There is an aspect of the Orlando shootings that has been discussed here before, and may warrant another look. That would be the subject of the "militarization" of the local police forces. I use quotes because I don't fully agree with that word describing LEOs adapting to modern circumstances of the 2nd Amendment, but I do recognize that is the view of many here.
As the timelines of the shootings are developed, it is becoming plain to see that the street patrolmen who first responded could only address the problem to a point. The construction of the building being concrete and otherwise secure, the fatal funnel that the floor plan became and the arms/methods used by the killer worked against conventional methods. After it became a hostage situation, it was realized that SWAT, armored vehicles, explosives and higher powered weapons had to be utilized, especially when the killer began shooting again.
In short, if not for the Bearcat armored vehicle and heavily armed/armored police, the already astonishing body count would have been higher still.
I fully understand that, at the very least, the image of the militarized cop is disconcerting, but we live in a day where technology is fine tuning firearms in such a way as to be insanely effective against an otherwise unsuspecting target.
There are calls for banning assault rifles in an effort to slow mass shootings, but that could result in the same kind of problems that the War of Drugs has brought. Would a War on Assault Rifles be any less violent than the War on Drugs? Some I read wish rifles to be confiscated by the government. Would it take a more militarized police to be capable of that?
I believe that it is enviable that police will have to continue down the militarized road with armored vehicles and arms as long as the 2nd Amendment is interpreted in the current way... and if the 2nd Amendment were severely restricted, police militarization would continue as it would be needed to enforce the necessary changes.
This does not reflect my hope for the future, but is rather a recognition of the rabbit hole the county is going down, whether we choose to see it or not.
Quote from: AKIRA on June 16, 2016, 01:02:55 AM
There is an aspect of the Orlando shootings that has been discussed here before, and may warrant another look. That would be the subject of the "militarization" of the local police forces. I use quotes because I don't fully agree with that word describing LEOs adapting to modern circumstances of the 2nd Amendment, but I do recognize that is the view of many here.
As the timelines of the shootings are developed, it is becoming plain to see that the street patrolmen who first responded could only address the problem to a point. The construction of the building being concrete and otherwise secure, the fatal funnel that the floor plan became and the arms/methods used by the killer worked against conventional methods. After it became a hostage situation, it was realized that SWAT, armored vehicles, explosives and higher powered weapons had to be utilized, especially when the killer began shooting again.
In short, if not for the Bearcat armored vehicle and heavily armed/armored police, the already astonishing body count would have been higher still.
I fully understand that, at the very least, the image of the militarized cop is disconcerting, but we live in a day where technology is fine tuning firearms in such a way as to be insanely effective against an otherwise unsuspecting target.
There are calls for banning assault rifles in an effort to slow mass shootings, but that could result in the same kind of problems that the War of Drugs has brought. Would a War on Assault Rifles be any less violent than the War on Drugs? Some I read wish rifles to be confiscated by the government. Would it take a more militarized police to be capable of that?
I believe that it is enviable that police will have to continue down the militarized road with armored vehicles and arms as long as the 2nd Amendment is interpreted in the current way... and if the 2nd Amendment were severely restricted, police militarization would continue as it would be needed to enforce the necessary changes.
This does not reflect my hope for the future, but is rather a recognition of the rabbit hole the county is going down, whether we choose to see it or not.
"I believe that it is enviable that police will have to continue down the militarized road with armored vehicles and arms" NO! NO! NO! If this happens then Cops should be called the National Guard! I would rather it stay the way it is then become a POLICE STATE.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on June 16, 2016, 07:51:53 AM
Quote from: AKIRA on June 16, 2016, 01:02:55 AM
This does not reflect my hope for the future, but is rather a recognition of the rabbit hole the county is going down, whether we choose to see it or not.
"I believe that it is enviable that police will have to continue down the militarized road with armored vehicles and arms" NO! NO! NO! If this happens then Cops should be called the National Guard! I would rather it stay the way it is then become a POLICE STATE.
I agree, completely!
Further you could argue that if the area wasn't designated a
gun free zone as most of these shootings are, people could actually defend themselves.
