These changes actually could have stopped the Orlando shooting....

[2aguy]

The fake gun control by the democrats today would not have stopped any of the mass shootings we have had, including the Orlando Shooting.....so why are we doing it?


Here are actual ideas that would have stopped the mass shooting...

These Three Gun Laws Could Have Stopped The Islamic Terror Attack In Orlando

Harden “Soft” Targets With Armed Security
Schools, malls, concerts halls, theme parks, and other densely populated public venues are almost universally non-permissive environments (NPEs) where the carrying of firearms is completely outlawed by either state law or the company policy. The Homeland Security Institute at Purdue University has done research which shows the presence of armed officers is part of the threat mitigation process. Mass murderers of all strips may be insane, but they’re rarely stupid; they want to carry out their attacks where they can rack up the highest possible number of victims before authorities can arrive. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 96.2% of all mass killers targeted so-called “gun free zones.” Providing armed security is the first step in hardening soft targets, by having someone on site trained with active shooter training to close with and engage terrorist threats.

End “Gun Free Zones”
One of the other revelations of the Homeland Security Institute’s modeling of active shooter events in schools was that the most effective threat mitigation occurred when there was a combination of an active armed response and passive armed defense. In schools, armed school resource officers close with and engage threats (as they’ve done so successfully at Reynolds High School in 2014 and Arapahoe High School in 2013), while concealed carrying faculty and staff provide passive defense, locking doors and establishing ambush positions to engage threats attempting to come through the door from a superior tactical position.

This model is easily extended from schools to malls and other public venues by simply striking down failed laws that established “gun free zones” that mass killers and terrorists clearly favor as targets. These venues can employ a small number of permanent security, but can leverage the ever-growing number of concealed carriers by simply striking down laws that establish gun free zones.

End Laws Which Prohibit Concealed Carry Where Alcohol Is Served
Laws in each state vary widely in their policies on whether or not concealed carriers can carry in establishments which serve alcohol, with three primary models being employed nationwide. Some states do not allow the carry of firearms anywhere alcohol is served. Others do not allow concealed carry where 51% of the revenue is derived from sales of alcoholic beverages, such as bars. Other states have no restrictions on where you can carry, but have restrictions on whether or not you can consume alcohol while carrying a firearm, and if so, how much.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

The fake gun control by the democrats today would not have stopped any of the mass shootings we have had, including the Orlando Shooting.....so why are we doing it?


Here are actual ideas that would have stopped the mass shooting...

These Three Gun Laws Could Have Stopped The Islamic Terror Attack In Orlando

Harden “Soft” Targets With Armed Security
Schools, malls, concerts halls, theme parks, and other densely populated public venues are almost universally non-permissive environments (NPEs) where the carrying of firearms is completely outlawed by either state law or the company policy. The Homeland Security Institute at Purdue University has done research which shows the presence of armed officers is part of the threat mitigation process. Mass murderers of all strips may be insane, but they’re rarely stupid; they want to carry out their attacks where they can rack up the highest possible number of victims before authorities can arrive. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 96.2% of all mass killers targeted so-called “gun free zones.” Providing armed security is the first step in hardening soft targets, by having someone on site trained with active shooter training to close with and engage terrorist threats.

End “Gun Free Zones”
One of the other revelations of the Homeland Security Institute’s modeling of active shooter events in schools was that the most effective threat mitigation occurred when there was a combination of an active armed response and passive armed defense. In schools, armed school resource officers close with and engage threats (as they’ve done so successfully at Reynolds High School in 2014 and Arapahoe High School in 2013), while concealed carrying faculty and staff provide passive defense, locking doors and establishing ambush positions to engage threats attempting to come through the door from a superior tactical position.

This model is easily extended from schools to malls and other public venues by simply striking down failed laws that established “gun free zones” that mass killers and terrorists clearly favor as targets. These venues can employ a small number of permanent security, but can leverage the ever-growing number of concealed carriers by simply striking down laws that establish gun free zones.

End Laws Which Prohibit Concealed Carry Where Alcohol Is Served
Laws in each state vary widely in their policies on whether or not concealed carriers can carry in establishments which serve alcohol, with three primary models being employed nationwide. Some states do not allow the carry of firearms anywhere alcohol is served. Others do not allow concealed carry where 51% of the revenue is derived from sales of alcoholic beverages, such as bars. Other states have no restrictions on where you can carry, but have restrictions on whether or not you can consume alcohol while carrying a firearm, and if so, how much.

