Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting.

http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/

But why? They have SUPER OBAMA and Wonder Hillary to SAVE THE RAINBOW Day for them!?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting.

http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/


Good! A gay man should be able to get married to the person he loves, buy a lot of weed, and protect both with his gun. Freedom is awesome. America!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Good! A gay man should be able to get married to the person he loves, buy a lot of weed, and protect both with his gun. Freedom is awesome. America!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Good! A gay man should be able to get married to the person he loves, buy a lot of weed, and protect both with his gun. Freedom is awesome. America!
i agree on the surface

Originally posted by Flyattractor
But why? They have SUPER OBAMA and Wonder Hillary to SAVE THE RAINBOW Day for them!?

Don't worry, I'm sure once he finds out Hilary said guns don't protect people then he will immediately return his gun for a refund.

Picture the scene...a nightclub...flashing lights...loud music...someone comes in and starts shooting...due to the lights and music hardly anyone can tell where the shots come from...several people draw their guns. One of them sees someone else who isn't the shooter with their gun drawn and fires on them...more shots and more people draw guns...more people killed and still no one can tell who the original shooter is...then the famously trigger happy Cops show up and see lots of people with Guns drawn.

Yeah I'm sure it'll be fine. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

Originally posted by jaden101
Picture the scene...a nightclub...flashing lights...loud music...someone comes in and starts shooting...due to the lights and music hardly anyone can tell where the shots come from...several people draw their guns. One of them sees someone else who isn't the shooter with their gun drawn and fires on them...more shots and more people draw guns...more people killed and still no one can tell who the original shooter is...then the famously trigger happy Cops show up and see lots of people with Guns drawn.

Yeah I'm sure it'll be fine. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

First thing, I'm NOT pro-gun. Have had weapons training when I was very young (as my dad is an avid shooter, even used to own a private range). Saw someone get shot due to accidental discharge. Hated guns ever since. Haven't owned a gun my entire life (tho that may change now that I have a daughter). I DO respect ppl's rights to own guns, however.

I think your scenario is a bit unfair.

I mean, if the worst-case-everyone-is-a-moron-including-the-police total clusterf*ck scenario would happen, then sure, that might well occur, yes.

A more likely scenario would be that as soon as shooting starts, ppl panic, a few dumbasses might well shoot into the crowd or draw their weapons then start randomly pointing/shooting in a panic. However, the smarter ones would look for cover/hide and try to get some situational awareness or go for a defensible room and barricading the door, etc. The smart target to shoot would likely be the guy shooting at unarmed innocents/injured. As soon as guns start firing, shooters either dive for cover or get shot themselves.

Police might well have specific training for instances like this and would most likely NOT run in guns blazing. Likely, they come in by flashbanging/tear gassing the area. Ppl drop their weapons soon as police rush in. Shooters that do not and ventilated. Of course, casualties would be high but a good number of ppl will likely survive.

At best, knowledge that an area might have armed opposition would be quite a decent deterrent for these kinds of attacks.

The alternative? Shooter(s) come into a bar. No one else is armed. Shooter(s) blocks door. Everyone is trapped. Police has a 5-10 minute response time (if not longer). Fish in a barrel. Nearly total casualty rate.

Edit.

I think the question here would be: "Would you give total power to those who do not know how to use it properly or to those who know how to use it and intend absolute malice?"

IMO, the better scenario for you to point out is if ppl misconstrue someone as a shooter and panic and fear takes over and shit hits the fan. W/c would actually be a more frightening scenario and emphasizes the need for better screening and more in-depth training for ppl who carry.

So how about a mandatory 6 x 1 hour training course for anyone buying a gun. Split into safe use/storage of the gun and basic tactical awareness training for hostile situations.

As opposed to letting people just buy guns with no need for how to conduct and control yourself in dangerous situations

Originally posted by jaden101
So how about a mandatory 6 x 1 hour training course for anyone buying a gun. Split into safe use/storage of the gun and basic tactical awareness training for hostile situations.

