Mass shooting in Florida--NF

[Dutch01]

Well for one he was never arrested or convicted for domestic assault

 

And as for he FBI investigation well.... Hillary Clinton is under FBI investigation and is running for the presidency... There's a problem

This is a deflection. Let's parse all the "what ifs" and make it simple.

 

Do you believe this individual should have been able to buy guns legally?

 

If yes, no change is required to maintain the status quo.

 

If no, then start supporting reasonable and effective background checks.

 

It's irksome that the pro gun lobby treats any suggestion of the smallest change as an automatic assault on the Constitution.

[FrankTheRabbit]

Well for one he was never arrested or convicted for domestic assault

 

And as for he FBI investigation well.... Hillary Clinton is under FBI investigation and is running for the presidency... There's a problem

 

And firearms didn't need to be used in London, Madrid and a slew of other places.

 

Mike Duffy, OJ Simpson, Kathleen Wynne, Dalton McGuinty etc were never convicted, so does that mean that they were innocent? And you paint him as being a radicalized Muslim...was he convicted of being a radicalized Muslim...but you're saying that he is because someone else said he was too, right? Well, his ex-wife said he was a domestic abuser, but you want to claim that he isn't because he was never arrested/convicted...

 

Hillary Clinton isn't out to buy a gun.

 

You can compare the USA vs London crime stats:

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Edited June 13, 2016 by FrankTheRabbit

[AKRISONER]

This is a deflection. Let's parse all the "what ifs" and make it simple.

 

Do you believe this individual should have been able to buy guns legally?

 

If yes, no change is required to maintain the status quo.

 

If no, then start supporting reasonable and effective background checks.

 

It's irksome that the pro gun lobby treats any suggestion of the smallest change as an automatic assault on the Constitution.

 

nailed it

[fish_fishburn]

Another lone wolf with mental issues.

[aplumma]

Why don't all you clowns admit you just like playing with guns? It's got nothing to do with freedom or the ridiculous notion of overthrowing an oppressive government. If you allow enough people to own assault rifles every once in a while a bunch of innocent people will lose their lives and families will be devastated. And all the idiotic arguments about banning cars and screwdrivers and knives and hammers come up and home defense blah blah blah. Watch Jim Jeffries stand up routine on gun control it outlines how Idiotic the whole argument is quite nicely.

 

First off to refer to ALL people who own guns as clowns removes all validity to your statement. Your slanted views and prejudism of something that you are not entitled to reek of either jealousy or you are trolling this forum. One will get you laughed at and the other will get you the scorn of the people on the forum. Please put more thought and be more careful with you wording.

By the logic being spouted by our friends here, from south of the border, they had better start updating the arsenal as I am sure that their government is constantly upgrading their arsenal. How on earth will you be able to fight your government, defend your rights, if the government has better guns then the public?

I'm starting to feel like I should not be feeling bad for the victims of this horrific event, but for all Americans who are being forced to live in a place where there is no right to live, just the right to defend.

HH

I do not believe that the average citizen is afraid the government is outpacing the masses with their arms available. The right to arms is and always has been to protect our shores from internal and external threats which is any armed force/person not just the government. We have to date militia that are still part of our culture and it has a value that some can not understand today but it was the reason we have our freedom in the past. The reason to live is the freedom you enjoy if you are in a place you are unhappy then it is not truly a good life.

 

I'm weighing in on this now only because of HH's comment. As Canadians, we cannot truly comprehend the depth of the gun culture in the US. Just as they cannot understand our aversion to it. This is because as HH illustrated, we view it from opposite angles. They see gun ownership as a right, as a basic need for life; food, shelter, security. We see it as something that erodes our security.

My work involves the small arms industry in Canada and the US. For perspective, I can confirm that one of the well known US firearms manufacturers produces 30,000 guns per MONTH. That's one manufacturer. In contrast, a top 3 Canadian manufacturer is about 6,000 per YEAR with the majority being exported.

I believe that Art believes every word he says and that if he owned a million guns himself the country would be safer than Canada. Unfortunately, that is not the case and the lack of control - of the few people that need it, is overshadowing the freedoms of the many that don't.

This is clearly a "when in Rome" scenario. If I lived in the US, in that culture...Art would be the first guy I'd call for a how to defend my family lesson. In reverse, if Art moved here, I could tell him to happily keep his collection of non prohibited firearms but the bedside home security stuff isn't necessary. Sleep easy.

With so many guns freely distributed the conversations about US gun control are about 100 years too late.

And with so many model countries that have low gun crime coupled with reasonable gun control, the choice to defend a wide open system that is clearly failing is a purposeful one. If the government tried any form of control now, they'd get their uprising sooner than later.

