mass shooting in orlando

[bostonmick]

So we may or may not have had a room with guns in and if there were then none were used for defence.and a worker who was allowed to carry only had a brief engagement with the killer so his desire to truly defend himself or others was obviously not that great as the reports state the gunman took his own life.and if the rule is no guns allowed how did he manage to slip in with his assault weapons.

[Dekers]

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.^[1][2][3][4]

 

 

 

There is still going to be a big issue restricting guns in the US even after this terrible incident, the NRA in the US is massive and carries a lot of votes.

 

"IF" any politician were brave enough, and could actually get enough support to change the constitution their political career would almost certainly be over at the next election.

 

Just the realistic situation, not a comment on the right or wrong!

[Rewulf]

So we may or may not have had a room with guns in and if there were then none were used for defence.and a worker who was allowed to carry only had a brief engagement with the killer so his desire to truly defend himself or others was obviously not that great as the reports state the gunman took his own life.and if the rule is no guns allowed how did he manage to slip in with his assault weapons.

The way I have read it ,and this may not be fully accurate ,as they are still piecing together the chain of events.

The gunman attempted to gain entry where a brief firefight started with an armed worker.

The worker was either killed,injured or made his escape.

After this the gunman was able to enter the nightclub and begin shooting again.

Whether there was a gun check in room at Pulse ,would make little difference to innocent people surprised by a heavily armed ,and obviously determined attacker.

I also heard the gunman died in a firefight with SWAT teams,nothing was said about him taking his own life.

[bostonmick]

The way I have read it ,and this may not be fully accurate ,as they are still piecing together the chain of events.

The gunman attempted to gain entry where a brief firefight started with an armed worker.

The worker was either killed,injured or made his escape.

After this the gunman was able to enter the nightclub and begin shooting again.

Whether there was a gun check in room at Pulse ,would make little difference to innocent people surprised by a heavily armed ,and obviously determined attacker.

I also heard the gunman died in a firefight with SWAT teams,nothing was said about him taking his own life.

It would appear from later reports the killer was shot by swat team.i really cannot understand how after so many mass shootings every year the population still allows it's government to do nothing.but I guess that's freedom for you.lets all hope we never enjoy such freedoms here.

[Jamesey1981]

I can see good reasons can be made for people having hand guns for self defence and target shooting shotguns for home defence and clays and hunting and rifles for game hunting but I can see no reason to have a AR or AK47 type gun.

 

YES

You're sounding a bit like one of the antis there to be honest, any gun is only as dangerous as the person using it, a nutter with a shotgun is just as much a threat to your safety as a nutter with an AK47.

 

There are many reasons to own an AR in the USA, competitive target shooting for one, and also just because you can.

 

Restricting a type of gun wouldn't have made any difference, he'd just have used a different one, assuming he wanted to stay within the law and wouldn't just obtain one illegally, pretty sure murdering people is illegal even in America and that didn't seem to bother him, and if you're shooting at people that are unsuspecting, unarmed and in a confined space you'll kill a lot of them whichever firearm you choose to use and whether you've bought it legally or not.

 

The answer is for the Americans to stop murderous savages like this idiot getting their hands on any guns, but how they would do that is the tricky part since there probably isn't a single person in the USA that knows how many guns are in the country, let alone who owns them and where they are, and even if they did manage to stop him getting a gun, he would have made a nail bomb like the guy that attacked the gay bar in Old Compton street, or if that was beyond him there's nothing to stop him buying a few cans of petrol and a box of matches, or even just a machete from his local Home Depot, he probably wouldn't have killed as many people, but that would be small consolation for the families of those he did.

 

In my opinion, if you're safe to own a gun you're safe to own a gun, it doesn't matter what kind it is, if you're not safe with an ar15 then I don't want you near me with an air rifle either, what the solution would be is keeping ANY guns out of the hands of people that are not safe to own guns, how they would do that in America is beyond me, if they stop blocking the legislation that would stop people on terror watch lists from buying guns than that would be a start, but even if all guns were removed from the planet right this second, it still wouldn't stop people that want to kill people from killing people.

 

The thing that has saddened me most about this incident apart from the innocent people that have lost their lives is watching the hardcore Republicans trying to work out which group they hate more, gay people or muslims, and watching the gun control lobby AND the Republicans trying to work out how they can spin this atrocity to suit their own agenda.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Jamesey1981

[Rewulf]

It would appear from later reports the killer was shot by swat team.i really cannot understand how after so many mass shootings every year the population still allows it's government to do nothing.but I guess that's freedom for you.lets all hope we never enjoy such freedoms here.

 

We have been down this road before Mick,and freedom is what its all about.