And yes, 49 people dying is an absolute tragedy, but let's not forget that more people are killed by police every month, 96 in May alone. Yes, some justified, but not all.
http://killedbypolice.net/
(https://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/swat.jpg)
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/SWAT-JSO_0.jpg)
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 10:08:45 AM
Further you could argue that if the area wasn't designated a gun free zone as most of these shootings are, people could actually defend themselves.
You mean like this?
(http://assets.amuniversal.com/311ed5f014da01346e37005056a9545d)
Quote from: finehoe on June 16, 2016, 10:59:05 AM
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 10:08:45 AM
Further you could argue that if the area wasn't designated a gun free zone as most of these shootings are, people could actually defend themselves.
You mean like this?
(http://assets.amuniversal.com/311ed5f014da01346e37005056a9545d)
+1000
Well, what did we have this time, in the gun free zone? Give people a fighting chance! I don't understand why Liberals don't get this, Despite it just happening:
(http://selfdeprecate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Cartoon-Gun-Control-for-Dummies.jpg)
Those poor people in the club had no chance.
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 11:29:21 AM
Well, what did we have this time, in the gun free zone? Give people a fighting chance! I don't understand why Liberals don't get this, Despite it just happening:
(http://selfdeprecate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Cartoon-Gun-Control-for-Dummies.jpg)
Those poor people in the club had no chance.
I can't vouch for what liberals do or don't get, but I know I feel a lot safer knowing I am not surrounded by armed idiots.
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 11:29:21 AM
Well, what did we have this time, in the gun free zone? Give people a fighting chance! I don't understand why Liberals don't get this,
And I don't understand why you think that everyone carrying a gun wild west style will result in
less violence.
It wasn't a 'gun free zone' anyway - there was an armed police officer there who exchanged fire with the shooter. A trained, armed police officer.
Quote from: finehoe on June 16, 2016, 11:46:05 AM
And I don't understand why you think that everyone carrying a gun wild west style will result in less violence.
Well, not everyone who CAN carry a gun would, it would be a personal preference. And why do I think it would work? Because it does (see video below):
https://www.youtube.com/v/HZudm8axR_A
To further my point, just have a look at Chicago...
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 01:57:29 PM
It wasn't a 'gun free zone' anyway - there was an armed police officer there who exchanged fire with the shooter. A trained, armed police officer.
And it absolutely WAS gun free zone. Citizens are not allowed to have guns in bars in the state of Florida. By your logic, there are no gun free zones in America, since the police are allowed to have guns virtually everywhere.
Yes, there was an off-duty cop there with a gun, but backup took some time to arrive. In the meantime, people were lining up to die. I sure would have liked to defend myself if I was in that situation. And I bet each and every one of the deceased would have liked to have a gun.
Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 02:17:39 PM
Quote from: finehoe on June 16, 2016, 11:46:05 AM
And I don't understand why you think that everyone carrying a gun wild west style will result in less violence.
Well, not everyone who CAN carry a gun would, it would be a personal preference. And why do I think it would work? Because it does (see video below):
https://www.youtube.com/v/HZudm8axR_A
To further my point, just have a look at Chicago...
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 01:57:29 PM
It wasn't a 'gun free zone' anyway - there was an armed police officer there who exchanged fire with the shooter. A trained, armed police officer.
And it absolutely WAS gun free zone. Citizens are not allowed to have guns in bars in the state of Florida. By your logic, there are no gun free zones in America, since the police are allowed to have guns virtually everywhere.
Yes, there was an off-duty cop there with a gun, but backup took some time to arrive. In the meantime, people were lining up to die. I sure would have liked to defend myself if I was in that situation. And I bet each and every one of the deceased would have liked to have a gun.
Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
My point is that the 'zone' was clearly not gun-free, as there was a trained, armed man who exchanged gunfire with the gunman and still wasn't able to stop him.
And I think it's in very poor taste for you to project your feelings onto the victims. You want to use this slaughter to further your pro-gun agenda, then fine. But don't put words in the mouths of the murdered.
Oh.. and remember the Charlie Hebdo shootings? There were armed bodyguards there who were killed by the shooters.
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 02:20:25 PM
And I think it's in very poor taste for you to project your feelings onto the victims. You want to use this slaughter to further your pro-gun agenda, then fine. But don't put words in the mouths of the murdered.