God bless the innocent that die needlessly and those that live in fear...in any country.

I actually do not want a million guns but I want the ability to own a million legally obtained guns through an avenue that attempts to keep them out of bad peoples hands. Some might be thinking that I am a person that spends lots of time with his gun. To put it in perspective I spend more time a year brushing my teeth than shooting my guns. If I were ever blessed to move to Canada I would leave all of my illegal arms in the USA because your governments laws have assured you it will be done that way. As I said and will say it is not my intent to change any ones mind on gun control it is a concept that is way to deep to debate on a forum when the people are looking at it from vastly different directions. Both from cultural and misinformation it would take a case of beer and 2 or 3 nights around a campfire to just get to neutral ground.

 

This is a deflection. Let's parse all the "what ifs" and make it simple.

 

Do you believe this individual should have been able to buy guns legally?

 

If yes, no change is required to maintain the status quo.

 

If no, then start supporting reasonable and effective background checks.

 

It's irksome that the pro gun lobby treats any suggestion of the smallest change as an automatic assault on the Constitution.

Actually the NRA is supportive of more regulation and training as long as it is not limiting law abiding citizens from purchasing the weapons available at this time. I have an observation from reading many of your posts: you attempt in discussions to make extremely complicated issues fit into a yes or no question which does not due justice to the issues we allow to be discussed here at OFC. Forcing a discussion into a yes or no format is a debating technique that while easier to argue usually loses the debate from lack of depth of subject matter.

 

Art

[AKRISONER]

n the people are looking at it from vastly different directions. Both from cultural and misinformation it would take a case of beer and 2 or 3 nights around a campfire to just get to neutral ground.

 

Actually the NRA is supportive of more regulation and training as long as it is not limiting law abiding citizens from purchasing the weapons available at this time. I have an observation from reading many of your posts: you attempt in discussions to make extremely complicated issues fit into a yes or no question which does not due justice to the issues we allow to be discussed here at OFC. Forcing a discussion into a yes or no format is a debating technique that while easier to argue usually loses the debate from lack of depth of subject matter.

 

Art

 

False, Obama attempted to introduce a more stringent background checking system and it was shot down immediately. Nowhere did it state that he would restrict the type of weapons available or stop anyone from legally purchasing weapons, it simply asked for a more stringent background checking system and the lobbyists completely shot it down.

[aplumma]

 

False, Obama attempted to introduce a more stringent background checking system and it was shot down immediately. Nowhere did it state that he would restrict the type of weapons available or stop anyone from legally purchasing weapons, it simply asked for a more stringent background checking system and the lobbyists completely shot it down.

Actually it was not supported because it took away the right for private citizens from selling arms. It was an attempt to make selling of guns over the internet and at gunshows illegal. This is already covered for a legal transaction you must have a licensed FFL do a back round check before purchase. This can now be run thru the data base quickly and effectively by gun shows who have FFL dealers available. It did not increase the back round checks it was only to define who can sell arms. If you read deeper you will find that a gun can be gifted within the state between 2 people with no back round check and only a Notary signature. This has been something that NRA and other responsible gun owners have been attempting to change.

More importantly he tried to do it as an executive order which he does not have the authority to do. We have Congress to hear the peoples wishes and act if a leader tries to bypass the will of the people. Politics is a sleazy arena with both sides claiming the other is wrong and immoral.

 

Art

[manitoubass2]

I just caught a bunch of crappies?

[BucktownAngler]

aplumma did you get hacked by billy bob

[Dutch01]

Actually the NRA is supportive of more regulation and training as long as it is not limiting law abiding citizens from purchasing the weapons available at this time. I have an observation from reading many of your posts: you attempt in discussions to make extremely complicated issues fit into a yes or no question which does not due justice to the issues we allow to be discussed here at OFC. Forcing a discussion into a yes or no format is a debating technique that while easier to argue usually loses the debate from lack of depth of subject matter.

 

Art

You are correct in your observation, Art. It is intentional on my part. You yourself observed that it is very difficult to get two polar opposites to come together over a forum. The discussion tends to devolve, in this case to banning hammers and cars, and the right to defense using guns versus the right to be safe from guns. It amounts to everybody in a room shouting their opinions.

 

When you find a possible area of compromise (in this case a review of the existing background check process), framing the question as I did can sometimes allow each party a means of softening their positions without losing face.

 

I would hazard a guess that almost all NRA members would agree Mateen should not have been able to buy those guns. It would be hard to argue otherwise in the face of what we know. Perhaps the question will force the "pros" to examine how and why he got them. Perhaps they will soften their position.

 

The "anti" lobby is frustrated by the intransigence of the NRA. If a compromise could be found here perhaps the two sides could be brought closer together.

