Orlando and Gun Control: An Inconvenient Truth

[TemplarKormac]

I have minimal martial arts training - a couple of years of BJJ. But I'm a really big guy.

Interesting.

I'm still a white belt.

Ahh. Well I'm still a leather belt. You got me beat, Doc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I explained why that's a staggeringly terrible idea in my previous post:

With a gathering of 300 I would run at the very least 3 bouncers but would prefer 5. One armed, So that gives you 4 to fight and one to settle the big shit.

If you refused to prepare you die as shown by example of Orlando. Somebody should have been armed.

That is essentially how most larger clubs do it.

As far as I understand, there was an armed security guard at Pulse. I think he was an off-duty cop.

Just one? That's it?

Yeah. One armed security guard, at the door. That's pretty normal for a club.

Perhaps that policy needs to change. Make room on the payroll. More than one armed bouncer needs to be present. A minimum of five at least, as you said. Especially for a club as large as Pulse was.

Are you suggesting that should be a law?

Off duty cops are expensive. Who's going to pay for all that extra payroll?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then you do the best you can. You're describing an incredibly rare situation.

Even as rare as you claim they are, they still happen. It only takes one venomous snake bite to do significant, if not deadly damage.

 

[tinydancer]

My deal is simple. If you as an establishment owner or a government establishment and you have a gun free zone, you must have well trained and well armed security to protect your patrons.

And make it very public that your establishment has hired guns. That would at least make certain whackos more apprehensive of choosing a gun free zone to commit murder or a terrorist act.

You think that should be a law?

I'm not sure about making it a law. I'd really have to chew on that. But having worked bar scenes pretty well coast to coast the bars that had the best bouncers and tightest security were always the most popular with the bands and with the public.

Toronto in the 70's and 80's had a hugely diverse bar scene and honestly you could party your way all the way up Yonge Street and go for rock/blues/punk/country you name it. But your best bars were always where you could walk in the door, party hearty and not worry about some asshole trying to throw a chair across the room at someone he was pissed at.

The bouncers were awesome. Like they had a sixth sense and could smell trouble. As a manager/promoter I sure as hell appreciated the job they did.

El Mocombo, Larry's Hideaway, Nicklelodeon, Gasworks that's just to name a few. And large acts in town knew that these bars were well managed and you'd be amazed who would walk in the door and sit down for a few brewskis or to jam with the band.

 

[TemplarKormac]

With a gathering of 300 I would run at the very least 3 bouncers but would prefer 5. One armed, So that gives you 4 to fight and one to settle the big shit.

If you refused to prepare you die as shown by example of Orlando. Somebody should have been armed.

That is essentially how most larger clubs do it.

As far as I understand, there was an armed security guard at Pulse. I think he was an off-duty cop.

Just one? That's it?

Yeah. One armed security guard, at the door. That's pretty normal for a club.

Perhaps that policy needs to change. Make room on the payroll. More than one armed bouncer needs to be present. A minimum of five at least, as you said. Especially for a club as large as Pulse was.

Are you suggesting that should be a law?

Off duty cops are expensive. Who's going to pay for all that extra payroll?

Hmm, I never thought about it being a law.

Though they wouldn't have to be off duty cops. Require that anyone applying to be a bouncer be proficient with a firearm, in addition to the other prerequisites.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

My deal is simple. If you as an establishment owner or a government establishment and you have a gun free zone, you must have well trained and well armed security to protect your patrons.

And make it very public that your establishment has hired guns. That would at least make certain whackos more apprehensive of choosing a gun free zone to commit murder or a terrorist act.

You think that should be a law?

I'm not sure about making it a law. I'd really have to chew on that. But having worked bar scenes pretty well coast to coast the bars that had the best bouncers and tightest security were always the most popular with the bands and with the public.

Toronto in the 70's and 80's had a hugely diverse bar scene and honestly you could party your way all the way up Yonge Street and go for rock/blues/punk/country you name it. But your best bars were always where you could walk in the door, party hearty and not worry about some asshole trying to throw a chair across the room at someone he was pissed at.

