Quote :

"Just out of curiosity, can you get a gun if you have a current restraining order out against you?"

No.... mostly

Quote :

"Definition of Restraining Order: Under 18 U.S.C. § 922, firearms may not be sold to or received by persons subject to a court order that: (A) was issued after a hearing which the person received actual notice of and had an opportunity to participate in; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. An “intimate partner” of a person is: the spouse or former spouse of the person, the parent of a child of the person, or an individual who cohabitates or cohabitating with the person."

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Private, face-to-face sales would bypass this easily.

6/13/2016 9:31:29 AM

But, would still be illegal for them to buy it.

6/13/2016 11:54:06 AM

Quote :

"^ there was a hired off duty officer that did shoot at the gunman. Didn't work in this case to stop the shooting."

The officer was outside the club when the shootout began. They exchanged fire only enough to trap the gunman inside the club with hundreds of patrons.

Quote :

"Where are you seeing that he had a gun for his job? Most G4S employees are not armed. Why would he need to work for G4S to buy a gun, he can just buy a gun, his job has nothing to do with that."

The info isn't clear it seems. But, for individuals working government security, they are apparently able to bypass the usual waiting period in Florida, allowing the background check to be performed after purchase. He would have eventually passed such a background check, it seems.

Quote :

"Why would he need to work for G4S to buy a gun, he can just buy a gun, his job has nothing to do with that."

He could have, but it seems he used his G4S job to bypass some existing gun laws. And if wdprice3's point is that this certainly means we need even more regulation, would G4S employees be able to bypass those regulations too? If so, then why does this event justify more regulations?

The problem here was a lack of firearms at the scene. I have never heard of any laws proposed that would have plausibly unarmed this shooter. As such, all firmer laws would do is have made it even less likely for anyone to have defended themselves at the club.

6/13/2016 1:39:19 PM

i'm assuming that they serve alcohol at this night club, which means that asking for more of the people there to be armed isn't a real solution

6/13/2016 1:54:34 PM

It was my vision that the employees or managers should have access to guns, such as a gun or two kept in a safe in the office.

6/13/2016 1:59:21 PM

Quote :

"And if wdprice3's point is that this certainly means we need even more regulation, would G4S employees be able to bypass those regulations too? "

Whatever regulations currently apply to government security should certainly be reviewed. If anything, someone working security for the government should be held to a much higher standard than a citizen. Isn't that true of many/most enforcement agencies? Last time I checked, not any terrorist shmuck could join the FBI or police.

But my point was more towards flaws in the system, mainly those issues to which solutions are hard to find. Such as those on government lists, those with previous government interest due to terrorist support or mental instability issues. We can't [shouldn't] take away rights simply because someone had a bad day or didn't agree with big government, but on the other hand, such people often show support for violence, or speak of their plans before acting on them, etc., yet these people often are allowed to continue their ways, until they commit such a crime.

It's time to make government watchlists more transparent and find ways to give them better legal standing. It's time that mom and dad quit thinking their disturbed son isn't a danger. It's time that friends be concerned when their buddy speaks lovingly of violence. It's time that we ensure all firearm transactions go though a background check, either instantly or via permits. It's time we start punishing those who don't secure their firearms when being stored. It's time judges take violent crimes seriously and we stop using get out of jail cards for these people. It's time we provide better education and mental health support. It's time that we focus on terrorists and not entire religions. It's time that we stop meddling in everyone else's affairs. It's time we stop supporting violent, extremist, and/or counties with belligerent leaders.

[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2016 3:44:30 PM

i think we need to clarify, there keeps being talk like this guy is some kind of trained expert or that he worked security for the government

Mateen worked the front gate at a golf resort community, i don't think anyone is cutting corners because of his job

6/13/2016 3:57:51 PM

http://gawker.com/the-ar-15-was-built-for-slaughter-in-war-zones-1781891338

ibt "scary looking" strawman

6/13/2016 6:21:47 PM

There is a massive amount of bullshit in that article

6/13/2016 7:30:29 PM

Quote :

"The problem here was a lack of firearms at the scene"

At a night club? Seriously, man?

"Oh, hey baby, is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"

"Oh, actually, it IS a gun. I keep it with me to compensate for my penis, which is actually quite small. So what's your sign?"

6/13/2016 8:34:56 PM

^^ do you disagree with the premise?

