There are so many guns in the US I really don't think it matters if you can buy a gun legally or not.

You want to ban all guns in the US, and then wait 150-200 years for the guns out there to fall into disrepair and stop working. And for that time, only the criminals should have guns. Just an idea that fails on its premise.

This is a tragedy, but let's stop kidding ourselves that it's a result of gun laws. The reality is our relatively high murder rate, and high gun-related homicides, is mostly due to drugs and gangs...and about double that number for suicides.

sleeper;1799008 wrote:Yeah I don't believe CCW helps here although I do support CCW.

We need stronger background checks for guns and a ban on assault rifles. There's no way a guy on the FBI list as a terrorist sympathizer should ever be allowed to buy guns.

I agree with everything you said.

However a few clarifications.

Assault rifles are already banned. By definition an assault rifle is an automatic firing rifle similar to what the Armed Forces use.

An AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle, it is not "high powered" even. It has been given this moniker by those that have no clue what they are talking about due to ignorance and political views.

A good explanation is this website:

http://zombieprepared.com/guns/assault-rifles-assault-weapons-and-why-your-arak-pattern-rifle-isnt-one

I know the main website is a conspiracy zombie nut, but the article is true.

An AR-15 fires the same round and the same speed (semi automatic) as many basic hunting rifles. It gets the moniker as an "assault rifle" because of how it looks instead of reality. It is made to LOOK like an Army issue weapon when it isn't even close to what they actually use.

fish82;1799017 wrote: It has the the exact same specs and function as dozens of popular hunting rifles. It "looks scary" though...so people lose their shit over it.

Ooooooooh, it's black! Must be evil.

fish82;1799017 wrote:
And FWIW, I find the "AR-15/assault rifle" assclench pretty amusing. It's not an "assault rifle."

It has the the exact same specs and function as dozens of popular hunting rifles. It "looks scary" though...so people lose their shit over it.

100% correct, an AR-15 only gets called an "assault rifle" because it looks scary. It is not even close to an assault rifle.

jmog;1799022 wrote:100% correct, an AR-15 only gets called an "assault rifle" because it looks scary. It is not even close to an assault rifle.

and because politicians claim "it's the same thing the military uses". Saying it once could be a misspeak. Saying it over and over is a baldfaced lie. Then they claim to want to have a serious conversation.

jmog;1799019 wrote: An AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle, it is not "high powered" even. It has been given this moniker by those that have no clue what they are talking about due to ignorance and political views.

Is it more dangerous and powerful than many semi-auto handguns that can be bought? Accuracy I assume, especially if there's a laser site. But in a crowded club doesn't this guy do as much damage with two pistols and a few extra clips? Might 20-30 rounds in a clip vs. 15 in a handgun, but would that really make a difference in this case?

gut;1799026 wrote:Is it more dangerous and powerful than many semi-auto handguns that can be bought? Accuracy I assume, especially if there's a laser site. But in a crowded club doesn't this guy do as much damage with two pistols and a few extra clips? Might 20-30 rounds in a clip vs. 15 in a handgun, but would that really make a difference in this case?

Biggest difference between an AR-15 and say a semi-automatic Beretta pistol would be accuracy but in a crowded room/nightclub a single shooter who is out to just kill as many as possible is not taking the time to really aim. At that point its about capacity and reload time really.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1799005 wrote:interesting.. seeing as an armed cop with more training than your run of the mill hillbilly was there and 50 people were killed and 53 more injured.. interesting .

You give a lot of credit to run of the mill cops. They aren't exactly lighting up ranges while sitting in their cars writing speeding tickets. Regardless, in Florida, you aren't allowed to have a gun in a bar anyway even with a CCW. But to think that a couple of armed people couldn't have possibly defeated this guy is naive, he wasn't any sort of trained fighter either. The cop may have been overpowered because he was taken by surprise, or he was a shitty cop, no one knows all of the details yet.

