Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Mass shooting in Orlando Nightclub

1676869707173»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,717 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    aloyisious wrote: »
    This interview with the U.S Attorney General Loretta Lynch cover's the shooting and gun control moves in the U.S. Senate which, if agreed, will allow the Federal Govt a temporary 72 hour block on a terror watch-listed person buying guns. The [mum] in Lynch mum headline is slang for keeping quiet on some issues.

    https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjpnL-NhLXNAhUILcAKHf8_AvgQqQIIHDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2016%2F06%2F19%2Flynch-mum-on-suspects-possible-arrests-in-orlando-club-massacre.html&usg=AFQjCNHHBpzDjzpNB0rQbh86b7OUtIEWdw

    This story of a Chicago carpenter making memorial crosses for the 49, plus his journey to Orlando read's like something else.

    http://www.wesh.com/news/chicago-carpenter-makes-49-crosses-for-pulse-victims/40127634

    The same Terror Watch List and No Fly Lists that require no conviction, and give those put on them little recourse or ability to contest the action.

    A great victory for due process and democratic ideals.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    This guy is not the pope and has been widely condemned. The pope has quite different views and he speaks for the church more than this bishop "widely known for controversial views.".Ever heard of the New testament>

    Difference being this guy is flagged and noted having controversial views, they others, people can;t even bring themselves to identify the difference between radical clerics and normal peoples beliefs. My video showed normal people.

    Remember the Renuas candidate who stepped down because she said the vatican was the antichrist because of this popes views on homosexuality and climate change?
    http://www.thejournal.ie/renua-candidate-vatican-2499749-Dec2015/

    That view isn't that unusual among hard core christians.



    As a side note, I just saw this video. Larry Pratt from Gun Owners of America says that the reason Orlando happened is because it's illegal to have guns in niteclubs. The presenter points out that there was an armed guard who exchanged shots but Pratt keeps saying the problem was that the guard was outside so there was no-one inside to shoot.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    They are releasing the 911 calls with all references to islam censored out

    I actually checked if that was true, it is, weird decision and likely counter-productive.
    Why censor the tapes, they have released terrorists stuff before (McVeigh UNABOMBER AFAIK) and its not like the knowledge that he claimed the attack for ISIS isn't unknown for the majority of people.
    This will probably actually boost Trump and in a way it will be right because this makes it very much look like the administration is (badly) pushing a certain narrative.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,764 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    I actually checked if that was true, it is, weird decision and likely counter-productive.
    Why censor the tapes, they have released terrorists stuff before (McVeigh UNABOMBER AFAIK) and its not like the knowledge that he claimed the attack for ISIS isn't unknown for the majority of people.
    This will probably actually boost Trump and in a way it will be right because this makes it very much look like the administration is (badly) pushing a certain narrative.

    That does not make sense. Most of it seems to be in this news article anyway.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36578321

    Allah if He exists must be feeling like one of those Aztec death/blood gods by now.
    So many people committing atrocities invoke His name directly.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,895 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    The presenter points out that there was an armed guard who exchanged shots but Pratt keeps saying the problem was that the guard was outside so there was no-one inside to shoot.

    It's not an invalid statement. It's a known problem with visible perimeter security. It's why any place which takes security seriously doesn't only have perimeter patrols, but performs a defense in depth. You have to have a guy on the outside to be the tripwire, the problem is that tripwires don't serve a purpose very long. He will either be engaged first, or will be bypassed. It looks like both happened on this occasion.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,593 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    An "oh ****" start to the day. Just reported on RTE radio news that the U.S. Senate has rejected the latest arms-control movement, the one brought to the house after the massacre, leaving everyone still stuck in the mud again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    There is no point in voting to prevent terror watch listers from buying guns because 1) they are on a watch list not criminals and 2) it is unconstitutional. It is folly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    aloyisious wrote: »
    An "oh ****" start to the day. Just reported on RTE radio news that the U.S. Senate has rejected the latest arms-control movement, the one brought to the house after the massacre, leaving everyone still stuck in the mud again.

    Not necessarily a bad thing; knee-jerk actions are not a good foundation for law, as we saw with September 11th and our own 8th amendment.

