A shooting inside a downtown Orlando, Fla., nightclub led to mass casualties, according to the police, who said that at least one gunman had been found dead inside.
The shooting was reported at about 3 a.m., after last call at Pulse, one of the largest gay nightspots in the Central Florida city.
On its Twitter feed, the Police Department asked residents to “stay away from area” and said that it was seeking support from local state and federal agencies.
The club itself posted a message on its Facebook page about 3 a.m.: “Everyone get out of pulse and keep running.”
Customers streamed out of the club into a chaotic situation with little idea of where to go. “Cops were saying, ‘Go, go, clear the area,’ ” Christopher Hansen told an Orlando television station. “You don’t know who’s what and who’s where.”
Police swept inside the club and about 5 a.m. set off a “controlled explosion” in an effort to clear the club, the department said in its Twitter feed. A news conference scheduled for 4:30 a.m. was canceled.
F.B.I. agents were called to the scene, and were scheduled to brief reporters with Orlando Police Chief John Mina; the city’s mayor, Buddy Dyer, and Sheriff Jerry L. Demings of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.
CNN is reporting it as a domestic terror attack - 20 dead, 42 transported. That would make this one of the bigger ones, top 10 for sure, maybe top 5 (if we're just talking mass shootings).
FBI: 'Suggestions' Shooter Had Jihadist Tendencies
Authorities say there were "suggestions" shooter had leanings toward Islamic terrorism, but cautioned that nothing was yet definitive. - See the whole picture with ABC News.
UPDATED
50 dead 50+ wounded
1 gunman with "assault style rifle" and a handgun
On the Today show they had video from the scene that didn't show anything, but it was from the moment the SWAT went in....there is like 10 to 20 seconds of damn near sustained automatic weapons firing.
Yeah, they are confusing 'casualty' with 'dead'. It will take time to sort through and unfortunately some folks will likely die of wounds so the numbers will change as better reports come in and the situation changes.
Police sources have identified the gunman in the mass shooting at a gay club in Florida as 29-year-old Omar Mateen, an American citizen whose parents are from Afghanistan, according to US media reports.
Ron Hopper, the FBI agent in charge of the operation, when asked if the gunman had a connection to radical Islamic terrorism, Hopper said authorities "have suggestions that individual has leanings towards that".
"This is an incident, as I see it, that we certainly classify as domestic terror incident," Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings said.
CptJake wrote: Yeah, they are confusing 'casualty' with 'dead'. It will take time to sort through and unfortunately some folks will likely die of wounds so the numbers will change as better reports come in and the situation changes.
Hopefully, though my impression of what the Officer on the scene was saying is that there were 50 confirmed dead (which would be over 100 casualties), but hopefully that is an error. The alternative is difficult to contemplate.
Islamic faith leader urges 'not rushing to judgement'.
I hope we learn as much as possible about this guy, and how he was radicalized. It makes me wonder if there are outreach programs to the Islamic communities, to try to counter this type of stuff.
This is insane. I wonder if they'll find any credible links that this guy had ties to other groups, or if he was purely a self-radicalized lone wolf type.
jhe90 wrote: Another Attack... More fething senseless dead.
Whoever invented religion has alot to answer for...
It was a human who did this, not a religion.
Religion is a dangerous tool though. Can be used for good but when used for evil its a powerful weapon in itself.
Question is who is behind it? Is it the certain group in Syria , is it someone else?
Just as a point of question, is this thread to be for both a broader discussion of this event, or more just for news?
I just want to make sure we don't have people looking in this thread for updates and then finding pages of people arguing about the 'Muslim Question', to strike an ominous tone.
Buzzsaw wrote: Just as a point of question, is this thread to be for both a broader discussion of this event, or more just for news?
I just want to make sure we don't have people looking in this thread for updates and then finding pages of people arguing about the 'Muslim Question', to strike an ominous tone.
Threads like this usually tend to be a bit of both.
...
Mir Seddique, Mateen's father told NBC News, "this has nothing to do with religion." Seddique said his son got angry when he saw two men kissing in Miami a couple of months ago and thinks that may be related to the shooting.
...
Apparently he was in security. Had a g class firearms license. He had training and there's a video of gunfire being exchanged with police, whatever he was packing put a hole through a kevlar helmet.
The killers father claims his son was very angry after he saw two men kissing in Miami.
Guess his occupation was an armed security guard that was issued a G Florida firearm license.
FBI in the past did a two investigations on the guy according to the news.
"He's an American citizen and he has family that are not -- his parents are Afghan. Authorities say he was a terrorist and was targeting gays. They say in addition to terrorism this is a hate crime.
Authorities also believe he is part of the radical Islam movement, although they do not know if it was an organized attack or if he was a lone wolf. Authorities also believe Mateen specifically targeted a gay club.
Mateen's father told NBC News, "This has nothing to do with religion." He says his son became angry after seeing 2 men kissing a few months ago in Miami, and he speculates that could have triggered his decision to kill.
Law enforcement says Mateen was well prepared, with an assault weapon, a handgun and 2 suspicious devices.
The NYPD tells TMZ, Mateen has no association with the department, and that the shirts he was photographed in were unofficial garments that could be purchased at any store.
50 people were murdered and another 53 injured inside Pulse nightclub in Orlando. It's the biggest slaughter at the hands of a gunman in American history.
Take a look at the pic below ... it's a police helmet with a bullet hole. The helmet saved the officer's life, although he suffered facial injuries. "
Damian PalettaVerified account
@damianpaletta
Rep. Schiff, who is always cautious, says Dept. of Homeland Security told him Orlando shooter made pledge of allegiance to Islamic State.
I am having severe reservations to the narrative that a single man with an AR-15 and a handgun murdered 50 people. Without the rifle being a fully automatic and the shooter carrying a double combat load, there would have been multiple stops in shooting to reload. Most of his shots would have needed to be kill shots too.
I'm not trying to add unnecessary conspiracy to a tragedy but I worry for people if there is 1 or more gunmen on the loose.
BrotherGecko wrote: I am having severe reservations to the narrative that a single man with an AR-15 and a handgun murdered 50 people. Without the rifle being a fully automatic and the shooter carrying a double combat load, there would have been multiple stops in shooting to reload. Most of his shots would have needed to be kill shots too.
I'm not trying to add unnecessary conspiracy to a tragedy but I worry for people if there is 1 or more gunmen on the loose.
Frankly it is easier to kill that many with semi-automatic fire than automatic fire. With auto you waste a lot of ammo and need to reload a lot more.
If only the club's patrons had been carrying guns.
The situation would have been much better then.
This is neither the time nor the place. Take a long hard look at your life if your first thought upon seeing this news is "hmmm. How can I use this to make a political point?"
Goliath wrote: This is neither the time nor the place. Take a long hard look at your life if your first thought upon seeing this news is "hmmm. How can I use this to make a political point?"
... A man just shot up a gay club, this is the perfect god damned time to bring up homophobia and how come the US specifically has so many shootings that this is simply "the most recent gun massacre". Especially against everyone who wants to make it about Muslims and/or people from the Middle East.
Anyone who claims that this is neither the time nor the place to talk about how deeply political this attack is would never find the time and place for it.
Sinful Hero wrote: I wish they'd be more specific than "assault rifle" and "high capacity magazines".
The vast majority of people don't know firearm jargon so instead of using technical terms they use vague terms, especially when the details of the event are still trickling out. The exact weapon used isn't the important bit at this point, just wait.
I genuinely don't know where my emotions are regarding this.
Its absolutely horrible. It's sad and unnecessary. It's a really really shifty reminder that homophobia and hatred of LGBT people is still horrendously present.
And like, I'm going on holiday to Orlando in a fortnight.
I'm going to have a couple of nights to myself when I'm there and Pulse was one of the places that I was tentatively planning on going.
Goliath wrote: This is neither the time nor the place. Take a long hard look at your life if your first thought upon seeing this news is "hmmm. How can I use this to make a political point?"
... A man just shot up a gay club, this is the perfect god damned time to bring up homophobia and how come the US specifically has so many shootings that this is simply "the most recent gun massacre". Especially against everyone who wants to make it about Muslims and/or people from the Middle East.
Anyone who claims that this is neither the time nor the place to talk about how deeply political this attack is would never find the time and place for it.
yes, but he wasn't discussing homophobia was he? He saw that someone with an Arabic name shot up a club full of lgbt people, and he realised that he had discovered the perfect fething time to criticise refugees and promote gun ownership. feth off with that gak.
Through the BBC, reporting that one of the local stations is saying a law enforcement source said that the number of dead is likely to increase at the next briefing. Terrible news.
Goliath wrote: This is neither the time nor the place. Take a long hard look at your life if your first thought upon seeing this news is "hmmm. How can I use this to make a political point?"
... A man just shot up a gay club, this is the perfect god damned time to bring up homophobia and how come the US specifically has so many shootings that this is simply "the most recent gun massacre". Especially against everyone who wants to make it about Muslims and/or people from the Middle East.
Anyone who claims that this is neither the time nor the place to talk about how deeply political this attack is would never find the time and place for it.
yes, but he wasn't discussing homophobia was he? He saw that someone with an Arabic name shot up a club full of lgbt people, and he realised that he had discovered the perfect fething time to criticise refugees and promote gun ownership. feth off with that gak.
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic, because the idea of a lot of people in a cramped, dark space pulling out guns and firing at whatever they think is going on is immediately a very bad scenario. It's taking the usual response of guns protecting against mass shootings and exposing it for how terribly stupid it is by simply spelling it.
If he wasn't sarcastic then uh yeah that was a terrible suggestion.
Goliath wrote: This is neither the time nor the place. Take a long hard look at your life if your first thought upon seeing this news is "hmmm. How can I use this to make a political point?"
... A man just shot up a gay club, this is the perfect god damned time to bring up homophobia and how come the US specifically has so many shootings that this is simply "the most recent gun massacre". Especially against everyone who wants to make it about Muslims and/or people from the Middle East.
Anyone who claims that this is neither the time nor the place to talk about how deeply political this attack is would never find the time and place for it.
yes, but he wasn't discussing homophobia was he? He saw that someone with an Arabic name shot up a club full of lgbt people, and he realised that he had discovered the perfect fething time to criticise refugees and promote gun ownership. feth off with that gak.
To be fair to NinthMusketeer, I'm willing to bet that was sarcasm...
Goliath wrote: This is neither the time nor the place. Take a long hard look at your life if your first thought upon seeing this news is "hmmm. How can I use this to make a political point?"
... A man just shot up a gay club, this is the perfect god damned time to bring up homophobia and how come the US specifically has so many shootings that this is simply "the most recent gun massacre". Especially against everyone who wants to make it about Muslims and/or people from the Middle East.
Anyone who claims that this is neither the time nor the place to talk about how deeply political this attack is would never find the time and place for it.
yes, but he wasn't discussing homophobia was he? He saw that someone with an Arabic name shot up a club full of lgbt people, and he realised that he had discovered the perfect fething time to criticise refugees and promote gun ownership. feth off with that gak.
Err, I'm moderately sure that he is making a sarcastic comment; that is, mocking people that hold the views he mentioned, not affirming them. I could be wrong, though that presumption informs my response to him.
If only the club's patrons had been carrying guns.
The situation would have been much better then.
Yes, it is entirely unreasonable for people to be concerned about the mass immigration of people from areas of the world that are nearly ubiquitously, virulently homophobic and Antisemetic.
Spoiler:
"Only in three countries do as many as one-in-ten Muslims say that homosexuality is morally acceptable: Uganda (12%), Mozambique (11%) and Bangladesh (10%).
In most countries surveyed, fewer than one-in-ten Muslims believe homosexual behavior is not a moral issue. The exceptions are Bangladesh (14%), Guinea Bissau (14%) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (10%)."
Reality is not always what we would like it to be, but failure to recognize reality does not change it.
Yes, it is entirely unreasonable for people to be concerned about the mass immigration of people from areas of the world that are nearly ubiquitously, virulently homophobic and Antisemetic.
Spoiler:
"Only in three countries do as many as one-in-ten Muslims say that homosexuality is morally acceptable: Uganda (12%), Mozambique (11%) and Bangladesh (10%).
In most countries surveyed, fewer than one-in-ten Muslims believe homosexual behavior is not a moral issue. The exceptions are Bangladesh (14%), Guinea Bissau (14%) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (10%)."
Where is the data which asks the same question of Christian populations? It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison (which was initially intended to be the death penalty).
Yes, it is entirely unreasonable for people to be concerned about the mass immigration of people from areas of the world that are nearly ubiquitously, virulently homophobic and Antisemetic.
Spoiler:
"Only in three countries do as many as one-in-ten Muslims say that homosexuality is morally acceptable: Uganda (12%), Mozambique (11%) and Bangladesh (10%).
In most countries surveyed, fewer than one-in-ten Muslims believe homosexual behavior is not a moral issue. The exceptions are Bangladesh (14%), Guinea Bissau (14%) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (10%)."
Where is the data which asks the same question of Christian populations?
Here is a US survey, I'll keep my eye open for a world wide survey, but this seems... relevent;
Edit:
It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Huh? How is that either 'telling' or relevant to the discussion? Is the implication that mainstream Christianity is aptly represented by attitudes in Uganda?
I think the is literally the first time that I've seen the early reports for a mass shooting be that substantially lower than what ultimately happened.
I'm a little in shock, when I went to bed I had no idea it was going to be as bad as it turned out.
CNN is saying he called 911 and pledged allegiance to ISIS.
That is the Orlando shooter.
Yes, that is who I'm referring to. I assume that is what Buzzsaw was referring to in his last line about reports from survivors that the suspect shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the attack, since there was no attack in LA and thus no survivors.
Goliath wrote: This is neither the time nor the place. Take a long hard look at your life if your first thought upon seeing this news is "hmmm. How can I use this to make a political point?"
... A man just shot up a gay club, this is the perfect god damned time to bring up homophobia and how come the US specifically has so many shootings that this is simply "the most recent gun massacre". Especially against everyone who wants to make it about Muslims and/or people from the Middle East.
Anyone who claims that this is neither the time nor the place to talk about how deeply political this attack is would never find the time and place for it.
yes, but he wasn't discussing homophobia was he? He saw that someone with an Arabic name shot up a club full of lgbt people, and he realised that he had discovered the perfect fething time to criticise refugees and promote gun ownership. feth off with that gak.
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic, because the idea of a lot of people in a cramped, dark space pulling out guns and firing at whatever they think is going on is immediately a very bad scenario. It's taking the usual response of guns protecting against mass shootings and exposing it for how terribly stupid it is by simply spelling it.
If he wasn't sarcastic then uh yeah that was a terrible suggestion.
We're only on page 2 and we already have a beautiful example of a strawman argument. What a wonderful specimen!
It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Huh? How is that either 'telling' or relevant to the discussion? Is the implication that mainstream Christianity is aptly represented by attitudes in Uganda?
It has failed to provide a comparison to the overall population attitudes of any of the countries examined. To use Uganda as an example it may be found that the overall attitude to homosexuality of the general population is similar or perhaps even worse than that of the muslim population.
That led officers to inspect the car and find several weapons and a lot of ammunition as well as tannerite, an ingredient that could be used to create a pipe bomb.
Alternately, tannerite could be used by an actual recreational shooter, the kind that would have several weapons and a lot of ammunition. I mean, he may yet to turn out to be a dangerous lunatic yet, but this doesn't mean anything to me yet.
CNN is saying he called 911 and pledged allegiance to ISIS.
That is the Orlando shooter.
Yes, that is who I'm referring to. I assume that is what Buzzsaw was referring to in his last line about reports from survivors that the suspect shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the attack, since there was no attack in LA and thus no survivors.
I edited my post to be more clear.
Yeah, sorry if I was unclear, the reports are in relation to the FLA thing, now what just happened in LA. My understanding is that there was no violence in LA.
That led officers to inspect the car and find several weapons and a lot of ammunition as well as tannerite, an ingredient that could be used to create a pipe bomb.
Alternately, tannerite could be used by an actual recreational shooter, the kind that would have several weapons and a lot of ammunition. I mean, he may yet to turn out to be a dangerous lunatic yet, but this doesn't mean anything to me yet.
I realize that we don't know all exactly what he had at this point, but I don't think it's too far of a stretch that whatever is was is probably illegal in California, since many firearms related things are.
Goliath wrote: I genuinely don't know where my emotions are regarding this.
Its absolutely horrible. It's sad and unnecessary. It's a really really shifty reminder that homophobia and hatred of LGBT people is still horrendously present.
And like, I'm going on holiday to Orlando in a fortnight.
I'm going to have a couple of nights to myself when I'm there and Pulse was one of the places that I was tentatively planning on going.
feth this.
Could of happened in any city in the USA and at any kind of establishment. Soft targets are what this psychopaths target. Keep your head on a swivel and be aware of your surroundings.
It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Huh? How is that either 'telling' or relevant to the discussion? Is the implication that mainstream Christianity is aptly represented by attitudes in Uganda?
It has failed to provide a comparison to the overall population attitudes of any of the countries examined. To use Uganda as an example it may be found that the overall attitude to homosexuality of the general population is similar or perhaps even worse than that of the muslim population.
First, that's a silly objection given that a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries, and thus the 'general population' is the Moslem population. Second, there is no bias implied in not surveying everyone: it's a survey of the attitudes currently held by Moslems, surveying others is unrelated to its purpose.
Third, your objection is irrelevant to my original point: importing, say, 10,000 representative Jordanian Muslims will be importing approximately 9,600 people that consider homosexuality immoral. Is there a particular reason that people should not consider that when discussing immigration policies? Different groups hold different views, this is reality.
BrotherGecko wrote: I am having severe reservations to the narrative that a single man with an AR-15 and a handgun murdered 50 people. Without the rifle being a fully automatic and the shooter carrying a double combat load, there would have been multiple stops in shooting to reload. Most of his shots would have needed to be kill shots too.
I'm not trying to add unnecessary conspiracy to a tragedy but I worry for people if there is 1 or more gunmen on the loose.
Frankly it is easier to kill that many with semi-automatic fire than automatic fire. With auto you waste a lot of ammo and need to reload a lot more.
I'd disagree, simply because auto-fire was made for crowd control. If he had 30 rd magazines it would make it difficult but aim/shoot repeated with semi-auto would imply a good shot. 5.56 isn't going to put down everybody in a single shot.
I've seen so far its 50 dead and over 50 wounded. Without explosives (which I don't know if that has been confirmed/denied yet) that would be a significant feat for trained military with same weapons.
marv335 wrote:Easier than you would think in a crowded club, At those kinds of ranges you're going to get quite a few of through and through shots.
I really doubt that. 5.56 is not a through and through type bullet, its specifically designed not to do that. Unless he got his hands on M995s, through and through could account for some wounds but I doubt very many.
I feel like maybe this isn't right to continue this line of talking. I'm open to PMs to continue unless the thread/MODs decide its appropriate. Otherwise I'm dropping any further discussion upon reflection.
Hmm, yes, that seems like a fine idea. Sadly I'd wager there will be plenty of time to talk about the particulars of this incident as more information unfolds.
Matthew wrote: Is this the first real IS attack on US soil?
San Bernardino was carried out by two Muslims (one of them was from Syria, if I remember correctly) professing Islamic State sympathies. ISIS later publicly praised and embraced (figuratively) the two terrorists.
Goliath wrote: This is neither the time nor the place. Take a long hard look at your life if your first thought upon seeing this news is "hmmm. How can I use this to make a political point?"
... A man just shot up a gay club, this is the perfect god damned time to bring up homophobia and how come the US specifically has so many shootings that this is simply "the most recent gun massacre". Especially against everyone who wants to make it about Muslims and/or people from the Middle East.
Anyone who claims that this is neither the time nor the place to talk about how deeply political this attack is would never find the time and place for it.
yes, but he wasn't discussing homophobia was he? He saw that someone with an Arabic name shot up a club full of lgbt people, and he realised that he had discovered the perfect fething time to criticise refugees and promote gun ownership. feth off with that gak.
Err, I'm moderately sure that he is making a sarcastic comment; that is, mocking people that hold the views he mentioned, not affirming them. I could be wrong, though that presumption informs my response to him.
If only the club's patrons had been carrying guns.
The situation would have been much better then.
Yes, it is entirely unreasonable for people to be concerned about the mass immigration of people from areas of the world that are nearly ubiquitously, virulently homophobic and Antisemetic.
Spoiler:
"Only in three countries do as many as one-in-ten Muslims say that homosexuality is morally acceptable: Uganda (12%), Mozambique (11%) and Bangladesh (10%).
In most countries surveyed, fewer than one-in-ten Muslims believe homosexual behavior is not a moral issue. The exceptions are Bangladesh (14%), Guinea Bissau (14%) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (10%)."
Reality is not always what we would like it to be, but failure to recognize reality does not change it.
