It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
50 dead. Done at a gay nightclub in Florida. Officially the worst shooting in US history. In a very gun friendly state. I haven't read what type of weapons he used, but it will be interesting to know
JAHpowDude, the guy was a licensed security officer. His accessibility to firearms is not the issue.
Although he was a licensed security officer, he had been on the FBI's watch list since 2013. The fact that he was able to buy a Assault rifle after being confronted by the FBI twice in 2 years says something about how loose gun purchases are in the United States
ben_collinsAlthough he was a licensed security officer, he had been on the FBI's watch list since 2013. The fact that he was able to buy a Assault rifle after being confronted by the FBI twice in 2 years says something about how loose gun purchases are in the United States
more people carrying guns will not lead to less crime. it will lead to a whole bunch of shootings that would have otherwise been assaults, a whole bunch of self shootings, and just as many mass shootings. there is a reason why high level security personel tell folks to just GTFO in the case of a shooter with an assault rifle. you are massivly undergunned, likely to hit someone else, will create confusion when law enforcement does get there, and unless you actually have legit training will act and shoot like a fucking moron.
I still do not understand why the US doesnt just put massive restrictions on every gun that isnt a revolver handgun, or single/double shot rifles/shotguns. Boom. all your hunting and home protection needs are covered. But if you say you also need to protect yourself from the government, then you are just too dumb for words.
exactly. 3 dead. many many injured. but despite their best effort in a planned out bombing attack of a soft target with a ton of people in close quarters, the death toll was nowhere close to what it might have been had they used firearms.
BombogenesisI am entertained by Hillary today. First off, I agree with her saying that someone on the FBIs radar should not be allowed to purchase a firearm
Should we be restricting what people on FBI watch lists can say or which religion they can practice?
fuckmekevinThe problem of gun violence lies within METROPOLITAN AREAS with a population greater than 200,000 people. Numerous variables come into play when comparing other countries to the US and the straight-shooting fact is that the media does not constitute for said variables.
The AR-15 is a subset of a rifle and RIFLES CAUSE ONLY 3.5% OF GUN-RELATED HOMICIDES!! The question is, why pinpoint the sub-set of a rifle, why?
REMEMBER, FBI statistics US- 1992- violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000 and a murder rate of specifically 9.3. Almost twenty years later, 2011 US has a violent crime rate of 386.3 a 50% REDUCTION in violent crime and a murder rate of 4.7 a 54% reduction! It's better than you are conditioned to believe.
In order to FIX these problems, instead of banning guns we have to try to figure out how to improve the POVERTY LEVEL, HOW TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND HOW TO CREATE JOBS, THAT IS HOW YOU WILL IMPROVE THE VIOLENT CRIME RATE AND MURDER RATE!!!! Our society often attempts to find solutions from within the problem. This is why bullying will never be eradicated under this social order. This is why sexism thrives; this is why class warfare is fed from the teet of propaganda. THE PROBLEM ISN"T THE GUNS!!!
In the US there’s 2.3 violent crimes that happen every minute and 3,297 violent crimes that happen everyday.
Yes, lets propose solutions bit let us not dialogue the cause of these problems. We have yet to define or fully understand these problems so no short term solution will work effectively.
There’s a logic to violent crime. What drives violence?
We engage in violence to elevate and maintain a status quota. A social outcast, someone who doesn’t fit in; the mainstream media rewards violence, infamy and an immediate celebrity. This promulgates that violence may be an attractive choice. It simply follow a logic.
This is all about the perception of threat. The quest for surveil is one of the key drives of state sponsored violence. Violence can rectify survival.
Moreover, protection is a rational for violence. People will rectify violence to protect their political status, obsessions, interests, loved ones, investments, property, domicile, offspring, etc. If one perceives a threat to any of these aforementioned things violence can be instigated.
Is violence justified, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t what I’m saying is that there is a logic to violence.
Maybe be ought to make policies that mitigate logical violence, if of course we understand the logic. Defining that logic can be utilized for policy making to bite back violence but instead we are focused on a tool; a gun, which is utilized to commit violence. You can not fix a problem from within that problem.
In conclusion, there’s a good chance 10 violent crimes have been committed in the time of me writing this. There’s also a good chance that none of those violent crimes involved a gun. However, there's a very good chance that all of these crimes followed a logic.
I would also say improving wealth inequality is a start.
