Shooting in Florida

buzzedThink This and other shootings would have happened if assault weapons were illegal? Think of how many people have died because of people fighting for gun rights. Have your pistols rifles and shot guns and out law weapons designed for mass killings like the one used this morning.

S.J.WSo 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.

Gods_FatherHey I love Switzerland and never said I liked the nra lol

S.J.WYou still haven't answered the question. With regards to legislation and gun control what is more important? 259 people saved by guns or 29,526 killed by guns?

.Hugo.You dont even know what an assault rifle is

cornholioyou can be denied a gun for a number of reasons also (although probably not enough reasons)

whiteboiYeah then what the fuck is an assault rifle? An assault rifle is a rapid fire, automatic (or semi-automatic rifle. Look it up dip shit

Gods_FatherWhat the fuck kind of shit statement is that? As if all 90 year olds are incapable and decrepit bodies?

S.J.WYou still haven't answered the question. With regards to legislation and gun control what is more important? 259 people saved by guns or 29,526 killed by guns?

californiagrownJust like a drivers license, owning a gun should be a privilege that you should have to continually prove you are worthy of.

Charlie_KellyThats not the point Im trying to make. People vehemetly defend the right to bear arms simply because it is written in the constitution. Yet the majority of those same people dont consider healthcare a right. It is terrible logic.

californiagrownThey 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.

THEDIRTYBUBBLEI don't believe it is morally justified to enslave people to an economic collective wether or not it goes against their will.

cornholioMaybe its terrible logic, but more so just a poor comparison. Youre talking apples to oranges

Charlie_KellyEh, it really just goes to show where many Americans priorities lie...I realize its a stretch but I just find it funny. It came up in the Bernie thread with Compeador about how healthcare isn't a right (or its a negative of positive right, whatever bullshit that was). America gets so upset when there is even mention of taking guns away but wheres the outrage when nearly 30 million Americans go uninsured and subsequently can't afford healthcare? I know this really isn't the place to have this debate but I just couldn't help saying something...

onenerdykidTo your earlier point about healthcare falling under the clause of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and therefore a right, I would also draw the same analogy to gun falling under the same conditions. The right to life does include within it the right to not be killed and therefore owning a gun can be a measure of self defense. Within this argument, the right to own a gun seems to be justified. We can for sure debate then what types of guns are best suited or not for this, and it would at least seem to me that since a high powered rifle is primarily a "long" distance weapon (as opposed to a hand gun, at least) is not. It's hard to make the argument for self defense with a gun like the AR-15 since your target is normally far enough away from you that he's not posing such an immediate threat that shooting him is your only option.

But I definitely agree with the latter part of your argument. Owning a highly destructive weapon like a gun needs to require proper training and education, something at least similar to a driver's license, preferably a pilot's license even. Additionally, not only should background checks and mental health checks be performed before the sale of the gun but they should be done routinely post-sale as well. The government doesn't need to take away guns, but it does need to ensure the safety of its citizens, which is one of its primary and direct duties. There can be far more done on this topic long before the conversation of "taking away/banning all guns" comes up.

californiagrownNo 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.

That's my $1.98. you can have your $0.02 back.

MikeWeinerONEYou are permitted to carry a concealed weapon into a bar or liquor establishment as long as you have a conceal carry permit.

onenerdykidTo your earlier point about healthcare falling under the clause of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and therefore a right, I would also draw the same analogy to gun falling under the same conditions. The right to life does include within it the right to not be killed and therefore owning a gun can be a measure of self defense. Within this argument, the right to own a gun seems to be justified. We can for sure debate then what types of guns are best suited or not for this, and it would at least seem to me that since a high powered rifle is primarily a "long" distance weapon (as opposed to a hand gun, at least) is not. It's hard to make the argument for self defense with a gun like the AR-15 since your target is normally far enough away from you that he's not posing such an immediate threat that shooting him is your only option.

But I definitely agree with the latter part of your argument. Owning a highly destructive weapon like a gun needs to require proper training and education, something at least similar to a driver's license, preferably a pilot's license even. Additionally, not only should background checks and mental health checks be performed before the sale of the gun but they should be done routinely post-sale as well. The government doesn't need to take away guns, but it does need to ensure the safety of its citizens, which is one of its primary and direct duties. There can be far more done on this topic long before the conversation of "taking away/banning all guns" comes up.

californiagrownno, but almost all of them are incapable and do have decrepit bodies. Some can still drive, most dont. It takes one helluva lot more strength to quickly draw and accurately fire a gun than it does to drive a car... yet the vast majority of 90 year olds arent operating cars anymore.


