Orlando Shootings

[Mark_]

MarkK,

Depending on the version, he could have purchased one that would have been fully compliant with the Federal (as well as California) restrictions.

More important, the original definition of "Assault Rifle" was medium caliber with detachable magazine and selective fire option (read can shoot full auto). By that standard his weapon wasn't an Assault Rifle. NOTE: I'm using the military definition, not civilian. In politics, anything that looks "Scary" is an assault rifle.

The real issue is that the screening for weapons purchases is not implemented the way the law requires. From what I've read the shooter had been seen multiple times for mental issues. He should have been reported by one of the doctors to the police prior to the purchase.

Keeping the public safe from individuals with severe mental issues that cause them to be dangerous is something the U.S. of A. needs to address. Unfortunately politicians would rather focus on something with more political currency and less real currency as a "Solution".

 

[Wayne]

Being a Canadian, I am looking from the outside in. I am not sure what the founding fathers of the United States had in mind when they passed the second amendment, but I am sure they could have never imagined this tragedy in Florida, or Las Vegas, or Sandy Hook....

Clearly, something needs to be done to stop this. Doing nothing will ensure that it will happen again.

 

[Steve R.]

Being a Canadian, I am looking from the outside in. I am not sure what the founding fathers of the United States had in mind when they passed the second amendment, but I am sure they could have never imagined this tragedy in Florida, or Las Vegas, or Sandy Hook....

The social/cultural values (as well as the technological levels) at the time of the US revolution were significantly different from those of today. The founding fathers may never have imagined today's gun tragedies, but they had first hand experience with the tragedies occurring during the French and Indian Wars and the US revolution. Consequently, they saw the necessity for individual gun ownership.

Clearly, something needs to be done to stop this. Doing nothing will ensure that it will happen again.

First, the predilection today is to "solve" problems through cosmetic solutions that don't really solve the underlying problems. The real issue with gun tragedies is mental health. But instead of addressing that concern directly, proposals abound to reduce civil liberties and to make gun ownership an onerous process.

Second, and perhaps most important, the US population in 1800 was just over 5 million people. The country was also very rural and guns were necessary for subsistence living. Today, the US population is just over 326 million people with many crammed into urban areas. This leads to some interesting speculations that need to be considered: "something needs to be done to stop this".

If there is one hypothetical mental nut case per 5 million people then in 1800 there would only be one mass killing incident, which of course would be difficult with a one shot musket. But today, that same mental nut case, could hypothetically generate 65 incidents exacerbated by repeating rifles. Then add on the ability of the news media today to immediately spread each incident to the world instantaneously. So things look worse now than they did over 200 years ago.

Now let me introduce you to Frederick Jackson Turner. His importance is that in the late 1800s he declared the "frontier closed". Basically, he stated that the "frontier" served a mental health benefit. People who could not fit into society had the ability to "escape" by moving into the wild west. Today, that is no longer possible. Consequently we are stuck with taking care of the mental nut cases. Simply taking away gun ownership, won't solve the myriad mental issues associated with high intensity urbanization.

 

[Galaxiom]

If so many in the US have such a lot of mental health problems it certainly needs to be dealt with.

However, if you have so many loonies running around, might not it be prudent to make guns just a little less freely available?

 

[Mark_]

Being a Canadian, I am looking from the outside in. I am not sure what the founding fathers of the United States had in mind when they passed the second amendment, but I am sure they could have never imagined this tragedy in Florida, or Las Vegas, or Sandy Hook....

Clearly, something needs to be done to stop this. Doing nothing will ensure that it will happen again.

They probably had the same issue Canadian's had; frontier area with hostile inhabitants willing to attack their citizens. For the United States, there was also the realization that a bunch of "Colonials" had inserted the front teeth of one of the most successful and powerful Armies in the world firmly down their owners throat because the "Colonials" owned the means to resist. If you compare the weapons used in the war, the Colonists generally had equal or better weapons than what the Crown was providing. Kentucky Rifles proved to be exceedingly deadly during battles. Likewise the Founding Fathers knew about repeating weapons of several types as well as the use of air rifles (silent in most situations) with repeating fire ability that were highly lethal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle is a good read for some of what was known when the framers wrote the 2nd amendment.

As to mental health issues, those with problems used to be well known within their communities and a cohesive community could often keep them from being too great of a problem. As population increases, such ability to identify and mitigate those with issues decreases.

 

[Mark_]

If so many in the US have such a lot of mental health problems it certainly needs to be dealt with.

However, if you have so many loonies running around, might not it be prudent to make guns just a little less freely available?

Too bad they can't be made to disappear? Think for a moment that they were as heavily restricted as opiods. Pretend they couldn't be manufactured within the nations borders. Include them being as tightly controlled as opiods are when dispensed. That would make getting a firearm as difficult to get as purchasing Cocaine or Heroin. Fortunately for the most part getting a firearm is a little less easy than purchasing Cocaine...

 

[Steve R.]

As to mental health issues, those with problems used to be well known within their communities and a cohesive community could often keep them from being too great of a problem. As population increases, such ability to identify and mitigate those with issues decreases.

