“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[Jim_Campbell]

This is one of the side-effects of only allowing the state police to own guns.

Umm... this statement is so breath-takingly untrue, I can only conclude that you're trolling. The entire cause of what happened in Orlando is exactly not that

only the state police own guns.

The entire cause of what happened in Orlando is that private citizens can own assault weaponry.

Jim

[The Legendary Shark]

If every citizen in America can own weaponry, why did nobody shoot back?

[Jim_Campbell]

If every citizen in America can own weaponry, why did nobody shoot back?

Are you claiming that private gun ownership in the US isn't widespread and guaranteed by Constitution?

Are you also suggesting that even more live fire in a crowded nightclub full of panicking people would have resulted in fewer deaths? Are you actually parrotting the NRA's 'good guy with a gun' fantasy?

If none of the above, please explain the intention of your question quoted above.

[Hawkmumbler]

If every citizen in America can own weaponry, why did nobody shoot back?

Dear fucking god not this shit again.

[The Legendary Shark]

If you'll read my first comment on this tragedy, you'll see I was actually placing the onus on the club itself. Had it, unilaterally or as part of a local group of businesses, been responsible for hiring professional and armed private police then the response time would very probably have been much quicker. A guy with an assault rifle kind of stands out in a crowd, he didn't just materialise inside the club. He had to get through the door. Had to walk down the street to get to the door.

Of course, arming everybody isn't the answer - that's simply a lower version of the nuclear MAD option. "I would shoot you but I don't know if you're carrying a concealed weapon or not" is not the best of situations to be in but is (marginally) better than "I'm going to shoot you because I'm pretty sure you obey the law against carrying concealed firearms." A better solution is to allow for, maybe even require, venue owners and operators to be responsible for the security on their premises. It's simply an extension of home defence - few people would argue (in the U.S.) that a homesteader has no right to shoot back against invaders intent on shooting their dinner guests. In the same spirit, club-owners should have the right to defend their patrons against similar assaults.

I would love to see a world where nobody had to carry a weapon to defend themselves, I guess we all would, but that's an increasingly fantastic scenario. However, when the majority of guns are carried only by either the police or criminals (and we are talking carrying, not owning a gun and keeping it in a regulation lock-box inside one's home) then, inevitably, it is the law-abiding unarmed citizen who gets caught in the crossfire - no matter from which direction that crossfire comes.

[Jim_Campbell]

I would love to see a world where nobody had to carry a weapon to defend themselves, I guess we all would, but that's an increasingly fantastic scenario.

And our solution, in the UK, to drastically restrict access to firearms amongst the private citizenry, puts as far closer to that ideal than the US solution, or the variations thereon proposed by the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies. This is undeniable. I have no idea what point you think you're arguing here.

[morpheas]

A guy with an assault rifle kind of stands out in a crowd, he didn't just materialise inside the club. He had to get through the door. Had to walk down the street to get to the door.

http://www.opencarry.org/

"Where Is 'Open Carry' Legal?"
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/map-where-is-open-carry-legal-1715/

[The Legendary Shark]

I have no idea what point you think you're arguing here.

...venue owners and operators to be responsible for the security on their premises. It's simply an extension of home defence - few people would argue (in the U.S.) that a homesteader has no right to shoot back against invaders intent on shooting their dinner guests. In the same spirit, club-owners should have the right to defend their patrons against similar assaults.

[Jim_Campbell]

...venue owners and operators to be responsible for the security on their premises. It's simply an extension of home defence - few people would argue (in the U.S.) that a homesteader has no right to shoot back against invaders intent on shooting their dinner guests. In the same spirit, club-owners should have the right to defend their patrons against similar assaults.

Are you also suggesting that even more live fire in a crowded nightclub full of panicking people would have resulted in fewer deaths? Are you actually parrotting the NRA's 'good guy with a gun' fantasy?

[JamesC]

The mere thought that armed security (and are we talking machine guns here?) should be needed at a night club (or a cinema, or schools suppose) is as ridiculous as it is terrifying.

[The Legendary Shark]

A guy with an assault rifle kind of stands out in a crowd, he didn't just materialise inside the club. He had to get through the door. Had to walk down the street to get to the door.

http://www.opencarry.org/

"Where Is 'Open Carry' Legal?"
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/map-where-is-open-carry-legal-1715/

He had to get through the door.

Open carry, whilst legal in many states, does not imply unrestricted carry. Any home or venue owner has the right to deny access to their premises to armed people. In the overwhelming majority of cases, especially where alcohol is served, that makes a great deal of sense. But if the venue owner isn't equipped to deny access to an armed person, or has to wait for the "authorities" to turn up and sort it out, there will inevitably be danger.

Let us remember that the incidents we are talking about are very rare indeed. It might not seem like it because the MSN loves these dramatic incidents but millions of people attend millions of events (nights out, concerts, movies, theater performances, sports fixtures, etc., etc., etc.) every week without incident. The overwhelming majority of people know how to go out and have fun without either murdering or getting murdered.

What I'm talking about, giving over responsibility for patrons' safety and security from these rare but devastating incidents, is not new or radical. It's the same as any venue owner/operator being responsible for fire safety, food safety and what have you.

[IAMTHESYSTEM]

Grim documentary about how black Americans frightened by both racial and Police violence are arming themselves. Graphic violence, strong racism with videos of people being shot and killed on camera. You have been warned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p03t9g3j/black-power-americas-armed-resistance

[Hawkmumbler]

The gunman didn't just walk into the bar, he opend fire from outside and forced his way in. Read the reports.

[Jim_Campbell]

He had to get through the door.

He approaches the club, he opens fire on the door guards before they've registered that he's a threat. He steps over the bodies and opens fire inside the club.

Again: the NRA's 'good guy with a gun' scenario is a fantasy. In order to be the good guy in any of these scenarios, you have to be reactive, by which time there's every chance you'll be dead.

[Hawkmumbler]

Grim documentary about how black Americans frightened by both racial and Police violence are arming themselves. Graphic violence with videos of people being shot and killed on camera. You have been warned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p03t9g3j/black-power-americas-armed-resistance

Aye, harrowing stuff. I have no real intention of venturing to the states simply due to these events.