Orlando Attack...ISIS claims it!

[hikenbike]

I just find it...convenient that most of the places that get shot up (ISIS or not) are 'gun-free zones'.
Clearly, the shooters are aiming (pun intended) for areas where people can't legally fight back.
So simply NOT having 'gun-free zones' would cut back on the amount of shootings.

Movie theaters, night clubs, army bases, Paris, etc. If the general populace is packing, the shooters would think twice. It's easy to pick a fight when you know you're the only one with the weapons.
Why do you think bullies pick on the weak? It's not because they're looking for a fair fight.

But they also choose locations where the element of surprise and confusion is wholly on their side and many will die before they are stopped.......whether it's a gun free zone or not.

The shooters won't think twice if they consider it a suicide mission and don't value their own life over their cause/mentality.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CXS]

The Republican National Committee will be banning firearms (and anything resembling such) from the grounds of their convention. So while they go on and on about how dangerous, unconstitutional, stupid and lawless gun-free zones are, they are instituting just that.

Things you can't bring to downtown Cleveland during Republican National Convention: tennis balls, lasers, lumber | cleveland.com

 

[AntleredRuin]

But they also choose locations where the element of surprise and confusion is wholly on their side and many will die before they are stopped.......whether it's a gun free zone or not.

The shooters won't think twice if they consider it a suicide mission and don't value their own life over their cause/mentality.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree that the attackers obviously don't plan to specifically make it out alive themselves, but statistics do show that the places that are attacked are places that usually aren't legally allowed to defend themselves.
Even if the mission is simply to kill as many people as possible (whatever the motive behind it) and the shooter is willing to die in the atack, it's easier to commit mass genocide when people aren't shooting back. The mission is more of a 'success' if more civilians are killed.
There is a general plan going in. They don't just open fire on an emotional whim.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[hikenbike]

They don't just open fire on an emotional whim.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I think more people will get killed with more guns present because many of the armed but ill-trained innocent civilians in the fray will do exactly this.......especially if the attacker has any sense of staying low or well hidden.

Give even 20 guns to the people in a crowd of let's say 200 people in a dark crowded loud night club and a mildly cunning attacker and you will have an unprecedented blood bath.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AntleredRuin]

I think more people will get killed with more guns present because many of the armed but ill-trained innocent civilians in the fray will do exactly this.......especially if the attacker has any sense of staying low or well hidden.

Give even 20 guns to the people in a crowd of let's say 200 people in a dark crowded loud night club and a mildly cunning attacker and you will have an unprecedented blood bath.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with this, as I've stated before. But an ounce of prevention goes a long way.
I'd rather be in the open-carry bar than in the gun-free bar across the street, simply because any shooter will aim for the one that can't defend itself.
The simple knowledge that your 'prey' can defend itself will ward off a lot of attacks. It's common sense. Even if the attack never actually happens, the public knowledge ability to defend yourself is protection enough.
Predators don't prey on the strong; they prey on the helpless (or weaker of the available options).

You hardly see muggings of healthy adult males; it's mostly of the elderly and of women.
Lions don't attack full grown healthy wildebeasts if there's an old, sick or young one nearby.
It's common sense.
Take away someone's ability to defend themselves and then broadcast it?
"Hey, these people over here are sittings ducks! They can't fight back! Have at it!"

 

[jeremyc74]

So while they go on and on about how dangerous, unconstitutional, stupid and lawless gun-free zones are, they are instituting just that.

There will be plenty of guns there. They're just controlling who has them.

 

[RedSled]

I think more people will get killed with more guns present because many of the armed but ill-trained innocent civilians in the fray will do exactly this.......especially if the attacker has any sense of staying low or well hidden.

Give even 20 guns to the people in a crowd of let's say 200 people in a dark crowded loud night club and a mildly cunning attacker and you will have an unprecedented blood bath.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think we are talking about handing out guns to anyone in a crowd, i'm talking about people that are trained, and actually qualify.

 

[hikenbike]

I don't think we are talking about handing out guns to anyone in a crowd, i'm talking about people that are trained, and actually qualify.

You mean like trained to identify and stop an attacker (or attackers) who's two steps ahead of you in a dark, loud crowd while you may be dancing and are completely surprised after you've had a couple of drinks? Like Rambo? Like Hollywood? Where the good guy wins?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RedSled]

You mean like trained to identify and stop an attacker (or attackers) who's two steps ahead of you in a dark, loud crowd while you may be dancing and are completely surprised after you've had a couple of drinks? Like Rambo? Like Hollywood? Where the good guy wins?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh you mean like leo,s.

