OT: Orlando night club shot up, with hostages

[PennytoShaq]

Many of us work and live there and that didn't happen for us. Additionally the choppers you heard were the media doing overhead shots of the club when the bodies were being taken out. There was no search happening for anyone else. That rumor of multiple shooters was being spread and was 100% false. Needless fear mongering for no reason.

[Xatticus]

the best way to kill someone with a gun is with a gun of your own. There will always be men with guns even if you remove access to the general public; police and military will still have guns. leaving guns with only the police and military is inviting despotism. Freedom depends on the decentralization of power and the general access to guns is the best way to decentralize power known to man. Its funny that people point to certain countries as bastions of good policy and civil peace and these same countries are represented in some part by Kings and Queens. No thanks, we'll keep our guns and we'll keep our freedom and we'll deal with mass shootings the best way we can.

I don't spend a great deal of time pondering the best way to kill various people, though I would imagine that the primary reason you would want to kill someone with a gun is because they have a gun.

There is absolutely no evidence that gun ownership protects or permits freedom. The United States has by far the highest rate of guns per capita, but certainly doesn't lead the world in freedom, however you wish to define it. The United States incarcerates a larger portion of its population than any other country on the planet, and I'd imagine that is a significant component in anyone's definition of freedom.

Decentralization is great, but that is simply the distribution of representation in government. And just to be clear, decentralization isn't small government. I know you didn't state as much, but it is a common misconception.

Gun owners are not protecting my freedom. The protection I am seeking is from gun owners.

[Bensational]

Its funny that people point to certain countries as bastions of good policy and civil peace and these same countries are represented in some part by Kings and Queens. No thanks, we'll keep our guns and we'll keep our freedom and we'll deal with mass shootings the best way we can.

I've seen this line of thought from Americans before and I find it quite odd. Do you really think you have a greater sense of freedom than me, or any other Australian/Brit/Kiwi/Fin/Dutch/Swede/etc? In an everyday, general sense I mean?

Back in 1787 you might have, but it's 2016 now and most developed countries have the same level of rights and freedom.

And you would REALLY rather expose yourself and your family and that of every other American citizen to mass shootings over being a part of the commonwealth, which is in name only these days?

[RickB-Orlando]

Its funny that people point to certain countries as bastions of good policy and civil peace and these same countries are represented in some part by Kings and Queens. No thanks, we'll keep our guns and we'll keep our freedom and we'll deal with mass shootings the best way we can.

I've seen this line of thought from Americans before and I find it quite odd. Do you really think you have a greater sense of freedom than me, or any other Australian/Brit/Kiwi/Fin/Dutch/Swede/etc? In an everyday, general sense I mean?

Back in 1787 you might have, but it's 2016 now and most developed countries have the same level of rights and freedom.

Not to sound snarky, but in many cases, yes, we do. The Bill of Rights is a unique document, and while many countries adopt some of those rights as laws, the U.S. is unique in some of those rights. Free speech, freedom of the press, and, well, the right to bear arms, are all components thereof.

And you would REALLY rather expose yourself and your family and that of every other American citizen to mass shootings over being a part of the commonwealth, which is in name only these days?

You may find this hard to believe, but for many I suspect the answer is "yes." It is for me, though explaining that to a Australian/Brit/Kiwi/Fin/Dutch/Swede/etc is likely a losing proposition. It's one of those things that you have to experience to understand, I suppose.

[TreasureCoast]

Well.. To ad wood to the fire. Today a guy who was carrying a gun( concealed weapon) decided to pull the gun out in public as he was arguing with anothe guy.
This is the major problem i have as people will be carrying gun irresposnsibly. You might see people under the influences at a bar or any other public place carrying a gun abd looking for trouble. You see "responsible" people driving under the influences all the time. Imagine carrying a loaded gun and get into an argument while this people are intoxicated.
I think people who carry a gun are are j toxicated should be prosecuted as driving under the influence. That is my opinion.
Not banning guns. Just banning this type of guys off guns.

Totally agree with this, we should ban cars too.

But seriously the type of idiot that drinks and is hot headed is going to make those same bad decisions if he was "banned from guns", people get suspended drivers license and all kinds of legal debt with DUIs yet a lot of them get behind the wheel anyway despite the law telling them they can't, these type of idiots are gonna carry a gun anyway cause it's their brain and decision making skills that are the issue.