Spoiler:
More to say that the man who committed the shooting was a citizen; refugee discussion is irrelevant because there were no refugees involved. People don't rave about preventing radicalization or examining the cause; they rave about keeping 'those dam refugees' out so they don't commit acts of terror. That is what I am referring to, it's the same sort of mindless hate that prompts actions such as this. But to caveat that; I am apathetic overall to the event because I understand it's the will of the masses that it is OK to not make any changes to address mass shootings. People want things to change sure, but by and large Americans aren't don't anything about it. Accordingly my post was more satire than political discussion. I don't think the situation is actually that simple and I was mocking a subset of those who do.
If only the club's patrons had been carrying guns.
The situation would have been much better then.
This is neither the time nor the place. Take a long hard look at your life if your first thought upon seeing this news is "hmmm. How can I use this to make a political point?"
Agreed. But I'll point out that Obama has ALREADY called for "tougher laws" relating to access to handguns and so-called "assault weapons", in the wake of this tragedy, according to Time-Warner News.
I agree with others that this isn't the time and place for political posturing, but sympathy for the victims. But politicians are slime, regardless of their political affiliation.
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
But where would his family go?
I am in no way promoting this, but... well, they're refugees, they need to go somewhere, and Europe can't take everything, expecially since the US is the reason many of them are on the run.
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
Alternatively if America had any meaningful gun control, hadn't been getting involved in the middle east for years, etc, tens or even hundreds of thousands of people would be alive this morning, and this type of attack would be far less likely.
But then again, if wishes were horses we would all be eating steak...
I'd be very wary before people start getting out their 'ISIS agents' card, as if they were HYDRA or COBRA or something.
This is exceptionally fethed up. But anybody who's going to commit a mass hate crime in this way is fethed up. It's as likely that the shooter wasn't operating in coordination with IS, but just declared he was all for them. Then the gaks were all down to claim responsibility.
Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
Gotcha. America is closed now, because there's a chance one in a few million could be a monster. Good thing only one ethnicity or background commits violent crime, right?
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
But where would his family go?
Only arguing the point here as the other poster brought it up, but in response to your query-who cares?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Killionaire wrote: I'd be very wary before people start getting out their 'ISIS agents' card, as if they were HYDRA or COBRA or something.
This is exceptionally fethed up. But anybody who's going to commit a mass hate crime in this way is fethed up. It's as likely that the shooter wasn't operating in coordination with IS, but just declared he was all for them. Then the gaks were all down to claim responsibility.
Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
Gotcha. America is closed now, because there's a chance one in a few million could be a monster. Good thing only one ethnicity or background commits violent crime, right?
Not disagreeing with you. Just responding to the post. I'm much more concerned with the cartels now controlling vast swaths of the US Southern Border.
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
But where would his family go?
I am in no way promoting this, but... well, they're refugees, they need to go somewhere, and Europe can't take everything, expecially since the US is the reason many of them are on the run.
I'm of the view that Europe shouldn't have taken them at all. The majority of the so-called "refugees" flooding Europe are fighting age males, who abandoned their women and children in a warzone . And a portion of those are military deserters.
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
But where would his family go?
I am in no way promoting this, but... well, they're refugees, they need to go somewhere, and Europe can't take everything, expecially since the US is the reason many of them are on the run.
I'm of the view that Europe shouldn't have taken them at all. The majority of the so-called "refugees" flooding Europe are fighting age males, who abandoned their women and children in a warzone . And a portion of those are military deserters.
Jesus.
'Majority' are fighting age males? Where on earth are you getting that from?
I like how 'Europe' is a single place, much like 'refugees' are mostly 18-30 year old men who threw away their spouses and kids.
'Portion are military deserters'. Yeah, well. That actually describes the population of every single nation on earth, doesn't it? And if your homeland is a civil-war torn warzone, by default not participating in the meatgrinder makes you a deserter, doesn't it?
The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
But where would his family go?
Only arguing the point here as the other poster brought it up, but in response to your query-who cares?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Killionaire wrote: I'd be very wary before people start getting out their 'ISIS agents' card, as if they were HYDRA or COBRA or something.
This is exceptionally fethed up. But anybody who's going to commit a mass hate crime in this way is fethed up. It's as likely that the shooter wasn't operating in coordination with IS, but just declared he was all for them. Then the gaks were all down to claim responsibility.
Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
Gotcha. America is closed now, because there's a chance one in a few million could be a monster. Good thing only one ethnicity or background commits violent crime, right?
Not disagreeing with you. Just responding to the post.
I'm much more concerned with the cartels now controlling vast swaths of the US Southern Border.
Who cares? I agree taking in military-aged men isn't good, but... you can't just abandon them. What's the coast guard in Italy or Greece supposed to do? Why can't the US take responsibility for something it caused?
Automatically Appended Next Post: You can't just cause a mess and then say "Nah, I'm not going to clean this up". You can't ignore such an issue.
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
Alternatively if America had any meaningful gun control, hadn't been getting involved in the middle east for years, etc, tens or even hundreds of thousands of people would be alive this morning, and this type of attack would be far less likely.
But then again, if wishes were horses we would all be eating steak...
And if the United Kingdom didn't allow underground Sharia "courts" to operate, turn their backs on their former muslim subjects due to UN pressure in the 1940s, 50's, and 60's, allow muslim "patrols" to harrass women and gays on the streets (often with threats of violence), hypocritically allow Islamic preachers to call for violence and the "breeding out" of the kuffar in Europe while arresting critics for "hate speech", then we wouldn't have grooming gangs and sexual assaults against native women and children. And these kind of attacks would far less likely.
But like you said, if wishes were horses....and two can play that game.
Vaktathi wrote: The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.
Good point. And one I will take is good advice. On another note not directly related to your post, but in general........
I've said my piece in this thread. My sympathies goes out to the victims of this attack. But I'm going to avoid getting drawn into further political discussion in this thread. This is a touchy subject for me, since I knew two people who didn't get to go home from work in the World Trade Center on one September morning. That same day, I also nearly lost one of my in-laws (that I'm still rather fond of) who worked for the DoD at the Pentagon. If she hadn't been on an errand, she would have likely been dead, since her office was in the general vicinity of where that plane hit the building. I also saw first hand how the Saudis operate, and their arrogance, during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I've also read the Koran and remember Salman Rushdie and the Iran Hostage Crisis. So, I have a pretty negative view of Islam in general, one that isn't appropriate for these boards.
oldravenman3025 wrote: But like you said, if wishes were horses....and two can play that game.
Kind of my point... blaming people or things is pointless when you then don't do anything to make things better. The situation is what it is; what we do about it is what matters.
Frazzled wrote: ISIL is now claiming responsibility for this terrorist attack.
It makes me wonder if this was..um...how do I say it....
If the media hadn't been putting what I feel as being premature in their constant, near immediate "this may be terrorism" and "this may be ISIS" line of coverage...it makes me wonder if they would have claimed responsibility or not...like..maybe they are just taking advantage of the *idea* that they are behind it when they really may not be.
It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Huh? How is that either 'telling' or relevant to the discussion? Is the implication that mainstream Christianity is aptly represented by attitudes in Uganda?
It has failed to provide a comparison to the overall population attitudes of any of the countries examined. To use Uganda as an example it may be found that the overall attitude to homosexuality of the general population is similar or perhaps even worse than that of the muslim population.
First, that's a silly objection given that a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries, and thus the 'general population' is the Moslem population. Second, there is no bias implied in not surveying everyone: it's a survey of the attitudes currently held by Moslems, surveying others is unrelated to its purpose.
84% of the population in Uganda is Christian. You're really not helping yourself out of the hole that you've dug for yourself.
oldravenman3025 wrote: But like you said, if wishes were horses....and two can play that game.
Kind of my point... blaming people or things is pointless when you then don't do anything to make things better. The situation is what it is; what we do about it is what matters.
Agreed. We need to work for viable solutions and stop nonsense like this. Those people just went out for a good time, not looking to get slaughtered. We might not agree what solutions are best, but at least it's a better use of energy rather than fighting among ourselves.
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
But where would his family go?
I am in no way promoting this, but... well, they're refugees, they need to go somewhere, and Europe can't take everything, expecially since the US is the reason many of them are on the run.
I'm of the view that Europe shouldn't have taken them at all. The majority of the so-called "refugees" flooding Europe are fighting age males, who abandoned their women and children in a warzone . And a portion of those are military deserters.
Jesus.
'Majority' are fighting age males? Where on earth are you getting that from?
I like how 'Europe' is a single place, much like 'refugees' are mostly 18-30 year old men who threw away their spouses and kids.
'Portion are military deserters'. Yeah, well. That actually describes the population of every single nation on earth, doesn't it? And if your homeland is a civil-war torn warzone, by default not participating in the meatgrinder makes you a deserter, doesn't it?
Just delusional.
I should've been more specific. I meant Syrian "refugees" . And that information comes from the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees, who stated the 62% of Syrian "refugees" are military age, able-bodied males.. As much as I dispise the U.N., sometimes they do something useful.
And when I refer to "Europe", I refer to (predominately Western) EU countries that have accepted refugees en-mass (the countries that are big time welfare states are a favorite destination, with some preferring to go back rather than go to countries like Denmark). Eastern European countries have either restricted the numbers coming in, or close their borders altogether.
Most of the males of other groups left their families behind because of the dangers on trekking to Europe. When, or if, they ever come to Europe, the numbers will swell even larger.
Vaktathi wrote: The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.
Errr, yeah but he was under FBI investigation twice and was a "person of interest". How in the world does someone like that get a license to carry? I'm as Pro Firearm as you're going to get, but that's screwed up.
It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Huh? How is that either 'telling' or relevant to the discussion? Is the implication that mainstream Christianity is aptly represented by attitudes in Uganda?
It has failed to provide a comparison to the overall population attitudes of any of the countries examined. To use Uganda as an example it may be found that the overall attitude to homosexuality of the general population is similar or perhaps even worse than that of the muslim population.
First, that's a silly objection given that a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries, and thus the 'general population' is the Moslem population. Second, there is no bias implied in not surveying everyone: it's a survey of the attitudes currently held by Moslems, surveying others is unrelated to its purpose.
84% of the population in Uganda is Christian. You're really not helping yourself out of the hole that you've dug for yourself.
Do tell, what exactly is the "whole that 'I've' dug"? In the survey I was referring to, was it not the case that "a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries"?
Are you seriously advocating that there is no widespread, violent antipathy towards homosexuals in Islam? Or are you simply doing a bit of a troll drive by?
BrotherGecko wrote: I am having severe reservations to the narrative that a single man with an AR-15 and a handgun murdered 50 people. Without the rifle being a fully automatic and the shooter carrying a double combat load, there would have been multiple stops in shooting to reload. Most of his shots would have needed to be kill shots too.
I'm not trying to add unnecessary conspiracy to a tragedy but I worry for people if there is 1 or more gunmen on the loose.
Frankly it is easier to kill that many with semi-automatic fire than automatic fire. With auto you waste a lot of ammo and need to reload a lot more.
I'd disagree, simply because auto-fire was made for crowd control. If he had 30 rd magazines it would make it difficult but aim/shoot repeated with semi-auto would imply a good shot. 5.56 isn't going to put down everybody in a single shot.
I've seen so far its 50 dead and over 50 wounded. Without explosives (which I don't know if that has been confirmed/denied yet) that would be a significant feat for trained military with same weapons.
marv335 wrote:Easier than you would think in a crowded club, At those kinds of ranges you're going to get quite a few of through and through shots.
I really doubt that. 5.56 is not a through and through type bullet, its specifically designed not to do that. Unless he got his hands on M995s, through and through could account for some wounds but I doubt very many.
I feel like maybe this isn't right to continue this line of talking. I'm open to PMs to continue unless the thread/MODs decide its appropriate. Otherwise I'm dropping any further discussion upon reflection.
No, Automatic fire was not made for crowd control.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Agreed. But I'll point out that Obama has ALREADY called for "tougher laws" relating to access to handguns and so-called "assault weapons", in the wake of this tragedy, according to Time-Warner News.
I agree with others that this isn't the time and place for political posturing, but sympathy for the victims. But politicians are slime, regardless of their political affiliation.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Agreed. But I'll point out that Obama has ALREADY called for "tougher laws" relating to access to handguns and so-called "assault weapons", in the wake of this tragedy, according to Time-Warner News.
I agree with others that this isn't the time and place for political posturing, but sympathy for the victims. But politicians are slime, regardless of their political affiliation.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Agreed. But I'll point out that Obama has ALREADY called for "tougher laws" relating to access to handguns and so-called "assault weapons", in the wake of this tragedy, according to Time-Warner News.
I agree with others that this isn't the time and place for political posturing, but sympathy for the victims. But politicians are slime, regardless of their political affiliation.
I doubt very much this is true.
It's true, unfortunately. YahooNews also mentions it.
I found the full remarks which - I'm more than a little embarrassed to admit - were on the front page of whitehouse.gov. oops.
Read the President's full remarks:
Today, as Americans, we grieve the brutal murder -- a horrific massacre -- of dozens of innocent people. We pray for their families, who are grasping for answers with broken hearts. We stand with the people of Orlando, who have endured a terrible attack on their city. Although it’s still early in the investigation, we know enough to say that this was an act of terror and an act of hate. And as Americans, we are united in grief, in outrage, and in resolve to defend our people.
I just finished a meeting with FBI Director Comey and my homeland security and national security advisors. The FBI is on the scene and leading the investigation, in partnership with local law enforcement. I’ve directed that the full resources of the federal government be made available for this investigation.
We are still learning all the facts. This is an open investigation. We’ve reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer. The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terrorism. And I’ve directed that we must spare no effort to determine what -- if any -- inspiration or association this killer may have had with terrorist groups. What is clear is that he was a person filled with hatred. Over the coming days, we’ll uncover why and how this happened, and we will go wherever the facts lead us.
This morning I spoke with my good friend, Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer, and I conveyed the condolences of the entire American people. This could have been any one of our communities. So I told Mayor Dyer that whatever help he and the people of Orlando need -- they are going to get it. As a country, we will be there for the people of Orlando today, tomorrow and for all the days to come.
We also express our profound gratitude to all the police and first responders who rushed into harm’s way. Their courage and professionalism saved lives, and kept the carnage from being even worse. It’s the kind of sacrifice that our law enforcement professionals make every single day for all of us, and we can never thank them enough.
This is an especially heartbreaking day for all our friends -- our fellow Americans -- who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The shooter targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends, to dance and to sing, and to live. The place where they were attacked is more than a nightclub -- it is a place of solidarity and empowerment where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds, and to advocate for their civil rights.
So this is a sobering reminder that attacks on any American -- regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation -- is an attack on all of us and on the fundamental values of equality and dignity that define us as a country. And no act of hate or terror will ever change who we are or the values that make us Americans.
Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.
In the coming hours and days, we’ll learn about the victims of this tragedy. Their names. Their faces. Who they were. The joy that they brought to families and to friends, and the difference that they made in this world. Say a prayer for them and say a prayer for their families -- that God give them the strength to bear the unbearable. And that He give us all the strength to be there for them, and the strength and courage to change. We need to demonstrate that we are defined more -- as a country -- by the way they lived their lives than by the hate of the man who took them from us.
As we go together, we will draw inspiration from heroic and selfless acts -- friends who helped friends, took care of each other and saved lives. In the face of hate and violence, we will love one another. We will not give in to fear or turn against each other. Instead, we will stand united, as Americans, to protect our people, and defend our nation, and to take action against those who threaten us.
May God bless the Americans we lost this morning. May He comfort their families. May God continue to watch over this country that we love. Thank you.
I should've been more specific. I meant Syrian "refugees" . And that information comes from the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees, who stated the 62% of Syrian "refugees" are military age, able-bodied males..
How dare those men, who given their age are probably single anyway, flee a bloody warzone before they were conscripted!
As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.
How dare those men, who given their age are probably single anyway, flee a bloody warzone before they were conscripted!
When they cause problems in the host countries, then yes, it's an issue. And many of them are deserters. And ISIS has been known to infiltrate operatives in the wave of refugees heading to Europe. The terror attacks in Europe since the crisis began bears this out. "MUH FEELZ" doesn't belong in deciding what to do in such instances, like it has in Europe to date.
As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll.
So you think. And I won't get into this flawed line of thinking.
Silent Puffin? wrote: As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.
Like during the ISIS attacks in France, where they were forced to rely on single-shot weapons.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Agreed. But I'll point out that Obama has ALREADY called for "tougher laws" relating to access to handguns and so-called "assault weapons", in the wake of this tragedy, according to Time-Warner News.
I agree with others that this isn't the time and place for political posturing, but sympathy for the victims. But politicians are slime, regardless of their political affiliation.
I hope this isn't true.
But is it really the fault of the politicians who spout the usual rhetoric, or the voters who fall for it? Where does the circle start?
jhe90 wrote: Single shot is limited by only rate you can pull it. And a trained user can be fast. They can still do harm without full auto..
I believe that Seaward was being sarcastic: it is my understanding that the firearms used in the Bataclan and other IS attacks in France were illegal under French law.
There is a great deal of confusion about the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic"; automatic means that the firearm will continue to discharge, one round after another, as long as the trigger is pulled. Semi-Automatic means that for each 'pull' there is a single round discharged.
Edit: according to this article, the guns used were AK-47s and not legally available in France.
jhe90 wrote: Single shot is limited by only rate you can pull it. And a trained user can be fast. They can still do harm without full auto..
I believe that Seaward was being sarcastic: it is my understanding that the firearms used in the Bataclan and other IS attacks in France were illegal under French law.
There is a great deal of confusion about the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic"; automatic means that the firearm will continue to discharge, one round after another, as long as the trigger is pulled. Semi-Automatic means that for each 'pull' there is a single round discharged.
I know. Semi auto if you depress and hold will only fire once . Full auto will use the gas and via mechanism fire a second, and a third.
Silent Puffin? wrote: As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.
Automatic weapons are tightly restricted in the US. A legal fully automatic weapon in this country starts at around $9,500 or so and goes up quickly. So far as I know, there has never been a mass shooting with a legal automatic weapon, although I know of at least one bank robbery with illegally converted ones. Legal automatic weapons in the US are very rare. They are not a factor in either spree killing or crime, regardless of what you see in the movies.
Moving on to semi-autos, there are still some problems there. For one, even if you totally banned all sales of them tomorrow - which the country definitely doesn't want to do - what do you do with the tens of millions lying around currently?
It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Huh? How is that either 'telling' or relevant to the discussion? Is the implication that mainstream Christianity is aptly represented by attitudes in Uganda?
It has failed to provide a comparison to the overall population attitudes of any of the countries examined. To use Uganda as an example it may be found that the overall attitude to homosexuality of the general population is similar or perhaps even worse than that of the muslim population.
First, that's a silly objection given that a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries, and thus the 'general population' is the Moslem population. Second, there is no bias implied in not surveying everyone: it's a survey of the attitudes currently held by Moslems, surveying others is unrelated to its purpose.
84% of the population in Uganda is Christian. You're really not helping yourself out of the hole that you've dug for yourself.
Do tell, what exactly is the "whole that 'I've' dug"? In the survey I was referring to, was it not the case that "a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries"?
Are you seriously advocating that there is no widespread, violent antipathy towards homosexuals in Islam? Or are you simply doing a bit of a troll drive by?
You're ignoring the large part of the example that's majority Christian because it doesn't fit your narrative, hand-waving away any objections. You start off by using bad data to make a bad argument, and when you're called out on it you double down. You obviously have an axe to grind with Islam. You're further assuming that correlation implies causation and arguing for a causal link without providing evidence of such a link existing. You didn't even stop to consider alternative explanations, like the fact that excepting Russia and Turkey all the countries in the example are poor, third-world countries. You just jumped straight to the conclusion that you already knew you wanted, which is that Islam is bad. To top it off, you end your post with a blatant strawman. You're just digging deeper.
Silent Puffin? wrote: As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.
Like during the ISIS attacks in France, where they were forced to rely on single-shot weapons.
Single shot? Afaik they all had full-auto assault rifles that had been illegally converted from decomissioned Chechoslovak and Yugoslav military weapons.
It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Huh? How is that either 'telling' or relevant to the discussion? Is the implication that mainstream Christianity is aptly represented by attitudes in Uganda?
It has failed to provide a comparison to the overall population attitudes of any of the countries examined. To use Uganda as an example it may be found that the overall attitude to homosexuality of the general population is similar or perhaps even worse than that of the muslim population.
First, that's a silly objection given that a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries, and thus the 'general population' is the Moslem population. Second, there is no bias implied in not surveying everyone: it's a survey of the attitudes currently held by Moslems, surveying others is unrelated to its purpose.
84% of the population in Uganda is Christian. You're really not helping yourself out of the hole that you've dug for yourself.
Do tell, what exactly is the "whole that 'I've' dug"? In the survey I was referring to, was it not the case that "a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries"?
Are you seriously advocating that there is no widespread, violent antipathy towards homosexuals in Islam? Or are you simply doing a bit of a troll drive by?
You're ignoring the large part of the example that's majority Christian because it doesn't fit your narrative, hand-waving away any objections. You start off by using bad data to make a bad argument, and when you're called out on it you double down. You obviously have an axe to grind with Islam. You're further assuming that correlation implies causation and arguing for a causal link without providing evidence of such a link existing. You didn't even stop to consider alternative explanations, like the fact that excepting Russia and Turkey all the countries in the example are poor, third-world countries. You just jumped straight to the conclusion that you already knew you wanted, which is that Islam is bad. To top it off, you end your post with a blatant strawman. You're just digging deeper.
