92 replies to this topic

[Fox Fire]

The point is that laws should be ammended to better accommodate the needs of the current world. Firearms like these shouldn't be accissible this easily, and their usage shouldn't be glorified to this degree. I understand it may be a part of your heritage for many of you but making them this easy to get makes it more probable that mentally sick people would get them and the chances of violence like this happening increases manyfold. The regulations should be stricter and usage should be heavily restiricted. It is not impossible to implement. Many countries have regulations and on average they seem to work pretty well. Ofcourse incidents like this happen, but they're much less in frequency that in the States.

 

 

I'm from a rural area and large cities probably shouldn't have our gun laws (we barely have any). In any case, gun control may work well in other nations where owning guns has not been a civilian thing since the birth of their nation and where gun regulation has always existed in greater amounts. Here in the US we are the worlds largest arms producer and we have countless guns that cannot be tracked. In my state you don't even have to register a gun and nobody has to know it exists. Now we actually have experimented with tighter gun regulations. Like in California and urban areas where gun control is far more strict than a rural area. However people in these urban areas still get guns and still kill people with those guns.  Even felons as KH pointed out. Tighter gun regulation doesn't seem to prevent determined people from getting guns. At best it can stop someone with no street smarts or connections. Not only that but a determined person can kill with all sorts of shit. Like the Tsarnaev brothers or those two guys who hacked up that British soldier. If someone is determined that they are going to do a mass killing, they're gonna do it with or without guns. 

I think the real issue with most gun violence in the US is culture, lack of opportunity and lack of education. Perhaps not in this case though. 

[onbekende]

 

From the info I have heared, its more an issue of taking away someone's gun license AFTER they got it first due to the signs of mental issues and plausible criminal activities (him beaten his wife possibly). For all your guys intentions of regulating the gun market, nearly all it speaks about is for when you first receive a license, are there any checks on the gunregistry regarding recent updates on both criminal record or medical complaints?
 
 
Has it even been somewat verified yet that he was muslim? Outside his name and heritage we just have him born in the US itself.

He pledged alliegence to ISIS before the attack

 

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.

 

Basically our world has become to loud in terms of freedom of speech, the internet is the go-to place to place anything imaginable and even the unimaginable. It has both enriched the entire world and poisoned the minds of millions by the very nature of its anonimity. We as a society, as a planet, as humankind can only adjust ourselfes to this reality, we can only try to lessen the threat by social cohesion and be vigilant of our own surroundings with due dilligence, whatever this may eventually entail.

 

 

Guns is the same old debate

No the gun debate has evolved.  Ronald Reagan supported gun control and said he thought guns should be used for hunting.  Since then the NRA has gotten so powerful that just the mention of making it harder for people who are on the FBI watch list to get guns raises screams about government over reach.  it is absurd.  That is not the same old argument.  That is a well organized, well funded propaganda machine.

 

shhhhh, them 'right' folks want all the freedom of guns together with a strong government who can do nothing against guns, don't try to speak nonesence about guncontrol!!

 

 

For all them "strong gov" types, government should be a member of the society it governs, NOT A MEMBER OF THE PEOPLE THAT OWN IT! Stop trying to make a government into a company, and we might get somewhere. Governments of today are the Chruches of the past, start acting like that or you might just see the government devolve into narcassitic monarchies of the past.

[Fermion]

I'm from a rural area and large cities probably shouldn't have our gun laws (we barely have any). In any case, gun control may work well in other nations where owning guns has not been a civilian thing since the birth of their nation and where gun regulation has always existed in greater amounts. Here in the US we are the worlds largest arms producer and we have countless guns that cannot be tracked. In my state you don't even have to register a gun and nobody has to know it exists. Now we actually have experimented with tighter gun regulations. Like in California and urban areas where gun control is far more strict than a rural area. However people in these urban areas still get guns and still kill people with those guns.  Even felons as KH pointed out. Tighter gun regulation doesn't seem to prevent determined people from getting guns. At best it can stop someone with no street smarts or connections. Not only that but a determined person can kill with all sorts of shit. Like the Tsarnaev brothers or those two guys who hacked up that British soldier. If someone is determined that they are going to do a mass killing, they're gonna do it with or without guns.  I think the real issue with most gun violence in the US is culture, lack of opportunity and lack of education. Perhaps not in this case though. 

Seems reasonable. I think this did factor in in this case too.I haven't been following the news so it would be another thing entirely if the man was doing this as an attack sponsored by ISIS but for now I think it's more a case of a mentally ill person getting unrestricted access to a gun and going on a killing spree of people who he didn't like. His maritial abuse history certainly indicates he had temper issues.

 

If Guns can't be regulated (as you said, it might be too late for that), there should be education programmes set up about them and their responsible use. Then again, there are more intelligent people working on solving this issue, so I think these kind of programs are already underway.

[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.