The bouncers were awesome. Like they had a sixth sense and could smell trouble. As a manager/promoter I sure as hell appreciated the job they did.

El Mocombo, Larry's Hideaway, Nicklelodeon, Gasworks that's just to name a few. And large acts in town knew that these bars were well managed and you'd be amazed who would walk in the door and sit down for a few brewskis or to jam with the band.

Heh. The head of security at the place I worked (a heavy metal bar in Brooklyn called L'Amour) had worked at Gasworks until they closed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That is essentially how most larger clubs do it.

As far as I understand, there was an armed security guard at Pulse. I think he was an off-duty cop.

Just one? That's it?

Yeah. One armed security guard, at the door. That's pretty normal for a club.

Perhaps that policy needs to change. Make room on the payroll. More than one armed bouncer needs to be present. A minimum of five at least, as you said. Especially for a club as large as Pulse was.

Are you suggesting that should be a law?

Off duty cops are expensive. Who's going to pay for all that extra payroll?

Hmm, I never thought about it being a law.

Though they wouldn't have to be off duty cops. Require that anyone applying to be a bouncer be proficient with a firearm, in addition to the other prerequisites.

Armed security has to be cerfified, there are laws on the books in every state.

Clubs use off-duty cops because they're usually cheaper than hiring a full-time licensed guard.

 

[DarkFury]

With a gathering of 300 I would run at the very least 3 bouncers but would prefer 5. One armed, So that gives you 4 to fight and one to settle the big shit.

If you refused to prepare you die as shown by example of Orlando. Somebody should have been armed.

That is essentially how most larger clubs do it.

As far as I understand, there was an armed security guard at Pulse. I think he was an off-duty cop.

Just one? That's it?

Yeah. One armed security guard, at the door. That's pretty normal for a club.

Perhaps that policy needs to change. Make room on the payroll. More than one armed bouncer needs to be present. A minimum of five at least, as you said. Especially for a club as large as Pulse was.

Are you suggesting that should be a law?

Off duty cops are expensive. Who's going to pay for all that extra payroll?

The price of a drink goes up, so what? Would you rather pay 2 bucks for a beer or a dollar and die for it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

And once again we see the ignorance of the law common to most conservatives.

Florida law prohibits the carrying of concealed firearms in establishments where “any portion of an establishment [is] licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such [a] purpose[.]”

Fla. 790.6 (12)

If the Pulse Nightclub’s primary purpose was the selling of alcoholic beverages, which is likely the case, then a Florida resident licensed to carry a concealed firearm is not lawfully allowed to do so in such a venue.

Otherwise, the notion of a ‘gun free zone’ is a ridiculous myth, as those with a license to carry a concealed firearm are lawfully allowed to do so in Florida even if the property owner has ‘prohibited’ guns on his property.

Of course this is never an issue as such a property owner doesn’t know a given patron might be carrying a concealed firearm – because it’s concealed, hence the myth of a ‘gun free zone.’

 

[OKTexas]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

As I said in another thread, we need to train people on how to take down a shooter. If folks started throwing cell phones, ice, shoes or what ever they could get their hands on to disrupt and distract him while they bum rushed the dude and took him down, they could have saved a bunch of lives? But it requires training to overcome the natural instinct to run or hide.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That is essentially how most larger clubs do it.

As far as I understand, there was an armed security guard at Pulse. I think he was an off-duty cop.

Just one? That's it?

Yeah. One armed security guard, at the door. That's pretty normal for a club.

Perhaps that policy needs to change. Make room on the payroll. More than one armed bouncer needs to be present. A minimum of five at least, as you said. Especially for a club as large as Pulse was.

Are you suggesting that should be a law?

Off duty cops are expensive. Who's going to pay for all that extra payroll?

The price of a drink goes up, so what? Would you rather pay 2 bucks for a beer or a dollar and die for it?

You don't spend much time in nightclubs, do you? Try $10 a beer.

Forcing nightclubs to hire 5 armed security guards would put a significant number out of business immediately.