I don't have a pro gun agenda, but I believe that people have a right to defend themselves, and in this case they weren't because it was a gun free zone. I'm not sure why anyone would think any different.
But I give up. You guys are all correct. Let's ban guns, that's clearly the only answer. In fact, let's make murder illegal, then this wouldn't happen at all! Man, I wish I thought of that. Those criminals and terrorist will never think to break the law.
I'm moving to the peaceful utopia that is Chicago....
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 03:13:41 PM
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 02:20:25 PM
And I think it's in very poor taste for you to project your feelings onto the victims. You want to use this slaughter to further your pro-gun agenda, then fine. But don't put words in the mouths of the murdered.
I don't have a pro gun agenda, but I believe that people have a right to defend themselves, and in this case they weren't because it was a gun free zone. I'm not sure why anyone would think any different.
But I give up. You guys are all correct. Let's ban guns, that's clearly the only answer. In fact, let's make murder illegal, then this wouldn't happen at all! Man, I wish I thought of that. Those criminals and terrorist will never think to break the law.
I'm moving to the peaceful utopia that is Chicago....
Whatever, man. I wasn't saying that. I just think your comment was particularly crass.
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 03:17:00 PM
Whatever, man. I wasn't saying that. I just think your comment was particularly crass.
Well I didn't think I was, nor do I mean to be, but really, but it's no less compassionate than "let's ban guns" that the left is touting. This forum (ok, maybe not this thread) usually has a better conversation than most of the internet, and I like to think I contribute to that, even if I was sarcastic at the end there ;)
I'm not saying we should allow people to carry guns because I'm the CEO of smith and wesson, I'm saying it because I believe it would help. I don't want to see innocent people die. Ever. There's a reason why most of these idiots go after gun free zones.
Just like you believe banning guns would save lives. We obviously disagree, but don't think that I'm pushing an agenda or anything like that. I just want people to defend themselves, because clearly, they could not in this case. And what he did was already illegal.
Basically, you have the left trying to ban guns (for citizens, not their security guards, police, etc) and the right trying to ban a whole religious group of people. It's insane.
There is no 100% solution, but I don't think banning people or things is a solution at all. It's as effective as the war on drugs.
And damnit, I was avoiding the orlando-shooting thread because I know my opinion is in the minority here. This site is most far left, where I'm a libertarian, so maybe we should get back on topic.
No, I don't believe the police should have military equipment to use against citizens. What we need is PEACE officers, not police officers. People don't need to be policed in my opinion.
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 03:28:20 PM
No, I don't believe the police should have military equipment to use against citizens. What we need is PEACE officers, not police officers. People don't need to be policed in my opinion.
I actually agree with you on that.
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 03:26:29 PM
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 03:17:00 PM
Whatever, man. I wasn't saying that. I just think your comment was particularly crass.
Well I didn't think I was, nor do I mean to be, but really, but it's no less compassionate than "let's ban guns" that the left is touting. This forum (ok, maybe not this thread) usually has a better conversation than most of the internet, and I like to think I contribute to that, even if I was sarcastic at the end there ;)
I'm not saying we should allow people to carry guns because I'm the CEO of smith and wesson, I'm saying it because I believe it would help. I don't want to see innocent people die. Ever. There's a reason why most of these idiots go after gun free zones.
Just like you believe banning guns would save lives. We obviously disagree, but don't think that I'm pushing an agenda or anything like that. I just want people to defend themselves, because clearly, they could not in this case. And what he did was already illegal.
Basically, you have the left trying to ban guns (for citizens, not their security guards, police, etc) and the right trying to ban a whole religious group of people. It's insane.
There is no 100% solution, but I don't think banning people or things is a solution at all. It's as effective as the war on drugs.
Yeah, sorry about the self-righteous indignation.
