General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
I will not offer "thoughts and prayers" for the victims in Orlando
It's too late for that. What is needed is action. How did the shooter get a semi automatic weapon? How did he get it into the club? What was his motive? And so on.
I will say that I stand with my gay brothers and sisters from the club. Let's end the madness.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
malaise
(268,847 posts)No candles, teddy bears or flowers - time for no guns.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You do not get to give orders. So don't.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Florida needs laws like Georgia, Virginia, and other states which allow lawful concealed carry in bars.
Station to Station
(53 posts)a packed environment would have gone well, Demento. FYI, there was an armed officer at the club. He certainly stemmed the tide!
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Under the law, you are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your gun. The scenario related to mass killings that you describe has never happened. Yet, there are several examples of a law abiding concealed carrier stopping the threat.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
Station to Station
(53 posts)You could multiply that by three dozen and when you're packed in like sardines, you're still getting countless people killed - the killer is still spraying bullets like a mad man. This is not a video game, and you'll notice that the perpetrator managed to shoot an officer in the head before he was taken down.
At best you'll end up with fewer casualties, but when the end result is still multiple people dead at the hands of a freak who was allowed to buy a gun easily, how does that cut to the core of the problem? It doesn't.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)but I can't help but notice these types of crimes seem to almost always occur in places that guns are banned: churches, bars, schools, etc.
Why is that?
Station to Station
(53 posts)when busy, offer up the potential for massive loss of life.
But then so are many places, many places in America and many places across the world. You can't stop everything all the time whether you are in America, in Britain, in France, wherever.
I'm not an advocate of banning guns entirely, not by any means. Yet I am a proponent of a relatively comprehensive registration and licensing scheme. It's required for cars, a possession many people literally cannot live without.
I honestly cannot find any good argument against it; the idea that it may be necessary to rise up against a tyrannical government is so out there that it's unfathomable to me that some might actually think it's a realistic scenario. To me, that's almost as crazy as Ted Kaczynski
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Licensing and registering only those willing to be licensed and registered is "security theater". Read up on the idea of security theater some time if you are unfamiliar.
However, I do respect your argument. Welcome to DU. If more people could have a calm discussion like this, we could understand different perspectives and find common ground.
Station to Station
(53 posts)about this, and have to own some dumb comments of my own. Passionate anger does uncover my ugly side, and I'm not especially proud of that fact but this little thread has evolved into something less provocative, so I appreciate your comment there.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)eggplant
(3,911 posts)You asked a question, I answered. We're not going to convince each other.
"Guns make us safer" is equivalent to "good fences make good neighbors."
apcalc
(4,463 posts)Fellow Hillary supporter..
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)This one might have happened anyway, but legal guns mean that when someone goes insane they don't have easy access to legal weapons. And most people have no idea where to go to buy an illegal weapon.
Hayduke Bomgarte
(1,965 posts)
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)We need positive action - NOW.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Now
pipoman
(16,038 posts)..it has never been done.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)There is congressional testimony by Bill Clintons FBI director, BATFE director, and the armorer of LAPD who all stated they cannot find a definition that would stand constitutional scrutiny. Exactly why the 1994 ban was allowed to sunset...the challenges were going to succeed...
Orrex
(63,189 posts)Ban any firearm that can be loaded with more than one round at a time or that can be equipped with a clip or magazine enabling it it to hold more than one round at a time.
Ban any firearm that can fire or can be made to fire more than one round in any consecutive five second period.
Subsequent to the ban, possession of a banned firearm will subject the offender to a minimum of ten years in prison per firearm with no chance of parole.
Problem solved.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Orrex
(63,189 posts)In the history of US gun violence, no gun advocate has offered a real and credible solution. Instead, they exclusively busy themselves with complaining about definitions (e.g. "It's not a clip--it's a magazine!"
, calls for increased gun ownership, or making vague and unhelpful pronouncements about mental health care.
If correcting the 2nd amendment is what it takes to reduce gun violence, than all responsible gun owners should be behind that effort 100%.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)No, it is big gun control that refuses to do anything but piss and moan and pretend. If they cared about gun show private purchases they would set up a kiosk at gun sgows to do bg checks for private sales. They would actively educate safety....in this way they are exactly as stupid as the anti-abortion celibacy idiots.
No, it is always the same. Demand the impossible and pretend the impossible is the only answer...over and over and over... Big gun control would quit getting donations if the problem was abated...they wouldn't want that, so they keep arguing for the impossible...and so it goes...
Orrex
(63,189 posts)What do they know that we don't?
Perhaps it has something to do with the absence in those countries of a vast, multi-billion dollar gun lobbying industry with an army of eager propagandists willing to declare that the problem can't be solved because "there is no solution."
