An interesting point here is that there was a single armed security guard for a nightclub of 300 people...

What do you expect an army? It's a night club not an airport. We're lucky to even have one armed security guard at a club around here. It's mostly roided out guys with enough muscle to scare just about anyone. Or in some cases it's even fat women that most guys back down from. Granted 300 people is a lot more than you'd see packed into any building here, but still. have we reached such a point that we need armed security at every bar?

 

Yes. Its actually the law most places that have certain square footage or capacity that also sell alcohol. So yes, I do expect more, theres a lot of testosterone in a place like that. It is bound to get out of control at some point. Increased safety creates jobs too need I remind you.

 

 

An interesting point here is that there was a single armed security guard for a nightclub of 300 people...

What do you expect an army? It's a night club not an airport. We're lucky to even have one armed security guard at a club around here. It's mostly roided out guys with enough muscle to scare just about anyone. Or in some cases it's even fat women that most guys back down from. Granted 300 people is a lot more than you'd see packed into any building here, but still. have we reached such a point that we need armed security at every bar?

 

Yes. Its actually the law most places that have certain square footage or capacity that also sell alcohol. So yes, I do expect more, theres a lot of testosterone in a place like that. It is bound to get out of control at some point. Increased safety creates jobs too need I remind you.

 

It's the law? Can you cite that? Because 9/10 bars around here have no security whatsoever. Just bartenders.

It might be strictly state law, but every philadelphia bar downtown has to have two armed(not gun) guards outside as well as one inside(w/gun). and the capacity of these are around 100 or 200. Given, philly is a little different, I believe that enhanced security would help

It might be strictly state law, but every philadelphia bar downtown has to have two armed(not gun) guards outside as well as one inside(w/gun). and the capacity of these are around 100 or 200. Given, philly is a little different, I believe that enhanced security would help

Not around here. Only the popular places even have bouncers. Of course I live in a small place where 100 people in one bar at the same time is considered a very busy night to say the least. 

Yeah, all I am trying to say, is that either a better system of communication or slightly better security would be nice.

Yeah, all I am trying to say, is that either a better system of communication or slightly better security would be nice.

Well thinking back, I did live in Vegas for a while and security around there was pretty tight in all public places no matter what it was. Certainly not close to what you'd see where I live now.

I suppose the rural/urban differences are just that. Different.

 

Yeah, all I am trying to say, is that either a better system of communication or slightly better security would be nice.

Well thinking back, I did live in Vegas for a while and security around there was pretty tight in all public places no matter what it was. Certainly not close to what you'd see where I live now.

I suppose the rural/urban differences are just that. Different.

 

 

And thus, a potentially easier and more viable target

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An interesting point here is that there was a single armed security guard for a nightclub of 300 people...

 

 

What do you expect an army? It's a night club not an airport. We're lucky to even have one armed security guard at a club around here. It's mostly roided out guys with enough muscle to scare just about anyone. Or in some cases it's even fat women that most guys back down from. Granted 300 people is a lot more than you'd see packed into any building here, but still. have we reached such a point that we need armed security at every bar?

 

 

Yes. Its actually the law most places that have certain square footage or capacity that also sell alcohol. So yes, I do expect more, theres a lot of testosterone in a place like that. It is bound to get out of control at some point. Increased safety creates jobs too need I remind you.

 

 

It's the law? Can you cite that? Because 9/10 bars around here have no security whatsoever. Just bartenders.

Same here

 

 

Yeah, all I am trying to say, is that either a better system of communication or slightly better security would be nice.

 

 

Well thinking back, I did live in Vegas for a while and security around there was pretty tight in all public places no matter what it was. Certainly not close to what you'd see where I live now.

I suppose the rural/urban differences are just that. Different.

I've been to clubs in NYC, Miami, Washington DC, and in various suburbs of NYC. Some have almost no security, some have a lot of security. Most places we call security bouncers in clubs. I have seldom seen bouncers with firearms, but it happens.

 

Tell me, what did the good guys with guns do when this bastard was murdering innocents. They were scared in their homes polishing their beautiful weapons.

To keep the conversation civil, I'm not going to respond with the first thing that went through my head when I read these statements.

 

Unfortunately, even if people are willing and able to protect others (the sheepdog concept some talk about), they still have to be present to actually do anything. This was a night club, and could potentially have been a place where it was written into the law that concealed carry isn't allowed (I don't know Florida law, but in Nebraska, if a location gets more than 50% of it's revenue from alcohol, concealed carry is illegal. Bars and night clubs fall in that for me).