As opposed to letting people just buy guns with no need for how to conduct and control yourself in dangerous situations

Don't see anything wrong with that idea, actually.

Tho you should allow ppl choose the number of sessions (but min 6 hours total).

If anything my childhood has taught me, it's that you want TRAINED ppl to own guns.

Originally posted by jaden101
So how about a mandatory 6 x 1 hour training course for anyone buying a gun. Split into safe use/storage of the gun and basic tactical awareness training for hostile situations.

As opposed to letting people just buy guns with no need for how to conduct and control yourself in dangerous situations

I think that all the anti gun people should go thru this course as well. Seeing as how so often they get Gun Facts WRONG!!!!!!!

Such as the diff between automatic and semi... that there is really NO SUCH THING as an Assault Rifle.

Etc.


Stop with the Stupid You Liberal Wieners.

Originally posted by jaden101
Picture the scene...a nightclub...flashing lights...loud music...someone comes in and starts shooting...due to the lights and music hardly anyone can tell where the shots come from...several people draw their guns. One of them sees someone else who isn't the shooter with their gun drawn and fires on them...more shots and more people draw guns...more people killed and still no one can tell who the original shooter is...then the famously trigger happy Cops show up and see lots of people with Guns drawn.

Yeah I'm sure it'll be fine. Nothing could possibly go wrong.


Well if its a gay bar everyone should just automatically start shooting at the band. I mean that music am I right!?


That or the GAYS should get some Door Security that can tell when its a rifle a guy has in his pants in stead of a HARD PENIS!


That and to keep guys out of the bar like jaden......I mean even Gays don't want that in their clubs.

Originally posted by Flyattractor


Well if its a gay bar everyone should just automatically start shooting at the band. I mean that music am I right!?


That or the GAYS should get some Door Security that can tell when its a rifle a guy has in his pants in stead of a HARD PENIS!


That and to keep guys out of the bar like jaden......I mean even Gays don't want that in their clubs.

I submit to your superior knowledge of the...ahem...ins and outs of gay bar patronage.

Originally posted by jaden101
I submit to your superior knowledge of the...ahem...ins and outs of gay bar patronage.


I learned it from WATCHING YOU!!!!!!!!!!

And lets just go back to point the fact that it was YOU Mr/Miss/IT Jaden that made the fact that Gays are flightly and prone to acting badly to a dangerous situation.



YOU HOMOPHOBIC A-HOLE YOU!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Flyattractor


I learned it from WATCHING YOU!!!!!!!!!!

And lets just go back to point the fact that it was YOU Mr/Miss/IT Jaden that made the fact that Gays are flightly and prone to acting badly to a dangerous situation.



YOU HOMOPHOBIC A-HOLE YOU!!!!!!!!

You go, gurl!

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Don't see anything wrong with that idea, actually.

Tho you should allow ppl choose the number of sessions (but min 6 hours total).

If anything my childhood has taught me, it's that you want TRAINED ppl to own guns.

I guess ex military and hunters should be exempt. We already know about using firearms and firearms safety.

Originally posted by jaden101
So how about a mandatory 6 x 1 hour training course for anyone buying a gun. Split into safe use/storage of the gun and basic tactical awareness training for hostile situations.

As opposed to letting people just buy guns with no need for how to conduct and control yourself in dangerous situations

I'm pro gun and this sounds great. Anything to increase knowledge and safety.

Originally posted by jaden101
You go, gurl!


Only down on you gurl mmm hmmm!

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A more likely scenario would be that as soon as shooting starts, ppl panic, a few dumbasses might well shoot into the crowd or draw their weapons then start randomly pointing/shooting in a panic. However, the smarter ones would look for cover/hide and try to get some situational awareness or go for a defensible room and barricading the door, etc. The smart target to shoot would likely be the guy shooting at unarmed innocents/injured. As soon as guns start firing, shooters either dive for cover or get shot themselves.