No on the last one and I am Pro Second Amendment but no damn way will I want a bunch of drunks in a dark bar or nightclub carrying firearms.

You want protection in a bar or nightclub then require the owner to supply the security you need to feel safe with. Hire off-duty officers to work a shift but I will be damn I will want drunks in a bar with firearms!

 

[IcebergSlim]

The fake gun control by the democrats today would not have stopped any of the mass shootings we have had, including the Orlando Shooting.....so why are we doing it?


Here are actual ideas that would have stopped the mass shooting...

These Three Gun Laws Could Have Stopped The Islamic Terror Attack In Orlando

Harden “Soft” Targets With Armed Security
Schools, malls, concerts halls, theme parks, and other densely populated public venues are almost universally non-permissive environments (NPEs) where the carrying of firearms is completely outlawed by either state law or the company policy. The Homeland Security Institute at Purdue University has done research which shows the presence of armed officers is part of the threat mitigation process. Mass murderers of all strips may be insane, but they’re rarely stupid; they want to carry out their attacks where they can rack up the highest possible number of victims before authorities can arrive. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 96.2% of all mass killers targeted so-called “gun free zones.” Providing armed security is the first step in hardening soft targets, by having someone on site trained with active shooter training to close with and engage terrorist threats.

End “Gun Free Zones”
One of the other revelations of the Homeland Security Institute’s modeling of active shooter events in schools was that the most effective threat mitigation occurred when there was a combination of an active armed response and passive armed defense. In schools, armed school resource officers close with and engage threats (as they’ve done so successfully at Reynolds High School in 2014 and Arapahoe High School in 2013), while concealed carrying faculty and staff provide passive defense, locking doors and establishing ambush positions to engage threats attempting to come through the door from a superior tactical position.

This model is easily extended from schools to malls and other public venues by simply striking down failed laws that established “gun free zones” that mass killers and terrorists clearly favor as targets. These venues can employ a small number of permanent security, but can leverage the ever-growing number of concealed carriers by simply striking down laws that establish gun free zones.

End Laws Which Prohibit Concealed Carry Where Alcohol Is Served
Laws in each state vary widely in their policies on whether or not concealed carriers can carry in establishments which serve alcohol, with three primary models being employed nationwide. Some states do not allow the carry of firearms anywhere alcohol is served. Others do not allow concealed carry where 51% of the revenue is derived from sales of alcoholic beverages, such as bars. Other states have no restrictions on where you can carry, but have restrictions on whether or not you can consume alcohol while carrying a firearm, and if so, how much.

No on the last one and I am Pro Second Amendment but no damn way will I want a bunch of drunks in a dark bar or nightclub carrying firearms.

You want protection in a bar or nightclub then require the owner to supply the security you need to feel safe with. Hire off-duty officers to work a shift but I will be damn I will want drunks in a bar with firearms!

I disagree.........Make it Open Bar and crank up the Heavy Metal........that ought to thin out the ranks of Stupid...

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

The fake gun control by the democrats today would not have stopped any of the mass shootings we have had, including the Orlando Shooting.....so why are we doing it?


Here are actual ideas that would have stopped the mass shooting...

These Three Gun Laws Could Have Stopped The Islamic Terror Attack In Orlando

Harden “Soft” Targets With Armed Security
Schools, malls, concerts halls, theme parks, and other densely populated public venues are almost universally non-permissive environments (NPEs) where the carrying of firearms is completely outlawed by either state law or the company policy. The Homeland Security Institute at Purdue University has done research which shows the presence of armed officers is part of the threat mitigation process. Mass murderers of all strips may be insane, but they’re rarely stupid; they want to carry out their attacks where they can rack up the highest possible number of victims before authorities can arrive. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 96.2% of all mass killers targeted so-called “gun free zones.” Providing armed security is the first step in hardening soft targets, by having someone on site trained with active shooter training to close with and engage terrorist threats.

End “Gun Free Zones”
One of the other revelations of the Homeland Security Institute’s modeling of active shooter events in schools was that the most effective threat mitigation occurred when there was a combination of an active armed response and passive armed defense. In schools, armed school resource officers close with and engage threats (as they’ve done so successfully at Reynolds High School in 2014 and Arapahoe High School in 2013), while concealed carrying faculty and staff provide passive defense, locking doors and establishing ambush positions to engage threats attempting to come through the door from a superior tactical position.

