Gunman kills 50 in an Orlando nightclub...

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

Edit makes no difference. It's easy to carry guns into these areas because it's easy to get guns in the first place. It's not a case of those areas needing the patrons to carry guns.

[Miktay]

Edit makes no difference. It's easy to carry guns into these areas because it's easy to get guns in the first place. It's not a case of those areas needing the patrons to carry guns.

The point iz responsible carriers cannot defend in those situations/areas.

Iz there a correlation b/t gun free zones and mass gun violence? Maybe. Maybe not.

but it an interesting coinkidink

Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.
Source: Mass Shooting Tracker

School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no-one was hurt.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

Edit makes no difference. It's easy to carry guns into these areas because it's easy to get guns in the first place. It's not a case of those areas needing the patrons to carry guns.

The point iz responsible carriers cannot defend in those situations/areas.

Iz there a correlation b/t gun free zones and mass gun violence? Maybe. Maybe not.

but it an interesting coinkidink

Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.
Source: Mass Shooting Tracker

School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no-one was hurt.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

I still don't see the point you're trying to make in the long run. Are you saying that guns should be allowed in night clubs, schools and other areas where you would normally consider gun free zones?

[Miktay]

Edit makes no difference. It's easy to carry guns into these areas because it's easy to get guns in the first place. It's not a case of those areas needing the patrons to carry guns.

The point iz responsible carriers cannot defend in those situations/areas.

Iz there a correlation b/t gun free zones and mass gun violence? Maybe. Maybe not.

but it an interesting coinkidink

Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.
Source: Mass Shooting Tracker

School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no-one was hurt.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

I still don't see the point you're trying to make in the long run. Are you saying that guns should be allowed in night clubs, schools and other areas where you would normally consider gun free zones?

People legally allowed to carry cannot defend in these zones...whether it easy or not 2 get firearms.

So ur availability point doh make sense IMHO

[88sins]

the answer to stop the spread of a disease is not to give everyone the disease, .

evidently you've never heard about or had experience with vaccination

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

Edit makes no difference. It's easy to carry guns into these areas because it's easy to get guns in the first place. It's not a case of those areas needing the patrons to carry guns.

The point iz responsible carriers cannot defend in those situations/areas.

Iz there a correlation b/t gun free zones and mass gun violence? Maybe. Maybe not.

but it an interesting coinkidink

Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.
Source: Mass Shooting Tracker

School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no-one was hurt.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

I still don't see the point you're trying to make in the long run. Are you saying that guns should be allowed in night clubs, schools and other areas where you would normally consider gun free zones?

People legally allowed to carry cannot defend in these zones...whether it easy or not 2 get firearms.

So ur availability point doh make sense IMHO

My availability point makes sense in the context of how readily available it is to get guns. In most of the shootings the guns weren't obtained illegally. Deal with that first before even talking about gun free zones because the assumption that the killers would all be able to obtain guns illegally is a stretch.

Basically why are there significantly fewer mass shootings in other countries that make it difficult to obtain fire arms but also have gun free zones?

[Redman]

Any one here prefer that the crazy fellow who wants to kill everybody in the room, be the only one with a gun?

The reality remains the best defense against this scenario is people willing to and capable of defending themselves.

If any of us were in that situation the first thing would be to wish some one shoots the fcuker ASAP.

Your whole scenario is proven wrong by this very incident though. No? The US freely allows persons to obtain weapons. The guy obtained his legally. The people are also free to obtain weapons legally yet this night club incident still happened. It refutes your point. Are you saying people in the club should have walked with their AR-15 rifles as well?

I said best defense-which implies that it is occurring after the fact.
Also Best does not mean a perfect...or sole option.

But Im pretty sure Jihadi John isnt going to try that chit at a NRA party, or a Law enforcement or Military function...
and Gay club isnt where I would expect to find a high % of concealed carry-despite the amount of leather worn.

Which mango yuh teifing ...from the yard with no dogs....or from the yard with multiple dogs of unknown quantity and disposition??