I thought you guys were against government regulations like this.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

As I said in another thread, we need to train people on how to take down a shooter. If folks started throwing cell phones, ice, shoes or what ever they could get their hands on to disrupt and distract him while they bum rushed the dude and took him down, they could have saved a bunch of lives? But it requires training to overcome the natural instinct to run or hide.

You're not wrong, but that's not an easy instinct to overcome, even for trained soldiers.

It's pretty hardwired.

 

[aaronleland]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked?

Never heard of it. Please elaborate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

As this thread moves along, some idiot lefty will try to say that guns in that bar would have resulted in more injuries from CCW holders shooting wildly about.

Being liberals, their faulty minds operate on a narrow plane did crated by their leaders.

The answer to that lunacy is to point out to them that he wouldn't have attacked that bar had he known that there would be at least a few patrons who were packing. Lunatics and Islamic Terrorists attack gun free zones for that reason. Their poorly thought out scenario would not have happened.

No, the only idiocy and ignorance is coming from you and other conservatives subscribing to this thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the Pulse Nightclub’s primary purpose was the selling of alcoholic beverages, which is likely the case, then a Florida resident licensed to carry a concealed firearm is not lawfully allowed to do so in such a venue.

This is the irony of ironies. A club that whose primary purpose is to sell alcohol, but not to take any or all pertinent measures to protect their customers should an event like this occur.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked?

Never heard of it. Please elaborate.

I would make a joke about your angry drunk monkey here, but that would be terribly inappropriate. :/

 

[OnePercenter]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals thing gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

Do you feel that a person that is on a no-fly list should be able to purchase a gun?

 

[OKTexas]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked? It was packed with 300 healthy men/women. And nobody took him down. Nobody. Fifty people died instead. He was outnumbered three-hundred to one. Please, don't bother preaching to me about how much safer the world would be with gun control. Even though that club was a vaunted gun-free zone, people still died. It didn't stop a crazed Muslim "jihadi" from mowing people down with an "AR-15" or whatever weapon he used. This gun free zone lulled these poor people into a false sense of security. They soon found out how nonexistent that security was. That alone proves just how ineffectual gun free zones really are.

What if in fact they had been armed? What would have been better, a sign which gives the illusion of security, or a firearm at your side which gives certain security?

What do you think gun-free zones have accomplished? This isn't Star Trek, you can't just raise a forcefield and block crazed gunmen/terrorists from bringing their weapons into the building. It doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say gun control liberals are too thickheaded to see that. All a gun free zone is, is three words on a sign. Words are meaningless. Signs are meaningless. Words were not going to stop that terrorist from killing people.

This is truly heartbreaking. Gun control liberals think gun-free zones will stop atrocities from happening. Gun control liberals think gun control laws will stop atrocities from happening. Right. This is like trying to stop a bomb blast with a piece of paper. In essence, that's all gun control laws and gun free zone signs are, just words written on a piece of paper, just like a gun-free zone sign.

As I said in another thread, we need to train people on how to take down a shooter. If folks started throwing cell phones, ice, shoes or what ever they could get their hands on to disrupt and distract him while they bum rushed the dude and took him down, they could have saved a bunch of lives? But it requires training to overcome the natural instinct to run or hide.

You're not wrong, but that's not an easy instinct to overcome, even for trained soldiers.

It's pretty hardwired.

That's why I said in the other thread, the training should be started in middle school and continued throughout the remainder of the education system to include colleges. There's no need for coordination during an event because everyone has the same training. I'd bet if the folks in Orlando had doen this no more than 10 would have been injured.

 

[aaronleland]

That nightclub, you know the one Mateen attacked?

Never heard of it. Please elaborate.

I would make a joke about your angry drunk monkey here, but that would be terribly inappropriate. :/

Just admit you hate the gays. And scales.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If the Pulse Nightclub’s primary purpose was the selling of alcoholic beverages, which is likely the case, then a Florida resident licensed to carry a concealed firearm is not lawfully allowed to do so in such a venue.

This is the irony of ironies. A club that whose primary purpose is to sell alcohol, but not to take any or all pertinent measures to protect their customers should an event like this occur.

An event like this is an incredibly rare random event. It's not something that the club is responsible for planning for.