One could make the assumption that more equality=less guns overall. More inequality results in a high demand for criminal purposes. Where these is a demand, there is someone or something to supply that demand, regardless of laws.
Look at Jamaica for example, they have virtually banned civilian gun ownership but the fact that guns are in very high demand, this results in a lot of guns begin smuggled into the country, hence a firearm-related death rate per 100,000 pop. per year of 40.
I also want to point out that many gun related deaths in the IS (2/3) are due to suicides and not murders and many can easily shape statistics this way to their benefits.
What I don't understand is why people think gun control means taking everyone's guns away. Let the people who have them keep them, let the people who want to buy them and use them for recreation and protection buy them, just make the process of getting one more in depth and actually spend time trying to understand gun violence and how to prevent it instead of immediately getting all butthurt about freedoms that don't even need to be taken away. So it's a couple more steps, but it'll filter out at least a couple crazy people. Nobody who wants to use guns for legitimate legal purposes has to have their rights taken away, and at the very least it could prevent even a little bit of this terrible shit.
Sure criminals can always find weapons, but why not try to at least make it harder in hopes of blocking out even a small minority? At the end of the day it's still fewer innocent people getting killed. If this was about any other topic we would be researching ways to make it safer even if it was a prevalent feature of the past. It's certainly easier to do that than to deport every single Muslim or whatever other ridiculous alternatives people propose
jblaskiGive me the exact number of lives that have been saved by "gun-free zones". How many criminals have turned around at the door because of a "gun free" sign?
How about you stay on topic, you dumb ass. No one says gun free zones prevent mass shootings. The whole argument of greater gun control will prevent good people from getting guns so they can stop mass shootings is retarded. Get it? Nah prolly not cause like Fox News hasn't told you that yet.
ben_collinsThats not what he was saying. He said that people that people on the watch list can't purchase guns. He said nothing about practicing religion
Both are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. Sec Clinton is recommending that we deny American Citezens their constitutional rights without due process.
cobra_commanderBoth are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. Sec Clinton is recommending that we deny American Citezens their constitutional rights without due process.
I don't think owning guns should be a right. It should be a privlege. These "rights" were based on life 200+ years ago. Society and culture has evolved. Guns are no longer necessary.
A car is far more necessary, but a driver's license is not a right.
I don't know why people cannot view the Constitution as a living document.
cobra_commanderBoth are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. Sec Clinton is recommending that we deny American Citezens their constitutional rights without due process.
So owning a gun is a right but healthcare for all isnt. Love the logic we got here in the US!
californiagrownI don't think owning guns should be a right. It should be a privlege. These "rights" were based on life 200+ years ago. Society and culture has evolved. Guns are no longer necessary.
A car is far more necessary, but a driver's license is not a right.
I don't know why people cannot view the Constitution as a living document.
so true. Both a car and a gun can be used as a positive tool but they can also both be used as a weapon in a sense
californiagrownI don't think owning guns should be a right. It should be a privlege. These "rights" were based on life 200+ years ago. Society and culture has evolved. Guns are no longer necessary.
A car is far more necessary, but a driver's license is not a right.
I don't know why people cannot view the Constitution as a living document.
Charlie_KellySo owning a gun is a right but healthcare for all isnt. Love the logic we got here in the US!
I do view the Constitution of the United States as a living document.
No one has amended it to include a right to a car or a right to healthcare.
No one has amended it to clarify or remove the 2nd Amendment either.
Both are possible. We have added Ammendments and stricken them before.
As a Constitutional Federal Republic, the Constitution is pretty fucking important. The idea that a nominee to POTUS would recommend we deny Americans their Constitutional rights without due process is despicable.
If we are willing to stop people from buying firearms because the FBI is investigating them why don't we just go ahead and disregard their 8th Amendment rights and let the FBI lock them up and use torture in their investigation. Oh wait.
cobra_commanderI do view the Constitution of the United States as a living document.
No one has amended it to include a right to a car or a right to healthcare.
No one has amended it to clarify or remove the 2nd Amendment either.
Both are possible. We have added Ammendments and stricken them before.
As a Constitutional Federal Republic, the Constitution is pretty fucking important. The idea that a nominee to POTUS would recommend we deny Americans their Constitutional rights without due process is despicable.