[Fox Fire]

 

I'm from a rural area and large cities probably shouldn't have our gun laws (we barely have any). In any case, gun control may work well in other nations where owning guns has not been a civilian thing since the birth of their nation and where gun regulation has always existed in greater amounts. Here in the US we are the worlds largest arms producer and we have countless guns that cannot be tracked. In my state you don't even have to register a gun and nobody has to know it exists. Now we actually have experimented with tighter gun regulations. Like in California and urban areas where gun control is far more strict than a rural area. However people in these urban areas still get guns and still kill people with those guns.  Even felons as KH pointed out. Tighter gun regulation doesn't seem to prevent determined people from getting guns. At best it can stop someone with no street smarts or connections. Not only that but a determined person can kill with all sorts of shit. Like the Tsarnaev brothers or those two guys who hacked up that British soldier. If someone is determined that they are going to do a mass killing, they're gonna do it with or without guns.  I think the real issue with most gun violence in the US is culture, lack of opportunity and lack of education. Perhaps not in this case though. 

Seems reasonable. I think this did factor in in this case too.I haven't been following the news so it would be another thing entirely if the man was doing this as an attack sponsored by ISIS but for now I think it's more a case of a mentally ill person getting unrestricted access to a gun and going on a killing spree of people who he didn't like. His maritial abuse history certainly indicates he had temper issues.

 

If Guns can't be regulated (as you said, it might be too late for that), there should be education programmes set up about them and their responsible use. Then again, there are more intelligent people working on solving this issue, so I think these kind of programs are already underway.

 

I think this can be blamed on ISIS. Amaq News (ISIS media) announced:

 

The police claim he called 911 and pled allegiance to ISIS before the shooting, so I'd certainly say ISIS was behind it. 

[Sister Midnight]

As for the home invasion part. I am truthfully honest that no one will ever get a hold of my weapon. All of my firearms are locked securely in a safe, located in my bedroom closet. If I was home at the time of a break in, I would have enough time to lock myself in the bedroom (I also have the option of barricading the door with a long dresser), call 911, and retrieve whatever weapon I felt appropriate. I may just grab a handgun and a spare magazine, or if I felt like I had more time, I will grab my 12 Gauge shotgun along with a knife or expandable baton. I will remain firmly in place until the police arrive. In the incredibly unlikely event someone manages to breakdown the door I will fire my weapon until the threat stops. It is simply impossible at that distance for someone to take my weapon from me. They would have to clear the door, dresser, and bed before reaching me. My handgun's magazine holds 8 rounds. That is 8 rounds of high grade, expanding hollow points fired center mass into whoever is trying to attack me or my wife. Realistically they would be dead before their foot touched the bedroom floor.

 

It is very nice to be 100 percent certain you are prepared and nothing can go wrong.  I really hope you never have to test this belief. 

 

 

Anyways, when you talk about nuclear arms and tanks, please note that when the amendment was added, there were NO
In the US it is fully legal to own armored vehicles such as tanks. Some military surplus vehicles are even classified as road worthy and can be operated on the road assuming you have the appropriate driver's license. Tank barrels have to be deactivated and I believe the weapon breach has to be inoperable as well. Although with the proper amount of licensing it is entirely possible to own tanks with their weapons intact. Just like how with the proper FFL/manufacturer paperwork, you can own automatic weaponry made past 1986, short barreled rifles (SBR), short barreled shotguns (SBS), Silencers, any other weapon (AOW), or destructive devices (DD).

Actually it is not fully legal to own a military grade, weaponized, operational tank in every state.

The 2nd ammendment was included to protect the American people from a government that abused and threatened them in the manner with which England had mistreated the colonies. At this point, how well do you think that would work? Should your neighbor have military drones, bazookas, nuclear weaponry, and all the things the government has access to? They are breaking the law if they do. I'm not trying to take away your guns, but don't kid yourself that the spirit of the 2nd amendment is being supported by the NRA.

On another, related note, there may have been people in that Orlando nightclub with concealed guns, if there were, that didn't do anyone any good.

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'm sure everyone in IRON who has guns is certain they would never fall victim to that statistic, but the odds are not in their favor.

 

As strange as this sounds, it is 100% legal to own anything listed as a Destructive Device. Although I can understand the confusion as very few people are actually familiar with how the Federal Firearm License (FFL) laws work. State and Federal Law can prevent a civilian from owning specific weaponry. However, it all comes down to what FFL Class you have. Granted it is an insane amount of paperwork, high cost, and you have to prove you are conducting a profitable and legal business (because an FFL is a business), but saying something is banned isn't a true statement.