[PigsEatHam]

the best way to kill someone with a gun is with a gun of your own. There will always be men with guns even if you remove access to the general public; police and military will still have guns. leaving guns with only the police and military is inviting despotism. Freedom depends on the decentralization of power and the general access to guns is the best way to decentralize power known to man. Its funny that people point to certain countries as bastions of good policy and civil peace and these same countries are represented in some part by Kings and Queens. No thanks, we'll keep our guns and we'll keep our freedom and we'll deal with mass shootings the best way we can.

I started out this post trying to bold a couple parts of your post I disagreed with, but I found so much of it peculiar and unsound that I ended up having each sentence highlighted. To run down just a couple of your points that I'd push back on, let me start with leaving guns in the hands of the military/police only:

First, no one is suggesting that. I rarely if ever hear anyone (any American, that is) saying "ban all guns." We have the Second Amendment right to a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms, which the courts and society has interpreted broadly to mean private gun ownership. Fine. But embedded in that argument is this strain of thought that says, We must have these guns to protect against government tyranny--and that is just bizarre to me. The government has tanks, rocket launchers, Apache helicopters, satellite surveillance, a trained armed forces, access to the power grid and natural gas pipelines, as well as the food and water supply. You and fifty of your buddies with guns (even assault rifles) aren't going to stop the authorities if they want to kick down your door and haul you off. What's protecting us from despotism isn't the second Amendment, it's a couple hundred years of democratic political norms and the general fact that most people aren't authoritarians, and those that are would have a really, really hard time getting themselves elected Supreme Leader (Donald Trump notwithstanding).

Also, it's odd to hear you comment on decentralized power as a key element to ensuring freedom when, as it's been practiced in our country, it's usually been used as a lever to stymie it. Think "states rights" arguments when trying to retain the practice of slavery (the most glaring act of tyranny in the United States' history). Or those same "leave it to the states" rationales when building up the policy architecture of Jim Crow laws. Or resisting voting rights. Or the equal protection rights of gay people. And so on. Generally speaking, the key to basic, wholly shared freedoms has tended to be uniform federal laws that recalcitrant precincts can't weasel their ways out of. That, and of course, the constitution (which, yes, the Second Amendment is part of--but it's only part, as in not the only important piece or even the most important piece).

Lastly, the kicker to your post, saying that "we'll deal with mass shootings the best way we can." If past political history is any guide, no we won't. Because the best way we could deal with them would be to pass some laws that might reduce the risk of them happening again. And there are plenty of reasonable proposals to do that that would respect a private citizen's right to possess a gun. Universal background checks would be a nice start. A ban on military-style weaponry (why would a civilian ever need something like that other than to kill a crap-load of people? and if the answer to that is, to prevent government tyranny, please see two paragraphs above). A ban on high-capacity magazines. Research on smart gun technology (weapons that can only be fired by their registered owners). Just something as commonsense as not allowing people on no-fly lists to buy assault rifles would be a step in the right direction, if those lists were made transparent and provided people an appeals process for mistakes.

What will happen instead is, probably, nothing. And in a few months another dozen or so people will be gunned down by another aggrieved prick with easy access to efficient killing machines, and the cycle will repeat over and over until we, as a society, actually pass some laws and throw a few more hurdles in front of these folks who want to commit mass murder.

[Audi]

It's the mind numbing debates over "what/who is to blame" after mass shootings that irritates me beyond belief. We've got people blaming guns, people blaming lack of guns, people blaming govt policy, people blaming lack of government policy, etc etc...Nobody is ever content with simply blaming the murderer. Why is that?
Just think for a second how different the narrative would be right now if you merely switched the weapon used by the killer to a homemade bomb detonated on the dance floor. Where would everyone's focus be? What would we be debating over? What would this thread look like? Your Facebook feed?
Just my 2cents.

[eyriq]

the best way to kill someone with a gun is with a gun of your own. There will always be men with guns even if you remove access to the general public; police and military will still have guns. leaving guns with only the police and military is inviting despotism. Freedom depends on the decentralization of power and the general access to guns is the best way to decentralize power known to man. Its funny that people point to certain countries as bastions of good policy and civil peace and these same countries are represented in some part by Kings and Queens. No thanks, we'll keep our guns and we'll keep our freedom and we'll deal with mass shootings the best way we can.