    That said, if they don't accept there's an issue now then some of them probably never will.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,593 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    There is no point in voting to prevent terror watch listers from buying guns because 1) they are on a watch list not criminals and 2) it is unconstitutional. It is folly.

    Unless (tongue firmly in cheek) your first name is Donald, have your own opinion, and it's a Muslim you have in mind, and you are President able to make Presidential declarations re safety of the US. A different form of folly. :rolleyes:


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,895 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Of interest, two of the four were brought by Republicans, two by Democrats. But they all failed since basically everybody voted for their party's bills, but neither party had more than 60 votes. So, for example two of the bills would prohibit folks on the terrorist watch list or no fly lists from purchasing firearms without comment. The democrat one was simple, "On the list? No gun." Republicans wouldn't vote for that, they wanted a judge to sign off on the gun prohibition. (A position I agree with. You need a judge to sign off on bypassing other Constitutional rights such as the 4th Amendment). Democrats wouldn't go for it,

    Yay partisanship. This isn't a gun thing. This is Congress working as normal because for the last four or five years, almost nobody in congress will vote for anything proposed by the other side.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,593 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    I was wondering how the Texan (R) Senator behind one of the bills felt when it was defeated.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,302 ✭✭✭Snickers Man


    It's not an invalid statement. It's a known problem with visible perimeter security. It's why any place which takes security seriously doesn't only have perimeter patrols, but performs a defense in depth. You have to have a guy on the outside to be the tripwire, the problem is that tripwires don't serve a purpose very long. He will either be engaged first, or will be bypassed. It looks like both happened on this occasion.


    So are you saying that to be really safe, I mean really really safe, all dancers at all gay night clubs in America should be packing heat? And that there should be a line in miniature tastefully designed derringers that would look soooo neat on the waistband of a pair of nut hugger shorts or could be concealed inside a Freddie Mercury style leather peaked cap?
    And lest anyone think I am ridiculing stereotypical gay fashions here, I'm really not. It's the gun nuts who are the butt end of crazy.
    As usual.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,895 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    So are you saying that to be really safe, I mean really really safe, all dancers at all gay night clubs in America should be packing heat? And that there should be a line in miniature tastefully designed derringers that would look soooo neat on the waistband of a pair of nut hugger shorts or could be concealed inside a Freddie Mercury style leather peaked cap?
    And lest anyone think I am ridiculing stereotypical gay fashions here, I'm really not. It's the gun nuts who are the butt end of crazy.
    As usual.

    It couldn't hurt, but I suspect that a more likely solution is that a couple of the staff inside the club (maybe bouncers?) be armed. Apparently the club felt it was worth armed security (shown to be justified), they may as well have done it right.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,226 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    It's not an invalid statement. It's a known problem with visible perimeter security. It's why any place which takes security seriously doesn't only have perimeter patrols, but performs a defense in depth. You have to have a guy on the outside to be the tripwire, the problem is that tripwires don't serve a purpose very long. He will either be engaged first, or will be bypassed. It looks like both happened on this occasion.

    Surely that usually would be more like the security around something like military base, airport, bank, etc rather than a nightclub.

    It is sad when it has come to point where someone envisages having bank/military installation type security actually in a nightclub.

    Where do you start drawing the line ?

    And yes I remember some numbnuts comments post Sandy Hook about how if the teachers were armed they could fight back. :rolleyes:

    To me ultimately this whole debate begs the question, are some US citizens so enamored with their weapons and so fearful (or maybe more precisely paranoid) of their own government that they would rather the laws were lax with regards weapons purchase even if it means that would be mass murderers and terrorists can easily purchase weapons?

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,895 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    jmayo wrote: »
    Surely that usually would be more like the security around something like military base, airport, bank, etc rather than a nightclub.

    It is sad when it has come to point where someone envisages having bank/military installation type security actually in a nightclub.

    Agreed. It, I think, does detract from the experience when one is searched going into a club. It is, unfortunately, not uncommon. I would submit that arming bouncers is a fair compromise between providing security and actually keeping a pleasurable experience. It is worth noting, for example, what happened when someone decided he wanted to go and shoot up a strip club two years ago. He got as far as shooting a bouncer and a patron before another bouncer with a concealed weapon shot him. http://katu.com/news/local/one-man-fighting-for-life-three-more-hurt-after-mystic-strip-club-shootout
    Where do you start drawing the line ?