 

[Thefishguy77]

You mean like trained to identify and stop an attacker (or attackers) who's two steps ahead of you in a dark, loud crowd while you may be dancing and are completely surprised after you've had a couple of drinks? Like Rambo? Like Hollywood? Where the good guy wins?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think he means people like me that would go to a club and dance but not drink. I was always miles ahead of who ever else was in the club and up to no good. You should try going to a club and staying sober. It's a different experience.

It's not about being Rambo. It's about identifying a threat and then making the best decision with the information you have. Some times it is stand your ground and sometimes it is run. Just depends on the lay of the land.

Take the fire department for instance. Wither they will admit to it or not. They will usually push the envelope getting to a scene if it involves children vs adults. Children are usually innocent victims vs adults are educated in their choices. I made that a comparison to illustrate that some times it is more prudent to take risks vs being as safe as possible.

I am still trying to figure out how we became a society of such P's. 200 people vs 1 man. Charge him. Some will die. But he will only have 1 mag 30 round. Vs multiple mag changes and people cowering in place. That is your governments advise mind you don't fight back just shelter in place. The police will be there shortly. Took around 1.5 hrs to enter? Might be wrong on the time frame. But he had time to call 911 and the news. Be a sheepdog and step in to save a life. Don't be a sheep and shelter in place. And if you are a sheep. Don't breed you will just raise more sheep. Both sides of the aisle like sheep.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MudPie]

I think more people will get killed with more guns present because many of the armed but ill-trained innocent civilians in the fray will do exactly this.......especially if the attacker has any sense of staying low or well hidden.

Give even 20 guns to the people in a crowd of let's say 200 people in a dark crowded loud night club and a mildly cunning attacker and you will have an unprecedented blood bath.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The reality is nobody had a gun to defend themselves and the attacker killed 50 single handedly. It was a bloodbath.

To suggest that it would have been an "unprecedented" bloodbath based on your conjecture is pure speculation and without merit. In fact the news is rife with examples of law abiding gun owners stopping active shooters, knife wielding attackers, etc.

Go ahead... click it -> Let me google that for you

 

[CXS]

Agreed. The Aurora theater was my neighborhood theater and afterwards my wife, daughter and myself stopped to thank a LEO for all they did when we was having dinner where we were. He mentioned that he wished there was a CC in the audience who could have returned fire because it would have changed the dynamics of the shooter's behavior and saved lives.

 

[-JD-]

 

[MudPie]

Posts like these are just asking to be ripped apart when source and categorical data points are purposefully withheld in attempt to create a narrative that otherwise wouldn't hold water when fact checked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thefishguy77]

Every year around 50% of all house hold gun deaths are suicide. Then you have to factor in the gang shootings. Remember the news doesn't even talk about those outside the local they happened in unless a wealthy person was killed.

So let's ban suicide. Already done made no difference

Let's ban gang shootings. Already done made no difference.

Let's ban guns in areas. Already done. Made a big difference. Most all mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Sans the church shooting I can't think of one in recent history. Movie theaters are virtually gun free zones. Schools yup. Night clubs/bars yup.
Banning guns will have no effect except to disarm law abiding citizens. Just like a lock on your front door will only keep a honest person out. Criminals rarely ever hit hard targets. It puts them at too high of risk.

Let's just say that the staff had the option to be armed at the bar. They don't drink while on duty. Do you really think they would have hosed down the crowd to try and stop the shooter. No! They might have jumped up on a bar or table to get an elevated view. Or tried to barricade themselves and customers in a room against the shooter. Many many options if we do not have a disarmed society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[1engineer]

I

Dude...
smh

If he tweets something about astrophysics then I might listen, otherwise he is just a minor celebrity with a bully pulpit. His opinion means just as much as everyone else.

Lol next you will be posting Bill Nye's views on climate change.

Go find something real, not from those usual liberal click bait sites you seem to frequent.

Suicide is what skews the data. Look it up.

 

[AntleredRuin]

Every year around 50% of all house hold gun deaths are suicide. Then you have to factor in the gang shootings. Remember the news doesn't even talk about those outside the local they happened in unless a wealthy person was killed.

So let's ban suicide. Already done made no difference

Let's ban gang shootings. Already done made no difference.

Let's ban guns in areas. Already done. Made a big difference. Most all mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Sans the church shooting I can't think of one in recent history. Movie theaters are virtually gun free zones. Schools yup. Night clubs/bars yup.
Banning guns will have no effect except to disarm law abiding citizens. Just like a lock on your front door will only keep a honest person out. Criminals rarely ever hit hard targets. It puts them at too high of risk.

Let's just say that the staff had the option to be armed at the bar. They don't drink while on duty. Do you really think they would have hosed down the crowd to try and stop the shooter. No! They might have jumped up on a bar or table to get an elevated view. Or tried to barricade themselves and customers in a room against the shooter. Many many options if we do not have a disarmed society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1
Liberals don't seem to realize that criminals are exactly that; criminals.
These people are willing to commit murder/genocide. I highly doubt that they will listen to 'banned gun laws' if they are willing to go so far as to murder.

