Orlando Shooting

[mister d]

Aren't there a bunch of other things we don't make legal under the auspices of allowing our military to practice on their downtime?

[govmentchedda]

Not really. Automatic weapons are banned and I only deploy with either the m4 or Beretta M9. Special Forces get some cool weapons. Security Forces gets shotguns. And I've seen OSI agents with Sig Sauer 9 mm.

We don't get 1911s anymore, unfortunately.

You'll be fine, Rass. I'm more worried about Giff.

He does have to drive in Houston.

[Johnnie]

Aren't there a bunch of other things we don't make legal under the auspices of allowing our military to practice on their downtime?

Not sure what you're alluding to.

[Johnnie]

[degenerasian]

Ive seen Anderson Cooper cover a lot of awful events on the scene and stay composed, but he is having a tough time covering this one.

[Shirley]

....aaaaaand he's gay.

Self loathing fucking scumbag. Yells his love for ISIS as a distraction.

But it still won't change the narrative.

Man, I wondered if that would come out after I heard several stories of how folks said he was mostly normal, but seemed to really hate homosexuals. That's always a big, gay, red flag. And nobody really said that he was a devout Muslim.

I wonder if that's going to change this narrative at all.

[mister d]

Unless they realize he was wearing face paint and is actually a dude from Wisconsin named Chad, the "radical Muslim" narrative is pretty locked in.

[Ryan]

53% of Chad is Muslim

[Gunpowder]

As some general (McChrystal, I think) I've seen quoted says "If you want to shoot an AR-15, join the military".

I did. So let's not be proficient when I'm potentially placed in a life or death situation. McChrystal was a fuck up. Read up about him.

Let's make it legal to carry guns in bars so that police officers can do it.

OR we can use words and make laws that allow you to do what you need to do to shoot your guns without allowing An'Al-Qaeda in Orlando to do it. I just feel like there is some kind of reacharound or workaround to your problem.

Or we can make all drugs legal so researchers can study them.

[Gunpowder]

Aren't there a bunch of other things we don't make legal under the auspices of allowing our military to practice on their downtime?

Not sure what you're alluding to.

Do any of you guys drive tanks? Or shoot rockets at planes? Or...I don't know, anything that people don't do freely through the streets of Des Moines?

[Gunpowder]

I'm not even picking a side here but "this can't be banned so that the military can practice" seems like a dumb argument. I don't want people carrying grenades around but then again, I want you to be good at it and I can't think of a way to have both.

[Johnnie]

Whoa...what the fuck. Don't put words in my fucking mouth.

DiS said this:

And there is NO FUCKING REASON why anyone needs a gun like the AR-15. None at all.

Which is, as far as I'm concerned, wrong. In at least one instance. The instance I gave for my (and by extension other military members) in being proficient on a firearm we have to deploy with. Not roam the streets of Des Moines with.

I don't have access to base shooting ranges. I don't have access to unlimited training ammo. I can't just walk into the base armory and borrow a firearm and return it when I'm done. I need to be tasked to deploy with a memo signed by my commander stating that I have to go through training. And then the Combat Arms section of Security Forces puts me through a full two day course for the weapons I deploy with.

Then I get the McChrystal quote about joining the military to use an AR-15.

I'm in the fucking military and only use it when I deploy after putting 150-200 rounds of ammo through it sitting a two day training session.

Granted, the likelihood that I will have to use my rifle downrange is slim. My job just doesn't call for that. But other people in other career fields across other military branches? Completely different story.

This shows a real disconnect with what I do and my lifestyle and how civilians just don't comprehend it. Plus I can only speak for the Air Force. I know we don't have tanks. The Army does. And they field train as a part of their proficiency. Whether it's with tanks or not, I have no idea. And other small portions of certain career fields do train on larger weapons (like the M240) and special weapons like grenades. But those are special and unique. Literally everyone deploying gets either an M4 or M9.

[Ryan]

My small civilian brain still can't figure out if you're allowed to carry it around in the trunk of your 1983 Datsun or if it's only availabe to you at a secure installation, which is what we're concerned about the logistics therein of

sir.

[tennbengal]

My small civilian brain still can't figure out if you're allowed to carry it around in the trunk of your 1983 Datsun or if it's only availabe to you at a secure installation, which is what we're concerned about the logistics therein of

sir.

I want to keep my tank in my Datsun but the man won't let me.

[mister d]

I bet grenade launchers are even trickier to master.

[DSafetyGuy]

I think if the military wants you to be proficient with a weapon because of a potential deployment, they should make it so that you can be proficient. Provide the weapon, the training, the ammunition, a place to continue to work on your skills. You shouldn't have to provide any of that.

The military branch is your employer. They should provide you with everything you need to be the employee they want you to be.

[Gunpowder]

Whoa...what the fuck. Don't put words in my fucking mouth.

DiS said this:

And there is NO FUCKING REASON why anyone needs a gun like the AR-15. None at all.

Which is, as far as I'm concerned, wrong. In at least one instance. The instance I gave for my (and by extension other military members) in being proficient on a firearm we have to deploy with. Not roam the streets of Des Moines with.

I don't have access to base shooting ranges. I don't have access to unlimited training ammo. I can't just walk into the base armory and borrow a firearm and return it when I'm done. I need to be tasked to deploy with a memo signed by my commander stating that I have to go through training. And then the Combat Arms section of Security Forces puts me through a full two day course for the weapons I deploy with.

Then I get the McChrystal quote about joining the military to use an AR-15.

I'm in the fucking military and only use it when I deploy after putting 150-200 rounds of ammo through it sitting a two day training session.

Granted, the likelihood that I will have to use my rifle downrange is slim. My job just doesn't call for that. But other people in other career fields across other military branches? Completely different story.

This shows a real disconnect with what I do and my lifestyle and how civilians just don't comprehend it. Plus I can only speak for the Air Force. I know we don't have tanks. The Army does. And they field train as a part of their proficiency. Whether it's with tanks or not, I have no idea. And other small portions of certain career fields do train on larger weapons (like the M240) and special weapons like grenades. But those are special and unique. Literally everyone deploying gets either an M4 or M9.

Then you get a card that lets you have it. I'm sure that's exactly what DiS meant, though. This probably still shows a disconnect or something.

[Gunpowder]

I bet grenade launchers are even trickier to master.

Well shit, better let Scottie have one.

[mister d]

I'm just saying, its not as simple as not giving everyone equal access to grenade launchers in order to avoid voiding some 0.3% positive scenario that could have a pretty obvious, easy to implement workaround.

[Johnnie]

I think if the military wants you to be proficient with a weapon because of a potential deployment, they should make it so that you can be proficient. Provide the weapon, the training, the ammunition, a place to continue to work on your skills. You shouldn't have to provide any of that.

The military branch is your employer. They should provide you with everything you need to be the employee they want you to be.

I'm completely fine with every single bit of this. And this is the perfect compromise. I would be ecstatic if I could do such a thing at no cost to me. I'd have piece of mind that I'm proficient and it removes the singular excuse I posed here.

[Gunpowder]

I just don't think anyone wants to make your life all that much harder. It's something that can be worked around and not something that I think anyone was referring to.


Has anyone considered that maybe God sent this guy to kill the amoral gays and he should be a hero? Pat Robertson is probably losing his brain right now trying to determine how he should react.

[sancarlos]

Has anyone considered that maybe God sent this guy to kill the amoral gays and he should be a hero? Pat Robertson is probably losing his brain right now trying to determine how he should react.

I don't know about Pat Robertson, but there is this guy. And, the lt. governor of Texas.

[Jerloma]

Has anyone considered that maybe God sent this guy to kill the amoral gays and he should be a hero? Pat Robertson is probably losing his brain right now trying to determine how he should react.

I don't know about Pat Robertson, but there is this guy. And, the lt. governor of Texas.

I would never begrudge anyone for thinking that there is a strong anti-gay sentiment within their books and their churches but where the hell did they come up with this crazy idea that homosexuality and pedophilia are one in the same?

Also, let's not forget that Mary was 14.

Oh, and Aisha was 6!

[Giff]

Oh, and Aisha was 6!

Good thing these guys were so young!

[DaveInSeattle]

Whoa...what the fuck. Don't put words in my fucking mouth.

DiS said this:

And there is NO FUCKING REASON why anyone needs a gun like the AR-15. None at all.

Which is, as far as I'm concerned, wrong. In at least one instance. The instance I gave for my (and by extension other military members) in being proficient on a firearm we have to deploy with. Not roam the streets of Des Moines with.

I don't have access to base shooting ranges. I don't have access to unlimited training ammo. I can't just walk into the base armory and borrow a firearm and return it when I'm done. I need to be tasked to deploy with a memo signed by my commander stating that I have to go through training. And then the Combat Arms section of Security Forces puts me through a full two day course for the weapons I deploy with.

Then I get the McChrystal quote about joining the military to use an AR-15.

I'm in the fucking military and only use it when I deploy after putting 150-200 rounds of ammo through it sitting a two day training session.

Granted, the likelihood that I will have to use my rifle downrange is slim. My job just doesn't call for that. But other people in other career fields across other military branches? Completely different story.

This shows a real disconnect with what I do and my lifestyle and how civilians just don't comprehend it. Plus I can only speak for the Air Force. I know we don't have tanks. The Army does. And they field train as a part of their proficiency. Whether it's with tanks or not, I have no idea. And other small portions of certain career fields do train on larger weapons (like the M240) and special weapons like grenades. But those are special and unique. Literally everyone deploying gets either an M4 or M9.

If the Military is not training you properly to do your job, than that needs to change. No argument there.

But that's no excuse when it comes to allowing everyday people to waltz into a gun shop and buy an AR-15, which they then use to shoot up a gay bar....or a movie theater...or a office christmas party...or a elementary school.

(and yes, I know that McChrystal screwed up. Shit-talking your boss to a Rolling Stone reporter is not the best thing, career-wise)

[DaveInSeattle]

Man, I wondered if that would come out after I heard several stories of how folks said he was mostly normal, but seemed to really hate homosexuals. That's always a big, gay, red flag. And nobody really said that he was a devout Muslim.

He was so deeply conflicted that we wanted to be known as part of ISIS, rather than being gay.

I wonder if that's going to change this narrative at all.

Nope, not one bit.

Notice how now its because "Obama is being politically correct!". From all the usual suspects (Cruz, the NRA, Trump). They had to coordinate their message to get on the same page.

[Gunpowder]

Has anyone considered that maybe God sent this guy to kill the amoral gays and he should be a hero? Pat Robertson is probably losing his brain right now trying to determine how he should react.

I don't know about Pat Robertson, but there is this guy. And, the lt. governor of Texas.

Wait a second...so then if God sent the shooter...and the shooter was....ALLAH IS THE TRUE GOD!?!?!? OH SHIT

[Gunpowder]

Man, I wondered if that would come out after I heard several stories of how folks said he was mostly normal, but seemed to really hate homosexuals. That's always a big, gay, red flag. And nobody really said that he was a devout Muslim.

He was so deeply conflicted that we wanted to be known as part of ISIS, rather than being gay.

I wonder if that's going to change this narrative at all.

Nope, not one bit.

Notice how now its because "Obama is being politically correct!". From all the usual suspects (Cruz, the NRA, Trump). They had to coordinate their message to get on the same page.

His issue earlier was that he jumped the gun on issues. Now he needs to jump the gun and say it was Islam so that it will stop happening because the Muslims just kinda want to do this stuff under the radar.


In reality, Donald Trump is their f-in' wet dream.

[howard]

It's just the soundtrack for your life
It's just everyday evil

[Johnnie]

I just don't think anyone wants to make your life all that much harder. It's something that can be worked around and not something that I think anyone was referring to.

Never said they did. Also I'm literally referring to a single, solitary instance where it's the least but feasible that yes, there can be a reason to allow military grade firearms. But like DSafe poses, it is really fixed with a budgetary bump and work around on a local military installation.

If the Military is not training you properly to do your job, than that needs to change. No argument there.

But that's no excuse when it comes to allowing everyday people to waltz into a gun shop and buy an AR-15, which they then use to shoot up a gay bar....or a movie theater...or a office christmas party...or a elementary school.

The topic of training is extremely subjective. Even security forces folks only fire every 6 months and they are employed to defend the base. So a desk worker like me that will deploy once every few years for 6 months? Far, far less. Many are fine with that. Others who look at firearm proficiency as both a hobby and job skill, are not.

I'm a "greater good" guy. If it benefits 99.7% of society that ARs, AKs, and magazines with lots of rounds be removed from the public being able to use them, I get it. If the pre-2004/5 ban came back, I'm not going to get mad.

I just look at the 3rd largest population on the planet with guns astrewn everywhere amongst the populous and real enthusiasts with their ability to make their own rounds if ammo gets taken out of circulation, and a land mass that we have that's this size just impossible in the near term to govern. You gotta think, it's not just large gun manufacturers that make these weapons. It's small businesses as well. For every Sig Sauer, Colt, or Bushmaster you have BCM or Midwest Industries.

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/ten-top ... facturers/

[howard]

It is very funny when we see videos of foreign parliaments that dissolve into shouting and physical violence, like South Korea or Ukraine.

But, as we lose our collective minds as a nation and a culture, here's another signpost. Video at the link:

House erupts into shouting after moment of silence for Orlando

[mister d]

You gotta think, it's not just large gun manufacturers that make these weapons. It's small businesses as well. For every Sig Sauer, Colt, or Bushmaster you have BCM or Midwest Industries.

I don't get why this matters.

[tennbengal]

If I were in Congress as a member, I would have talked right the fuck through that moment of silence, listing off how much each congressfolk took from the NRA since Sandy Hook while blocking even the discussion of reasonable measures to make ownership of guns safer.

[mister d]

And 40-something percent of the country would be more upset about that than the actual deaths.

[Johnnie]

You gotta think, it's not just large gun manufacturers that make these weapons. It's small businesses as well. For every Sig Sauer, Colt, or Bushmaster you have BCM or Midwest Industries.

I don't get why this matters.

The size and scope of necessarily dismantling businesses both big and small is what I'm getting at. You're fucking with the money line here. And that goes from direct contributions to politicians and lobbyists to eradicating jobs and livelihoods where products are made. Everyone is complicit in this. I'm just saying it'll open a can of worms. I'm ready for the can to be cracked open, but people just think "push legislation and all will be well" without thinking of sect ramifications.

But I can tell from most on this board, "So fucking what?" is the attitude. I'm not going to tell you how to react, but it's not as cut and dry as Australia or the UK.

[mister d]

I'm not sympathetic to the profit argument, so I think you've got me pegged* correctly in the "so fucking what" category if that's the tradeoff.



* ; )

[brian]

Isn't there a middle path where gun manufacturers are made to invest in technology to make it harder for guns to be used by anyone other than their owner? I can use my fingerprint to get into my phone or access to my building at work, but we can't have a thumb/finger print scanner on a gun?

ETA: And yes, this wouldn't have prevented the Orlando shooting. (Though not legally selling guns to dudes on terrorism watch lists might). But it does resolve the biggest issue with guns and completely de-fangs the whole "only outlaws will have guns" argument.

[A_B]

Isn't there a middle path where gun manufacturers are made to invest in technology to make it harder for guns to be used by anyone other than their owner? I can use my fingerprint to get into my phone or access to my building at work, but we can't have a thumb/finger print scanner on a gun?

ETA: And yes, this wouldn't have prevented the Orlando shooting. (Though not legally selling guns to dudes on terrorism watch lists might). But it does resolve the biggest issue with guns and completely de-fangs the whole "only outlaws will have guns" argument.

James Bond had one in Spectre!

[mister d]

The founding fathers also wanted guns to be really cheap so I don't think that would work. And I don't like it anyway.

[DaveInSeattle]

But I can tell from most on this board, "So fucking what?" is the attitude. I'm not going to tell you how to react, but it's not as cut and dry as Australia or the UK.

To use your phrase "So Fucking What?". Aren't we supposed to be the "Greatest Nation on Earth"? So why can other countries, such as Australia and Great Britain, successfully handle these things, but here in the US we just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well...what can you do about it?". Shouldn't we be better than that?