jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (81 posts)

How Many Less Dead in Orlando Had High Capacity Magazines Been Illegal

  1. My Esoteric profile image87
    My Esotericposted 5 months ago

    Even though the system, as currently configured, worked in the case of the Orlando Terrorist, if one of the more popular gun regulations had not been stopped by the NRA & friends, how many people, now dead, would have been alive?  One of the more sensible and less intrusive regulations sought by those concerned with making the streets safer from guns is a ban on High Capacity Magazines? 

    One will never know how many people could have escaped during the few seconds it takes to insert a new magazine?  No one will ever know if someone might have been able to tackle the shooter while he as reloading.  But one thing is certain, the chance would have been there.

    This is also another reason why mass-killing weapons like the AR-15 (the semi-automatic version of the Army's M-16) should be more highly regulated.  I am not sure I can go with an outright ban, but there clearly needs to be more control given this is the weapon of choice for mass killers.

    1. Old Poolman profile image83
      Old Poolmanposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      You ask an interesting question with many possible answers.  The killer was a trained shooter and could probably complete a magazine change in seconds.  It probably would not have made much difference in this case.

      It would however make a difference if the shooter had no training and the people in the room were able and willing to rush him.  However the panic in this room may not have allowed that to happen.

      Bottom line is I guess we will never really know if banning high capacity magazines would have made any difference at all.  With the recent information coming out on the news it would appear there were several occasions where this nut case could have been taken off the streets including his employer.

      I just can't blame the gun or the high capacity magazine for this tragedy. I blame the shooter, his ISIS loyalty, his homophobic tendencies, his employer, and even his father.  America just has to wake up and speak up when they see or hear suspicious activity like this shooter had demonstrated for years.

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

        So, OP where do we draw the line between unpopular and troubling speech and that with actions that support the intervention of law enforcement?

        1. Old Poolman profile image83
          Old Poolmanposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Credence2- And there my friend comes the slippery slope.  It would be nearly impossible to draw a clear line regarding this issue.  Carried to far and we would be nothing but a police state with everyone subject to search, seizure, and arrest for a comment we made.  Too far the other way and we fail to take real threats off the streets.

          I guess there really is no right or wrong answer is there?

    2. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

      I can't figure how one man can kill 50 people and injure 50 more before having been subdued in some way by somebody with so many people in the tavern?

      1. promisem profile image96
        promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Panic plus rapid firing plus lax gun laws.

        If he didn't have an assault rifle, far fewer people would have died and the odds of subduing him would have gone way up, like the brother of the murdered singer who tackled the shooter a week ago.

        1. Old Poolman profile image83
          Old Poolmanposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          promisem - I think like many you are slightly confused about so called assault rifles.  They are not full automatic and I have hunting rifles that would be just as deadly and shoot just as fast.

          No matter what the gun didn't decide to kill all those innocent people, the shooter did.

          1. ahorseback profile image51
            ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this
          2. My Esoteric profile image87
            My Esotericposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            I didn't know this until today; the Army has mostly replaced the fully automatic M-16 for the M-4, which has two modes, semi-automatic and 3-round burst; they dropped the fully automatic.  Bottom line, the AR-15 is an assault weapon designed to kill lots of people quickly.

          3. promisem profile image96
            promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Old Poolman, I'm aware that legal assault rifles are not fully automatic, but there are ways of making them automatic.

            May I ask why do most recent massacres involve an assault rifles and not hunting rifles?

          4. promisem profile image96
            promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Old Poolman, does your hunting rifle have a 30-round capacity? I had the impression that many states limit hunting capacity to five or 10 rounds.

      2. Old Poolman profile image83
        Old Poolmanposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Credence2 - From what I understand it was a fairly small room but several of the exit doors were locked.  I'm sure the panic was terrible.  In reality, had the entire crowd rushed him it might possibly cost a few lives but also save a few lives.  I'm not at all sure how I would react in a similar situation though.

    3. promisem profile image96
      promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      It won't happen. The NRA will destroy any politican who tries to regulate assault rifles.

      That's what the NRA did the last time Congress passed a ban on them.

    4. RJ Schwartz profile image91
      RJ Schwartzposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      I'm sorry, but anyone who's an experienced shooter knows that changing out a magazine takes but a split second.  The magazine size doesn't matter.

