Orlando, Florida mass shooting. 50 dead, 53 wounded

[Delibirb]

Yeah, I'm sure that 50 people dying in a shooting from a single person is only in the news to keep one specific city relevant.

I believe you misunderstood. I meant the CAR CRASH was only mentioned because it had relation to the MASSIVE NATIONAL TOPIC that is the shooting. If there had been no shooting and a car crashed into police at a funeral procession, I don't think it would have gotten very much attention.

[vla1ne]

If there had been no shooting and a car crashed into police at a funeral procession, I don't think it would have gotten very much attention.

that's a sad thought in and of itself.

[Delibirb]

that's a sad thought in and of itself.

True. But how much would you want to know that a car crash involving a police car escorting a funeral procession for a person otherwise unimportant to you in a completely different state? Frankly I barely want to hear about it despite the relation to the Orlando shooting. It makes no difference to anything at all and it would seem everything is going to be ok there.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

guns are already allowed inside florida bars under concealed carry, and at the discretion of the bar owners. this has been the case since 2014, and had there been any shooting inside of the bars that allowed guns, you can be sure we'd hear about it day in and day out every time, even in this case, because it drives the anti-gun narrative that the media is often fond of. in other words, this was the only bar shooting (or mass shooting not involving family) in florida since the law allowing concealed carry in bars came into effect, and funny enough, it was in a bar that banned concealed carry. 

The assumption here is that a number of them don't ban it as well: if someone wants to provide data on the percentage of bars that opt in and out(in florida in general, orlando, whatever) then feel free. The argument people are making is about how they bought the weapons , not bars allowing them.

[vla1ne]

The assumption here is that a number of them don't ban it as well: if someone wants to provide data on the percentage of bars that opt in and out(in florida in general, orlando, whatever) then feel free. The argument people are making is about how they bought the weapons , not bars allowing them.

he bought it from a store. simple really. BUT, it appears i've made a massive mistake in my statement that needs correcting, so i have to apologize, turns out florida actually didn't pass the concealed carry law inside of bars, it almost made it through, but i guess it was shot down before it became official.

 

on the other hand (crime prevention research center http://crimeresearch.org/2016/06/mass-shooting-in-florida-occurred-in-another-gun-free-zone-as-many-as-20-people-died-in-a-shooting-at-an-orlando-nightclub/ [http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CCW-in-Bars.png]) concealed/ open carry is allowed in 40 states, many of which also allow concealed carry into bars, on the condition that those carrying guns do not drink alcohol while carrying weapons. the problem you mentioned about people getting drunk has been addressed under that ruling. so, while my overall statement was flawed, the core point remains valid, that there are fewer shootings in concealed carry bars than there are in open carry. the issue of alcohol was addressed by not allowing those carrying guns to drink while in said bars.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Sure, that's a reasonable restriction, though it again doesn't account for how many establishments simply opt altogether. Apparently that couldn't have been the case in Orlando. My ultimate point surrounding this, though, is that I think it's better to have hired security as opposed to armed citizens if you're at a nightclub.

[vla1ne]

in every mass shooting, the security are always the first or second people to get shot. in a country that allows guns, everybody up to and including security are likely to have one, the combination of both is what causes criminals to think twice about shooting up the place. look no further than the places allowing citizens to carry guns not being the places criminals go when they decide to commit mass shootings. i'm not saying no security+ armed citizens, i'm saying armed security + armed citizens. the best way to protect people from gun violence is to make sure they can fight back against gun violence. not even the craziest man in the world would choose a street with possibly armed people to shoot over a street with guaranteed unarmed people.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Having armed citizens might well limit the probability of a mass shooting, but it would at the same time dramatically increase the chances of typical shootings occurring to the point where you wouldn't have any fewer shots fired. Then, in the case of a mass shooting, the atmosphere is typically characterized by pandemonium and people not knowing what the f*** is going on. I'd like to think that those people would be level-headed enough to immediately identify where the shots are coming from, pinpoint "the active shooter", shoot, and it all ends there, but I'd think it more likely that those who would pause to get a handle on the situation would be shot before they could and those who shoot first and ask questions later could well shoot the wrong people. They wouldn't have a security guard's specialized training or be wearing uniforms. There's a reason we have the idiom "shot in the dark" with reference to something off-base. 

 

As for the argument that not even the craziest man in the world would target armed people over unarmed people, there are those who'd target them precisely because they're armed and represent, in their eyes, an oppressive armed force. Being armed undermines any suggestion of innocence. There've certainly been individuals who've targeted police stations and military bases in spite of low probabilities of "success" and at great risk to their own lives, in wars this is what wins medals for bravery. A mass shooter/bomber is generally ready to die for their cause won't care if we think they're crazy regardless, but I'd think we should consider it crazier and more foolish to target a large number of innocent people simply to get more kills than to target one's identifiable militant antagonists.

[vla1ne]

typical shootings would be unlikely to increase much by giving citizens who already have their permit the ability to bring their guns with them. in all the states that allow it in multiple areas(sans chicago/detroit), you observe less shootings overall, it's essentially the nuke rule applied on a human scale, there's a threshold of power that once crossed appears to lower overall conflicts (i've already granted that even though they're lower they are indeed more lethal in comparison) this assumption is backed by the crime and shooting ratios from past citations, the most violence, be it mas shootings or otherwise, are not due to normal citizens having guns, but  from high poverty areas/low education areas leading to higher overall crime.

 

as for the amount of people shooting out wildly, this has already been discussed, in the areas allowing open carry, all but one shooting that i know of was stopped within minutes by the citizens on the scene. i am still advocating for reform alongside this kind of implementation though, proving that you know how, and what a gun can and should be used for before being allowed a gun.