Its freedom to buy a gun of your choice,for sport ,or for the purpose of defending yourself or your family (in the US)

Its freedom to go to a nightclub,drink alcohol and practice the sexuality of your choice.

Try doing that in some middle eastern or African countries.

 

Guns are not the evil here,people pull triggers,or wield knifes, or plant bombs,or cave heads in with rocks, you dont need to worry about American gun control ,because it doesnt affect you.

If Americans want to ban ARs or handguns or whatever,they can vote for it.

If you leave it up to the government to decide gun control ,you will have no private gun ownership,end of.

[bostonmick]

 

We have been down this road before Mick,and freedom is what its all about.

Its freedom to buy a gun of your choice,for sport ,or for the purpose of defending yourself or your family (in the US)

Its freedom to go to a nightclub,drink alcohol and practice the sexuality of your choice.

Try doing that in some middle eastern or African countries.

 

Guns are not the evil here,people pull triggers,or wield knifes, or plant bombs,or cave heads in with rocks, you dont need to worry about American gun control ,because it doesnt affect you.

If Americans want to ban ARs or handguns or whatever,they can vote for it.

If you leave it up to the government to decide gun control ,you will have no private gun ownership,end of.

You are quite correct it's all about freedom at the end of the day.we at the moment are all about freedom or so the Eu tells us we must be with free movement and so called refugees being allowed in with very little checks on any. So when we start to reap the benefits of this freedom who shall we blame.certainly not ourselves.end of

[simonb]

I see Trump has already pitched in with a "....I told you so!" Bad timing this for the USA, for the presidential race and for all Muslims.

 

 

Well,not good for musloids. Good news for Trump though.

[bluesj]

 

That's the whole point, there aren't enough rigid controls on guns over there. Whatever you say about guns Australia's reaction to mass shootings (as indeed our own) have proved that these incidents are dramatically reduced when access to certain guns is heavily restricted.

 

 

 

Its not certain guns that need restricting but certain people having access to then

[Floating Chamber]

I understand Trump criticised Obama for not using the term "Radical Islam"; his statement was delayed while "words were carefully chosen".

[old'un]

Its not certain guns that need restricting but certain people having access to then

 

If you look at the type of weapons you can buy in America then yes certain weapons do need restricting, who really needs an AK47?

[four-wheel-drive]

You're sounding a bit like one of the antis there to be honest, any gun is only as dangerous as the person using it, a nutter with a shotgun is just as much a threat to your safety as a nutter with an AK47.

 

There are many reasons to own an AR in the USA, competitive target shooting for one, and also just because you can.

 

Restricting a type of gun wouldn't have made any difference, he'd just have used a different one, assuming he wanted to stay within the law and wouldn't just obtain one illegally, pretty sure murdering people is illegal even in America and that didn't seem to bother him, and if you're shooting at people that are unsuspecting, unarmed and in a confined space you'll kill a lot of them whichever firearm you choose to use and whether you've bought it legally or not.

 

The answer is for the Americans to stop murderous savages like this idiot getting their hands on any guns, but how they would do that is the tricky part since there probably isn't a single person in the USA that knows how many guns are in the country, let alone who owns them and where they are, and even if they did manage to stop him getting a gun, he would have made a nail bomb like the guy that attacked the gay bar in Old Compton street, or if that was beyond him there's nothing to stop him buying a few cans of petrol and a box of matches, or even just a machete from his local Home Depot, he probably wouldn't have killed as many people, but that would be small consolation for the families of those he did.

 

In my opinion, if you're safe to own a gun you're safe to own a gun, it doesn't matter what kind it is, if you're not safe with an ar15 then I don't want you near me with an air rifle either, what the solution would be is keeping ANY guns out of the hands of people that are not safe to own guns, how they would do that in America is beyond me, if they stop blocking the legislation that would stop people on terror watch lists from buying guns than that would be a start, but even if all guns were removed from the planet right this second, it still wouldn't stop people that want to kill people from killing people.

 

The thing that has saddened me most about this incident apart from the innocent people that have lost their lives is watching the hardcore Republicans trying to work out which group they hate more, gay people or muslims, and watching the gun control lobby AND the Republicans trying to work out how they can spin this atrocity to suit their own agenda.

I am about as fare from not letting the general public have guns that you can get but an AR is not a fun gun it is made to kill people in war not go hunting I have no doubts that having and shooting a large machine gun like we see on TV with IS have on the back of there pickup trucks great fun to shoot or flame throwers etc etc you have to draw the line somewhere or do we just have a free for all.

[saddler]

 

If you look at the type of weapons you can buy in America then yes certain weapons do need restricting*, who really needs an AK47*?

 

*WHY is that then?