It's clear we don't agree on guns. So we're not likely to really convince each other :D
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 03:30:22 PM
It's clear we don't agree on guns. So we're not likely to really convince each other :D
Agreed, but the debate was good :)
On a related note, and I'm not speaking at all for the LGBT community, but it looks like some percentage of them agree with me:
"Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting"http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 04:20:09 PM
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 03:30:22 PM
It's clear we don't agree on guns. So we're not likely to really convince each other :D
Agreed, but the debate was good :)
On a related note, and I'm not speaking at all for the LGBT community, but it looks like some percentage of them agree with me:
"Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting"
http://kdvr.com/2016/06/14/gun-sales-surge-after-orlando-shooting/
touché
In an effort to steer the conversation away from ya'lls already well established belief about guns and back to the topic at hand....
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 03:28:20 PM
No, I don't believe the police should have military equipment to use against citizens. What we need is PEACE officers, not police officers. People don't need to be policed in my opinion.
I actually agree with you on that.
The problem exists that some people do need to be policed, such as the Orlando shooter, and as it has been shown, standard equipment does not do the job. You can idealize the concept of Peace officers all you want, but this incident was not the place for a peaceful response. I know that libertarians in particular have a very skeptical view of all things police, but there is the grave danger of sticking your head in the sand because strict political ideology demands ideals above reason. I have heard many libertarians (and liberals) complain incessantly about police have "tanks" (in reality unarmed Bearcats and MRAPs), but without such, how many more would have had to die in Orlando/
How do you deny LEOs the specialized equipment/tactics and still reasonable expect them to handle problems such as the Orlando shooter?
I understand that both people on both sides of the political spectrum bristle at the specter, real or imaged, of a police state, but these events are not going to stop. The casualty rate of this attack sets a new, unprecedented standard, which will further inspire evil people to such depths.
In reference to people arming themselves for protection against such... it is probably not by blind chance that the shooter choose to attack a club, as it is illegal to carry concealed in a bar, even if licensed.
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 11:33:38 AM
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 11:29:21 AM
Well, what did we have this time, in the gun free zone? Give people a fighting chance! I don't understand why Liberals don't get this, Despite it just happening:
(http://selfdeprecate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Cartoon-Gun-Control-for-Dummies.jpg)
Those poor people in the club had no chance.
I can't vouch for what liberals do or don't get, but I know I feel a lot safer knowing I am not surrounded by armed idiots.
You live in London Gun Control Capital of the UK!
Quote from: AKIRA on June 16, 2016, 05:15:06 PM
In reference to people arming themselves for protection against such... it is probably not by blind chance that the shooter choose to attack a club, as it is illegal to carry concealed in a bar, even if licensed.
I don't know why he chose a club. But if I were a betting man, I'd assume he chose for other, more personal reasons.
Quote from: AKIRA on June 16, 2016, 05:09:43 PM
In an effort to steer the conversation away from ya'lls already well established belief about guns and back to the topic at hand....
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 03:28:20 PM
No, I don't believe the police should have military equipment to use against citizens. What we need is PEACE officers, not police officers. People don't need to be policed in my opinion.
I actually agree with you on that.
The problem exists that some people do need to be policed, such as the Orlando shooter, and as it has been shown, standard equipment does not do the job. You can idealize the concept of Peace officers all you want, but this incident was not the place for a peaceful response. I know that libertarians in particular have a very skeptical view of all things police, but there is the grave danger of sticking your head in the sand because strict political ideology demands ideals above reason. I have heard many libertarians (and liberals) complain incessantly about police have "tanks" (in reality unarmed Bearcats and MRAPs), but without such, how many more would have had to die in Orlando/
How do you deny LEOs the specialized equipment/tactics and still reasonable expect them to handle problems such as the Orlando shooter?
I understand that both people on both sides of the political spectrum bristle at the specter, real or imaged, of a police state, but these events are not going to stop. The casualty rate of this attack sets a new, unprecedented standard, which will further inspire evil people to such depths.
Hello Akira
I'm going to step out of the debate - you and I went round the houses on this quite some time ago and I don't really want to start that whole discussion back up. I got sucked into this thread - but not really on the correct topic!
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 05:28:39 PM
Quote from: AKIRA on June 16, 2016, 05:09:43 PM
In an effort to steer the conversation away from ya'lls already well established belief about guns and back to the topic at hand....
Quote from: Adam White on June 16, 2016, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 03:28:20 PM
No, I don't believe the police should have military equipment to use against citizens. What we need is PEACE officers, not police officers. People don't need to be policed in my opinion.
