Mass Shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando

[Byrthnoth]

It's not about stopping him from committing a crime. It's about making him worse at committing the crime.

[Anoat]

There is a large contingent of people (crazy people, but people whose vote counts just as much as yours and mine) who believe the Newtown shooting was completely fabricated and staged by the Obama administration to get harsher gun control laws enacted.

Found on my FB feed, the crazy has already started.

Propaganda is powerful and a tool of the New World Order Global Elite and Main Stream Media to deceive the masses, to create False Flags Events, Psychological Events of Shock and Awe,ie; (911 WTC Attacks and frame the goals and agendas that they desire to control the people of a country or the world. Orlando Shooting is a false flag event which will be used to promote more GUN CONTROL. GUN CONTROL works for governments that are seeking to control their populations with a iron fist, ask HITLER, LENIN, STALIN, MOA SE TOA. If there was ever a crime against humanity it is these so-called leaders and mouth pieces that push these kind of Satanic agendas upon the people. TIME TO WAKE UP PEOPLE! If you leaders are calling for GUN CONTROL, Remember This; They are not working for you, they are working for their Satanic Masters of the NWO and selling you out completely. Google: Georgia Guidestones
Please do some research!

[archibaldcrane]

I don't even know if checking the terrorist watchlist as part of a background check would pass constitutional muster, since you can be put on the watchlist without due process.

(but it's certainly a legal question that deserves an answer)

[Karbuncle]

It's not about stopping him from committing a crime. It's about making him worse at committing the crime.

Maybe. But would an explosive have been less devastating than a firearm? How do we know he wouldn't have just blown the whole place to shit ala-Boston? I know less people died at the Marathon bombing but it was outdoors. an in-door Nightclub would have been devastated by a bomb, like say, Paris. This is all in theory, restricting guns doesn't mean there will be less deaths if he goes to an equally destructive method next since its now easier than guns.

Again, thoroughly not against reasonable restrictions... but tough are we talking? Where do we start and end on restrictions? The FBI Watch list thing is a real slippery slope though I'm morally torn because I have a tough time saying "Yah he can buy guns even though the FBI thinks hes a terrorist", but then I'm reminded the FBI can fuck up hard and being suspected of a crime isn't a crime.

[archibaldcrane]

The thing about terrorists using explosives is that it makes them WAY more likely to be caught before the attack.

[Anoat]

A spokesman for the Texas Lt. Governor says the now deleted "reap what you sow" Tweet was an unfortunate coincidence, he schedules a Bible verse Tweet every Sunday at 7am and this one in particular had been scheduled since this past Thursday.

[chazzyphizzle]

sounds believable, jk

[Byrthnoth]

And also the explosives don't always work as the person intended, as evidenced by the two attempts to use explosives today (China and Beirut) that resulted in a combined 0 fatalities.

I'd be fully in support of a national gun registry for every type of firearm and laws regulating the transfer of weaponry between individuals. Furthermore, if you get put on the terrorist watch list or antipsychotics, I think the government should be able to temporarily impound your guns. If you're found to have a gun that isn't registered to you, it should be treated as stolen property and confiscated.

Basically, I want a clear path to legal gun ownership (roughly comparable to the path to legal car ownership) with common sense restrictions on that right when your gun owning hobby clearly conflicts with the public good (comparable to taking your driver's lisence). Guns are not occupation essential for the overwhelming majority of Americans (unlike cars). We need to stop acting like they are.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

Civilians have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated they are unable to exercise their second amendment rights. Want a gun? Go sign up to die on a different continent or be a cop. Full stop.

The confiscation begins now.

[Kachiko]

And also the explosives don't always work as the person intended, as evidenced by the two attempts to use explosives today (China and Beirut) that resulted in a combined 0 fatalities.

I'd be fully in support of a national gun registry for every type of firearm and laws regulating the transfer of weaponry between individuals. Furthermore, if you get put on the terrorist watch list or antipsychotics, I think the government should be able to temporarily impound your guns. If you're found to have a gun that isn't registered to you, it should be treated as stolen property and confiscated.

Basically, I want a clear path to legal gun ownership (roughly comparable to the path to legal car ownership) with common sense restrictions on that right when your gun owning hobby clearly conflicts with the public good (comparable to taking your driver's lisence). Guns are not occupation essential for the overwhelming majority of Americans (unlike cars). We need to stop acting like they are.

This misses two points though:

First, guns are a constitutional right, and can't be compared to a car. If we were, then we'd be all about banning cars because they kill as many people as guns do every year. Yet the comparison isn't fully taken to it's logical conclusion, that we should be mass banning cars in the same fashion. Either the number of people killed by something matters, or it doesn't and since cars are not being held to that same standard, why should guns be held to that standard? I posted earlier how you can change things; get a constitutional amendment going as that's the only way to change things with any sort of resolution to the debate. Yes, that would be hard work; I get it.

Second, America is founded on principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We don't dictate to each other what we need; by and large, the lawful population gets to pursue it's desires so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. Someone in America, owning an "assault" rifle, has no bearing or responsibility for the shit someone else does with similar property. You don't get to ban something you don't like because some people do things with them that you don't approve of. You get to hold that person responsible; you don't get to punish everyone else because of their actions. This also means you don't get to monitor those people, on a federal level either, because, again, they have rights under the Fourth Amendment against this type of monitoring.

