Orlando and Gun Control: An Inconvenient Truth

[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 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.

You got me. I've been talking with my mouth full.

 

[there4eyeM]

Yet, it is words that get 'terrorists' to commit acts of 'terror'.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I have minimal martial arts training - a couple of years of BJJ. But I'm a really big guy.

Interesting.

I'm still a white belt.

Ahh. Well I'm still a leather belt. You got me beat, Doc.

I was reading through the thread, and I realized that some of my posts could be somewhat ambiguous, and I thought I'd add this addendum.

I didn't have any martial arts training when I was a bouncer. That was more than 10 years ago, and I only started BJJ 2 years ago.

I realize that was unclear in my previous posts.

 

[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 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?

I'm not saying all three-hundred of them be armed. Hell, it could just be two or ten. I'm not asking that you turn the place into a gun show.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have minimal martial arts training - a couple of years of BJJ. But I'm a really big guy.

Interesting.

I'm still a white belt.

Ahh. Well I'm still a leather belt. You got me beat, Doc.

I was reading through the thread, and I realized that some of my posts could be somewhat ambiguous, and I thought I'd add this addendum.

I didn't have any martial arts training when I was a bouncer. That was more than 10 years ago, and I only started BJJ 2 years ago.

I realize that was unclear in my previous posts.

Wow. Brazilian jiu-jitsu. I suck with acronyms, so I had to look it up. I may look into taking classes if I ever run into money. No worries about the ambiguity!

 

[PredFan]

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.

No, the only idiocy and ignorance is coming from you and other conservatives subscribing to this thread.

Shut up ignorant troll.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I have minimal martial arts training - a couple of years of BJJ. But I'm a really big guy.

Interesting.

I'm still a white belt.

Ahh. Well I'm still a leather belt. You got me beat, Doc.

I was reading through the thread, and I realized that some of my posts could be somewhat ambiguous, and I thought I'd add this addendum.

I didn't have any martial arts training when I was a bouncer. That was more than 10 years ago, and I only started BJJ 2 years ago.

I realize that was unclear in my previous posts.

Wow. Brazilian jiu-jitsu. I suck with acronyms, so I had to look it up. I may look into taking classes if I ever run into money. No worries about the ambiguity!

I dig it. Been trying to get more exercise, and it's certainly that.

 

[PredFan]

One thing that really bothers me is the total lack of preparedness by the club. This is after Paris. Establishments better start getting their shit wired tight. It's the world we live in now.

That isn't the answer. The answer is to actually deal with Islamic terrorism.

We let all kind of people in the country, assuming they're here for a good reason.

It doesn't matter if they hate our country if they can't get here.

Truely addressing Islamic Terror doesn't involve only immigration.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Yes. Do you think that in a crowd of 300+ people, there will be 300+ guns?

This post is a good example of the fantasy land that the true gun nuts live in.

I own guns - many of them. I like guns, I think they're a lot of fun. But I'm not completely deluded into think that guns are some magical solution to everything.

What if the owners of the club didn't want people to bring guns in? Should they have been forced to allow it?

People drink and take drugs at night clubs. Every night while working, I had to physically bounce many angry, violent, drunken clowns. Many of them threatened my life - and had some of them had a gun on them, I have no doubt that I would have been killed. I was stabbed twice.

That's why I don't go to night clubs

 

[xband]

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?

I'm not saying all three-hundred of them be armed. Hell, it could just be two or ten. I'm not asking that you turn the place into a gun show.

Guns and Liquor don't mix.

 

[TexM3]

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?

I'm not saying all three-hundred of them be armed. Hell, it could just be two or ten. I'm not asking that you turn the place into a gun show.

Guns and Liquor don't mix.

islam and personal liberty do not mix.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked?

Never heard of it. Please elaborate.

I would make a joke about your angry drunk monkey here, but that would be terribly inappropriate. :/

Just admit you hate the gays. And scales.

I do hate scales. The ones at the truck weigh stations always seem to break down.

 

[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?

I'm not saying all three-hundred of them be armed. Hell, it could just be two or ten. I'm not asking that you turn the place into a gun show.

Same difference. And who do you allow to enter a club armed?

 

[Crixus]

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 these atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop these 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.

Typically, bars are a no no when it comes to guns. I think most states (mine does) have laws banning guns from any place alcohol is served and I think that's a good thing. What would have prevented this Haji from shooting the place up would have been the FBI doing its job and getting this dude off the streets. Basically, had the administration been doing its job and not been worried about looking PC this shooting would never have happened.

 

[PredFan]

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?

I'm not saying all three-hundred of them be armed. Hell, it could just be two or ten. I'm not asking that you turn the place into a gun show.

Guns and Liquor don't mix.

Yeah, the gun doesn't dissolve at all.

 

[PredFan]

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 these atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop these 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.

Typically, bars are a no no when it comes to guns. I think most states (mine does) have laws banning guns from any place alcohol is served and I think that's a good thing. What would have prevented this Haji from shooting the place up would have been the FBI doing its job and getting this dude off the streets. Basically, had the administration been doing its job and not been worried about looking PC this shooting would never have happened.

That makes the bar a prime target. My alcohol intake has never caused my gun to come out of its holster, let alone kill someone.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Yes. Do you think that in a crowd of 300+ people, there will be 300+ guns?

This post is a good example of the fantasy land that the true gun nuts live in.

I own guns - many of them. I like guns, I think they're a lot of fun. But I'm not completely deluded into think that guns are some magical solution to everything.

What if the owners of the club didn't want people to bring guns in? Should they have been forced to allow it?

People drink and take drugs at night clubs. Every night while working, I had to physically bounce many angry, violent, drunken clowns. Many of them threatened my life - and had some of them had a gun on them, I have no doubt that I would have been killed. I was stabbed twice.

what an interesting question. I wonder, what other issues can we apply to that logic.....

 

[Flash]

Florida has a law that says no firearms in bars.

The Pluse was a "gun free zone", by law

Who would have thunk it? A bad guy ignored a gun control law and took advantage of law abiding unarmed citizens. The citizens had no means to fight back. They became victims.

Great example of how gun control laws never do anything to stop gun crimes.

 

[gipper]

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 these atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop these 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.

Gun control laws are a means to an end. Clearly only the law abiding abide by gun control laws...criminals or those intent on committing crime, naturally do not abide by gun control laws. The left's effort to impose more gun control laws, when we have numerous ones on the books already, indicates to me a bigger point. They want to terminate the 2A and confiscate guns, just as many governments in the West have done.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yes......Virginia passed concealed carry in bars last year...their violent crime rate in bars went down 5.9%.

People have designated drivers at bars so anyone carrying a gun in a bar just won't drink.....you morons don't seem to get that concept.