Does it matter? (the assault v non-assault rifle talk)

raiderbuck;1799030 wrote:Does it matter? (the assault v non-assault rifle talk)

With regards to this tragedy? No

With regards to the politics that inherently comes from a tragedy like this? Absolutely

An AR-15 just looks scary compared to a hunting rifle even though the specs (caliber, muzzle velocity, power, capacity, etc) are all on par/same. They want to 'ban' it based solely on how it looks and is perceived.

iclfan2;1799029 wrote:You give a lot of credit to run of the mill cops. They aren't exactly lighting up ranges while sitting in their cars writing speeding tickets. Regardless, in Florida, you aren't allowed to have a gun in a bar anyway even with a CCW. But to think that a couple of armed people couldn't have possibly defeated this guy is naive, he wasn't any sort of trained fighter either. The cop may have been overpowered because he was taken by surprise, or he was a shitty cop, no one knows all of the details yet.

This. Not that shooting skill is the only, or even main criterion, but I've spoken to several cops who only shoot once a year to qualify. Many of us "hillbillies" Zwick refers to can out-shoot the vast majority of LEOs.

SportsAndLady;1799012 wrote:He was "cleared" by the FBI after those investigations. Kind of a slippery slope to say the second amendment is no longer available to you if you've ever been talked to by law enforcement for a violent crime.

Not saying I disagree with your premise, just don't think there's a perfect fix to this issue.

Ah, didn't know he was officially cleared. I'd read he was under investigation, but wasn't sure if he was cleared or if it was one of those "didn't find anything concrete, but we're keeping an eye on him" sort of things.

Yeah, there's no perfect fix. If people want to kill, they'll kill -- it's more a matter of taking a stance to discourage random people from deciding a mass shooting is a good idea, but I have no idea how to do that.

fish82;1799017 wrote:And FWIW, I find the "AR-15/assault rifle" assclench pretty amusing. It's not an "assault rifle."

It has the the exact same specs and function as dozens of popular hunting rifles. It "looks scary" though...so people lose their shit over it.

Yep. But, doesn't fit the liberal template.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1799006 wrote:face it.. i have no doubts a ccw is fine and dandy when a punk kid wants to steal your wallet.. but your ccw aint doing shit when a heavily armed mad man with more firepower than you with intentions to kill everyone is shooting at you.. this incident proves it. if a cop was overpowered, you aint doing a god damned thing.

maybe the place was cased and he knew where the cop was and the guy targeted the cop. WHen someone has a CCW, they have the element of surprise.

jmog;1799019 wrote:I agree with everything you said.

However a few clarifications.

Assault rifles are already banned. By definition an assault rifle is an automatic firing rifle similar to what the Armed Forces use.

An AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle, it is not "high powered" even. It has been given this moniker by those that have no clue what they are talking about due to ignorance and political views.

A good explanation is this website:

http://zombieprepared.com/guns/assault-rifles-assault-weapons-and-why-your-arak-pattern-rifle-isnt-one

I know the main website is a conspiracy zombie nut, but the article is true.

An AR-15 fires the same round and the same speed (semi automatic) as many basic hunting rifles. It gets the moniker as an "assault rifle" because of how it looks instead of reality. It is made to LOOK like an Army issue weapon when it isn't even close to what they actually use.

I don't really know anything about guns. I'll never own one and don't care if others do.

With that said, I am 100% in support of stronger background checks. I also think there needs to be a tax on bullets as well as guns to account for the negative externality that owning a gun places on society.

"Gilroy told Florida Today that he complained to his superiors several times about Mateen, but they refused to take action because, Gilroy claimed, Mateen was Muslim."


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/13/former-co-worker-says-orlando-gunman-was-unhinged-and-unstable-went-on-racist-misogynistic-rants.html?intcmp=hpbt1


Lovely.

"If you see something, say something." [unless it is politically incorrect]

What a culture that has been created in very short order.