Imam Speaking in Orlando Said Gays Must Be Killed Out of 'Compassion'
Example after example after example is provided in real life. In every country in the world. How many more examples do you need before anecdotes become trends?
jhe90 wrote: Single shot is limited by only rate you can pull it.
Yeah, that's not even kind of true.
Buzzsaw wrote: I believe that Seaward was being sarcastic: it is my understanding that the firearms used in the Bataclan and other IS attacks in France were illegal under French law.
That's exactly what Seaward was being. The idea that Islamic extremists would not be able to carry out attacks like these if AR-15s were banned in the US is pretty hilarious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Single shot? Afaik they all had full-auto assault rifles that had been illegally converted from decomissioned Chechoslovak and Yugoslav military weapons.
No, that's impossible, because France has strong gun laws.
jhe90 wrote: Single shot is limited by only rate you can pull it. And a trained user can be fast. They can still do harm without full auto..
I believe that Seaward was being sarcastic: it is my understanding that the firearms used in the Bataclan and other IS attacks in France were illegal under French law.
There is a great deal of confusion about the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic"; automatic means that the firearm will continue to discharge, one round after another, as long as the trigger is pulled. Semi-Automatic means that for each 'pull' there is a single round discharged.
I know. Semi auto if you depress and hold will only fire once . Full auto will use the gas and via mechanism fire a second, and a third.
Seaward wrote: No, that's impossible, because France has strong gun laws.
On the other hand, if the only people shooting up the place are dedicated terrorists, rather than any Tom, Dick, or Harry getting hold of a gun and blowing away their classmates, random people on the interstate, etc, then I think your gun laws are probably pretty good...
It is especially telling that the person compiling that list has a fair bit of bias as they have failed to mention that the Ugandan population, regardless of religion, is very homophobic, to the point that Homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Huh? How is that either 'telling' or relevant to the discussion? Is the implication that mainstream Christianity is aptly represented by attitudes in Uganda?
It has failed to provide a comparison to the overall population attitudes of any of the countries examined. To use Uganda as an example it may be found that the overall attitude to homosexuality of the general population is similar or perhaps even worse than that of the muslim population.
First, that's a silly objection given that a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries, and thus the 'general population' is the Moslem population. Second, there is no bias implied in not surveying everyone: it's a survey of the attitudes currently held by Moslems, surveying others is unrelated to its purpose.
84% of the population in Uganda is Christian. You're really not helping yourself out of the hole that you've dug for yourself.
Do tell, what exactly is the "whole that 'I've' dug"? In the survey I was referring to, was it not the case that "a large number of those countries are Moslem majority countries"?
Are you seriously advocating that there is no widespread, violent antipathy towards homosexuals in Islam? Or are you simply doing a bit of a troll drive by?
You're ignoring the large part of the example that's majority Christian because it doesn't fit your narrative, hand-waving away any objections. You start off by using bad data to make a bad argument, and when you're called out on it you double down. You obviously have an axe to grind with Islam. You're further assuming that correlation implies causation and arguing for a causal link without providing evidence of such a link existing. You didn't even stop to consider alternative explanations, like the fact that excepting Russia and Turkey all the countries in the example are poor, third-world countries. You just jumped straight to the conclusion that you already knew you wanted, which is that Islam is bad. To top it off, you end your post with a blatant strawman. You're just digging deeper.
Imam Speaking in Orlando Said Gays Must Be Killed Out of 'Compassion'
Example after example after example is provided in real life. In every country in the world. How many more examples do you need before anecdotes become trends?
Yes, Strawman. Where am I saying that there isn't a "widespread, violent apathy towards homosexuals in Islam"? Do note that questioning causes is not the same as denying the problem.
You're ignoring the large part of the example that's majority Christian because it doesn't fit your narrative, hand-waving away any objections. You start off by using bad data to make a bad argument, and when you're called out on it you double down. You obviously have an axe to grind with Islam. You're further assuming that correlation implies causation and arguing for a causal link without providing evidence of such a link existing. You didn't even stop to consider alternative explanations, like the fact that excepting Russia and Turkey all the countries in the example are poor, third-world countries. You just jumped straight to the conclusion that you already knew you wanted, which is that Islam is bad. To top it off, you end your post with a blatant strawman. You're just digging deeper.
In fact, I am doing none of those things, and your intellectual dishonesty is jaw dropping.
I don't even know where to start, it's not even that what you're saying is wrong, but hallucinatory. Correlation and causation have nothing to do with my point, nor have I argued for any thing other then the recognition of the facts... which you don't deny. My sole point was that Muslim migrants from the middle east are overwhelmingly likely to harbor both antisemitic and homophobic views. Which is a fact.
Your posts regarding mine have been noting irrelevancies and congratulating yourself on your cleverness.
SilverMK2 wrote: On the other hand, if the only people shooting up the place are dedicated terrorists, rather than any Tom, Dick, or Harry getting hold of a gun and blowing away their classmates, random people on the interstate, etc, then I think your gun laws are probably pretty good...
Well, that's not true even in France, but it seems a roundabout way of admitting that French-style gun laws wouldn't have prevented this dedicated terrorist from pulling off this attack.
As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.
Find me an instance of a legally civilian owned *automatic* weapon being used in one of these incidents and I'll eat a hat and film it. Semi automatic covers an extremely wide array of weapons, basically anything newer than the 19th century that doesnt have to be manually reloaded after every trigger pull, from Mauser C96's and Garand rifles up through something like an FN SCAR, it's a broad and vague definiton in much the same way that say, "eletronic communications" covers everything from the Telegraph through phones and tv up through cell phones and GPS and email.
The dude was also a licensed and screened security guard who, as such, ostensibly could have access to such weapons in many nations where firearms are beyond the reach of the general public in an equivalent job.
You're ignoring the large part of the example that's majority Christian because it doesn't fit your narrative, hand-waving away any objections. You start off by using bad data to make a bad argument, and when you're called out on it you double down. You obviously have an axe to grind with Islam. You're further assuming that correlation implies causation and arguing for a causal link without providing evidence of such a link existing. You didn't even stop to consider alternative explanations, like the fact that excepting Russia and Turkey all the countries in the example are poor, third-world countries. You just jumped straight to the conclusion that you already knew you wanted, which is that Islam is bad. To top it off, you end your post with a blatant strawman. You're just digging deeper.
In fact, I am doing none of those things, and your intellectual dishonesty is jaw dropping.
I don't even know where to start, it's not even that what you're saying is wrong, but hallucinatory. Correlation and causation have nothing to do with my point, nor have I argued for any thing other then the recognition of the facts... which you don't deny. My sole point was that Muslim migrants from the middle east are overwhelmingly likely to harbor both antisemitic and homophobic views. Which is a fact.
Your posts regarding mine have been noting irrelevancies and congratulating yourself on your cleverness.
I'm dragging the thread violently off-topic, so I'll stop, suffice to say I don't agree with you though.
djones520 wrote: So, can I interject a break in the arguments here, and ask if anyone has new news on this?
Last I heard, ISIS is claiming responsibility, and the shooter called 911 multiple times prior to the attack, stating his allegiance to ISIS.
^ This. While we all love a good 2nd amendment thread, can we try to keep this to providing news about a situation that is still very very fresh. We still do not know all the details yet, even so far as what weapons were used. Lets cool our jets.
Well, the easiest to find data I could find was from 2012, but it has France with 32 gun homicides and the USA with 9,146. So I would still say their gun laws are working pretty well.
but it seems a roundabout way of admitting that French-style gun laws wouldn't have prevented this dedicated terrorist from pulling off this attack.
It was in fact a pretty explicit statement that "French-style gun laws" wouldn't have stopped dedicated terrorists from pulling off this attack. Because dedicated terrorists typically are importing weapons and fighters from places where there are plenty of guns, are well funded and equipped, and have the backing of large organisations dedicated to carring out these kinds of things. While Joe Bloggs who snaps and decides that he hates the people at work... doesn't have any of those things... and so if there are no guns laying around won't be able to go out and shoot anyone...
So I know, its all down to rate of fire. You could of course be delusional enough to think that an AR 15 has the same rate of fire as a bolt action rifle....
Vaktathi wrote: basically anything newer than the 19th century that doesnt have to be manually reloaded after every trigger pull
That's all you need for hunting and the like, it would also do for 'self defence'.
I'm sure the usual suspects will defend their right to bear arms with their 'cold dead hands' but I am sick and tired of dozens more people paying the price for hubris. This kind of craziness happens far, far too often.
Silent Puffin? wrote: As always with these mass shootings; banning the sale of automatic/semi automatic weapons would have meant a MUCH reduced death toll. 2nd amendment, cold dead hands etc etc etc.
No it wouldn't, because the shooter would have had one anyway. He was a licensed security guard - he's up there with police and the military among people who would be deliberately excluded from any attack on people's Second Amendment rights.
Assuming that the rules regarding blood donation are roughly similar to here, even though any rush for blood donations (to help victims) will be due to an attack on a gay club, gay people will be forbidden to donate.
Assuming that the rules regarding blood donation are roughly similar to here, even though any rush for blood donations (to help victims) will be due to an attack on a gay club, gay people will be forbidden to donate.
Not anymore, its no longer a lifetime ban although donors couldn't have had sex with a gay man for 12 months prior to donation.
No it wouldn't, because the shooter would have had one anyway. He was a licensed security guard - he's up there with police and the military among people who would be deliberately excluded from any attack on people's Second Amendment rights.
Well, the easiest to find data I could find was from 2012, but it has France with 32 gun homicides and the USA with 9,146. So I would still say their gun laws are working pretty well.
C'mon, correlation does not imply causation.
Is there a Dakka bingo square for that? I'm getting the feeling there should be...
Vaktathi wrote: basically anything newer than the 19th century that doesnt have to be manually reloaded after every trigger pull
That's all you need for hunting and the like, it would also do for 'self defence'.
a subjective argument at best, and such uses are not the only ones protected under the 2nd amendment.
And, again, this guy was a licensed and vetted armed security guard.
I'm sure the usual suspects will defend their right to bear arms with their 'cold dead hands' but I am sick and tired of dozens more people paying the price for hubris.
Out of a nation of over 300 million people, with about an equal number of firearms, the number of people killed by rifles of all kinds, much less "assault weapons" or however ones wishes to define it, is so low as to be statistically irrelevant, two hundred something (again, out of a population of well over 300 million) and dropping every year. Every once in a while there's a tragedy where a large number of people get shot, but we also have instances of people driving cars through crowds, riots, and other such tragic events that are rare but shocking.
Remember when a lot of people were decrying Christianity because an overweight backwoods Kentuckian didn't want to do her duty to give out marriage licenses?
Remember those same people not decrying Islam even when many of its adherents are quite literally murdering gay men? Yes, I know, something about how most Muslims are against this type of barbarity. Though strangely silent or muted.
My deepest sympathies and solidarity to the gay community worldwide. These ISIS fethers are gonna find out the West supports and loves our members that are only as their God made them. And in time, we'll convert them, either at the end of a JDAM or the end of a nice fat donger.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Remember when a lot of people were decrying Christianity because an overweight backwoods Kentuckian didn't want to do her duty to give out marriage licenses?
Remember those same people not decrying Islam even when many of its adherents are quite literally murdering gay men? Yes, I know, something about how most Muslims are against this type of barbarity. Though strangely silent or muted.
Daily reminder that I get banned from Dakka semi-monthly for being "too mean" while idiots like this post freely.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Remember when a lot of people were decrying Christianity because an overweight backwoods Kentuckian didn't want to do her duty to give out marriage licenses?
Remember those same people not decrying Islam even when many of its adherents are quite literally murdering gay men? Yes, I know, something about how most Muslims are against this type of barbarity. Though strangely silent or muted.
Daily reminder that I get banned from Dakka semi-monthly for being "too mean" while idiots like this post freely.
Wew lad.
So people weren't saying Christianity was wrong when that Kim Davis thing was going on? There weren't memes all over the interwebz? I'd remind you of rule 1, but it honestly doesn't really bother me.
See this is what I am talking about. Altering policies of refugee acceptance, going into the spiral of gun control debate, talking about whether or not Islam is to blame... None of these things go in the direction of real changes to address the issue of mass shootings. To be fair gun control could involve changes that would affect the problem, but what changes and how they'd affect it are irrelevant because that political topic is a stalemate right now. To actually address the situation involves different topics and different discussions which by and large people don't engage in. Which brings us back to people wanting things to change but not doing anything about it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: See this is what I am talking about. Altering policies of refugee acceptance, going into the spiral of gun control debate, talking about whether or not Islam is to blame... None of these things go in the direction of real changes to address the issue of mass shootings. To be fair gun control could involve changes that would affect the problem, but what changes and how they'd affect it are irrelevant because that political topic is a stalemate right now. To actually address the situation involves different topics and different discussions which by and large people don't engage in. Which brings us back to people wanting things to change but not doing anything about it.
Except in this case, gun control and refugees have nothing to do with it. But Islam does. Denying the virulent homophobia in Islam (all Abrahamic religions really) is just proverbially burying ones head in the sand.
I support intelligent gun control. I think America has a massive duty to take in more refugees from an area we fethed up massively. I also think Islam needs to get in line with the modern world and start treating women, gay males, non-believers, slaves I mean foreign workers like you know, actual fething human beings.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Remember when a lot of people were decrying Christianity because an overweight backwoods Kentuckian didn't want to do her duty to give out marriage licenses?
Remember those same people not decrying Islam even when many of its adherents are quite literally murdering gay men? Yes, I know, something about how most Muslims are against this type of barbarity. Though strangely silent or muted.
My deepest sympathies and solidarity to the gay community worldwide. These ISIS fethers are gonna find out the West supports and loves our members that are only as their God made them. And in time, we'll convert them, either at the end of a JDAM or the end of a nice fat donger.
Ah, you must have missed the giant pile of the entire internet and half of this bloody thread decrying Islam. I know it was hard to miss, so I thought I should help point it out for those of us born without functioning eyes or that have giant axes to grind.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Remember when a lot of people were decrying Christianity because an overweight backwoods Kentuckian didn't want to do her duty to give out marriage licenses?
Remember those same people not decrying Islam even when many of its adherents are quite literally murdering gay men? Yes, I know, something about how most Muslims are against this type of barbarity. Though strangely silent or muted.
My deepest sympathies and solidarity to the gay community worldwide. These ISIS fethers are gonna find out the West supports and loves our members that are only as their God made them. And in time, we'll convert them, either at the end of a JDAM or the end of a nice fat donger.
Ah, you must have missed the giant pile of the entire internet and half of this bloody thread decrying Islam. I know it was hard to miss, so I thought I should help point it out for those of us born without functioning eyes or that have giant axes to grind.
Oh there's plenty of violent Islamophobic rhetoric, especially online. But those weren't the people decrying Christians during the Kim Davis debacle.
DutchWinsAll wrote: So people weren't saying Christianity was wrong when that Kim Davis thing was going on? There weren't memes all over the interwebz? I'd remind you of rule 1, but it honestly doesn't really bother me.
Yeah, people were saying that. People were also saying that not all Christians agree with Kim Davis and it's unfair to blame the religion as a whole for the actions of its worst members.
NinthMusketeer wrote: See this is what I am talking about. Altering policies of refugee acceptance, going into the spiral of gun control debate, talking about whether or not Islam is to blame... None of these things go in the direction of real changes to address the issue of mass shootings. To be fair gun control could involve changes that would affect the problem, but what changes and how they'd affect it are irrelevant because that political topic is a stalemate right now. To actually address the situation involves different topics and different discussions which by and large people don't engage in. Which brings us back to people wanting things to change but not doing anything about it.
Except in this case, gun control and refugees have nothing to do with it. But Islam does. Denying the virulent homophobia in Islam (all Abrahamic religions really) is just proverbially burying ones head in the sand.
I support intelligent gun control. I think America has a massive duty to take in more refugees from an area we fethed up massively. I also think Islam needs to get in line with the modern world and start treating women, gay males, non-believers, slaves I mean foreign workers like you know, actual fething human beings.
That might help. Alot in fact. Its attitudes on some areas is rather out of scnc with west.
So I know, its all down to rate of fire. You could of course be delusional enough to think that an AR 15 has the same rate of fire as a bolt action rifle....
Vaktathi wrote: basically anything newer than the 19th century that doesnt have to be manually reloaded after every trigger pull
That's all you need for hunting and the like, it would also do for 'self defence'.
I'm sure the usual suspects will defend their right to bear arms with their 'cold dead hands' but I am sick and tired of dozens more people paying the price for hubris. This kind of craziness happens far, far too often.
The type of operating system or action is irrelevant. Charles Whitman did plenty of damage with a bolt-action rifle. If another mass shooting took place with a scoped, bolt-action rifle, you would be screaming to ban those terrible, horrible, nasty old "sniper rifles".
Andrew Kehoe, who committed the worst school massacre in U.S. history back in 1927, used explosives.
Out of the top ten mass shooters, with the highest body counts, only three are American. The other seven took place in countries where gun ownership was far more regulated (then and now) than the United States.
The point, ultimately, is that if somebody wants to kill a large number of people, they'll find a way, semi-autos banned or not. And I (like so many other Americans) won't stand for a Constitutional rights being tampled on because of hysteria and politics based on emotion.
There are semi-automatic hunting rifles on the market, by the way. And the first commercially available self-loaders were sold back in the 19th Century. And the most common operating systems used in semi-autos have been around for over a half-century. Funny that since the 1990s, that they've magically transformed into OMGWTFBBQMASSKILLINGMACHINESOFWAR!!!11111!ONEELEVENTY11!1.
What that tells me is that we have a PEOPLE PROBLEM, not a gun problem. If you would argue from logic, you would see that too.
DutchWinsAll wrote: So people weren't saying Christianity was wrong when that Kim Davis thing was going on? There weren't memes all over the interwebz?
People aren't saying that radical islam is a problem? Hell, there are no people who say that Islam in general is a problem?
Do you read what you're typing before you post it? Do you have the basic intelligence required to understand how slimey and vile it is to use a tragedy like this as an opportunity to make idiotic"gotcha" statements like the ones you're making in this thread?
Iron_Captain wrote: Single shot? Afaik they all had full-auto assault rifles that had been illegally converted from decomissioned Chechoslovak and Yugoslav military weapons.
No, that's impossible, because France has strong gun laws.
Vaktathi wrote: The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.
Errr, yeah but he was under FBI investigation twice and was a "person of interest". How in the world does someone like that get a license to carry? I'm as Pro Firearm as you're going to get, but that's screwed up.
Because simply having a list stating "this dude was interviewed by FBI 'x' times, thus shouldn't pass any background check" is pants on cray-cray. You have to have a lil' bit more due process... thanks to our 5th amendment.
DutchWinsAll wrote: So people weren't saying Christianity was wrong when that Kim Davis thing was going on? There weren't memes all over the interwebz?
People aren't saying that radical islam is a problem? Hell, there are no people who say that Islam in general is a problem?
Do you read what you're typing before you post it? Do you have the basic intelligence required to understand how slimey and vile it is to use a tragedy like this as an opportunity to make idiotic"gotcha" statements like the ones you're making in this thread?
Of course people have said all of the above comments. My "slimey (sic) vile and idiotic" comments are about the people that were quick to condemn Christianity at that point, and yet seem to do extreme mental gymnastics to absolve Islam. There's not many areas in any Islamic majority country that are even accepting of gay men, and there are quite a few that actively murder them. I don't think things would be much different here if we let Christians have total political power, but the reality is we don't let them have that type of influence.
All your snark and vitriol aside, I probably am too close to this story to be objective and level-headed. I'm not gay personally, but my best friend, several other good friends, my uncle, my cousin, my aunt (I think you see where I'm going) are all gay. And to me, this wasn't just an attack on America and the West. This was an attack on our beliefs. The fact that we can care and love for others different from us. The fact we accept that some guys like guys and some girls like girls and some like both.
With that, I should probably bow out. I'll leave it to others to try and pretend that making a gun with a bayonet lug illegal would have prevented this, or that Christianity wasn't pulled kicking and screaming out of dark-age ideology by other Christians.
Some statements of note (I don't know if this merits a link in the OP;
President Barack Obama,
Spoiler:
Republican Candidate Donald Trump,
Spoiler:
Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6 months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.
In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency.
If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen -- and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct anymore.
The terrorist, Omar Mir Saddique Mateen, is the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan who openly published his support for the Afghanistani Taliban and even tried to run for President of Afghanistan. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.
We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.
Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term -- and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.
We need to protect all Americans, of all backgrounds and all beliefs, from Radical Islamic Terrorism - which has no place in an open and tolerant society. Radical Islam advocates hate for women, gays, Jews, Christians and all Americans. I am going to be a President for all Americans, and I am going to protect and defend all Americans. We are going to make America safe again and great again for everyone.
Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton,
Spoiler:
I join Americans in praying for the victims of the attack in Orlando, their families and the first responders who did everything they could to save lives.
This was an act of terror. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are hard at work, and we will learn more in the hours and days ahead. For now, we can say for certain that we need to redouble our efforts to defend our country from threats at home and abroad. That means defeating international terror groups, working with allies and partners to go after them wherever they are, countering their attempts to recruit people here and everywhere, and hardening our defenses at home. It also means refusing to be intimidated and staying true to our values.
This was also an act of hate. The gunman attacked an LGBT nightclub during Pride Month. To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions of allies across our country. I am one of them. We will keep fighting for your right to live freely, openly and without fear. Hate has absolutely no place in America.
Finally, we need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals. This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.
This is a time to stand together and resolve to do everything we can to defend our communities and country.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx)
Spoiler:
Our nation is at war. From 9/11 to the Boston Marathon, from Fort Hood to Chattanooga, from San Bernardino to last night's horrific attack in Orlando, radical Islamic terrorism has declared jihad on America. Early reports indicate the Orlando terrorist had pledged his allegiance to ISIS, and he had previously been investigated by the FBI. And yet, as with the prior attacks, we were not able to act to stop this act of vicious terrorism that has now murdered 50 and injured more than 50 others.
Our hearts go out to those killed and wounded last night. Our prayers are with their families, and with all their grieving loved ones.
It is a time for action. We need a Commander in Chief who will speak the truth, and who will unleash the full force and fury of the American military to utterly destroy ISIS and its affiliates. We need to pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act, so that known ISIS terrorists cannot use U.S. passports to return to America and wage jihad. We need a President who is serious - who will identify the enemy by name and do everything necessary to defeat it.
The next few days will be sadly predictable. Democrats will try to use this attack to change the subject. As a matter of rigid ideology, far too many Democrats - from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton - will refuse to utter the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.' They will claim this attack, like they claimed every previous attack, was isolated and had nothing to do with the vicious Islamist theology that is daily waging war on us across the globe. And they will try to exploit this terror attack to undermine the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans.
Enough is enough. What we need is for every American - Democrat and Republican - to come together, abandon political correctness, and unite in defeating radical Islamic terrorism.
ISIS doesn't just target soldiers. They don't just target Republicans. Or Jews. They also target Christians and fellow Muslims. They target each and every one of us. As we saw this morning, they target the gay and lesbian community. Their objective, which they broadcast worldwide, is to murder or forcibly convert every single American.
For all the Democrats who are loud champions of the gay and lesbian community whenever there is a culture battle waging, now is the opportunity to speak out against an ideology that calls for the murder of gays and lesbians. ISIS and the theocracy in Iran (supported with American taxpayer dollars) regularly murder homosexuals, throwing them from buildings and burying them under rocks. This is wrong, it is evil, and we must all stand against it. Every human being has a right to live according to his or her faith and conscience, and nobody has a right to murder someone who doesn't share their faith or sexual orientation. If you're a Democratic politician and you really want to stand for LGBT, show real courage and stand up against the vicious ideology that has targeted our fellow Americans for murder.
Today, all of America stands in solidarity with the people of Orlando. All of us should lift them up in prayer, demand action, and if you have any information about the Orlando shooter or potential radical Islamic terror plots, please act to keep us safe by using the FBI tips website: https://tips.fbi.gov.
DutchWinsAll wrote: or that Christianity wasn't pulled kicking and screaming out of dark-age ideology by other Christians.
What does that have to do with this?
Only that I think Islam can change, but that change can only come from within. The Catholic Church once burned witches and tortured non-believers. They didn't change on their own. Christian liberals and reformers forced that change. And it's a battle that's still going on, but one that the liberal reformers are winning. The pope has come out saying its basically not that bad to be gay, while many respected imams and mullahs are calling for their murder. Of course each faith has some of both in their midst, but I guess I respond more to the ones that are vocal.
Groups like Westboro are a sick joke because they have such little power, even within Christianity. Groups like that do have a lot of power within Islam though, and that's a fight thats worth fighting to me.
EDIT: Probably the biggest reason I'm scared from an act like this is the fact that if this was 4 months later, if this happened on 10/11 instead of 6/11, were looking at a Trump presidency, What I once thought was for the lulz is actually terrifying me now, and things like this will make that happen without a doubt.
Well, at least Trump stayed honest when he said hundreds were implicated... he just left out that very, very few were actually guilty of anything.
It does smell ISIS related. Supposedly he claimed to be an ISIS fighter to the 911 operator. And ISIS has claimed that he was in fact, one of theirs.
A Breitbart article is claiming that sites like Facebook and Reddit are deliberately removing anti-islam pages/topics.
First, don't source fething Breitbart and expect us to take it seriously. Second, so? If they want to post Islamaphobia, they can do it on another site. The whining about "censorhsip" and "free speech" is fething pathetic, especially from the racist, Islamophobic gak-head that have become so prevalent on Reddit. And the mods of r/news are fully within their right to try and put a stop to it on their sub. If people want, they can make their own Islamic hate sub (or, alternatively, use the one that already exists, r/the_donald ).
DutchWinsAll wrote: So people weren't saying Christianity was wrong when that Kim Davis thing was going on? There weren't memes all over the interwebz? I'd remind you of rule 1, but it honestly doesn't really bother me.
DutchWinsAll wrote: Groups like Westboro are a sick joke because they have such little power, even within Christianity.
This is not true at all. Remember, we aren't all that far from Cruz (still a "respectable" mainstream candidate at that point) sharing the stage with and being endorsed by an anti-gay preacher who believes that god's law is the death penalty for homosexuality. The only difference between him and the Muslim guy quoted earlier is that in the US advocating murder is a crime, so he added a little "but we shouldn't kill them yet so they have time to come to Jesus" disclaimer. And that's not even counting the large number of anti-gay Christians who, while they stop short of advocating murder, are not at all shy of expressing their hate.
As for Westboro, let's not forget that they didn't really become a target of near-universal hatred until they started protesting at the funerals of US soldiers and claiming that they were burning in hell for fighting in the army of a gay-loving nation. Had they stuck to attacking gay people directly and not put themselves on the wrong side of "support our troops" they probably wouldn't be considered such irrelevant extremists.
oldravenman3025 wrote: The type of operating system or action is irrelevant. Charles Whitman did plenty of damage with a bolt-action rifle.
I only know this because I literally almost posted this exact example earlier in the thread, but he actually used a M1 carbine mostly, in addition to a rifle and shotgun. Up until a couple of hours ago, I also thought it was solely a bolt action.
DutchWinsAll wrote: The people that support the assault weapons ban, or more specifically my Governor Cuomo..
Since I see Breotan, Ouze, and Whembly, and IIRC, you were all involved in this discussion:
ISIS hits in the US. Apology, any of you? I seem to recall a few years back you all had nasty things to say about me as a person when I predicted this sort of outcome.
A Breitbart article is claiming that sites like Facebook and Reddit are deliberately removing anti-islam pages/topics.
First, don't source fething Breitbart and expect us to take it seriously. Second, so? If they want to post Islamaphobia, they can do it on another site. The whining about "censorhsip" and "free speech" is fething pathetic, especially from the racist, Islamophobic gak-head that have become so prevalent on Reddit. And the mods of r/news are fully within their right to try and put a stop to it on their sub. If people want, they can make their own Islamic hate sub (or, alternatively, use the one that already exists, r/the_donald ).
Not to be overly condescending, but it seems like a strange tack to first claim that a news source is unreliable, then immediatly confirm said source's allegation (but claiming it was a well deserved censoring! ).
In any case, it's worth pointing out that the allegation that there was mass deletions is beyond question: the Mods of /r/news have explicitly admitted they "did a poor job reacting". That this is... hmm, let's call it an understatement, but if the threads linked above are insufficiently amusing, there are plenty of threads (and screen caps) on https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/ addressing the issue.
BaronIveagh wrote: Since I see Breotan, Ouze, and Whembly, and IIRC, you were all involved in this discussion:
ISIS hits in the US. Apology, any of you? I seem to recall a few years back you all had nasty things to say about me as a person when I predicted this sort of outcome.
lolwut? I don't recall that. Feel free to refresh me.
Or at least someone claiming to support ISIS hits in the US. Is there credible evidence for this being an attack organized and supported by ISIS, rather than just one murderous with a gun deciding to do his part for his hateful beliefs?
lolwut? I don't recall that. Feel free to refresh me.
I'm still digging around for the thread, but IIRC, I was a dirty vicious warmonger who wanted Americans to die in a godless foreign land when I said that if the US didn't go there, right away, and stomp the gak out of it while it was small, they would find a way to bring it here.
lolwut? I don't recall that. Feel free to refresh me.
I'm still digging around for the thread, but IIRC, I was a dirty vicious warmonger who wanted Americans to die in a godless foreign land when I said that if the US didn't go there, right away, and stomp the gak out of it while it was small, they would find a way to bring it here.
Peregrine wrote: Is there credible evidence for this being an attack organized and supported by ISIS, rather than just one murderous with a gun deciding to do his part for his hateful beliefs?
ISIS is saying he was thiers, and the FBI investigated him for his connections to them and others in the past. They're not releasing much hard info yet.
No, it was one that got locked that was, I believe, one of that threads predecessors.
Edit: I owe you three an apology: it was Fraz, Dreadclaw69, Kalashnikovmarine and firehead. We were all involved, but they were the offenders in that thread. It was back when the first Sarin gas attacks rolled out and ISIS entered the picture.
I don't think I would ever say, either then or now, that ISIL is not a threat to the US. I would have said they weren't an existential threat, as was sort of argued here and there.
I definitely do not think you can effectively stop mass shootings or lone wolf attacks either of the angry young secular man or the angry young religious man variety. It's just too easy and too cheap to do. This country is awash in guns. Even a flat ban, which would never ever happen, would change that.
Eh, sorry, my memory of threads more that two years old isn't that great. I just remembered that people were really rude and that you three were involved somehow, and that it's pissed me off ever since.
DutchWinsAll wrote: So people weren't saying Christianity was wrong when that Kim Davis thing was going on? There weren't memes all over the interwebz? I'd remind you of rule 1, but it honestly doesn't really bother me.
Since you're by far the funniest person on dakka, I feel bad when you need to correct me. But you're right about that.
I made the mistake of conflating other viewpoints / websites with other viewpoints / websites. I still believe that there is more condemnation of Christian extremists on dakka then Muslim extremists, but a large part of that is physical location and the fact most of us live in Christian majority countries not Muslim, and I shouldn't mix what I see other places with what I write here.
Like I said earlier, this particular attack just might hit too close to home for me to be objective. Besides having gay friends and family, my girlfriend is a transwoman. I've always known these groups would saw my head off for being an American, but it just seemed so distant. Knowing that they are now actively targeting groups that I connect with so much, its just hard for me to not be truly angry. But anger isn't going to solve any of this, just resolve. Resolve to be better and show these fethers that we are stronger and always will be.
Now it's sort of hair splitting, but I think there's a distinction to be made between a terrorist plot planned and financed by ISIL, and a crazy person or groupie doing it, and then claiming an affiliation. In any event, I don't think we can realistically prevent either from happening ever no matter what we do.
Ouze wrote: Now it's sort of hair splitting, but I think there's a distinction to be made between a terrorist plot planned and financed by ISIL, and a crazy person or groupie doing it, and then claiming an affiliation. In any event, I don't think we can realistically prevent either from happening ever no matter what we do.
Also, I don't yet know which of those 2 this was.
I think it's a little of column A and a little of column B. ISIL has been a clearing house of information and propaganda, but most of their money and manpower stays at home In Syria, Libya, and Iraq. I'd say they enabled him, but didn't provide resources.
DutchWinsAll wrote: [nd I shouldn't mix what I see other places with what I write here.
I do that all the time and feel bad (later) when I do. I try to stop but it's a bad habit.
FWIW, I'd agree that there is more condemnation of Christian extremists than Muslim ones here, but I think that might be less about over anti-Christian bias and more about trying to fill an ideological vacuum, or an appeal to moderation, or other such.
Not to be overly condescending, but it seems like a strange tack to first claim that a news source is unreliable, then immediatly confirm said source's allegation (but claiming it was a well deserved censoring! ).
Breitbart is a well known conservative rag. It's basically the liberal Huffington Post, but even more so. It's not a good new source, if fact it's a horrible news source. And, although the facts at an extremely basic level were true, they were wrapped up in bs to push an agenda (i.e. "evil liberals are silencing speech!").
And it's not censorship, if I private company doesn't want to have it on their site, they are fully entitled to remove it. Try posting real extreme racism/sexism/homophobia here and you'll probably get your post deleted. And it still wouldn't have feth-all to do with "free speech". You are allowed to say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean people/companies are forced to give you an outlet.
In any case, it's worth pointing out that the allegation that there was mass deletions is beyond question: the Mods of /r/news have explicitly admitted they "did a poor job reacting". That this is... hmm, let's call it an understatement, but if the threads linked above are insufficiently amusing, there are plenty of threads (and screen caps) on https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/ addressing the issue.
Oh, yes, I just think it's not a big deal. It's people whining about "censorship" while the mods (all 19 of them) tried to deal with mass brigading, stupid amounts of spam and hate, a huge amount of duplicate threads. It wasn't some mass conspiracy or bs like that. They answered exactly what happened and why.
And some KiA, "Oh, no, evil ESSJAYDUBLRYOUS are coming to take our free speech!!!!!1!" gak is not very convincing.
DutchWinsAll wrote: [nd I shouldn't mix what I see other places with what I write here.
I do that all the time and feel bad (later) when I do. I try to stop but it's a bad habit.
FWIW, I'd agree that there is more condemnation of Christian extremists than Muslim ones here, but I think that might be less about over anti-Christian bias and more about trying to fill an ideological vacuum, or an appeal to moderation, or other such.
I blame tabs. I can go from any extreme to the other with one mouse click.
They come in handy when surfing other things though.
And I just hope more people will remember your H.L. Mencken level of destruction of a poster through a blogpost. That was seriously some next level stuff lol.
Ouze wrote: Also, I don't yet know which of those 2 this was.
I'm pretty sure it's a case of the lone wolf claiming affiliation to make himself seem part of something larger, or to make him seem more sinister in the public eye.
BaronIveagh wrote: Since I see Breotan, Ouze, and Whembly, and IIRC, you were all involved in this discussion:
ISIS hits in the US. Apology, any of you? I seem to recall a few years back you all had nasty things to say about me as a person when I predicted this sort of outcome.
BaronIveagh wrote: Since I see Breotan, Ouze, and Whembly, and IIRC, you were all involved in this discussion:
ISIS hits in the US. Apology, any of you? I seem to recall a few years back you all had nasty things to say about me as a person when I predicted this sort of outcome.
Breotan wrote: I'm pretty sure it's a case of the lone wolf claiming affiliation to make himself seem part of something larger, or to make him seem more sinister in the public eye.
And of course ISIS has incentive to claim credit even if they didn't provide any meaningful help.
BaronIveagh wrote: Since I see Breotan, Ouze, and Whembly, and IIRC, you were all involved in this discussion:
ISIS hits in the US. Apology, any of you? I seem to recall a few years back you all had nasty things to say about me as a person when I predicted this sort of outcome.
Breotan wrote: I'm pretty sure it's a case of the lone wolf claiming affiliation to make himself seem part of something larger, or to make him seem more sinister in the public eye.
And of course ISIS has incentive to claim credit even if they didn't provide any meaningful help.
This. It isn't separated purely into 'Guy trained and armed by ISIS', and 'Guy who ISIS doesn't know exists', I'd argue that there's a third far more common category, 'Guy who talks to ISIS a lot over the internet, and receives advice/suggestions from them'. They're lone wolves in that there's nobody funding or acting in concert with them (unless ISIS was lucky enough to radicalise someone else nearby at the same time), but the two are in contact.
Frankly, they're the kind of people ISIS wants to cultivate most, people who will sacrifice themselves abroad and grab headlines in the name of ISIS in exchange for a few hundred hours of web grooming. Not a bad tradeoff.
BlaxicanX wrote: Do you read what you're typing before you post it? Do you have the basic intelligence required to understand how slimey and vile it is to use a tragedy like this as an opportunity to make idiotic"gotcha" statements like the ones you're making in this thread?
Do you know what Dakka's RULE NUMBER ONE is? If you don't like what someone posts, click the little triangle of friendship over on the right and tell an admin.
To me, this person's analysis appears spot on (she spent 7 years in West Africa, so she knows what she’s talking about. ), which she surmises that this was a text book lone wolf attack--culled from her twitter timeline:
Rukmini Callimachi @rcallimachi 12h12 hours ago
1. Afternoon everyone, I'm in Paris on assignment but will be Tweeting shortly about the Orlando attacks. Join me here for a discussion
2. Police is classifying the Orlando shooting a "terror incident." It's of course too early to say, so the usual caveats apply.
3. If it is the Islamic State, what we can expect is that it will be claimed within 1-2 days on one of their official Telegram channels.
3. I follow these channels & have scoured them & there's nothing as yet - but it's still early. Remember San Bernardino was claimed next day
4 What I did find is a channel run by ISIS sympathizers which is gloating: "US crying over 20 dead homos. Lol."
5. What bears noting is the timing, occurring in the holy month of Ramadan, which has historically been when ISIS & al-Qaeda ramp up attacks
6. in May, ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani issued his pre-Ramadan speech, inciting violence in West, and specifically naming America
7. He argues that acts of terror carried out during Ramadan will bring greater rewards and he makes 2 arguments meant to incite Lone Wolves
8. He tells them that if they failed to travel to Syria, they can now join the jihad by carrying out terror in the land of the infidel
9. More interestingly, Adnani says he's heard from ISIS fans in West who are unable to reach military targets & balk at killing civilans
10. In his speech, Adnani exerts effort to reassure them that killing civilians inc women & children in West is both legal and encouraged
11 Here's an excerpt of Adnani's speech translated by @siteintelgroup: "We have heard from some of you that you are unable to do your work"
12. ... "of your inability to reach military targets & because you are too embarrassed to target what is called civilian targets."
13. "So know that in the heartland of the Crusaders there's no protection for that blood & there is no presence of what we call innocents.”
14. Adnani encourages Lone Wolves to therefore hit any & all targets in Europe & America that will engender civilian deaths during Ramadan
15. By the way, this is an interesting shift that began in spring 2015, according to @JcBrisard following a Q & A in ISIS' French magazine
16. In the March 31, 2015 interview, Boubacar al-Hakim, considered the 'Godfather' of French jihad advises brothers to drop the symbolism
18. According to @JcBrisard, that interview is key because of the salient role of Boubaker al-Hakim in the French terror network.
19. Up until then, most of the terror plots in Europe by ISIS sympathizers had some level of symbolism: Hit a church, hit a police station.
20. Starting with the Thalys train shooting then Reda Hame's foiled Aug 15 plot to attack a rock concert you see ISIS going for soft targets
21 Again folks ISIS has not claimed this attack. We're still in the early hours. My thoughts are meant to provide context if in fact they do
22 Reuters reporting 50 dead in Orlando. If police are correct & this is terrorism, it's one of the worst since 9/11
23. FYI everyone, ISIS has just issued its daily news bulletin. Of note - no mention of Orlando
Spoiler:
24. Numerous media outlets including @washingtonpost have confirmed that the Orlando gunman called 911 to pledge allegiance to ISIS.
25. It's important to understand the role so-called "Lone Wolves" play in ISIS' mission of spreading terror, which is often misunderstood
26. As early as 2014, ISIS explained that *anyone* could carry out an act of terror in their name. "Do not ask for permission," Adnani said
27. They later codified this, and advised that their supporters should pledge allegiance in a public forum, before carrying out the attack
28. Idea is simple: ISIS floods the internet with their gory propaganda hoping to incite anyone inc the mentally unwell, then claims credit
28. The fact that there is no link back to the core is *by design* and is intended to protect the organization in an age of surveillance
29. In recent yrs we have seen pattern unfold. Take San Bernardino. Same day as Dec 2 attack, assailant posted pledge of allegiance on FB
30. Take the Garland, Texas attack by Elton Simpson. Minutes before the shooting started, he posted his pledge of allegiance on Twitter
31. It's important to learn the lingo. Pledging allegiance in ISIS terminology is "pledging bay'ah":
32. And oath of allegiance is usually directed to "Amirul al-Mumineem," or "Emir of the Believers," the honorific used to refer to Baghdadi
33. Keep in mind these unfamiliar terms are being thrown around on social media by native English speakers, not Arabic speakers
34. What that shows is that they are steeped enough in the online ISIS world to learn the terror group's secret code.
35. I'm curious to know what terms the shooter used on the 911 call. Did he just pledge allegiance? Did he refer to Emir of the Believers?