And I dont remember saying any thing about AR-15.

The reality is that these types of shootings will continue to occur

its impossible to stop before hand...as we see.

Im not saying to arm everyone.

If the probability of Jihadi John being confronted with someone shooting back remains zero...then he has free reign until Law enforcement shows up.
Again if it is logical that we ALL would prefer to be able to defend ourselves if in that situation then the solution remains...Enable those so inclined and qualified the ability to carry a weapon.

Despite the charts and the data above the CDC data shows that between 1999 and 2014,the per capita incidence of fire arm related deaths remained essentially the same despite the population growth and the higher volumes of fire arms.

[Miktay]

Edit makes no difference. It's easy to carry guns into these areas because it's easy to get guns in the first place. It's not a case of those areas needing the patrons to carry guns.

The point iz responsible carriers cannot defend in those situations/areas.

Iz there a correlation b/t gun free zones and mass gun violence? Maybe. Maybe not.

but it an interesting coinkidink

Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.
Source: Mass Shooting Tracker

School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no-one was hurt.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

I still don't see the point you're trying to make in the long run. Are you saying that guns should be allowed in night clubs, schools and other areas where you would normally consider gun free zones?

People legally allowed to carry cannot defend in these zones...whether it easy or not 2 get firearms.

So ur availability point doh make sense IMHO

My availability point makes sense in the context of how readily available it is to get guns. In most of the shootings the guns weren't obtained illegally. Deal with that first before even talking about gun free zones because the assumption that the killers would all be able to obtain guns illegally is a stretch.

Basically why are there significantly fewer mass shootings in other countries that make it difficult to obtain fire arms but also have gun free zones?

And bandits cant easily get a gun in sweet T&T? Or rent one?

But its hard for regular ppl 2 get one. And police are ineffective in protecting ppl.

So there iz ample availability for illegal stuff. Esp in a north south drug lane. But what we talking bout iz legality.

[Animal Pak]

Yuh can't even get in a club here with a ball point pen in yuh pocket. How did he manage to move with an assault rifle and bullets??

[Habit7]

Basically why are there significantly fewer mass shootings in other countries that make it difficult to obtain fire arms but also have gun free zones?

Define "mass shooting"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... countries/

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

Edit makes no difference. It's easy to carry guns into these areas because it's easy to get guns in the first place. It's not a case of those areas needing the patrons to carry guns.

The point iz responsible carriers cannot defend in those situations/areas.

Iz there a correlation b/t gun free zones and mass gun violence? Maybe. Maybe not.

but it an interesting coinkidink

Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.
Source: Mass Shooting Tracker

School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no-one was hurt.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

I still don't see the point you're trying to make in the long run. Are you saying that guns should be allowed in night clubs, schools and other areas where you would normally consider gun free zones?

People legally allowed to carry cannot defend in these zones...whether it easy or not 2 get firearms.

So ur availability point doh make sense IMHO

My availability point makes sense in the context of how readily available it is to get guns. In most of the shootings the guns weren't obtained illegally. Deal with that first before even talking about gun free zones because the assumption that the killers would all be able to obtain guns illegally is a stretch.

Basically why are there significantly fewer mass shootings in other countries that make it difficult to obtain fire arms but also have gun free zones?

And bandits cant easily get a gun in sweet T&T? Or rent one?

But its hard for regular ppl 2 get one. And police are ineffective in protecting ppl.

So there iz ample availability for illegal stuff. Esp in a north south drug lane. But what we talking bout iz legality.

My initial premise is that you can't use the US scenario to change gun laws in Trinidad. In fact I was saying this should be a prime example to change US gun laws to something similar to ours. The US has a problem with mass shootings whereas we do not.

If you're trying to say all of Trinidad is essentially a gun free zone then you should also make reference to the mass shootings that happen here if we talking context.

