Attack on gay nightclub in Orlando leaves 50 dead.

[Esau of Isaac]

It would be if people think a gun is enough to stop home invaders and don't invest in additional security.

In the form of what?

[Baldrick]

In the form of what?

Home security systems, burglar alarms, that kind of thing.

[Esau of Isaac]

Home security systems, burglar alarms, that kind of thing.

I mean, I would definitely recommend investing in those things. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and all that. But in the case of an actual home invasion, a gun of just about any kind is invaluable. Some are better than others, to be sure, but one is better than none, regardless of whether you incorrectly assume it will be more lethal than it is. I can definitely envision a scenario in which someone fires at an intruder once, thinking it will incapacitate them, only for them to be charged by the intruder. But in such a situation I reckon a wounded intruder is better than a healthy one anyways.

[Baldrick]

I can definitely envision a scenario in which someone fires at an intruder once, thinking it will incapacitate them, only for them to be charged by the intruder. But in such a situation I reckon a wounded intruder is better than a healthy one anyways.

There are worse-case (is that even a word?) scenarios than that, say, if the invader disarms you, has a gun as well, or gets the drop on you before you can shoot them.

Of course, having a weapon is almost always better than not having a weapon, but having a gun solely for self-defense can be dangerous and not very useful unless you're trained to use it.

[eclipse]

Oh boy, I've got a hell of a story involving a gun, a burglary alarm system, and how everything went wrong.

The tl;dr from that story is that it's the guy behind the gun that's the biggest factor, which is why I'm meh about the gun control discussion that inevitably happens after a mass shooting.

Edited June 16, 2016 by eclipse

[Crysta]

The first officer to engage the shooter was a security guard at the club so I'd argue having a gunman on your side isn't going to be the thing that saves the day. It definitely should be more of a last line of defense than the first.

[blah the Prussian]

That was not the intent, and I'm sorry. I meant to say more along the lines of kings marrying off their daughters as if they had no rights, and the fact that marrying commoners was illegal made for a lot of inbreeding, causing many late monarchs in Europe to be weak and incompetent. When I said eugenics, I meant selective breeding, but misapplied the concept I was looking for. Also, about revolt, although the Declaration of Independence isn't law, it outlines our basic, unspoken civil liberties,written by the biggest advocate for the Bi!l of Rights. He understood that written law won't protect the people forever.

@eclipse: I wasn't trying to assume, and I certainly wasn't trying to imply his actual opinion. If I am asked to stop posting in this thread, I will. That was unbecoming, rude, and offensive, and I wanted to apologize, not just to blah, or to the mods, but to everybody, especially those who think lesser of me because of my conclusion jumps.

Well, the majority of the stuff in this post is off topic anyway, so that's for a different thread. Regarding the Declaration of Independence, the worst way to protect rule of law is to use violence. This is because the use of violence essentially replaces rule of law with rule of force. There have been very few violent revolutions in history that have ended well. The only ones I can think of are the American and Romanian Revolutions, and American democracy was essentially entirely at the mercy of George Washington. So overall I can say with confidence that violence is disastrous for rule of law.

[tuvarkz]

Well, the majority of the stuff in this post is off topic anyway, so that's for a different thread. Regarding the Declaration of Independence, the worst way to protect rule of law is to use violence. This is because the use of violence essentially replaces rule of law with rule of force. There have been very few violent revolutions in history that have ended well. The only ones I can think of are the American and Romanian Revolutions, and American democracy was essentially entirely at the mercy of George Washington. So overall I can say with confidence that violence is disastrous for rule of law.

Your argument could easily be misconstrued both ways, because this would also mean disavowing law enforcement corps that will use violence or threat of violence to have criminals surrender. The law needs to be enforced by force, and so do the people's freedoms. And pacifist protests don't exactly have a better track record either.

[Esau of Isaac]

The first officer to engage the shooter was a security guard at the club so I'd argue having a gunman on your side isn't going to be the thing that saves the day. It definitely should be more of a last line of defense than the first.

He engaged him, but disengaged shortly after to wait for backup. He wasn't aware of how many people were in the club, its interior, etc. I don't think it's completely comparable to a citizen in that club defending themselves.

