Orlando

[shocka khan]

This act didnt happen because of guns. It happened because the guy did not agree with American principles of a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And furthermore, his religious beliefs in this case, taught him that he had the right, which he viewed as above that of the state's 'legislation', that he could go kill those that pursued their happiness contrary to his beliefs.

Tell me how we end this.

I would disagree. The reason the mass shooting in Orlando occurred (much as Robert (?) Dear shooting up the Planned Parenthood in Co) was that he, like Dear, was a religious extremist. We've had religious extremists killing people for well over a hundred years (John Brown, who was hanged at Harper's Ferry is a great example) because they thought God was on their side.

Doesn't make any difference whether that God is Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva or the Christian God. Put a narrow-minded person who lacks cognitive skills in front of an extreme religious 'leader', brainwash the individual and then watch what happens.

A person who is adept at manipulating others can rewrite any holy book into whatever they want the words in the book to mean and convince people that they are right. Part of the buy-in is making a boogey man out of someone/something (abortion, gays, transgenders, other religions or name a controversial topic), using selected verses in the holy book to underscore their point and then make a call to action to the simple-minded to translate their thoughts into actions.

And I would also further say that if the Planned Parenthood in Colorado did not have a crisis response plan that was thoroughly tested and practiced several times a year, Dear would have killed a lot more people than he did.

Just like our mass shooter in Houston would have killed more people if he had made a better choice of targets (Memorial City Mall or CityCenter). Some of these guys fail not because they have the means, but because they did a poor job in planning.

The guy in Orlando was a security guard with extensive training as such (and pretty thorough firearms training to boot), so those factors probably worked in his favor when he planned and executed his attack.

[rrshock]

So let's ban religious extremists instead of AR 15s. Seems logical to me...

You can bet that I wouldn't need all 30 rounds in my AR15 to protect my house from a single intruder. However that said intruder will encounter all 30 rounds in the air heading in their direction. I like to err on the side of caution. More than likely I will just kill him with a 12 gauge or a handgun, all of which hold well over the amount of ammo i need.

There will always be a debate. There are at least two sides to every argument. I side on the one which doesn't want the government attempting to limit me more. Or the one that would give the government an advantage if they did ever go to a military state.

[ShockerPrez]

I would disagree. The reason the mass shooting in Orlando occurred (much as Robert (?) Dear shooting up the Planned Parenthood in Co) was that he, like Dear, was a religious extremist. We've had religious extremists killing people for well over a hundred years (John Brown, who was hanged at Harper's Ferry is a great example) because they thought God was on their side.

Doesn't make any difference whether that God is Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva or the Christian God. Put a narrow-minded person who lacks cognitive skills in front of an extreme religious 'leader', brainwash the individual and then watch what happens.

A person who is adept at manipulating others can rewrite any holy book into whatever they want the words in the book to mean and convince people that they are right. Part of the buy-in is making a boogey man out of someone/something (abortion, gays, transgenders, other religions or name a controversial topic), using selected verses in the holy book to underscore their point and then make a call to action to the simple-minded to translate their thoughts into actions.

And I would also further say that if the Planned Parenthood in Colorado did not have a crisis response plan that was thoroughly tested and practiced several times a year, Dear would have killed a lot more people than he did.

Just like our mass shooter in Houston would have killed more people if he had made a better choice of targets (Memorial City Mall or CityCenter). Some of these guys fail not because they have the means, but because they did a poor job in planning.

The guy in Orlando was a security guard with extensive training as such (and pretty thorough firearms training to boot), so those factors probably worked in his favor when he planned and executed his attack.

My point here wasnt to focus on religion, but rather one's belief that his right to kill based on his belief, superceded another's right to live for pursuing their happiness.

But I believe that Planned Parenthood has the right to defend their operation however they see fit. If they decide that having a guard with an AR 15 at the door, wise move, Probably. I dont believe thats what they did, but they know there are threats to them and they took measures to minimize them.

The crazies arent going away. Why not at least try to even the playing field. Their unpredictability is what makes them more dangerous. Better to let the sane have the firepower.

[wufan]

The article states that assault rifles are used in 27% of public mass shootings. According to your statistics, assault rifles make up at a maximum (under your numbers 30,000,000/[30,000,000+200,000,000]) 13% of all guns. That's assuming the only kinds of guns you can purchase are handguns and assault rifles, which is inaccurate. That means that assault rifles make up a disproportionately large percentage of the public mass shootings. It absolutely does not support opposing a ban on assault rifles. Not 100% solving a problem is NOT a reason to oppose legislation. If it makes the problem at all better and it imposes a relatively small burden, it might still be a good idea.

Mass shootings accounted for less than 500 deaths and less than 2000 gun related injuries. That's 27% of 2% of all gun related incidents, or about 0.5% of all gun related injuries. Let's ignore the other 99.5% of GUN RELATED INCIDENTS.

I was speaking about general gun related incidents in my stats, not mass shootings (4+ injuries in a single setting). Assault style rifles make up about 10% of all guns in the US, and 0.5% of illicit use of guns is a mass shooting with an assault rifle.

[pinstripers]

In terms of the loss of American lives, this is the second largest Islamic attack on US soil.

[wufan]

Interesting thought while reading this article: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...nap-story.html

Is it possible that there are less "mob" related deaths in the US due to the proliferation of semi-automatic weapons? Is it possible that if you were the target of a mob hate group that an AR-15 and a Glock 9mm could keep you and your family safe?