 

I could be wrong, but that's an explanation of why I asked that specific question. It's a tactic I have used in business to find a way to move forward in small steps when dealing with two seemingly incongruent positions.

 

Finally, the word force is inaccurate. OFC members are free to answer or not answer ?

Edited June 14, 2016 by Dutch01

[SirCranksalot]

I am most comfortable shooting military style weapons with their optics and recoil reduction designs. The military really knows how to design a weapon. I have both styles military and hunting weapons and the AR15 goes to the range and is just as entertaining as my finest fishing rod on the water. If you haven't had the pleasure of shooting pistols or military weapons then you will never see my point here.

Art

 

Art,

 

I think you have explained the pleasure of owning and using these guns in a way that many of us non-gun owners can at least begin to understand. But are you really saying that some peoples' lives should be put in danger because because other, such as you, can have the pleasure of owning and using these guns?

[aplumma]

 

Art,

 

I think you have explained the pleasure of owning and using these guns in a way that many of us non-gun owners can at least begin to understand. But are you really saying that some peoples' lives should be put in danger because because other, such as you, can have the pleasure of owning and using these guns?

This is where we get in a little deeper into the politics and I am not a person who will discuss politics over the internet. If the government can change there definition of what you can have and what you can't have easily we would have so few freedoms and we would not understand them then society would be unguided. Case in point is look at the rules and regulations in Canada where each providence has different limits sizes restricted areas that it takes a lawyer to read them. I have been investigated, finger printed, and found to be nothing more than a law abiding citizen so why can't I have the legal gun of my choice? Do drivers licenses say you can only drive a station wagon instead of a Porsche ? I still say it is not the gun that is an issue I have never come home to find that one of my guns shot someone while I was out.

 

Art

[aplumma]

You are correct in your observation, Art. It is intentional on my part. You yourself observed that it is very difficult to get two polar opposites to come together over a forum. The discussion tends to devolve, in this case to banning hammers and cars, and the right to defense using guns versus the right to be safe from guns. It amounts to everybody in a room shouting their opinions.

 

When you find a possible area of compromise (in this case a review of the existing background check process), framing the question as I did can sometimes allow each party a means of softening their positions without losing face.

 

I would hazard a guess that almost all NRA members would agree Mateen should not have been able to buy those guns. It would be hard to argue otherwise in the face of what we know. Perhaps the question will force the "pros" to examine how and why he got them. Perhaps they will soften their position.

 

The "anti" lobby is frustrated by the intransigence of the NRA. If a compromise could be found here perhaps the two sides could be brought closer together.

 

I could be wrong, but that's an explanation of why I asked that specific question. It's a tactic I have used in business to find a way to move forward in small steps when dealing with two seemingly incongruent positions.

 

Finally, the word force is inaccurate. OFC members are free to answer or not answer

You are correct sir Force is the wrong word. I was at a loss for a less forceful word at the time.

 

Art

[aplumma]

aplumma did you get hacked by billy bob

Nope I gets all of them their thoughts all by my selfs

 

Art

[aplumma]

I just caught a bunch of crappies

Bring em over and we can clean them with my gun.Lol

 

 

Art

[dave524]

aplumma did you get hacked by billy bob

 

Miss Billy Bob from Buffalo and that GCD guy from Hogswaller .

[Dutch01]

Bring em over and we can clean them with my gun.Lol

 

 

Art

?

[Headhunter]

A quick Google check indicates that toddlers in the U.S. have killed more people in 2015 than terrorists. So far this year, 23 people have been killed by toddlers in the U.S..

Please don't start with the analogy of how many people have been killed in cars this year we all know that toddlers can't reach the pedals and steer at the same time.

HH

 

Ps - to Art

I hope you understand that the reason we do this kind of thing is that we care about our neighbours to the south. If we didn't care, we would be up here eating popcorn watching the carnage ensue.

[netminder]

I really hate how every time something like this happens the topic immediately goes to gun control. Gun control is definitely part of the problem, but almost equally, and maybe even morseo in some cases, the issue includes:

 

-mental health

-religion

-radicalizing religion

-homophobia

-bigotry

-racism

-sexism

-bullying

-marginalization

-failures of past administrations allowing these radical groups to prosper

-cultural violence

-etc.

 

To say that banning the "other" religion or banning guns of some sort will make this go away is very short sighted and narrow minded. There is so much to this it's difficult to debate.

 

If you want my narrow minded opinion, removing hatred and vengeance from society is where we should start. Yes, it's true, people kill people. We should try to make it so people don't want to kill each other.