 

 

ok, i have to grant that, but at the same time, the street with armed citizens has so far been demonstrated to be more effective at taking down, or at least suppressing an armed shooter before they can do mass damage. there have been vastly more shootings upon people who couldn't fight back, for the very reason that they couldn't fight back, than there have been upon people who could fight back for the reason that they could fight back. those targeting police and military stations would not factor into civilians being shot all that much more. in many mass shootings, the shooters have actually been demonstrated to have chosen gun free zones instead of some other areas, bombers would hit either area regardless, and it's harder to identify bombers than it is shooters (they're a whole other category or nutcase) but shooters have time and again opened fire more often, and with greater success in areas where only police/security were allowed guns.

 

this logic only applies to america though, since we allow guns, the act of restricting them anywhere, as i've said earlier, makes said places easier targets in practice, and opens up the gates to having more mass shootings overall (normal shootings happen for a combination of economic and education reasons, people not having enough money to get by, or not being raised by a full family, or growing up in areas of high violence and low education, leading to them, all too often, to lives of crime, ). in theory it sounds nice, but we see time and again that shooters target those areas more often, and that those areas are more likely to facilitate "mass shootings"

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Honduras, Tajikistan, and Israel all have populations in the 8 millions. (According to the CIA World Factbook.)

 

Why is Honduras's gun homicide rate over 300 times as high as Tajikistan's (68.43 to 0.22) when Honduras has almost twice the GDP? Sure, it has over seven times the guns, but America has over 540 times Honduras's guns and under twice the murders. (Figures according to UNODC via the Guardian as of 2012). Israel has as many guns as Honduras, but a gun homicide rate even lower than Tajikistan's.

 

Gang violence in Honduras is rampant, but why there and not Tajikistan?

 

To be frank, I'm having difficulty finding any correlation to explain gun violence and none of it makes much sense to me. Trends between gun availability, poverty, and actual gun violence don't yield expected results. What's to stop America from becoming Honduras on a larger scale, or Honduras from reforming to Tajikistani (which has less money) or Israeli (which has as many guns) levels of peace?

 

I'm not even trying to make any points right now I'm just confused.

[vla1ne]

Honduras, Tajikistan, and Israel all have populations in the 8 millions. (According to the CIA World Factbook.)

 

Why is Honduras's gun homicide rate over 300 times as high as Tajikistan's (68.43 to 0.22) when Honduras has almost twice the GDP? Sure, it has over seven times the guns, but America has over 540 times Honduras's guns and under twice the murders. (Figures according to UNODC via the Guardian as of 2012). Israel has as many guns as Honduras, but a gun homicide rate even lower than Tajikistan's.

 

Gang violence in Honduras is rampant, but why there and not Tajikistan?

 

To be frank, I'm having difficulty finding any correlation to explain gun violence and none of it makes much sense to me. Trends between gun availability, poverty, and actual gun violence don't yield expected results. What's to stop America from becoming Honduras on a larger scale, or Honduras from reforming to Tajikistani (which has less money) or Israeli (which has as many guns) levels of peace?

 

I'm not even trying to make any points right now I'm just confused.

It's just a confusing subject overall. criminal activity is based upon multiple factors, and when you throw guns into the mix, it creates even more layers of complication to criminal behavior, the mere presence of guns can deter violence, or spur it on, same with an absence of guns. generally,

 

it's not the kind of thing that can be easily solved through comparing the numbers of different countries. each country has it's own rules, economy, culture, and regulations, and those factors can change the end result drastically.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Yeah there's definitely some murky middle ground when it comes to this. Everyone who can ideally stifle an attempted mass shooting also becomes a liability in their own right. In this circumstance I just think that better checks for weapons would be needed, honestly. I know what you mean in general though, and can acknowledge places where it's probably far better to just allow people to carry.

[Aerion Brightflame]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36598736

 

Democratics staging a sit in in Congress in order to get a Republican posed piece of gun legislation through. The actual piece of legislation is tiny as far as I can make out (People on watch-lists can't buy guns), but if passed would be amazing since it's a sign of cross party co-operation about an important issue - Namely politics working like it funking should

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36598736

 

Democratics staging a sit in in Congress in order to get a Republican posed piece of gun legislation through. The actual piece of legislation is tiny as far as I can make out (People on watch-lists can't buy guns), but if passed would be amazing since it's a sign of cross party co-operation about an important issue - Namely politics working like it funking should

Republicans might actually support them on this if this was all they were asking for. They go on TV and attack just about everything about guns, then come to the floor and say they only want a common sense restriction. 

 

Senators voted 53-47 on a proposal from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that would reauthorize funding for the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) and incentivize states to share mental health records with the federal system. IF Democrats really gave a damn about people dying instead of party lines they would have voted for it. Something is better than nothing. Both sides are cancerous. The Democrats are just better actors 

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36598736

 

Democratics staging a sit in in Congress in order to get a Republican posed piece of gun legislation through. The actual piece of legislation is tiny as far as I can make out (People on watch-lists can't buy guns), but if passed would be amazing since it's a sign of cross party co-operation about an important issue - Namely politics working like it f***ing should

Doesn't seem that tiny because it all depends on who ends up on a watchlist.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Republicans might actually support them on this if this was all they were asking for. They go on TV and attack just about everything about guns, then come to the floor and say they only want a common sense restriction. 

This is a common and logical tactic. You force them to prepare for an extreme, which makes the reality seem even more reasonable. Like having a high asking price on an item to fuel bartering.