This model is easily extended from schools to malls and other public venues by simply striking down failed laws that established “gun free zones” that mass killers and terrorists clearly favor as targets. These venues can employ a small number of permanent security, but can leverage the ever-growing number of concealed carriers by simply striking down laws that establish gun free zones.

End Laws Which Prohibit Concealed Carry Where Alcohol Is Served
Laws in each state vary widely in their policies on whether or not concealed carriers can carry in establishments which serve alcohol, with three primary models being employed nationwide. Some states do not allow the carry of firearms anywhere alcohol is served. Others do not allow concealed carry where 51% of the revenue is derived from sales of alcoholic beverages, such as bars. Other states have no restrictions on where you can carry, but have restrictions on whether or not you can consume alcohol while carrying a firearm, and if so, how much.

No on the last one and I am Pro Second Amendment but no damn way will I want a bunch of drunks in a dark bar or nightclub carrying firearms.

You want protection in a bar or nightclub then require the owner to supply the security you need to feel safe with. Hire off-duty officers to work a shift but I will be damn I will want drunks in a bar with firearms!

I disagree.........Make it Open Bar and crank up the Heavy Metal........that ought to thin out the ranks of Stupid...

Just make it a Gay Bar and the OP'er would never be seen there.

 

[waltky]

More like Congress dropped the ball on this one...

US Senate rejects gun control measures after Orlando
June 20, 2016 • Washington (AFP) - The Republican-controlled US Senate rejected four competing gun control measures Monday just days after the Orlando club massacre, highlighting the partisan feuding over an issue set to resonate during a heated presidential election year.

With a month to go before Republicans and Democrats formally nominate their White House hopefuls, lawmakers failed to compromise on one of the most sensitive hot-button issues in America. Even as they sought to appear keen to take action following the deadliest mass shooting in US history that left 49 dead at a gay nightclub in Orlando a week ago, Republicans and Democrats voted down four amendments -- two from each party -- that would have limited some gun purchases, including those by suspected terrorists.

The two Democratic texts sought to bar those on FBI watchlists or no-fly lists from buying firearms, and to strengthen criminal and mental health background checks for those seeking to purchase firearms at gun shows and on the Internet. Republicans are opposed to those measures -- in general, they oppose any effort to limit gun rights, saying they are protected by the US Constitution's Second Amendment. They proposed a 72-hour waiting period for those on FBI watchlists seeking to buy weapons, so that the government has time to seek a court order to block the sale if need be.

A young protestor is kissed by her mother as she demonstrates in favor of gun regulation outside of a National Rifle Association meeting​

The second Republican proposal aimed to improve the background check system. Democrats rejected both GOP measures. Such efforts often struggle to pass the Senate, where 60 of 100 votes are needed for legislation to advance. The Senate voted on similar measures in the wake of the December 2012 Connecticut school massacre and the San Bernardino attacks last year, but to no avail. "Every single senator wants to deny terrorists access to guns they use to harm innocent civilians, but there's a right way to do things and a wrong way," said Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas.

Number two Senate Democrat Dick Durbin was livid at the failure of lawmakers to come together on such a pressing issue after yet another shooting. "Tonight, the Senate turned its back on victims of gun violence from Orlando to San Bernardino, from Newtown to the streets of Chicago," Durbin said in a statement. There are 46 senators who are Democrats or generally vote with Democrats, and 54 Republicans. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican senator from Maine, was expected to unveil some kind of compromise legislation, but it also seemed unlikely to pass.

- Guns in bars? -

 

[Wilbur Right]

Another great gun nutters thread brought to you by our own obsessed gun nutter; 2nd A guy.

But could you find some new material. Saying the same thing over and over is real boring.

Maybe some of those 4000 DGU stories that you say happened yesterday. Tell us about some of those heroic events where a regular person with their gun stopped crime. Maybe you could find a dozen stories.

Give you something different to do.

 

[2aguy]

The fake gun control by the democrats today would not have stopped any of the mass shootings we have had, including the Orlando Shooting.....so why are we doing it?


Here are actual ideas that would have stopped the mass shooting...