If that's truly the attitude of the NRA and its surrogates, then it's clear that gun advocates are unqualified to discuss the issue.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)This is really much simpler than you are pretending...
Orrex
(63,189 posts)If the sacrosanct US Constitution (or specifically the disastrous 2nd amendment) is preventing us from reducing gun violence via effective means available to other nations, then perhaps it's time for some serious reexamination.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Orrex
(63,189 posts)then what do you suggest as a realistic alternative, especially after you've declared that there's no solution?
For instance, big gun control has done nothing but pretend first about the "gun show loophole" until every thinking mind knew there was no "loophole". Now "Universal Background check"...same song, same verse, different name...they raise most of their money fooling people that their donation will help fight the NRA, Republicans, and all the other boogie men they pretend are the impediment to federally mandated background checks on intrastate private sales of used guns...they know that the federal government has no jurisdiction over people selling their private property to other residents within their state, they pretend it ain't so to raise money.
If they wanted to actually fix something they would lobby for making NICS actually possible to use for private sales voluntarily...frankly this could be done by executive order...
They would lobby for criminal and civil immunity for former owners for crimes committed by guns sold through the system.
They would set up kiosks at gun shows to conduct bg checks and public information about the liability for not using the system if the gun is later used in a crime.
No, they aren't interested in reducing, they are interested in working through to retirement simply by waiving a red flag.
Orrex
(63,189 posts)Which Rightwing media outlet fed you that meme, I wonder?
Background checks and their results must be permanently maintained in a database freely accessible to the public. This is fully consistent with the sacrosanct 2nd amendment.
All guns must be registered, and any gun not registered must be impounded and the owner jailed for ten years with no probation for each unregistered firearm. This is fully consistent with the sacrosanct 2nd amendment.
Gun owners must be held responsible for their guns at all times, and they must be aware of each gun's location at all times. Theft must be reported within one business day; otherwise the gun owner is full accessory to any crimes committed with such guns. This is fully consistent with the sacrosanct 2nd amendment.
Gun advocates will invariably howl about their perceived right to privacy, which they imagine to trump all other considerations, but they can stuff that bullshit up their well-oiled barrels. My legal history is freely available to the public, despite my concerns about privacy; the history of my home's ownership is freely available to the public, despite my concerns about privacy. Gun registry should be equally freely available.
They also make some ridiculous noise about the likelihood that they'll be targeted for theft if people know that they have guns, but fuck that cowardly bullshit as well; secure storage is a basic component of responsible gun ownership, and if you can't step up to the demands of responsible gun ownership, then you sure as hell don't deserve to own one.
In short, I'm tired of the bullshit fired at us 24/7 from gun advocates who care about nothing so much as their precious, precious guns despite their claims to the contrary.
Gun advocates have demonstrated time and again--even after Sandy Hook, even this morningafter Orlando--that they advocate for guns above all else, and the safety of others is of no concern to them. Gun owners have said enough, and it's time for them to shut the fuck up and step aside to let others handle the problem that gun advocates have so eagerly enabled for decades.
Reply however the fuck you want because I know what you think on the matter and I have no interest in reading NRA propaganda on DU.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Only if you are completely clueless. I know folks like you can't use otherwise accessible intellegence when the gunz are concerned....don't impede those of us who can....
The NRA hasn't shit to do with shit....another pretend impediment invented by big gun control...
No, your little outburst full of complete horseshit aside, big gun control has no interest in anything that might tear down their sacred horn-o-plenty...they are the enemy of actual headway on this and most other gun control attempts...
Funny how you are sitting there patting yourself on the back for such an intelligent response while not considering it is constitutionally impossible complete idiocy like this that prevents answers.
My response was possible and realistic and could start immediately if it werent for fools pushing such silliness...
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)amended to ban Panzerfausts?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)The amendment process woyld be much easier than turning the SCOTUS train around, and about as possible....
Orrex
(63,189 posts)Easily one of the worst rulings in the past decade, and in time it will be recognized as such.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Again with the impossible...
Orrex
(63,189 posts)Again, though, perhaps gun advocates are ill qualified to participate in the discussion.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Orrex
(63,189 posts)After all, Roe v. Wade guarantees a woman's control over her own body, while Heller enables many thousands of murders annually, so they're more or less identical.
I find it difficult to maintain civility with someone who would claim such a preposterous equivalence, so I'd say we're done here.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)SCOTUS overturn is a copout excuse to do nothing. 'We can't do the impossible so we will do nothing'...exactly my point.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)give you:
Bowers v Hardwick
and
Lawrence v Texas
pipoman
(16,038 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)I used to think that when i was in my 20s..
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)an unreasonable restriction on speech...
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)homegirl
(1,428 posts)long past due.
