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.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, quibbling about the number is moving the goalposts - I was wrong when I said no civilian ever stopped a mass shooting. I forgot about that Uber driver thing pretty recently, and that alone was enough to make me wrong.

It doesn't change my beliefs that you can't functionally stop a mass shooting event, either from restricting gun ownership or from arming the population any further. There is no political will on one hand, and a lack of efficacy on the other (not to mention that a hypothetical massive increase in people carrying guns will likely result in more incidental deaths than the mass shootings the goal is to stop).

I don't really know what the answer is, but it's not either of those things.

I wasn't trying to make the point that armed citizens will always stop a mass shooting, just that armed citizens can and have stopped mass shootings.

I don't see a practical difference between armed off duty cops and armed citizens.

In a lot of states it's fairly easy for any law abiding citizen to obtain firearms so it's not like there's much more that can be done in those states to increase the amount of armed citizens. People who are legally armed should be allowed to carry in any public place and in any private place that doesn't post no carry signs. I don't see the logic in the state trusting you to own a gun and then prohibiting you from carrying it in a bunch of places. Once you're armed the state can't really stop you from carrying wherever you want anyway and anyone willing to follow those laws wouldn't be a problem if they didn't exist and anyone who won't follow them would still be a problem if they do exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze 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.

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.

That's not true.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/shooting-wellness-center/13113555/

http://www.denverpost.com/2012/04/22/2-die-in-shooting-outside-aurora-church/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/man-beheaded-co-worker-moore-oklahoma-workplace-attack-police-n212396

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting

According to the sources, only 1 of those was stopped by a civilian. 1 was on-duty police, 1 was a guard, 2 were off duty-cops (not civilians), and 1 was a suicide, with no civilian opening fire.

Off duty cops and a civilian security guard are just armed citizens. In the incident where the cops killed the shooter it happened after the shooter fled from an armed civilian.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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.

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.

The point I was making was that the bible does not contain passages that promise virgins in paradise for martyrdom and is therefore insufficient as a comparison. The bible might be homophobic but it is generally not commanding holywar or promising virgins for your self sacrifice. Both religions are morally reprehensible but it should be clear to anyone which is more likely to induce suicide killings.

The Qur'an forbids suicide, actually (Sura 4, ayah 29). As do several Hadith (2:23:446, 7:71:670). And neither religion is morally reprehensible, the goal of both (and therefore the focus of most Quranic or Biblical teachings) is for its followers to lead a good and just life with compassion for others. In fact Christianity provides most of the moral and legal groundwork upon which our Western civilisation is based. How much do you even know about Islam or Christianity?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

No. Hassan specifically chose the location because no one had their weapons there.

Yeah, this is not true. He picked it because it was his workplace. After all, if he specifically chose the location because people were unarmed, he would have killed some of the many civilians that he could have and didn't. It was an act of terrorism aimed at the US military, and he had access to a workplace full of military personnel.

When he DID encounter an armed civilian LEO, he wounded her, then kicked the weapon away, left her alive, and continued his rampage.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

Spoken by someone with no knowledge of how the Military works. In my 20 years of service, I have only carried a loaded weapon, other than gate guard, once on duty, on post. That was after the 9/11 attacks. And it was not a roaming guard, it was at a designated checkpoint, which was easily accessed. Gates on most Army installations were either not manned, or non-existent up to that point except in the highest of security areas.

The Fort Hood attacks happened, because Major DB went to an area where large amounts of Soldiers were gathered for administrative purposes, opened fire, and only an MP was able to engage him, since they are the only ones on the installation who carry pistols. I started to lay out why preventing that was not possible, then the OPSEC (operational security) manager inside my head stopped me. Just believe me when I say, we have access to devastating firepower, just not daily, or on any given moment. There are measures in place to prevent access to government weapons. And then Ammo is even harder to access. We do not carry any weapons around with us, unless in training(with no ammo) or deployed to a forward zone. We do not stay armed on American soil unless certain executive actions are taken.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

No. Hassan specifically chose the location because no one had their weapons there.

No gak. All posts are gun free zones. Only folks with weapons are on duty police (either civilian security guards or military police) and folks out at a range. Otherwise all guns are locked up in arms rooms with vault type security mechanisms, and locked up within racks inside those vaults. Troopers cannot bring personal weapons on post (no one can on a federal installation, well except guys like Hassan who don't really care about the rules).

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

No. Hassan specifically chose the location because no one had their weapons there.

No gak. All posts are gun free zones. Only folks with weapons are on duty police (either civilian security guards or military police) and folks out at a range. Otherwise all guns are locked up in arms rooms with vault type security mechanisms, and locked up within racks inside those vaults. Troopers cannot bring personal weapons on post (no one can on a federal installation, well except guys like Hassan who don't really care about the rules).

You beat me to it. that is the point I was trying to make, gun free zones are gun free for law abiding citizens, not criminals.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

No. Hassan specifically chose the location because no one had their weapons there.

