Orlando and Gun Control: An Inconvenient Truth

[pwjohn]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

You're nasty.

 

[OnePercenter]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?

I do.

The "no-fly" list is arbitrary and lacks any sort of due process.

A friend of mine who I grew up with was put on the "no-fly" list because he shared (a very common) Arabic name with someone else. It took him more than 5 years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get it cleared up.

I do.

The "no-fly" list is arbitrary and lacks any sort of due process.

A friend of mine who I grew up with was put on the "no-fly" list because he shared (a very common) Arabic name with someone else. It took him more than 5 years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get it cleared up.

What a bullshit excuse. I hope you have a high-capacity toilet.

It's the same bullshit excuse that people use when they want to drive 70 mph in a 35 mph zone. OH, the speed limit is arbitrary and lacks any sort of due process, forgetting of course that some dumb ass fucked up causing the State or locals to institute a speed limit.

Your fight is with the dumb asses, not the government.

Part of the pro bono work that my Attorneys firm does is no-fly list individuals. All that has to be done is identify the person. Then the State Department issues a passport card with a restriction attached Identifying the individual as not the person on the no-fly list. You friend didn't tell you something. How well do you know her/him?

 

[Montrovant]

I just wanted to say that I very much enjoyed reading this thread up to this point. It has mostly been a polite and reasoned discussion rather than the knee-jerk, partisan vitriol most of the board so often seems to be.

I think that having at least one, perhaps a few, armed and trained guards at nightclubs like this seems to be a good idea. It is by no means a certain solution, but it offers at least the possibility of preventing a tragedy like what happened at Pulse, or at least mitigating the damage. I don't know that I'd want to see it forced through law, but I would think that clubs, particularly ones with large crowds, could use the fact that they have armed guards as a promotional tool; come to the XYZ club, we have armed guards to keep you safe so you can have fun and not worry! Something like that.

As theDoc has said, mass shootings are pretty rare. That doesn't mean reasonable precautions shouldn't be taken, but it does mean that there isn't necessarily any need for extreme reactions, either, no matter which way one reacts. This event, while horrible, doesn't require banning guns, nor having a huge influx of armed citizens. I think it is more a matter of reflecting as individuals or businesses if there are any changes we might want to make to feel safer. If someone decides to get a concealed permit and start carrying a gun, or if someone decides not to change anything about how they live their lives, both are reasonable decisions IMO.

I don't know that there is a 'solution' for stopping mass shootings, outside of a repressive government that not only outlaws firearms but ruthlessly enforces their ban. There may be ways to further lessen the chances they happen, but in a relatively free society where guns are accessible, I don't think it is possible to eliminate the possibility of someone doing something like this.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?

I do.

The "no-fly" list is arbitrary and lacks any sort of due process.

A friend of mine who I grew up with was put on the "no-fly" list because he shared (a very common) Arabic name with someone else. It took him more than 5 years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get it cleared up.

I do.

The "no-fly" list is arbitrary and lacks any sort of due process.

A friend of mine who I grew up with was put on the "no-fly" list because he shared (a very common) Arabic name with someone else. It took him more than 5 years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get it cleared up.

What a bullshit excuse. I hope you have a high-capacity toilet.

It's the same bullshit excuse that people use when they want to drive 70 mph in a 35 mph zone. OH, the speed limit is arbitrary and lacks any sort of due process, forgetting of course that some dumb ass fucked up causing the State or locals to institute a speed limit.

Your fight is with the dumb asses, not the government.

Part of the pro bono work that my Attorneys firm does is no-fly list individuals. All that has to be done is identify the person. Then the State Department issues a passport card with a restriction attached Identifying the individual as not the person on the no-fly list. You friend didn't tell you something. How well do you know her/him?

I trust my friend significantly more than I do an anonymous clown on an internet message board.

There is no "excuse" needed to demand due process before rights are stripped. This is basic shit - it's not up for discussion. It's the foundation of our legal system.

 

[NoNukes]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

How would more people shooting in a crowded club help matters?

 

[NoNukes]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

As this thread moves along, some idiot lefty will try to say that guns in that bar would have resulted in more injuries from CCW holders shooting wildly about.

Being liberals, their faulty minds operate on a narrow plane did crated by their leaders.

The answer to that lunacy is to point out to them that he wouldn't have attacked that bar had he known that there would be at least a few patrons who were packing. Lunatics and Islamic Terrorists attack gun free zones for that reason. Their poorly thought out scenario would not have happened.

You are assuming someone as fucked up as this guy will think rationally. that is how conservatives think.

 

[TexM3]

You are more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning while walking down the street than be killed by an active shooter in a nightclub. Does that mean you should carry a grounded lightning rod everywhere you go?

It would be advisable not to be outside during a thunderstorm in the first place. But wait... we've had this type of discussion before; about being struck by lightning. It was in a thread dealing with Syrian refugees.

Even if there is a 1 in 20 million chance of being hit by lightning, it shouldn't stop people from enacting safety measures to prevent such an occurrence. Why do you think they tell people to vacate a golf course during a thunderstorm? Or stay away from trees? Why do you think they put lightning rods on tall buildings?

Furthermore lighting bolts are repelled due to random people carrying lighting rods. /s

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You are more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning while walking down the street than be killed by an active shooter in a nightclub. Does that mean you should carry a grounded lightning rod everywhere you go?

It would be advisable not to be outside during a thunderstorm in the first place. But wait... we've had this type of discussion before; about being struck by lightning. It was in a thread dealing with Syrian refugees.

Even if there is a 1 in 20 million chance of being hit by lightning, it shouldn't stop people from enacting safety measures to prevent such an occurrence. Why do you think they tell people to vacate a golf course during a thunderstorm? Or stay away from trees? Why do you think they put lightning rods on tall buildings?