 

Finally looked it up. Florida law states that you can't conceal carry to any place that serves alcohol.

 

 

Found it here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html

 

12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:

 

12. 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;

 

 

So, by state law, no law abiding citizen could "openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm" in this place.

 

Again, laws only affect the law abiding. Those that want to do harm don't care how many laws they break.

 

 

Sister Midnight, on 13 Jun 2016 - 15:25, said: Did you know that in most home invasions that end in someone being shot by the homeowner's gun it is the homeowner who has gotten shot by their own weapon? I've heard this statistic thrown out so many times, but I've never seen the study that actually found this. Do you have a reference for it?

 

I was given this information from a friend who was a police officer for more than 20 years.  He also worked for the US government, but I don't know what he did for them.

French police officer and his wife was also killed, ISIS lone wolf again. Had been sentenced for 3 years of prison for conspiracy to commit a terror attack. Got off with good behavior after 2.5

Edited June 14, 201610 yr by ccabal86

 

My cat does that to in her sleep, shall I hang her?

 

Someone put a nice blog on this here, speaking that ISIS is becoming an idea rather then an organisation. Lone wolfs will become frequenter before any social/moral pressure will come forward to stop this.

I don't get what you mean by that first sentence...BUT you are right on the second part.

 

Guess you mean the blog thing

 

It was about the ISIS threat being less from the organisation itself (sure it send out "agents") but more about sympathizers who just followed the "wrong" newssites and were alienated by society. Basically it's a cult without a central HR department running the individuals. We saw the same happen with AQ back in the day, just to a lesser extant due to smaller internet proliferation and a better social climate in general.

 

Sister Midnight, on 13 Jun 2016 - 15:25, said: Did you know that in most home invasions that end in someone being shot by the homeowner's gun it is the homeowner who has gotten shot by their own weapon? I've heard this statistic thrown out so many times, but I've never seen the study that actually found this. Do you have a reference for it?

 

I was given this information from a friend who was a police officer for more than 20 years.  He also worked for the US government, but I don't know what he did for them.

 

OK, thanks.

 

Like I said, I've heard that repeated so often, everyone believes it's true.

 

When people start throwing out statistics, I try to look at the source. I've seen too many times (especially when it comes to pro/anti gun talks), people make the numbers lie in their favor (by either counting something they probably shouldn't or not counting something they probably should).

 

 

It might be strictly state law, but every philadelphia bar downtown has to have two armed(not gun) guards outside as well as one inside(w/gun). and the capacity of these are around 100 or 200. Given, philly is a little different, I believe that enhanced security would help

 

I could not find any law stating mandatory security for bars in any state. I can imagine that many bars have them especially the larger ones that can fit a large amount of people at busy times.

 

 

 

Because 9/10 bars around here have no security whatsoever. Just bartenders.

 

 

That seems a bit generous, your area must have a bunch of hooligans! I have only ever see security in a bar during ultra peak times at some, and only during massive events at others. Though my sample set is limited to Washington and Oregon.

It's not just the violence, but also the scope of destruction that the modern automatic rifles can cause. A pistol will defend you just as well as a rifle, but you'll also be reducing the possibility of a person going berserk and killing many others because he had an automatic firearm that was made to kill many people. Plus, it'd be easier to contain him. 

 

The guns protecting people from their govt. is a joke. This might've been true in the 1800's but in the present times the militaryweapons vastly outclass what you can get in a gun shop and in any armed confrontation between civilians and state, the civilials have a verylow chance of doing any considerable damage.

 

It is time the gun laws are made stricter, so that these kind of incidents can't happen in the future.

 

 

Atleast there that was one off. These kind of things, school shootings etc. happen frequently in the US. All because of extra lax gun laws and flawed ideas of liberty. Liberty is good,  but not when it infringes on others' right to live.

 

 

A handgun's only purpose is to fight your way back to your rifle.

Citizens have been for all intents and purposes been unable to own or acquire automatic weapons since the 1934 NFA.

I agree, it is a joke that firearms will defend The People, they've allowed themselves to be increasingly de-fanged for nearly one hundred years. Firearms are Liberty's Teeth.

Liberty is good.

 

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

 

 

Increased safety creates jobs too need I remind you.

 

Broken Window Theory of Economics.