Separation
(1,975 posts)There was another shooter, in a bell tower. Its going to be more difficult that just that. I dont have any answers. Pretty much what you suggest is a more restrictive ban than what the UK or Australia has. Im not saying thats a bad thing, but realistically I just dont think that will ever happen here.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I hate guns but this proposal seems immediately doomed to failure. We don't have a magic wand that can just achieve this, so it's up to you as the proposer to spell out how you expect to make this work.
Orrex
(63,189 posts)Despite the howling of gun enablers, this represents no unacceptable violation of privacy, because housing and legal records are already freely available to the public, as are a whole range of licensing certifications.
Once the database is available, any gun not accounted for in the registry or out of compliance with the ban will be forfeit, with the owner subjected to 10 years in prison per gun with no chance of parole.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I am fine with a national gun registry, but you seriously expect to be able conduct a census of every gun in the US?
Orrex
(63,189 posts)But every time a gun is found that's not on the database, the owner gets ten years in prison per gun with no chance of parole.
lastlib
(23,197 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
Francis Booth
(162 posts)of guns in circulation.
We need confiscation. Turn them in or go to jail.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Yeah, I didn't think so...
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And who's going to carry it out?
Francis Booth
(162 posts)violence is killing 30,000 people each year. And even though it has been declining, these mass murders have become like a video game to crazies, with each new atrocity trying to achieve a 'high score'.
The rest of the world manages to get by without civilian ownership of high capacity rifles. We can do it if we have the will.
I don't propose confiscating pistols and revolvers, and I do support concealed carry, with background checks and training. But this is getting ridiculous. How many more massacres are we going to tolerate?
There's no earthly reason why people can't hunt and defend themselves with a 5 round clip. We did the experiment, and it failed. Adults just cannot be trusted with so much firepower.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)20k are suicides..suicidal people will commit suicide with or without guns. 6k+ are criminal on criminal (usually gamg related), 2k are domestic, the rest are accidents, previously no convictions, and justifiable shootings by police and others.
In the complete absence of guns most would still occur.
The rest of the world doesn't have the US Constitution or BoR. Amend the constitution and perhaps it may happen...not in the lifetime of anyone living today....
Pistols and revolvers account for...what is it?...80% of gun deaths?....
That last sentence is the kicker....out of 150 million gun owners 10k...even 30k is much safer than many many other activities....no, live in a feee society and there will always be risk.
Francis Booth
(162 posts)gun ownership will go the way of cigarettes eventually. Like I said, I don't oppose the possession of pistols for defense, but it's the large capacity magazines that are giving people the power to mow down 100 innocents in minutes. This is just unacceptable in any society that wants to call itself civilized.
The people want this to stop. It's our corrupt, paid-for congress that is blocking any progress on this front. Maybe it has to start by voting out all the crooks - both D and R - who are doing the NRA's bidding.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)And most bills, including this latest Fienstein folly, is just for show...
Francis Booth
(162 posts)to regulate the types of firearms that may be possessed. I would assume that this would also include limiting magazine capacity, as many states already do.
In fact, I'd be perfectly fine with leaving all the guns alone and just going after magazines. An AR-15 with a five round clip is not going to be as appealing to mass murders as an AR-15 with unlimited 30 round clips.
I don't think there's a practical way to actually confiscate them, so we need a system under which they could be turned in voluntarily. After a certain grace period, you get caught with a 30 round magazine, and you go to jail for 10 years.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)In 1939 USA vs Miller of "in common use for lawful purposes"...a standard which has been used several times since Miller. This standard makes additional federal regulation on many types of weapons impossible because they are obviously in common use for lawful purposes...this would include hand guns and many of those referred to as "assault weapons"..
A federal magazine restriction won't pass either for the same reason imho....further, there wither has to be payment for the magazines (expensive) or grandfather them (ineffective).
In short, there are many many gun laws and restrictions on the 2nd amendment. We are at a place that most new restriction has already been asked and answered as not being constitutionally possible within the existing framework of case law.. there may be some tweaks left..i don't know what they are...
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Thought not.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)With mainly progressive candidates.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Particularly with a "mini-FFL" type license that would only be good for them and not the full FFL stuff.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Established USA vs Miller in 1939. This will not change and semi autos are solidly in that definition.
pengu
(462 posts)We are trying to find out if our friends or family are ok. It isn't "too late for thoughts and prayers".
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)
Orrex
(63,189 posts)In your eagerness to declare your own non-belief, be careful not to trample on the emotions of those who are close to the event.
Victims are literally still bleeding from the massacre. It is the height of gross insensitivity to trivialize people's coping mechanisms solely to score points in the name of rationalism or whatever.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Orrex
(63,189 posts)Not here, here, here, here or here, for instance.
Regardless, because I'm not an asshole, I know better than exploit a tragedy solely for the purpose of righteously broadcasting my own righteous atheism. I have no interest in that form of public masturbation, thanks.