That is one of the major sea-changes between then and now. People today are now highly mobile. Consequently, many really have no roots to and/or interaction with the local community. (i.e. you sleep in community "A", work in community "B", then move to community "C" in a couple of years and work in community "D". Repeat and repeat.)

As a very simple example, when I go to vote, I am not greeted by name. Instead, I have to provide proof of who I am because the neighbours who are sitting at the registration table do not know who I am.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The problem isn't guns, it is people. Always has been. Always will be. Taking away the guns of mentally sound people is solving the tyrant's problem, not the citizens' problem.

The last several posts have danced around the mulberry bush, but here it is in a nutshell. We get so obsessed with rights of individuals that even when someone is clearly becoming a danger to those around them, we want them to have freedom of speech (even if inflammatory), freedom of association (even with unsavory or serious nut-case groups), freedom to transact business (even to the point of buying a gun despite being a nutcase).

We have found in the USA that for the last many decades, law has been made in the intersections of rights. We have those pithy statements like "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Freedom of religion apparently can trump health care (witness the Hobby Lobby case).

We have essentially done away with mental health facilities because they get swamped with the homeless. When we offer help to those people by trying to phase them into society, they don't want to be helped - and we let them go their own way. In that fading away and weakening of mental support, we also take away the best chance to help troubled kids who can't deal with the transition from child to adolescent to adult.

Here, I think (and admit it is merely my opinion) that the problem is overpopulation. As noted earlier, in small communities it was possible for folks to know about people who needed special attention. They knew to "watch out for Joe's boy 'cause he's not right in the head." And Joe's boy knew they were watching.

Now, our facitilies are overloaded, strained beyond all reason, unable to keep up with the overwhelming demand. We want to watch out for all of the "Joe's boys" of the world - but we CAN'T because there are too many of them and not enough of us. Worse, "Joe's boy" KNOWS we are stretched too thin to keep watching.

Years ago, animal studies were done using lab rats. As population and overcrowding increased, aggressive and act-out behavior increased. As our population increases and the "rat race" gets worse every day, WE are seeing more exceptionally violent behavior. I don't know what we can do about it, but there is always hope for a zombie apocalypse to thin the herd. Of course, if THAT happens, nobody will be complaining about having guns any more.

Those of you who have read some of my posts note that sometimes I give a strange comment. I don't seriously expect to have a zombie apocalypse. Think of it as symbolic for a depopulation event. Perhaps global climate effects ARE man-made. Remember, I've merely said the science of the published papers is bad, not that they couldn't possibly be true. Nor have I denied that climate changes have occurred.

If we pollute ourselves badly enough, evolution might step in and reduce our population for us by killing off those whose lungs can't handle what our atmosphere is becoming. Of course, natural or man-made makes no difference in this case. What makes a difference is to see that which survives.

 

[ColinEssex]

The NRA paid 30 million dollars to Trump's election campaign to ensure nothing will be done except the usual crocodile tears and lip service.

Col

 

[MarkK]

The real issue with gun tragedies is mental health.

The real issue with car accidents is poor driving skills. Nonetheless the government forces us to wear seat-belts, and forces car makers to install air bags.

If one bag of spinach is found to contain E. Coli, ALL the spinach is recalled.

In respect to guns, there are basic safety measure that it is negligent not to implement.

Mark

 

[AccessBlaster]

One thing I know for sure, politicians around the world will not give up their heavy armed security details. Some of these security teams carry Uzi style full auto machine guns. They will say they need the armed security to protect them against the unpredictable public. Basically making the same argument the NRA makes.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

politicians around the world will not give up their heavy armed security details. Some of these security teams carry Uzi style full auto machine guns. They will say they need the armed security to protect them against the unpredictable public.

After representative Steve Scalise was shot and nearly killed on a baseball field, can you blame them?

 

[AccessBlaster]

I don't blame them, I just want the same options. The unpredictable public is a threat to everyone not just limousine liberals.

 

[Mark_]

The real issue with car accidents is poor driving skills. Nonetheless the government forces us to wear seat-belts, and forces car makers to install air bags.

If one bag of spinach is found to contain E. Coli, ALL the spinach is recalled.

In respect to guns, there are basic safety measure that it is negligent not to implement.

Mark

With cars, the issue isn't the drivers intent, its their ability.
With food, the issue isn't the producers intent, it is how well they follow basic safety procedures.

If you wanted the same security for firearms, you'd be looking at preventing them from accidentally discharging, improving their accuracy, and doing your utmost to reduce the amount of noise they make (similar to how a car's exhaust system has a muffler, you'd insist that firearms have suppressors to reduce the noise).

Too bad most nations require less stringent checks for those driving or harvesting than they do for weapons purchases. Admittedly I can easily see mandatory safety classes and "user training" for firearms similar to drivers, and for the same reasons.

Best make sure those who have them know when to "Put the booger hook on the bang stick" as a friend of mine would say.

 

[Brianwarnock]

The problem isn't guns, it is people. Always has been. Always will be. Taking away the guns of mentally sound people is solving the tyrant's problem, not the citizens' problem.
.