Police might well have specific training for instances like this and would most likely NOT run in guns blazing. Likely, they come in by flashbanging/tear gassing the area. Ppl drop their weapons soon as police rush in. Shooters that do not and ventilated. Of course, casualties would be high but a good number of ppl will likely survive.

I do not know how this scenario is any better. It is still a total shit show. Except now, instead of people trying to identify where the shots are coming from and trying to find cover or exits, everyone is shooting at each other. I fail to see how that results in fewer people shot.




Originally posted by Nibedicus
At best, knowledge that an area might have armed opposition would be quite a decent deterrent for these kinds of attacks.

Except it is not: only 13% of mass shootings take place in gun free zones.

So are they like asking new (or return) gun owners what their sexuality is at the time of purchase?

If they ask were the pink guns are that should be a big clue.

Originally posted by Robtard
So are they like asking new (or return) gun owners what their sexuality is at the time of purchase?

We've spent 18 trillion dollars on high tech gaydar.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
If they ask were the pink guns are that should be a big clue.

You don't have to be gay to join one of the "pink" clubs; story goes on to note that one of the clubs was started by a heterosexual.

Originally posted by Surtur
We've spent 18 trillion dollars on high tech gaydar.

Best answer

Originally posted by Robtard
You don't have to be gay to join one of the "pink" clubs; story goes on to note that one of the clubs was started by a heterosexual.


Girls buy guns to Clyde. Don't be sexists. And are you saying a Club for Homosexuals can only be owned by a Homosexual?


Are you HetroPhobic Robby?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
1) I do not know how this scenario is any better. It is still a total shit show. Except now, instead of people trying to identify where the shots are coming from and trying to find cover or exits, everyone is shooting at each other. I fail to see how that results in fewer people shot.

2) Except it is not: only 13% of mass shootings take place in gun free zones.

1) Well, if you think ppl would behave like 80's movie thugs and just stand there and open fire at random in a panic with their limited ammo and zero situational awareness, sure.

I happen to believe ppl will likely panic and stampede but be smart enough to try and look for cover/an exit first and try to preserve their own lives (firing only when they are sure they have decent cover, are trapped without an exit but have some sort of situational awareness) rather than just simply inflicting random casualties.

I guess we won't really know for sure until a random shooter enters a bar full of armed patrons. But I'm willing to be my scenario is more likely.

Edit. Misread the comment, editing to fix:

2) So do ppl who mass shoot in non-gunfree zones with some opposition manage to rack up a high casualty count?

Edit2. I think you're talking about the Bloomberg report that included non-mass shootings that occur in private homes, etc.?

Here is an article (w/ sources and citing individual shootings) that focuses more on the more-relevant-to-recent-events mass shootings.

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

Claims that 98.8% of mass public shootings happened in gun free zones since 1950.

Duuno how accurate it is tho, but go ahead and scrutinize.

Originally posted by Flyattractor


Girls buy guns to Clyde. Don't be sexists. And are you saying a Club for Homosexuals can only be owned by a Homosexual?


Are you HetroPhobic Robby? "Gay" isn't gender specific; women can be gay too. Learn something already.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Gay" isn't gender specific; women can be gay too. Learn something already.

We know live in a world where a bathroom isn't a GENDER SPECIFIC anymore.

Heck, having male or felmale genitalia doesn't define your gender anymore.


Get with the times Robby!!!!

Originally posted by jaden101
Picture the scene...a nightclub...flashing lights...loud music...someone comes in and starts shooting...due to the lights and music hardly anyone can tell where the shots come from...several people draw their guns. One of them sees someone else who isn't the shooter with their gun drawn and fires on them...more shots and more people draw guns...more people killed and still no one can tell who the original shooter is...then the famously trigger happy Cops show up and see lots of people with Guns drawn.

Yeah I'm sure it'll be fine. Nothing could possibly go wrong.


But this has literally never happened. Ever. Why pander to an extremely unlikely scenario when another extremely unlikely scenario (but is far more likely to happen compared to the other) can prevent a greater loss of life?