Yeah, this is not true. He picked it because it was his workplace. After all, if he specifically chose the location because people were unarmed, he would have killed some of the many civilians that he could have and didn't. It was an act of terrorism aimed at the US military, and he had access to a workplace full of military personnel.

When he DID encounter an armed civilian LEO, he wounded her, then kicked the weapon away, left her alive, and continued his rampage.

I don't think it was his workplace (he did not work in that building). It was a place troops went through to check all the blocks prior to deployment. A quick look at the victim list shows he did shoot civilians he encountered (some PA named Cahill got capped trying to rush him). But most of the folks there were military, hence most of his victims were military. He did specifically go for uniformed people as part of the screwed up statement he was trying to make.

EDIT: I am wrong, he may have been working in that building but was assigned to the post hospital. Sorry....

No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.

*not gonna get me being absolute again!

My apologies if I've been ignorant of the facts.

I was trying, and not succeeding, to make the point that areas where there are no guns, or areas where everybody is armed, is no guarantee against this mindless slaughter, sadly.

Such is life.

 Ouze wrote:
No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.

*not gonna get me being absolute again!

not stating thats why he selected, just stating it is a gun free zone. He selected it due to ease of access. Its that simple. The enemy typically chooses soft targets rather than hard targets. But to try to say as in the original quote that it was a military installation so we had access to weapons is a bit ridiculous.

 Ouze wrote:
No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.

*not gonna get me being absolute again!

No I meant the actual induction building. He specifically knew there would not be armed personnel there.

 redleger wrote:
not stating thats why he selected, just stating it is a gun free zone.

Someone else did state that is why he selected it, specifically. That is not accurate.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My apologies if I've been ignorant of the facts.

I was trying, and not succeeding, to make the point that areas where there are no guns, or areas where everybody is armed, is no guarantee against this mindless slaughter, sadly.

Such is life.

I agree that either type of zone is no guarantee that attacks will not happen. Thinking tactically though, as I would go through the planning process on an operation. ( I am methodical thanks to a life time of doing this type of planning) I would definately rather walk into an uncontested objective than a contested one. While neither one is a guarantee of success, I am of the belief that initial shots, violence of action, and speed when properly executed would lead to many deaths, what happens after the initial shock is based on the surroundings and personnel. If someone is armed, they may have a chance, assuming they are trained.

so in short, neither zone can stop the initial attack, but how long that attack goes on can be based on several factors.

 redleger wrote:
That is the point I was trying to make, gun free zones are gun free for law abiding citizens, not criminals.

That's a slightly fallacious distinction, given that criminals are law abiding citizens right up until they break the law. Prohibiting weapons in certain areas might not stop a gunman with a premeditated plan, but it does stop incidents that occur unplanned from escalating, and makes security easier. Those types of incident (arguments etc...) are probably a lot more common than a prepared attacker turning up.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.

*not gonna get me being absolute again!

No I meant the actual induction building. He specifically knew there would not be armed personnel there.

Yes he knew that. any building on post would be gun free.

http://www.leoaffairs.com/video/raw-video-moment-swat-officers-breached-pulse-night-club-orlando/

video taken while the SWAT team entered, can't see much but you can hear.

 Smacks wrote:

 redleger wrote:
That is the point I was trying to make, gun free zones are gun free for law abiding citizens, not criminals.

That's a slightly fallacious distinction, given that criminals are law abiding citizens right up until they break the law. Prohibiting weapons in certain areas might not stop a gunman with a premeditated plan, but it does stop incident that occur unplanned from escalating, and makes security easier. Those types of incident (arguments etc...) are probably a lot more common than a prepared attacker turning up.

When I think of these incidents, I specifically envision planned attacks. However a sign saying an area is gun free, is no guarantee that the area is gun free, unless there are systems in place to prevent said guns from entering.

 Smacks wrote:

 redleger wrote:
That is the point I was trying to make, gun free zones are gun free for law abiding citizens, not criminals.

That's a slightly fallacious distinction, given that criminals are law abiding citizens right up until they break the law. Prohibiting weapons in certain areas might not stop a gunman with a premeditated plan, but it does stop incidents that occur unplanned from escalating, and makes security easier. Those types of incident (arguments etc...) are probably a lot more common than a prepared attacker turning up.

And yet there are not a whole lot of cases of folks legally carrying getting into arguments they allow to escalate into gun play and killing. So, those types of incidents involving folks legally carrying are pretty damed rare too.

I think this all started with Col. Dash saying: "Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are".

I think we can all agree that that isn't always going to be practical (or even sensible).

Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.

Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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.

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.

The point I was making was that the bible does not contain passages that promise virgins in paradise for martyrdom and is therefore insufficient as a comparison. The bible might be homophobic but it is generally not commanding holywar or promising virgins for your self sacrifice. Both religions are morally reprehensible but it should be clear to anyone which is more likely to induce suicide killings.

The Qur'an forbids suicide, actually (Sura 4, ayah 29). As do several Hadith (2:23:446, 7:71:670). And neither religion is morally reprehensible, the goal of both (and therefore the focus of most Quranic or Biblical teachings) is for its followers to lead a good and just life with compassion for others. In fact Christianity provides most of the moral and legal groundwork upon which our Western civilisation is based. How much do you even know about Islam or Christianity?

