Orlando shootings likely to impact security at theme parks

As sirloin mentioned, the effects of the 94 ban were inconclusive because only a small percentage of certain types of weapons were banned, and those certain types of weapons only account for a small fraction of overall gun crimes. And, as mentioned, those weapons have no more to do with "assault" than any other single-shot semiautomatic firearm (including pistols, revolvers, etc.).

During my commute this morning, three different news radio stations mentioned Congress pushing for more gun control as a reaction to the Orlando shooting. Nothing else. It's the same knee-jerk reaction every time we have one of these incidents. So it would be great if we could discuss solutions other than banning guns or high-capacity magazines or making it harder for law-abiding folks to obtain them, but when does that ever happen? It's always the gun that's the problem, never the radical religious idealogical fanatic nutjob who pulled the trigger.

Jeff, I agree that you have to start somewhere, but I think that thorough background checks and strict regulations on who is allowed to get these things first would be a MUCH more effective solution and one I could get behind. The problem is that, again, too many people don't like assigning responsibility where it belongs, so it's just easier to go after the guns themselves. Banning the rifles themselves, while of benefit to the small handful who *maybe* wouldn't die on the receiving end of their bullets, would be of little consequence in an overall sense.

And this is where I still have to agree with the pro-gun guys.

(disclaimer: I don't have a gun, don't want a gun and don't have a horse in this race beyond what seems like common sense to me)

I don't think anyone is saying not to address the problem or not to at least start somewhere. But, to me, starting with a gun ban of any kind is one of the least efficient, least effective and least thought out places to start.

In some ways I kind of wish it would move forward to some degree though, so when this happens again, we can start having the real conversations about what might need to be done. But I fear that the next kneejerk would just be to ban more guns - you know, that slippery slope thing.

Banning guns doesn't make them go away or harder to get any more than drugs in this country or alcohol when you're under 21. It would literally be just as easy. Not to mention there are so many already in circulation and it's so ingrained in our culture that a ban is almost a symbolic move at this point. On top of that, people will always kill. These countries with less guns have less gun violence, but they still have murder. A gun isn't the only tool that kills and it's not the only one that can kill 50 people quickly.

Beyond that I can't wrap my head around something that is perfectly innocuous in numbers in the millions on a daily basis by hundreds of millions of owners and users being banned because of the occasional dickbag with issues that causes harm and damage with it. The simple math indicates that the dickbags are the problem, not the guns. With those numbers I don't understand why the reasonable answer isn't to address the dickbags...address the cause, not the means.

I actually really agree with Jeff when he says it's a complex problem. I just think that gun availability is one of the worst places to start given the overall circumstances in the US.

Lord Gonchar said:

The simple math indicates that the dickbags are the problem, not the guns. With those numbers I don't understand why the reasonable answer isn't to address the dickbags...address the cause, not the means.

But in the same way you can never really remove guns from the equation, you also cannot remove dickbags from the equation. So it would stand to reason the keeping the cause (dickbags) away from the means (guns, bombs, whatever), is the way to go. But even those efforts (increasing background checks and the like) are too often met with the anti-ban-or-restriction-of-any-kind slippery slope argument.

djDaemon said:

But in the same way you can never really remove guns from the equations, you also cannot remove dickbags from the equation.

I tend to agree.

But when you start to say that preventing **** like this is impossible and the price you pay for so much freedom, then...

1. I start to sound like a "you're taking away our freedoms!" weirdo.

2. Suggesting any sort of 'acceptable loss' in the shadow of such tragedy puts me squarely in the dickbag category myself.

And then someone will point to other countries that share freedom that don't have these same kind of events and I'm forced to go back to the complex issue and cultural differences as an argument as to why that's not necessarily a fair or valid comparison.

And we continue to go round and round.

I guess in the end I don't feel you can truly end or prevent this from happening in the US and all these suggestions are akin to the 'security theatre' thing we all scoff at. People that want to cause harm will. I just can't buy into the idea that a complete lunatic when faced with a couple of hoops to jump through will just shrug and say, "Screw it."

If we're of the mindset where ALL of these incidents must be prevented at all costs, then people are going to have to give up an undesirable number of freedoms.

If we're willing to take some productive action to reduce the number of these incidents, then maybe people are willing to live with a *little* less freedom than they've become accustomed to.

The all-or-nothing rhetoric seems designed to stifle productive conversation rather than promote it.

I would argue that we already have some measures in place and are already in some part of the inbetween grey area to begin with. It's not the wild west and it's not an oppressive state. We're just debating whether to or where to reposition the slider between the two at this point.

That is to say we're already at your second point. I feel the first point is unrealistic and undesireable. The third point is moot because we've already made moves to do some something. It's already not all or nothing.

You (edit: rollergator, LG snuck in his post while I was typing mine) hit on something I see discussed very seldom: the same people who are scared to death to lose even a little of their freedom with respect to gun ownership have no issue whatsoever with the freedom of privacy taken away in the name of security. I don't get it.

I don't have any magic solution and I don't think there is one. As has been repeated over and over, this is a complex, multi-faceted problem.

Disclosure: I am a handgun owner from Texas and I am licensed to carry (in Texas, you're licensed for concealed and open carry). I seldom carry my gun on me and, even if I do, it stays in my locked car or in my desk at work most of the time. For me, owning a handgun is 25% protection and 75% hobby. Many of you guys travel the world to ride roller coasters. I like going to the gun range to blow off steam at lunch or after work. I don't own a gun for the purpose of killing someone. I hope I never have to use it for protection but I'm prepared to if I find the need to protect myself or my family.