I actually agree with you on that.
The problem exists that some people do need to be policed, such as the Orlando shooter, and as it has been shown, standard equipment does not do the job. You can idealize the concept of Peace officers all you want, but this incident was not the place for a peaceful response. I know that libertarians in particular have a very skeptical view of all things police, but there is the grave danger of sticking your head in the sand because strict political ideology demands ideals above reason. I have heard many libertarians (and liberals) complain incessantly about police have "tanks" (in reality unarmed Bearcats and MRAPs), but without such, how many more would have had to die in Orlando/
How do you deny LEOs the specialized equipment/tactics and still reasonable expect them to handle problems such as the Orlando shooter?
I understand that both people on both sides of the political spectrum bristle at the specter, real or imaged, of a police state, but these events are not going to stop. The casualty rate of this attack sets a new, unprecedented standard, which will further inspire evil people to such depths.
Hello Akira
I'm going to step out of the debate - you and I went round the houses on this quite some time ago and I don't really want to start that whole discussion back up. I got sucked into this thread - but not really on the correct topic!
Fair enough. It is a difficult topic without a comfortable answer for anyone...
London, where guns are banned and where a politician just got shot?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/jo-cox-british-lawmaker-shot-stabbed-yorkshire-reports-n593581
I just don't see a reason the police need military equipment, and it is military equipment. The shooter didn't need policing, he needed help or imprisonment. The police have too many toys and are far too eager to use them. Ask poor black communities.
There was a great segment on 60 minutes just last week in about a police department in Maine (I think) where they stopped arresting people for meth and instead gave them help. It has been a huge success, and costs less money.
From the center-right publication The Economist:
Data suggest guns do in fact kill people
Then there's the related argument that people have a right to defend themselves against aggressors carrying firearms, and that if you criminalise gun ownership, only criminals will have guns. That may be valid in the abstract. In practice, 0.8% of victims of gun violence say they responded to their attackers by either using or threatening to use a gun. Not much of a risk for the criminal, it seems. Perhaps that was because too few Americans own guns or carry them on their persons to have a substantial effect, but it's hard to imagine driving those numbers up much higher; Americans already own twice as many guns per person as any other nation. How many more Americans would need to carry weapons in public in order to create a serious criminal deterrent? Five times as many? Ten? Is this even possible, let alone desirable?
None of this should be particularly surprising. We know that overall, firearm deaths are lower in states with stricter gun-control laws. More recently, we've learned that the expiration of America's assault-weapons ban was responsible for a substantial portion of the subsequent increase in gun deaths in northern Mexico. It's really not terribly shocking that making it harder to get your hands on machines designed to kill people results in fewer people being killed. But we've worked very hard over the past few decades to convince ourselves otherwise.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control
Stephen, thanks for the compliment, and insult to Bill O'Reilly! That guy scares me.
Perhaps far left is too extreme, but this board tends to the left, IMO. If I recall, there was a political poll here a few years ago and I think it was mainly liberal as the response.
I know you yourself used to identify as a Republican, if you don't mind me asking, where do you consider yourself now?
Orlando Police Response Questioned
The Orlando SWAT team commander who led the final assault that brought an end to Sunday's massacre at a gay nightclub is defending the decision to wait nearly three hours after the initial shooting before breaching the club's wall.
"Initially it was an active shooter," Capt. Mark Canty told Yahoo News Global Anchor Katie Couric on Thursday. "Once the shooting stopped, it became a barricaded gunman. And our officers acted accordingly — they surrounded it, they contained it, and we looked for ways to get the hostages out."
Several experts have said the delay may have contributed to the death toll.
"Action beats inaction 100 percent of the time," Chris Grollnek, an active-shooter expert and a retired police officer and SWAT team member, told the Associated Press. "When we see SWAT teams respond and not making entry [it] creates victims. Period. End of story."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/orlando-swat-captain-pulse-hostages-000000292.html
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 07:39:06 PM
London, where guns are banned and where a politician just got shot?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/jo-cox-british-lawmaker-shot-stabbed-yorkshire-reports-n593581
I just don't see a reason the police need military equipment, and it is military equipment. The shooter didn't need policing, he needed help or imprisonment. The police have too many toys and are far too eager to use them. Ask poor black communities.