If we are willing to stop people from buying firearms because the FBI is investigating them why don't we just go ahead and disregard their 8th Amendment rights and let the FBI lock them up and use torture in their investigation. Oh wait.
It's amazing how many opinions on here are just plain dumb and ignorant, and people get all pissy when I call them out for it. This however is a completely logical argument, and makes total sense... I just simply disagree with the ethics behind it.
I think the 2nd amendment has been totally antiquated for the past 70 years and should be stricken, personally. I think people hold the Constitution and bible in similar esteem as if it IS truth... forever.
turns out the shooters wife knew about it the whole time. drove him to the club to "scope it out" and was with him when he bought guns and ammo. fucked.
cornholioYou are allowed to buy Healthcare the same as you are allowed to buy guns, right?
Yes, but before Obamacare you could also be denied healthcare for a laundry list of reasons. Inhumane.
THEDIRTYBUBBLEHealthcare isn't a right. You are not entitled to the products of other people's labor
No one is saying that. You are viewing it from a skewed lense. You assume everyone wants "free" healthcare. What about the people willing to pay but are denied? What about the people who have been paying for years just to be dropped? Solid logic bro.
Charlie_KellyNo one is saying that. You are viewing it from a skewed lense. You assume everyone wants "free" healthcare. What about the people willing to pay but are denied? What about the people who have been paying for years just to be dropped? Solid logic bro.
THEDIRTYBUBBLEHealthcare isn't a right. You are not entitled to the products of other people's labor
Eh, that's a matter of opinion. I consider healthcare and welfare food to fall under the same umbrella as the "Right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness"
Id love to sit here and argue about some bullshit 2nd amendment rights, but Jim jefferies sums it up pretty well. For those of you who haven't seen it:
RusticlesId love to sit here and argue about some bullshit 2nd amendment rights, but Jim jefferies sums it up pretty well. For those of you who haven't seen it:
californiagrownEh, that's a matter of opinion. I consider healthcare and welfare food to fall under the same umbrella as the "Right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness"
Even if it does, that doesn't mean the government should pay for it.
THEDIRTYBUBBLEEven if it does, that doesn't mean the government should pay for it.
The government doesn't pay for it. Tax payers foot the bill when someone can't pay. We're all paying for it one way or another when we don't turn anyone away from a hospital in the US. Might as well make the system more efficient right?
This is happening whether or not you believe that this is a right. You already have the right to emergency care whether or not you like it. The way to fix it? Get more people access to insurance so the insurance companies are paying, not all of us.
THEDIRTYBUBBLEEven if it does, that doesn't mean the government should pay for it.
They don't. Private citizens do... through taxes.
The government is given power by the people and financed by the people.
It breaks down to a morality argument whether or not you believe healthcare should be "free" for all citizens.
I don't think people should starve or remain sick/die because they cannot afford market rate for food and healthcare. Especially not in a 1st world country, and especially not in a country that purports to be the best in the world.
I personally have a conceal carry, and while I'm not gay and most likely would not be in that club. I would have defended myself and others and shot that dude. Well before the several minutes it took for him to kill 50 people.
Horrible tragedy, however guns don't kill people, crazy people kill people and I'm glad I have the right to carry a gun at times. Even tho living in Park City I rarely carry a gun, but it's PC not a big city.
One needs to be able to defend themselves from idiots and people with mental disorders. Gun laws will not stop these people from access to guns.
MikeWeinerONEI personally have a conceal carry, and while I'm not gay and most likely would not be in that club. I would have defended myself and others and shot that dude. Well before the several minutes it took for him to kill 50 people.
Horrible tragedy, however guns don't kill people, crazy people kill people and I'm glad I have the right to carry a gun at times. Even tho living in Park City I rarely carry a gun, but it's PC not a big city.
One needs to be able to defend themselves from idiots and people with mental disorders. Gun laws will not stop these people from access to guns.
My 2$
No you wouldn't have. You aren't allowed to carry in a bar. But as a responsible concealed carrier you already knew that, right?
And if I was there I would have totally disarmed the guy because I know jujitsu!
All you would have done is hit some people behind him with stray bullets trying to fire a pistol while getting hit and taken down by other civilians, while fire was drawn in your direction and those around you where you are massively undergunned.
Basically, you talk to anybody trained in tactical military or police work(SWAT etc) they will tell you to gtfo. NOT to engage a suspect who massively outguns you. Only engage if cornered and there is no other way out.
powderdrunkieturns out the shooters wife knew about it the whole time. drove him to the club to "scope it out" and was with him when he bought guns and ammo. fucked.