As one of the Orlando survivors pointed out, he would have killed far less people with a knife, a point too simple for most Americans to grasp.
As I said in a post a few years back there is no simple or quick fix as the gun genie is out of the bottle, but unless America recognizes its problem a country born out of the barrel of the gun may die the same way.

A good start might be removing the out of date second amendment, after all it does not say that you can ban anybody from owning a gun no matter how mentally deranged.

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

As an American, I can only laugh at the idiots who actually think their rifles will protect them from the army if the US Government does turn on its citizens. And that's ignoring the fact that the government doesn't NEED to implement a police state to create a government that caters exclusively to the rich and powerful, as the Trump Administration is so effectively proving.

Those camo-clad, gun-toting self-proclaimed badasses can't seem to understand that their beloved (moreso than their own children) assault rifles won't defend them from snipers with .50 caliber bullets, massed rocket artillery, air strikes, Apaches, Specter Gunships, cruise missles, fuel-air bombs, bunker-busters, long-range conventional artillery, tanks, AFVs, armed drones, offshore bombardments, or any of the even nastier, classified items the military has up it sleeves. And that's assuming that nukes are left off the board.

For the most part, all those idiot ammosexuals will do is set new records in getting blown into their constituent parts. The only real exceptions might be the ones hiding deep in the mountains, as a US government that turns on and starts slaughtering its own people isn't going to care about preventing civilian casualties, making hiding in the population like the Taliban and al Qaida do ineffective. And those hiding in the Rockies and Appalachians won't be particularly effective, since they'll have to be hiding in the middle of nowhere. The real reason that the mountains have protected the Taliban so long isn't because the US can't hit them, it's because the US can't hit them without significant civilian casualties in the nearby mountain villages. It's not THAT hard to keep an area under surveillance and flatten a few square kilometers every time movement is sighted. Hell, a small (10 to 20 kiloton) nuke would easily take out any guerilla camp out there.

The only realistic way to fight back would be to hide in the major urban centers and try to bleed the military of troops by ambush and sabotage, and assault weapons are hardly necessary for that. And even that would be doomed to failure in the long run unless a HUGE portion of the civilian population can be convinced to risk their lives and their families' lives in order to fight.

Those idiots need to learn that Red Dawn was a fantasy, not a documentary, and that the threat will NEVER be the US Government becoming a Stalinesque dictatorship, but rather the rise of an Oligarchy that gathers all the money, power, and luxuries in the US to itself while distracting the masses with, say, false enemies, invented wars, and home-made crises and conflicts that turn the citizens against one another rather than against the ones pillaging the nation.

 

[AccessBlaster]

You kind of ruin you own argument when you go so far left to prove an exaggerated point. The current administration just banned bump stocks, and I suspect military style weapons in general will be considered in the near future.

Team ultra left has made some headway into this national conversation, don't blow it now with kooky unproven facts.

 

[Mark_]

snipers with .50 caliber bullets,

You do realize that could NEVER happen... It is against the Geneva Convention to use weapons of that caliber against individuals. Can only be used against equipment or as a support weapon.

 

[Minty]

You do realize that could NEVER happen... It is against the Geneva Convention to use weapons of that caliber against individuals. Can only be used against equipment or as a support weapon.

Moot point - How would you know? There wouldn't be enough left to tell what just obliterated some poor ex being into a lot of very small bits.

I am also not American, but work with and for an American company. I recently asked a gun owning (member of a gun club etc.) colleague what the justification for an ordinary member of the public being able to get anywhere near automatic rifle was?
He said, after conceding that there wasn't much overriding reason, they were "Good fun to use". I'm sure he's probably right.

Unlike a car, plane, lettuce, kinder egg etc. and anything else the NRA compares them to, everyone seems to forget that a gun exists for one purpose, and that is to injure or kill someone.

So yes, someone with mental health issues can indeed kill someone with anything mentioned above, but it won't be as likely, easy or simple as it is with a gun. There is a direct correlation between the ease of gun ownership and deliberate deaths caused by guns.

Make the same comparison with car ownership and deaths caused deliberately by people in cars. It's a completely ridiculous argument.

 

[Frothingslosh]

You kind of ruin you own argument when you go so far left to prove an exaggerated point. The current administration just banned bump stocks, and I suspect military style weapons in general will be considered in the near future.

Team ultra left has made some headway into this national conversation, don't blow it now with kooky unproven facts.

And which is the 'exaggerated point'? That a private stash of assault rifles won't stop the military from being able to render you down into soup stock when the whim takes them, or that the far more plausible threat (compared to the arbitrary and immediate descent into full-on Stalin-style ultra-repressive totalitarianism that the Right normally brings up to justify private ownership of assault weapons) is the potential of co-opting of the American government to serve the interests of the ultra rich?

You'll note that at no point did I call for any type of gun removal or confiscation. In fact, I didn't post what I think SHOULD be done at all, as I've posted that before for people to not bother actually reading. I'm simply pointing out the ridiculousness of the entire 'we need AR-15's to keep the government in line' argument so popular among the assorted ammosexuals out there.