    Probably the same place that folks draw the line at committing violent crimes. Unfortunately, history has shown that such persons are quite happy to shoot up schools, churches, shopping malls, hospitals... as well as airports, military bases etc. It sucks that we're in this position, don't get me wrong. But saying 'it shouldn't come to this' does not magically make the problem go away.

    You have two choices. You can stick your head in the sand and play the odds that of all the hundreds of thousands of businesses in the US, it'll happen to someone else's and not yours, or you can prepare for the worst so that if, and it's a big if, but not an impossible one, someone decides to shoot up your hospital, the doctor can shoot back ( http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Mercy-Fitzgerald-Hospital-on-Lockdown-268489642.html ), if someone wants to shoot up your school the staff (http://lubbockonline.com/news/101297/LA0540.htm ) or students ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/01/17/law-students-tackled-gunman-held-him-down-until-police-arrived.html ) can arm themselves and stop the problem (Of interest, students with hunting rifles kept the bell tower shooter in UTexas suppressed until police could end it) , or your parishioners could solve the problem at your church (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/ ) . And so on.
    And yes I remember some numbnuts comments post Sandy Hook about how if the teachers were armed they could fight back. :rolleyes:

    You may rolleyes at the concept because you don't -like- it, but you can't rolleyes at the concept that it works. The reason you may not have heard about Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital or Pearl High School is that unlike Colombine or Pulse, dozens of people were not killed. It doesn't really make the news. Put bluntly, you have more of a chance if you can defend yourself and those under your care than if you cannot. Complaining about the situation doesn't help. A number of schools and universities do -not- have a prohibition on firearms on campus, so far, none of them have caused any problems.
    To me ultimately this whole debate begs the question, are some US citizens so enamored with their weapons and so fearful (or maybe more precisely paranoid) of their own government that they would rather the laws were lax with regards weapons purchase even if it means that would be mass murderers and terrorists can easily purchase weapons?

    Although the 'defense against tyranny' argument gets a lot of airplay (and, in fairness, it's a valid one), the real reason most of us have practical firearms is not to shoot at soldiers and police, we tend to be a bit more worried about the sorts of hazards which routinely occur in daily life in the US. Bears and wolves when camping. Home invasions. Robberies. Rapes. Batteries. Things where your right to protect yourself and others incontrovertibly trumps an offender's right to be unharmed. And a firearm is a very good tool to do that, as it is not reliant upon youth, size, or strength to do it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,569 ✭✭✭HensVassal


    Gonna post this, I think it's worth a read:

    Originally by Brian Trautman


    In the days following the horrific attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando – one of the worst mass shootings in modern U.S. history, which claimed the lives of 49 people (50 counting the shooter) and left over 50 wounded – evidence began to mount that the gunman likely possessed multiple motives. This evidence is not surprising in light of what research has revealed about the origins of violence, which includes the knowledge that most people who commit violent acts are driven by a complex, multifaceted andintertwined set of factors. The underlying root causes of violence, then, cannot be reduced to one or two sources. To invoke a cliché, the world is not black and white. The nature of violence is no exception, and our individual and collective understanding of it must not be either if we are to effectively address and prevent all forms of it.
    It is becoming increasingly clear that one of the shooter’s perceived justifications for perpetrating the murderous rampage may have been intense psychological and emotional pain over his sexual orientation – a catastrophic blend of deep shame, humiliation and bitterness over his possible queerness. Besides his apparent queer inclinations, there were several noteworthy details about the shooter’s life that were omitted during many discussions about motives: his history of domestic violence, both as a victimizer and a witness to it in childhood; his employment with G4S, one of the largest private security firms in the world, for which he rendered services that included the imprisonment and mistreatment of juvenile offenders; and, his fascination with the NYPD, which he apparently idolized as a would-be police officer. In addition, based on testimony from eye witnesses and acquaintances, racism could also have influenced his choice of target. What is more, we know from reports that both the ideologies behind and atrocities of the so-called U.S-led “war on terror” and terror groups operating across the world could have contributed to the gunman’s unspeakable act.
    All these factors, plus additional ones that may surface in the days and weeks ahead, may have played a role in the shooter’s toxic thinking and derangement, and ultimately led to the massacre which unfolded that awful night. For these reasons, as well as others, the attack in Orlando cannot be explained away by the tired and parochial refrain, “they hate us because of our freedoms,” regardless of the lengths to which some might go to convince people of its validity. Yet, almost immediately after news of the nightclub tragedy broke, various political leaders and members of the corporate media, among others, began engaging in selective hate and bigotry against Muslims. They did not ask questions. They did not want answers. They conveniently ignored or discounted credible information regarding the gunman’s background and automatically defaulted in their dogmatic thinking to blaming so-called “radical” Islam.
    Those who spew hate, especially in the wake of a national tragedy, only reveal their bigotry, cowardice and bad character, and, whether they intend to or not, incite further hostility against vulnerable minority groups. Practitioners of such reactionary thinking tend to use the red herring of immigration and foreign “terrorism” to advance their own xenophobic and jingoistic agendas. This careless and irresponsible behavior only fuels Islamophobia and hate crimes against Muslims.
    Demagoguery and fear-mongering about terrorism and the “Other” is extremely lucrative for the multi-trillion dollar war industry. The tragic incident in Orlando could prove to be another opportunity for war profiteers to grow even richer. Islamophobia and racism sells war. A national conversation about homophobia, domestic violence, the security-surveillance state and prison-industrial complex does not.
    We will never stop mass shootings if we continue to fault Islam. Sadly, however, the religion will probably continue to be targeted and exploited by small-minded people to communicate and spread anti-Muslim, ultra-nationalist propaganda. Horrendous violence is sometimes committed in the name of Islam, as it is in the name of other religions. However, this in no way makes religion culpable for it, yet Islam is deliberately and repeatedly scapegoated.
    It is utter nonsense to attribute mass shootings to Islam, particularly when an honest analysis of these incidents provides some concrete albeit complicated answers regarding the pathologies of violence. If it were about blaming or banning a particular demographic to eliminate mass shootings, the statistical data show that religion should not be a candidate. The Albany Times Union’s Chris Churchill articulates this point well in a recent column: “…if you look at the long list of recent mass shootings, you can't help but realize that it is entirely dishonest to call this a Muslim or immigrant problem…It would be far more accurate to call it an angry and isolated young man problem. In fact, if the goal is ending mass shootings, it would make much more sense to ban all men under the age of 35 than it would to bar Muslims.”
    Not only is the problem of mass shootings far from being rooted in religion, the policy of sound gun control offers some solid evidence about preventive approaches: In his latest column, Nicholas Kristof, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The New York Times, calls attention to the fact that, “Over the last two decades, Canada has had eight mass shootings. Just so far this month, the United States has already had 20…. Canada’s population is 3.2 percent Muslim, while the United States is about 1 percent Muslim — yet Canada doesn’t have massacres like the one we just experienced at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., or the one in December in San Bernardino, Calif. So perhaps the problem isn’t so much Muslims out of control but guns out of control.” To insist, therefore, that Islam is the problem would be to expose either profound ignorance or explicit and virulent racism regarding the religion.
    The good news is that there is a significant number of antiwar and peace and justice groups working diligently to identify and eliminate the multiple and interconnected forms of violence that could have influenced the mass shooting at Pulse. The #VetsVsHate movement is one example of this work. #VetsVsHate was inspired by efforts including the Veterans Challenge Islamophobia campaign, an national initiative of Veterans For Peace launched earlier this year in collaboration with Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). The campaign seeks to confront and stop the verbal and physical targeting of Muslims. Along with on-the-ground nonviolent protest/civil disobedience actions against the vitriol being directed at Muslims, social media has been a vehicle through which veterans and allies have expressed their defense of and solidarity with the Muslim community.