[jdshock]

Mass shootings accounted for less than 500 deaths and less than 2000 gun related injuries. That's 27% of 2% of all gun related incidents, or about 0.5% of all gun related injuries. Let's ignore the other 99.5% of GUN RELATED INCIDENTS.

I was speaking about general gun related incidents in my stats, not mass shootings (4+ injuries in a single setting). Assault style rifles make up about 10% of all guns in the US, and 0.5% of illicit use of guns is a mass shooting with an assault rifle.

Would you choose not to cure lung cancer because it's a tiny percentage of overall deaths?

Mass public killings are different from other gun related incidents. Sure, all gun violence is a big problem, but it's not the point of discussion right now and it doesn't mean mass public killings are not a problem.

[wufan]

Would you choose not to cure lung cancer because it's a tiny percentage of overall deaths?

Mass public killings are different from other gun related incidents. Sure, all gun violence is a big problem, but it's not the point of discussion right now and it doesn't mean mass public killings are not a problem.

If I thought banning guns would stop murder, I would be in favor.

[jdshock]

If I thought banning guns would stop murder, I would be in favor.

In the analogy, murder=all deaths and mass public killings=lung cancer. That's exactly my point. We don't need to be concerned with all murders right now if there is a proposal which has a positive effect on mass killings.

Banning assault rifles would have some positive impact on mass killings. It's been shown under your own statistics that assault rifles are disproportionately involved in those crimes. The burden imposed is relatively small. The two burdens suggested are 1. It's fun to shoot them and 2. They're needed to take down the government. Any others?

[wufan]

In the analogy, murder=all deaths and mass public killings=lung cancer. That's exactly my point. We don't need to be concerned with all murders right now if there is a proposal which has a positive effect on mass killings.

Banning assault rifles would have some positive impact on mass killings. It's been shown under your own statistics that assault rifles are disproportionately involved in those crimes. The burden imposed is relatively small. The two burdens suggested are 1. It's fun to shoot them and 2. They're needed to take down the government. Any others?

I do not believe that banning assault rifles would reduce mass shootings, mass murder, nor do I believe that we should focus our efforts on such a small number of events.

Self defense

Stopping a tyrannical gov is pretty important to me.

[shock]

I do not believe that banning assault rifles would reduce mass shootings, mass murder, nor do I believe that we should focus our efforts on such a small number of events.

Self defense

Stopping a tyrannical gov is pretty important to me.

this. It's not about defending yourself against a home intruder. It's about defending yourself from a government gone extreme.

[shockmonster]

I

Stopping a tyrannical gov is pretty important to me.

Where do you see a tyrannical government? I see things I disagree with.

[wufan]

Where do you see a tyrannical government? I see things I disagree with.

I don't currently see one, but disarmament is the first step to subjugation. I believe in states rights and small federal government providing minimal services. We are certainly moving away from that, and banning fire arms is a BIG step further away.

[MoValley John]

The debate is pointless. Those that want "assault rifles" banned, want them banned. It doesn't matter that these weapons are actually responsible for only a miniscule amount of violence. Those people want them banned. Documenting numbers is pointless. These people don't even understand the logic from the other side. And I don't blame them, their stance is based on emotion.

That said, the real reason these weapons are targeted isn't because of the mass shootings, it's because it is the easiest starting point to get all guns banned. Not many people own them, so many gun enthusiasts could be swayed to support banning the other guy's gun. Moreover, these guns look menacing. The look, and how they are described, puts fear in people. Fear, rationale or not, is a great motivator.

The problem is, when you get these "assault rifles" banned, you've solved nothing. There are many other guns that can do the same job, even better. And when the body count doesn't drop, it's time to move to the next round of guns. And the next, and the next, until good old Red Ryder is pulled from the shelves.

Agendas don't stop, what is considered "reasonable" gun control today, will simply move from a "assault rifles" to all semis, then to semi handguns, then bolt action and then shotguns.

[shockmonster]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778 (George Mason - Co-Author of 2nd Amendment)

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788 [Richard Henry Lee]

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.” – A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, Chapter Third: Marchamont Nedham, Errors of Government and Rules of Policy, 1787; The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams, (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) 10 volumes, Volume 6 [Samuel Adams]

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Quoting Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment [Thomas Jefferson]

Much of the texts you site are part of the debate surrounding the Articles of Confederation prior to the writing of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment was well crafted "well regulated militia" because there was a disagreement (imagine that lol) with some feeling that we (U.S.) needed a more powerful central government to fight against foreign states in the west (mostly Britain and France), and on our coast (as we know Britain attacked us in the War of 1812. With the Articles of Confederation, we were weak to withstand an attack. Surrounding these disagreements, the Shay's Rebellion was occurring because farmers didn't like being taxed for their goods, and they rose up with arms against state and local governments. Many were fearful that this problem could spread against the United States government. This is the history that surrounded the writing of the 2nd Amendment.

I don't think that all arms will or can be banned but their are some cities who are trying to limit arms. The question is whether this can be strengthened. The following article discusses another side about this issue. This issue is not settled and if Hillary Clinton wins, and selects the next Supreme Court justices, more bans could occur.

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns

I don't see the need for guns from your eyes but I don't know that limiting certain killer machines, will limit mass killings (I'm open to it where you are not). However, I do think that their could be some loop holes limited like gun show loopholes, no fly lists, and more accurate lists that limit people who should not buy guns. The authorities knew about Mateen but they didn't communicate with each other.