Pulse Nightclub Shooting in Orlando

[bmags]

I just realized I must have unknowingly gotten old around here...I used to be the one giving backhanded comments and getting suspended on a weekly basis...now I'm telling others to stop doing it. :|

[Rex Kickass]

The same day as the Orlando massacre, a 20 year old non-Muslim white kid from Indiana was arrested by the LAPD with a bunch of weapons and ammunition who was heading to the pride parade to do basically the same thing as Orlando.

 

That may not actually be true. He had a ton of firearms in his car, but police have backed off the claim he was going to shoot up the Santa Monica pride parade since then.

[EvilMonkey]

That's exactly my point. There are plenty of muslims who are anti-gay. There are plenty of christians who are anti-gay as well. There are plenty of people who are anti-gay, period. I'm not, nor was I ever discounting that. I just think its way more complicated than "ISIS" because he clearly wasn't a member of ISIS. He seems to have had other motivations, and the more I read about this, the more this feels like something more similar to a workplace shooting than a traditional terror attack. This event CAN be more than one thing at one time.

 

I will say this about the AR-15. If he'd walked in with normal handguns, a lot fewer people would have been killed. I don't understand why this weapon is allowed to be purchased for civilian purposes, and I don't know why buying a gun is easier to do than getting a driver's license or in some states, buying Sudafed, but it seems like this is something we can fix in our government that would at least take a step to limiting the loss of life in mass shootings and I don't know why we wouldn't take some common sense steps to make our gun distribution networks a bit more responsible for what they do.

OK, just as an FYI, he can shoot a 9mm Glock or a S&W .45 handgun as fast as he can shoot an AR-15. Most AR-15's can hold between 20 and 30 rounds depending on the caliber it was made at. a 9mm Glock can hold 19 rounds. A .45 S&W can hold 12 to 16 depending on the model. A majority of the AR-15s come in .223 Remington, which is the most common rifle cartridge in use today. The AR-15 can also be chambered in just about any caliber. a .22 AR-15 is a very weak gun, what would be called a varmint gun. The AR-15 is not some magic killing machine that shoots automatic fire or allows you to fine off 900 rounds in a minute, like Alan Grayson tried to claim. I understand your personal frustrations given your background and occasional employment, but I do find it odd that you state that this event can be about more than one thing, yet seem to be focused primarily on the tool that this asshole chose to use.

[Rex Kickass]

OK, just as an FYI, he can shoot a 9mm Glock or a S&W .45 handgun as fast as he can shoot an AR-15. Most AR-15's can hold between 20 and 30 rounds depending on the caliber it was made at. a 9mm Glock can hold 19 rounds. A .45 S&W can hold 12 to 16 depending on the model. A majority of the AR-15s come in .223 Remington, which is the most common rifle cartridge in use today. The AR-15 can also be chambered in just about any caliber. a .22 AR-15 is a very weak gun, what would be called a varmint gun. The AR-15 is not some magic killing machine that shoots automatic fire or allows you to fine off 900 rounds in a minute, like Alan Grayson tried to claim. I understand your personal frustrations given your background and occasional employment, but I do find it odd that you state that this event can be about more than one thing, yet seem to be focused primarily on the tool that this asshole chose to use.

 

I am focused on what we can change. I don't believe that the federal government can eliminate ideas from existence. I do think that we can some changes to existing firearm regulations to make the most dangerous variants of assault weapons no longer legal for civilian use. I think that's reasonable to ask for. I don't know a lot about guns. I talk about the AR-15 because that's what this guy used. Same thing the dude in Newtown CT used. And the Smith and Wesson variant is what the Aurora Colorado shooter used (with a 100 round drum clip no less). And the San Bernadino used a similar assault weapon as well IIRC. I don't feel like I'm focused on this weapon so much as mass shooters seem to be.

 

Reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 which outlawed the most assault-y variants of these guns from sale is not a bad start to addressing something that we can control here at home. I'm not saying we should ban a specific model type of gun per se, I understand that many rifles are sold with many different variations and versions. I'm saying that maybe we should look at more regulations to determine which variants belong in civilian use and which have no place there.

 

Let's be honest, we've outlawed lawn darts for less.

