Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
I'll leave it to others to try and pretend that making a gun with a bayonet lug illegal would have prevented this

Who was doing that?

The people that support the assault weapons ban, or more specifically my Governor Cuomo.

 Breotan wrote:

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!

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Any dea how we can put some sort of curb on it...

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).

 Ouze wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

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.

As an update, the guy with the shooting irons was going to the gay pride parade to look for his friend, is dating a dude and is bisexual - he had no violent plans at all.

Unfortunately for him, he was on probation from an earlier adventure so he's still in quite a bit of trouble.

As Hordini suspected, Tannerite is not legal in California, whether prepared or still in it's binary component form.

When I saw tannerite and the other stuff he had I genuinely thought 'Sounds like he had a range day planned'.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

That's the idea of it, roughly speaking.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3198097/westboro-baptist-church-god-sent-the-shooter-to-terrorize-orlando-gay-nightclub-sing-shooters-keep-comin-around/

http://thoughtcatalog.com/jacob-geers/2016/06/here-are-all-the-people-applauding-the-orlando-gay-club-shooter/

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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

Anything noted on how he picked that location? He's not from Orlando that I am aware of.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 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:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/06/28-young-muslim-american-skerry

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.

From: http://www.jhubc.it/ecpr-riga/virtualpaperroom/026.pdf

http://www.microconflict.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/RWP16_MM_SP.pdf

 CaulynDarr wrote:
However, I don't see the harm in limiting high-capacity mags,

What do you deem "high capacity"? Standard capacity for many modern rifles is 30 rounds. So are you against anything higher than that?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
certain assault-weapon characteristics,

"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?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
and large ammunition transactions

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?

Indeed. There's no proof thats limits on ammo purchases would have ever worked for anything.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

"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.

Absolutely horrible. Condolences to everyone.

 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.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
and large ammunition transactions

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.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

"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.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
manual load semi-auto

We call them "single shot".

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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

"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.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
manual load semi-auto

We call them "single shot".

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.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
However, I don't see the harm in limiting high-capacity mags,

What do you deem "high capacity"? Standard capacity for many modern rifles is 30 rounds. So are you against anything higher than that?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
certain assault-weapon characteristics,

"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?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
and large ammunition transactions

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:

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
I meant why would anyone need a semi auto over a magfed single action.

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.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
However, I don't see the harm in limiting high-capacity mags,

What do you deem "high capacity"? Standard capacity for many modern rifles is 30 rounds. So are you against anything higher than that?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
certain assault-weapon characteristics,

"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?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
and large ammunition transactions

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.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
I meant why would anyone need a semi auto over a magfed single action.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.