[AKRISONER]

Actually it was not supported because it took away the right for private citizens from selling arms. It was an attempt to make selling of guns over the internet and at gunshows illegal. This is already covered for a legal transaction you must have a licensed FFL do a back round check before purchase. This can now be run thru the data base quickly and effectively by gun shows who have FFL dealers available. It did not increase the back round checks it was only to define who can sell arms. If you read deeper you will find that a gun can be gifted within the state between 2 people with no back round check and only a Notary signature. This has been something that NRA and other responsible gun owners have been attempting to change.

More importantly he tried to do it as an executive order which he does not have the authority to do. We have Congress to hear the peoples wishes and act if a leader tries to bypass the will of the people. Politics is a sleazy arena with both sides claiming the other is wrong and immoral.

 

Art

can you please explain to me exactly how this limits ones ability to attain a gun? It does not...it simply makes it more difficult.

[OhioFisherman]

I think it's our water! We need Canada's!

[BassMan11]

I really hate how every time something like this happens the topic immediately goes to gun control. Gun control is definitely part of the problem, but almost equally, and maybe even morseo in some cases, the issue includes:

 

-mental health

-religion

-radicalizing religion

-homophobia

-bigotry

-racism

-sexism

-bullying

-marginalization

-failures of past administrations allowing these radical groups to prosper

-cultural violence

-etc.

 

To say that banning the "other" religion or banning guns of some sort will make this go away is very short sighted and narrow minded. There is so much to this it's difficult to debate.

 

If you want my narrow minded opinion, removing hatred and vengeance from society is where we should start. Yes, it's true, people kill people. We should try to make it so people don't want to kill each other.

The easy answer to this are that guns (an item) would be easier to try to control than people.

 

E.g......A religious radical wants to carry out a mass shooting, what would be easier to do?

a ) Change his mind on his religious beliefs about something that have been instilled in him since he was born.

b ) Make it impossible for this person to buy a military grade rifle legally despite how easily he passes a background check.

 

I know my answer.

Edited June 14, 2016 by BassMan11

[DRIFTER_016]

The easy answer to this are that guns (an item) would be easier to try to control than people.

 

E.g......A religious radical wants to carry out a mass shooting, what would be easier to do?

a ) Change his mind on his religious beliefs about something that have been instilled in him since he was born.

b ) Make it impossible for this person to buy a military grade rifle legally despite how easily he passes a background check.

 

I know my answer.

 

You do realize that the average Joe can not purchase a military grade firearm right?

The AR style firearms are semi-automatic no different than a lot of hunting rifles available.

They look similar to military firearms but do not have the ability to run fully auto like military firearms do.

A lot of people seem to think because they "look" like military firearms that they "are" military firearms.

Even politicians in the US.

 

This is a Ruger 10-22

A 22 caliber semi-auto firearm.

 

 

This is a Ruger 10-22 Tactical.

It's the exact same gun with different trim.

 

A 22 caliber semi-auto firearm.

 

Here's a before and after pic of a conversion.

It shoots no different other than having different trim and a larger magazine.

It's the same gun but it looks different so it must be bad.

 

[BassMan11]

 

You do realize that the average Joe can not purchase a military grade firearm right?

The AR style firearms are semi-automatic no different than a lot of hunting rifles available.

They look similar to military firearms but do not have the ability to run fully auto like military firearms do.

A lot of people seem to think because they "look" like military firearms that they "are" military firearms.

Even politicians in the US.

 

This is a Ruger 10-22

A 22 caliber semi-auto firearm.

 

 

This is a Ruger 10-22 Tactical.

It's the exact same gun with different trim.

 

A 22 caliber semi-auto firearm.

 

Here's a before and after pic of a conversion.

It shoots no different other than having different trim and a larger magazine.

It's the same gun but it looks different so it must be bad.

 

And what's the point of being able to turn a normal hunting rifle into a tactical weapon is what again?

 

Why do normal everyday people need that weapon in that trim? I was looking for a hunting version of the AR-15 but I couldn't seem to find one.

 

Dave... don't get me wrong I like guns..... I love going to the range and shooting trap / skeet, and even targets with my hunting rifles.

Edited June 14, 2016 by BassMan11

[DRIFTER_016]

 

Why do normal everyday people need that weapon in that trim? I was looking for a hunting version of the AR-15 but I couldn't seem to find one.

 

 

Because people like to play GI Joe.

 

It is just trim and bling, no different than some shiny rims on your car.

People like to customize their stuff, whether it be a car, a gun or fishing tackle.

I had some custom work done on my Weatherby OU trap gun. My upgrade made it fit me better so my shooting improved.

I didn't do it for looks but there are those that like the tactical look. Not really any different than the fisherman that loves his split grip micro guide custom bass rods.