[MEANS]

OK, just as an FYI, he can shoot a 9mm Glock or a S&W .45 handgun as fast as he can shoot an AR-15. Most AR-15's can hold between 20 and 30 rounds depending on the caliber it was made at. a 9mm Glock can hold 19 rounds. A .45 S&W can hold 12 to 16 depending on the model. A majority of the AR-15s come in .223 Remington, which is the most common rifle cartridge in use today. The AR-15 can also be chambered in just about any caliber. a .22 AR-15 is a very weak gun, what would be called a varmint gun. The AR-15 is not some magic killing machine that shoots automatic fire or allows you to fine off 900 rounds in a minute, like Alan Grayson tried to claim. I understand your personal frustrations given your background and occasional employment, but I do find it odd that you state that this event can be about more than one thing, yet seem to be focused primarily on the tool that this asshole chose to use.

 

 

I understand those specifics are important to point out but this is the most important part of what Rex said: and I don't know why buying a gun is easier to do than getting a driver's license or in some states, buying Sudafed, but it seems like this is something we can fix in our government that would at least take a step to limiting the loss of life in mass shootings and I don't know why we wouldn't take some common sense steps to make our gun distribution networks a bit more responsible for what they do.

[EvilMonkey]

I understand those specifics are important to point out but this is the most important part of what Rex said: and I don't know why buying a gun is easier to do than getting a driver's license or in some states, buying Sudafed, but it seems like this is something we can fix in our government that would at least take a step to limiting the loss of life in mass shootings and I don't know why we wouldn't take some common sense steps to make our gun distribution networks a bit more responsible for what they do.

There isn't a gun store around anywhere where you can legally buy a gun without proving who you are with a state issued ID, filling out a Form-4473 and undergoing at least a FBI NICS background check. Some states have varying waiting periods, some states only have them for handguns. Fill out the Form-4473 wrong, even if an honest error, it is technically a felony. Put your wrong weight on your DL and nothing happens. I don't see a 3 day waiting period for Sudafed. The myth of the easy gun purchase is only between individuals (private sales) which the government does not regulate in most states. There are some that try but they go to far in their efforts, criminalizing ANY transfer as a felony. And by any, I mean that if I were at a range and let my brother next to me try out my new gun, that would be an illegal transfer. That doesn't exactly scream 'common sense'. The stores are required to get all sorts of info on you and have the NICS done as well as follow any waiting periods that exist. Occasionally they refuse to sell to people who they think are acting suspicious, but if they are a minority, they risk getting sued for discrimination.

 

Can there be upgrades to the NICS? Sure. But the FBI, like every other government agency, says they need more money. You also need good info to work with, like criminal records, mental health issues, etc., stuff which people are not always up for sharing. You can also enforce laws about straw purchasing. The cases are clear cut most of the time, yet prosecutors don't seem to want to use their resources for it. When people see that there is a real penalty for doing it, maybe it deters some. At the very least, you put those offenders behind bars. There were also accusations that at least one company or agency looked the other way because he was Muslim. if that is true it needs to be stopped.

[EvilMonkey]

I am focused on what we can change. I don't believe that the federal government can eliminate ideas from existence. I do think that we can some changes to existing firearm regulations to make the most dangerous variants of assault weapons no longer legal for civilian use. I think that's reasonable to ask for. I don't know a lot about guns. I talk about the AR-15 because that's what this guy used. Same thing the dude in Newtown CT used. And the Smith and Wesson variant is what the Aurora Colorado shooter used (with a 100 round drum clip no less). And the San Bernadino used a similar assault weapon as well IIRC. I don't feel like I'm focused on this weapon so much as mass shooters seem to be.

 

Reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 which outlawed the most assault-y variants of these guns from sale is not a bad start to addressing something that we can control here at home. I'm not saying we should ban a specific model type of gun per se, I understand that many rifles are sold with many different variations and versions. I'm saying that maybe we should look at more regulations to determine which variants belong in civilian use and which have no place there.

 

Let's be honest, we've outlawed lawn darts for less.

The AWB was useless. it banned cosmetics. if the gun had a handle under it to grip it better and a 'bayonette lug', which is used to attach just about anything, it was considered an assault weapon. Remove those two things, A-OK! I am not without compassion, but as you mentioned, there isn't any one thing that caused this here. None of the anti gun dream list short of outlawing gun purchases would have prevented this. And even that probably would not have worked were he determined. Explosives are easier to make than purchasing a gun, and can do more damage quicker.

[Texsox]

90% of the coverage was about the gunman and his motivation. Less than 10% was the tool that he chose to use. You can't solve this by ignoring the tool that most of the crazies chose to use when they want to kill a lot of people. You also can't solve the problem by ignoring the person and their motivation. It all works in tangent.

 

Yes there are other ways to kill people. The easiest is to buy a gun. Building bombs is harder. Hijacking a plane is harder.