It is similar to removing airbags from cars because some children were killed by them. More people will definitely be saved by keeping the airbags, in cars, rather than trying to save the much smaller number of children killed by airbags.

Idk, DDM, something about "more guns will lower gun violence" just doesn't seem sound.

Originally posted by Robtard
Idk, DDM, something about "more guns will lower gun violence" just doesn't seem sound.

How about "Less helpless victims will deter victimization of the helpless?"

No, what I said was better.

Is that really more silly than "Less guns will lower gun violence?

Originally posted by Robtard
No, what I said was better.

I disagree.

uhuh

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Is that really more silly than "Less guns will lower gun violence?

Considering we have real-world examples of that happening, not sure.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I disagree.

uhuh

Friendly disagreement is welcome

Originally posted by Raisen
I'm pro gun and this sounds great. Anything to increase knowledge and safety.

But the question is would legislation to enforce it be considered as "DA GUBMINT AR TAKEN OWR GUNZZZZ"

Say for example the cost of the mandatory training are added to the gun cost price and the gun isn't given to the owner until they get their training certificate.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But this has literally never happened. Ever. Why pander to an extremely unlikely scenario when another extremely unlikely scenario (but is far more likely to happen compared to the other) can prevent a greater loss of life?


It is similar to removing airbags from cars because some children were killed by them. More people will definitely be saved by keeping the airbags, in cars, rather than trying to save the much smaller number of children killed by airbags.

But what has happened, and I've seen this for myself, is a fight starting in a bar that within 10 seconds erupted into almost everyone in the bar fighting.

Let's not forget than in a nightclub you would have many intoxicated people as well. What if they're armed?

Can't see it ending well.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering we have real-world examples of that happening, not sure.

And we have real world examples of more guns=less violence happening as well. So we're back at square one

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
And we have real world examples of more guns=less violence happening as well. So we're back at square one

Do we have real world examples where an increase in gun availability lead to less fun violence?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do we have real world examples where an increase in gun availability lead to less fun violence?

I don't know what constitutes as "fun" violence but once again, we have examples of Switzerland and Israel. You can make whatever rationalization you want but those are examples of more guns=less violence as a result of responsible gun owners and lack of gun culture.

Do you think that when a system works for some countries (especially much smaller, less populated countries) that it'll be a guarantee for the US too? It wouldn't be surprising if one long-standing tradition and ingrained cultural trait would benefit some countries, but could backfire for other countries.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Do you think that when a system works for some countries (especially much smaller, less populated countries) that it'll be a guarantee for the US too? It wouldn't be surprising if one long-standing tradition and ingrained cultural trait would benefit some countries, but could backfire for other countries.

Don't liberals tout the whole European universal healthcare system working there as evidence that it would work here? I'm giving you an example, I'm not going into double standards like some people like to engage in.

My point is I completely agree with Israel's system (nothing to do with being Jewish). They're incredibly practical based on all the countries that surround them. These are legitimate gun controls that we can all abide by.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Don't liberals tout the whole European universal healthcare system working there as evidence that it would work here? I'm giving you an example, I'm not going into double standards like some people like to engage in. Yeah, but what I'm getting at is, maybe the States just aren't culturally homogeneous enough to make Federal laws granting country-wide rights or abolishments, etc. actually work. The county might be just too damn big and populous for a viable solution to these huge issues to ever be found.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah, but what I'm getting at is, maybe the States just aren't culturally homogeneous enough to make Federal laws granting country-wide rights or abolishments, etc. actually work. The county might be just too damn big and populous for a viable solution to these huge issues to ever be found.

I agree.

Yeah, they seem to have a pretty good system, from the little I have read about it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, they seem to have a pretty good system, from the little I have read about it.