35. Here are some other examples of Lone Wolves from Europe, and the manner in which they signaled their allegiance to ISIS:
36. On Jan. 7, a man charged a police station in Paris carrying a butcher’s knife. An image of the ISIS flag was found on his body & a note
37. BREAKING NEWS: ISIS' official news wire, the Amaq News Agency, has just claimed the Orlando shooting.
38. Alert was posted on Amaq's Telegram channel circa 2 pm EST meaning 12 hrs after attack (well under 2 days it took post San Bernardino)
39. Here is a screen grab of the Amaq announcement. Notice the wording regarding information from a source:
Spoiler:
40 Alert says "Source to Amaq: The attack that targeted a nightclub for homosexuals in Orlando..was carried out by an Islamic State fighter"
41. Language to me indicates the shooter was not dispatched from the core / is a Lone Wolf. Amaq was awaiting confirmation of ISIS pledge
43. The idea of a hostage standoff is first floated by ISIS in June 2015. 1st evidence of it that we have is the interrogation of Reda Hame
43. Hame was a Parisian IT professional who traveled to Syria, trained with ISIS and was sent back under orders of Abdelhamid Abaaoud
44. Abaaoud was mastermind of Nov 13 Paris attacks. But before Paris, he trained Hame, instructing him to attack a rock venue &take hostages
44. Based on interrogation log, it's clear that the tactic of taking hostages is intended to prolong the op for maximum media exposure
45. Also purpose of a hostage standoff is for shooter to die a "martyr." That ensures he cannot be interrogated, and hence used for intel
Not to be overly condescending, but it seems like a strange tack to first claim that a news source is unreliable, then immediatly confirm said source's allegation (but claiming it was a well deserved censoring! ).
Breitbart is a well known conservative rag. It's basically the liberal Huffington Post, but even more so. It's not a good new source, if fact it's a horrible news source. And, although the facts at an extremely basic level were true, they were wrapped up in bs to push an agenda (i.e. "evil liberals are silencing speech!").
And it's not censorship, if I private company doesn't want to have it on their site, they are fully entitled to remove it. Try posting real extreme racism/sexism/homophobia here and you'll probably get your post deleted. And it still wouldn't have feth-all to do with "free speech". You are allowed to say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean people/companies are forced to give you an outlet.
Let me correct you for a moment, no one considers these mods "liberals", they seem to be firmly ensconced in the regressive, authoritarian left. Like the Social Justice movement (of which it may be sometimes considered a part) this is an illiberal and authoritarian movement.
As for your point about censorship, there are three issues with it. The first is that Reddit (or, in this case, its mods) does not have unfettered ability to simply delete material; the TOS does more then simply grant them rights, it also establishes a code of conduct that is prevents capricious deletion of material that conforms to stated norms. Second, Reddit is a public company with a business model based around the idea of being a forum; while you may be unimpressed with the severity of their actions, there is a very valid reason to draw attention to such actions. The public is not so sanguine as you might imagine at the notion of a public forum exercising such capricious moderation.
Third and most importantly, for liberals free speech is a value, not simply a legalistic entitlement, just as censorship extends beyond that which is enforced by government diktat. This is leads to amplifying the last point; the idea that Reddit reserves an unfettered right to delete news about the largest mass casualty attack in the USA since 9/11 is offensive to many people beyond the politically conservative.
In any case, it's worth pointing out that the allegation that there was mass deletions is beyond question: the Mods of /r/news have explicitly admitted they "did a poor job reacting". That this is... hmm, let's call it an understatement, but if the threads linked above are insufficiently amusing, there are plenty of threads (and screen caps) on https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/ addressing the issue.
Oh, yes, I just think it's not a big deal. It's people whining about "censorship" while the mods (all 19 of them) tried to deal with mass brigading, stupid amounts of spam and hate, a huge amount of duplicate threads. It wasn't some mass conspiracy or bs like that. They answered exactly what happened and why.
And some KiA, "Oh, no, evil ESSJAYDUBLRYOUS are coming to take our free speech!!!!!1!" gak is not very convincing.
Again, at the risk of being condescending, given that you have endorsed a vastly narrower and more legalistic concept of 'free speech' (certainly then my own), perhaps convincing you is not so very high on the Breitbart priority list? Rather, they are attempting to convey this information to liberals, conservatives and classical liberals that, as Milo Yiannopolis likes to say, believe in sunlight as the best disinfectant.
But to reiterate my above point: this incident is damaging to Reddit as a brand. For hours today the default news board on Reddit had nothing on the biggest terror attack in the US post 9/11!
So I didn't know about this attack till about ~30 mins before I made my first post. My mom called me to talk about it because of how terrible it was, and the fact her brother is gay, and she knows I'm not a 1 on the Kinsey scale. Looking back on what I wrote, it was harsh and not really representative of what I believe in.
You could make an argument that I'm not very liberal, even though I believe I am. Either way, an attack made me feel personally connected to it, caused me to drudge up a lot of violent, reactionary thoughts.
I'm still angry. I know I shouldn't blame others for the sins they didn't commit, but its real hard.to not blame an institution for me. Especially an institution like an Abrahamic religion that I've already rejected.
50 men didn't die last night because we stupidly invaded Iraq and killed ~20,000 civilians (estimate I read) They died because a bunch of fething donkey-caves think their God is better than our God. Even though probably most of the guys there didn't believe in either God.
Again, I probably shouldn't be posting as its really hitting me so close, but I'm also pretty high soooo I am. Who else is pumped for Mk. III?
DutchWinsAll wrote: So I didn't know about this attack till about ~30 mins before I made my first post. My mom called me to talk about it because of how terrible it was, and the fact her brother is gay, and she knows I'm not a 1 on the Kinsey scale. Looking back on what I wrote, it was harsh and not really representative of what I believe in.
You could make an argument that I'm not very liberal, even though I believe I am. Either way, an attack made me feel personally connected to it, caused me to drudge up a lot of violent, reactionary thoughts.
I'm still angry. I know I shouldn't blame others for the sins they didn't commit, but its real hard.to not blame an institution for me. Especially an institution like an Abrahamic religion that I've already rejected.
50 men didn't die last night because we stupidly invaded Iraq and killed ~20,000 civilians (estimate I read) They died because a bunch of fething donkey-caves think their God is better than our God. Even though probably most of the guys there didn't believe in either God.
Again, I probably shouldn't be posting as its really hitting me so close, but I'm also pretty high soooo I am. Who else is pumped for Mk. III?
I'm going to say, you sound like you have a lot on your mind. Maybe an early night would be good? I mean, sleep on it.
DutchWinsAll wrote: So I didn't know about this attack till about ~30 mins before I made my first post. My mom called me to talk about it because of how terrible it was, and the fact her brother is gay, and she knows I'm not a 1 on the Kinsey scale. Looking back on what I wrote, it was harsh and not really representative of what I believe in.
You could make an argument that I'm not very liberal, even though I believe I am. Either way, an attack made me feel personally connected to it, caused me to drudge up a lot of violent, reactionary thoughts.
I'm still angry. I know I shouldn't blame others for the sins they didn't commit, but its real hard.to not blame an institution for me. Especially an institution like an Abrahamic religion that I've already rejected.
50 men didn't die last night because we stupidly invaded Iraq and killed ~20,000 civilians (estimate I read) They died because a bunch of fething donkey-caves think their God is better than our God. Even though probably most of the guys there didn't believe in either God.
Again, I probably shouldn't be posting as its really hitting me so close, but I'm also pretty high soooo I am. Who else is pumped for Mk. III?
No fault on your end. Idiots are idiots. They always have been, they always will be. Now we just have more capacity to kill, Twitter, CNN, Facebook, and every other platform to repeat it to us. The good news? Pretty much every decent human being disagrees with the tactics and goals of the idiot. That's a marked distinction from the past. That is progress.
Buzzsaw wrote: The first is that Reddit (or, in this case, its mods) does not have unfettered ability to simply delete material; the TOS does more then simply grant them rights, it also establishes a code of conduct that is prevents capricious deletion of material that conforms to stated norms.
Apparently they do have that right. And the TOS is not a binding legal contract, if Reddit wants to delete your post you have no legal rights to do anything about it (other than complain, of course).
Second, Reddit is a public company with a business model based around the idea of being a forum; while you may be unimpressed with the severity of their actions, there is a very valid reason to draw attention to such actions. The public is not so sanguine as you might imagine at the notion of a public forum exercising such capricious moderation.
Ah yes, the same old "moderation is bad" complaints that have existed for as long as there have been internet forums. I think you're rather mistaken about the opinion of the public here. Much of the public considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools with very little redeeming value and would not lose much sleep over it if they instantly disappeared.
Third and most importantly, for liberals free speech is a value, not simply a legalistic entitlement, just as censorship extends beyond that which is enforced by government diktat. This is leads to amplifying the last point; the idea that Reddit reserves an unfettered right to delete news about the largest mass casualty attack in the USA since 9/11 is offensive to many people beyond the politically conservative.
And those "liberals" are badly mistaken. Any argument that a private website does not have the right to decide what content they allow is simply not dealing with reality. If you don't like Reddit's policies then you are free to have your discussion of the news elsewhere. But Reddit declining to provide you with a place to have your discussion is not an infringement of your right to free speech.
But to reiterate my above point: this incident is damaging to Reddit as a brand. For hours today the default news board on Reddit had nothing on the biggest terror attack in the US post 9/11!
Now finally we come to a valid point. Reddit's customers may not be happy about this and it may cost them money. But that's certainly a much less impressive claim than all the attempts at portraying this as some kind of moral issue.
Listening to, and reading, Obama's comments today didn't come across at all as an attempt to get more gun control passed.
Honestly, he did sound pissed once again, but it felt more like he was pointing at the tragedy and admitted defeat while stating "if we are okay with all these tragedies because guns are so important, then that is the choice we have made as a nation."
Buzzsaw wrote: Let me correct you for a moment, no one considers these mods "liberals", they seem to be firmly ensconced in the regressive, authoritarian left. Like the Social Justice movement (of which it may be sometimes considered a part) this is an illiberal and authoritarian movement.
Well, you have yet to prove that this was any more than an under-staffed sub dealing (poorly) with a massive amount of traffic, brigrading, and hate. I'll be interested to hear your theory.
As for your point about censorship, there are three issues with it. The first is that Reddit (or, in this case, its mods) does not have unfettered ability to simply delete material; the TOS does more then simply grant them rights, it also establishes a code of conduct that is prevents capricious deletion of material that conforms to stated norms. Second, Reddit is a public company with a business model based around the idea of being a forum; while you may be unimpressed with the severity of their actions, there is a very valid reason to draw attention to such actions. The public is not so sanguine as you might imagine at the notion of a public forum exercising such capricious moderation.
Yes, they very much do. They own it, they can do what they like. More to the point, it's not even the admins, it's the mods of a single sub. These are not reddit employees. These are just people who made a subreddit. If they want to decree that only news about badgers can be posted, they can fething do that.
Third and most importantly, for liberals free speech is a value, not simply a legalistic entitlement, just as censorship extends beyond that which is enforced by government diktat. This is leads to amplifying the last point; the idea that Reddit reserves an unfettered right to delete news about the largest mass casualty attack in the USA since 9/11 is offensive to many people beyond the politically conservative.
You have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to an audience. If you want to spout hate, you can do it on your own forum. It's a privately run company, don't like it? Use something different. Also, I will point out, again, that this is not the reddit admins, but the mods of a single sub.
Again, at the risk of being condescending, given that you have endorsed a vastly narrower and more legalistic concept of 'free speech' (certainly then my own), perhaps convincing you is not so very high on the Breitbart priority list? Rather, they are attempting to convey this information to liberals, conservatives and classical liberals that, as Milo Yiannopolis likes to say, believe in sunlight as the best disinfectant.
I'd be interested to see what yours is. Mine it that you are allowed to freely speak and express yourself without being stopped by the government. You have the right to speak, but you can't force people tolerate your speech if they find it repugnant. You can speak, but nobody has to give you the microphone.
And, no, it's not even on Brietbart's priory lists, because it's barley a news source. It has one purpose, to spread mis-information to push an ultra-conservative viewpoint. I think Whembly quite accurately described it "horsecrap"
Also the fact you are holding up fething Yiannopolis as some sort authority would be hilarious if it was so depressing. Methinks you won;t
But to reiterate my above point: this incident is damaging to Reddit as a brand. For hours today the default news board on Reddit had nothing on the biggest terror attack in the US post 9/11!
Well, not really. Most people don't give a gak either way, and these aren't reddit employees. They're just mods of r/news.
Also, no, they had quite a bit, but were dealing with spam and their auto-mod that deletes duplicate threads overcompensating because of that. As addressed int he post you listed if you had stopped to read it.
d-usa wrote: Listening to, and reading, Obama's comments today didn't come across at all as an attempt to get more gun control passed.
Honestly, he did sound pissed once again, but it felt more like he was pointing at the tragedy and admitted defeat while stating "if we are okay with all these tragedies because guns are so important, then that is the choice we have made as a nation."
That's how I saw it. He was putting it in our court and saying, you don't like it, deal with it how you see fit. Basically, what a president can say, legally speaking.
I appologize in advance: much of my reply will seem condescending, but given how wrong much of Peregrine's post is, I'm not entirely sure how it could be otherwise.
Buzzsaw wrote: The first is that Reddit (or, in this case, its mods) does not have unfettered ability to simply delete material; the TOS does more then simply grant them rights, it also establishes a code of conduct that is prevents capricious deletion of material that conforms to stated norms.
Apparently they do have that right. And the TOS is not a binding legal contract, if Reddit wants to delete your post you have no legal rights to do anything about it (other than complain, of course).
Hmmm... "This agreement is a legal contract between you and us." Now, I'm not... oh, wait, I am an attorney! Yeah, this thing that claims to be a legal contract, it's a legal contract. There is even a choice of venue clause.
Second, Reddit is a public company with a business model based around the idea of being a forum; while you may be unimpressed with the severity of their actions, there is a very valid reason to draw attention to such actions. The public is not so sanguine as you might imagine at the notion of a public forum exercising such capricious moderation.
Ah yes, the same old "moderation is bad" complaints that have existed for as long as there have been internet forums. I think you're rather mistaken about the opinion of the public here. Much of the public considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools with very little redeeming value and would not lose much sleep over it if they instantly disappeared.
Putting aside how this is completely unsupported assertion on your part, would it still not be fair to point out that Reddit's target audience is almost certainly not "the public [that] considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools"? I mean, it's not like Reddit had previously suffered a consumer revolt...
Third and most importantly, for liberals free speech is a value, not simply a legalistic entitlement, just as censorship extends beyond that which is enforced by government diktat. This is leads to amplifying the last point; the idea that Reddit reserves an unfettered right to delete news about the largest mass casualty attack in the USA since 9/11 is offensive to many people beyond the politically conservative.
And those "liberals" are badly mistaken. Any argument that a private website does not have the right to decide what content they allow is simply not dealing with reality. If you don't like Reddit's policies then you are free to have your discussion of the news elsewhere. But Reddit declining to provide you with a place to have your discussion is not an infringement of your right to free speech.
First, you seem to be incapable of distinguishing from a value held and a legal right... which was kinda my point. Second, while these "liberals" (nice scare quotes) may be old fashioned, I'll admit I rather have a soft spot for people of principle like Prof. Dershowitz. Then again he probably also would not have confused the value of free speech with the constitutional right.
But to reiterate my above point: this incident is damaging to Reddit as a brand. For hours today the default news board on Reddit had nothing on the biggest terror attack in the US post 9/11!
Now finally we come to a valid point. Reddit's customers may not be happy about this and it may cost them money. But that's certainly a much less impressive claim than all the attempts at portraying this as some kind of moral issue.
Just to clear, I make the complaint that, among many other problematic elements, Social Justice and the Regressive Left have a disturbingly limited and legalistic understanding of free speech. Your refutation of that as a moral point is... to explicitly disclaim a broad understanding of free speech? This seems.... counterproductive.
Buzzsaw wrote: Let me correct you for a moment, no one considers these mods "liberals", they seem to be firmly ensconced in the regressive, authoritarian left. Like the Social Justice movement (of which it may be sometimes considered a part) this is an illiberal and authoritarian movement.
Well, you have yet to prove that this was any more than an under-staffed sub dealing (poorly) with a massive amount of traffic, brigrading, and hate. I'll be interested to hear your theory.
As for your point about censorship, there are three issues with it. The first is that Reddit (or, in this case, its mods) does not have unfettered ability to simply delete material; the TOS does more then simply grant them rights, it also establishes a code of conduct that is prevents capricious deletion of material that conforms to stated norms. Second, Reddit is a public company with a business model based around the idea of being a forum; while you may be unimpressed with the severity of their actions, there is a very valid reason to draw attention to such actions. The public is not so sanguine as you might imagine at the notion of a public forum exercising such capricious moderation.
Yes, they very much do. They own it, they can do what they like. More to the point, it's not even the admins, it's the mods of a single sub. These are not reddit employees. These are just people who made a subreddit. If they want to decree that only news about badgers can be posted, they can fething do that.
Third and most importantly, for liberals free speech is a value, not simply a legalistic entitlement, just as censorship extends beyond that which is enforced by government diktat. This is leads to amplifying the last point; the idea that Reddit reserves an unfettered right to delete news about the largest mass casualty attack in the USA since 9/11 is offensive to many people beyond the politically conservative.
You have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to an audience. If you want to spout hate, you can do it on your own forum. It's a privately run company, don't like it? Use something different. Also, I will point out, again, that this is not the reddit admins, but the mods of a single sub.
Again, at the risk of being condescending, given that you have endorsed a vastly narrower and more legalistic concept of 'free speech' (certainly then my own), perhaps convincing you is not so very high on the Breitbart priority list? Rather, they are attempting to convey this information to liberals, conservatives and classical liberals that, as Milo Yiannopolis likes to say, believe in sunlight as the best disinfectant.
I'd be interested to see what yours is. Mine it that you are allowed to freely speak and express yourself without being stopped by the government. You have the right to speak, but you can't force people tolerate your speech if they find it repugnant. You can speak, but nobody has to give you the microphone.
And, no, it's not even on Brietbart's priory lists, because it's barley a news source. It has one purpose, to spread mis-information to push an ultra-conservative viewpoint. I think Whembly quite accurately described it "horsecrap"
Also the fact you are holding up fething Yiannopolis as some sort authority would be hilarious if it was so depressing. Methinks you won;t
But to reiterate my above point: this incident is damaging to Reddit as a brand. For hours today the default news board on Reddit had nothing on the biggest terror attack in the US post 9/11!
Well, not really. Most people don't give a gak either way, and these aren't reddit employees. They're just mods of r/news.
Also, no, they had quite a bit, but were dealing with spam and their auto-mod that deletes duplicate threads overcompensating because of that. As addressed int he post you listed if you had stopped to read it.
Most of what I said to Peregrine applies so I'll just go to the big point (it's late); do you guys seriously have no understanding that there is a difference between the value of free speech, of Tolerance, and an American's protections under the First Amendment?
I... I mean, you guys do understand that Voltaire, the variously mangled quotes attributed to him and all the rest of those enlightenment ideals, they weren't creations of the American Constitution, Right? That these values both exist independent of the Constitution and predate it. That, indeed, someone may have a substantially broader appreciation of Tolerance then the strict fence of the Constitution.
Buzzsaw wrote: Hmmm... "This agreement is a legal contract between you and us." Now, I'm not... oh, wait, I am an attorney! Yeah, this thing that claims to be a legal contract, it's a legal contract. There is even a choice of venue clause.
And look what I found in this "this is a legal contract" page:
Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.
So, wherever this "moderators can't remove stuff they don't like" rule is it isn't in the legal document. If it exists at all it must be in some informal code of conduct, much like the dakka forum rules.
Putting aside how this is completely unsupported assertion on your part, would it still not be fair to point out that Reddit's target audience is almost certainly not "the public [that] considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools"?
Sure, that's Reddit's target audience. But you made a comment about society as a whole disapproving of Reddit's actions. If you want to change that to "some of Reddit's target market may be unhappy with the product they are offered" then that's a much less impressive claim.
First, you seem to be incapable of distinguishing from a value held and a legal right... which was kinda my point.
And I'm also talking about values. Aside from the legal question any position that a private website does not have the right to control what content they publish is a value that is not dealing with reality. If you're being a in my house I am free to kick you out without any value conflicts at all.
Most of what I said to Peregrine applies so I'll just go to the big point (it's late); do you guys seriously have no understanding that there is a difference between the value of free speech, of Tolerance, and an American's protections under the First Amendment?
Of course I do. You just don't seem to understand the concept of private property rights involved here. Reddit is not a public space. It is a private website owned by a corporation. It has no obligation to allow unrestricted discussion, and it is not reasonable to expect it to. And this is where the confusion comes from: you've decided that Reddit is something that it isn't, and you act like it's some kind of assault on your values when Reddit doesn't act according to your expectations.
You would have a point about your "free speech as a value goes beyond US law" idea if there was some kind of suppression of speech going on, but that's not the case here. Nobody is hacking an unpopular website to bring it down and silence the views it publishes. Nobody is stealing unpopular books off the shelf and destroying them so that nobody can read those unpopular ideas. A private website is simply saying "we don't want to publish this". There are still plenty of places for you to speak and publish whatever things Reddit will not allow. In fact, given that this seems to be a problem with subreddit moderators rather than Reddit policy as a whole, you can even speak ON REDDIT if you want. You might not get as much of an audience as if you published your thoughts elsewhere, but your freedom to speak is not being denied just because nobody wants to listen to you.