*Ever used an AK, or are you purely relying on media coverage of them? (er, ever even SEEN an AK?)

 

NONE of the "type of weapons" sold in the USA are not also as easily purchased in the EU (aside from most of the UK that is!)

MOST European countries also have more open laws on self-defence

 

Using your logic, WHY would ANYONE in one of the most dense urban populations of England NEED a gun of any sort?

WHY would ANYONE in one of the most dense urban populations of England NEED a gun of any sort?

[Rewulf]

 

If you look at the type of weapons you can buy in America then yes certain weapons do need restricting, who really needs an AK47?

 

Who needs the 'black' .22lr rifles you can buy in this country ,like the GSG Mp5,SIG 522, S and W mp 15-22 or HK 416 ?

Who needs black powder revolvers or LBPs?

In the US (and other countries even within the EU) firearms can be used for personal protection,they are also used for sporting and 'fun ' use.

The Americans use all the firearms imaginable,because they can.

We in the UK use what we are allowed,because we can.

 

Who needs an AK ?

Apparently lots of Americans as its probably the second best selling rifle in the US after the AR platform,probably because its cheap,reliable and fun.

[saddler]

I am about as fare from not letting the general public have guns that you can get but an AR is not a fun gun it is made to kill people in war not go hunting I have no doubts that having and shooting a large machine gun like we see on TV with IS have on the back of there pickup trucks great fun to shoot or flame throwers etc etc you have to draw the line somewhere or do we just have a free for all.

 

Be as fare as you want

MY own AR15 WAS a lot of fun before the UK government robbed me of it - never took it to war, never shot up any nightclubs or cinemas with it

 

Not sure about your "...see on TV with IS..." bit - you wanting to join the Jihad?

 

"Free for all..."??

Well, only chatting the other day about how "free" some folk are!

Pre-Iraq Part II there was a lot of media coverage on the TV News about the rush of Iraqi citizens to buy guns before the invasion.

A gunshop was shown - normal folk buying pistols & rifles; ALL of a type not legal then or now in the UK.

WE were invading them to liberate them from an oppressive regime....yet they had more rights than us!!

[matone]

You're sounding a bit like one of the antis there to be honest, any gun is only as dangerous as the person using it, a nutter with a shotgun is just as much a threat to your safety as a nutter with an AK47.

 

There are many reasons to own an AR in the USA, competitive target shooting for one, and also just because you can.

 

Restricting a type of gun wouldn't have made any difference, he'd just have used a different one, assuming he wanted to stay within the law and wouldn't just obtain one illegally, pretty sure murdering people is illegal even in America and that didn't seem to bother him, and if you're shooting at people that are unsuspecting, unarmed and in a confined space you'll kill a lot of them whichever firearm you choose to use and whether you've bought it legally or not.

 

The answer is for the Americans to stop murderous savages like this idiot getting their hands on any guns, but how they would do that is the tricky part since there probably isn't a single person in the USA that knows how many guns are in the country, let alone who owns them and where they are, and even if they did manage to stop him getting a gun, he would have made a nail bomb like the guy that attacked the gay bar in Old Compton street, or if that was beyond him there's nothing to stop him buying a few cans of petrol and a box of matches, or even just a machete from his local Home Depot, he probably wouldn't have killed as many people, but that would be small consolation for the families of those he did.

 

In my opinion, if you're safe to own a gun you're safe to own a gun, it doesn't matter what kind it is, if you're not safe with an ar15 then I don't want you near me with an air rifle either, what the solution would be is keeping ANY guns out of the hands of people that are not safe to own guns, how they would do that in America is beyond me, if they stop blocking the legislation that would stop people on terror watch lists from buying guns than that would be a start, but even if all guns were removed from the planet right this second, it still wouldn't stop people that want to kill people from killing people.

 

The thing that has saddened me most about this incident apart from the innocent people that have lost their lives is watching the hardcore Republicans trying to work out which group they hate more, gay people or muslims, and watching the gun control lobby AND the Republicans trying to work out how they can spin this atrocity to suit their own agenda.

Perhaps,but would you rather face someone who was armed with an assault rifle or a Greener GP if it was your task ?

Edited June 13, 2016 by matone

[hambone]

Its a well known quote (someone remind me by who) "Guns dont kill people, People kill people." This murderer could well have killed as many people by starting a well placed fire or planting a bomb.

[scotslad]

It's 1 of these groundhog day threads that always comes round alarmingly often.

 

I heard on the news been 53 'mass shootings' so far this year and more folk have been killed in mass shootings than all there fallen soldiers lost in war over last 50 yrears (sur ethe figure was 1.5 million but that seems far too high, if it is it is bloody scary).