    As an organization dedicated to abolishing war as well as ending violence in all its forms in order to help build a more just and peaceful future, VFP believed it had a responsibility to release a statement on the mass shooting in Orlando. The statement reads, in part: “Tragedies like this often lead people to look for someone or something to blame. Veterans For Peace rejects attempts to perpetuate hatred against the LGBTQ and Muslim communities. We ask all to resist this temptation. We call on all people to challenge the forces of division and hatred, and to stand against all forms of hate; and at this time particularly against homophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bigotry. Let us instead recommit ourselves to working toward a world without hatred and prejudice.”
    IVAW also released a statement about the attack on Pulse which touches on many of the same points that were conveyed in the VFP statement.
    Veterans have a unique perspective on the various ways in which enmity and violence develops and destroys lives, as many of them were thrust into situations where it was inescapable and on full display. Veterans can speak with authority on how and why demonization and persecution of the “Other” can and does produce violence. Frequently, they are eager to share their insights with anyone willing to listen and learn. The aftermath of the Pulse massacre has proven to be one such time when veterans are speaking out.
    Below are the voices of four veterans who offer their perspectives on the Pulse nightclub attack and the hate rhetoric and blame game that followed:
    “Anytime a shooting or bombing occurs around the world, the collective hearts of 1.7 billion Muslims is shattered and the anxious prayer "please don't let them claim to be Islamic" is uttered. This is because all Muslims know that the tenets of Islam proclaim that the unjust taking of one life is equivalent of killing all of humanity in the sight of God, particularly during this time of Ramadan -- when it is forbidden to even engage in an argument with another person much less commit a mass shooting. This is precisely how every single Muslim in the world knows that the Orlando shooter was a fraud, whose only belief system was violence and hatred. But, true to form, in the aftermath of this tragedy, the world is witnessing the charity and goodness of Muslims, who are donating blood (even though they are fasting from food and water), bringing sustenance to those in need, or, like me, standing shoulder to shoulder with the LGBTQ+ community through tears in solemn vigils of remembrance for the beautiful souls we lost. We know that our bonds of kinship as minority communities cannot and will not be torn asunder by violence because our bonds are made of love and unity and they are everlasting.” –Nate Terani (Navy veteran, VFP member, and Phoenix-based VCI field organizer)
    “Hijab. Allah. These are terms we think of when we come upon the word “Muslim.” People also think “terrorist,” which is a destructive way of thinking. Both the events of 9/11 and the Orlando massacre caused tremendous suffering for many. But we must not forget these tragedies hurt the Muslim community as well. When 9/11 occurred, I like many Americans said we needed to go over there and do something about it. However, I didn’t understand Islam. I ended up meeting a man wanting to explain the beliefs of Islam to people who didn’t know, to strike down the belief that all Muslims are evil. Since that time, I’ve never looked back and even in the Marine Corps (while I never deployed) I stood up for our brothers and sisters, some of whom were Muslim. Two quotes come to mind for me: “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” (Santayana) and “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Gandhi). Knowledge is power and if we do not understand Islam we need to educate ourselves in order to dispel Islamophobia.” –Renee Whitfield (Marine Corps veteran, #VetsVsHate supporter)
    “As a Latinx. A Muslim. A Veteran. A serious conversation is necessary to discuss the ways Toxic Masculinity, Militarism, Homophobia, and Islamophobia contributed to the shooting in Orlando, as well as helping shape the narrative told by US media outlets and posturing of U.S. politicians. We live in a society that is homophobic, heterosexist, and is discriminatory towards marginalized people. In communities across the U.S., both children and adults are learning to perpetuate oppressive behavior towards the LGBT+ community. Homophobia like Islamophobia can be fear-driven, but it is also contempt-driven.” –Ramon Mejia (Marine Corps veteran, IVAW member, Texas-based VCI field organizer)
    “A long time ago, I made it a point not to watch the news, listen to the radio or read a newspaper regularly. It felt like ingesting poison. Existing in our society – at times – feels the same way to me; an onslaught of verbal insults or the stare of the unspoken judgement. It has been a long journey of realising my existence is not an embarrassment, the colour of my skin is not some mistake, who I love is not “a sin and I am going to hell” or that my last name does not warrant that I be singled out and labelled. When I step outside my home, I must emotionally and spiritually prepare myself to deal with “the world”. I know I will encounter individuals who believe what mainstream mass media has been feeding them: ready-made summaries consisting of lies and fear and pre-packaged judgements of hate. When I am directly (or indirectly) confronted with someone who unleashes their poison upon me, I must work times over to not mirror their behavior, lest I prove true to that person what the media machine has fed them. I believe we are all truly connected. Admittedly, I struggle with this belief when I encounter another’s fear and hate. Whether in that moment or thereafter, there is a deep realisaton that their anger and hate is a symptom of the insecurity and dis-empowerment syphoning upon the spirit of the many in our country. My responsibility, is to ensure my journey and activism remain genuine and fluid, rooted in from a spiritual connection.” –Monique Salhab (Air Force and Army veteran, VFP board member)
    If more people in the U.S., especially our lawmakers, truly listened to and took voices like the ones shared above seriously, we might be able to make meaningful strides in curbing the sort of violence that took so many innocent lives and devastated so many families last week in Orlando. Hate rhetoric and anti-Muslim sentiments will fail to bring us closer to stopping violence. It will, however, continue to breed hostility and erode the Constitution. This is unacceptable and must be countered by individual and collective efforts to grow diversity, inclusivity and equality and secure civil and human rights for all people, both at home and abroad.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    There is no point in voting to prevent terror watch listers from buying guns because 1) they are on a watch list not criminals and 2) it is unconstitutional. It is folly.