      1. My Esoteric profile image87
        My Esotericposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        An experienced, well-trained shooter may take only a couple of seconds to 1) eject the old magazine, grab a new magazine from somewhere on their body,  3) insert the new magazine, and 4) aim and fire with some minimal degree of accuracy. 

        The experienced, well-trained shooter is NOT your common mass-shooter and it appears Mateen was no experienced, well-trained shooter; he was a gate guard.  So, the size of the magazine definitely MIGHT make a difference.

    5. promisem profile image96
      promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      The time it takes to replace a magazine is more than enough time for someone to tackle the shooter.

      A shooter who is limited to 10 rounds has to stop shooting twice to replace the magazine versus someone with 30 rounds.

      The idea that magazine size makes no difference is ridiculous.

  2. Ken Burgess profile image79
    Ken Burgessposted 5 months ago

    If he didn't have weapons, he would have made pressure cooker bombs, or something worse.  The Boston Marathon bombers, 9/11, they accomplish their terror just fine without rifles.

    As far was where to put the blame, if you want to assign blame, lets start with who chose to allow him to pursue his course of actions.

    There was more than one FBI investigation into Omar Mateen, the investigations were shut down under pressure from the State Dept. and DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office because essentially during Obama's Administration Muslims have been given a wide range of protection.

    According to recently retired DHS agent Philip Haney:  “The FBI had opened cases twice on him, and yet they found no[thing that qualified as strong enough] evidence to charge him; it means they didn’t go through the same basic, analytical process that I went through over a three or four hour period in which I was able to link the mosque to my previous cases,” he told WND on Sunday.

    In other words, the FBI couldn't stop Mateen because it was ordered to back off its investigation into his mosque, and him.

    Both Clinton as Secretary of State and the Obama administration have a history of enabling Islamic terrorism.

    Which reminds me, does anyone still believe that Benghazi and the riots across the Middle East at that time were caused by a YouTube video?

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Clinton and Obama are enabling terrorists?  That is just more Right wing propaganda. You know that Ken...

      WND, as a news source, is rubblish, we know that, too.

    2. promisem profile image96
      promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      How many more massacres with assault rifles are necessary before right wingers acknowledge a problem?

      The NRA's mindless opposition to background checks and assault rifle bans get the majority of the blame for these murders.

      And for the record, I can't recall this many people being killed by "pressure cooker bombs".

      1. Ken Burgess profile image79
        Ken Burgessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        I have no problem with making Semi-Auto Rifles illegal to own for private citizens, I really don't. Between other rifle types, shotguns, and hand guns, you can protect yourself, and your family, and go hunting just fine.

        But lets be clear about this, he could have killed even more people with multiple sets of bombs remotely detonated if he was driven to do so. 

        The Boston Marathon Bombers had planted more than one bomb, at least one of which failed to go off (if I remember correctly)  and Timothy McVeigh killed 170 and wounded 660 (if I remember correctly) with his homemade truck bomb.

        So yes, we don't need Assault Rifles to be so easily accessible.
        BUT yes, he could have killed just as many, if not more, if he were determined and capable of using other means.

        The Problem IMO is not the guns, it is that he was suspected of having deep rooted beliefs that made him sympathetic to Terrorists and they allowed him to be able to purchase those weapons anyway... that is a flaw in how the Obama administration has made it so that any Muslim is to be handled with special consideration, even when there is reason to suspect they may harbor deadly intent for Americans and Western civilization.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image87
          PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          While the root of the problem is not the guns, our culture has made it easy to obtain rapid fire killing machines. They are already assembled and don't require much knowledge to use. A bomb requires extensive knowledge and effort. It must be built, then stealthily placed with a plan that must be undetected and flawlessly executed. We need to make it harder to carry out mass killings with guns.

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Thanks, that is good point.

          2. ahorseback profile image51
            ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Complicated alright , you mean like a can of gasoline and a match ?...........Duh!

          3. Ken Burgess profile image79
            Ken Burgessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            I concur, I said that they do not need to be purchasable by private citizens.  I think that when someone is considered noteworthy enough that the FBI has investigated them TWO or more times, then when that individual does go and purchase a weapon, it should have raised flags with the FBI, NRA, ATF, etc. 