The numbers killed by fellow americains and legal guns makes the war on terror look a bit silly and pointless really

 

No idea how to help there will be so many guns in circulation already any restrictions will just be a waste of time.

But i do find it hard to see any logic in the idea that more guns are ever the solution

Edited June 13, 2016 by scotslad

[saddler]

Happy Land club fire = 87 killed

 

...not quite relevant though, as that wasn't a terrorist attack

Edited June 13, 2016 by saddler

[Jamesey1981]

I am about as fare from not letting the general public have guns that you can get but an AR is not a fun gun it is made to kill people in war not go hunting I have no doubts that having and shooting a large machine gun like we see on TV with IS have on the back of there pickup trucks great fun to shoot or flame throwers etc etc you have to draw the line somewhere or do we just have a free for all.

So this guy wouldn't have done what he did if he could only have a shotgun?

You're living in a dream world and your argument is nonsense, which gun he used is completely irrelevant, it would have happened just the same with whatever firearm or even improvised weapon that he could get his hands on.

 

Just because YOU don't see a legitimate use for a gun doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

 

If you're safe to have a gun you're safe to have any gun, why shouldn't someone have an M60 if they can use it safely, what right is it of yours to tell them they can't if they're not a risk to anyone's safety?

 

Some people die on the roads, so I'm going to take your car keys away, instead of taking the car keys away from someone that can't be trusted to drive safely, is that right or fair?

No, of course it isn't, but that's what you're proposing to do.

 

Don't try and come back with the "But cars weren't designed to kill" argument, knives weren't designed to kill but it won't stop you being prosecuted if you're carrying one into a football stadium, the question is about not taking rights away from people that can be trusted because of people that can't.

 

Someone commits an atrocity with a kind of gun, you ban it, next atrocity is committed with a different gun, you ban that, and so on, and so on....

Eventually all guns are banned, the problems still aren't solved and people that don't care about the law are still using them anyway and you're trying to ban bricks because someone killed someone with one.

 

As for easy access to firearms in America, yes, I agree that it's too easy, but, no matter how difficult you make it, bad people will get them, people have learned to fly aircraft in order to commit an act of terrorism (which friends of mine were killed in by the way) so driving down to Mexico to buy a gun and bring it back isn't going to put them off.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Jamesey1981

[old'un]

 

*WHY is that then?

Why do people who carry out this type of thing use automatic weapons?

 

*Ever used an AK, or are you purely relying on media coverage of them? (er, ever even SEEN an AK?)

No...but I have never seen an nuclear bomb but I know what they are capable of

 

NONE of the "type of weapons" sold in the USA are not also as easily purchased in the EU (aside from most of the UK that is!)

MOST European countries also have more open laws on self-defence

Don't understand this question

 

Using your logic, WHY would ANYONE in one of the most dense urban populations of England NEED a gun of any sort?

Sporting guns

 

WHY would ANYONE in one of the most dense urban populations of England NEED a gun of any sort?

Repeated question

[digger]

if I want to shoot flying targets there is no better choice than a shotgun.If I want to shoot targets for fun " because I can" there are a hundred different options other than an Ak47 or AR type weapon. No cars were not designed to kill people. nor were knives. However the AK wasn't designed as a target rifle nor was the AR. They have target derivatives sure but they were designed and manufactured for more than putting holes in paper

Edited June 13, 2016 by digger

[Jamesey1981]

if I want to shoot flying targets there is no better choice than a shotgun.If I want to shoot targets for fun " because I can" there are a hundred different options other than an Ak47 or AR type weapon. No cars were not designed to kill people. nor were knives. However the AK wasn't designed as a target rifle nor was the AR. They have target derivatives sure but they were designed and manufactured for more than putting holes in paper

And why should you have fewer options for shooting targets because someone else can't be trusted?

Go back far enough and ALL guns were designed to kill people, it was literally why guns were invented, if you're advocating banning all guns then you're on the wrong forum.

What matters is whose hands they are in.

 

If an AR15 or AK47 was literally the only gun this guy could have used to kill people then you can guarantee he would have got one, illegal or not, but it isn't, he'd just have used something else if he couldn't get one.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Jamesey1981

[ordnance]

 

Go back far enough and ALL guns were designed to kill people, if you're advocating banning all guns then you're on the wrong forum.

+ 1

[ordnance]

 

As for easy access to firearms in America, yes, I agree that it's too easy, but, no matter how difficult you make it, bad people will get them, people have learned to fly aircraft in order to commit an act of terrorism (which friends of mine were killed in by the way) so driving down to Mexico to buy a gun and bring it back isn't going to put them off.

True terrorists had no problems getting firearms here. Maybe if they had banned all firearms here in N/I there would not of being thousands of people murdered.