I started out this post trying to bold a couple parts of your post I disagreed with, but I found so much of it peculiar and unsound that I ended up having each sentence highlighted. To run down just a couple of your points that I'd push back on, let me start with leaving guns in the hands of the military/police only:

First, no one is suggesting that. I rarely if ever hear anyone (any American, that is) saying "ban all guns." We have the Second Amendment right to a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms, which the courts and society has interpreted broadly to mean private gun ownership. Fine. But embedded in that argument is this strain of thought that says, We must have these guns to protect against government tyranny--and that is just bizarre to me. The government has tanks, rocket launchers, Apache helicopters, satellite surveillance, a trained armed forces, access to the power grid and natural gas pipelines, as well as the food and water supply. You and fifty of your buddies with guns (even assault rifles) aren't going to stop the authorities if they want to kick down your door and haul you off. What's protecting us from despotism isn't the second Amendment, it's a couple hundred years of democratic political norms and the general fact that most people aren't authoritarians, and those that are would have a really, really hard time getting themselves elected Supreme Leader (Donald Trump notwithstanding).

Also, it's odd to hear you comment on decentralized power as a key element to ensuring freedom when, as it's been practiced in our country, it's usually been used as a lever to stymie it. Think "states rights" arguments when trying to retain the practice of slavery (the most glaring act of tyranny in the United States' history). Or those same "leave it to the states" rationales when building up the policy architecture of Jim Crow laws. Or resisting voting rights. Or the equal protection rights of gay people. And so on. Generally speaking, the key to basic, wholly shared freedoms has tended to be uniform federal laws that recalcitrant precincts can't weasel their ways out of. That, and of course, the constitution (which, yes, the Second Amendment is part of--but it's only part, as in not the only important piece or even the most important piece).

Lastly, the kicker to your post, saying that "we'll deal with mass shootings the best way we can." If past political history is any guide, no we won't. Because the best way we could deal with them would be to pass some laws that might reduce the risk of them happening again. And there are plenty of reasonable proposals to do that that would respect a private citizen's right to possess a gun. Universal background checks would be a nice start. A ban on military-style weaponry (why would a civilian ever need something like that other than to kill a crap-load of people? and if the answer to that is, to prevent government tyranny, please see two paragraphs above). A ban on high-capacity magazines. Research on smart gun technology (weapons that can only be fired by their registered owners). Just something as commonsense as not allowing people on no-fly lists to buy assault rifles would be a step in the right direction, if those lists were made transparent and provided people an appeals process for mistakes.

What will happen instead is, probably, nothing. And in a few months another dozen or so people will be gunned down by another aggrieved prick with easy access to efficient killing machines, and the cycle will repeat over and over until we, as a society, actually pass some laws and throw a few more hurdles in front of these folks who want to commit mass murder.

Preventing government tyranny is the only good reason for the second amendment that I can think of. At this stage of history and considering military advancements it should be interpreted as the right to own tanks and rocket launchers too I guess, but it's main purpose now is as a cultural icon representing our historic overthrow of and resistance to tyranny, and the value we place on empowering the individual. When you fight for the second amendment you are fighting a symbolic battle for the core of our national character IMO. And it is this national character that defined an era of neoliberal foreign policy, an era that has seen more people around the globe rise out of poverty and gain a voice than at any point in earth's history.

[Xatticus]

It's the mind numbing debates over "what/who is to blame" after mass shootings that irritates me beyond belief. We've got people blaming guns, people blaming lack of guns, people blaming govt policy, people blaming lack of government policy, etc etc...Nobody is ever content with simply blaming the murderer. Why is that?
Just think for a second how different the narrative would be right now if you merely switched the weapon used by the killer to a homemade bomb detonated on the dance floor. Where would everyone's focus be? What would we be debating over? What would this thread look like? Your Facebook feed?
Just my 2cents.

Because mass shootings are a sociological phenomenon that are most prevalent in the United States. Good and evil are luxuries of the simple mind.

[SOUL]

It's the mind numbing debates over "what/who is to blame" after mass shootings that irritates me beyond belief. We've got people blaming guns, people blaming lack of guns, people blaming govt policy, people blaming lack of government policy, etc etc...Nobody is ever content with simply blaming the murderer. Why is that?

Blaming a dead murderer doesn't resolve any issue at hand when there continues to be mass murder in our country year after year. Quite frankly, I don't know how anybody can witness this time and time again and think there is nothing that we can do to stem the tide of bloodshed from fanatical killers.

Now, I agree wholeheartedly that there's a time and a place to begin that discussion, and communities need a proper amount of time to mourn and mend wounds, but throwing our hands up and saying "He's the bad guy, he did it!" solves absolutely nothing and in the next five months we'll send all of our prayers to another dozen murder victims and do nothing about it once again.

I won't argue that some people just want to lay blame to lay blame and push an agenda, but I also think that a lot of people are laying blame because they would like to see real progress in certain areas of public safety and law and hate to see our people die at the hands of savages who shouldn't be able to put themselves in that position in the first place. At least not that easily.