I agree that banning guns on any level is not likely to be effective, but much to my gun owning friends dismay, I will easily concede that gun ownership is too easy. My last gun purchase was less than 15 minutes door-to-door. Licensing gun owners only helps educate and makes their ownership that much safer.

bigboy said:

the same people who are scared to death to lose even a little of their freedom with respect to gun ownership have no issue whatsoever with the freedom of privacy taken away in the name of security. I don't get it.

This. It's amazing to me how much the metal detector is part of life in America.

The only place one regularly sees metal detectors in Europe is at airports.

Lord Gonchar said:

I would argue that we already have some measures in place and are already in some part of the inbetween grey area to begin with. It's not the wild west and it's not an oppressive state.

From the perspective of every other developed nation on Earth, we ARE the Wild West.

Not saying we are or are not, but there is likely a valid point in there somewhere...

Lord Gonchar said:

But when you start to say that preventing **** like this is impossible and the price you pay for so much freedom, then...

1. I start to sound like a "you're taking away our freedoms!" weirdo.

2. Suggesting any sort of 'acceptable loss' in the shadow of such tragedy puts me squarely in the dickbag category myself.

Yeah, I'm probably that weirdo and that dickbag...or at least appear to be. I will almost always err on the side of individual freedom over any sort of regulation, especially on the federal level. This goes along with the point I tried to make yesterday:

I make it MY responsibility to protect myself, my family, and my friends and neighbors. I don't look solely to government for that,

If more people had this mindset; to look to fix and address issues (everything, not just mass murders) more often on an individual level and even at a local or state level rather than expecting the almighty federal government, whose job it is NOT (in most cases), we would be in a much better place.

By the way, thank you everyone for the (mostly) civil disagreement. Our rants about ERT might read like YouTube comments, but I'm glad we keep it together when it counts.

I was thinking the same thing earlier. We might sound like nuts when talking about virtual queuing, but this is a rather rational discussion for such a polarizing topic.

This country has a mass shooting problem that didn't exist decade ago. We are hearing about mass shooting monthly if not more now. Automatic assault weapons permit this to happen. They serve no practical purpose for an average citizen. Taking away open access from these weapons could reduce this trend. It won't stop all murders and unfortunately nothing will. But some action on this is better than no action.

From what I can find, the mass shootings in Australia have been limited to about 4 in the last 20 years since their gun law went into effect.

I myself have never owned a gun. Never wanted to. But in this day and age of groups like Isis and Al Qaeda, it has seriously made me re-think to the point that I'm nearly 100% sure I need to arm myself. Not due to any paranoia, but to protect my family for a just in case scenario. I don't want to just purchase and go at it. I wanna take classes on gun safety and go to the range so I get to know how to handle said gun. I have no intentions of buying an assault rifle. Just a hand gun.

I would agree with many on here who have stated that there is no simple answer to the problem we now face. Although, I would definitely agree that at it's core, the problem lies within individuals who choose to commit such acts of atrocity. I think it's unrealistic in today's world that it will ever come to an end, but we can do something to curb the violence. I'm also sure that there isn't one clear answer. I'm not really so sure how connected this guy truly was with Isis, other than pledging his allegiance during a 911 call.

As far as terrorist attacks on American soil go, I believe this is just the beginning and I think we can not only expect more, but on a much grander scale. The enemy has seen what can be done to America, as in the 9/11 attacks. I would expect more of this to come.

Just my .02

super7* said:

Automatic assault weapons permit this to happen. They serve no practical purpose for an average citizen. Taking away open access from these weapons could reduce this trend.

Automatic assault weapons are already illegal. And inanimate objects don't "permit" anything to happen without a human at the trigger. Please know what you're talking about when you talk.

super7* said:

This country has a mass shooting problem that didn't exist decade ago.

Except that prior to Orlando, 1/2 of the top 6 most deadly mass shootings happened 25 years ago or more.

And the fact that the rest of the top 10 all happened in the last 8 or 9 years says a lot I think...but not about guns or their availability.

extremecoasterdad said:

I myself have never owned a gun. Never wanted to. But in this day and age of groups like Isis and Al Qaeda, it has seriously made me re-think to the point that I'm nearly 100% sure I need to arm myself. Not due to any paranoia, but to protect my family for a just in case scenario. I don't want to just purchase and go at it. I wanna take classes on gun safety and go to the range so I get to know how to handle said gun. I have no intentions of buying an assault rifle. Just a hand gun.

You basically described myself just a few years ago. My decision to own and carry a handgun wasn't a knee-jerk decision based on paranoia, but a calculated one made over time to be prepared protect myself and my family in the extremely unlikely event that something bad happen. Granted, these mass shootings certainly influenced the decision at least in part, but I'm also self-aware enough to know that the odds are not only so minute that nothing will likely ever happen, but also that in 43+ years I've never personally been close to experiencing any gun crime, let alone a mass shooting. Call it an insurance policy.

Funny enough, my home state of WV just passed a constitutional concealed carry bill, which allows anyone over 21 who can legally carry a firearm to carry concealed without a permit.

Stupid West Virginia!

;-)

Naw, it's Wild and Wonderful.