Furthermore lighting bolts are repelled due to random people carrying lighting rods. /s

Here's a free physics lesson:

If you're carrying a grounded lightning rod, and lightning strikes, it will hit the rod and go to ground.

I'm not saying its a logical solution (in fact, the whole point is that it's illogical), but it would work.

 

[OnePercenter]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?

The 5th Amendment say no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Meaning a judge should be the only person who can place a person on such a list because it denies them the liberty to travel as they chose. Now you want to deny them the right of self protection also, without due process? That would be down right unAmerican.

The 5th Amendment say no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Meaning a judge should be the only person who can place a person on such a list because it denies them the liberty to travel as they chose. Now you want to deny them the right of self protection also, without due process? That would be down right unAmerican.

So we can have a Judge sign-off. Done.

OBTW? Would a tab of ecstasy be property?

 

[OnePercenter]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?

No. This is one area which sets me apart from my conservative brethren. But then I would ask that the no-fly list be thorough, not just a random convergence of people the government "thinks" are mentally ill---or terrorists.

No. This is one area which sets me apart from my conservative brethren. But then I would ask that the no-fly list be thorough, not just a random convergence of people the government "thinks" are mentally ill---or terrorists.

How would the government get their name, address, physical description, and in some cases their photo?

 

[there4eyeM]

The really inconvenient truth is that random attacks are just that. They are carried out by people whose thinking we can probably not understand or anticipate. They strike when it occurs to them to do so. They strike where and when they perceive it is unexpected. They strike 'soft' targets. The strike with resolve and determination.
The three hundred in the club were not any less valiant than three hundred of any other people when surprised by a rapid fire attack in a place where such a thing had never happened before.
We cannot plan for every situation where a yahoo might do something like this. The is very inconvenient.

 

[Papageorgio]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

You honestly believe you kept all the guns out?

We had metal detectors, so yes, I'm confident we did. Except for the off-duty cops we had doing security as well.

You are kidding? I know a club owner, like he said, we can try to keep weapons out, but he knew they made there way in all time. It was a challenge. Can't converse with the dishonest. Good bye nutter.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

You honestly believe you kept all the guns out?

We had metal detectors, so yes, I'm confident we did. Except for the off-duty cops we had doing security as well.

Okay, you are dishonest. Can't converse with the dishonest. Good by nutter.

Ok, bye!

Perhaps someday we'll have another conversation, and you'll actually be able to keep up. Until then, flounce on out!

Or, you know, you could man up and actually discuss the topic.

 

[xband]

I will bet my bottom dollar that Disney World is a gun free zone. Had Dad been armed he could have shot the alligator.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I will bet my bottom dollar that Disney World is a gun free zone. Had Dad been armed he could have shot the alligator.

Take it up with the Disney corporation.

Or should they be forced to allow guns inside?

 

[Papageorgio]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

You honestly believe you kept all the guns out?

We had metal detectors, so yes, I'm confident we did. Except for the off-duty cops we had doing security as well.

Okay, you are dishonest. Can't converse with the dishonest. Good by nutter.

Ok, bye!

Perhaps someday we'll have another conversation, and you'll actually be able to keep up. Until then, flounce on out!

Or, you know, you could man up and actually discuss the topic.

No club is safe, metal detectors or not, club owners will try, but it isn't realistic. So if you can't "man up" and be honest, it's a pointless conversation. Enjoy your fantasy world.

 

[xband]

I will bet my bottom dollar that Disney World is a gun free zone. Had Dad been armed he could have shot the alligator.

Take it up with the Disney corporation.

Or should they be forced to allow guns inside?

One man eating alligator is one alligator too many. Disney is up to the neck in alligators.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you really think allowing concealed weapons into a nightclub full of drunks is a good idea?

I've worked as a nightclub bouncer, and I'd probably be dead if some of the people I've had to bounce had a gun on them.

You honestly believe you kept all the guns out?

We had metal detectors, so yes, I'm confident we did. Except for the off-duty cops we had doing security as well.

Okay, you are dishonest. Can't converse with the dishonest. Good by nutter.

Ok, bye!

Perhaps someday we'll have another conversation, and you'll actually be able to keep up. Until then, flounce on out!

Or, you know, you could man up and actually discuss the topic.

No club is safe, metal detectors or not, club owners will try, but it isn't realistic. So if you can't "man up" and be honest, it's a pointless conversation. Enjoy your fantasy world.

I didn't say anything about clubs being "safe". I said that I'm confident that no one came in with a gun in during the time that I worked there.

What were you saying about being "dishonest"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?

No. This is one area which sets me apart from my conservative brethren. But then I would ask that the no-fly list be thorough, not just a random convergence of people the government "thinks" are mentally ill---or terrorists.

No. This is one area which sets me apart from my conservative brethren. But then I would ask that the no-fly list be thorough, not just a random convergence of people the government "thinks" are mentally ill---or terrorists.

How would the government get their name, address, physical description, and in some cases their photo?

I honestly don't know. I guess that would be up to our broken congress to decide. Maybe we need to...revamp our intelligence gathering techniques. But like I said I don't know.

 

[there4eyeM]

Touring with a rock band, we played in clubs that had bullet holes in various places. I've known friends and acquaintances who 'packed' in bars, etc. I have been sold firearms in bars.
Some people will carry. But, carrying in itself doesn't ultimately mean much. The problem is knowing at what point to actually 'skin that smoke wagon'. Once you pull it out, it isn't easy to put it back. Now, everyone all around you knows you're armed. You don't know who else is, and which of them now sees you as a deadly threat. You are very likely to get shot or have that weapon taken away. So, you better start shooting or take off. Hollywood and John Wayne make this seem easy; it ain't!