    Is it unconstitutional? There's already plenty of people who can't buy guns. Criminals, the mentally ill etc.....
    Of interest, two of the four were brought by Republicans, two by Democrats. But they all failed since basically everybody voted for their party's bills, but neither party had more than 60 votes. So, for example two of the bills would prohibit folks on the terrorist watch list or no fly lists from purchasing firearms without comment. The democrat one was simple, "On the list? No gun." Republicans wouldn't vote for that, they wanted a judge to sign off on the gun prohibition. (A position I agree with. You need a judge to sign off on bypassing other Constitutional rights such as the 4th Amendment). Democrats wouldn't go for it,

    Yay partisanship. This isn't a gun thing. This is Congress working as normal because for the last four or five years, almost nobody in congress will vote for anything proposed by the other side.



    The republican one wanted anyone on the terrorist watch list to get a delay of 72 hours. During that 72 hours the government would have to file a case in court. In that case they would have to prove probable cause that the person was about to use the weapons to commit a terrorist act.

    Details of all 4 bills are here

    http://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11976884/gun-bill-new


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,895 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Grayson wrote: »
    Is it unconstitutional? There's already plenty of people who can't buy guns. Criminals, the mentally ill etc.....

    Yes, but those are not cases where the government has arbitrarily put people on a list. To be a criminal, they have to go to a court and be convicted by a jury in a trial. It's not just the FBI saying 'He's a criminal'. To be considered mentally ill, there has to be a medical finding, not someone in the Dept of Health saying 'he's ill.' If one is not to be denied one's rights without due process, there has to be a suitable process to begin with.


    Doesn't, unfortunately, go into the details, and seems a bit biased (Which isn't a surprise for Vox). For example, why tout the Republicans as divided with mentioning how Kelly Aotte voting on the Democrat side, and ignoring how Democrat Heidi Heitkamp of decidedly gun-friendly North Dakota voted on the Republican side, and claiming that the Democrats are united.

    Finding the exact nature of the text is annoying, one has to go into the full bill. Murphy's background check legislation is basically the same as failed last time around, with the same flaws. Why they can't just say 'All sales, private or commercial, must be conducted with the aid of a background check through NICS' is beyond me instead of forcing additional requirements beyond that.

    There may be a compromise bill coming. We'll see what happens.


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    The "good guy with a gun" is a BS answer.

    This is going to happen again and again while guns are easier to get hold of (and cheaper) than help for mental health issues.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,895 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    The "good guy with a gun" is a BS answer.

    This is going to happen again and again while guns are easier to get hold of (and cheaper) than help for mental health issues.
    Why cannot both paths be taken at the same time? Two lines of attack are better than one.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Why cannot both paths be taken at the same time? Two lines of attack are better than one.

    That's what I am saying. However obviously there are more aspects to it than that, those 2 are an obvious start point.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,593 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    One thing I feared when his S/O job at G4S was revealed, was whether he used a mention of it to put other regulars at the club, incl it's door and other staff, in a relaxed "he's ok" state of mind, and if he used learned security skills to suss out weak spots in the club's security or even seek a door-staff job there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,226 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Agreed. It, I think, does detract from the experience when one is searched going into a club. It is, unfortunately, not uncommon. I would submit that arming bouncers is a fair compromise between providing security and actually keeping a pleasurable experience. It is worth noting, for example, what happened when someone decided he wanted to go and shoot up a strip club two years ago. He got as far as shooting a bouncer and a patron before another bouncer with a concealed weapon shot him. http://katu.com/news/local/one-man-fighting-for-life-three-more-hurt-after-mystic-strip-club-shootout

    Probably the same place that folks draw the line at committing violent crimes. Unfortunately, history has shown that such persons are quite happy to shoot up schools, churches, shopping malls, hospitals... as well as airports, military bases etc. It sucks that we're in this position, don't get me wrong. But saying 'it shouldn't come to this' does not magically make the problem go away.

