5 hours ago, stevizzle123 said:

It was a soft target there isnt much security to speak of at the club with exception of off duty officers working a detail which there was one one officer last night. Maybe if there were more officers working or if security was tighter more lives could have been saved or this could have been prevented.

I dont think there is anything we can do to prevent these events from happening besides tightening security at places where large groups of people gather. Which is almost impossible to do. 

 

 

 

It does not matter how many security details a nightclub has whether they are sworn off-duty officers or not. Plus I know some police agencies across the US disallow officers to moonshine at nightclubs by policy. 

It's extremely unfortunate for two shooting events in the beautiful city of Orlando also in regards to a singer who was shot and killed in Orlando yesterday. 

Even if guns weren't invented a thousand years ago. People will still continue to find a way to attack, hurt, and kill each other. Shootings in the UK are extremely low since firearms are entirely banned vs. the US statistics, however, even some thugs are able to obtain firearms.

5 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I'm not criticizing the officer, I'm criticizing those that believe having one armed officer was sufficient enough to stop the shooting. The officer did his job, and I'm sure he did it as well as he could have. 

That's because gangs and criminals know that the people are unarmed. They don't have to worry about mugging someone and then being shot in the back the second they turn and run with their wallet. This is why gun laws don't make any sense. You should target the person holding the gun, not the gun. The gun will always be there, the person and the incentive won't. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for gun-grabbers to comprehend. 

 

 

 

Gun laws are enacted partly due to the pressure of anti-gun advocate groups and the political pressure the lawmakers have to face.

EVEN if guns were banned entirely in the US as of now, we will still continue to have some gun violence because guns that people currently own and that are still out there won't simply disappear like a ghost and fade away once the complete ban on guns gets signed into law.

It really stinks this senseless gun killing will always go on. It give us gun owners and law abiding citizens a bad name.

I do agree that not EVERYONE should own a firearm. It requires a huge amount of mental discretion, responsibility, composure, and bravery. Firearms are our last line of defense, NOT a tool of leverage, or a tool for retaliation. Imagine if another shooting was to take place. You would have to draw your firearm to put down the attacker in amidst of the chaos that surrounds, such as, people running, and the screaming crowd desperately trying to find safety. 

Going to be a bit off but the law enforcement society is continuing to be chastised by politics and public opinions instated by news agencies as many good police officers properly doing their jobs, no one is ever appreciate what Orlando PD, Orange County Sheriff, and the several law enforcement agencies that came to save countless lives of the Pulse Shooting.

Pardon for all my rants, I constantly feel our society is getting dumber and simple minded.

Edited June 13, 20169 yr by wteoh1
Fixing grammar, better pronunciation

40 minutes ago, wteoh1 said:

It does not matter how many security details a nightclub has. Plus I know some police agencies across the US disallow officers to moonshine at nightclubs by policy. 

It's extremely unfortunate for two shooting events in the beautiful city of Orlando also in regards to a singer who was shot and killed in Orlando yesterday. 

Even if guns weren't invented a thousand years ago. People will still continue to attack, hurt, and kill each other. Shootings in the UK are extremely low compared to the US statistics but even some thugs are able to obtain firearms.

Gun laws are enacted partly due to anti-gun advocates and the political pressure the lawmakers have to face.

EVEN if guns were banned entirely in the US as of now, we will still continue to have some gun violence because gun won't simply disappear and fade away once the complete ban on guns gets signed into law.

It really stinks this senseless gun killing will always go on. It give us gun owners and law abiding citizens a bad name.

Especially the law enforcement society is continued to be chastised by politics and public opinions by news agencies and such by good officers properly doing their jobs, no one is ever appreciate what Orlando PD, Orange County Sheriff, and the several law enforcement agencies that came to save the lives of the Pulse Shooting.

Pardon for all my rants, I constantly feel our society is getting dumber and simple minded.

I'm not disagreeing with you man, what you're saying is absolutely correct. Our society has become so basic and simple-minded that we don't care to explore any solutions to problems. We think that we can just pass a law and everything will fix itself, and it's really not that simple.

2 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

He would not have shot the club up if everyone was armed. A terrorist wants to murder those that can't fight back. Walking into a club where everyone is armed wouldn't help him accomplish that goal. That's the entire purpose of a terrorist, is to terrorize and murder the innocent. This guy didn't rob the place, he didn't take any money or valuables. He simply walked in and killed people. What's the purpose of shooting a place up if you don't plan on gaining any substance from it? To terrorize the people, it's called terrorism. This man was a terrorist. He called 911 and pledged allegiance to the leaders of ISIS. I just want to know how this happened if we have strict gun laws in place. These laws were supposed to prevent this from happening, right?