These Three Gun Laws Could Have Stopped The Islamic Terror Attack In Orlando

Harden “Soft” Targets With Armed Security
Schools, malls, concerts halls, theme parks, and other densely populated public venues are almost universally non-permissive environments (NPEs) where the carrying of firearms is completely outlawed by either state law or the company policy. The Homeland Security Institute at Purdue University has done research which shows the presence of armed officers is part of the threat mitigation process. Mass murderers of all strips may be insane, but they’re rarely stupid; they want to carry out their attacks where they can rack up the highest possible number of victims before authorities can arrive. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 96.2% of all mass killers targeted so-called “gun free zones.” Providing armed security is the first step in hardening soft targets, by having someone on site trained with active shooter training to close with and engage terrorist threats.

End “Gun Free Zones”
One of the other revelations of the Homeland Security Institute’s modeling of active shooter events in schools was that the most effective threat mitigation occurred when there was a combination of an active armed response and passive armed defense. In schools, armed school resource officers close with and engage threats (as they’ve done so successfully at Reynolds High School in 2014 and Arapahoe High School in 2013), while concealed carrying faculty and staff provide passive defense, locking doors and establishing ambush positions to engage threats attempting to come through the door from a superior tactical position.

This model is easily extended from schools to malls and other public venues by simply striking down failed laws that established “gun free zones” that mass killers and terrorists clearly favor as targets. These venues can employ a small number of permanent security, but can leverage the ever-growing number of concealed carriers by simply striking down laws that establish gun free zones.

End Laws Which Prohibit Concealed Carry Where Alcohol Is Served
Laws in each state vary widely in their policies on whether or not concealed carriers can carry in establishments which serve alcohol, with three primary models being employed nationwide. Some states do not allow the carry of firearms anywhere alcohol is served. Others do not allow concealed carry where 51% of the revenue is derived from sales of alcoholic beverages, such as bars. Other states have no restrictions on where you can carry, but have restrictions on whether or not you can consume alcohol while carrying a firearm, and if so, how much.

No on the last one and I am Pro Second Amendment but no damn way will I want a bunch of drunks in a dark bar or nightclub carrying firearms.

You want protection in a bar or nightclub then require the owner to supply the security you need to feel safe with. Hire off-duty officers to work a shift but I will be damn I will want drunks in a bar with firearms!

Virginia passed a law last year that allowed concealed carry in bars....their bar crime rate went down 5.9%.........just like people who are driving as the designated driver don't drink at bars....then people who carry won't drink either......

 

[2aguy]

Another great gun nutters thread brought to you by our own obsessed gun nutter; 2nd A guy.

But could you find some new material. Saying the same thing over and over is real boring.

Maybe some of those 4000 DGU stories that you say happened yesterday. Tell us about some of those heroic events where a regular person with their gun stopped crime. Maybe you could find a dozen stories.

Give you something different to do.

Sorry.....not a gun nutter.....if you notice twit...I don't focus on the gun, but on the Right to self defense. That is the essence of my posts...the ability of normal, law abiding people to be able to defend themselves from criminals and terrorists.....the first are mainly democrats so against democrats too.......

 

[2aguy]

More like Congress dropped the ball on this one...

US Senate rejects gun control measures after Orlando
June 20, 2016 • Washington (AFP) - The Republican-controlled US Senate rejected four competing gun control measures Monday just days after the Orlando club massacre, highlighting the partisan feuding over an issue set to resonate during a heated presidential election year.

With a month to go before Republicans and Democrats formally nominate their White House hopefuls, lawmakers failed to compromise on one of the most sensitive hot-button issues in America. Even as they sought to appear keen to take action following the deadliest mass shooting in US history that left 49 dead at a gay nightclub in Orlando a week ago, Republicans and Democrats voted down four amendments -- two from each party -- that would have limited some gun purchases, including those by suspected terrorists.

The two Democratic texts sought to bar those on FBI watchlists or no-fly lists from buying firearms, and to strengthen criminal and mental health background checks for those seeking to purchase firearms at gun shows and on the Internet. Republicans are opposed to those measures -- in general, they oppose any effort to limit gun rights, saying they are protected by the US Constitution's Second Amendment. They proposed a 72-hour waiting period for those on FBI watchlists seeking to buy weapons, so that the government has time to seek a court order to block the sale if need be.