[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 8:54 PM. Reason : jk of course you do]

[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 9:18 PM. Reason : it was obviously designed to kill varmint]

6/13/2016 8:53:03 PM

If the goal was to create the ultimate killing machine the AR15 didn't exactly hit the mark. It uses a 22 caliber bullet for fucks sake. And no that bullet isn't decapitating people unlike what that article states. But then again it is gawker so I'm not exactly surprised.

6/13/2016 9:36:58 PM

Quote :

"And no that bullet isn't decapitating people unlike what that article states. But then again it is gawker so I'm not exactly surprised."

Duh. That was someone in the 1960's trying to sell someone else on the gun who made that point, not Gawker's commentary..but yeah sure the article "states" that. Fuck details right?

Also to call the .223 a .22 round is rjrumfel dumb.



[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 10:19 PM. Reason : and I control-Fd for Ultimate and got zero results so that goes in the strawman pile]

6/13/2016 10:18:13 PM

lol a .223 is a 22 caliber round, that's not really debatable

Just like 300 BLK is a 30 caliber round just like .308 and .300 Win Mag

6/13/2016 10:48:12 PM

Quote :

"lol a .223 is a 22 caliber round bullet"

[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 11:00 PM. Reason : wildly different rounds]

6/13/2016 10:55:12 PM

I never brought up .22 LR

Just because .22 LR is a small round doesn't change the fact that the .223 is a .22 caliber and with that, not the best choice if your goal is to create a gun as the ultimate person killer or whatever that article is trying to do.

[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 10:59 PM. Reason : Nice edit btw]

6/13/2016 10:59:08 PM

Quote :

"if your goal is to create a gun as the ultimate person killer or whatever that article is trying to do."

As I said, they didn't say anything about ultimate anything...but I guess you just skimmed the article.

[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 11:01 PM. Reason : it's basic history, b.]

[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 11:05 PM. Reason : ^ thx ]

6/13/2016 11:01:01 PM

didn't click the link. did they talk about the intentionally slow twist rate to cause the bullet to destabilize in flesh as a workaround of the geneva convention?

[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 11:25 PM. Reason : did they mention that none of that really matters since civilians can shoot soft points and such?]

[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 11:26 PM. Reason : or that the military ditched the slow twist rate so they could go to heavier bullets?]

6/13/2016 11:22:01 PM

I personally think that demonizing AR-15s or any particular gun is silly and foolish.

I also think that more broadly, with respect to gun control, all of the things that would have any effect are utterly unviable, and all of the things that are remotely viable would have very incremental effects, at best.

There is only one thing I have ever thought of that might be viable and might be effective, in America. What about a firearms license? Require significant training and background investigation, but no further restriction on any sort of firearms that could be owned, and absolutely nothing that smacks of a registry. You'd have a license, but that would be no indication of whether you own 0 guns or 1000 guns.

[Edited on June 13, 2016 at 11:38 PM. Reason : also, i don't think i've ever met a single pro-gun control person who knew shit about guns.]

6/13/2016 11:38:20 PM

^^ No but this does: http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge

But it's just a .22. Nothing to see here.

6/13/2016 11:41:13 PM

Quote :

"also, i don't think i've ever met a single pro-gun control person who knew shit about guns."

I can only assume you mean pro further gun control, vs pro gun control we already have in place right?

6/14/2016 12:32:27 AM

^^^ Sure, if we can have poll tests. Make sure that anyone who wants to vote has to pass strict training and background checks.

We should probably do the same for preachers. Those who preach hate are just dooming us to more violence. Let's make sure they have to pass tests and stuff, too.

While we're at it, all protestors should have to attend a mandatory two-day training course, with several practical tests.

6/14/2016 1:28:02 AM

Oh look. A burro crawled out from under its rock, armed with dumb slippery slope arguments too!

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 1:36 AM. Reason : the modern day kung fu grip]

6/14/2016 1:34:37 AM

Quote :

"What about a firearms license? Require significant training and background investigation, but no further restriction on any sort of firearms that could be owned, and absolutely nothing that smacks of a registry. You'd have a license, but that would be no indication of whether you own 0 guns or 1000 guns."

Training by who? Are we going to set up a federal department of firearm training with offices in every county in the nation? And why do we want to give free federally subsidized weapon training to potential terrorists?

