…is like blaming Zyklon B gas for the Holocaust.
Yup. And the only real purpose of that stunt in the House yesterday was to divert attention from the fact that the massacre was committed by a Muslim member of the Democrat Party.
[Update a while later]
Yes, I agree: Paul Ryan should have sent down a shipment of juice boxes and stuffed animals. I’d have loved to see the media reaction to that.
I expect they also hoped to distract from the fact of the club being a gun free zone.
Yes, that too.
Commenters here were in disagreement with the NRA on the wisdom of having the club patrons be armed (while drinking in the club.) Do you have any thoughts on that?
Why should we care what the NRA thinks?
Because they have the best gun safety programs?
I don’t think they’re promoting gun-free zones.
Right, they mostly agree with you. That’s why I thought their position would be of interest to to you.
My understanding is that they think the club should have had an armed security guard and/or non-drinking club patrons could choose to carry weapons.
“No one thinks that people should go into a nightclub drinking and carrying firearms,” Chris Cox, the NRA’s top lobbyist, told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning. “That defies common sense. It also defies the law.”
LaPierre went even further. “I don’t think you should have firearms where people are drinking,” he said on CBS’s “Face The Nation” that same morning.
Hours after his CBS appearance, LaPierre said he had misspoken. In a tweet, he explained that he meant to say it’s “OK to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol,” but that “if you’re going to carry, don’t drink.”
Who has been encouraging drinking and carrying?
Why can’t the bartenders be armed?
^^^^This.^^^^
While firearms and intoxicants don’t mix well, there should be people in the bar not getting drunk, including bartenders and designated drivers.
“Commenters here were in disagreement with the NRA on the wisdom of having the club patrons be armed (while drinking in the club.) Do you have any thoughts on that?”
Florida law is a blanket ban on anyone in the bar carrying a firearm; not just the patrons who yes might be intoxicated. It applies to the club staff as well; like the night manager of the club, bartenders, and especially to security/bouncer(s) (one of whom was shot straightaway by the shooter). There all disarmed whether they had CCW permits or not. They unlike the police (some of whom briefly entered the club and exchanged shots with the shooter before withdrawing to “regroup”) would have had a powerful incentive to aggressively engage the shooter; like Trump said if only shots had been going in the other direction too. As an aside under Ohio law if you had a CCW you could carry in the “bar” provided you didn’t drink; the club owners’ at their discretion could have permitted staff to be armed. They (the owners) can if they choose post a sign banning firearms; the difference is that ban wouldn’t apply to staff if they so chose.
And the only real purpose of that stunt in the House yesterday was to divert attention from the fact that the massacre was committed by a Muslim member of the Democrat Party.
Why is it so hard for the GOP to point this out?
A sense of fair play, civility, and decorum? The Democrats are not playing by those rules. They are not signatories of the geneva convention.
Anybody that objects to this solution should get the same treatment (members of the media get preferred status.)
(Andrew has radicalized me!!!)
It’s still the sixties for these aging, petulant and spoiled dems.
For some it’s apparently still the 1860s.
It also happened in Florida. I think it has a Republican Governor Bush running it.
Sorry. I’m outdated here. It is some other Republican Governor.
What I don’t get is how he managed to kill so many people with semi-automatics in the first place. I mean they could have just thrown themselves at him bare handed and I think he would have killed less people.
I don’t understand, either. He had to reload multiple times. It sounds crass, but maybe he chose a particularly gormless population in a gay night club?
Where do you come up with these wonderful terms? I’d never heard of gormless before.
Maybe you need to read more.
I wouldn’t be surprised if crowd panic accounts for many of those deaths. You probably could kill a bunch of people in this situation just by shooting in the air.
And it appears that the shooter was allowed to roam through the club and shoot people for up to 90 minutes.
When I was 10, living in Tacoma, we had an 88 y.o. man living with us and I liked to listen to his stories about what life was like when he was young. He was 10 about 125 years ago (1890.)
No one thinks that people should go into a nightclub drinking and carrying firearms
So I’m going to absurdly question this assumption.
What would be the result? We can assume drunks shooting other people. Then what? Lot’s of Darwin awards. Then what?
People getting less drunk, more polite and more fools thinned out of the population. Sounds like a win to me.
The old guy used to tell me how disputes were settled and it wasn’t at high noon, nor did it result in Hatfields and McCoys. Instead it got very calm, very quickly. People showed respect knowing they had better.