I carry my weapon more now but enjoy doing it less and less each time.
The understanding that the potentional to use it again does not rest easy with me.
this is where we are in society where individual will have to answer the call to protect and defend others until support can arrive. Some politiians would rather take the 2 Amendment rights away and let a stressful and floundering police and legal system answer the call to protect. Take your rights and take our lives...... No thanks

the politician have failed, the policy worthless, laws are against the citizen, we have let the criminals control the media swing thinking and the mentality of what issue are important are skewed.

Anyone advocating gun control because of this terroist, hate and religious act of cowardnes is not and should not be considered a leader of the American people.

QuakerOats;1799044 wrote:"Gilroy told Florida Today that he complained to his superiors several times about Mateen, but they refused to take action because, Gilroy claimed, Mateen was Muslim."


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/13/former-co-worker-says-orlando-gunman-was-unhinged-and-unstable-went-on-racist-misogynistic-rants.html?intcmp=hpbt1


Lovely.

"If you see something, say something." [unless it is politically incorrect]

What a culture that has been created in very short order.

I agree with you here. San Bernadino had the same issue; a neighbor suspected something but didn't go to the police because he didn't want to be outed as a racist towards muslims.

Fwiw, the Washington Post is also reporting that this scumbag openly celebrated 9/11 at the alternative school he went to.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/13/on-911-omar-mateens-classmates-mourned-some-say-he-celebrated/?utm_term=.18601625848d


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

queencitybuckeye;1799032 wrote:This. Not that shooting skill is the only, or even main criterion, but I've spoken to several cops who only shoot once a year to qualify. Many of us "hillbillies" Zwick refers to can out-shoot the vast majority of LEOs.

Yeah, a friend who is a cop told me "if you're ever in one of those movie scenarios where someone has you hostage, you DO NOT want a beat cop taking that shot"

iclfan2;1799029 wrote:... in Florida, you aren't allowed to have a gun in a bar anyway even with a CCW.

Guns and alcohol don't mix. You'd be in far more danger if bars allowed people to have guns.

sleeper;1799042 wrote:I don't really know anything about guns. I'll never own one and don't care if others do.

With that said, I am 100% in support of stronger background checks. I also think there needs to be a tax on bullets as well as guns to account for the negative externality that owning a gun places on society.

I agree with better background checks.

I disagree that there is a "negative externality" placed on society.

In that case there is one for box cutters, knives, fertilizer, and other non-gun items that have been used in mass killings used by terrorists.

TBone14;1798974 wrote:

I also fall into the category of people who think that legally or not...if he wanted to commit a mass shooting of that magnitude, obtaining that gun legally or not would not have mattered. Not letting him purchase a gun legally just would have been a bump in the road that he would have gotten around.

yep. ....and one reason "a trained cop" couldn't stop him was that he had body armor. This was a well thought out, planned terrorist attack. Stop *****-footing around the issue of radical Islam, and assign responsibility where it is due. It most certainly was not an issue of gun laws being too lax. Terrorist attacks occurred in Paris, Brussels etc.... and those countries have strict gun laws.

jmog;1799059 wrote:I agree with better background checks.

I disagree that there is a "negative externality" placed on society.

In that case there is one for box cutters, knives, fertilizer, and other non-gun items that have been used in mass killings used by terrorists.

Really? Who's supposed to pay for the killings of 50 people and the injuries of 53? A tax on guns and bullets helps cover the cost that society has to pay to protect itself against gun violence.

Let me know when box cutters, knives, and fertilizer kill as many people as guns do.

sleeper;1799069 wrote:Really? Who's supposed to pay for the killings of 50 people and the injuries of 53? A tax on guns and bullets helps cover the cost that society has to pay to protect itself against gun violence.

Let me know when box cutters, knives, and fertilizer kill as many people as guns do.

Box cutters/planes=9/11
Fertilizer=Oklahoma City bombing
Pressure Cooker=Boston Marathon Bombing

You make this too easy there sleeper.

In the same stupid logic of taxing bullets/guns to pay for the wounded/dead why not tax all Muslims since most of these mass shootings/terrorist attacks happen to have been perpetrated by Muslims?

You say you use logic and reason and then use absolutely zero logic and reason in this thread.