Orlando shooting

We have a Second Amendment that guarantees our right to keep and bear arms to guarantee the people can resist an over reaching and oppressive government. It has nothing to do with hunting, or what farmers need. How about the Paris attack? What was it 100 killed? They had restrictive gun laws yet the bad guys got the guns. In the orlando Gay bar case, one gunshop owner even refused to sell the Orlando shooter the a weapon and ammo and notified the FBI. The same FBI that had investigated the shooter three times. The FBI never looked into the gunshop owners report. How would additional laws have helped?

If they want to do away with the Constitutionally guaranteed right, there is a mechanism to do so. They can do it by Constitutional Amendment. They don't go that route because they know they don't have the support to get sufficient states to ratify it. So they, the pandering politicians, try to do it incrementally with new restrictions.

As for defending oneself against terrorists, I was right across the street from the terrorist attack that killed the Marines in Chattanooga last July. The police came by and made us evacuate and hide in a warehouse (turns out it was after all the shooting had stopped). I didn't want to go, I don't want to hide, our big boss came out and ordered us to do as instructed. It's a helpless feeling. If I'd had one of my rifles or even a pistol, I guarantee the shooter wouldn't have gotten into our facility.

Here's a video taken by one of the guys I work with during the later part of the attack. If Muhaji-dude came through the tree line (the reserve center is about 100 yards away on the other side on the trees) wouldn't you have liked to have a weapon to put the sumbeech down?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqbQZ2yDIgA&list=FL26bRsNFBPipEjy0IcgSwpQ

You missed KB's point. Each round; "will throw thirty four .24 caliber projectiles (#4 Buck)". So each shotgun round is like shooting thirty four rounds of slightly larger caliber than a .223 round. Accuracy isn't an issue at pistol ranges because it's like a computer, point and click.

 

So, why disarm people that will obey the law when the terrorists won't? And those "professionals" ran away and then waited 3 hours to take on ONE MAN while 49 people bled to death on the floor. No. I'm not giving up my guns. I'm not going to put my life in the hands of somebody who doesn't care whether I live or die. You might feel differently if you had a choice, but you don't have a choice.

 

I didn't miss hit point...the 223 would be deadly only at close range (we all know that) - The idea of a scatter gun causing "dozens" of deaths is unlikely. And I see your point about shooting him, but do you want to get into a shootout with people around you? What if other shooters out of sight, see you from the window? You go and so do the people with you...its a shoot out, if people were super accurate it wouldnt bother me...but people just aren't (hence the semi autos). I personally would be pissed if you brought fire onto my position.
This constitution thing needs seeing to IMO...So whats the plan if the government do something? The US Army are either with you and you therefore don't need weapons or they are against you in which case the plan is take on the US military?? Good luck...you'd know better than me the folly of such a venture.
I don't think anyone is saying this will stop shootings...but it should stop the regularity of it (I sympathise with the fact you are not an island and weapons can come from other sources...but only to those who REALLY want them.)
Its worth noting also that at the same time of the gun ban/buy back scheme homicides using guns dropped dramatically and suicides using guns reduced dramatically...the availability just wasn't there.

 

Oh, I do. I could apply for a Firearms Certificate, but have never felt the need. I won't be joining the rifle club a ten minute drive away either for the same reason.
My life isn't any poorer for it.

 

There is no correlation between suicide rates and guns per capita.


1

Guyana

44.2

2

South Korea

28.9

3

Sri Lanka

28.8

4

Lithuania

28.2

5

Suriname

27.8

6

Mozambique

27.4

7

Tanzania

24.9

8

Nepal

24.9

9

Kazakhstan

23.8

10

Burundi

23.1

11

India

21.1

12

South Sudan

19.8

13

Turkmenistan

19.6

14

Russia

19.5

15

Uganda

19.5

16

Hungary

19.1

17

Japan

18.5

18

Belarus

18.3

19

Zimbabwe

18.1

20

Bhutan

17.8

21

Sudan

17.2

22

Comoros

16.9

23

Ukraine

16.8

24

Poland

16.6

25

Equatorial Guinea

16.6

 

Yet, I'll bet if you visited and I started shooting steel plates off my porch, you'd soon say "Can I try that?" When you have to jump through hoops and get anally probed to buy a simple mechanical device, it gets too dreary to bother. I understand that. It's different when you have no impediments other than passing a five minute NICs background check.