That said, I do agree that you shouldn't simply assume that because you are armed, you're safe. Whether it is a gun or otherwise, the most efficient means of survival should be used.

[Esau of Isaac]

Edit: Double post -___-

Edited June 16, 2016 by Esau of Isaac

[blah the Prussian]

Your argument could easily be misconstrued both ways, because this would also mean disavowing law enforcement corps that will use violence or threat of violence to have criminals surrender. The law needs to be enforced by force, and so do the people's freedoms. And pacifist protests don't exactly have a better track record either.

Police officers, ideally at least, are acting according to the law, which is concrete, set in stone (literally in the case of Rome) and not susceptible to the desires of the mob. You can justify terrible things by arguing that you are defending your rights. I don't trust the people to not go too far in defending their rights. I do trust the law to not be oppressive. Also, name me one instance of successful nonviolent overthrow of tyranny that went to hell afterwords. I'm waiting.

[Crysta]

He engaged him, but disengaged shortly after to wait for backup. He wasn't aware of how many people were in the club, its interior, etc. I don't think it's completely comparable to a citizen in that club defending themselves.

Disregarding the fact that he probably had a good idea of how many people were in the club due to being the security guard and all (he'd likely have more information than the cops arriving would, anyway), how does this make a difference? If anything I'd say he'd have more of a chance at anticipating and stopping the shooter than someone actually in the club would (given they would be... well, partying, presumably). He certainly recognized what was happening and tried to stop the shooter with lethal force; it did not work, however valiant it was.

EDIT: Not really knocking him, either. It became a hostage situation.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Crysta

[Rezzy]

Oh boy, I've got a hell of a story involving a gun, a burglary alarm system, and how everything went wrong.The tl;dr from that story is that it's the guy behind the gun that's the biggest factor, which is why I'm meh about the gun control discussion that inevitably happens after a mass shooting.

Is there a "not long enough; will read" version of the story?

[Moblin Major General]

Police officers, ideally at least, are acting according to the law, which is concrete, set in stone (literally in the case of Rome) and not susceptible to the desires of the mob. You can justify terrible things by arguing that you are defending your rights. I don't trust the people to not go too far in defending their rights. I do trust the law to not be oppressive. Also, name me one instance of successful nonviolent overthrow of tyranny that went to hell afterwords. I'm waiting.

Europe has federally regulated law enforcement, so anything that makes a department look bad reflects on the entirety on law enforcement in that country. Not so in the US. Police forces have varying criteria, and some of them openly teach violence. Not to mention that their mentality is about punishment rather than assistance to restore order. Also, in response to your other question, Nationalist China was a bloodless coup that led to an oppressive regime that caused a civil war, leading China to be weakened once Japan invaded and restored the overthrown Puyi.

[blah the Prussian]

Europe has federally regulated law enforcement, so anything that makes a department look bad reflects on the entirety on law enforcement in that country. Not so in the US. Police forces have varying criteria, and some of them openly teach violence. Not to mention that their mentality is about punishment rather than assistance to restore order. Also, in response to your other question, Nationalist China was a bloodless coup that led to an oppressive regime that caused a civil war, leading China to be weakened once Japan invaded and restored the overthrown Puyi.

1. Fair enough. I am in favor of police reform, but that is for another topic.

2. That really doesn't count. I don't count military coups, for obvious reasons; this entire thing refers to civilian resistance. Also, Japan didn't restore Xuantong, they installed the Republic of China-Nanjing.

[tuvarkz]

Police officers, ideally at least, are acting according to the law, which is concrete, set in stone (literally in the case of Rome) and not susceptible to the desires of the mob. You can justify terrible things by arguing that you are defending your rights. I don't trust the people to not go too far in defending their rights. I do trust the law to not be oppressive. Also, name me one instance of successful nonviolent overthrow of tyranny that went to hell afterwords. I'm waiting.

While the part of 'hell' didn't last for particularly long, the whole mass migration ordeal after India/Pakistan's independence and partition had plent of incidents and violence. The Iranian Revolution was on the less violent side of things, and it went to hell through power struggles immediately afterwards.

And if you trust the law to not be oppressive, then you are dismantling the concept that minorities are systematically oppressed (which can only be done by the law) that the Left espouses so vigorously. I believe going further on this would start to lead the topic astray though.