 

I'm linking the Wikipedia page of FFLs so you can see the different classifications. Its a nightmare trying to comprehend it all so I will do my best to explain it in simpler terms. Just note that I have no legal expertise but I do have a working knowledge of these laws. My background is that as of last year I did want to apply for an FFL and start my own side business. Working at home I would have started out small, and assuming the business grew, I would eventually move up to a higher FFL class. I did the research but in the end decided my location would not be very profitable. At some point in time I would have to purchase separate property if I wanted grow beyond occasionally selling in person and internet sales. Basically your FFL must be renewed every 3 years and I felt I would not generate enough profit to justify the ATF renewing my FFL (which would mean there goes my business), all that time and money would be wasted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

 

FFL Types 9, 10, and 11 are in regards to destructive devices, which a fully operational tank (with a gun caliber greater than .50 in) would fall under. Then you also have to worry about the High Explosives Dealer/Manufacturer/Importer Licenses if you actually want working ammunition for your tank's main gun.

 

TLDR: You can't own some things as a civilian, but you can with the right FFL Classification Type. How is military hardware such as tanks made? Its produced by civilian companies. And with the proper credentials, the average law abiding individual could indeed start their own weapons manufacturing facility, and produce hardware for the military or market it to foreign governments. Or they could just park a tank in their front lawn and call it a lawn ornament. That is the beauty about the US, almost nothing is 100% banned, just heavily regulated.

 

 

That's a lot of words.  You are obviously very intelligent, but I don't see your point.  Are you saying that you think civilians can legally have nuclear bombs in their basements?  Are you saying that civilians will be able to defend themselves from the drone attacks that the military could launch on them without any warning, with almost surgical precision?  I don't understand.  My point was that the 2nd amendment's spirit has been lost for a very long time

 

Though
I am new to this alliance, I would like to put in my opinion towards
this ongoing debate. Though everyone is certainly entitled to their own
opinions, I would like to step back and come at this issue in terms of
economics. To plan a massacre like this one takes time, planning, and as
previously stated a warped mind. I don't believe the issue lies in gun
control either. One may thinks it does based on the results of countries
like Austrailia and others. That being said, much like hard drugs, the
people that seek access to an off market product will ultimately find
it. Now, by having restrictions that make it "nearly impossible" to
purchase a gun in the US you are not taking away the only avenue that
potential terrorists have to a weapon of destruction. Instead, you are
taking away a law abiding citizens natural right to own a gun for either
safety or leisure without fixing or even limiting anything. That is
wrong.

What I will say to the contrary is, privacy and
investigative discussions are the ones that need to be brought into
scope. The regulations are not the problem, it is the way in which we
are dealing with an ongoing domestic terror issue that is more at hand,
in my opinion.

I'm pleased as punch to hear anyone's opinion, whether I agree with it or not.  I hope you talk up regularly!

[PennFiji]

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

[Fox Fire]

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?

[DeathMerchant]

 

It is very nice to be 100 percent certain you are prepared and nothing can go wrong.  I really hope you never have to test this belief. 

 

That's a lot of words.  You are obviously very intelligent, but I don't see your point.  Are you saying that you think civilians can legally have nuclear bombs in their basements?  Are you saying that civilians will be able to defend themselves from the drone attacks that the military could launch on them without any warning, with almost surgical precision?  I don't understand.  My point was that the 2nd amendment's spirit has been lost for a very long time

I hope and pray that day never comes where I am forced into a situation of possibly taking a life. Even if it was legally justifiable, I would still feel deep sadness for whomever was killed.

 

I think we can both agree that civilians should never own active nuclear weaponry. The destructive risk is far too great, not only from a death toll perspective but also from the radiation fallout. As I understand, nuclear weapons are very safe to be around, as they have a complex arming system (in fact there have been some close calls regarding accidents with nuclear weaponry. Thankfully these either didn't explode, or only the explosives ignited but didn't detonate the nuclear material). Here is an interesting list not many are aware of. Some nuclear detonations have occurred in accidents but thankfully they tended to happen in rural areas.

http://listverse.com/2014/11/03/10-times-the-military-accidentally-dropped-nuclear-bombs/

 

I believe that some people are capable of protecting against drone reconnaissance and targeting. Countermeasures do exist such as signal jamming, signal hijacking (similar to when Iran tricked a US drone into thinking it was returning to land at its base while in reality it ended up landing in Iran. I believe they spoofed the drone's GPS signal so it thought it was still operating in friendly airspace, or into thinking it somehow got off track and needed to return to its original waypoint), and lastly there are ways to conceal yourself from thermal cameras (using expensive technology which isn't widely available or using rudimentary camouflage techniques but that method isn't 100% effective.) I have doubts that drones would operate with full impunity in urban areas or in heavily forested terrain. While the theater they are often used in (large open desert or mountains such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan), it is much harder to conceal yourself from them.

[Fox Fire]

but thankfully they tended to happen in rural areas.

 

 

Oh yeah? I'll remember that....

[PennFiji]

 

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.

[Fox Fire]

 

 

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.

[PennFiji]

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

[Fox Fire]

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. 

[PennFiji]

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

[Fox Fire]

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.

[PennFiji]

 

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

[Sister Midnight]

 

 

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.

[hilowe]

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]

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.