 

 

 

 

 

The world is a scary place. Removing peoples' ability to protect themselves in it is immoral.

How does the rest of the world get on without such heavy weaponry.

How does the rest of the world get on without such heavy weaponry.

Like this?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORAQ4pLkezs

You bring up Paris but America has had more mass shootings than anyone else.

You bring up Paris but America has had more mass shootings than anyone else.

There are 25 guns for every 100 residents in Switzerland which has lax gun laws compared to it's neighbors and a very low gun crime rate. In any case, stricter gun laws wouldn't have done much here. For example, if we had laws similar to maybe Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, etc, this guy would have still been able to buy said guns because he had a legit reason and multiple weapons licenses. There was no reason to not sell him a gun other than the fact that he was on a terror watch list. 

There was no reason to not sell him a gun other than the fact that he was on a terror watch list.

All this means is, yeah, someone thinks he's done some fishy things, but we don't have anywhere near enough proof for FBI or anyone to do more than say we suspect him. Who suspects him? Don't know, because there are way too many ways to get on those watch lists.

And he committed domestic abuse against his wife, all I know is over here if you commit any violent crime the first thing you lose is your gun licence.

And he committed domestic abuse against his wife, all I know is over here if you commit any violent crime the first thing you lose is your gun licence.

The case was dropped, at least according to this article.

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-orlando-shooting-mom-domestic-arrest-20160613-story.html

 

I'm fairly certain there are federal laws against people convicted of domestic violence having firearms. Since this guy wasn't convicted, that law didn't come into play.

 

And he committed domestic abuse against his wife, all I know is over here if you commit any violent crime the first thing you lose is your gun licence.

The case was dropped, at least according to this article.http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-orlando-shooting-mom-domestic-arrest-20160613-story.htmlI'm fairly certain there are federal laws against people convicted of domestic violence having firearms. Since this guy wasn't convicted, that law didn't come into play.

Your link leads to a story about the shooter growing up in a home where domestic violence may have occurred, not about his own domestic violence. I have not looked much into whether he was convicted or not because I have been trying to limit my exposure to this whole thing because it is depressing me too much. But I do have this, which is somewhat more relavent. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/omar-mateen-domestic-violence-clue-murderous-future

 

I believe that Omar Mateen was probably gay or bisexual, but also homophobic. There is a defense mechanism called reaction formation. In short, you have a urges to do something you find unacceptable, so you suppress those urges and come out vehemently in opposition to those urges. For example, someone may have an urge to steal, but he finds the idea of being a criminal to be highly distasteful, so in order to get relief from the distress caused by this, he becomes a cop. That is example of reaction formation being used in what could be a constructive way. Mr. Mateen was "a regular" at this gay bar, he had urges, he turned those urges into hate, and decided to kill as many "queers" as he could. I believe he was seriously mentally ill, and the call to the cops claiming fidelity to ISIL presents itself as almost an afterthought, to give his f--ked up behavior meaning. As I said I've been limiting my information intake, but this makes the most sense given what I have been absorbing.

 

Would this man have had access to legal assault weapons in the vast majority of first world nations with strict gun control laws? Almost certainly not. When Austrailia put strict gun control in place, gun violence almost completely disappeared. Yes, I'm sure someone will bring up some loosely related statistic or incident from somewhere in the world, but the fact of the matter is that nations with gun control have less gun violence.

 

I find it so curious that people are so unwilling to respectfully entertain opposing points of view.

The wife may have been in on the whole thing too:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/investigators-turn-focus-omar-mateens-wife-criminal-charges/story?id=39867320

 

 

And he committed domestic abuse against his wife, all I know is over here if you commit any violent crime the first thing you lose is your gun licence.

The case was dropped, at least according to this article.http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-orlando-shooting-mom-domestic-arrest-20160613-story.htmlI'm fairly certain there are federal laws against people convicted of domestic violence having firearms. Since this guy wasn't convicted, that law didn't come into play.

 

Your link leads to a story about the shooter growing up in a home where domestic violence may have occurred, not about his own domestic violence. I have not looked much into whether he was convicted or not because I have been trying to limit my exposure to this whole thing because it is depressing me too much. But I do have this, which is somewhat more relavent. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/13/omar-mateen-domestic-violence-clue-murderous-future

 

Oops. Fast read the title, missed it was his mom. Fast read the article, didn't pick up that it was about his parents. Double fail.