[blah the Prussian]

While the part of 'hell' didn't last for particularly long, the whole mass migration ordeal after India/Pakistan's independence and partition had plent of incidents and violence. The Iranian Revolution was on the less violent side of things, and it went to hell through power struggles immediately afterwards.

And if you trust the law to not be oppressive, then you are dismantling the concept that minorities are systematically oppressed (which can only be done by the law) that the Left espouses so vigorously. I believe going further on this would start to lead the topic astray though.

Damn, I forgot about Iran. You win this round, Tuvarkz! *shakes fist angrily*

And isn't the whole point of the left's position on racism that not having oppressive laws doesn't cut it, and that microaggressions or so,e shit still happen? I'm not definitively on the left or right, in any case. If minorities are oppressed by the law, violence isn't justified except in cases of genocide, and at that point the purpose of the violence would hardly be self defense; more like take a few down with me.

[Esau of Isaac]

Disregarding the fact that he probably had a good idea of how many people were in the club due to being the security guard and all (he'd likely have more information than the cops arriving would, anyway), how does this make a difference? If anything I'd say he'd have more of a chance at anticipating and stopping the shooter than someone actually in the club would (given they would be... well, partying, presumably). He certainly recognized what was happening and tried to stop the shooter with lethal force; it did not work, however valiant it was.

EDIT: Not really knocking him, either. It became a hostage situation.

It makes a huge difference, because he shouldn't be aiming to head into a suicidal situation without being aware of how to approach it. He didn't know exactly what the killer was armed with, whether he was armored, etc. He is equipped to deal with similarly equipped opponents. Police aren't exactly elite troops in most localities, and as I understand it Orlando isn't an exception as in such areas as LA. Being unarmored and having only a sidearm leaves you in a precarious position. Sure, he could disarm the situation by defeating the hostile. Or he could be killed and end up useless. Did he make the right call? No one will ever know, but it was a logical one.

Given that the shooter allegedly fired hundreds of rounds in very few minutes, it must have sounded like chaos. It's difficult to evaluate positions like that.

[Crysta]

Uh.

He made the right decision. I'm not willing to debate that. Firing into a crowd of panicking people is not a wise decision.

What tactical advantage a citizen within the club would have over an officer at the entrance/outside of the club? You said they weren't "completely comparable", and they aren't by the simple fact that they weren't both citizens within the club with the right to carry. The point is that a person with a gun present doesn't always dissuade or prevent mass shootings; I don't think allegations that it would have been stopped or cut short if only someone partying inside had a firearm of their own hold much merit in an environment with 300+ people, loud noise, and darkness.

[Esau of Isaac]

Because in the instance of an armed populace, there wouldn't only be one armed person, there would have been hundreds. If there were ten officers, they wouldn't have hesitated, they'd have engaged immediately. In fact, when more showed up, that is what they did, which is what caused Mateen to flee into the bathroom where he waited with his hostages for hours. Multiple gunmen is a force multiplier, which in this case would have trumped superior equipment and (possibly) training. And while yes, of course the inside of the building was chaos, dark, loud, and with its occupants boozed up --which is precisely why no one was allowed to carry there in the first place-- it would not have been difficult after the initial attack to locate the attacker. Being that he had a rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, firing indiscriminately into a crowd of people, it would have been clear as day who the perpetrator is. There are also other factors that play into the situation, including tendency of those concealed carrying to be capable marksmen and inability for an attacker to reliably locate and kill those that are themselves armed.

I do agree that having firearms doesn't always dissuade attackers. It is a deterrent in the most general sense, and an effective defensive tool when it fails as a deterrent. Radical Islamists are of course known for carrying out suicide attacks, and whether he was or was not one --I myself believe he was, fwiw-- this was just such an occasion where he had to have known he would not get out alive. I won't postulate how many would have survived if they were all armed, no one really knows and I never posted with the intention of arguing otherwise. But in a general sense, an armed populace, trained and educated, is better than one not. In my opinion.

[Crysta]

it would not have been difficult after the initial attack to locate the attacker. Being that he had a rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, firing indiscriminately into a crowd of people, it would have been clear as day who the perpetrator is.