There was a great segment on 60 minutes just last week in about a police department in Maine (I think) where they stopped arresting people for meth and instead gave them help. It has been a huge success, and costs less money.
So, by your standards the police should not have a Bearcat because it seems military, much less SWAT, although it was the piece of equipment/tactics that saved what they could of the hostages? Is there some piece of equipment, that you would not consider a 'toy' that could bring and end to the shooting? The libertarian philosophy puts quite a bit of effort of preventing government over reach, but I have noticed, puts nearly no effort into reasonable security (example being much of the Lib. anger towards the TSA).
What is done in Maine for meth-heads doesn't mean squat when someone is shooting at you in Orlando. If your not going to offer anything but half baked quips, then why post.... As technology makes weapons more effective and available to fanatics/disturbed/evil people, the problems only gets worse.
Quote from: finehoe on June 16, 2016, 08:33:05 PM
Orlando Police Response Questioned
The Orlando SWAT team commander who led the final assault that brought an end to Sunday's massacre at a gay nightclub is defending the decision to wait nearly three hours after the initial shooting before breaching the club's wall.
"Initially it was an active shooter," Capt. Mark Canty told Yahoo News Global Anchor Katie Couric on Thursday. "Once the shooting stopped, it became a barricaded gunman. And our officers acted accordingly — they surrounded it, they contained it, and we looked for ways to get the hostages out."
Several experts have said the delay may have contributed to the death toll.
"Action beats inaction 100 percent of the time," Chris Grollnek, an active-shooter expert and a retired police officer and SWAT team member, told the Associated Press. "When we see SWAT teams respond and not making entry [it] creates victims. Period. End of story."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/orlando-swat-captain-pulse-hostages-000000292.html
Could this article be interrupted as pointing out that the Orlando P.D. tactics in this incident, were not aggressive (militarized) enough for the problem.....?
Quote from: AKIRA on June 16, 2016, 09:33:46 PM
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 07:39:06 PM
London, where guns are banned and where a politician just got shot?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/jo-cox-british-lawmaker-shot-stabbed-yorkshire-reports-n593581
I just don't see a reason the police need military equipment, and it is military equipment. The shooter didn't need policing, he needed help or imprisonment. The police have too many toys and are far too eager to use them. Ask poor black communities.
There was a great segment on 60 minutes just last week in about a police department in Maine (I think) where they stopped arresting people for meth and instead gave them help. It has been a huge success, and costs less money.
So, by your standards the police should not have a Bearcat because it seems military, much less SWAT, although it was the piece of equipment/tactics that saved what they could of the hostages? Is there some piece of equipment, that you would not consider a 'toy' that could bring and end to the shooting? The libertarian philosophy puts quite a bit of effort of preventing government over reach, but I have noticed, puts nearly no effort into reasonable security (example being much of the Lib. anger towards the TSA).
What is done in Maine for meth-heads doesn't mean squat when someone is shooting at you Orlando. If your not going to anything but offer half baked quips. As technology makes weapons more effective and available to fanatics/disturbed/evil people, to problems on gets worse.
Quote from: finehoe on June 16, 2016, 08:33:05 PM
Orlando Police Response Questioned
The Orlando SWAT team commander who led the final assault that brought an end to Sunday's massacre at a gay nightclub is defending the decision to wait nearly three hours after the initial shooting before breaching the club's wall.
"Initially it was an active shooter," Capt. Mark Canty told Yahoo News Global Anchor Katie Couric on Thursday. "Once the shooting stopped, it became a barricaded gunman. And our officers acted accordingly — they surrounded it, they contained it, and we looked for ways to get the hostages out."
Several experts have said the delay may have contributed to the death toll.
"Action beats inaction 100 percent of the time," Chris Grollnek, an active-shooter expert and a retired police officer and SWAT team member, told the Associated Press. "When we see SWAT teams respond and not making entry [it] creates victims. Period. End of story."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/orlando-swat-captain-pulse-hostages-000000292.html
Could this article be interrupted as pointing out that the Orlando P.D. tactics in this incident, were not aggressive (militarized) enough for the problem.....?