Please look up images of "gay night club", and explain how a dozen concealed handguns in that room will make everyone safer. 

Edited June 12, 20169 yr by Riley24

3 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Please look up images of "gay night club", and explain how a dozen concealed handguns in that room will make everyone safer. 

You've completely missed the concept, which people always seem to do. The point is that a shooter isn't going to shoot a place up when, not even everyone, simply a few others have guns and are trained to use them. There's a reason why Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, has some of the worst gun violence in the nation.

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

You've completely missed the concept, which people always seem to do. The point is that a shooter isn't going to shoot a place up when, not even everyone, simply a few others have guns and are trained to use them. There's a reason why Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, has some of the worst gun violence in the nation.

In order for that to work, there would have to be guns every night in every nightclub across the country. And if its not a nightclub, its a retirement home. if its not a retirement home, its a school. We can't escape our vulnerability by saying "ah, if only they had guns". Because that's an argument for putting guns EVERYWHERE. SO lets say we do that. How many drunk people in nightclubs accidentally shoot themselves or people around them? How many people's guns get stolen as they're dancing? Honestly, its a silly suggestion.

And you're aware that in the case of Chicago, guns come from out of the city limits where gun laws are looser, right? Chicago isn't a case study for less gun control, its a case study for more.

.

Edited June 14, 20169 yr by Prophet

5 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

In order for that to work, there would have to be guns every night in every nightclub across the country. And if its not a nightclub, its a retirement home. if its not a retirement home, its a school. We can't escape our vulnerability by saying "ah, if only they had guns". Because that's an argument for putting guns EVERYWHERE. SO lets say we do that. How many drunk people in nightclubs accidentally shoot themselves or people around them? How many people's guns get stolen as they're dancing? Honestly, its a silly suggestion.

And you're aware that in the case of Chicago, guns come from out of the city limits where gun laws are looser, right? Chicago isn't a case study for less gun control, its a case study for more.

Well I think it's common sense that we aren't going to just randomly give people guns, let them go get drunk, and then expect them to behave responsibly with the firearm. We aren't going to let people leave guns all over the place while they drop it like it's hot on the dance floor. That's just plain retarded, and nobody here agrees with that at all. What we're trying to say is that if we had responsible, law-abiding, gun owning citizens in that club, it probably wouldn't have been shot up and less people would have been killed if it had been. A terrorist isn't going to run up inside of a building where people have guns. Not even terrorists are that stupid.

Guns coming from out of the city are irrelevant to the fact that gun crime is skyrocketing in Chicago, and gun laws are strict. In fact, you've just helped prove another point. Guns are nearly impossible to legally obtain in Chicago, so the criminals do what? They go somewhere else and get their guns, then go into the city where no one legally owns a gun, and commit crime because they know there won't be any resistance.

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

Well I think it's common sense that we aren't going to just randomly give people guns, let them go get drunk, and then expect them to behave responsibly with the firearm. We aren't going to let people leave guns all over the place while they drop it like it's hot on the dance floor. That's just plain retarded, and nobody here agrees with that at all. What we're trying to say is that if we had responsible, law-abiding, gun owning citizens in that club, it probably wouldn't have been shot up and less people would have been killed if it had been. A terrorist isn't going to run up inside of a building where people have guns. Not even terrorists are that stupid.

Guns coming from out of the city are irrelevant to the fact that gun crime is skyrocketing in Chicago, and gun laws are strict. In fact, you've just helped prove another point. Guns are nearly impossible to legally obtain in Chicago, so the criminals do what? They go somewhere else and get their guns, then go into the city where no one legally owns a gun, and commit crime because they know there won't be any resistance.

You're just framing it in a different light. You're using the words "responsible, law-abiding, gun owning citizens" while completely ignoring the reality of the kinds of people that are currently allowed to own and carry guns. Please explain what you imagine a preferable solution would be. A handful of concealed carry guys in that nightclub, not drinking and not dancing? What are they doing there, just sitting around waiting for ISIS to roll in? Firearm responsibly and alcohol don't mix, so I'm guessing that's what you mean?

Actually...you literally just said my point. I support stricter gun laws nation-wide, so that criminals in Chicago can't drive out of the city and buy a gun. And also, they don't commit their crimes in Chicago because no one has guns there. I'd at least like to see evidence for that, it sounds like you're assigning motive to crimes because it fits the classic NRA narrative. Its far more logical that they commit crimes in the city because thats where they live. 