[Rex Kickass]

There isn't a gun store around anywhere where you can legally buy a gun without proving who you are with a state issued ID, filling out a Form-4473 and undergoing at least a FBI NICS background check. Some states have varying waiting periods, some states only have them for handguns. Fill out the Form-4473 wrong, even if an honest error, it is technically a felony. Put your wrong weight on your DL and nothing happens. I don't see a 3 day waiting period for Sudafed. The myth of the easy gun purchase is only between individuals (private sales) which the government does not regulate in most states. There are some that try but they go to far in their efforts, criminalizing ANY transfer as a felony. And by any, I mean that if I were at a range and let my brother next to me try out my new gun, that would be an illegal transfer. That doesn't exactly scream 'common sense'. The stores are required to get all sorts of info on you and have the NICS done as well as follow any waiting periods that exist. Occasionally they refuse to sell to people who they think are acting suspicious, but if they are a minority, they risk getting sued for discrimination.

 

Can there be upgrades to the NICS? Sure. But the FBI, like every other government agency, says they need more money. You also need good info to work with, like criminal records, mental health issues, etc., stuff which people are not always up for sharing. You can also enforce laws about straw purchasing. The cases are clear cut most of the time, yet prosecutors don't seem to want to use their resources for it. When people see that there is a real penalty for doing it, maybe it deters some. At the very least, you put those offenders behind bars. There were also accusations that at least one company or agency looked the other way because he was Muslim. if that is true it needs to be stopped.

 

In most states, there is no waiting period to by a rifle. In Pennsylvania, the transaction takes about 7 minutes.

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/he..._7_minutes.html

 

33 states do not require ID to purchase a weapon, and there are ways to legally purchase assault weapons and other guns without showing ID or submitting a background check.

 

Also, I was mistaken - the Orlando shooter didn't have an AR-15, he had a Sig Saurer MCX which looks like an AR-15 but has different innards, which make it more similar to an AK-47 from what I've read.

 

[EvilMonkey]

90% of the coverage was about the gunman and his motivation. Less than 10% was the tool that he chose to use. You can't solve this by ignoring the tool that most of the crazies chose to use when they want to kill a lot of people. You also can't solve the problem by ignoring the person and their motivation. It all works in tangent.

 

Yes there are other ways to kill people. The easiest is to buy a gun. Building bombs is harder. Hijacking a plane is harder.

I didn't say to ignore it. But every group seems to have their preferred narrative here and trying to hitch their political bandwagon to whatever that is. Our dear leader didn't waste any time in going after guns, very few words about terrorism, or how this guy came about his anti gay views to such a level to act on them. it was all about the evils of gun ownership. And many liberal politicians, pundits and bloggers followed suit. it sometimes appeared as if they tried to go anywhere that would point away from whatever role his religion might have played in this. You can't ignore any of these. yes, you can't ignore the gun aspect either. But maybe a good question would be HOW did he pass the NICS? Were some agencies not sharing information like they should? Did someone just 'screw up'? That is a good place to start.

 

Oh, and I can build a bomb with no way for anyone to know I had it vs. buying a gun with a paper trail and government background check.

[bmags]

You know what would be nice to help figure out the best way to reduce the mass casualty capacity of many legal guns? If we could study it.

 

The technical pointed questions are a deflection. Some handguns can fire faster than rifles, extended clips can hold more bullets, yes. But the point is not a single gun is dangerous, but why can't we regulate deadly weapons such as guns to reduce their power to inflict mass casualties in these situations? Nothing in the 2A says we can't dictate the ammunition capacity and amount of bullets fired in a certain time frame. If people hack it, they hack it, but at least it would be illegal to hack it.

 

We can of course, do this, and the balance of freedom to own tools that do this vs the risk that it poses to society seems clearly tilted toward regulation.

 

That said, unlike others, I literally do favor a gun buyback and constitutional amendment to overturn the 2nd amendment. I'll settle for less, but it's time. I get there is a nostalgia factor. And I think there is plenty of room to allow people to have guns, but the 2A is so absolute that it obstructs it and I'd favor removing that right of citizenship.

 

[bmags]

I didn't say to ignore it. But every group seems to have their preferred narrative here and trying to hitch their political bandwagon to whatever that is. Our dear leader didn't waste any time in going after guns, very few words about terrorism, or how this guy came about his anti gay views to such a level to act on them. it was all about the evils of gun ownership. And many liberal politicians, pundits and bloggers followed suit. it sometimes appeared as if they tried to go anywhere that would point away from whatever role his religion might have played in this. You can't ignore any of these. yes, you can't ignore the gun aspect either. But maybe a good question would be HOW did he pass the NICS? Were some agencies not sharing information like they should? Did someone just 'screw up'? That is a good place to start.