"As technology makes weapons more effective and available to fanatics/disturbed/evil people, to problems on gets worse." Thanks to the NRA for this mess.
More half baked quips. Considering we are trying to talk specifically about the police and militarization, the NRA has little to nothing to do with it.. If it does, then feel free to back it up with some reasoning.
If all discussions dwindle to single line pre-programmed snippets, then what's the point....?
Quote from: AKIRA on June 16, 2016, 11:05:42 PM
More half baked quips. Considering we are trying to talk specifically about the police and militarization, the NRA has little to nothing to do with it.. If it does, then feel free to back it up with some reasoning.
If all discussions dwindle to single line pre-programmed snippets, then what's the point....?
Sometimes the point is not to troll as you and others in this forum would say. The point is arming the local cops as if they're the National Guard is just Nuts. I hope and pray you're not a cop. Because you come across as your right unless the reasoning matches your so called intelligence.
Quote from: coredumped on June 16, 2016, 07:39:06 PM
London, where guns are banned and where a politician just got shot?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/jo-cox-british-lawmaker-shot-stabbed-yorkshire-reports-n593581
I just don't see a reason the police need military equipment, and it is military equipment. The shooter didn't need policing, he needed help or imprisonment. The police have too many toys and are far too eager to use them. Ask poor black communities.
There was a great segment on 60 minutes just last week in about a police department in Maine (I think) where they stopped arresting people for meth and instead gave them help. It has been a huge success, and costs less money.
She wasn't shot in London. It was Yorkshire.
And guns are not banned in the UK. And it appeared to either be an antique weapon or a home made weapon.
There is still gun violence in the UK. But our rate is far, far, far lower than yours. And most of it is gang-on-gang violence. So I don't feel unsafe being unarmed.
http://havokjournal.com/nation/what-is-the-real-problem-with-gun-violence-in-america/
QuoteWhat is the Real Problem with Gun Violence in America?
June 17, 2016 by Paul J. O'Leary
It is sad, tragic, and all too familiar now. It has become akin to a political battle drill: a sociopathic individual armed with a gun enters a public place where people should be able to go and spend quality time and begins shooting, leaving a body count and a nation mourning yet another indescribable loss...then the wagons begin to circle.
"It's the guns! We have to something about guns!"
"It's mental illness! When are we going to address the issue?"
"Racism/Anti-Semitism is the culprit here! How long must we suffer?"
"It's those irresponsible gun-free zones! An armed citizen could have stopped this!"
When it comes to gun violence, guns ARE part of the problem.
And once again, the national debate begins. Sadly, though, it usually does look more like a debate and less like a conversation. It looks even less like problem resolving. Today in America, we need more conversation and less debate.
I am going to say something now that will not make me any points with our readership: guns are a part of the problem.
Yeah, I said it. I make that statement as a free American gun owner who has guns in his home for self-protection. As a 20-year police veteran who has carried at least one firearm every day for most of his adult life. As a husband and father who has armed his wife for her protection and taught his sons and daughters how to shoot and safely handle firearms. Most importantly, I say this as an American veteran who values his rights under the 2nd Amendment.
Now, before you start flaming me and sending nasty emails complaining about me, let me explain my statement.
Guns are a part of the problem in these all too common mass shootings, they are not THE problem.
The reality is, the gun is the easiest, most lethal, and effective way to kill a bunch of people in a short period of time. The average, untrained (or minimally trained) person would not be able to do this much damage with a knife or a bat. It could happen with explosives, but that requires a certain level of knowledge and resources. It is also easier to blow yourself up in your garage bomb lab than it is to shoot yourself.
I don't want to ban guns or repeal the 2nd Amendment. I just want to acknowledge that the gun is a lethal weapon and part of the problem with mass murders in America. It's a pretty big problem with criminal violence, suicide, and domestic violence also.
Mental illness is a problem, too. I don't have a degree in psychology or psychiatry, but I'm comfortable making this statement: Normally functioning, well-adjusted individuals do not kill multiple people for their own entertainment or political benefit. Unless you are a soldier in a combat zone or defending a life, this is not something you do...even if you play violent video games while watching violent movies and listening to violent music like Marilyn Manson and Ozzie Osbourne.