Their airport is also among the safest places on earth. They utilize profiling to the maximum. I don't think that would work in this country, as much as I would like it.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I agree. Not that it's at all possible, but should the various regions in the States that think and act alike all decide to split the Union and form their own smaller countries... would you support it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, they seem to have a pretty good system, from the little I have read about it.
Agreed.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Their airport is also among the safest places on earth. They utilize profiling to the maximum. I don't think that would work in this country, as much as I would like it.

Was there about 8 years ago, their scanning equipment is seriously more sophisticated and efficient, no need to remove shoes, belts, etc. the machine can tell the difference between the metal in a belt and a gun/knife apparently.

Whole system moved far more smoothly than the TSA nightmare we have in US airports.

Israelis are the most technologically advanced country on the planet as far as counterterrorism is concerned.


No, I wouldn't. We don't need another civil war. We preach individualism here but we move as one country. I'm completely against even the thought of it.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
My point is I completely agree with Israel's system (nothing to do with being Jewish). They're incredibly practical based on all the countries that surround them. These are legitimate gun controls that we can all abide by.

That won't fly in the US. That would be viewed as punishing all for the sins of a few. Any legislator voting for that would risk losing re election. Too many proud firearms owners here, especially in the south. You won't tell a redneck how many firearms he can own.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That won't fly in the US. That would be viewed as punishing all for the sins of a few. Any legislator voting for that would risk losing re election. Too many proud firearms owners here, especially in the south. You won't tell a redneck how many firearms he can own.

Just like the left will ***** and moan about profiling. Hence, neither of these things will work here.

We at least need to use common sense. If you've committed a violent crime, you can't ever buy a gun. If you've been investigated by the FBI on suspected terrorism you definitely can't buy one.

I also can't see any real reason a person would need to own multiple firearms. This isn't a Resident Evil game.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That won't fly in the US. That would be viewed as punishing all for the sins of a few. Any legislator voting for that would risk losing re election. Too many proud firearms owners here, especially in the south. You won't tell a redneck how many firearms he can own. Not really a 'number of weapons' someone can own, imo, if someone passes a background check and they're deemed mentally stable, what does it matter if they own one or twenty guns.

The regulation reform comes in the form of more thorough background checks, more cohesion between state and federal branches, extending the idiotic 'three day' time limit and dropping the utterly insane gun-show loophole.

So while you may have to wait longer to get a gun, once you're cleared you can buy as many as you need to make your penis feel adequate.

Originally posted by Surtur
We at least need to use common sense. If you've committed a violent crime, you can't ever buy a gun. If you've been investigated by the FBI on suspected terrorism you definitely can't buy one.

I also can't see any real reason a person would need to own multiple firearms. This isn't a Resident Evil game.

People convicted of a violent crime probably wouldn't make it past the background check - if the gun is bought legally.

I have multiple guns so, when I run out of bullets, I can throw my empty guns at the zombies.

Originally posted by jaden101
Say for example the cost of the mandatory training are added to the gun cost price and the gun isn't given to the owner until they get their training certificate.

This is the best answer. And to add to that, add on top of that, periodic re-testing.



The same should apply to driving cars, as well.

Originally posted by jaden101
But what has happened, and I've seen this for myself, is a fight starting in a bar that within 10 seconds erupted into almost everyone in the bar fighting.

Let's not forget than in a nightclub you would have many intoxicated people as well. What if they're armed?

Can't see it ending well.


How often do you see this scenario come up in the news (in the US where open carry and conceal carry are around)?


It has literally never happened. There are scenarios where a few people get involved in a gun fight but it isn't some massive shootout like you would see in a movie. And, usually, that was gang related.



What I have seen happen, though, is a knife is pulled and someone is gutted...not kidding. That shit is scarier to me.

Mandatory training and certification for something regarded as a Constitutional right feels a bit...slippery.

It doesn't sound like a bad idea, but... other rights don't generally require the approval of a government agency.

Originally posted by blair85
Mandatory training and certification for something regarded as a Constitutional right feels a bit...slippery.

It doesn't sound like a bad idea, but... other rights don't generally require the approval of a government agency.

How many of those rights can kill people?