            That is KEY, the purpose of those organizations IS to stop these threats before they occur, that they have had their hands tied behind their backs by this Administration is tantamount to the Obama Administration giving Mateen and those like them the green light to pursue their violence unmolested by the authorities meant to stop them.

            1. colorfulone profile image89
              colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Omar Mateen worked for G4S, formerly known as Wackenhut which is links to the CIA, it is the largest security firm in the world.
              http://www.infowars.com/omar-mateen-wac … d-the-cia/
              http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13059910.jpg

              He wasn't a lone wolf.

          4. mrpopo profile image89
            mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            "While the root of the problem is not the guns"

            Full stop. Now talk about the root problem.

            "We need to make it harder to carry out mass killings with guns."

            Reminder that he passed a comprehensive background check and was a security professional. Unless you are suggesting that security professionals should not be allowed to have guns, the point is moot.

            1. promisem profile image96
              promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              He bought an assault rifle. That's the central issue - over and over again.

              1. mrpopo profile image89
                mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                The ability to purchase guns was not an issue in France or Belgium, yet they suffered similar attacks. What do you suppose the central issue was there?

                1. promisem profile image96
                  promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  That's a great question. I'm not familiar with the laws about background checks and the ability to buy assault rifles in those countries, so I can't form an opinion.

                  But your question led me to look for an explanation. A BBC article I found says that Belgium has had liberal gun laws and a strong black market in the trading of guns.

                  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34871872

                  1. mrpopo profile image89
                    mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    Interesting information. The black market explains where they are getting their guns from, but it doesn't explain their motivations.

                2. My Esoteric profile image87
                  My Esotericposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  It wasn't an issue because you had a terrorist organization supplying the weapons.

                  In America, unlike Europe, it is very easy to buy almost any type of weapon you want.

                  In Belgium, here are the rules - In Belgium, civilians are not allowed to possess military weapons, automatic firearms, and their ammunition, concealable firearms, silencers, laser sights, and high capacity cartridge.

        2. Old Poolman profile image83
          Old Poolmanposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Ken, that is a great comment.

          Even though I own an Assault Rifle I agree with you.  I have hunting rifles and hand guns that could cause just as much damage.  Assault Rifles get a bad rap because of how they look.

          Your also correct that he could have used other means to kill just as many or more of the people in the club that night.

          1. colorfulone profile image89
            colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            While my heart's prayers and condolences go out to the victims and loved ones of the murdered and wounded in Orlando. I just cringe to hear that it is the same dogma that the POTUS, uneducated congressmen & women and those who hate guns and focus the blame not on the criminals themselves or the terrorist ideology, but on their obsession to ban guns which only allows criminals and terrorists to operate without opposition and leaves innocent people defenseless.

            The Next Time Someone Calls an AR-15 an Assault Rifle, Show Them This
            http://www.ijreview.com/2016/06/627943- … ntent=guns

          2. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

            I mean, really, OP, you single handedly could kill 50 people with a weapon that you have to pull the trigger to have fire each time? As Panther says, it is much more difficult to get the logistics right to create that much mayhem with explosives unless you know what you are doing in such a small space that was the tavern.

            As many here seem to be blaming this all on some big terrorist plot, I say that it was just a gay fellow who could have easily been spurned by a lover and went ballistic.

            I still have a hard time imagining so many men, sound of wind and limb, being overtaken so easily.

            As for the controversy as to how to handle speech, we have a conflict between the 1st and 2nd amendment. And I, for one, would strongly lean away from the concept of police state, because a few rightwingers get spooked because people exercise their right to dissent.

            1. mrpopo profile image89
              mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              "I mean, really, OP, you single handedly could kill 50 people with a weapon that you have to pull the trigger to have fire each time?"

              As far as I'm aware, all of the weapons Mateen used were semi-automatic. He had to pull the trigger to fire every time.

              "As Panther says, it is much more difficult to get the logistics right to create that much mayhem with explosives unless you know what you are doing in such a small space that was the tavern."

              And yet that supposed difficulty has been surpassed on several occasions, whether that be with "flawlessly executed" bombings or with shootings in areas with high gun control. The problem with this pattern of crime is not the difficulty or the accessibility, it's the motives.

              "As many here seem to be blaming this all on some big terrorist plot, I say that it was just a gay fellow who could have easily been spurned by a lover and went ballistic."