Says... you? It was a crowded nightclub, not a bright spring day or a battlefield.

Add ten more guns firing and add a significant 'WTF is happening' multiplier and increase the likelihood of friendly fire (frightened/stressed and possibly drunk club-goers probably aren't sharpshooters with 100% accuracy). Unless I misread something, the gunfight happened before Mateen really got into the club but he managed to get past them, which seems like the only real chance they had to get him without adding more collateral damage. Is there a different account somewhere?

This is probably the worst hypothetical situation to bring up in support of 'everyone should have a gun'.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Crysta

[eclipse]

Is there a "not long enough; will read" version of the story?

FINE.

One day, a couple came home to find someone in their house. They had a burglar alarm, but I don't remember if it tripped (my gut says yes). The burglar had a gun, and shot the husband. When the police arrested the burglar, he was apparently high.

What does this illustrate?

1. Burglar alarms only go so far.

2. I hold the burglar responsible for the shooting, not the gun, since I'm pretty sure that gun was acquired illegally.

3. It's also why I have a dim view on drugs, but that's another topic.

Would this situation have been better if the couple had a gun? Probably not, because I think both of them would've been shot. Plus, it would've upset their dog even further.

Gun control is a sticky issue. A lot of it is situational, and to pass legislation in response to a nasty incident like the Orlando shooting does more harm than good IMO.

Edited June 17, 2016 by eclipse

[Crysta]

The response is inevitable and the parents of slain kids aren't really going to stay quiet. It's complicated, but it deserves attention and debate; especially since it keeps happening (and will likely happen again).

We're no longer in colonial times, nor are we Switzerland or Europe, so we need our own personalized solution to the problem. I have no idea what that actually is because I'm not one of the researchers in the know, but a certain organization with an obvious monetary stake in all of this is sort of cockblocking everything. gg.

[Duff Ostrich]

As a lobby the AMA is no more or less noble than the NRA. They both spend untold millions to get what they want out of the political process. What a website like thinkprogress fails to acknowledge is that the AMA is offering a political opinion and not a scientific one. From my friends over at the National Review:

The faux-objectivity of the “public health” label is persuasive only for people already inclined to agree with the AMA’s positions on guns. For others, it’s more like a declaration of hostility. After all, “public health” conjures images of pollution and disease. Making gun owners feel like they are carrying around the Zika virus is not the way to foster a productive dialogue, nor is it a way to strengthen their confidence in scientific organizations. If the AMA politicizes guns, on what issues can it be trusted at all?

Law-abiding people own guns for a reason, and they do not welcome the implication that guns serve only nefarious purposes. Nobody talks about the upside to having lead in drinking water, or about the pros and cons of acid rain. Nobody objects to the goal of wiping out Ebola. Equating guns to these more traditional public-health concerns, even just implicitly, is pseudoscientific and a disservice to the debate.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436704/guns-public-health-concern-argument-disingenuous

Incidentally, the suggestion from thinkprogress that "gun-inflicted homicides in the U.S. has continued to skyrocket far beyond other advanced democratic countries." is a bit of deliberately misleading text. Yes, we have more gun crimes than other western countries, but the word "skyrocket" suggests that gun crimes in the US are increasing, when all of the available evidence has shown that this is not the case. I'll have to thank the comments section of that National Review article for this handy chart:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Always lend a critical eye to when some joker on the internet throws stats at you, but a cursory glance at this one seems fairly self explanatory.

[Esau of Isaac]

Says... you? It was a crowded nightclub, not a bright spring day or a battlefield.'.

And he was holding a rifle, firing it indiscriminately. The muzzle flash of his continuous fire would be quick indicator of the attacker. Granted that I never said it would be a simple situation, and noted the condition of the club in an earlier post.

Add ten more guns firing and add a significant 'WTF is happening' multiplier and increase the likelihood of friendly fire (frightened/stressed and possibly drunk club-goers probably aren't sharpshooters with 100% accuracy).

I did not say this could not happen, but again the one strapped to the teeth with magazines of ammo firing into a crowd is going to be easier to locate and take care of for an armed man than one that is concealed carrying.

This is probably the worst hypothetical situation to bring up in support of 'everyone should have a gun

You brought it up, no one else.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Esau of Isaac