Orlando massacre

Bohica66 said:

Gun confiscation worked very well for Hitler, an unarmed populace are much easier to control.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! And that is why I am a lifelong pro gun NRA member.

peteg59 said:

:Agree: IF only 1 person in that nite-club had been "carrying" a weapon, besides the gunman, perhaps less would have died.

Click to expand...

Bill Clinton's response:

Having more gun-wielding Americans wouldn’t have prevented the massacre in Orlando, Florida, former President Bill Clinton said Tuesday. Every American needs to be on high alert, the former president said, and “can’t ignore someone who may be ranting and raving.” But he argued against speculation that had people inside the nightclub been armed, the carnage could have been reduced.

txlander said:

Bill Clinton's response:

Having more gun-wielding Americans wouldn’t have prevented the massacre in Orlando, Florida, former President Bill Clinton said Tuesday. Every American needs to be on high alert, the former president said, and “can’t ignore someone who may be ranting and raving.” But he argued against speculation that had people inside the nightclub been armed, the carnage could have been reduced.

“Did you see how dark it was?” he asked. “I think it’s likely that more people would have been killed had there been more guns on the scene."

Yeah, right.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bill-clinton-orlando-guns-224318#ixzz4BgqcOSeP







​

Click to expand...

Spoken like the anti-gun Democrat he and his other half are... Remember the Brady Bill.

Big Dog said:

Ok, I don't own one and never will, but I have no problem with anyone else owning one. But why must the gun lovers all insist on having "assault type long guns"? Can't you hunt with a regular old rifle, or protect yourself with a hand gun?

I'm not picking a fight, just not understanding the need for automatic, big clip, rapid fire to shoot at Bambi, paper or steel targets.

Click to expand...

No harm in your point of view, and thank you for not "bashing" those who have them. A few have given examples as to why (and there are countless reasons why). I'm gonna go a different route. If you enjoy research, look at QUALITY ballistic tests of the standard AR round (5.56/223 55grain) in comparison to a 9mm, .40, .45 pistol hollowpoint and to a standard 30/30 soft point hunting round (basic old school hunting rifle).

You will find that all calibers and rounds listed EXCEPT the AR round will do catastrophic damage per round in comparison to the 5.56/223 by a large margin. The wound channel is far larger, and the tissue damage is worse also. You may not realize this, but the lead (the part that hits tissue) is not much larger that the .22 rifle most learn to shoot with, but with a lot more powder behind it.

There are many combat veterans out there who consider the AR platform a "worthless" "battle rifle" due to the small projectile, and often minimal damage it does.

There are several videos out there who show (for example) someone who was shot in the calf with an AR (with 55 grain) and a bandaide is all that was needed to seal the wound because it doesn't expand when it hits tissue and doesn't necessarily go into a "tumble" when it hits bone/etc.

In regards to round count and capacity, I will toss this out there.. the average uniformed officer in an active shooter or high stress environment that requires use of force has on average a 20% accuracy rate which for those mathematically challenged like myself means for every 10 rounds fired, you hit your target twice (& that doesn't mean you hit them critically, just means you hit). Imagine the accuracy of your average home owner responding to someone, or multiple parties with little to no training when induced to the high stress levels and the adrenaline rush that is created in those moments.

I'm not making an argument for high capacity necessarily, but the factors that come into play beyond what's simply in front of us.

Future Triker said:

There are many combat veterans out there who consider the AR platform a "worthless" "battle rifle" due to the small projectile, and often minimal damage it does. There are several videos out there who show (for example) someone who was shot in the calf with an AR (with 55 grain) and a bandaide is all that was needed to seal the wound because it doesn't expand when it hits tissue and doesn't necessarily go into a "tumble" when it hits bone/etc.

Click to expand...

The 556/223 is a FMJ... And made for penetration, Not Tissue Damage... But minimal damage not what i've seen..... A combat round with a lead tip, Is outlawed by the Geneva Convention... And any combatant captured with them can be shot on the spot.. Hollow point/lead tip bullets will rip flesh/bones apart....Like hunting rounds do to deer...

Nam 66/67.....

Big Dog said:

Ok, I don't own one and never will, but I have no problem with anyone else owning one. But why must the gun lovers all insist on having "assault type long guns"? Can't you hunt with a regular old rifle, or protect yourself with a hand gun?

I'm not picking a fight, just not understanding the need for automatic, big clip, rapid fire to shoot at Bambi, paper or steel targets.

Click to expand...