 

Oh, and I can build a bomb with no way for anyone to know I had it vs. buying a gun with a paper trail and government background check.

 

When there is a bomb attack a day, we may see the same regulations to certain materials that we see for drugs used for meth.

 

WE have had the whole no regulation on guns thing, and we keep seeing mass murder. So, yeah, maybe the thing we haven't tried may work better then us trying to control enviornmental factors that drive 1 in 25 million people to become mass murderers.

Edited June 17, 2016 by bmags

[EvilMonkey]

In most states, there is no waiting period to by a rifle. In Pennsylvania, the transaction takes about 7 minutes.

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/he..._7_minutes.html

 

33 states do not require ID to purchase a weapon, and there are ways to legally purchase assault weapons and other guns without showing ID or submitting a background check.

 

Also, I was mistaken - the Orlando shooter didn't have an AR-15, he had a Sig Saurer MCX which looks like an AR-15 but has different innards, which make it more similar to an AK-47 from what I've read.

. Wait (if that's really the right word for it) for an instant background check. What part of 'Instant' does she not understand?

 

Also, she seems to have committed a few crimes here. She purchased the gun with a company credit card. technically that means the company purchased the gun, and she filled out the Form saying it was for her. That simple question is what they are supposed to be able to bust straw purchasers with. if you are NOT buying it for yourself, there are more forms to fill out. She didn't, so committed a felony. Then she drove around with it not knowing what to do. in Phili, it is ILLEGAL to drive anywhere with a gun other than to and from your house and a range. Any deviation from that path, like stopping at the grocery store or just driving for block unsure what to do, is ILLEGAL (unless you have a License to Carry permit, which she didn't). otherwise law abiding citizens have been jailed for just what she did, but i am sure nothing will happen to her. Sure sounds like a 'common sense' gun law there. And FYI, I have a friend who blogs about Phili and PA gun laws for a living so i am pretty sure he has those down.

[StrangeSox]

When there is a bomb attack a day, we may see the same regulations to certain materials that we see for drugs used for meth.

 

WE have had the whole no regulation on guns thing, and we keep seeing mass murder. So, yeah, maybe the thing we haven't tried may work better then us trying to control environmental factors that drive 1 in 25 million people to become mass murderers.

 

There are regulations on things like buying ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) in large quantities thanks to OKC. And the Boston Marathon bombings were pretty low-tech pressure cooker bombs using grocery store materials. Reliable bombs aren't easy to build without some technical know-how, though, whereas firing a gun into a crowd is pretty simple.

[EvilMonkey]

That said, unlike others, I literally do favor a gun buyback and constitutional amendment to overturn the 2nd amendment. I'll settle for less, but it's time. I get there is a nostalgia factor. And I think there is plenty of room to allow people to have guns, but the 2A is so absolute that it obstructs it and I'd favor removing that right of citizenship.

Thanks for being honest about it. And i think you are not unlike the others, you are just willing to admit it.

[Texsox]

What I am trying to point out Alpha is each side agrees that there are people who should not have guns. How we get to that point is the struggle. Until both sides quit the b.s. theatrics, silly memes (really pencils and guns are the same), and all the other deflections, we'll keep having mass casualties. As a gun owner I am concerned that we'll go too far and good people will lose access to their guns. As a person who dislikes people misusing a tool and killing thousands of people every year in the US, I know we can do better.

 

 

[illinilaw08]

What I am trying to point out Alpha is each side agrees that there are people who should not have guns. How we get to that point is the struggle. Until both sides quit the b.s. theatrics, silly memes (really pencils and guns are the same), and all the other deflections, we'll keep having mass casualties. As a gun owner I am concerned that we'll go too far and good people will lose access to their guns. As a person who dislikes people misusing a tool and killing thousands of people every year in the US, I know we can do better.

 

I think part of the problem is that the majority of evidence on firearms is anecdotal. I don't think anyone would argue that we have a problem with the amount of gun deaths in this country (particularly when suicides are included). Do guns actually assist with home protection? What's the net impact there? I'm not a gun owner. I have never fired a gun. I don't have a particular interest in learning to be competent enough with a gun to be comfortable with one. But I don't begrudge using firearms for sport, hunting, etc. I do begrudge people who are unqualified - either because they aren't trained to handle a firearm, are intoxicated, or think carrying a gun on the street makes society safer - from owing firearms.

