Orlando and Gun Control: An Inconvenient Truth

[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.

From statement of survivors of the shooting is is obvious, obvious, that if those survivors had had concealed guns they could have stopped the slaughter.......numerous times......and yet you guys want that slaughter to continue........gun free zones are getting people murdered.......and you guys keep pushing it...of course, you need these shootings to push gun control...more bodies, the more power you have over dimwitted Americans who let you take their Rights....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah.....I guess the pat down theory of keeping guns out of clubs didn't work here....

Rap Concert Shooting -- 8 Shots Fired (VIDEO)

 

[2aguy]

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.

As I said in another thread, we need to train people on how to take down a shooter. If folks started throwing cell phones, ice, shoes or what ever they could get their hands on to disrupt and distract him while they bum rushed the dude and took him down, they could have saved a bunch of lives? But it requires training to overcome the natural instinct to run or hide.

Or...they draw their concealed gun and shoot him as when he was on the phone 3 times with 911, another time with a local journalist, while he was facebooking or while he was shooting the injured........then you don't have to throw things at him.....you can shoot lead at him.

 

[2aguy]

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?

Yes....this guy was not on a no fly list was he.....

According to you nuts, since he was a citizen there is no need to vet muslims from Syria to make sure radical jihadis are not getting in...

So...since this guy wasn't on the no-fly list then there is no reason the no-fly list should be a no buy list....right?

 

[2aguy]

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.

As I said in another thread, we need to train people on how to take down a shooter. If folks started throwing cell phones, ice, shoes or what ever they could get their hands on to disrupt and distract him while they bum rushed the dude and took him down, they could have saved a bunch of lives? But it requires training to overcome the natural instinct to run or hide.

You're not wrong, but that's not an easy instinct to overcome, even for trained soldiers.

It's pretty hardwired.

That's why I said in the other thread, the training should be started in middle school and continued throughout the remainder of the education system to include colleges. There's no need for coordination during an event because everyone has the same training. I'd bet if the folks in Orlando had doen this no more than 10 would have been injured.

I remember discussing this issue with you in another thread. Even a few untrained gun owners in that crowded club could have turned it into a bigger tragedy. Not to fault the police who did whatever they could, but some of the casualties could have been from their shots, and they are highly trained. It was just an unavoidable and sad situation all around. Playing politics with it is even sadder.

Sorry.....read actual accounts of people using guns for self defense even in mass shootings....there were 2 concealed carriers at the Gifford's shooting and neither one of them fired a shot because the attacker was tackled by a guy he had already shot....in fact, one gun owner saw the other gun owner and disarmed him....to make sure he wasn't part of the shooting...again, no shots fired, and the police didn't shoot either one of them when they arrived.....

The myth of the armed civilian being more of a problem than the actual shooter is is a myth.......try reading these actual stories....

 

[Wilbur Right]

Sorry.....read actual accounts of people using guns for self defense even in mass shootings....there were 2 concealed carriers at the Gifford's shooting and neither one of them fired a shot because the attacker was tackled by a guy he had already shot....in fact, one gun owner saw the other gun owner and disarmed him....to make sure he wasn't part of the shooting...again, no shots fired, and the police didn't shoot either one of them when they arrived.....

The myth of the armed civilian being more of a problem than the actual shooter is is a myth.......try reading these actual stories....

So you use a story where there were armed civilians who didn't do a fucking thing. It took an unarmed guy to.stop the shooter.

And you think this helps your fantasy about how armed civilians stop crime.

Then you post where they didn't do anything except disarm one another. Funny shit.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

Arming people in a drinking environment.

How fucking stupid is that?

 

[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.

Arming people in a drinking environment.

How fucking stupid is that?

That post merely proves you don't know anything about this subject.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Another know it all blaming the victims in order to bolster his own selfish agenda.

Are you armed when you go out to a public business?

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah.....I guess the pat down theory of keeping guns out of clubs didn't work here....

Rap Concert Shooting -- 8 Shots Fired (VIDEO)

That's the point, for someone to say they were a bouncer at a club and no one ever got through with a weapon while they were there, is totally dishonest. People have ways of sneaking things in and you wouldn't know it. Look at the metal detectors and x-ray machines at airports, weapons get through all the time.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

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.

Making it more difficult to do this type of action is a good start.

Having Congressional Republicans stop blocking lists of bad guys is another.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

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

Odds are he would have missed or shot his kid. Being responsible and not letting your kid near water that 'no swimming' signs are posted would have been an easy measure of protection.

 

[OnePercenter]

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?

Take it up with the Disney corporation.

Or should they be forced to allow guns inside?

Not putting ones self in a situation where you would need a gun would be the right answer. The 'no swimming' signs were there for a reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

A lunatic on a suicide mission is going to be concerned that he might get killed?

good one.

 

[Hossfly]

Think about this. People who don't drink don't normally go to bars. People with CC license are not allowed to carry where alcohol is dispensed in most states. North Carolina just recently changed the law and you can carry in a bar, however you aren't allowed to drink. In either case you can lose your CC license if you break the rule.

Yes, that's what we're discussing. Do you agree or disagree with those laws?

I agree with those laws. A bar that size should have armed bouncers. I was in the Atlanta Hard Rock Cafe recently and I noticed a couple bouncers with hand cuffs and concealed weapons.

Obviously not concealed enough.

Being a carrier I can generally spot someone who is carrying.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

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

Which is why Disney put up 'no swimming' signs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

Odds are he would have missed or shot his kid. Being responsible and not letting your kid near water that 'no swimming' signs are posted would have been an easy measure of protection.

On that, I'm not seeing a lot of calls for the parents to be arrested for that croc incident, as opposed to the gorilla incident.

What would explain that? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

color me puzzled.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Think about this. People who don't drink don't normally go to bars. People with CC license are not allowed to carry where alcohol is dispensed in most states. North Carolina just recently changed the law and you can carry in a bar, however you aren't allowed to drink. In either case you can lose your CC license if you break the rule.

Yes, that's what we're discussing. Do you agree or disagree with those laws?

I agree with those laws. A bar that size should have armed bouncers. I was in the Atlanta Hard Rock Cafe recently and I noticed a couple bouncers with hand cuffs and concealed weapons.

Obviously not concealed enough.

Being a carrier I can generally spot someone who is carrying.

lol another good one.

 

[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?

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.

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.

Congressional Republicans need to stop blocking efforts to keep us safe

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Apparently not letting concealed weapons in a nightclub full of drunks didn't work.