[OrlandO]

Just think for a second how different the narrative would be right now if you merely switched the weapon used by the killer to a homemade bomb detonated on the dance floor. Where would everyone's focus be? What would we be debating over? What would this thread look like? Your Facebook feed?

With the way these home-grown domestic terrorists look to emulate the cowards overseas we're probably not too far off from suicide bombs and car bombs becoming the norm for such attacks. That thought is more terrifying than the thought of someone running around with a gun imo.

[thelead]

I'm BIG for better gun control but I firmly believe we need to get a handle of mental illness first in this country. No one wants to talk about it or put people on lists but a kid that has 31 referrals/incidents in elementary school is about a big red flag as you can get. Then his father says "I had no idea" lol. STFU! He most likely passed down the mental illness.

[PigsEatHam]

the best way to kill someone with a gun is with a gun of your own. There will always be men with guns even if you remove access to the general public; police and military will still have guns. leaving guns with only the police and military is inviting despotism. Freedom depends on the decentralization of power and the general access to guns is the best way to decentralize power known to man. Its funny that people point to certain countries as bastions of good policy and civil peace and these same countries are represented in some part by Kings and Queens. No thanks, we'll keep our guns and we'll keep our freedom and we'll deal with mass shootings the best way we can.

I started out this post trying to bold a couple parts of your post I disagreed with, but I found so much of it peculiar and unsound that I ended up having each sentence highlighted. To run down just a couple of your points that I'd push back on, let me start with leaving guns in the hands of the military/police only:

First, no one is suggesting that. I rarely if ever hear anyone (any American, that is) saying "ban all guns." We have the Second Amendment right to a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms, which the courts and society has interpreted broadly to mean private gun ownership. Fine. But embedded in that argument is this strain of thought that says, We must have these guns to protect against government tyranny--and that is just bizarre to me. The government has tanks, rocket launchers, Apache helicopters, satellite surveillance, a trained armed forces, access to the power grid and natural gas pipelines, as well as the food and water supply. You and fifty of your buddies with guns (even assault rifles) aren't going to stop the authorities if they want to kick down your door and haul you off. What's protecting us from despotism isn't the second Amendment, it's a couple hundred years of democratic political norms and the general fact that most people aren't authoritarians, and those that are would have a really, really hard time getting themselves elected Supreme Leader (Donald Trump notwithstanding).

Also, it's odd to hear you comment on decentralized power as a key element to ensuring freedom when, as it's been practiced in our country, it's usually been used as a lever to stymie it. Think "states rights" arguments when trying to retain the practice of slavery (the most glaring act of tyranny in the United States' history). Or those same "leave it to the states" rationales when building up the policy architecture of Jim Crow laws. Or resisting voting rights. Or the equal protection rights of gay people. And so on. Generally speaking, the key to basic, wholly shared freedoms has tended to be uniform federal laws that recalcitrant precincts can't weasel their ways out of. That, and of course, the constitution (which, yes, the Second Amendment is part of--but it's only part, as in not the only important piece or even the most important piece).

Lastly, the kicker to your post, saying that "we'll deal with mass shootings the best way we can." If past political history is any guide, no we won't. Because the best way we could deal with them would be to pass some laws that might reduce the risk of them happening again. And there are plenty of reasonable proposals to do that that would respect a private citizen's right to possess a gun. Universal background checks would be a nice start. A ban on military-style weaponry (why would a civilian ever need something like that other than to kill a crap-load of people? and if the answer to that is, to prevent government tyranny, please see two paragraphs above). A ban on high-capacity magazines. Research on smart gun technology (weapons that can only be fired by their registered owners). Just something as commonsense as not allowing people on no-fly lists to buy assault rifles would be a step in the right direction, if those lists were made transparent and provided people an appeals process for mistakes.

What will happen instead is, probably, nothing. And in a few months another dozen or so people will be gunned down by another aggrieved prick with easy access to efficient killing machines, and the cycle will repeat over and over until we, as a society, actually pass some laws and throw a few more hurdles in front of these folks who want to commit mass murder.

Preventing government tyranny is the only good reason for the second amendment that I can think of. At this stage of history and considering military advancements it should be interpreted as the right to own tanks and rocket launchers too I guess, but it's main purpose now is as a cultural icon representing our historic overthrow of and resistance to tyranny, and the value we place on empowering the individual. When you fight for the second amendment you are fighting a symbolic battle for the core of our national character IMO. And it is this national character that defined an era of neoliberal foreign policy, an era that has seen more people around the globe rise out of poverty and gain a voice than at any point in earth's history.

