this addresses my question, which has nothing to do with Garland Texas.

How do you not see the parallels with Garland? As was pointed out, police aren't supermen. They're not perfect and some are even *gasp* corrupt. Some of them haven't been to the range in years. What has been proven, is that the people who go above and beyond to get their concealed carries or other various weapons permits, are extremely law abiding and quite level headed.

If 1 in 50 people in Pulse were concealed carrying that would've put 7 more guns in that club that the shooter had no idea were there. But, he had a very good idea how many guns those 350 people had because anti-gun people made it illegal to carry in that establishment.

[beltim]

If only a couple people in Pulse had been permitted to carry a firearm beyond the *one* armed guard, this disaster may have been cut short early.  Maybe, maybe not; but the odds are greater than the nothing that actually occurred, because carrying a firearm into the nightclub was prohibited by law.  Notice that didn't bother the shooter.

Isn't that analogous to try to reduce fun violence by banning "assault weapons" when most gun violence is a result of handguns?

The reason that clubs don't allow guns isn't to prevent mass shootings, it's to prevent much more common "regular" shootings.  It doesn't work perfectly, because they still happen, but how often does having a gun prevent a first gun from being fired?

Garland Texas could've been a much worse scenario. The two terrorists died before they could even get out of the car. It was armed men who shot them. It was a footnote on the news instead of a massacre.

It was one police officer acting as security who shot them – I haven't seen anyone here advocate disarming the police.  Regardless, you missed my point, which is that "regular" gun violence is much more common, and that reducing regular gun violence is the reason for the gun control policy of clubs.

There were more employees of the club than just the bouncer.  IF the law permitted it, any one of them might have had a concealed carry license of their own.  Of course, it would still be the choice of the club owner to decide whether or not to allow employees to pack heat, but as it stands, the state says that is not allowed.  Only police officers inside a drinking establishment with a firearm.  This created a rather large 'soft target' for the shooter.  He wasn't getting inside WDW.

As Cyaphas pointed out, attacks in locations wherein people are legitimately carrying firearms don't result in the kind of mass casualties that make the news cycle for days at a time.  Police or not police, shouldn't matter much.  Police are still just people, just as fallible and prone to error.  Concealed carry license holders actually commit crimes at a much lower rate than cops, probably because they are a self-selecting group that is not motivated by an income.

None of this addresses my question, which has nothing to do with Garland Texas.

If you are referring to "how often does having a gun prevent the first gun from being fired?"  The answer is, maybe never, but that wasn't the point and you know it.  The second gun present might, just might, prevent the first gun from being fired 100+ times, unchallenged.  Mass killings almost always end the same way, with someone with a weapon of their own attacking the attacker.  Your core argument is that you want those people to only be the agents of the state, because for some strange reason, you inherently trust their judgement better than you would a random person in a crowd.  The silly notion there is, there is no reason that you should trust an agent of the state over a random person in a crowd, and most people are inclined to avoid police in their daily lives, so when the bovine fecal matter makes contact with the rotary cooling device, those state agents are unlikely to be nearby.  Nor are they certain to put themselves into harm's way on your behalf, they are certainly not obligated to do so.

None of this addresses my question, which has nothing to do with Garland Texas.

How do you not see the parallels with Garland? As was pointed out, police aren't supermen. They're not perfect and some are even *gasp* corrupt. Some of them haven't been to the range in years. What has been proven, is that the people who go above and beyond to get their concealed carries or other various weapons permits, are extremely law abiding and quite level headed.

If 1 in 50 people in Pulse were concealed carrying that would've put 7 more guns in that club that the shooter had no idea were there. But, he had a very good idea how many guns those 350 people had because anti-gun people made it illegal to carry in that establishment.

Clearly neither one of you is seeing my point, so I'll try this again.  You're arguing that if more people carried guns, mass murders would result in fewer deaths.  This is probably true, so arguing that point doesn't answer my question at all.  My point is that the existence of more guns will cause more deaths, because when people get violent, they will use weapons at hand.  This is why clubs don't allow guns, because they're minimizing the chance that one of their patrons get injured or killed.  Mass murders are so rare compared to murders of one or a few people, that allowing guns, while probably reducing the body count when mass murders happen, would result in a overall increase in the murder rate.

An analogy is car vs. plane crashes.  Plane crashes make the news because hundreds of people can die in a single crash, and they're fairly rare.  But fatal car crashes happen much more often, are responsible for many more deaths, and far more deaths per passenger mile.  Both of you are essentially arguing that if we ended plane travel and instead drove cars, that there would be fewer crashes where 100+ people die, and this is true.  But more lives would be lost overall as a result of this switch.

[MoonShadow]

Clearly neither one of you is seeing my point, so I'll try this again.  You're arguing that if more people carried guns, mass murders would result in fewer deaths.  This is probably true, so arguing that point doesn't answer my question at all. My point is that the existence of more guns will cause more deaths, because when people get violent, they will use weapons at hand. This is why clubs don't allow guns, because they're minimizing the chance that one of their patrons get injured or killed.  Mass murders are so rare compared to murders of one or a few people, that allowing guns, while probably reducing the body count when mass murders happen, would result in a overall increase in the murder rate.

This might be true, but it's still irrelevant.  We aren't advocating for party people to carry a firearm while intending to drink.  We are advocating for the choice.  Not everyone goes to the club as a patron, intending to drink.  And if the club owners decide that patrons with guns are a bad idea, they still have that right as the property owner, but they also accept the liability for providing the appropriate amount of security to ensure the safety of patrons.  This is exactly how Disney does it.  There are no patrons with weapons permitted in the parks, as that wouldn't even make sense, but those parks are some of the most heavily protected public spaces in the United States.  There are armed employees everywhere.  The state removed that decision, and responsibility, from the owners of Pulse.