I will defer to the dead, the injured and the mourners. Lacking any knowledge of their beliefs or non-belief I will not use this opportunity to advertise my own.
Find your own level, of course.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)d be ok...
Orrex
(63,189 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)The ignorant look a harmless well wish as some sort of declaration of something else....go ahead, look a gift horse in the mouth...
Orrex
(63,189 posts)The well-wisher must defer to the beliefs or non-beliefs of the intended recipient of those wishes. If the well-wisher can't manage a response that respects that person's beliefs or non-belief, then the well-wisher should keep their mouth shut. And if the recipient's beliefs or non-belief are not known, then basic courtesy demands that the well-wisher make a neutral statement that presumes nothing about the recipient's beliefs or non-belief.
You imagine it to a "gift horse," but that's not actually the case. It's an unambiguous declaration by the well-wisher that the recipient must respect the well-wisher's beliefs over their own.
Your failure to understand this is not surprising.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Orrex
(63,189 posts)You're saying "fuck the victim--the well-wisher's feelings are more important."
Why does it seem like "hating" to you to urge respect for the victim?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Orrex
(63,189 posts)It is not the mourner's obligation to comfort the well-wisher. And if the well-wisher can't back off on the proselytizing for one minute, then maybe the well-wisher should simply shut up. It is a one-way transaction in which the aggrieved party hold absolute priority, and all other considerations are subordinate to that.
I get that you want to make this first and foremost about the well-wisher, but that's a selfish and myopic attitude indicating that you don't understand how compassion works.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)One of your loved ones passes away. An acquaintance sees you and says, "hey Or, sorry to hear about ***, my thoughts and prayers are with you."
Only a jerkoff dumbass would take offense to that. See, you don't have to care about the prayer, the person is wishing you well.period.
I never say it because I don't pray, but if someone is praying for me (and they are), how can I not appreciate their thoughts....
Selfish is thinking everyone should wish you well just the way you think they should...ffs...a gift horse in the mouth..
xmas74
(29,673 posts)That's all thoughts and prayers really means. They took time to think about someone that they might not even know and an event that never actually affected them and they felt for that person, that family, that business, that city.
Sometimes people need to take the meaning behind it and let the rest go.
pengu
(462 posts)I appreciate that people are thinking kindly about me and my loved ones.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)xmas74
(29,673 posts)How is it so insensitive to have people merely say "I'm thinking of you in your time of tragedy" or "I'm trying to find ways to help".
Someone took time to think about someone else in the course of their day. In cases like this they took time to think about someone they didn't know, never met and an event that probably didn't affect them. How is that insensitive?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)
CincyDem
(6,346 posts)..."this is a sad event that could have been cut short had good citizens in the club been armed to protect themselves".
Always with the bullsh*t, never willing to part of the solutions. That's our NRA.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)After all, it was just another 60 or so people shot. Gotta protect that precious gun.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)
CincyDem
(6,346 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)
ET Awful
(24,753 posts)
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)there is one poster peddling this line in many of the threads related to this tragedy.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Soon, we'll have NRA watch-lists on DU.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts) Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)that are being outright ridiculous.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,988 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)SCantiGOP
(13,868 posts)
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)That's all I have right now.
neeksgeek
(1,214 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Designed to make the giver feel better, but will make not one iota of difference.
snort
(2,334 posts)Modification to existing should be an option if you can't bring yourself to part with precious. Gunsmiths would do well.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)A few minutes ago, when I was still crying and screaming uncontrollably, I yelled to hubby (mild gun nut - collects but doesn't use, and sometimes, if it occurs to him, thinks "they" might come get them) that it was ONE. SINGLE. SHOOTER. He expressed disbelief. I showed him the headline and screamed that high-capacity magazines needed to be banned RIGHT THE HELL NOW. He looked stunned and nodded his head.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Separation
(1,975 posts)JFK was killed with an antique Italian bolt action rifle. The clock tower guy in Tx as well. Nothing short of %100 confiscation will not work, and that will just not ever happen.
snort
(2,334 posts)The gun would need to be loaded a round into the receiver at a time, no magazine.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)... that it was OK to kill 50 humans ...... (presumably) because of their sexuality?
Or for ANY reason, for that matter.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)WiffenPoof
(2,404 posts)...but if nothing happened after 20 first graders were slaughtered in New Town, this isn't going to change anything.
Francis Booth
(162 posts)restrictions come to the Senate floor.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)just sayin.
xmas74
(29,673 posts)and action can be taken at the same time. It's not difficult to do, if you're of the mind to do it.
Included in the thoughts about the families of the victims would be thoughts about how to prevent this from happening again.
The victims deserved to be mourned and the families deserve the chance to mourn them. Give them that much.