              Your assessment is blatantly ignoring the religious motivations. If he was a self-hating homosexual, where did the self-hate come from? Why did he pledge allegiance to ISIS?

              Anyway, where is the evidence that he was spurned by a lover? You are speculating as much as we are, except you have nothing to show for it.

              1. Credence2 profile image87
                Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                This person was not identified as a threat by the FBI and that is good enough for me. Unless you want to adhere to fascist, rightwing leanings where every dissenting word in our society could subject you to arrest or harrassment?

                Yes, explosives have been used and with devastating effect. But nothing kills as quickly, easily or as realiably as a firearm, I don't think that anyone will debate that.

                1. mrpopo profile image89
                  mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  "This person was not identified as a threat by the FBI and that is good enough for me."

                  The FBI is not omniscient and they will occasionally fail to detect threats.

                  "Unless you want to adhere to fascist, rightwing leanings where every dissenting word in our society could subject you to arrest or harrassment?"

                  How on Earth did you come to this conclusion from anything I said?

                  1. Credence2 profile image87
                    Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    No, the FBI is not omniprescient, but the danger of a police state is. I will take my chances with those that subject themselves to the rule of law (FBI) over the lawless Right using situations like this to stifle my 1st amendment rights. In America, anyway, you are innocent until proven guilty.

                    If the FBI and the procedures used to protect the innocent from unwarranted surveillance and such are not good enough, what are you proposing in its stead?

              2. promisem profile image96
                promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                Really? He pulled the trigger more than 100 times with complete accuracy? He didn't modify his assault rifle? Were you there?

                1. mrpopo profile image89
                  mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Not sure how many times he fired nor what amounts to "complete accuracy." All I know is the guns he used, and they're semi-automatic. That means he had to pull the trigger to fire every time.

                  I was not there, no. Were you? What evidence do you have that he modified his weapon?

                2. My Esoteric profile image87
                  My Esotericposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  In listening to the reports of the gunfire, it was clearly not automatic, at least for that clip.

            2. My Esoteric profile image87
              My Esotericposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Credence, consider the reports from the victims.  Several said they were lying on the floor as he stood over them and shot people next to them, and in at least one case shot the person telling the story ... three times.  They didn't say whether they were on the floor because they were wounded or not.

              One hid under other bodies and survived, another was texting is mother telling her "he is coming' and "I am going to die"; he died.

          3. My Esoteric profile image87
            My Esotericposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Assault rifles get a bad rap because they are the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

        3. promisem profile image96
          promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          OK, well said, but he didn't kill people with bombs, nor did the shooter in Connecticut or Virginia Tech or all of the other massacres use bombs. They are using assault rifles because of their magazine size, rapid fire power and ease of access.

  3. colorfulone profile image89
    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

    The noted gay, libertarian, gun rights advocate Tom G. Palmer, is calling for LGBT citizens to arm themselves. He wrote a very good article that I agree with whole heartedly. 

    The NRA reached out to the LGBT community weeks ago to warn them that they were targets for Islamic terrorists.  I had the same intelligence  1 1/2 weeks before the Orlando shooting took place. 

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tom- … ?cid=bitly

    I am outraged because this massacre of Americans was preventable! 

    Some of the LGBT liberals are blaming the NRA. I just don't know if people can get any more ignorant, but I guess we will see. Do you think they will keep on advertising that they are a gun free zone (sitting ducks) and demand more gun control?  Most likely.
    God bless them anyway, and bless them in big way... Wake them up, Lord!

    I know I am a bit off topic, but I needed to share.

  4. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    Magazine sizes made no difference here , even limiting to ten rounds ,especially given   that  they can be changed in mere seconds ,- seconds !      My first reaction ,  being an avid shooter and knowing the gun controversy would again raise its ugly head ,  is that almost as much damage could be done with a knife and a fast moving attack mode or obviously ,   a pressure cooker like in the Boston Marathon  massacre .     

    As usual though  , the topic will  be the ease of acquiring a gun  , and again  the "assault weapon" .  My question will go to  this though :   When will  the media driven  , politically backed  reactionary message  of  a know it all public be  , What was the cause ?    To me ,the ultimate wake -up call  is going to be   finding the realization that terrorism will never end  , Why ?  because it works so well to raise the awareness of the public   to "the  cause" , whatever that cause may be .

