Orlando shootings likely to impact security at theme parks

The 2nd Amendment is the new sacred cow. Let's not forget that the Constitution also codified slavery and racism, but we were able to fix that as times and culture changed. Just saying. See also: Prohibition.

sirloindude said:

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.

Box cutters? I think you mean airplanes. And by the way, we did something about that by creating the TSA. Probably a terrible example, given its inefficiency and awful execution, but no one has used an airplane to kill people since.

The selective use of statistical significance in these debates are staggering. I don't mean here, necessarily, but among the nation at large.

Lord Gonchar said:

The truth is these people and these incidents are the exception by a ridiculous number.

They are almost exclusively an American issue...yet we're less than 5% of the world's population.

We're violent, we're crazy, we're crazy-violent....and we're incredibly well-armed.

The 2nd Amendment is the new sacred cow

The 2nd Amendment in and of itself giving people the right to bare (any) arms (They want) isn't taking away the rights of someone else like the very definition of Slavery or Racism, or even prohibition. Straw man, Party of one, you're being paged.

It's what bad people do with those guns. Which is the same thing they're doing with knives. Planes. Cars. Fertilizer. Their fists. Pressure Cookers...I could go on. And again, non-law abiding citizens don't care if there's a right in the constitution or not. Murder is wrong. It isn't stopping people.

rollergator said:

Lord Gonchar said:

The truth is these people and these incidents are the exception by a ridiculous number.

They are almost exclusively an American issue...yet we're less than 5% of the world's population.

We're violent, we're crazy, we're crazy-violent....and we're incredibly well-armed.

Much like suicide bombing in the middle east, genocide & kidnapping girlsin Africa, among other crazy violent means to kill people are exclusively native to the areas that they happen in. We're singling out 'gun' violence but these people exist all over the world and simply use different means to the same end.

But all of those (and more) are part of something larger than an individual. There's a group dynamic and psychology at work, an organization, a belief system. Something they're fighting (and often willing to give their lives) for. We have "lone wolves" killing multiple people on at almost-daily basis.

On a completely different front, it often occurs to me that the rest of the world prefers soccer, we like the NFL. One is undeniably physical, the other is violent.

I don't deny that the US tends to be more okay with violence than the rest of the world. i mean, the Super Bowl with an exposed breast that barely showed much even a 14 year old boy would pop up about was blown out of proportion after dozens of mean were committed to violently beat each other on the field.

But to act like gun violence in the US is this god awful thing that doesn't happen anywhere else, when loads of violent things are happening in the middle east Africa, Russia, Asia, Europe, etc. etc. etc., I feel is a little absurd. Just because they don't use guns to kill in other parts of the world doesn't mean the body counts aren't high. There are bombings and mass killings weekly. Americans just think they're the center of the universe when it happens here.

Tekwardo said:
The 2nd Amendment in and of itself giving people the right to bare (any) arms (They want) isn't taking away the rights of someone else like the very definition of Slavery or Racism, or even prohibition.

It's not a straw man if my point was that the Constitution was intended to be changed and evolve. That was my point, and it's a fact, not an opinion. It's right there in Article V. But since you want to go there...

If one liberty increasingly causes people to feel they no longer have another liberty, then I think it's quite relevant in the context of rights. There is a growing sentiment, particularly among minorities and those at the lower end of the income spectrum, who feel very much that the gun culture and right for everyone to have guns comes at the cost of the right to go to school, church or a gay club with the expectation that they'll be safe. As much as I can stand up and say that's a statistically irrational fear, people are still thinking it. There will be a breaking point where the people demand some kind of alteration of the 2nd Amendment. I think we'll see it in our lifetime.

The great irony that I see is that we've been trading liberties for years, with all of this warrantless domestic spying nonsense, and no one seems to care. The 4th Amendment is in shambles, but there aren't any lobbies there to reinforce it.

rollergator said:
They are almost exclusively an American issue...yet we're less than 5% of the world's population.

rollergator said:

We have "lone wolves" killing multiple people on at almost-daily basis.

No, it's really not.

and

No, we really don't.

I like this Politifact article from last year. It shines some perspective.

This Time story also talks specifically about gun violence and mass shootings offering a bit of alternative thought. What I like though is that the title is point blank stating that 31% of mass shootings happen in the US despite only having 5% of the population. Obviously, there's lots of reasons for that (we're talking gun violence, not general violence) but more importantly, that statistic means that 7 out of every 10 mass shooting incidents happens in a country that is not the United States.

Jeff said:

The great irony that I see is that we've been trading liberties for years, with all of this warrantless domestic spying nonsense, and no one seems to care. The 4th Amendment is in shambles, but there aren't any lobbies there to reinforce it.