Until the 2nd and 4rth amendment are re-evaluated at a constitutional level, none of this argument particularly matters, and unless that route is actually taken, nothing will change. Of course, if you did, that brings a whole slew of other considerations, so yes, it would be hard work. I get it.

[Byrthnoth]

First, guns are a constitutional right, and can't be compared to a car. If we were, then we'd be all about banning cars because they kill as many people as guns do every year. Yet the comparison isn't fully taken to it's logical conclusion, that we should be mass banning cars in the same fashion.

So because cars aren't a constitutional right, we don't talk about banning cars even though they kill people? No, we don't talk about banning cars because they're a rational risk we take as a society. We do regulate what cars are legal, because we're trying to mitigate the risk.

Furthermore, I never suggested we ban guns or implied it would take less than a constitutional amendment to get it done. I recognize a constitutional amendment (and hence any tangible action on gun control) is unlikely to happen. That was purely a "if I could rewrite the laws, how would it be?"

Second, America is founded on principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We don't dictate to each other what we need; by and large, the lawful population gets to pursue it's desires so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. Someone in America, owning an "assault" rifle, has no bearing or responsibility for the shit someone else does with similar property. You don't get to ban something you don't like because some people do things with them that you don't approve of. You get to hold that person responsible; you don't get to punish everyone else because of their actions. This also means you don't get to monitor those people, on a federal level either, because, again, they have rights under the Fourth Amendment against this type of monitoring.

It's only logically possible for a single person to be truly free. As soon as that person interacts with a second person who is also truly free, one or both will end up compromising.

We have an entire society of freedom seekers, so we have a lot of compromises. One of those compromises should be on whether or not you have to fill out paperwork to own a gun.

[Gadritan]

I say we legalize everything for a year and trim the fat.

[Fiye]

Legitimately though, guns are not a constitutional right as a whole. If they were then we wouldn't have rulings like this or the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989.

I know these are based on a single state, but if the second amend were to be held up against this (As it should) than these rulings and laws wouldn't hold a candle. Something can be done if I'm not mistaken.

Edit: Lets not forget this either. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-block...ts-buying-guns

I know its been brought up in this thread, but it should be repeated.

[jacobs67]

And also the explosives don't always work as the person intended, as evidenced by the two attempts to use explosives today (China and Beirut) that resulted in a combined 0 fatalities.

I'd be fully in support of a national gun registry for every type of firearm and laws regulating the transfer of weaponry between individuals. Furthermore, if you get put on the terrorist watch list or antipsychotics, I think the government should be able to temporarily impound your guns. If you're found to have a gun that isn't registered to you, it should be treated as stolen property and confiscated.

Basically, I want a clear path to legal gun ownership (roughly comparable to the path to legal car ownership) with common sense restrictions on that right when your gun owning hobby clearly conflicts with the public good (comparable to taking your driver's lisence). Guns are not occupation essential for the overwhelming majority of Americans (unlike cars). We need to stop acting like they are.

The antipsychotics thing is a bit too far and just further stigmatizes the mentally ill, who are far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than to commit it. Not everyone who gets puts on them needs them or is on them for any violent or unstable reasons, hell they literally advertise some antipsychotics on TV as an add-on augmentation for depression. I don't care about guns and if I had my way I'd push a button that made every single gun in existence disappear into another universe but having some grand list of someone's medical history to discriminate against them without knowing the full story seems wrong and violates patient privacy laws pretty sure (and is morally wrong IMO)

[Quicklet]

I'd be fully in support of a national gun registry for every type of firearm and laws regulating the transfer of weaponry between individuals. Furthermore, if you get put on the terrorist watch list or antipsychotics, I think the government should be able to temporarily impound your guns. If you're found to have a gun that isn't registered to you, it should be treated as stolen property and confiscated.

Might as well add people who have DV history or restraining orders to that list.

I think there will come a time where the general public will realize that there's no societal benefit to having high-efficiency killing machines available to a large segment of the public, and that restricting access to those weapons is the only feasible solution that will make a difference without impeding other freedoms that are just as if not more important.

[Byrthnoth]

The antipsychotics thing is a bit too far and just further stigmatizes the mentally ill, who are far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than to commit it. Not everyone who gets puts on them needs them or is on them for any violent or unstable reasons, hell they literally advertise some antipsychotics on TV as an add-on augmentation for depression. I don't care about guns and if I had my way I'd push a button that made every single gun in existence disappear into another universe but having some grand list of someone's medical history to discriminate against them without knowing the full story seems wrong and violates patient privacy laws pretty sure (and is morally wrong IMO)

That's a potential negative side-effect, but the majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides. There's something to be said for taking guns from depressed people.

[SephYuyX]

Why is this shit not in the youtube diarrhea section.

[6souls]

Verge, trying to be relevant, is slamming EA for being tone-deaf by showing Titanfall 2 & Battlefield 1 at the conference.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/12/11...e-gun-violence

They closed their comment section for this article. they just reopened them.

[mallister]

I'm sure that will help curb the titan-on-civilian violence that plagues our society.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

That's a potential negative side-effect, but the majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides. There's something to be said for taking guns from depressed people.

Just because 20,000 out of the 30,000 gun-related deaths per year are suicide doesn't excuse the real issue. It still means 10,000 deaths are preventable via control, regulation, restriction, and confiscation.