Orlando

[jazzy_dave]

 

Comments

[thewayne.livejournal.com]

The rifle in question was an AR-15 or clone. It is not fully-automatic, it is a semi-automatic. It fires one round every time you squeeze the trigger. Only full-autos require ATF tax stamps and the more exhaustive background check. Regardless, it is still purpose-built for killing people with a high rate of fire and an easily changed magazine.

[seawasp]

Then it's not a "military assault weapon". It's a semiautomatic rifle which in the close quarters of a club has little functional difference from a semiautomatic pistol with a long clip -- and almost all handguns these days are semiautomatics, with the exception of revolvers which are still used a lot at higher calibers. Yes, of course it's designed for killing, that's what all firearms were designed for -- or at least for shooting at targets with something that could easily kill people. But outlawing something like that is basically either saying "really, let's outlaw everything that isn't able to shoot more than once between black-powder reloads" or "let's outlaw this one because it looks scarier than the other".

Even restricting number of rounds to, say, 6-8 is silly. It's really not hard to eject one magazine and slam in another. Takes a couple seconds. This guy did this quite a few times during his spree, and no one took the opportunity to rush him. I doubt seriously that him having to do it a bit more frequently would've made any difference; the people under attack have to (A) recognize he's just run out, and (B) act on that recognition within the few seconds they have.

OR they could just rush him and take him down, like the passengers on Flight 93 did. Yes, he'd shoot some of them. But one man against a mob is ALWAYS a losing proposition for the one man.

Another guy, armed with a firearm, might have been able to take him down, but this was in a club that serves alcohol, and as such it's already illegal for anyone to be carrying firearms inside (guns and booze being a known bad combination).

[wendelah1]

OR they could just rush him and take him down, like the passengers on Flight 93 did. Yes, he'd shoot some of them. But one man against a mob is ALWAYS a losing proposition for the one man.

The passengers and crew on Flight 93 weren't a mob, they were hostages. Those individuals who decided to fight back against the terrorists weren't part of a mob, they were patriots. How are these two situations analogous? The people on Flight 93 had time to gather information, formulate a plan, and take a vote about whether or not they should act. The patrons of the nightclub were under fire by a determined murderer. If a member of law enforcement or the military, someone with some training, had been at the nightclub, they might have had the presence of mind to try to stop the killing. But I can't imagine ordinary civilians, who are not in a war zone, coming under fire like this and attempting what you describe.

I am in favor of more restrictions on the purchase of semiautomatic weapons but it's unclear that they would have made a difference, at least in this case. He would undoubtedly have passed muster--the FBI interviewed the shooter twice and didn't find conclusive evidence that he posed a threat. Yet he did.

It would be nice if members of Congress could get their heads out of their asses and figure out a way to prevent the people on the No-Fly list, people who have been designated a threat, from purchasing weapons legally. It wouldn't have helped in this case but it might save lives down the line.

[seawasp]

Er, you can get on the "No-Fly" list for almost any reason. Multiple investigations and examples have shown that the No-Fly list does not just include people who are a threat. The very fact that the list is kept secret and the mechanisms by which people are selected is secret, and there is no real methodology in place for CHALLENGING your place on the list? Makes the list an UTTERLY unacceptable measurement for pretty much anything. Including who should or should not be able to fly.