Can I grab a source on that? Couldn't find anything. Actually found the opposite.
californiagrownIt's amazing how many opinions on here are just plain dumb and ignorant, and people get all pissy when I call them out for it. This however is a completely logical argument, and makes total sense... I just simply disagree with the ethics behind it.
I think the 2nd amendment has been totally antiquated for the past 70 years and should be stricken, personally. I think people hold the Constitution and bible in similar esteem as if it IS truth... forever.
So if 90 year old grandpa is attacked by a younger man he should have to defend himself physically, and should not be able to use a gun to defend himself?...even though self defence is legal?
Gods_FatherSo if 90 year old grandpa is attacked by a younger man he should have to defend himself physically, and should not be able to use a gun to defend himself?...even though self defence is legal?
that old man could use a taser to defend himself. It will stop the attacker and no one can use a taser to kill 53 people in a mass shooting. Last year there was 259 cases of justified self defense. 259 in a country with over 300 million guns. Not only is your argument flawed, but it's statistically insignificant.
S.J.Wthat old man could use a taser to defend himself. It will stop the attacker and no one can use a taser to kill 53 people in a mass shooting. Last year there was 259 cases of justified self defense. 259 in a country with over 300 million guns. Not only is your argument flawed, but it's statistically insignificant.
An old person is insignificant? Lol ok. Not sure how 259 cases is insignificant to you, as if those people's lives don't matter. 259 lives saved is quite a lot in my mind.
Gods_FatherAn old person is insignificant? Lol ok. Not sure how 259 cases is insignificant to you, as if those people's lives don't matter. 259 lives saved is quite a lot in my mind.
Gods_FatherSo if 90 year old grandpa is attacked by a younger man he should have to defend himself physically, and should not be able to use a gun to defend himself?...even though self defence is legal?
You know the first part of my post that you quoted? that doesnt apply to you.
Frankly, a 90 year old should very likely not have a gun OR a car. they are more than likely severely compromised both physically and mentally. Just like a drivers license, owning a gun should be a privilege that you should have to continually prove you are worthy of.
Gods_FatherAn old person is insignificant? Lol ok. Not sure how 259 cases is insignificant to you, as if those people's lives don't matter. 259 lives saved is quite a lot in my mind.
statistically insignificant. Meaning there isn't enough of a case to support your argument. But speaking of those 259 lives saved. They could be saved with a taser or pepper spray. But considering you think 259 lives is incredibly important then how do you feel about for every one gun used for a justified defence there is 34 murders, 78 gun suicides and 2 accidental gun deaths. That's 29,526 gun deaths that could be avoided by gun control. Which one do you think is more important?
californiagrownYou know the first part of my post that you quoted? that doesnt apply to you.
Frankly, a 90 year old should very likely not have a gun OR a car. they are more than likely severely compromised both physically and mentally. Just like a drivers license, owning a gun should be a privilege that you should have to continually prove you are worthy of.
What the fuck kind of shit statement is that? As if all 90 year olds are incapable and decrepit bodies?
S.J.Wstatistically insignificant. Meaning there isn't enough of a case to support your argument. But speaking of those 259 lives saved. They could be saved with a taser or pepper spray. But considering you think 259 lives is incredibly important then how do you feel about for every one gun used for a justified defence there is 34 murders, 78 gun suicides and 2 accidental gun deaths. That's 29,526 gun deaths that could be avoided by gun control. Which one do you think is more important?
You must be clinically insane if you think a 90 year old man could stop 5 men armed with weapons by using a taser or pepper spray. You cannot defend yourself from a gun with a taser or pepper spray. Nice claim though.
Gods_FatherYou must be clinically insane if you think a 90 year old man could stop 5 men armed with weapons by using a taser or pepper spray. You cannot defend yourself from a gun with a taser or pepper spray. Nice claim though.
so 259 people are more important than 29,526 people killed by guns? Got it.
So who should we prioritize with legislation and gun control? The 259 people a year who use a gun for self defence, or the 29,526 people are killed or commit suicide by gun every year. And you can have guns and not have the problems associated with guns. Switzerland has shown that, but because of the NRA people on the no fly list can still buy guns. The NRA blocked research into gun violence.