Seeing as reddit is now deleting comments with links on how to donate blood, I think its a good time to say talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. But please, post more pics of nice people of a certain Abrahamic religious faith. That ought to fix perception being reality... double plus good.
Crablezworth wrote: Seeing as reddit is now deleting comments with links on how to donate blood, I think its a good time to say talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I guess you missed the part where the comments were deleted accidentally in the middle of troll problems? Are we really going to make a big deal out of volunteer moderators on a high-traffic site failing to be perfect at moderation?
But please, post more pics of nice people of a certain Abrahamic religious faith. That ought to fix perception being reality...
Oskar Schindler was a Nazi, and he did a lot of good. Clearly we can't judge those who follow National Socialism as bad people in light of this counter-example.
Oskar Schindler was a Nazi, and he did a lot of good. Clearly we can't judge those who follow National Socialism as bad people in light of this counter-example.
What does a fascist dictatorship(Nazi!) and a religion have to do with each other?
Oskar Schindler was a Nazi, and he did a lot of good. Clearly we can't judge those who follow National Socialism as bad people in light of this counter-example.
What does a fascist dictatorship(Nazi!) and a religion have to do with each other?
Nothing guys, the answer is nothing!
A better question is what a political party and a religion have to do with each other.
The answer is that it's your choice to join and adhere to their ideology. Thus, as long as we can point to a few good apples in a bad bunch, we can't ever judge.
Seaward wrote: Oskar Schindler was a Nazi, and he did a lot of good. Clearly we can't judge those who follow National Socialism as bad people in light of this counter-example.
You know, that's a good point. It really isn't fair to excuse the actions of the vast majority of a group just because you can find a small handful of examples of good people in the group who didn't go along with all the bad stuff. We should assume that everyone in the group is guilty until we have documented counter-examples of at least 51% of the group acting on the side of good. And mere apathy towards the subject is not sufficient, we must have evidence of them actively expressing support for the good side.
Of course I expect you to apply this rule consistently and never dispute the idea that Christians are all gay-hating bigots by posting examples of Christians who support gay rights. But that shouldn't be very hard, since it is after all a very good rule.
Peregrine wrote: You know, that's a good point. It really isn't fair to excuse the actions of the vast majority of a group just because you can find a small handful of examples of good people in the group who didn't go along with all the bad stuff. We should assume that everyone in the group is guilty until we have documented counter-examples of at least 51% of the group acting on the side of good. And mere apathy towards the subject is not sufficient, we must have evidence of them actively expressing support for the good side.
Of course I expect you to apply this rule consistently and never dispute the idea that Christians are all gay-hating bigots by posting examples of Christians who support gay rights. But that shouldn't be very hard, since it is after all a very good rule.
I'm perfectly happy to denigrate - or, to use the progressive phrase du jour, "call out" - Christians for bs behavior.
So are the people working double shifts on the Islam apologia these days, because hypocrisy's all the rage with that set.
Buzzsaw wrote: Hmmm... "This agreement is a legal contract between you and us." Now, I'm not... oh, wait, I am an attorney! Yeah, this thing that claims to be a legal contract, it's a legal contract. There is even a choice of venue clause.
And look what I found in this "this is a legal contract" page:
Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.
So, wherever this "moderators can't remove stuff they don't like" rule is it isn't in the legal document. If it exists at all it must be in some informal code of conduct, much like the dakka forum rules.
Putting aside how this is completely unsupported assertion on your part, would it still not be fair to point out that Reddit's target audience is almost certainly not "the public [that] considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools"?
Sure, that's Reddit's target audience. But you made a comment about society as a whole disapproving of Reddit's actions. If you want to change that to "some of Reddit's target market may be unhappy with the product they are offered" then that's a much less impressive claim.
First, you seem to be incapable of distinguishing from a value held and a legal right... which was kinda my point.
And I'm also talking about values. Aside from the legal question any position that a private website does not have the right to control what content they publish is a value that is not dealing with reality. If you're being a in my house I am free to kick you out without any value conflicts at all.
Most of what I said to Peregrine applies so I'll just go to the big point (it's late); do you guys seriously have no understanding that there is a difference between the value of free speech, of Tolerance, and an American's protections under the First Amendment?
Of course I do. You just don't seem to understand the concept of private property rights involved here. Reddit is not a public space. It is a private website owned by a corporation. It has no obligation to allow unrestricted discussion, and it is not reasonable to expect it to. And this is where the confusion comes from: you've decided that Reddit is something that it isn't, and you act like it's some kind of assault on your values when Reddit doesn't act according to your expectations.
You would have a point about your "free speech as a value goes beyond US law" idea if there was some kind of suppression of speech going on, but that's not the case here. Nobody is hacking an unpopular website to bring it down and silence the views it publishes. Nobody is stealing unpopular books off the shelf and destroying them so that nobody can read those unpopular ideas. A private website is simply saying "we don't want to publish this". There are still plenty of places for you to speak and publish whatever things Reddit will not allow. In fact, given that this seems to be a problem with subreddit moderators rather than Reddit policy as a whole, you can even speak ON REDDIT if you want. You might not get as much of an audience as if you published your thoughts elsewhere, but your freedom to speak is not being denied just because nobody wants to listen to you.
Hmm, I think this is probably my last response to you, as it seems almost unfailing that whenever talking about any topic in the vague vicinity of Social Justice your replies are either intellectually dishonest, manage misconstrue my points or simply factually wrong. Putting aside the goal post moving and other quibbles, the above post is a fine example of this: you made a very specific claim, on which rested the entirety of your other points, that "the TOS is not a binding legal contract, if Reddit wants to delete your post you have no legal rights to do anything about it".
This isn't a little wrong, but rather completely wrong, as I pointed out. Because this one point was wrong, every other point in your analysis is wrong. Even the quote you supplied undermines your argument; "Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.." Having signed a formal, legal agreement there is a contractual relationship between Reddit and its users, not the relationship between a homeowner and an invitee.
Now, while that difference is important and undermines the rest of your points, the thing is... you're kinda creeping me out. In all our back and forth discussions, the closest you've ever come to expressing an understanding of tolerance as a virtue or a moral responsibility is... "Of course I do", followed by two paragraphs demonstrating that, in fact, you do not. So I'm going to leave you be; you've cemented some suspicions I've had about social justice and its adherents, but mostly you've convinced me that whatever star guides your moral compass, it's not the North mine points to.
Seaward wrote: I'm perfectly happy to denigrate - or, to use the progressive phrase du jour, "call out" - Christians for bs behavior.
And I'm happy to call out Muslims for their behavior. The point of the picture was not that all Muslims are wonderful people who do nothing wrong, it was a statement against the people arguing things like "we need to keep Muslim immigrants out". Because, aside from whether or not a ban on people of a particular religion is even possible, that means applying the same rules to Muslims who support gay rights and are not a threat. Calling for a blanket ban on Muslim immigrants makes no more sense than calling for a blanket ban on Christian immigrants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Buzzsaw wrote: This isn't a little wrong, but rather completely wrong, as I pointed out. Because this one point was wrong, every other point in your analysis is wrong. Even the quote you supplied undermines your argument; "Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.." Having signed a formal, legal agreement there is a contractual relationship between Reddit and its users, not the relationship between a homeowner and an invitee.
No, it isn't wrong at all. You cited a rule which does not exist in the TOS you linked to. The fact that you were able to find some unrelated document that does function as a legal contract has nothing to do with the fact that whatever "moderators can not delete posts just because they feel like it" policy you seem to think exists does not exist in a legally-binding contract. Perhaps it is found in some "good practices for running a popular subreddit" document somewhere, but that is not the same as a legally-binding contract.
In all our back and forth discussions, the closest you've ever come to expressing an understanding of tolerance as a virtue or a moral responsibility is... "Of course I do", followed by two paragraphs demonstrating that, in fact, you do not.
Only because you have a bizarre definition of "tolerance" that seems to consist of "being able to do or say whatever you want without being criticized" and "if I want to say something people are obligated to listen and help me publish my views". This is, needless to say, not the conventional definition of the word.
whatever star guides your moral compass, it's not the North mine points to.
Finally you found something to say that is indisputably true...
Mina Justice was sound asleep when she received the first text from her son, Eddie Justice, who was in the gay nightclub when a gunman opened fire and slaughtered 50 and wounded more than 50 others. Here is the conversation she had over text message with her 30-year-old son.
"Mommy I love you," the first message said. It was 2:06 a.m.
"In club they shooting."
Mina Justice tried calling her 30-year-old son. No answer.
Alarmed and half awake, she tapped out a response.
"U ok"
At 2:07 a.m., he wrote: "Trapp in bathroom."
Justice asked what club, and he responded: "Pulse. Downtown. Call police."
Then at 2:08: "I'm gonna die."
Now wide awake, Justice dialed 911.
She sent a flurry of texts over the next several minutes.
"I'm calling them now.
U still in there
Answer our damn phone
Call them
Call me."
The 911 dispatcher wanted her to stay on the line. She wondered what kind of danger her son was in. He was normally a homebody who liked to eat and work out. He liked to make everyone laugh. He worked as an accountant and lived in a condo in downtown Orlando.
"Lives in a sky house, like the Jeffersons," she would say. "He lives rich."
She knew he was gay and at a club — and all the complications that might entail. Fear surged through her as she waited for his next message.
At 2:39 a.m., he responded:
"Call them mommy
Now."
He wrote that he was in the bathroom.
"He's coming
I'm gonna die."
Justice asked her son if anyone was hurt and which bathroom he was in.
"Lots. Yes," he responded at 2:42 a.m.
When he didn't text back, she sent several more messages. Was he with police?
"Text me please," she wrote.
"No," he wrote four minutes later. "Still here in bathroom. He has us. They need to come get us."
At 2:49 a.m., she told him the police were there and to let her know when he saw them.
"Hurry," he wrote. "He's in the bathroom with us."
She asked, "Is the man in the bathroom wit u?"
At 2:50 a.m.: "He's a terror."
Then, a final text from her son a minute later: "Yes."
Orlando authorities confirmed late Sunday that Eddie Justice was among the dead.
oldravenman3025 wrote: The type of operating system or action is irrelevant. Charles Whitman did plenty of damage with a bolt-action rifle.
I only know this because I literally almost posted this exact example earlier in the thread, but he actually used a M1 carbine mostly, in addition to a rifle and shotgun. Up until a couple of hours ago, I also thought it was solely a bolt action
Whitman used a Sears 12 gauge autoloading shotgun (illegally cut down below legal barrel/overall length) to "secure" the top floor leading to the observation deck of the clock tower. He opened fire on the Gabour and Lamport families, who spotted Whitman after taking in the view topside, after he brutally knocked Edna Townsley unconscious (the volunteer working the desk at the entrance to the observation deck). His barrage killed Marguerite Lamport and Mark Gabour, and wounded Mike and Mary Gabour. He finished off Townsley with the shotgun before heading out and barricading himself outside. Most of his victims were killed and wounded at the beginning of his spree, and were carried out with his 6mm Model 700 Remington bolt-action hunting rifle with a Redfield 4x scope.
When the rate of return fire got too heavy (on and off duty police, college students, and citizens with their personal rifles), he started firing randomly with a pump action .35 Remington Model 141 rifle and M1 Carbine. But he failed to hit anybody at those ranges. He also used the M1 when Houston McCoy, Ramiro Martinez, and Allen Crum cornered Whitman, but nobody was killed but Whitman himself by revolver and shotgun fire. The Smith and Wesson Model 19 revolver, P08 Luger, and Galesi-Brescia .25 ACP pistols were not used.
So, yeah. You're absolutely correct that he used more than just the Model 700. But that was what he did the most damage with (other than the shotgun).
Huh, you know lots about this. Any dea how we can put some sort of curb on it, or to you just want to spank to the fact you know lots about guns. Hooray? What exactly does your post do?
According to reports on social media and a city official speaking on MSNBC, OneBlood, a local blood center in Orlando, temporarily lifted the ban on sexually-active gay men donating blood following the deadliest mass shooting in United States history. Those reports are false.
On one hand it's awful, on the other, temporarily lifting that ban would have caused so much fall-out.
There is a clear chain of consequence from the shooter beating his (now ex-)wife, to being found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence, to being banned from purchasing or owning any firearm, to not being able to commit this shooting. As we learn more about the shooter's history, we will know where this chain broke.
Whenever a American hurts themselves from slipping on a banana skin, ISIS claim responsibility for it, so those scumbags can off!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Listening to, and reading, Obama's comments today didn't come across at all as an attempt to get more gun control passed.
Honestly, he did sound pissed once again, but it felt more like he was pointing at the tragedy and admitted defeat while stating "if we are okay with all these tragedies because guns are so important, then that is the choice we have made as a nation."
I got that impression as well. I read a grim stat that said this is the 13th time that Obama has had to address the nation following a gun massacre.
Obama struck me as a man going through the motions, with a simmering anger for doing so, because he's done this that many times.
The shooter allegedly called police before the shooting, and claimed allegiance with ISIS.
His father apparently said that his son was wrong to attack the club because "God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality", so I guess it's a complete mystery where he might have picked up his radical ideas.
Smacks wrote: The shooter allegedly called police before the shooting, and claimed allegiance with ISIS.
His father apparently said that his son was wrong to attack the club because "God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality", so I guess it's a complete mystery where he might have picked up his radical ideas.
As pointed out earlier, it's a massive difference between pledging allegiance to ISIS and ISIS being directly responsible for the attack.
As for the father, and I could be wrong on this, I think he's been misquoted. I'm pretty sure he said that it's for God to judge these things, not God will punish them, will is a big difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just been reading that the Governor of Texas has been quoting the bible in reference to this tragedy, and the quote has nothing to do with peace, love, or forgiveness...
The problem with ISIL is the same as the problem with Al Quaeda.
There is an organisation called ISI/ISIL/Daesh who are Islamic terrorists, but they didn't invent radical Islamic terrorism. It arises because of a variety of social pressures in various ME countries. ISIL and Al Quaeda before them are an expression of this radicalisation, not the cause of it though naturally they are both facilitators by using various methods and publicising their conquests together with religious based propaganda.
Consequently there is easy access to materials and propagandists which make it simple for a western based Muslim with psychological/social problems to become inspired to do a deed like this "in the name of XXX" (Al Quaeda/Islam/ISIL/Boko Haram, etc...)
This is a completely different thing to ISIL setting up networks of terror cells, sponsoring them with money, training and equipment. There isn't much evidence that ISIL have been doing this.
This Orlando shooting is another example of the so-called "lone wolf" terrorist.
Obviously this is of no comfort to the victims and their families or to the security forces and the body politic in general. It would be much easier to work against this kind of terror outbreak if it was all being planned by a SPECTRE like organisation. There would be a network, a communication system, messages and bank accounts to trace and so on.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As pointed out earlier, it's a massive difference between pledging allegiance to ISIS and ISIS being directly responsible for the attack.
I take your point, but given the fragmented nature of ISIS, it's a bit difficult to separate the two.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As for the father, and I could be wrong on this, I think he's been misquoted. I'm pretty sure he said that it's for God to judge these things, not God will punish them, will is a big difference.
Fair enough, far be it from me to accuse him falsely, it was just something I read on the news.
Buzzsaw wrote: Hmmm... "This agreement is a legal contract between you and us." Now, I'm not... oh, wait, I am an attorney! Yeah, this thing that claims to be a legal contract, it's a legal contract. There is even a choice of venue clause.
And look what I found in this "this is a legal contract" page:
Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.
So, wherever this "moderators can't remove stuff they don't like" rule is it isn't in the legal document. If it exists at all it must be in some informal code of conduct, much like the dakka forum rules.
Putting aside how this is completely unsupported assertion on your part, would it still not be fair to point out that Reddit's target audience is almost certainly not "the public [that] considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools"?
Sure, that's Reddit's target audience. But you made a comment about society as a whole disapproving of Reddit's actions. If you want to change that to "some of Reddit's target market may be unhappy with the product they are offered" then that's a much less impressive claim.
First, you seem to be incapable of distinguishing from a value held and a legal right... which was kinda my point.
And I'm also talking about values. Aside from the legal question any position that a private website does not have the right to control what content they publish is a value that is not dealing with reality. If you're being a in my house I am free to kick you out without any value conflicts at all.
Most of what I said to Peregrine applies so I'll just go to the big point (it's late); do you guys seriously have no understanding that there is a difference between the value of free speech, of Tolerance, and an American's protections under the First Amendment?
Of course I do. You just don't seem to understand the concept of private property rights involved here. Reddit is not a public space. It is a private website owned by a corporation. It has no obligation to allow unrestricted discussion, and it is not reasonable to expect it to. And this is where the confusion comes from: you've decided that Reddit is something that it isn't, and you act like it's some kind of assault on your values when Reddit doesn't act according to your expectations.
You would have a point about your "free speech as a value goes beyond US law" idea if there was some kind of suppression of speech going on, but that's not the case here. Nobody is hacking an unpopular website to bring it down and silence the views it publishes. Nobody is stealing unpopular books off the shelf and destroying them so that nobody can read those unpopular ideas. A private website is simply saying "we don't want to publish this". There are still plenty of places for you to speak and publish whatever things Reddit will not allow. In fact, given that this seems to be a problem with subreddit moderators rather than Reddit policy as a whole, you can even speak ON REDDIT if you want. You might not get as much of an audience as if you published your thoughts elsewhere, but your freedom to speak is not being denied just because nobody wants to listen to you.
Hmm, I think this is probably my last response to you, as it seems almost unfailing that whenever talking about any topic in the vague vicinity of Social Justice your replies are either intellectually dishonest, manage misconstrue my points or simply factually wrong. Putting aside the goal post moving and other quibbles, the above post is a fine example of this: you made a very specific claim, on which rested the entirety of your other points, that "the TOS is not a binding legal contract, if Reddit wants to delete your post you have no legal rights to do anything about it".
This isn't a little wrong, but rather completely wrong, as I pointed out. Because this one point was wrong, every other point in your analysis is wrong. Even the quote you supplied undermines your argument; "Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.." Having signed a formal, legal agreement there is a contractual relationship between Reddit and its users, not the relationship between a homeowner and an invitee.
Now, while that difference is important and undermines the rest of your points, the thing is... you're kinda creeping me out. In all our back and forth discussions, the closest you've ever come to expressing an understanding of tolerance as a virtue or a moral responsibility is... "Of course I do", followed by two paragraphs demonstrating that, in fact, you do not. So I'm going to leave you be; you've cemented some suspicions I've had about social justice and its adherents, but mostly you've convinced me that whatever star guides your moral compass, it's not the North mine points to.
So have a good week.
Oh for the love of...
Reddit user agreement wrote:your access to reddit
4
Without advance notice and at any time, we may, for violations of this agreement or for any other reason we choose: (1) suspend your access to reddit, (2) suspend or terminate Your Account or reddit gold membership, and/or (3) remove any of your User Content from reddit.
5
We reserve the right to monitor reddit, and your use of the Service means you agree to such monitoring. At the same time, we do not guarantee we will monitor at all.
Vaktathi wrote: The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.
But it is now being used by Democrats (including both Obama and Hillary) to call for more gun control. Evidently he had even served as security at a Florida courthouse.
He is an ISIL terrorist not a "mass shooter." This follows the pattern in Paris, North Africa, Africa, and San Benrardino...
Frazzled wrote: This follows the pattern in Paris, North Africa, Africa, and San Benrardino...
but its all about gun control...
In fairness, Trump also jumped straight on the Paris attack, by saying "if they only had guns", like it couldn't happen in the US. Obviously, it can happen, and the first responder was still a police officer.
If this guy was an agent of ISIL who had been supplied his weapons illegally by his sponsors, then gun control would obviously be useless. Hopefully though, such an setup would be more detectable by the various security organisations.
If he was a lone wolf, who got his guns on a legal licence, the question is whether his previous behaviour should have alerted authorities to the possibility he might "kick off", and therefore ought not to have that licence.
Vaktathi wrote: The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.
Errr, yeah but he was under FBI investigation twice and was a "person of interest". How in the world does someone like that get a license to carry? I'm as Pro Firearm as you're going to get, but that's screwed up.
Not a license to carry. Even more so-he had a license to be an armed security guard.
Frazzled wrote: This follows the pattern in Paris, North Africa, Africa, and San Benrardino...
but its all about gun control...
In fairness, Trump also jumped straight on the Paris attack, by saying "if they only had guns", like it couldn't happen in the US. Obviously, it can happen, and the first responder was still a police officer.
Night clubs are gun free zones in FL (since they make most of their revenue via alcohol sales).
For me, this is not a gun control issue, this is an issue of American values.
Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc
and has now turned against those values with deadly effect
Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For me, this is not a gun control issue, this is an issue of American values.
Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc
and has now turned against those values with deadly effect
Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?
Crazy person being crazy. He just found ISIS as a nice cause to latch on to which was happy to have him aboard.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc
and has now turned against those values with deadly effect
Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?