    Right now  , I am watching a televised  press conference about the trauma center in Orlando   where all of the gunshot victims were taken .  I am just a bit annoyed that  one , they are  patting themselves on the back before the bodies are even buried ,    two ,  the police  are doing the same thing  , three the politicians  will jump the" band wagon " too ,from  proposals for "new " gun controls to , more resources for terrorism investigating ,   FBI  background checks , and  asking the public to be more aware of your surroundings . 

    But what will change ---Nothing !   Americans  will be more in danger  of  these attacks in the future  -   America's culture though , tends towards the glory grabbing ,  look at all the  9/11    movies ,  books ,  tales  and so forth .     The  romance of drama , the profiteering of Hollywood . The Michael Moore's , the  political millage  for the mayors of the cities that will propel the vertical rise of more  American stupidity  .  What will change ?  Nothing? ..........I know ,all you leaders out there , lets blame it on a video !

    1. Old Poolman profile image83
      Old Poolmanposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      ahorseback - All great points in your comment.  OK, people should be more aware of the possibility of attacks by terrorists.  If they still have no way to protect themselves they are still just victims.

      It is projected that there will be more of these attacks against what the terrorists term as "Soft Targets".  What is a soft target?  Any gun free zone where the terrorists can shoot people like fish in a barrel with no resistance and no threat to themselves.

      Of course many are immediately blaming the NRA and assault rifles.  If everyone carried an assault rifle and knew how to use it these attacks would stop.  An armed society is a peaceful society.

    2. My Esoteric profile image87
      My Esotericposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      It MIGHT not have made a difference here, although you don't know that it wouldn't have; common sense is clear that there will be situations where it will make a difference.

  5. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13059777.png

    The perfect weapon ,    first choice of all mass shootings in history

    1. promisem profile image96
      promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      People don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

  6. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    Everyone should "google "  up" The Happy Land " nightclub fire in  the Queens ?,  1990  , a disgruntled  guy who had been dating the bartender Poured Gasoline in the only stairway leading to the outdoors ! Killed 87 people  !  While the exit doors were locked ,   Tell him he cannot have  a large capacity  magazine !
    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13059787.png

    I'm sure that will work out !

  7. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
    Kathleen Cochranposted 5 months ago

    Why not a ban?  Outside of police or the military, can you name a legitimate purpose for such a weapon?

    1. promisem profile image96
      promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      No, there is no legitimate purpose other than bragging rights and the desire to kill people.

  8. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    There is some talk about a "No Gun Watch List " now , something separate  from normal  American citizens restrictions or even FBI background checks ,   as a gun owner , That I can agree with .  It is however STUPID  to not have  someone on a  terror watch list AND to give a  terrorist  a free pass because he hasn't done anything  yet !  The FBI failed in this case, incredibly so!

    Worse , is the fact that right now his # 2  wife is being investigated for knowing of that shooters  entire terrorist plot !    AND there are  no charges for her knowing about his plans -as long as she didn't help him in the act ?     She broke no laws ?  Please ..........!  Failure #2

    IT is not only the failure of the FBI , allowing  a potential terrorist and their family , friends and possibly the mosque leaders these freedoms ,   IT IS THE FAULT OF EVERY COWARD THAT KNEW THIS GUY WAS A DANGER , and did nothing !    But how in the world are more gun laws going to change the  lax attitude of the FBI or the   Dept. of Homeland Security , or an administration that seems  as responsible for this as the perpetrators  are ?

    And now  President  Obama essentially has a temper tantrum  about Donald Trump? ..... At least he is finally showing some anger about terrorism , even if misdirected !

    1. My Esoteric profile image87
      My Esotericposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      As a Conservative, you should understand very well and support that in America, a person has no legal duty to help another in trouble.  So what legal duty did she have in reporting anything?

      Since I am not a Conservative, I don't support that view, but that is your law at the moment.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      The FBI failed because its hands have been tied by a very sympathetic and protective Administration that demands it's agencies not offend or target anyone because of their religious ties or sympathies to known terrorists, so long as they do not act out on them.  And when they do act, it is too late.

      1. promisem profile image96
        promisemposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        The FBI failed because its hands are tied by the NRA.

 
working