A young protestor is kissed by her mother as she demonstrates in favor of gun regulation outside of a National Rifle Association meeting​

The second Republican proposal aimed to improve the background check system. Democrats rejected both GOP measures. Such efforts often struggle to pass the Senate, where 60 of 100 votes are needed for legislation to advance. The Senate voted on similar measures in the wake of the December 2012 Connecticut school massacre and the San Bernardino attacks last year, but to no avail. "Every single senator wants to deny terrorists access to guns they use to harm innocent civilians, but there's a right way to do things and a wrong way," said Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas.

Number two Senate Democrat Dick Durbin was livid at the failure of lawmakers to come together on such a pressing issue after yet another shooting. "Tonight, the Senate turned its back on victims of gun violence from Orlando to San Bernardino, from Newtown to the streets of Chicago," Durbin said in a statement. There are 46 senators who are Democrats or generally vote with Democrats, and 54 Republicans. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican senator from Maine, was expected to unveil some kind of compromise legislation, but it also seemed unlikely to pass.

- Guns in bars? -

Can you explain how any of the 4 measures would stop mass shootings..?

Could you explain how any of the 4 measures would have stopped the Orlando shooting in particular? Since Orlando was the whole reason they brought them up....?

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Another great gun nutters thread brought to you by our own obsessed gun nutter; 2nd A guy.

But could you find some new material. Saying the same thing over and over is real boring.

Maybe some of those 4000 DGU stories that you say happened yesterday. Tell us about some of those heroic events where a regular person with their gun stopped crime. Maybe you could find a dozen stories.

Give you something different to do.

Sounds like annoying retarded libs is a good thing to do.

 

[IcebergSlim]

The fake gun control by the democrats today would not have stopped any of the mass shootings we have had, including the Orlando Shooting.....so why are we doing it?


Here are actual ideas that would have stopped the mass shooting...

These Three Gun Laws Could Have Stopped The Islamic Terror Attack In Orlando

Harden “Soft” Targets With Armed Security
Schools, malls, concerts halls, theme parks, and other densely populated public venues are almost universally non-permissive environments (NPEs) where the carrying of firearms is completely outlawed by either state law or the company policy. The Homeland Security Institute at Purdue University has done research which shows the presence of armed officers is part of the threat mitigation process. Mass murderers of all strips may be insane, but they’re rarely stupid; they want to carry out their attacks where they can rack up the highest possible number of victims before authorities can arrive. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 96.2% of all mass killers targeted so-called “gun free zones.” Providing armed security is the first step in hardening soft targets, by having someone on site trained with active shooter training to close with and engage terrorist threats.

End “Gun Free Zones”
One of the other revelations of the Homeland Security Institute’s modeling of active shooter events in schools was that the most effective threat mitigation occurred when there was a combination of an active armed response and passive armed defense. In schools, armed school resource officers close with and engage threats (as they’ve done so successfully at Reynolds High School in 2014 and Arapahoe High School in 2013), while concealed carrying faculty and staff provide passive defense, locking doors and establishing ambush positions to engage threats attempting to come through the door from a superior tactical position.

This model is easily extended from schools to malls and other public venues by simply striking down failed laws that established “gun free zones” that mass killers and terrorists clearly favor as targets. These venues can employ a small number of permanent security, but can leverage the ever-growing number of concealed carriers by simply striking down laws that establish gun free zones.

End Laws Which Prohibit Concealed Carry Where Alcohol Is Served
Laws in each state vary widely in their policies on whether or not concealed carriers can carry in establishments which serve alcohol, with three primary models being employed nationwide. Some states do not allow the carry of firearms anywhere alcohol is served. Others do not allow concealed carry where 51% of the revenue is derived from sales of alcoholic beverages, such as bars. Other states have no restrictions on where you can carry, but have restrictions on whether or not you can consume alcohol while carrying a firearm, and if so, how much.

No on the last one and I am Pro Second Amendment but no damn way will I want a bunch of drunks in a dark bar or nightclub carrying firearms.

You want protection in a bar or nightclub then require the owner to supply the security you need to feel safe with. Hire off-duty officers to work a shift but I will be damn I will want drunks in a bar with firearms!

I disagree.........Make it Open Bar and crank up the Heavy Metal........that ought to thin out the ranks of Stupid...

Just make it a Gay Bar and the OP'er would never be seen there.

"2aguy"?

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, clearly mixing drunks with guns is an awesome idea.

Did it occurred to our Tiny OP starter that there's a REASON why bars declare themselves gun free zones?