Actually, that's a fairly typical bio for Islamic terrorists. Contrary to what people expect, most of them grow up westernised, often drink and have girlfriends, and take very little interest in religion prior to their "conversion".
Vaktathi wrote: The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.
But it is now being used by Democrats (including both Obama and Hillary) to call for more gun control. Evidently he had even served as security at a Florida courthouse. He is an ISIL terrorist, not a "mass shooter." This follows the pattern in Paris, North Africa, Africa, and San Bernardino...
but its all about gun control...
He's not really an ISIL terrorist. Just saying I <3 ISIL on a 911 call doesn't make him part of that terrorist organisation. He received no instructions from them. He was just using that to justify what he was going to do. He got upset because an LGBT couple made the smoochies in front of him and his family, and had a HUGE overreaction. Don't get me wrong, I feel uncomfortable when I see it(it's a well-known fact that PDA makes people uncomfortable, not hating here). I don't stroll into the nearest gun shop and go on a shooting spree about it because it goes against my beliefs etc.
They're not saying gun control will fix everything, though. We know it won't. What it will do, is greatly reduce the occurrences. Which is the entire point. That doesn't strike me as unconstitutional- just sensible.
Vaktathi wrote: The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.
Errr, yeah but he was under FBI investigation twice and was a "person of interest". How in the world does someone like that get a license to carry? I'm as Pro Firearm as you're going to get, but that's screwed up.
Not a license to carry. Even more so-he had a license to be an armed security guard.
Being a "person of interest" in an investigation is meaningless, it's a made up term by law enforcement that isn't a legal distinction of anything it's just a way for law enforcement to kinda label somebody as maybe possibly being a suspect if they ever find enough evidence to warrant declaring that person a suspect. The shooter was investigated but the FBI never found a reason to charge him with any crimes and he was never convicted of anything. Therefore he had a clean criminal record on the federal level and since he was able to pass background checks and screenings for his employment as a security guard he had a clean record with the state of Florida too. If he had a clean record then the system treats him as innocent until proven guilty and he retains all of his rights as a US citizen. That's how our system works and how it should work. We can't start stripping rights away from people preemptively just because they get investigated. Lone wolf attacks like this don't tend to be preceded by obvious bread crumb trails of criminal activity that would have given authorities cause to detain and arrest the attacker.
We're not going to get rid of the freedoms of speech, of religion, of assembly, to own firearms and to be treated as being innocent until proven guilty. If we're going to live in a free and open society then we aren't going to be able to protect such a society from homicidal zealots who decide to go to a school or church or nightclub or anywhere else and commit mass murder.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc
and has now turned against those values with deadly effect
Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?
Actually, that's a fairly typical bio for Islamic terrorists. Contrary to what people expect, most of them grow up westernised, often drink and have girlfriends, and take very little interest in religion prior to their "conversion".
And honestly, 2nd generation are more likely to radicalize than their parents, and are often targeted for radicalization.
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
Alternatively if America had any meaningful gun control, hadn't been getting involved in the middle east for years, etc, tens or even hundreds of thousands of people would be alive this morning, and this type of attack would be far less likely.
But then again, if wishes were horses we would all be eating steak...
Alternatively more massive damage could have been done with 100 dollars worth of gasoline.
Vaktathi wrote: The shooter apparently was US born, and was a state licensed security guard who had passed all sorts of screenings, short of disallowing arms and somehow magically knowing what people will do 30 years into their lives, gun control and refugees/immigration really has very little to do with this.
But it is now being used by Democrats (including both Obama and Hillary) to call for more gun control. Evidently he had even served as security at a Florida courthouse.
He is an ISIL terrorist, not a "mass shooter." This follows the pattern in Paris, North Africa, Africa, and San Bernardino...
but its all about gun control...
He's not really an ISIL terrorist. Just saying I <3 ISIL on a 911 call doesn't make him part of that terrorist organisation. He received no instructions from them. He was just using that to justify what he was going to do. He got upset because an LGBT couple made the smoochies in front of him and his family, and had a HUGE overreaction. Don't get me wrong, I feel uncomfortable when I see it(it's a well-known fact that PDA makes people uncomfortable, not hating here). I don't stroll into the nearest gun shop and go on a shooting spree about it because it goes against my beliefs etc.
They're not saying gun control will fix everything, though. We know it won't. What it will do, is greatly reduce the occurrences. Which is the entire point. That doesn't strike me as unconstitutional- just sensible.
Taking away the right of a law abiding US citizens to own guns would require a new amendment to the constitution and any attempt by state or federal government to do so without amending the constitution as it currently exist would be unconstitutional.
Frazzled wrote: Alternatively if we kept his family out, 50 people would be alive this morning.
Alternatively if America had any meaningful gun control, hadn't been getting involved in the middle east for years, etc, tens or even hundreds of thousands of people would be alive this morning, and this type of attack would be far less likely.
But then again, if wishes were horses we would all be eating steak...
Alternatively more massive damage could have been done with 100 dollars worth of gasoline.
Alternatively people could stop espousing and believing the idea that it's morally just to murder people for being gay. If that kind of zealous religious hatred stopped being tolerated and condoned then there wouldn't be such strong motivations behind attacks like this. It's not like the gun filled this murderer with the desire to kill gays.
oldravenman3025 wrote:Whitman used a Sears 12 gauge autoloading shotgun (illegally cut down below legal barrel/overall length) to "secure" the top floor leading to the observation deck of the clock tower. He opened fire on the Gabour and Lamport families, who spotted Whitman after taking in the view topside, after he brutally knocked Edna Townsley unconscious (the volunteer working the desk at the entrance to the observation deck). His barrage killed Marguerite Lamport and Mark Gabour, and wounded Mike and Mary Gabour. He finished off Townsley with the shotgun before heading out and barricading himself outside. Most of his victims were killed and wounded at the beginning of his spree, and were carried out with his 6mm Model 700 Remington bolt-action hunting rifle with a Redfield 4x scope. (snip)
Gordon Shumway wrote:Huh, you know lots about this. Any dea how we can put some sort of curb on it, or to you just want to spank to the fact you know lots about guns. Hooray? What exactly does your post do?
He was rebutting the idea posted earlier that such a massacre would not be possible if people only had legal access to bolt action rifles.
That led officers to inspect the car and find several weapons and a lot of ammunition as well as tannerite, an ingredient that could be used to create a pipe bomb.
Alternately, tannerite could be used by an actual recreational shooter, the kind that would have several weapons and a lot of ammunition. I mean, he may yet to turn out to be a dangerous lunatic yet, but this doesn't mean anything to me yet.
I realize that we don't know all exactly what he had at this point, but I don't think it's too far of a stretch that whatever is was is probably illegal in California, since many firearms related things are.
DutchWinsAll wrote: or that Christianity wasn't pulled kicking and screaming out of dark-age ideology by other Christians.
What does that have to do with this?
Only that I think Islam can change, but that change can only come from within. The Catholic Church once burned witches and tortured non-believers. They didn't change on their own. Christian liberals and reformers forced that change. And it's a battle that's still going on, but one that the liberal reformers are winning. The pope has come out saying its basically not that bad to be gay, while many respected imams and mullahs are calling for their murder. Of course each faith has some of both in their midst, but I guess I respond more to the ones that are vocal.
Islam does not need to change. Christianity did not change either. Medieval and modern Catholicism is pretty much the same. The religion itself is unchanging. What changes is not the religion, it is what people do with it. The people and their culture changed.
There is no problem with islam, rather there is a problem with the culture and attitudes of the people in a number of islamic countries which will only ever solve itself if the region becomes politically and economically stable.
There is a clear chain of consequence from the shooter beating his (now ex-)wife, to being found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence, to being banned from purchasing or owning any firearm, to not being able to commit this shooting. As we learn more about the shooter's history, we will know where this chain broke.
Indeed. That there is a point where the background should have denied purchases. Note: Frazzled believes background checks should occur on the person not with firearm purchases. If something occurs to where the person would not pass the background check, then it should automatically update, and a process begin to where the person's firearm's could be confiscated. They would have legal right to appeal, but it would have caught several of these guys who purchased firearms but later twerked-particularly on the psychology stuff.
This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are. Do not allow businesses to restrict concealed carriers or make them liable for lawsuits if something does happen on premises. Look at every mass shooting of the last 20 years in the US, how many were in gun free zones? Almost every single one. Kennesaw GA where every household is required by law to have a gun has had only a few murders in the 20+ years that law was enacted, guess where every single one of the murders were(last time I checked)? Gun free zones. They are dangerous places to go and that is proven. They make soft targets even softer and easier, again proven. Its about time we use some logic on this. Everywhere that concealed carry permit numbers have risen, crime has decreased. The areas that have Nazi-level laws about citizens carrying weapons, crime is rampant. Those are facts.
Further gun control would have made zero difference to this guy. He was an armed security guard at a court with a license to back it up. That's a harder to get license than a concealed carry permit. To get both that and the job he would have had extensive background checks done, not just a quick call to the ATF for a brief scan for the obvious.
ISIS has confirmed that this was one of their guys and they were warning about attacks in Florida last week. The FBI investigated him twice but found nothing, until now. He was friends with the first American suicide bomber in Syria. How did they miss that one? This is a terrorist attack pure and simple.
Now how do we stop it. 1. Get a concealed carry permit. Keep your pistol on you. Again one guy inside with a gun could have taken him down. 2. Do not frequent Anti-American establishments that do not allow weapons. 3. Write your congressmen for the abolishment of anti-gun zones
both in public and private buildings. You can force people to work for you, then you can force them not to deny your 2A rights. 4. Learn to use your weapon effectively. By that I don't mean going to the range once a year, sitting in a climate controlled environment and plinking rounds. Go to an outdoor range in the heat of summer. Do pushups and jumping jacks beforehand to get your heart rate up then shoot from standing or supported positions you would be likely to use in real life. If its a concealed weapon holster, practice drawing the weapon(unloaded) with various normal clothes over and over until its second nature.
5. Do not be a soft target. Know whats going on around you at all times. Look for people that aren't acting normal. Its actually kind of fun because you get to notice weird quirks about people in public. Just don't stare, don't be the creepy staring guy.
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
...
You can't really believe that a dark night club full of loud music, flashing lights and hundreds of people out of their heads on alcohol, drugs and adrenaline would be a good place for lots of people to be carrying guns.
DutchWinsAll wrote: or that Christianity wasn't pulled kicking and screaming out of dark-age ideology by other Christians.
What does that have to do with this?
Only that I think Islam can change, but that change can only come from within. The Catholic Church once burned witches and tortured non-believers. They didn't change on their own. Christian liberals and reformers forced that change. And it's a battle that's still going on, but one that the liberal reformers are winning. The pope has come out saying its basically not that bad to be gay, while many respected imams and mullahs are calling for their murder. Of course each faith has some of both in their midst, but I guess I respond more to the ones that are vocal.
Islam does not need to change. Christianity did not change either. Medieval and modern Catholicism is pretty much the same. The religion itself is unchanging. What changes is not the religion, it is what people do with it. The people and their culture changed.
There is no problem with islam, rather there is a problem with the culture and attitudes of the people in a number of islamic countries which will only ever solve itself if the region becomes politically and economically stable.
That's quite fair, I disagree with a particular point however, all religions are a problem for humanity, they need to go, and thankfully they are in the UK at least.
Iron_Captain wrote: There is no problem with islam, rather there is a problem with the culture and attitudes of the people in a number of islamic countries which will only ever solve itself if the region becomes politically and economically stable.
It's worth mentioning that there is some evidence that a religious upbringing with Islamic values, actually protects young men from being radicalised. Fighters and suicide bombers like many extremists, are characteristically young men (underachievers) who feel marginalized and angry.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: For me, this is not a gun control issue, this is an issue of American values.
Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc
and has now turned against those values with deadly effect
Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?
The same problem everyone else is having with these guys. Evidently the FBI made their hundredth ISIL related arrest in the US this month.
Taking away the right of a law abiding US citizens to own guns would require a new amendment to the constitution and any attempt by state or federal government to do so without amending the constitution as it currently exist would be unconstitutional.
No it doesn’t. It takes one SCOTUS justice.
Alternatively people could stop espousing and believing the idea that it's morally just to murder people for being gay. If that kind of zealous religious hatred stopped being tolerated and condoned then there wouldn't be such strong motivations behind attacks like this. It's not like the gun filled this murderer with the desire to kill gays.
I think we have a thread winner.
Fighters and suicide bombers like many extremists, are characteristically young men (underachievers) who feel marginalized and angry.
Lots of marginalized teenage Buddhists who don't do that. Maybe we need a Buddha refresher.
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
...
You can't really believe that a dark night club full of loud music, flashing lights and hundreds of people out of their heads on alcohol, drugs and adrenaline would be a good place for lots of people to be carrying guns.
People wouldn't use their guns irresponsibly though. If nightclub patrons were the sort to regularly cause trouble, then nightclubs all over the world would need doormen and security and stuff... that's just crazy talk.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc
and has now turned against those values with deadly effect
Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?
Actually, that's a fairly typical bio for Islamic terrorists. Contrary to what people expect, most of them grow up westernised, often drink and have girlfriends, and take very little interest in religion prior to their "conversion".
And honestly, 2nd generation are more likely to radicalize than their parents, and are often targeted for radicalization.
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
...
You can't really believe that a dark night club full of loud music, flashing lights and hundreds of people out of their heads on alcohol, drugs and adrenaline would be a good place for lots of people to be carrying guns.
Plus there was an armed officer there who did return fire. Probably saved lives, but 50 people still died.
Unless you commit to going to every public place wearing full body armor, your are going to be disadvantaged against an equipped and organized attacker. You have to be very lucky to overcome that. Thinking concealed carry with a 9mm is going to save you from a terrorist attack is this generation's duck-and-cover.
DutchWinsAll wrote: or that Christianity wasn't pulled kicking and screaming out of dark-age ideology by other Christians.
What does that have to do with this?
Only that I think Islam can change, but that change can only come from within. The Catholic Church once burned witches and tortured non-believers. They didn't change on their own. Christian liberals and reformers forced that change. And it's a battle that's still going on, but one that the liberal reformers are winning. The pope has come out saying its basically not that bad to be gay, while many respected imams and mullahs are calling for their murder. Of course each faith has some of both in their midst, but I guess I respond more to the ones that are vocal.
Islam does not need to change. Christianity did not change either. Medieval and modern Catholicism is pretty much the same. The religion itself is unchanging. What changes is not the religion, it is what people do with it. The people and their culture changed.
There is no problem with islam, rather there is a problem with the culture and attitudes of the people in a number of islamic countries which will only ever solve itself if the region becomes politically and economically stable.
Stop being right on the internet! You're ruining our image!
There is a clear chain of consequence from the shooter beating his (now ex-)wife, to being found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence, to being banned from purchasing or owning any firearm, to not being able to commit this shooting. As we learn more about the shooter's history, we will know where this chain broke.
Indeed. That there is a point where the background should have denied purchases. Note: Frazzled believes background checks should occur on the person not with firearm purchases. If something occurs to where the person would not pass the background check, then it should automatically update, and a process begin to where the person's firearm's could be confiscated. They would have legal right to appeal, but it would have caught several of these guys who purchased firearms but later twerked-particularly on the psychology stuff.
To be honest, I don't think background checks or gun control will do much to stop this kind of thing either way. It might stop more casual forms of gun-related violence but the kind of people that commit mass shootings won't be stopped by it. Even if guns were completely illegal they would still be way too easy to get through the black market. Someone determined like that won't be deterred by laws. If they can't pass background checks to get weapons in a legal way they will do it in an illegal way. The only thing it really accomplishes is making life harder for law-abiding people (and it could stop guns from becoming extremely widespread, but that is already too late in the case of the US).
That led officers to inspect the car and find several weapons and a lot of ammunition as well as tannerite, an ingredient that could be used to create a pipe bomb.
Alternately, tannerite could be used by an actual recreational shooter, the kind that would have several weapons and a lot of ammunition. I mean, he may yet to turn out to be a dangerous lunatic yet, but this doesn't mean anything to me yet.
I realize that we don't know all exactly what he had at this point, but I don't think it's too far of a stretch that whatever is was is probably illegal in California, since many firearms related things are.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc
and has now turned against those values with deadly effect
Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?
Actually, that's a fairly typical bio for Islamic terrorists. Contrary to what people expect, most of them grow up westernised, often drink and have girlfriends, and take very little interest in religion prior to their "conversion".
And honestly, 2nd generation are more likely to radicalize than their parents, and are often targeted for radicalization.
That is weird. Why is that?
I've read something like that myself. It's something to do with the fact that first generation immigrants don't expect a completely fair deal. They know they are going to have to work hard and get the short end of the stick because of pretty normal social conditions of bias against newcomers. They get on with stuff and don't complain too much.
The second generation, now more acculturated, experience racism and prejudice anyway and it seems far more unfair to them. (Which it is.) If you're an angry young man whose parents came from a foreign culture that is still out there, the other side of the world, it's easy to feel that the grass is greener on that side, but you don't know it first hand so you are liable to idolise it.
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
...
You can't really believe that a dark night club full of loud music, flashing lights and hundreds of people out of their heads on alcohol, drugs and adrenaline would be a good place for lots of people to be carrying guns.
Plus there was an armed officer there who did return fire. Probably saved lives, but 50 people still died.
Unless you commit to going to every public place wearing full body armor, your are going to be disadvantaged against an equipped and organized attacker. You have to be very lucky to overcome that. Thinking concealed carry with a 9mm is going to save you from a terrorist attack is this generation's duck-and-cover.
Agreed, but it would have helped the people trapped in the restroom. I won't go into a place without multiple exits, but I was always more worried about fire risk. You have to know how to GTFO if a small place lights up, which has happened many times in the past.
To be honest, I don't think background checks or gun control will do much to stop this kind of thing either way. It might stop more casual forms of gun-related violence but the kind of people that commit mass shootings won't be stopped by it. Even if guns were completely illegal they would still be way too easy to get through the black market. Someone determined like that won't be deterred by laws. If they can't pass background checks to get weapons in a legal way they will do it in an illegal way. The only thing it really accomplishes is making life harder for law-abiding people (and it could stop guns from becoming extremely widespread, but that is already too late in the case of the US).
True but it might have helped with some of the other psychos that have opened up on people in the past.
Considering lots of American Christians are posting on twitter in support of the attacks and US Christian Extremist attacks are calling out that 'God sent the shooter', this doesn't seem like this is a Muslim problem, more like a 'Religious Extremist' problem. Lots of US Christians posting support, and no calls to round them up, put them on watch lists or bar them from entering the US.
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.
Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.
Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.
I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.
Iron_Captain wrote: There is no problem with islam, rather there is a problem with the culture and attitudes of the people in a number of islamic countries which will only ever solve itself if the region becomes politically and economically stable.
It's worth mentioning that there is some evidence that a religious upbringing with Islamic values, actually protects young men from being radicalised. Fighters and suicide bombers like many extremists, are characteristically young men (underachievers) who feel marginalized and angry.
It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.
To be honest, I don't think background checks or gun control will do much to stop this kind of thing either way. It might stop more casual forms of gun-related violence but the kind of people that commit mass shootings won't be stopped by it. Even if guns were completely illegal they would still be way too easy to get through the black market. Someone determined like that won't be deterred by laws. If they can't pass background checks to get weapons in a legal way they will do it in an illegal way. The only thing it really accomplishes is making life harder for law-abiding people (and it could stop guns from becoming extremely widespread, but that is already too late in the case of the US).
With most of these mass-shootings there was a certain amount of gun/ammo hoarding going on before the attack. I don't think they were all necessarily bought for an attack, but access is easy and cheap and having an AR-15 makes a certain kind of insecure person feel cool I guess.
I too think bans aren't going to work to stop a committed attacker. However, I don't see the harm in limiting high-capacity mags, certain assault-weapon characteristics, and large ammunition transactions to a Class 3 Federal firearms licence. The tax requirements would keep people from casually stockpiling this stuff. I think it would cut down on the incidents where a guy who decides to do something horrific also just so happens to have a huge stockpile of military grade weapons in his closet.
Xenomancers wrote: It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.
No it isn't worth mentioning, as it has very little to do with why young men become radicals. The only reason you might bring it up, at all, is if you were some kind of reactionary bigot trying to demonize a religion that you know nothing about, in a situation that you clearly have a very limited understanding of. The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Here we have a man who was born in the USA, brought up surrounded by values of freedom, democracy, respect for minority rights etc etc
and has now turned against those values with deadly effect
Given that the USA has a long and successful history of integrating many different types of immigrants, we must ask, and not for the first time, what went wrong here?
Actually, that's a fairly typical bio for Islamic terrorists. Contrary to what people expect, most of them grow up westernised, often drink and have girlfriends, and take very little interest in religion prior to their "conversion".
And honestly, 2nd generation are more likely to radicalize than their parents, and are often targeted for radicalization.
That is weird. Why is that?