    You have two choices. You can stick your head in the sand and play the odds that of all the hundreds of thousands of businesses in the US, it'll happen to someone else's and not yours, or you can prepare for the worst so that if, and it's a big if, but not an impossible one, someone decides to shoot up your hospital, the doctor can shoot back ( http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Mercy-Fitzgerald-Hospital-on-Lockdown-268489642.html ), if someone wants to shoot up your school the staff (http://lubbockonline.com/news/101297/LA0540.htm ) or students ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/01/17/law-students-tackled-gunman-held-him-down-until-police-arrived.html ) can arm themselves and stop the problem (Of interest, students with hunting rifles kept the bell tower shooter in UTexas suppressed until police could end it) , or your parishioners could solve the problem at your church (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/ ) . And so on.

    You may rolleyes at the concept because you don't -like- it, but you can't rolleyes at the concept that it works. The reason you may not have heard about Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital or Pearl High School is that unlike Colombine or Pulse, dozens of people were not killed. It doesn't really make the news. Put bluntly, you have more of a chance if you can defend yourself and those under your care than if you cannot. Complaining about the situation doesn't help. A number of schools and universities do -not- have a prohibition on firearms on campus, so far, none of them have caused any problems.

    I know it does probably alleviate some attacks, but the mantra that if we arm even more people doesn't really solve it either.
    Then we end up with gunfights in schools, in nightclubs, etc.
    What happens if one of the teachers decides to go postal after some teens drive him nuts one day ?

    Do you have every barman in the country armed, do you have every teacher armed, do you have every preacher armed ?
    Do you have every beach lifeguard armed ?

    I know you have weapons, you are in National Guard if I am not mistaken.
    I would have no problem with law abiding citizens like yourself, after security checks, having ability to purchase and keep firearms.
    But lets be honest the easy availability and type of firearms is what keeps causing problems.

    I guess if the slaughter of kids is not going to cause the country to wake up then I don't see how the slaughter of a group openly despised by some will make any difference.

    But you have to realistically say that firearms are too freely available in the US.
    Why does the USA have such high gun ownership per capita.
    It looks like it has doubled since 1968.
    Although the 'defense against tyranny' argument gets a lot of airplay (and, in fairness, it's a valid one), the real reason most of us have practical firearms is not to shoot at soldiers and police, we tend to be a bit more worried about the sorts of hazards which routinely occur in daily life in the US. Bears and wolves when camping. Home invasions. Robberies. Rapes. Batteries. Things where your right to protect yourself and others incontrovertibly trumps an offender's right to be unharmed. And a firearm is a very good tool to do that, as it is not reliant upon youth, size, or strength to do it.

    And even in other countries where there is a large number of firearms, they do not have the problems the US has.

    If anything there are probably more wildlife threats in Canada than US, yet they only have a quarter of the guns per capita.

    Looking at gun ownership per state according to CBS using 2014 stats from ATF and 2103 census:

    http://reverbpress.com/politics/firearms-per-capita-by-state/

    Wyoming has highest gun ownership per capita.
    Fair enough lots of wild wide open spaces and they have bears and wolves.
    But wasn't the grey wolf just taken off the endangered species list in 2012 ?

    Next is DC (I know not a state).
    Only reason for DC I presume are the organs of state and government and all it's protection, although not sure if they are counted in the stats?
    If they aren't then why do people in DC need all the firearms ?

    Then comes Arkansas, New Mexico, Virginia, Idaho, Alabama, Nevada.
    Alaska the place with all the grizzly bears and wolves comes in at 9 followed by Louisiana at 10.
    Maybe they use them to fight off gators there. :rolleyes:

    And yes I know there are black bears in various states, but how come then the ones in New England and Appalachian mountains come in higher ?
    Is it all just about paranoid of the state and federal authorities and just reinforcing the right to bear arms ?

