Orlando shootings likely to impact security at theme parks

extremecoasterdad said:

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.

It's worth noting that the odds of you being a victim of terrorism is about 1 in 20 million. It's more pressing that you not stand in a field during a thunderstorm.

Vater said:
Automatic assault weapons are already illegal.

That you've made this distinction several times demonstrates the disconnect. You're arguing semantics. In practical terms, for the purpose of doing a lot of damage quickly, there is no difference between an AR-15 and a fully automatic machine gun.

So that would mean that bans don't work.

Anyway, back on topic for an enthusiast forum....

Anyone in Central Florida visiting the parks the past few days? What's the security situation like?

Jeff said:

That you've made this distinction several times demonstrates the disconnect. You're arguing semantics. In practical terms, for the purpose of doing a lot of damage quickly, there is no difference between an AR-15 and a fully automatic machine gun.

That I've had to make that distinction several times demonstrates the willful ignorance to the drastic difference between semi- and fully-automatic firearms, and why it's so easy for so-called journalists to sway public perception by repeating bogus information about a subject they no little about and calling it fact.

Vater said:
That I've had to make that distinction several times demonstrates the willful ignorance to the drastic difference between semi- and fully-automatic firearms, and why it's so easy for so-called journalists to sway public perception by repeating bogus information about a subject they no little about and calling it fact.

A semi-automatic gun like the AR-15 isn't a hunting rifle designed to kill a deer or whatever. It is designed with the sole purpose of inflicting massive damage, even before adding any of the crazy accessories that make it even more lethal (i.e. bump stock). An AR-15 has far more in common with a fully-automatic rifle than, say, a semi-automatic 30-06 that holds ~5 rounds.

Now, I'm not saying the AR-15 should be banned, but lumping the AR-15 and fully-automatic weapons under the umbrella of "assault rifle" isn't ignorance, it's stating the obvious.

Yeah, I don't think you're getting my point, Vater. What difference does it make if a journalist gets it wrong? Is there a practical difference between a weapon that can drop 180 rounds per minute (AR-15) and a weapon that can do more? It's like arguing the kilotons of a nuclear bomb. The lesser can still do unspeakable damage. I don't find that willfully ignorant.

Not trying to be entirely contrarian here, but I don't think anyone can pull a trigger 3 times per second. The operating manual on the Bushmaster XM15 specs it at 45 rounds per minute (I don't have one of these laying around, I just looked it up online), which seems a bit more reasonable, as I have shot an AR-15 at my buddy's shooting range.

Now, that's not saying that people haven't figure out how to "hack" it into a full-auto, but doing so generally requires access to machining equipment and some knowledge/google searches.

There are videos on YouTube showing people doing it... but you're still splitting hairs. 45 rounds per minute is still a whole lot of bullets.

Sure. I can't deny that, but it's still 1/4 of 180, which is significant.

Also can't deny that there's video of people with modded AR rifles. My question about that would be, though - have we seen any type of mass shooting in which the shooter had modified their weapon? It seems to me like these guys are, generally, shooting enthusiasts and backyard/"redneck" engineers. I use "Redneck Engineering" with love :) I saw a video of a guy on a farm that made a silencer out of an oil filter.

I'm genuinely curious - I'm 100% middle-of-the-road there on this.

What difference does it make if a journalist gets it wrong?

You're the last person I would have ever expected to hear that from.

Yes, there is a practical difference between a street legal semi-automatic weapon that can fire 180rpm vs. a government-issue fully-automatic weapon that can fire 800, just as there's a difference between a pump-action shotgun and a pistol with multiple 10-round magazines. But if I take your point that there's no practical difference between any of those, then we're admitting that bans are useless...and I would agree (I'm not necessarily convinced full-auto weapons shouldn't be legal if I consider the context of the 2nd amendment).

The guns of choice in the VA Tech shooting were a Glock 19 9mm and a Walther P22; the ones used in the 1991 Luby's shooting in Killeen, TX, were a Glock 17 and Ruger P89. So yes, I get your point: it's semantics when you look at the number of lives lost, thus proving that banning certain types of weapons is dumb.

Reports indicate the guy in Orlando was killing people for a half hour. If he'd had a fully-automatic AR-15 (he actually used a Sig Sauer MCX Carbine, so way to go media for again getting facts wrong), would he have taken more lives? What about a shotgun? Pistol? Bomb? Tank? Does it really matter? He broke the law by murdering 49 people and wounding 53 more. Does it really matter what the hell he used to do it, and do you think he wouldn't have done it--or that the body count would have been drastically more or less--if whatever gun he used wasn't legal to own?