Since it's happening all over again, I'll just put what I think about it.

More guns won't save the problem. It'll just turn the whole place in an OK Corral re-enactment. No one wants to walk in the street and having to scan the crowd to try and see who has a gun and who could use it against them.

Less guns won't work, because you 'muricans are like 'u no touch amendment'.

So the middle ground is to increase gun control. Not to remove all of them. But to make them way more difficult to obtain. With stricter procedures.

That guy, who shot people in that club in Orlando that night. Apparently he got interrogated by the FBI twice in the past. How come he still had the ability to buy firearms legally? Someone who has been interrogated by the federals twice is surely not someone you would consider safe or stable, so why not making him unelligible to get a weapon?

Same with the random citizen. If someone wants a gun, they should go through a tougher procedure. Campaigns about gun abuse and gun violence. Not to dissuade them to get one, but to warn them it's a weapon, not a toy. Also give them lessons on how to use a gun safely, how to maintain it. Also make them pass a psychiatric test. And a thorough background check. Someone got arrested for a brawl? No gun. Someone got arrested for violence? No gun. And that all across the country.

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

That guy, who shot people in that club in Orlando that night. Apparently he got interrogated by the FBI twice in the past. How come he still had the ability to buy firearms legally? Someone who has been interrogated by the federals twice is surely not someone you would consider safe or stable, so why not making him unelligible to get a weapon?

Same with the random citizen. If someone wants a gun, they should go through a tougher procedure. Campaigns about gun abuse and gun violence. Not to dissuade them to get one, but to warn them it's a weapon, not a toy. Also give them lessons on how to use a gun safely, how to maintain it. Also make them pass a psychiatric test. And a thorough background check. Someone got arrested for a brawl? No gun. Someone got arrested for violence? No gun. And that all across the country.

Florida gun laws are infamously loose. The suspect in this case apparently bought his guns legally, so its probable that he bought them in-state. This is the third time that someone under FBI investigation has bought guns legally and used them in mass killing (See: San Bernandino and Charleston mass shootings). We DEFINITELY need a federalized and efficient system for vetting potential gun buyers. At the very least to stop known terror suspects from getting freaking AR-15s, but also the great suggestions you mentioned.

Pretty much what Hystery and Riley said. Creating "gun free zones" and tightening city/state laws won't solve much, the entire country needs to conform to national laws regarding firearms.

58 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

You're just framing it in a different light. You're using the words "responsible, law-abiding, gun owning citizens" while completely ignoring the reality of the kinds of people that are currently allowed to own and carry guns.

Please explain what you imagine a preferable solution would be. A handful of concealed carry guys in that nightclub, not drinking and not dancing? What are they doing there, just sitting around waiting for ISIS to roll in? Firearm responsibly and alcohol don't mix, so I'm guessing that's what you mean?

Actually...you literally just said my point. I support stricter gun laws nation-wide, so that criminals in Chicago can't drive out of the city and buy a gun. And also, they don't commit their crimes in Chicago because no one has guns there. I'd at least like to see evidence for that, it sounds like you're assigning motive to crimes because it fits the classic NRA narrative. Its far more logical that they commit crimes in the city because thats where they live. 

I use those words because law abiding citizens aren't going to break the law. What you aren't understanding is that new gun laws only affect those that obey the law, and those that probably wouldn't have broken previous laws to begin with. It doesn't matter what you decide to write down on paper, criminals aren't going to abide. They're going to get their guns, either legally or illegally depending on the strictness of the laws, and they're going to do what they do best; break the law and commit their crime. When you pass a gun law, you're telling the law abiding population that they can no longer do something. As I've been saying this entire time, criminals are going to continue to do it, regardless of how strict the laws are. Why do you think that making something law will fix all of our problems? That's a very naive way to think. "Let's pass another law and everything will be good to go".

The bar staff could have guns. Club security could have the guns. Not every single person that goes to a club or a bar is there to get smashed or break dance on the middle of the dance floor. I don't know what the specific circumstances surrounding the permitting of guns into a club or bar would be. It depends on the bar, the clientele, and the area, the policy of that particular property, existing laws in the area, you can't just set a generic procedure.