 

Don't bet on it.

 

So you're on the "Its a coincidence" team then KB?

Just for the record I love the US and its people.

 

I have no idea what that means. I do know that I've shot guns all my life, for food, for sport, as federal law enforcement. I also know that nations with much higher murder rates than the US have much tougher gun laws. And some nations with lower murder rates also have tough gun laws.

I know that just over a year ago I ran an armed drug smuggler off just by showing him my AR rifle. I wish now that I'd shot him dead. And I know that as an American my right to own arms are guaranteed in the Constitution, and if a group tried to revoke that Constitution they'd have to kill millions of us.

 

well, if the sci fi writers are anything to go by...they just might. That constitution is a tool FOR the people...it sounds like it has an inch of dust and cob webs covering it...Constitutions can and MUST be updated as times change. And frankly if that's the best excuse/reason people can give then its a weak argument in my eyes. Seems gun loving Americans use this as a cure-all for the argument...just how familiar are these people with the whole constitution? Just how inamoured are they with it, or is it just a convenient line trotted out to shush common sense?
That drug smuggler wouldn't have liked to see me either with my baseball bat...and I could have killed him with it if I so chose, but not a room full of them.
Guns beget guns...so if you shot this bloke, how did you know there weren't others around...his brother for instance? You didn't know that...you could have been shot and killed, whomever was with you too...if I was a policeman or a TRG response officer and I saw USMCPrice firing his pistol but couldn't see who at I would have dropped him with a double tap and asked questions later...food for thought I hope.

 

The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.


https://imgflip.com/i/10uvrk

 

If there is a bad guy with a gun you've already failed...

 

Really? How long is your baseball bat?

View attachment 24493

 

Well I'd give him a jolly good talking...yelling to!

 

We've already discussed the cop outside the club, so that's a non-sequitur.

 

Why ? Are you saying that a good guy with a gun can not kill a bad guy with a gun ? WWII has proved the opposite .

 

That was a man with a gun, but lacking courage or a sense of duty and so, useless. He was outside and had the opportunity to escape, unlike those inside. A private club security guard, an ex-Marine (Huzzah!), was working unarmed security inside and a crowd of people had run to the back of the room and actually blocked an exit door that opened inward. That Marine tossed people out of the way until he could get to the door, opened it, then herded at least fifty people out. He was the last to exit. He did his duty.
If that brave man had been armed I suspect we would have had far fewer fatalities. Even without a gun, he had the clarity and courage to do what he could.

 

None of us know exactly what went down, nor do we know the situation with the police. . We don't know what the ex-Marine would have done with a gun. It is all conjecture and will take a month or so to come out.

We don't know about standing protocol. We don't know what information the police on the ground actually knew and when. The possibilities even range as far as apathy towards the target market for the nightclub. Seriously, real discussion is somewhat moot until all information is put together.

Not every WW2 soldier was brave in every situation. There is always the human element. Protocols and responses will likely be re-evaluated following this.

 

Here is some interesting FBI data:

[SIZE=12pt]Murder Victims[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]by Weapon, 2010–2014[/SIZE]

Total​

13,164


12,795


12,888


12,253


11,961

Total firearms:​

8,874


8,653


8,897


8,454


8,124

Handguns​

6,115


6,251


6,404


5,782


5,562

Rifles​

367


332


298


285


248

Shotguns​

366


362


310


308


262

Other guns​

93


97


116


123


93

Knives or cutting instruments​

1,732


1,716


1,604


1,490


1,567

Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)​

549


502


522


428


435

Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1​

769


751


707


687


660

Poison​

11


5


13


11


7

Explosives​

4


6


8


2


6

Fire​

78


76


87


94


71

Narcotics​

45


33


38


53


62

Drowning​

10


15


14


4


14

Strangulation​

122


88


90


85


89

Asphyxiation​

98


92


106


95


96

Other weapons or weapons not stated​

872


858


802


850


830



Notice that rifles (of all types, not just the dreaded black rifles) are near the bottom as murder tools. More people are killed by knives, clubs, fists and certainly handguns. So,by liberal logic; let's ban rifles.

 

Regardless, that's a whole lot of deaths, even though murders are down per 100k people.