    Is it all about home protection ?

    I actually wholeheartedly agree with the right to protect oneself, but lets be realists do you need a 30 round magazine and something like a AR15 to do it ?
    Or are most home invasions and personal attacks something akin to a scene out of Erasure or Die Hard?
    Do you need a 30 round magazine to kill a deer, a wolf or a bear ?
    BTW those smaller rounds might just pee off a bear rather than kill it.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,895 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    jmayo wrote: »
    I know it does probably alleviate some attacks, but the mantra that if we arm even more people doesn't really solve it either.

    As a larger, marco-level societal issue, no, it does not. That's a much tougher, more difficult issue, which will take many years to sort out and will require a cultural shift. What it does do, however, is help with individual events at the micro-scale in the meantime.
    Then we end up with gunfights in schools, in nightclubs, etc.
    What happens if one of the teachers decides to go postal after some teens drive him nuts one day ?

    In legal terms, this called a 'parade of horribles'. Saying "But if you do this, then that might happen."

    The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals took something of a look at this, when they struck down Illinois' ban on concealed carriage of firearms. If you have a bit of time read the opinion from two years ago here pages 8-16 where they do an overview of the research done into people carrying guns in public
    Do you have every barman in the country armed, do you have every teacher armed, do you have every preacher armed ?
    Do you have every beach lifeguard armed ?

    Not at all. Some teachers have neither the inclination or skill to be armed. Ditto preachers, lifeguards, or anyone else. Why would anyone mandate such a thing? However, those teachers, life guards, preachers etc can all make their own choices, and some are armed routinely because of the laws on concealed carry in the US. There is nothing particularly unusual about crossing onto church grounds, school grounds, a beach, which will make them more dangerous than they were five minutes earlier or later when they leave. There is a difference between allowing a choice, and forcing people to do something.
    Why does the USA have such high gun ownership per capita.
    It looks like it has doubled since 1968.

    I think it's gone down, actually. The percentage of people with firearms has dropped over time, as the population becomes more urbanised. (And as more people become prohibited from ownership due to our very high criminal conviction rates, moderately large illegal population (3% or so of total) and so on). That smaller portion of people do, however, own more firearms each.
    And even in other countries where there is a large number of firearms, they do not have the problems the US has.

    Agreed. As I said, a tougher, more difficult issue.
    Next is DC (I know not a state).
    Only reason for DC I presume are the organs of state and government and all it's protection, although not sure if they are counted in the stats?
    If they aren't then why do people in DC need all the firearms ?

    I saw the same article, and was rather surprised by DC as well. I honestly am not sure, though I do observe that the city has a crime rate in the top three percent in the US, so that may have a partial correlation.
    And yes I know there are black bears in various states, but how come then the ones in New England and Appalachian mountains come in higher ?
    Is it all just about paranoid of the state and federal authorities and just reinforcing the right to bear arms ?

    Lots of good hunting in New England. Not sure about Appalachians.
    Is it all about home protection ?

    No, not at all. But it is a very large part of it, and it is the primary driver for the Supreme Court's decision in Heller.
    I actually wholeheartedly agree with the right to protect oneself, but lets be realists do you need a 30 round magazine and something like a AR15 to do it?
    Or are most home invasions and personal attacks something akin to a scene out of Erasure or Die Hard?

    No, to the latter question, and 'it helps' to the former. An analysis of firefights indicates that ten rounds just isn't likely to cut it given that barely one in five rounds even hits a target, and homeowners don't typically carry spare magazines. What they have in the weapon is all they've got.
    Do you need a 30 round magazine to kill a deer, a wolf or a bear?

    Nope.
    BTW those smaller rounds might just pee off a bear rather than kill it.

    Agreed. And in many states they're too small to be legal to hunt deer as well. Fortunately, in about thirty seconds you can convert your 5.56mm AR-15 to a .50 cal Beowulf or .300 Blackout (Or 7.62x39, or 6.5 or whatever) for something with a lot more power by pulling out two pins and swapping the upper receiver. This flexibility is part of the reason the AR is so popular.


Advertisement
Advertisement