There is a lot of thought on the why. Some places to start:
If we move away from this polarised worldview, we may observe that today’s second- third generation Muslims do not identify themselves neither with their families’ roots, the culture of country of origin, neither with the European country, in which they reside, but first with Islam. A shift from immigrant political mobilization around ethnic and national categories, to an increasing level of mobilization around the political category of “Muslim” is especially evident among younger generations of Muslims who were born and raised in the EU.
"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?
What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?
"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?
Self-loading semi automatics? Although you can be damn fast with a pump action, not as reliable, and a bolt action, well, harder still. A manual load semi-auto should suffice for any genuine need someone has outside of very specific circumstances, usually profession related, which can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Frazzled wrote: Anything noted on how he picked that location? He's not from Orlando that I am aware of.
Nothing concrete that I know of, however based on the comments from his father regarding his reaction to two men kissing, and complaints about gay people at his former place of work, I would hazard that it was chosen simply because it is a high-profile gay location, where he could be fairly certain that almost all of his victims would be gay.
A lot of us compete with standard capacity mags. An assault weapon is a weapon capable of burst and automatic. This was not an assault weapon nor did it have any so called assault weapon characteristics. I shoot a lot, most of what I shoot is .22 but I buy it in the thousands of rounds. Plus I buy other calibers for rifles I own in bulk when I come across a good price. I'm to be punished and taxed higher because some a-hole goes and does something like this or so a select few can feel safer? I don't think so. There are tens of millions of gun owners in this country and trillions of rounds in our possession, if we were a problem you would know about it.
What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?
HA... Some people have never been to Walmart on 'ammo delivery day'. People load up as much ammo as they can carry.
"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?
Self-loading semi automatics?
Yes, considering that's what semi-automatic means.
Col. Dash wrote: A lot of us compete with standard capacity mags. An assault weapon is a weapon capable of burst and automatic. This was not an assault weapon nor did it have any so called assault weapon characteristics. I shoot a lot, most of what I shoot is .22 but I buy it in the thousands of rounds. Plus I buy other calibers for rifles I own in bulk when I come across a good price. I'm to be punished and taxed higher because some a-hole goes and does something like this or so a select few can feel safer? I don't think so. There are tens of millions of gun owners in this country and trillions of rounds in our possession, if we were a problem you would know about it.
Exactly. The actual rounds expended in these things are very minimal in actuality.
Xenomancers wrote: It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.
No it isn't worth mentioning, as it has very little to do with why young men become radicals. The only reason you might bring it up, at all, is if you were some kind of reactionary bigot trying to demonize a religion that you know nothing about, in a situation that you clearly have a very limited understanding of. The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you. I am an atheist BTW and am pretty much opposed to all religions but Islam is an especially messed up religion that actually commands violence on others and offers you a reward for it.
"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?
Self-loading semi automatics?
Yes, considering that's what semi-automatic means.
Yeah, I realised. Sorry, exams, I meant why would anyone need a semi auto over a magfed single action.
Here though, single shot refers to a weapon with a capacity of a single bullet.
"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?
What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.
Xenomancers wrote: It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.
No it isn't worth mentioning, as it has very little to do with why young men become radicals. The only reason you might bring it up, at all, is if you were some kind of reactionary bigot trying to demonize a religion that you know nothing about, in a situation that you clearly have a very limited understanding of. The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you. I am an atheist BTW and am pretty much opposed to all religions but Islam is an especially messed up religion that actually commands violence on others and offers you a reward for it.
You're either moving the goalposts or making a strawman. Either way you're not doing yourself any favours.
Myriad reasons, not least of which is that semi-automatics often allow for a more effective defensive weapon. Some competition events require use of semi-automatics. Some people like to use them for hunting. Some people prefer them for recreational target shooting, skeet, clays, etc. Whatever the case may be, it is a valid option that the individual can decide whether or not is appropriate for themselves. I would not like to see that option removed because of a tiny percentage of madmen.
"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?
What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.
What does having a lot of ammo do to prevent crime or when was it involved in such? The only one I can think of was Waco, and thats because the Feds attacked.
This is the problem. Typically responses fall to something like this, which has no impact or is barely even related to the issue at hand.
Myriad reasons, not least of which is that semi-automatics often allow for a more effective defensive weapon. Some competition events require use of semi-automatics. Some people like to use them for hunting. Some people prefer them for recreational target shooting, skeet, clays, etc. Whatever the case may be, it is a valid option that the individual can decide whether or not is appropriate for themselves. I would not like to see that option removed because of a tiny percentage of madmen.
I'm aware of that, hence my 'case-by-case' basis.
However, longarm's don't exactly make excellent defensive weapons. Competitions fall under 'case-by-case', and can, in any event be changed. Hunting, same deal, but you don't go general hunting with a semi-auto. Usually reserved for boar, or larger game, or aerial culling, which isn't a citizens vocation. Semi-auto for target shooting, seems weird, but I get the appeal of not having to faff around.
Semi-autos shouldn't really be easily available, very few real genuine reasons. But as to removing choice, that's a whole different ballpark, something I've got no ground to stand on.
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
...
You can't really believe that a dark night club full of loud music, flashing lights and hundreds of people out of their heads on alcohol, drugs and adrenaline would be a good place for lots of people to be carrying guns.
Plus there was an armed officer there who did return fire. Probably saved lives, but 50 people still died.
Unless you commit to going to every public place wearing full body armor, your are going to be disadvantaged against an equipped and organized attacker. You have to be very lucky to overcome that. Thinking concealed carry with a 9mm is going to save you from a terrorist attack is this generation's duck-and-cover.
Agreed, but it would have helped the people trapped in the restroom.
I won't go into a place without multiple exits, but I was always more worried about fire risk. You have to know how to GTFO if a small place lights up, which has happened many times in the past.
To be honest, I don't think background checks or gun control will do much to stop this kind of thing either way. It might stop more casual forms of gun-related violence but the kind of people that commit mass shootings won't be stopped by it. Even if guns were completely illegal they would still be way too easy to get through the black market. Someone determined like that won't be deterred by laws. If they can't pass background checks to get weapons in a legal way they will do it in an illegal way. The only thing it really accomplishes is making life harder for law-abiding people (and it could stop guns from becoming extremely widespread, but that is already too late in the case of the US).
True but it might have helped with some of the other psychos that have opened up on people in the past.
It wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook from happening.
The system in place for background checks is already fine. It's easier to update a central system with conviction records than it is for people to be required to carry outdated proof of background checks on their person. NICS does a good job of working for law abiding people. If somebody can't pass a background check and still wants to get a gun to use in a crime then that person will just get one illegally.
Mass shootings have been perpetrated by single action weapons. A ban on semi-automatic long arms wouldn't really curb America's gun violence much or even prevent mass-shootings.
Besides, aren't pistols the biggest cause of gun-related deaths in the U.S.?
Myriad reasons, not least of which is that semi-automatics often allow for a more effective defensive weapon. Some competition events require use of semi-automatics. Some people like to use them for hunting. Some people prefer them for recreational target shooting, skeet, clays, etc. Whatever the case may be, it is a valid option that the individual can decide whether or not is appropriate for themselves. I would not like to see that option removed because of a tiny percentage of madmen.
I'm aware of that, hence my 'case-by-case' basis.
However, longarm's don't exactly make excellent defensive weapons. Competitions fall under 'case-by-case', and can, in any event be changed. Hunting, same deal, but you don't go general hunting with a semi-auto. Usually reserved for boar, or larger game, or aerial culling, which isn't a citizens vocation. Semi-auto for target shooting, seems weird, but I get the appeal of not having to faff around.
Semi-autos shouldn't really be easily available, very few real genuine reasons. But as to removing choice, that's a whole different ballpark, something I've got no ground to stand on.
The tens of millions of people in the US that collectively own hundreds of millions of semi auto rifles and never commit crimes with them contradicts your stance that they're too dangerous to be privately owned. People have been hunting with semi autos here in the US for over 100 years.
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.
Nothing you mention justifies a Class 3 license.
What I want to see is insecure nut jobs quit trying to infringe on anyone's existing rights.
So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".
CaulynDarr wrote: but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,
"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".
I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?
CaulynDarr wrote: I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.
"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?
What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.
What does having a lot of ammo do to prevent crime or when was it involved in such? The only one I can think of was Waco, and thats because the Feds attacked.
This is the problem. Typically responses fall to something like this, which has no impact or is barely even related to the issue at hand.
I think the hoarding is a red flag. I don't think having more rounds than you can carry makes an actual difference in the attack.
"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?
What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.
What does having a lot of ammo do to prevent crime or when was it involved in such? The only one I can think of was Waco, and thats because the Feds attacked.
This is the problem. Typically responses fall to something like this, which has no impact or is barely even related to the issue at hand.
I think the hoarding is a red flag. I don't think having more rounds than you can carry makes an actual difference in the attack.
How is buying in bulk a red flag for anything? It's much more practical to buy in bulk when you see a good deal on the ammo you want than it is to buy a few more boxes every time you go to the range. Frugality and pragmatism shouldn't put you on some sort of terror watch list.
"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?
What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the populace to commit an armed uprising against the government - in the event it becomes tyrannical. This might sound crazy to you living in such a stable country now but take a look at history and what can happen when a radical government takes control of it's people. I'm pretty sure the US government has tanks, aircraft, automatic weapons, machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, anti tank weapons, anti aircraft weapons, artillery, and much more. An AR-15 with a large stock of ammo is the bare minimum you'd need to start an effective resistance. There is an element of cool factor involved for sure but the overwhelming majority of these people believe it is their civic duty to own weapons and stocks of ammo like this. I assure you these people are not the problem.
I think the hoarding is a red flag. I don't think having more rounds than you can carry makes an actual difference in the attack.
100% of the gun owners I know in my area HOARD ammo because they fear the legislation (which will come to MD first) limiting or regulating purchase. Also... you know... the apocalypse.
Myriad reasons, not least of which is that semi-automatics often allow for a more effective defensive weapon. Some competition events require use of semi-automatics. Some people like to use them for hunting. Some people prefer them for recreational target shooting, skeet, clays, etc. Whatever the case may be, it is a valid option that the individual can decide whether or not is appropriate for themselves. I would not like to see that option removed because of a tiny percentage of madmen.
I'm aware of that, hence my 'case-by-case' basis.
However, longarm's don't exactly make excellent defensive weapons. Competitions fall under 'case-by-case', and can, in any event be changed. Hunting, same deal, but you don't go general hunting with a semi-auto. Usually reserved for boar, or larger game, or aerial culling, which isn't a citizens vocation. Semi-auto for target shooting, seems weird, but I get the appeal of not having to faff around.
Semi-autos shouldn't really be easily available, very few real genuine reasons. But as to removing choice, that's a whole different ballpark, something I've got no ground to stand on.
The tens of millions of people in the US that collectively own hundreds of millions of semi auto rifles and never commit crimes with them contradicts your stance that they're too dangerous to be privately owned. People have been hunting with semi autos here in the US for over 100 years.
Not once did I say 'dangerous'. I said lack of genuine need. If there is no genuine need for people to own these weapons there is no real detriment to their being removed from general circulation. If that results in a decrease in number, and death count, of this sort of attacks, that is a good thing, no?
"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?
What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.
What does having a lot of ammo do to prevent crime or when was it involved in such? The only one I can think of was Waco, and thats because the Feds attacked.
This is the problem. Typically responses fall to something like this, which has no impact or is barely even related to the issue at hand.
I think the hoarding is a red flag. I don't think having more rounds than you can carry makes an actual difference in the attack.
How is buying in bulk a red flag for anything? It's much more practical to buy in bulk when you see a good deal on the ammo you want than it is to buy a few more boxes every time you go to the range. Frugality and pragmatism shouldn't put you on some sort of terror watch list.
Additionally many buy "in bulk" because of ammunition shortages. When there was a steady supply I owned less. Now there isn't and I own more (plus I shoot more). I usually run through 500 or so in a session of shooting and I know people who will make a day of it and shoot thousands of rounds. Its a sport.
So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".
CaulynDarr wrote: but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,
"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".
I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?
CaulynDarr wrote: I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.
I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap. I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light." Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.
I have no issues with gun ownership in general. I just think we should broaden what falls into the collector classification. In the general sense. If you own a few hunting rifles and a pistol or two and sensible amount of ammunition for range days, I've got no problem with that. I don't see the point in the average person casually owning something like an AK-47 or AR-15 even as a semi-automatic as being needed. If you really-really-really want one, then sure I support a path to do that. What I'm against is the guy who's marginally mentally stable buying an AR-15 cause they are relatively cheap and easily accessed.
..Really asking the wrong guy with regards to make or type, my classifications pretty much run along the rapid fire/assault/salvo/heavy/torrent etc etc and that's it
It was just a lot was made of the vest/bomb and then haven't heard anything since or recently.
It not being a bomb/similar and having been wrongly identified is quite understandable.
Was curious as if there was such a device it would , to me anyway, be indicative of more forethought and planning than we've seen as being likely, perhaps even the assistance of other people with regards to blueprints, construction etc etc.
Xenomancers wrote: It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.
No it isn't worth mentioning, as it has very little to do with why young men become radicals. The only reason you might bring it up, at all, is if you were some kind of reactionary bigot trying to demonize a religion that you know nothing about, in a situation that you clearly have a very limited understanding of. The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you. I am an atheist BTW and am pretty much opposed to all religions but Islam is an especially messed up religion that actually commands violence on others and offers you a reward for it.
You're either moving the goalposts or making a strawman. Either way you're not doing yourself any favours.
Actually I did nothing of the sort. I put forth an argument that Islamic's kill infidels because their holy book grants them virgins in heaven for doing so (their holy book actually says this). I was then called an ignorant bigot and some sort of contrast was made between Islam and Christianity that didn't address the point I was making. I restated my point by asking a question that still hasn't been addressed. Now another has stepped in an claimed I'm making a logical fallacy.
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.
Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.
Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.
I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.
Remember: plastic signs on doors stop crimes, except when they don't.
CaulynDarr wrote: I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap.
I just wanted your opinion on what constitutes "high capacity", because many rifles have a standard capacity of 30 yet this is often mistakenly referred to as "high capacity" because it's above some arbitrary number that a politician has set. What exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is already defined as one that has select-fire capabilities, yet this is again often misused to refer to many semi-automatic firearms to make them sound scary and further an agenda. It's only a trap if you don't know what you're talking about, which is the case with many anti-gun advocates.
CaulynDarr wrote: I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light."
Ok, so what can a person mount to a pic rail to make a firearm deadlier? Lights? Lasers? Grips? Sights? Flare launchers? Sure, lots of those can aid in someone's ability to shoot well, but those things were being put on guns long before pic rails were common.
CaulynDarr wrote: Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.
Meaningful guidelines must have specifics to be meaningful, otherwise it's more "we gotta do something" hot air.
So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".
CaulynDarr wrote: but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,
"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".
I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?
CaulynDarr wrote: I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.
I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap. I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light." Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.
I have no issues with gun ownership in general. I just think we should broaden what falls into the collector classification. In the general sense. If you own a few hunting rifles and a pistol or two and sensible amount of ammunition for range days, I've got no problem with that. I don't see the point in the average person casually owning something like an AK-47 or AR-15 even as a semi-automatic as being needed. If you really-really-really want one, then sure I support a path to do that. What I'm against is the guy who's marginally mentally stable buying an AR-15 cause they are relatively cheap and easily accessed.
You want to remove the most commonly owned type of rilfe in the US, semi autos, from private ownership because of a handful of crimes? We already had the Assault Weapons Ban and studies of it have shown it did nothing to change crime stats. Even if something similar got passed again it's impossible to take away all the semi autos that are already privately owned. You can't violate ex post facto protections to suddenly criminalize tens of millions of gun owners for owning semi autos.
So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".
CaulynDarr wrote: but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,
"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".
I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?
CaulynDarr wrote: I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.
I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap. I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light." Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.
I have no issues with gun ownership in general. I just think we should broaden what falls into the collector classification. In the general sense. If you own a few hunting rifles and a pistol or two and sensible amount of ammunition for range days, I've got no problem with that. I don't see the point in the average person casually owning something like an AK-47 or AR-15 even as a semi-automatic as being needed. If you really-really-really want one, then sure I support a path to do that. What I'm against is the guy who's marginally mentally stable buying an AR-15 cause they are relatively cheap and easily accessed.
So, you're cool with someone owning an M14 with three 10 round mags but you think it should be difficult to acquire an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.
Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.
Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.
I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.
Remember: plastic signs on doors stop crimes, except when they don't.
The Aurora shooter.
..Really asking the wrong guy with regards to make or type, my classifications pretty much run along the rapid fire/assault/salvo/heavy/torrent etc etc and that's it
It was just a lot was made of the vest/bomb and then haven't heard anything since or recently.
It not being a bomb/similar and having been wrongly identified is quite understandable.
Was curious as if there was such a device it would , to me anyway, be indicative of more forethought and planning than we've seen as being likely, perhaps even the assistance of other people with regards to blueprints, construction etc etc.
Indeed. I believe they investigated it further, including with remote robots (they had lots of helicopter pics) but determined it was not a bomb vest. That would have fit the modis operandi though.
Col. Dash wrote: This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.
This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.
Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.
Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.
I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.
Remember: plastic signs on doors stop crimes, except when they don't.
Xenomancers wrote: It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.
No it isn't worth mentioning, as it has very little to do with why young men become radicals. The only reason you might bring it up, at all, is if you were some kind of reactionary bigot trying to demonize a religion that you know nothing about, in a situation that you clearly have a very limited understanding of. The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you. I am an atheist BTW and am pretty much opposed to all religions but Islam is an especially messed up religion that actually commands violence on others and offers you a reward for it.
You're either moving the goalposts or making a strawman. Either way you're not doing yourself any favours.
Actually I did nothing of the sort. I put forth an argument that Islamic's kill infidels because their holy book grants them virgins in heaven for doing so (their holy book actually says this). I was then called an ignorant bigot and some sort of contrast was made between Islam and Christianity that didn't address the point I was making. I restated my point by asking a question that still hasn't been addressed. Now another has stepped in an claimed I'm making a logical fallacy.
Smacks said that:
Smacks wrote: The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.
You responded with:
Xenomancers wrote: Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians?
The claim was never that the Bible contains such passages, only that it contains "violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals". Responding to that with a request for something that has never been claimed is a Strawman, demanding such examples to accept the similarity between Islam and Christianity on this point is moving the goalposts. Either way it's a logical fallacy.
So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".
CaulynDarr wrote: but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,
"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".
I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?
CaulynDarr wrote: I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.
I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap. I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light." Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.
I have no issues with gun ownership in general. I just think we should broaden what falls into the collector classification. In the general sense. If you own a few hunting rifles and a pistol or two and sensible amount of ammunition for range days, I've got no problem with that. I don't see the point in the average person casually owning something like an AK-47 or AR-15 even as a semi-automatic as being needed. If you really-really-really want one, then sure I support a path to do that. What I'm against is the guy who's marginally mentally stable buying an AR-15 cause they are relatively cheap and easily accessed.
So, you're cool with someone owning an M14 with three 10 round mags but you think it should be difficult to acquire an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?
In the sense that when you write laws you often create weird arbitrary distinction, yes. But, there's a reason that the US military doesn't equip the average soldier with M14s for combat anymore. The M-16 is a more efficient battlefield weapon. Yes I know the AR-15 isn't exactly the same as the M-16, but it's close enough especially if you throw on enough aftermarket modification.
So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".
CaulynDarr wrote: but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,
"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".
I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?
CaulynDarr wrote: I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.
I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.
I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap. I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light." Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.
I have no issues with gun ownership in general. I just think we should broaden what falls into the collector classification. In the general sense. If you own a few hunting rifles and a pistol or two and sensible amount of ammunition for range days, I've got no problem with that. I don't see the point in the average person casually owning something like an AK-47 or AR-15 even as a semi-automatic as being needed. If you really-really-really want one, then sure I support a path to do that. What I'm against is the guy who's marginally mentally stable buying an AR-15 cause they are relatively cheap and easily accessed.
So, you're cool with someone owning an M14 with three 10 round mags but you think it should be difficult to acquire an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?
In the sense that when you write laws you often create weird arbitrary distinction, yes. But, there's a reason that the US military doesn't equip the average soldier with M14s for combat anymore. The M-16 is a more efficient battlefield weapon. Yes I know the AR-14 isn't exactly the same as the M-16, but it's close enough especially if you throw on enough aftermarket modification.
But someone with an M14 with multiple magazines could still conceivably rack up a high body count, yes?
Yes I know the AR-14 isn't exactly the same as the M-16, but it's close enough especially if you throw on enough aftermarket modification.
Except ones a select fire machine gun and one isn't.
Note I don't have a dog in the AR hunt. I don't own one, nor do I want one. But the previous bans were stupid, and accelerated in several states to effectively banning them completely, which did nothing for San Bernadino. We have an open border, with cartels running drugs and having full access to military (not military grade but military) firearms procured from the Mexican military and other militaries. If terrorists want them, they will get them. When I lived in Cali I could have procured genuine Cuban made AKs care of Nicaragua if I had wanted and that was decades ago.
).
with a gun deciding to do his part for his hateful beliefs?