Yes they do commit their crimes in Chicago because no one has guns there. When a criminal wants something, he intends on getting it. He doesn't want to shoot people to get that cash register from the 7/11. He doesn't want to shoot the person who's car he's trying to jack. He doesn't want to shoot the owners of the home he just broke in to. He wants to get in, grab the valuables, get out, and get away. Since people can't legally possess firearms in Chicago, this puts the criminal at an advantage. He doesn't need to worry about getting shot in the back when he turns and runs with a stolen wallet. He doesn't need to worry about the homeowner coming downstairs with an assault rifle and spraying him against the wall. He doesn't need to worry about the person who's car he's trying to steal pulling a gun on them. He can commit his crime, grab what he wants, and roll out. Not a fear in the world, not a worry at all.

There's always motive to crime. Whether the motive is to gain valuables, to spread fear, or because you're bored. The idea that someone would commit crime in Chicago simply because they live in Chicago doesn't make any sense, and I've never heard anyone say that. Of course they're going to commit crime where they live. A mugger isn't going to fly from Los Angeles to London to mug someone in a back alley. He's going to walk up the street and see what he can do right in the area. That doesn't necessarily mean that that's his motive to committing the crime. It can easily just be the simple fact that it's convenient and common sense to commit crime in his local area.

Edited June 12, 20169 yr by TheDivineHustle

Off-Topic posts have been removed. Let's be respectful in regards to this incident when discussing this, and be civilized and respectful with each others opinions. There is no need to turn this into a war inside of the thread.

11 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

What you aren't understanding is that new gun laws only affect those that obey the law, and those that probably wouldn't have broken previous laws to begin with.

I... don't quite get your reasoning on this one. Obviously laws are made for those who don't abide to them. For the exact reason that that way, they can get punished for not abiding to them. Laws are made so we can punish those trespassing them. For example, an area where gun control is stricter, and a bad guy still uses a gun, can get an heavier sentence for using said gun, instead of just getting away with the regular charges. That's the thought process behind it.

 

3 minutes ago, Ben said:

Off-Topic posts have been removed. Let's be respectful in regards to this incident when discussing this, and be civilized and respectful with each others opinions. There is no need to turn this into a war inside of the thread.

To be perfectly honest here, if it was truly respectful in regards to this incident, it should have remained a thread about sending condolences and thoughts to people, and not yet again a 256156th debate about the exact same thing.

This is a thread in a discussion Forum, as such people are within the rules to offer their opinions, but also their condolences. The Community Team will closely watch the thread however, to ensure the posts conform to the Community Guidelines.

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

I... don't quite get your reasoning on this one. Obviously laws are made for those who don't abide to them. For the exact reason that that way, they can get punished for not abiding to them. Laws are made so we can punish those trespassing them. For example, an area where gun control is stricter, and a bad guy still uses a gun, can get an heavier sentence for using said gun, instead of just getting away with the regular charges. That's the thought process behind it.

 

To be perfectly honest here, if it was truly respectful in regards to this incident, it should have remained a thread about sending condolences and thoughts to people, and not yet again a 256156th debate about the exact same thing.

It's not the same with guns in the United States, the thought process of using that concept for other circumstances doesn't exactly work for laws pertaining to guns. The reason being that guns are a 2nd amendment right. We actually value the US Constitution, which is why this is a problem in the United States. When you restrict guns you're not only (trying) to hurt the criminals, you're hurting law abiding gun owners more than anything.

On 6/12/2016 at 7:08 PM, Hystery said:

 

Edited June 14, 20169 yr by Prophet

6 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

It's not the same with guns in the United States, the thought process of using that concept for other circumstances doesn't exactly work for laws pertaining to guns. The reason being that guns are a 2nd amendment right. We actually value the US Constitution, which is why this is a problem in the United States. When you restrict guns you're not only (trying) to hurt the criminals, you're hurting law abiding gun owners more than anything.

Understandable point of view, though damageable, at least in my opinion. Thanks for clearing this out.

 

6 minutes ago, Prophet said:

Too bad this thought process is irrelevant in preventing the crime in the first place.

If we follow your logic, why making laws in the first place, since non-abiding criminals won't abide to them anyway? That's a flawed trail of thought. Laws are made to punish people from trespassing them, and that punishment is what should prevent them from doing so.

13 minutes ago, Ben said:

This is a thread in a discussion Forum, as such people are within the rules to offer their opinions, but also their condolences. The Community Team will closely watch the thread however, to ensure the posts conform to the Community Guidelines.

Does a conversation about gun control count as on-topic, since we're using this case as an example for possible solutions? Just want to make sure.

.

Edited June 14, 20169 yr by Prophet