[Spitfir3]

Yuh can't even get in a club here with a ball point pen in yuh pocket. How did he manage to move with an assault rifle and bullets??

probably just stormed into the place those bouncers at the door aren't armed

[Miktay]

My initial premise is that you can't use the US scenario to change gun laws in Trinidad. In fact I was saying this should be a prime example to change US gun laws to something similar to ours. The US has a problem with mass shootings whereas we do not.

If you're trying to say all of Trinidad is essentially a gun free zone then you should also make reference to the mass shootings that happen here if we talking context.

Unless martial law iz declared US Republicans wont let that happen in the near term. There are too many firearms already in private US ownership. The powers that be will have to go house to house and confiscate.

Billy Bob and the good ole boys already hiding them things in cellars and holes in the ground.

And then there iz thiz. DIY. Doh make sense closing the barn door after the horse already left.

[Habit7]

My initial premise is that you can't use the US scenario to change gun laws in Trinidad. In fact I was saying this should be a prime example to change US gun laws to something similar to ours. The US has a problem with mass shootings whereas we do not.

If you're trying to say all of Trinidad is essentially a gun free zone then you should also make reference to the mass shootings that happen here if we talking context.

Well again if you didnt see my previous post define "mass shooting"

Isnt it the case that US cities with the most restrictive gun laws have soaring homicide rates?

"92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones." http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ree-zones/

[Redman]

In fact I was saying this should be a prime example to change US gun laws to something similar to ours.

You have any idea as to how our laws are applied??

Categorically I can state that the system to grant a Firearm Users License is subjective,irrelevant and OPAQUE.

So 'our' laws are not helping the scenario now.

The Commissioner has total discretion.

So if you decide you wanted to carry and are willing to get qualified, and practice responsibility in the use of the fire arm you will not get it ...even though there is nothing disqualifying you as an individual.

How is this something to emulate.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

In fact I was saying this should be a prime example to change US gun laws to something similar to ours.

You have any idea as to how our laws are applied??

Categorically I can state that the system to grant a Firearm Users License is subjective,irrelevant and OPAQUE.

So 'our' laws are not helping the scenario now.

The Commissioner has total discretion.

So if you decide you wanted to carry and are willing to get qualified, and practice responsibility in the use of the fire arm you will not get it ...even though there is nothing disqualifying you as an individual.

How is this something to emulate.

Oh trust me I know it's down to the commissioner's discretion. The myopic view would be to just call that simply unjust. It is unjust but I was referring to the scenario where it is not easy to obtain firearms here as the bigger picture.

Firearms for more people here is a separate issue and justification for it cannot be found by looking at the mass shootings in the US.

Habit if you want to split hairs on mass shootings by all means go ahead. Your own quoted article also show how easy it is to interpret data in a way to imply that the US does not have a problem. If you genuinely believe they do not have a problem then incidents like Sandy Hook, Orlando, columbine etc are non issues right?

I can't recall any truly similar incidents to these happening frequently in other countries. Norway's major incident sticks out in recent memory but these things seem to be more common in the US.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

In fact I was saying this should be a prime example to change US gun laws to something similar to ours.

You have any idea as to how our laws are applied??

Categorically I can state that the system to grant a Firearm Users License is subjective,irrelevant and OPAQUE.

So 'our' laws are not helping the scenario now.

The Commissioner has total discretion.

So if you decide you wanted to carry and are willing to get qualified, and practice responsibility in the use of the fire arm you will not get it ...even though there is nothing disqualifying you as an individual.

How is this something to emulate.

Oh trust me I know it's down to the commissioner's discretion. The myopic view would be to just call that simply unjust. It is unjust but I was referring to the scenario where it is not easy to obtain firearms here as the bigger picture.

Firearms for more people here is a separate issue and justification for it cannot be found by looking at the mass shootings in the US.

Habit if you want to split hairs on mass shootings by all means go ahead. Your own quoted article also show how easy it is to interpret data in a way to imply that the US does not have a problem. If you genuinely believe they do not have a problem then incidents like Sandy Hook, Orlando, columbine etc are non issues right?

I can't recall any truly similar incidents to these happening frequently in other countries. Norway's major incident sticks out in recent memory but these things seem to be more common in the US.