Some of us are quite unhappy about it. We care. The thing is if I complain that I don't like the idea that my car can be followed around town on traffic cams and that everything I buy in a store can be traced to me if I don't pay cash or that I don't like that the kids in the school district I work for have to use their fingerprints to pay for lunch or admit that the first thing I did when I got my first smart phone was turn off the GPS I'll be labelled as a paranoid conspiracy theorist and offered a tin foil hat by all the people who get that warm, fuzzy, safe feeling knowing that we are all being watched. My dad used to joke that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. As a teen I thought it was funny but now it feels more like an ominous warning.

Jeff said:
Box cutters? I think you mean airplanes. And by the way, we did something about that by creating the TSA. Probably a terrible example, given its inefficiency and awful execution, but no one has used an airplane to kill people since.

I meant that they got control of the airplanes through effective use of the box cutters.

Also, don't get me started on the TSA. I support the mission and note that there hasn't been an incident since, but yes, the "efficiency" of the organization is laughable at best.

Back on the topic of gun control, I wholeheartedly agree that maintaining the status quo is not the right decision, but I think that doing some sort of haphazard ban that makes for some nice-sounding headlines is a terrible way to go about it. I think you'd wind up doing more harm than good, and what happens when it proved to be as ineffective as the statistics show it would be? I think that more restrictions on who is allowed to buy guns are the way to go, but both sides need to concede in some areas to enable things to move forward.

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/16/family-of-ar-15-inventor-eugene-stoner-he-didnt-intend-it-for-civilians/21396400/

Interesting twist on the conversation. Seems the family of the inventor of the AR-15 said he never intended it to be used for civilians.

I thought it was somewhat common knowledge the AR-15 was originally a fully automatic military grade weapon that was later produced for civilians in semi-automatic form. I didn't realize it wasn't made as a semi-auto until after the creator's death, but I'm not sure I get the significance of the story. Of course military issue weapons are designed for killing...and they have been illegal for civilian use for 30-some years.

I wonder if the inventors of the Jeep or HUM-V ever intended them for civilian use.

I get what you are saying and I knew it was military grade and then later made for civilians. It just gives the side that the family thinks that he never intended it for civilian use. Humvees and other military equipment is another subject altogether.

Gonch - while I overstated the issue, here's another take on the same facts....

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

Jeff said: Box cutters? I think you mean airplanes.

Sirloindude said: I meant that they got control of the airplanes through effective use of the box cutters.

Box cutters, and airplanes, yes, but most importantly, a knowledge of airlines' policy regarding hijackings. Without going into detail, the pre- 9/11 guidelines for airline hijackings was based on an entirely different model. (I am familiar with this old model, and was trained on it myself.) The hijackers knew this, and the flight attendants and pilots played right into their hands by acting exactly how they were trained to act in the situation. This is how airliners were brought down with 1 inch razor blades. Obviously, the model has since changed.

Provided the media is telling the truth, this is relevant to the Pulse shootings because the shooter did indeed do his research on theme park security vs nightclub security. And this relates to the overarching CB theme because as stated earlier, the "security theater" did its job in deterring the shooter from the theme park properties he was originally targeting.

extremecoasterdad said:

Humvees and other military equipment is another subject altogether.

I only mentioned that to point out that the article makes it seem like it's super unusual and peculiar that the inventor of such a weapon wouldn't consider using it for sport or home defense. Uh...because it was strictly designed for military combat and nothing else...until after he died.

There are other articles out there with headlines quoting the family as saying he would be "sickened" and "horrified" if he knew his weapon was used for the Orlando attacks. As if the inventors of all other guns would be delighted whenever their designs are used in murders. Ugh.

Saw a video on Youtube of a 13 year old with a hidden camera that was sent to try to buy beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets, pornography and a hand gun. Guess which one he was able to purchase?

^Posted that to my FB about 10-15 few minutes ago...

No porn, no beer, no cigarettes, no lottery tickets - "you're only THIRTEEN!"

Able to buy a weapon, though...that's not a loophole at that point.

Yes, but once you get the hand gun, you can easily obtain the rest....

Tommytheduck said:

Box cutters, and airplanes, yes, but most importantly, a knowledge of airlines' policy regarding hijackings. Without going into detail, the pre- 9/11 guidelines for airline hijackings was based on an entirely different model. (I am familiar with this old model, and was trained on it myself.) The hijackers knew this, and the flight attendants and pilots played right into their hands by acting exactly how they were trained to act in the situation. This is how airliners were brought down with 1 inch razor blades. Obviously, the model has since changed.

And I'm sure the strengthened, locking cockpit doors are also a good deterrent and defense. That backfired for German Wings though, when the copilot intentionally committed suicide by crashing the plane after locking the captain out of the cockpit.