"Assault Rifle" is just a term used by anti-gun people to demonize that class of firearms. The Orlando terrorist was carrying a Sig Sauer MCX,a 5.56/.223 cal sporting rifle,not an AR-15. It does not have full-auto capability,contrary to what some in politics and the media would have you believe.(though it's obvious why they continue to lie about this) It fires one round for each trigger pull and its rate of fire is really no faster than any other semi-auto rifle or pistol. To those people that demonize it,it just looks "mean" to them and should be banned.(makes sense,right) Your average deer rifle in 270,7mm Mag,or 30-06 is much more powerful. 5.56/.223cal sporting rifles are very popular in this country,so much so that they are probably the most prolific rifle sold. Why? They are lightweight,have very little recoil depending on caliber,are available in many,many calibers,and 5.56/223 ammunition is widely available. These rifles are fast becoming the preferred hunting weapon because of their versatility and modularity,plus the reasons I mentioned above.

Why is everything about "need"? It's called the Bill of Rights,not Bill of Needs.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

FWIW,the Virginia Tech lunatic killed 32 and wounded 17 in less than ten minutes. His only weapon was a semi-auto 9mm pistol with a backpack full of 10rd magazines. The terrorist in Orlando killed 50 people and wounded 53,over a period of three hours! Both shooting sites were Gun-Free zones aka Killing Fields.

Clint44 said:

"Assault Rifle" is just a term used by anti-gun people to demonize that class of firearms. The Orlando terrorist was carrying a Sig Sauer MCX,a 5.56/.223 cal sporting rifle,not an AR-15. It does not have full-auto capability,contrary to what some in politics and the media would have you believe.(though it's obvious why they continue to lie about this) It fires one round for each trigger pull and its rate of fire is really no faster than any other semi-auto rifle or pistol. To those people that demonize it,it just looks "mean" to them and should be banned.(makes sense,right) Your average deer rifle in 270,7mm Mag,or 30-06 is much more powerful. 5.56/.223cal sporting rifles are very popular in this country,so much so that they are probably the most prolific rifle sold. Why? They are lightweight,have very little recoil depending on caliber,are available in many,many calibers,and 5.56/223 ammunition is widely available. These rifles are fast becoming the preferred hunting weapon because of their versatility and modularity,plus the reasons I mentioned above.

Why is everything about "need"? It's called the Bill of Rights,not Bill of Needs. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

FWIW,the Virginia Tech lunatic killed 32 and wounded 17 in less than ten minutes. His only weapon was a semi-auto 9mm pistol with a backpack full of 10rd magazines.

The terrorist in Orlando killed 50 people and wounded 53,over a period of three hours! Both shooting sites were Gun-Free zones aka Killing Fields.

Click to expand...

+1... Preach it brother!

Clint44 said:

FWIW,the Virginia Tech lunatic killed 32 and wounded 17 in less than ten minutes. His only weapon was a semi-auto 9mm pistol with a backpack full of 10rd magazines. The terrorist in Orlando killed 50 people and wounded 53,over a period of three hours! Both shooting sites were Gun-Free zones aka Killing Fields.

Click to expand...

Anyone remember the Happyland Social Club Fire, New York City, 1990?

87 people dead in a few minutes. Arson committed by the angry boyfriend of a club employee who had been earlier asked to leave the establishment.

No firearm. Just a plastic container full of gasoline.

Maybe it is people after all and not the implements that they bear.

The OKC bomber killed 168 people in a matter of seconds. If our country keeps going down its present path,we will revisit that horror. Our borders are way too porous. Obama and Clinton want it,that way.

I find it interesting that Democrats state that restricting guns is "common sense", while allowing guys to go into girls bathrooms and letting muslim refugee's into the country is "protecting rights". Just sayin'.

peteg59 said:

:Agree: IF only 1 person in that nite-club had been "carrying" a weapon, besides the gunman, perhaps less would have died.

Click to expand...

Agree. In Texas we have a 51% law. If an establishment's income comes from 51% or more from sales of alcohol, then one is not allowed to carry their weapon into the premises.. The business must post a sign stating that it's income is derived from 51% or more of alcohol sales. Don't know what the Florida rule is about that. They might have something similar which would have prevented a LAW ABIDING citizen from taking a gun into the place. This rule probably keeps a club much safer but in this case - sure left those patrons like sitting ducks.

I've now heard that there was an armed private security guard on premises when it all went down.
Where the armed guard was, and what he/she did at the onset of the gunfire, is not known...

peteg59 said:

I've now heard that there was an armed private security guard on premises when it all went down.
Where the armed guard was, and what he/she did at the onset of the gunfire, is not known...

Click to expand...

Pretty sure he was shot first,Pete.

Sully said:

View attachment 36807

Click to expand...

AMEN!