I can't get hung up on this rounds per minute argument as being relevant. It shoots slower so people are less... deader? The details beyond "shoots a lot of bullets in rapid succession" really strike me as irrelevant, even for me, the trained journalist who hates the general state of reporting. The net outcome is the same.

And does it matter about the speed at which he killed people? Well yes, by gun rights advocates own arguments it matters. If any police officer in close proximity reacts, then it absolutely matters if the shooter can squeeze off dozens of rounds quickly or not. It also changes the odds of law enforcement being killed in the response.

I can't reconcile this idea that size and scope of the weapons doesn't matter, so therefore it's pointless to get them out of circulation.

Jeff said:

extremecoasterdad said:

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.

It's worth noting that the odds of you being a victim of terrorism is about 1 in 20 million. It's more pressing that you not stand in a field during a thunderstorm.

i did not know about those odds. But I am sure that given how many unvetted immigrants are being allowed from that kind of background is likely to increase. Maybe not so much so that it will change that drastically, but it will change.

I don't think those odds matter much to the victims of terrorist attacks.

Here's how pointless a semi-automatic rifle ban would be. Handguns, shotguns, kvines, blunt objects, and personal weapons (hands, fists, feet), each by themselves account for more homicides than rifles. Also of note is the number of deaths by rifles in 2014 (248) was 36% less than the same statistic in 2003 (390), which was the last year the 1994 assault weapons ban was in effect.

I don't get that argument either. Are you suggesting that the power of an individual to incur mass casualties is irrelevant because it's rare? If that's the case, then removing them from circulation is no harm, no foul, right?

extremecoasterdad said:
i did not know about those odds. But I am sure that given how many unvetted immigrants are being allowed from that kind of background is likely to increase.

Based on what? That notion is predicated on the ridiculous notion that immigrants are the problem. (And the disconnect that in the relevant story, the shooter was an American.)

Very true Jeff, in this case he was an American. And I'm not saying all immigrants either. I just think there needs to be a better process of vetting to see if any have had previous contact or connection with terrorist groups. Although again, this guy had been questioned twice by the FBI and nothing came of it. I really don't know what the answer to all this is, other than the one I've seen stated before. We gotta get to the core of the problem with the people themselves.

Jeff said:

I don't get that argument either. Are you suggesting that the power of an individual to incur mass casualties is irrelevant because it's rare? If that's the case, then removing them from circulation is no harm, no foul, right?

So your argument is, if we have to ban one of the tools murderers use, lets pick the one that gets used the least? I know you're driving at it being a complex problem that will take several steps to fix, but picking one insignificant, very minute aspect of the problem as the first step seems completely pointless, especially when it hasn't proven at all effective in the past...and it will likely lead to the discussion to ban more weapons, instead of focusing on the individuals who murder.

Your argument also ignores the fact that illegally-obtained weapons still get used to kill people. Banning "assault" rifles is the equivalent of security theater...and possibly less effective based on statistics.

No, I'm arguing remove the tool that does the most damage at a time.

So wait... I'm talking about banning currently legal weapons, and you're arguing that illegal weapons are still used to kill people. Are you arguing that, by extension, the killer in this case could have obtained the weapon just as easily? And again, if it's so infrequent, then why not?

Picking the least-used weapon as the one you ban simply because it seems like the nastiest thing in the universe (even though 9/11 was done with box cutters and Oklahoma City was done with fertilizer) means spending lots of money to stop pretty much nothing. If that isn't security theater, I don't know what is.

Jeff said:

No, I'm arguing remove the tool that does the most damage at a time.

The tool that did the most damage was removed; he was fatality #50. Heh...

Bad jokes aside, that implies that you're cool with banning more and more types of guns. Right? Because once the scary rifles are illegal, then handguns are the next tool that does the most damage, so those should be next...isn't that the very slope we crazies always cite?

So wait...I'm talking about banning currently legal weapons, and you're arguing that illegal weapons are still used to kill people. Are you arguing that, by extension, the killer in this case could have obtained the weapon just as easily? And again, if it's so infrequent, then why not?

Because it's a great tool for defense, among other things. They are very light and very accurate. I'd rather have an AR-15 for home defense than my 12-gauge shotgun (actually, I'd love to have both). Sure, it's easy to argue that OMG-it-shoots-lots-of-bullets-and-stuff-and-so-regular-people-shouldn't-have-it (and my favorite argument: "but no one needs a {insert whatever gun here}"), but if you ban them and murderers can still get them (they can), then we regular people are at a disadvantage. This is the same argument I have about inner-city citizens where it's illegal to own any gun, yet guns are everywhere so law-abiding folks are essentially defenseless. I'd rather regular people have the advantage over--or at least be on the same level as--the bad guys.

Plus, 2nd amendment and stuff. That's the underlying answer to all of this. We should have the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government, period.