[De Dragon]

In fact I was saying this should be a prime example to change US gun laws to something similar to ours.

You have any idea as to how our laws are applied??

Categorically I can state that the system to grant a Firearm Users License is subjective,irrelevant and OPAQUE.

So 'our' laws are not helping the scenario now.

The Commissioner has total discretion.

So if you decide you wanted to carry and are willing to get qualified, and practice responsibility in the use of the fire arm you will not get it ...even though there is nothing disqualifying you as an individual.

How is this something to emulate.

Oh trust me I know it's down to the commissioner's discretion. The myopic view would be to just call that simply unjust. It is unjust but I was referring to the scenario where it is not easy to obtain firearms here as the bigger picture.

Firearms for more people here is a separate issue and justification for it cannot be found by looking at the mass shootings in the US.

Habit if you want to split hairs on mass shootings by all means go ahead. Your own quoted article also show how easy it is to interpret data in a way to imply that the US does not have a problem. If you genuinely believe they do not have a problem then incidents like Sandy Hook, Orlando, columbine etc are non issues right?

I can't recall any truly similar incidents to these happening frequently in other countries. Norway's major incident sticks out in recent memory but these things seem to be more common in the US.

The US people are to blame. Not the access to guns that have no place in a non-combat zone, not a perennial party that would NEVER put any gun control measures in place, not the US meddling in people's affairs under the guise of defending democracy which causes anti-US, self-radicalization of individuals

[Redman]

In fact I was saying this should be a prime example to change US gun laws to something similar to ours.

You have any idea as to how our laws are applied??

Categorically I can state that the system to grant a Firearm Users License is subjective,irrelevant and OPAQUE.

So 'our' laws are not helping the scenario now.

The Commissioner has total discretion.

So if you decide you wanted to carry and are willing to get qualified, and practice responsibility in the use of the fire arm you will not get it ...even though there is nothing disqualifying you as an individual.

How is this something to emulate.

Oh trust me I know it's down to the commissioner's discretion. The myopic view would be to just call that simply unjust. It is unjust but I was referring to the scenario where it is not easy FOR A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN to obtain firearms here as the bigger picture.

Firearms for more people here is a separate issue and justification for it cannot be found by looking at the mass shootings in the US.

.

Well what is happening is it is based on how the commissioner feels ....and that isnt a POLICY.

Ive never said anything about more people either.
What Ive said is that we need a structured approach..
Frankly if I had my way it would actually be harder to get and keep the license than it is now.
but it would be relevant ,active and encourage the behavior that we would want

The current application process is totally corrupted

What happens when a commissioner is rabidly PRO GUN ???

what happens then?
Would you then still be happy?

[Redman]

The US of course is the major target but at the end of the day this seems to be a increasingly common occurrence

I can't recall any truly similar incidents to these happening frequently in other countries. Norway's major incident sticks out in recent memory but these things seem to be more common in the US.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compar ... nd-europe/

[Habit7]

^^^That is why I am asking Allergic2BunnyEars to define "mass shootings" because there are many ppl using an act of terrorism to just on their high horse and push an anti-gun agenda.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

In fact I was saying this should be a prime example to change US gun laws to something similar to ours.

You have any idea as to how our laws are applied??

Categorically I can state that the system to grant a Firearm Users License is subjective,irrelevant and OPAQUE.

So 'our' laws are not helping the scenario now.

The Commissioner has total discretion.

So if you decide you wanted to carry and are willing to get qualified, and practice responsibility in the use of the fire arm you will not get it ...even though there is nothing disqualifying you as an individual.

How is this something to emulate.

Oh trust me I know it's down to the commissioner's discretion. The myopic view would be to just call that simply unjust. It is unjust but I was referring to the scenario where it is not easy FOR A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN to obtain firearms here as the bigger picture.

Firearms for more people here is a separate issue and justification for it cannot be found by looking at the mass shootings in the US.

.

Well what is happening is it is based on how the commissioner feels ....and that isnt a POLICY.