Hey man, im just using basic logic to show you how terrible your example was.

californiagrown1) you're wrong, and in my mind an irresponsible gun owner now.
https://www.uslawshield.com/florida-gun-law/

2) why would you ever carry into a place where lots of drunk people making irrational decisions are? That, IMO, is looking to shoot someone instead of using your words or fists.

Gods_FatherWhat's so terrible about the right to use self defence?

californiagrownI disagree that guns should be considered as part of that right to life-. I believe that right is there announce you're right to life, and societies responsibility to protect it through laws, the judicial system and law enforcement.

However I also agree with a person's right to self defense. And like you said, there are too many guns out there that serve no other purpose than recreational broomsticks.

californiagrownBy all means defend yourself if avoidance is not an option. But you should have to prove you can defend yourself without being an undue danger to society. A gun can be a very dangerous thing- you should have to prove you can operate it safely and competently. I don't understand what you aren't understanding here?

Gods_FatherWhat I don't agree with is that old people are more than likely too compromised to operate a vehicle or firearm.

californiagrownWell, facts and statistics would disagree with you, but why let those get on the way of your opinions, right?

Gods_FatherWhat I don't agree with is that old people are more than likely too compromised to operate a vehicle or firearm.

Gods_FatherSo there are no 'old people' who can operate a vehicle or a firearm? Facts and statistics would disagree.

californiagrownYou were talking about 90 year olds. You also were talking about "more than likely".

I'm sorry but I cannot read your mind, all I can do is read your posts.

Sure there are exceptional 90+ year old people who are fit to operate a car and a gun. But they are the exception. After the age of 70, IMO, people should have to pass annual competency tests for firearms and cars.

Gods_FatherAn annual test when you're 70 years old to drive a vehicle? Fair enough but I think 70 is too young. What kind of 70 year olds have you been acquainted with lol? My grandfather drove everyday well into his late 80s and never had an accident.

Gods_FatherAn annual test when you're 70 years old to drive a vehicle? Fair enough but I think 70 is too young. What kind of 70 year olds have you been acquainted with lol? My grandfather drove everyday well into his late 80s and never had an accident.

californiagrownWhat percentage of 70 year olds do you suspect should not be on the road?

Gods_FatherHaven't you seen the shooter's name? This was a terrorist attack carried out by an islamist. Apparently Isis announced they were going to attack Florida days before the shooting.

Turd.FergusonAlso, the term is "Muslim" I'm not exactly sure "islamist" is a word.

Gods_FatherLol not going to guess but a lot lower than what you suspect. I work at a golf course and there are loads of 70 year olds who play 18 holes and drive themselves to the course.

californiagrownThat's like saying most americans are super healthy because you work at a gym in America and see them all the time haha

SkiBum.I heard the alagator that ate the kid today in Orlando had an AR-15 too. They let anyone have them these days.

Ban all alagators.

no_steezeWhat 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

CampeadorThe religion of peace strikes again.

And the rats will blame it on the USA.

Banning guns has worked wonders for Paris. If Muslims can't get a gun, they won't try to kill you.

S.J.WSo how do you feel that it's come out that the man was gay, not very religious at all, mentally ill and abusive towards his wife??? Still going to blame it on his religion. Curious as to how you can spin this.

jblaskiHe called 911 to pledge his allegiance to ISIS, AND he posted on Facebook while the event was taking place to again state his allegiance to ISIS.

Saying that religion wasn't the cause of this is asinine.

californiagrownAfter the age of 70, IMO, people should have to pass annual competency tests for firearms and cars.

californiagrownMy guess is the guy was a closet gay, who hated himself and other gays for that. Finally snapped, went to shoot up the club because he was inspired by ISIS attacks, not its religious philosophies, it's power and violence. He then pledged allegiance to ISIS do he could feel a part of some bigger thing and so that his actions wouldn't be considered what they are- the actions of a lone gunman taking out his self hatred on those like him.

californiagrownMy guess is the guy was a closet gay, who hated himself and other gays for that. Finally snapped, went to shoot up the club because he was inspired by ISIS attacks, not its religious philosophies, it's power and violence. He then pledged allegiance to ISIS do he could feel a part of some bigger thing and so that his actions wouldn't be considered what they are- the actions of a lone gunman taking out his self hatred on those like him.

Idk, that's all just like, my opinion, man.

Bushdid9_11I think this dude said it perfectly