As for the rest of it, we already require a background check.

It seems to me, the only thing that might reduce violence would be notification of neighbors and family members when someone buys a gun (during the waiting period). A violation of privacy, sure. No more new guns as surprise presents, sadly. But whoever runs the gun-shop and performs the background check doesn't know the buyer. A background check can only access so much information. They don't know if they're taking up shooting as a sport or if they narrowly avoided commitment at a mental institution. However, neighbors and family are very likely to know these things.

Of course, making rules for such a policy seems scary itself. Perhaps it could be kept simple. Using the address on their drivers license mail a letter to both that same address and four or five immediate neighbors. Addresses should be randomized a bit so the bad guys don't know who are getting letters. Might scare some people. Might result in more gun thefts (since everyone now knows who has one). It may also result in shame preventing people who need a gun from buying one (A wife needed protection from a violence husband, etc).

But, overall, I'm not in favor of this policy, since the violence we're trying to prevent is sufficiently rare that it may not be worth the price of all those stamps and the resultant downsides.

6/14/2016 1:56:03 AM

^ seems like we could make the background check process more sensitive, instead of it being a formality, have it be more thorough. If someone has any crime or history with the FBI on their record, require an in-person investigation, or something more thorough.

I think we should pass laws banning people convicted of domestic abuse related crimes from owning firearms for certain time periods, since this seems to be a predictor of future killing sprees.

We should also not prohibit gun companies from being sued, for the simple reason they shouldn't be treated any differently than any other company, it could also incentivize them to help push for some of these programs, and others, to keep guns safe.

6/14/2016 2:55:22 AM

Quote :

"http://gawker.com/the-ar-15-was-built-for-slaughter-in-war-zones-1781891338 ibt "scary looking" strawman"

Dude, you're better than this. That is a scare piece full of slant.


Built for slaughter, ha. Fucking right. It goes pew...pew...pew, etc. Slaughter machines go pewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewppewpewpewpew

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 8:49 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2016 8:45:35 AM

slant or use of actual documents?

the guy who designed the gun says he designed it to inflict as much harm in a short amount of time as possible, which is why the US Military started using it

6/14/2016 10:35:00 AM

I thought they chose a varmint rifle round is cause in a battle you want to wound the enemy cause it takes 2 more guys to drag them away

6/14/2016 10:46:06 AM

Yeh, the military variant was used, the M16. That article even references fully automatic and select fire, which are rare to find in the civilian world (eg AR15), and those that are cost thousands, are a huge PITA to get, and almost never used in the commission of a crime. But please, keep touting this "military weapon" bullshit. Because if that's the line, then virtually every firearm would be illegal.

When you can slap the action from a traditional looking hunting rifle, that most of you seemingly have no problem with, into an AR-15, it really shows your asses.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2016 10:49:06 AM

the AR-15 wasn't developed to be more deadly than it's predecessor, it was designed to be lighter and to use a lighter cartridge (which means a soldier/transport vehicle can carry more rounds).

Being "more deadly" or "inflicting as much harm in a short amount of time" is not why they replaced the well-respected M14

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2016 10:54:45 AM

.50 cal is .50 cal, right?

left to right, M2 vs. desert eagle vs. 9mm (for scale)

http://i.imgur.com/v8LImKb.jpg

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 12:41 PM. Reason : ok jesus that's too big to embed haha]

6/14/2016 12:39:25 PM

wat

6/14/2016 12:44:54 PM

you must have missed skywalkr's post up the page

6/14/2016 12:46:05 PM

He said it fires a .22 cal bullet. That statement is accurate and not misleading in the least.

Synapse conflated it with .22LR and implied he said something that he didn't at all.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ]

6/14/2016 1:21:05 PM

good job, sea lawyer. yes, his words were factually true.

now, for those of us who can read for context, it's clear that he was using the "It uses a 22 caliber bullet for fucks sake" to insinuate that the AR-15 isn't some "ultimate killing machine," despite recent evidence to the contrary.

6/14/2016 1:23:28 PM

^^ No, i'm saying you can't always judge the effectiveness of a round simply by the diameter of it's projectile, which is what he did.

V and for the third time, the article didn't claim anything to be the ultimate anything, but yeah, right on. Good job disproving an assertion that didn't exist!