You and I agree on that point then. Preventing government tyranny is the reason many people support such a loose, unregulated interpretation of the second amendment. Cite it as something integral to our national character. We disagree, however, that that is a good thing. I think the Statue of Liberty, the Stars and Stripes, and national anthem do plenty as symbols of national identity. And if something more representative of rugged, American individualism is needed, hang a Gadsen flag and call it a day, because at least the Don't-Tread-on-Me banner doesn't kill 30,000 or so fellow citizens each year.

[OrlandoDream]

As someone who lives less then 10 miles from the tragic incident, I do believe a more strict gun control is in order but not to disarm your entire country. That will not accomplish anything. Criminals don't follow laws. They will acquire their firearms from the black market or elsewhere. This guy was one of the few who bought it legally and if denied, he would have still had access to them. Disarming your entire public does nothing. Realize that all these shootings happen in gun-free zones. ISIS and these terrorists do not respect or follow our laws. Lets focus on wiping them out instead of disarming our citizens. ISIS attacked Russia, Putin bombs them. ISIS attacked US, Obama targets the guns. What?

[TreasureCoast]

I see the mention of tanks and attack helicopters and jets and heat sinking missiles etc. etc. and you guys are making the same mistake with that point, the people behind those weapons are what make those inanimate objects weapons. I would expect our service men and woman to uphold the constitution and protect the people in the face of a tyrannous government. After all thats what they signed up for and they are staunchly passionate about their choice to serve this country not tyranny. Suggesting the millions of service men and woman would stand up against that in which it fights for is a slap in the face to them.

If you simply think that our men and woman in uniform are gonna go along with an out of control government like hired goons of an evil villain in the movies....than come on now.

Who is gonna fly those jets? Who is gonna march down main street USA with ACTUAL assault rifles with the intention of stripping our freedoms?

[TreasureCoast]

Mike Rowe raises a very good point about how our current system is failing and how we DO need better regulation. He posted this recently after the Orlando attack......

http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftribunist.com%2Fnews%2Fobama-asked-celebrities-to-help-push-gun-control-this-is-what-mike-rowe-did-instead%2F&h=2AQGK6bQ_

And relating to his comments on celebrities and social media, It's a shame how powerful social media can make someone. I feel someone like Mike Rowe would make a hell of a president considering Trump has no political experience, so why not Rowe??
I think the very reason he should run for president is the fact that he doesn't care to, or maybe it's become too dirty of a job.

[Audi]

Blaming a dead murderer doesn't resolve any issue at hand when there continues to be mass murder in our country year after year. Quite frankly, I don't know how anybody can witness this time and time again and think there is nothing that we can do to stem the tide of bloodshed from fanatical killers.

...that's just the thing though. Is there actually anything we can do? Barring some sci-fi technology ala Minority Report, I think we can all be assured that killers intent on killing...are going to kill. If they want to maximize the deaths in their killing spree, they will find a way to do so regardless of what we attempt to keep out of their hands. I agree with common sense approaches to gun control like background checks using an accurate and functional system. I agree with really tackling the long-overdue issues of mental health in this country. I agree that no-gun zones tend to be major targets for these types of shootings. I agree that we have an out of control prescription medicine problem in this country, with people being prescribed meds with side-effects such as suicidal tendencies and violent behavior (http://ssristories.org/). Fix them, yes, but I don't see them as an answer to stopping killers from doing what they do.

[SOUL]

Fix them, yes, but I don't see them as an answer to stopping killers from doing what they do.

I don't think anybody thinks that we would morph into a perfect society even with the changes that are being called for, but the point is to make it less frequent and harder to commit. You can strip the entire world of resources and material and somebody will still find a way to make something that has the capability of killing dozens of innocent lives in a frighteningly short amount of time.

[basketballRob]

As someone who lives less then 10 miles from the tragic incident, I do believe a more strict gun control is in order but not to disarm your entire country. That will not accomplish anything. Criminals don't follow laws. They will acquire their firearms from the black market or elsewhere. This guy was one of the few who bought it legally and if denied, he would have still had access to them. Disarming your entire public does nothing. Realize that all these shootings happen in gun-free zones. ISIS and these terrorists do not respect or follow our laws. Lets focus on wiping them out instead of disarming our citizens. ISIS attacked Russia, Putin bombs them. ISIS attacked US, Obama targets the guns. What?

Obama along with coalition forces have bombed ISIS 1000's of times. Stop drinking the koolaid.

[MrShow]

Totally agree with this, we should ban cars too.

Idiotic

The purpose of guns is to kill, not cars.

Assault weapons and high capacity magazines need to be banned. Owning a gun should require registration, testing, insurance and periodic mental health checks. (More often for hunters.)