Ive never said anything about more people either.
What Ive said is that we need a structured approach..
Frankly if I had my way it would actually be harder to get and keep the license than it is now.
but it would be relevant ,active and encourage the behavior that we would want

The current application process is totally corrupted

What happens when a commissioner is rabidly PRO GUN ???

what happens then?
Would you then still be happy?

If you follow my argument you would realize I'm not pro gun. I never said I was happy with the arbitrary method in itself. I'm just saying guns are difficult to get in Trinidad and it should be kept that way. How that is achieved is another story.

Let's not forget the initial premise was that this mass shooting should be an example to have our gun laws changed. I disagree with that.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

^^^That is why I am asking Allergic2BunnyEars to define "mass shootings" because there are many ppl using an act of terrorism to just on their high horse and push an anti-gun agenda.

I already addressed you on this. I said you are free to split hairs on your defining. I asked you for examples of these mass shootings in living memory that happen so often in other countries and no one seems to bring up any besides stats that use varying definitions of mass shootings.

[Habit7]

^^^That is why I am asking Allergic2BunnyEars to define "mass shootings" because there are many ppl using an act of terrorism to just on their high horse and push an anti-gun agenda.

I already addressed you on this. I said you are free to split hairs on your defining. I asked you for examples of these mass shootings in living memory that happen so often in other countries and no one seems to bring up any besides stats that use varying definitions of mass shootings.

We all are sucked into a 24hr news cycle from the US but life and death occurs outside of Fox and CNN coverage.

[meccalli]

So enforcement and directly dealing with the problem worked as long as they enforced it

In the mean time, we'll just have to hunker down and endure it until that becomes an unlikely reality in the future. Most British cops can't carry guns either so we can't blame them. Any man that has to rely on another and possesses inferior means to defend himself will always be at a disadvantage. Disadvantages will always be exploited until the field is level.

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

^^^That is why I am asking Allergic2BunnyEars to define "mass shootings" because there are many ppl using an act of terrorism to just on their high horse and push an anti-gun agenda.

I already addressed you on this. I said you are free to split hairs on your defining. I asked you for examples of these mass shootings in living memory that happen so often in other countries and no one seems to bring up any besides stats that use varying definitions of mass shootings.

We all are sucked into a 24hr news cycle from the US but life and death occurs outside of Fox and CNN coverage.

This just proves my point. You have to add up the whole of Europe consisting of several different countries to compare to the US in terms of frequency.

[bluesclues]

Either way, if I wanted to protect my ppl. All now I have 2 40ft container of ar15 loading in Tetron barracks for our boys to train with to fight a terrorist threat if it ever shows up on our shores.

[Habit7]

This just proves my point. You have to add up the whole of Europe consisting of several different countries to compare to the US in terms of frequency.

What's wrong with that? You want to compare 5 million Norway alone with 323 million USA?

According to the table, EU (500 million) when normalised to fatalities per million, only have a 0.04 difference to US, statistically the same.

[Miktay]

This just proves my point. You have to add up the whole of Europe consisting of several different countries to compare to the US in terms of frequency.

Depends on how u look at it.

America was born by the barrel of a gun.

Gun homicides are high in the USA compared to some Euro countries...but not in the Americas.

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsod ... gun-deaths

[Allergic2BunnyEars]

This just proves my point. You have to add up the whole of Europe consisting of several different countries to compare to the US in terms of frequency.

What's wrong with that? You want to compare 5 million Norway alone with 323 million USA?

According to the table, EU (500 million) when normalised to fatalities per million, only have a 0.04 difference to US, statistically the same.

I agree you can't compare it to a small country like Norway as well BUT encompassing all of Europe also doesn't seem to view in detail the types of attacks. For example lumping Belgium and France's terrorist attacks into mass shootings skews the figures. When I talk about mass shootings in the US I do not include international terrorists. Also it's easy to ignore the topic of ease of obtaining guns and how that affects things when you simply encompass all of Europe in any comparison.