6/14/2016 1:29:14 PM

My point is, unlike what articles posted by synapse would lead you to believe, the AR15 is not the ultimate killing machine and it wasn't designed to be so.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 1:36 PM. Reason : TIL synapse is a firearms expert]

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 1:41 PM. Reason : Oh I forgot, gawker just wanted to give us a history lesson]

6/14/2016 1:34:57 PM

I would argue that it isn't an ultimate killing machine due to the small caliber and low power. It's a compromise for conditions where people need to carry large amounts of ammunition for long distance. For that matter, it's a compromise for conditions where people need to carry a light rifle for long distances. It's a compromise for budgets where money can be freed up when a billion rounds of 5.56 is meaningfully cheaper than a billion rounds of a more intermediate caliber. It's a compromise where low recoil is needed for full-auto employment across a family of weapons using common ammunition.


So...ultimate killing machine, based on 60-year old tech, built to a price point, to be suitable for the everyman user, with all of the aforementioned caveats? Sure, and it does a great job in that context.

Ultimate killing machine in the context of, say, how it was used in Orlando? Or the DC sniper? Or Sandy Hook (not that ultimate is needed on a 40-lb kid )? No way. I think they're great general purpose rifles, but there is certainly nothing uniquely capable or "ultimate" about their killing ability, and if that's what I wanted, then a larger bullet and heavier cartridge would be the first thing I'd change.

^^^ not just factually true, but functionally true.

^^^ I don't think there's anything about is statement that implies lethality is the sole function of bullet diameter.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ]

6/14/2016 1:40:42 PM

Let's just be straight. That article is really talking about the capabilities of the M16. Which almost no one has, and wasn't used in Orlando.

6/14/2016 1:41:14 PM

I'd say it's more of a trumped up sales job on the 5.56 NATO, which while fine for its intended purpose, is nearly inarguably near the bottom of the lethality list of all rifle cartridges in common usage, save rimfires.

6/14/2016 1:44:37 PM

seems legit

Allah must have willed that 50 of the victims survived, instead of having all their limbs explode upon the impact of the bullet

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2016 2:02:15 PM

Wow haven't even been posting in this thread and synapse is name dropping.

What an awful person.

6/14/2016 2:04:31 PM

^ message_topic.aspx?topic=645729

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 2:11 PM. Reason : ^^ 3 rounds, 2 dismemberments. almost perfect]

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM. Reason : V hey you're an awful person according to your own criteria. BAD!]

6/14/2016 2:10:36 PM

Ok? Dropped your name because you're always giving me crap about my links. I didn't call you dumb there.

6/14/2016 2:12:16 PM

Gun folks in Fumbler's gun thread:

Quote :

"My 5.56 suppressed SBR would be my ultimate bedside self defense weapon if I wasn't worried about it getting stolen"

After lunatic kills or maims 100 people with 5.56 rifle:

Quote :

" the AR just isn't very effective at killing people. It's bullet is tiny."

6/14/2016 2:59:25 PM

Right. I wouldn't want to use a big round in a home defense situation due to things like over penetration.

6/14/2016 3:08:11 PM

For home defense, you can't get much better than a Taurus Judge full of OOO buckshot

6/14/2016 3:12:30 PM

I shot slugs out of one of those once. Was expecting a lot of kick but it wasn't bad.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 3:30 PM. Reason : really popular gun iirc]

6/14/2016 3:28:51 PM

^^^the point is you (and others) are willing to have your life depend on a round that you are belittling as ineffective ITT.

It's splitting hairs and it's meaningless. Just like it's meaningless to try to demonize a particular round or gun type as so much more dangerous than others.

I guess I'm just really tired of gun debates.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 3:35 PM. Reason : 87 pages ]

6/14/2016 3:34:09 PM

i don't think anyone is saying that it can't kill people and isn't effective

the point is that its silly nonsense saying that it was designed as the ultimate killing machine

and its even more nonsense because having select fire (ability to go pewpewpewpewpew and not just pew pew pew pew) was a major reason for why the gun and cartridge (a compromise) were chosen, but the AR-15 used did not have select fire

so if your point is "it can still kill people, its still a reliable weapon" then yes, no argument. but the point that it is magically worse than many other weapons, that there is something special about it's lethality, is silly.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 3:45 PM. Reason : pewpewpew]

6/14/2016 3:44:34 PM