 

We haven't drilled down on the specifics as to what makes gun deaths in the US unique, and how to reduce that in a way that satisfies both sides of the aisle (ie, not completely removing guns from circulation, and not allowing unfettered access to guns).*

 

* As an aside, part of the issue to me is that suicide gun deaths are not treated that seriously by the firearm lobby, but that's probably getting into a tangent.

[bmags]

This blocking of US agencies from researching gun violence is step 1. I'd be fine with stalling the poor dem senate bill if we are just finally allowed to study it.

[Y2HH]

I think part of the problem is that the majority of evidence on firearms is anecdotal. I don't think anyone would argue that we have a problem with the amount of gun deaths in this country (particularly when suicides are included). Do guns actually assist with home protection? What's the net impact there? I'm not a gun owner. I have never fired a gun. I don't have a particular interest in learning to be competent enough with a gun to be comfortable with one. But I don't begrudge using firearms for sport, hunting, etc. I do begrudge people who are unqualified - either because they aren't trained to handle a firearm, are intoxicated, or think carrying a gun on the street makes society safer - from owing firearms.

 

We haven't drilled down on the specifics as to what makes gun deaths in the US unique, and how to reduce that in a way that satisfies both sides of the aisle (ie, not completely removing guns from circulation, and not allowing unfettered access to guns).*

 

* As an aside, part of the issue to me is that suicide gun deaths are not treated that seriously by the firearm lobby, but that's probably getting into a tangent.

 

Part of the problem is also what's in the public eye.

 

The public often goes after the low hanging fruit even if it makes little sense in the grand scheme of things.

 

While everyone seems to be clamoring for the ban of "assault style weapons", in reality, handguns are the cause of FAR more deaths than AR-15's. And it's not even close.

 

Odds are the second amendment isn't getting overturned...SO, it's time we turned our attention to consequences (this will curb violent gang related shootings) AND make guns WAYYYYYYYYYYY f***ing harder to get, even for law abiding citizens if need be. At least then, while the law abiding among us may have to wait a bit longer, they'll still get the damned gun...but maybe then we can keep some of these out of the hands of the violent/mentally ill/crazy f***faces that ruin s*** for everyone else.

[bmags]

Part of the problem is also what's in the public eye.

 

The public often goes after the low hanging fruit even if it makes little sense in the grand scheme of things.

 

While everyone seems to be clamoring for the ban of "assault style weapons", in reality, handguns are the cause of FAR more deaths than AR-15's. And it's not even close.

 

Odds are the second amendment isn't getting overturned...SO, it's time we turned our attention to consequences (this will curb violent gang related shootings) AND make guns WAYYYYYYYYYYY f***ing harder to get, even for law abiding citizens if need be. At least then, while the law abiding among us may have to wait a bit longer, they'll still get the damned gun...but maybe then we can keep some of these out of the hands of the violent/mentally ill/crazy f***faces that ruin s*** for everyone else.

 

Would you support that at federal level?

[Texsox]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be overturned. We've already accepted that laws can be made that restrict gun ownership.

 

To those that say look at the person. Why do we have so many people in the US who use guns to kill so many people compared to the rest of the world?

[StrangeSox]

FWIW the current broad understanding is thanks to the supreme court, so it's conceivable that a 5-4 or 6-3 liberal court could overrule or greatly narrow down Heller in the future. That would allow for tighter gun control without needing a Constitutional amendment. That has zero chance of passing since it only takes 13 states to block it.

[Y2HH]

Would you support that at federal level?

 

Yes. I think this needs to be handled at the federal level if it's going to be able to do anything.

[Y2HH]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be overturned. We've already accepted that laws can be made that restrict gun ownership.

 

To those that say look at the person. Why do we have so many people in the US who use guns to kill so many people compared to the rest of the world?

 

Someone above mentioned getting rid of the 2nd amendment...I was merely saying it's not going to happen.

 

There could be a lot of reasons for that...and availability of guns is just one of them. We have gang issues (Chicago, for example) that most countries do not have, we have a diverse population unlike anything most of these countries...and while that shouldn't matter, it does. Lot's of stupid people out there.

[bmags]

I agree with you that it isn't going to happen, but people actually advocating for it to happen puts appropriate pressure. When the only pressure is background checks, it's easy to stall. When background checks are the lesser of pressures from people actually wanting to buy back all guns (me), it may finally start doing something.