We have a mental illness problem in our country. It is something that we need to address somehow.
Racism is not over. Yes, we have a black president. Before than Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice held the two highest political positions ever held by black people in America. Black and Hispanic people have made incredible strides forward in America. That doesn't mean life is all flowers and happiness for minorities. Racism still exists. It is undeniable.
So, what's the answer? I don't know because the answer is complicated. But I know what the answer isn't.
The answer is not to try to cram these myriad and complex issues into a single, easily categorized box that fits your particular political view.
The answer is not to dismiss those with differing viewpoints out of hand as racists, idiots, low information voters, gun nuts, hippies, race-baiters, or liberal hippies, although those labels might fit certain people.
The answer is not to ignore studies, evidence, or information that does not support your point of view. Nor is the answer to cherry pick information that supports your point of view to the exclusion of all others. Wouldn't it be better to look at the information presented to you and find the flaws while acknowledging the truths? Then do the same thing to the data that supports your position. I'm pretty sure they call that thinking....yes; I'm positive that is what it's called.
I don't the answer, but I think I know how we get to the answer.
We get the answer by coming together and trying to solve the problem. I don't mean come together is hippie, Kumbaya-singing way, but by bringing people (preferably professional people) to the table and trying to find a way to solve this issue. Gun rights advocates, Constitutional scholars, mental health professionals, civil rights leaders, and law enforcement leaders, just to name a few. Then listen to each other. Actually listen. Don't over each other like a panel on a 24-hour news channel. Don't just quietly wait until you have a chance to talk. Listen. Hear. Understand.
Would this solve the problem? It might. It might not. These are complex issues that require complex solutions. But it would do more for America than what we're doing now, which is pointing fingers and putting our heads in the sand.
QuoteThe answer is not to ignore studies, evidence, or information that does not support your point of view. Nor is the answer to cherry pick information that supports your point of view to the exclusion of all others. Wouldn't it be better to look at the information presented to you and find the flaws while acknowledging the truths? Then do the same thing to the data that supports your position. I'm pretty sure they call that thinking....yes; I'm positive that is what it's called.
GOP keeps in place funding ban on gun violence researchA GOP-led panel blocked a proposal Wednesday that would have reversed a nearly 20-year-old ban on funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research on gun violence.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/245983-gop-panel-votes-to-keep-funding-ban-for-gun-violence-research
First off being closer to the situation-viewing 24/7 coverage here in Central Florida- I don't know how much of the full information that has unfolded extremely quickly over the past few days that Jax or other cities citizens have really seen. The info gathered on this asshole is just incredible- This was an extremely disturbed and conflicted man from just about childhood- its amazing what has been revealed and all the major documented problems with this man. He fell through the cracks. I think we are in yet another transforming part of terrorism. Now we and the FBI etc. are faced with "Lone Wolf" individuals who have no direct contact with these groups but are fed from all the available sources coming in from the web and other forms of media. I think that is almost an impossible task that the FBI etc now has to deal with( no longer looking and monitoring groups) If you have conflicted religious individuals- in this case I believe this man knew he was gay from childhood(you usually do) but as we all know his particular religion fought him on this at every turn- and a Father who I feel is actually a terrorist himself(its starting to come out about him and that sick wife). Add all that to a society that still condemns for the most part and doesn't want to try to understand how human beings are born different(for what ever reason) the tremendous build up of misdirected hate.
Don't kid yourselves citizens because this mass murdering event happened at a Gay Nightclub( which if you are really tuned in as a human being)alot of those patrons were not gay- gay clubs are very mixed now- all the other mass murders here and around the world were not !!!!! Next.... lets talk about automatic weapons for everyday citizens !!!!
Interesting perspective. The guy is an American who was slashed by an Islamist terrorist:
Quote"I don't feel in any way less safe because of the absence of weapons here - I feel much safer. I don't feel less free, I feel more free from the threat of lethal violence, even though somebody apparently tried to remove my head," he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gun-laws-saved-tube-knife-attack-from-turning-into-orlando-style-massacre_uk_5763f7ede4b0a4f99adbe96f?edition=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk