[Rushy]

Assault weapons are automatic. The AK he used wasn't. Therfore its not an assault rifle.

Assault rifles are automatic. Assault weapons is a vague term used to describe lots of guns, usually semi-auto rifles. The distinction is important from a legal standpoint, which is why the 1992 gun ban is referred to as the "Assault Weapons Ban" since it banned semi-autos.

[Luke 22:35-38]

If more people wanted to carr, maybe but if we live in a world where carrying a gun becomes a necessity, then our world is doomed.

We live in that world now. Look what just happened. Do you think he would've commited such an atrocity if only ten people there were armed? Do you think he would even attempt it if he knew ten people in the bar was armed?

Also, anyone can carry a gun.  See criminals. They don't need a license to shoot someone.

Anyone can but that doesn't mean everybody does.

[Luke 22:35-38]

Assault weapons are automatic. The AK he used wasn't. Therfore its not an assault rifle.

Assault rifles are automatic. Assault weapons is a vague term used to describe lots of guns, usually semi-auto rifles.

Thank you.

[Rama Set]

No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.

Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?

None needed. How many mass shootings you heard coming from gun shows, stores, ranges, and rallies?

I've never heard of a mass shooting at a toxic water dump either. Are you suggesting toxic waste dumps are an effective deterrent against gun violence?

Assault weapons are automatic. The AK he used wasn't. Therfore its not an assault rifle.

By whose definition?  Regardless, automatic fire is not the only contributor to how effective a firearm is.

[garygreen]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-orlando-nightclub-shooter-visited-222620444.html

[Luke 22:35-38]

No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.

Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?

It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

None needed. How many mass shootings you heard coming from gun shows, stores, ranges, and rallies?

I've never heard of a mass shooting at a toxic water dump either. Are you suggesting toxic waste dumps are an effective deterrent against gun violence?[/quote]

It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?

Assault weapons are automatic. The AK he used wasn't. Therfore its not an assault rifle.

By whose definition?  Regardless, automatic fire is not the only contributor to how effective a firearm is.
[/quote]

By the military's definition. Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?

[Rama Set]

No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.

Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?

It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.

It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?

I can see you missed the point.

By the military's definition.

Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?

Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?

Did I mention a ban at any time?  Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?

EDIT: Fixed quotes

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Although I fully realise this is one debate where polarisation through cultural and political bias is unlikely to change many if anyone’s opinion, but here goes;

Luke’s blasé assertion than more guns is the answer to gun crime is perhaps deserving of the “Tom” award for unsubstantiated idiotic comment of the thread. In a country where upwards of 30,000 people will die of fire-arms injuries this year, the highest in the industrial world and where the small amount of scientific data studies coming out, suggests (counter intuitively) that you are in more danger of gun related death if You are carrying a gun (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/). The Idea that exhorting more poorly educated people to tool up as a deterrent is risible.

I don’t know what the answer to the US’s, “I’ve got a problem with this bit of society, lets shoot it up” mentality, or the growing worldwide trend of disaffected Muslims to do the same.
But maybe, giving more guns to the former, isn’t sane, and maybe stop bombing their countries (see families, cultures) back to the stone-age on the slimmest of pretexts for the latter? 

[Ghost Spaghetti]

We live in that world now. Look what just happened. Do you think he would've commited such an atrocity if only ten people there were armed? Do you think he would even attempt it if he knew ten people in the bar was armed?

You think that bringing more guns into a crowded, dark, confusing environment where most people will be drunk would have reduced the amount of gun-related deaths?

[rooster]

I think you guys are focusing too much on people carrying. I don't think it's legal to carry a gun in a nightclub, so that would make any "good guy with a gun" irrelevant. Most responsible gun owners do not carry when they are imbibing.

Anyway, I'm getting kind of annoyed. I have now seen the exact same post from opposing sides.

"Why is Omar Mateen a terrorist, but Dylann Roof not?" and literally vice versa. "So it's okay to demonize the Confederate flag but not the Islam religion?"

[Luke 22:35-38]

No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.

Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?

It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.

Ok then here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism_in_the_United_States

It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?

I can see you missed the point.

Ok I'll prove my point.

http://absoluterights.com/proof-more-guns-really-does-equal-less-crime/

By the military's definition.

Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?

Did I mention a ban at any time?  Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?

EDIT: Fixed quotes

Then what do you suggest?

[Rama Set]

No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.

Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?

It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.

Ok then here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism_in_the_United_States

Fair enough.

It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?

I can see you missed the point.

Ok I'll prove my point.

http://absoluterights.com/proof-more-guns-really-does-equal-less-crime/

How did this study control for economics and other social factors?  Crime has been going down in most Western nations for a really long time, but they do not show the US case is different. Correlation does not equal causation.

By the military's definition.

Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm[/quote]

You might want to retread that page. It literally says semi-automatic weapons are included the definition and specifically identifies the AR-15.

Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?

Did I mention a ban at any time?  Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?

EDIT: Fixed quotes

Then what do you suggest?
[/quote]

Restrictions on who can buy them and how quickly you can buy them. Periodic proof of ownership and proof of possession of registered guns. These are a couple of half-formed ideas off the top of my head.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?

I can see you missed the point.

In his defense, it was a horrible point to begin with.

By the military's definition.

Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?

Yeah, those pesky ol' facts, why let them get in the way of an opinion fueled tirade of self-righteousness.

Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?

Did I mention a ban at any time?  Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?

Well that seems to be pretty much the main proposition floating around right now, an outright ban on "assault" weapons. Care to enlighten us on how you plan to cure us of the violence at the core of American Society ?

[Rama Set]

It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?

I can see you missed the point.

In his defense, it was a horrible point to begin with.

Fascinating.

By the military's definition.

Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?

Yeah, those pesky ol' facts, why let them get in the way of an opinion fueled tirade of self-righteousness.

Huh?

Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?

Did I mention a ban at any time?  Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?

Well that seems to be pretty much the main proposition floating around right now, an outright ban on "assault" weapons. Care to enlighten us on how you plan to cure us of the violence at the core of American Society ?

[/quote]

Well I already proposed a couple of ideas just a few posts ago, so thanks for reading.  I reckon many crimes that are currently committed with guns would just be committed without guns if guns were not available, and although that is an improvement, the ultimate goal should be a reduction in violent crime broadly.  Perhaps to reduce incidences of violent crime there should be a strong emphasis on education and social welfare so that people have other outlet's to deal with their problems? 

There is some evidence to show that this would be a step in the right direction:

www.politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/5628/Gonzalez.pdf

For the record, I am for a ban on assault and assault type weapons, and generally think carrying guns down the street is a bad idea.  Understanding that there is a 2nd amendment to deal with in the USA, I would think that registered civilian militia's could have access to these weapons in a regulated fashion.  I am not really settled on what the right answer is although I find it hard to believe that more guns would make the world a safer place.

[Luke 22:35-38]

No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.

Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?

It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.

Ok then here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism_in_the_United_States

Fair enough.

Ok.

It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?

I can see you missed the point.

Ok I'll prove my point.

http://absoluterights.com/proof-more-guns-really-does-equal-less-crime/

How did this study control for economics and other social factors?  Crime has been going down in most Western nations for a really long time, but they do not show the US case is different. Correlation does not equal causation.

Crime in America has been dropping as well. We had always had a higher death rate period compared to other nations simply due to our size. Also most of our gun deaths are coming from large cities (particularly those with restrictive gun laws).

By the military's definition.

Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

You might want to retread that page. It literally says semi-automatic weapons are included the definition and specifically identifies the AR-15.

Ok then here.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?

Did I mention a ban at any time?  Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?

EDIT: Fixed quotes

Then what do you suggest?

Restrictions on who can buy them and how quickly you can buy them.

Why? How would that have stopped this shooting? Plus lets examine the current process. If you want to kill someone out of rage and passion you must do the following:

1. Have the money to buy a gun.

2. Step outside the house.

3. Get into your car.

4. Get directions to the nearest gun store.

5. Drive to the nearest gun store.

6. Park the car at the gun store.

7. Go inside the gun store.

8. Pick out the gun you want.

9. Converse with the dealer in a way that won't expose you emotional state because they won't sell you one if they see you're emotionally unstable.

10. Go through a BC.

11. Do 7-2 in reverse order.

Periodic proof of ownership and proof of possession of registered guns. These are a couple of half-formed ideas off the top of my head.

Every confiscation started with registration.

[Lord Dave]

You realize that in Florida, you can literally be a terrorist with actual ties to terrorist organizations and not allowed to fly on a plane but still get a gun, right?

The background check doesn't check for "Are you likely to murder people" but "Are you on drugs or have been a bad person so far?"
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cms/FPP/FAQs2.aspx

So basically, if a bunch of terrorist want to buy weapons, they should do so in Florida.  The FBI and DHS can put them on any list they want but in Florida, they can still buy any gun they want.  Then go to any state in the US and kill people.

[Rama Set]

No punch line but my point is the ones who are more apted to carry don't hang around gay bars.

Citation required. Or are you an expert on gay bars?

It's kind of common sense. Most conservatives are straight and wouldn't go to a gay bar. Most gays are liberal. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Milo Yiannoppulos. Never bring up common sense again and really, stop with the factoids. You sound like you say things because they sound right, regardless of whether or not they are true.

Ok then here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_conservatism_in_the_United_States

Fair enough.

Ok.

It's a deterrent to any normal person. Would you want to go to a toxic waste dump?

I can see you missed the point.

Ok I'll prove my point.

http://absoluterights.com/proof-more-guns-really-does-equal-less-crime/

How did this study control for economics and other social factors?  Crime has been going down in most Western nations for a really long time, but they do not show the US case is different. Correlation does not equal causation.

Crime in America has been dropping as well. We had always had a higher death rate period compared to other nations simply due to our size. Also most of our gun deaths are coming from large cities (particularly those with restrictive gun laws).

Why does the USA being a bigger country cause a higher crime rate?  I think it's pretty common for larger denser cities to have a larger proportion of the crimes committed. Nothing novel there.

By the military's definition.

Citation required. You love your factoids don't you?

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

You might want to retread that page. It literally says semi-automatic weapons are included the definition and specifically identifies the AR-15.

Ok then here.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Lol. Well this does not change that the AR-15, by the AWB is considered an assault weapon. It's all pointless anyway since a weapon does not have to be automatic to have either a high firing rate or deadly effectiveness.

Besides, like I said the second largest shooting was done with ten round mags and pistols. Do you really think any sort of ban would've stopped that?

Did I mention a ban at any time?  Why would banning be the only regulatory tool available?

EDIT: Fixed quotes

Then what do you suggest?

Restrictions on who can buy them and how quickly you can buy them.

Why? How would that have stopped this shooting? Plus lets examine the current process. If you want to kill someone out of rage and passion you must do the following:

1. Have the money to buy a gun.

2. Step outside the house.

3. Get into your car.

4. Get directions to the nearest gun store.

5. Drive to the nearest gun store.

6. Park the car at the gun store.

7. Go inside the gun store.

8. Pick out the gun you want.

9. Converse with the dealer in a way that won't expose you emotional state because they won't sell you one if they see you're emotionally unstable.

10. Go through a BC.

11. Do 7-2 in reverse order.

There have been many accounts recently of people acquiring an AR-15 in less than 10 minutes. Let's call it 10. Tack on 20 minutes travel time and you have someone who can go from pissed off to ready for battle in less than an hour. Bet they can do it on credit too. If that doesn't seem fast to you then I don't know what to say.

Periodic proof of ownership and proof of possession of registered guns. These are a couple of half-formed ideas off the top of my head.

Every confiscation started with registration.

Good old slippery slope fallacy. Good talk.

[George]

Every mass murder begins with the culprit waking up that morning.   Clearly beds are the real threat.

[Rushy]

The gun violence rate in the US is exceptionally low (in the vast majority of the country) and is in line with other first world nations, so gun control wouldn't affect local gun violence, and certainly wouldn't affect a mass shooting that had been premeditated well in advance.

I think it would be more effective to examine why people perform mass shootings versus banning the tools they used. The US has seen a constant drop in crime rates across the board but gun sales have only gone up. The idea that guns create this sort of crime isn't supported by the data that I've seen.

[Luke 22:35-38]

You realize that in Florida, you can literally be a terrorist with actual ties to terrorist organizations and not allowed to fly on a plane but still get a gun, right?

You do realize that the shooter wasn't on the no fly list and only 1 out of 100 are said to be legitimately on the list right?

The background check doesn't check for "Are you likely to murder people" but "Are you on drugs or have been a bad person so far?"
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cms/FPP/FAQs2.aspx

Your point?

So basically, if a bunch of terrorist want to buy weapons, they should do so in Florida.  The FBI and DHS can put them on any list they want but in Florida, they can still buy any gun they want.  Then go to any state in the US and kill people.

What you're suggesting is circumventing due process.