"I'm going to kill that whole crowd of people over there. Wait, what? Guns are illegal here? Never mind entirely then. Forget I said anything. I'm willing to murder, but not break the law on gun bans. Because THAT would be wrong."

I'm pretty sure once you've murdered 50 people in cold blood, the extra charge of 'illegal gun ownership' won't make much difference. That WON'T be the icing on the cake.


That's kinda like Trump's speech on Mexico's illegal 'best and brightest'. If these people are willing to literally commit a crime to get into this country, if they are literally willing to have the very first thing they ever do on US soil be illegal, if they are literally willing to sneak into the US and have their whole family live a covert 'under the radar' life, then obviously the morals are not there that would have them be valued and useful members of our society. Literally, their very first footstep onto US soil will be in violation of US Federal law.
If they are willing to teach their children that it's OK to break the law as long as it's convenient, then clearly they aren't good parents, and they won't raise their children to NOT be hellraisers. Clearly these people don't exactly have the life and moral standards that we Americans expect of each other.
Immigration is A-OK. ILLEGAL immigration is not.

Definition of the word Illegal:
adjective
1.
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

How to liberals NOT realize that criminals BREAK THE LAW?! How is that confusing?

 

[nevada]

+1
Liberals don't seem to realize that criminals are exactly that; criminals.
These people are willing to commit murder/genocide. I highly doubt that they will listen to 'banned gun laws' if they are willing to go so far as to murder.

"I'm going to kill that whole crowd of people over there. Wait, what? Guns are illegal here? Never mind entirely then. Forget I said anything. I'm willing to murder, but not break the law on gun bans. Because THAT would be wrong."

I'm pretty sure once you've murdered 50 people in cold blood, the extra charge of 'illegal gun ownership' won't make much difference. That WON'T be the icing on the cake.


That's kinda like Trump's speech on Mexico's illegal 'best and brightest'. If these people are willing to literally commit a crime to get into this country, if they are literally willing to have the very first thing they ever do on US soil be illegal, if they are literally willing to sneak into the US and have their whole family live a covert 'under the radar' life, then obviously the morals are not there that would have them be valued and useful members of our society. Literally, their very first footstep onto US soil was in violation of the law.
If they are willing to teach their children that it's OK to break the law as long as it's convenient, then clearly they aren't good parents, and they won't raise their children to NOT be hellraisers. Clearly these people don't exactly have the life and moral standards that we Americans expect of each other.
Immigration is A-OK. ILLEGAL immigration is not.

Definition of the word Illegal:
adjective
1.
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

How to liberals NOT realize that criminals BREAK THE LAW?! How is that confusing?

agreed.
I have said the same thing about both points many times now. it generally falls on deaf ears. though, I cant understand HOW.

if someone has made the choice to MURDER(which is highly illegal) then some arbitrary magazine capacity ban is not going to deter them. though there are many that think a 10rd mag limit is somehow going to stop things kinds of things from happening...

 

[nevada]

for those saying we have a gun problem here.




I have not double checked the math, nor the numbers.
though, this is very interesting, assuming they are correct. [MENTION=66316]1engineer[/MENTION] feel free to work out the math

 

[1engineer]

for those saying we have a gun problem here.




I have not double checked the math, nor the numbers.
though, this is very interesting, assuming they are correct. [MENTION=66316]1engineer[/MENTION] feel free to work out the math

See, that's a logical post. Here's another to add:

"A total of 32,675 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2014."

Another logical point right?
Vehicles can be designed and manufactured that would be able to protect it's occupants from death in all but the most violent crashes. We could reduce the death toll to close to nil! We could also do it at the same cost or even cheaper than what we pay now! How? Basic roll cages, 5 point restraints, HANS device and a helmet. Simple and cheap. We don't do it because of convenience. Hell, people had to be forced to wear seat belts by the government (apparently very few know anything about F=MA) so they definitely won't wear a helmet and a HANS device.

So you guys reading this think this is an invalid or unfair comparison to guns correct? You think 'ol 1engineer is just ranting. Why don't you guys look up how many people died in vehicle crashes that were passengers or were in the vehicle that got hit. Get it now? By changing the safety gear you would protect the innocent victims too. Is it ever going to happen? Nope because most humans are not real bright when it comes to physics, and statistically getting killed in an auto accident, much like getting killed by a gun, is too small to worry about.

My point is you never hear about protests and huge lobby groups wanting to make vehicles safer, even though there is a simple solution. You do hear about the gun crap though.

There you go anti gun activists, a logical comparison. If any of you have a rebuttal I am all ears. BTW I do not own a gun, but have received extensive training over the years.