The Quran forbids suicide but codons martyrdom. Both religions are easily morally reprehensible unless of course you ignore the parts that are immoral. Both are anti gay, anti woman, pro slavery, and pro murder in the name of god. Islam just seems more content to reward you with virgins. You can cherry pick the parts we as westerners consider moral and attribute it to the bible but then how do you justify everything else we consider immoral coming from the same book? How much do you really need to know about a religion to be able to know it's gak? A few passages from ether book supporting murder, anti woman, anti gay, or pro slavery - that's enough for me.

 Ouze wrote:
No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.

*not gonna get me being absolute again!

Not trying to nitpick but there was the whole giant spread sheet of mass murder research that was put together by the Sandy Hook shooter because he allegedly wanted to commit bigger shooting with more deaths than had been done previously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/adam-lanza-spreadsheet_n_2901377.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/21/sandy-hook-massacre-newtown-connecticut-adam-lanza/19343223/




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.

Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...

I prefer laws that prohibit you from drinking while carrying but let you carry in places that serve alcohol. If I'm going to a restaurant/bar and I want to carry then I need to abstain from drinking. Responsible people are going to obey that law, just like they don't drink and drive.

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.

Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...

Virginia permits them in bars. You're not allowed to drink while carrying, though.

Hasn't been an issue, and we have extremely lax permit requirements.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.

*not gonna get me being absolute again!

Not trying to nitpick but there was the whole giant spread sheet of mass murder research that was put together by the Sandy Hook shooter because he allegedly wanted to commit bigger shooting with more deaths than had been done previously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/adam-lanza-spreadsheet_n_2901377.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/21/sandy-hook-massacre-newtown-connecticut-adam-lanza/19343223/




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.

Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...

I prefer laws that prohibit you from drinking while carrying but let you carry in places that serve alcohol. If I'm going to a restaurant/bar and I want to carry then I need to abstain from drinking. Responsible people are going to obey that law, just like they don't drink and drive.

If you are not going to drink, then you don't have much reason to be in a bar. Or at least that would be the logic behind these kind of laws.

I suspect Texas is similar to Oklahoma in that the law doesn't state you cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol and instead states that you cannot carry on a place where the principal business is alcohol sales. The basic rule is that if less than 50% of sales are food, then you cannot carry there. That means that it's okay to carry into all your basic restaurants that serve alcohol.

Lots of folks like to go to a bar to hang out with buddies and watch a game. Not all folks drink...

Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.

Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...

Virginia permits them in bars. You're not allowed to drink while carrying, though.

Hasn't been an issue, and we have extremely lax permit requirements.

I would think most people that can legally purchase and carry firearms will also be able to legally purchase alcohol in most states so if they're stupid enough to mix the two together they don't need to go to a bar/restaurant to do it. And if they're responsible enough to stay sober when they're armed it really doesn't matter where they go armed.

 d-usa wrote:

If you are not going to drink, then you don't have much reason to be in a bar.

Aside from working there, you mean?

Still plenty of reasons.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
No jimmies rustled. I think the bigger point is he didn't select Ft. Hood because it was a no gun zone, it was because he wanted to kill people in the US military and that's where his access was. I don't think* it's been proven that any mass shooter ever has selected a site based on whether or not it's a gun free zone. It's a bit of a red herring.

*not gonna get me being absolute again!

Not trying to nitpick but there was the whole giant spread sheet of mass murder research that was put together by the Sandy Hook shooter because he allegedly wanted to commit bigger shooting with more deaths than had been done previously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/adam-lanza-spreadsheet_n_2901377.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/21/sandy-hook-massacre-newtown-connecticut-adam-lanza/19343223/




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.

Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...

I prefer laws that prohibit you from drinking while carrying but let you carry in places that serve alcohol. If I'm going to a restaurant/bar and I want to carry then I need to abstain from drinking. Responsible people are going to obey that law, just like they don't drink and drive.

If you are not going to drink, then you don't have much reason to be in a bar. Or at least that would be the logic behind these kind of laws.

I suspect Texas is similar to Oklahoma in that the law doesn't state you cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol and instead states that you cannot carry on a place where the principal business is alcohol sales. The basic rule is that if less than 50% of sales are food, then you cannot carry there. That means that it's okay to carry into all your basic restaurants that serve alcohol.

If my friends want to go to a bar or if my family wants to go to a place where my wife/relatives can have a drink with dinner it makes sense for me to be able to accompany them and just stay sober if I'm carrying. This is no different than requiring people to stay sober if they want to be able to legally drive home.

Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. Texas does not permit CC's in bars (or pubs as the Brits call them, or nursery schools for you Aussies... ). This is a good idea-as has been stated booze and guns don't mix.

Of course booze and the ability to text don't mix either...

Virginia permits them in bars. You're not allowed to drink while carrying, though.

Hasn't been an issue, and we have extremely lax permit requirements.

I could go with that, although I prefer the Texas version.

Boy, a lot of the news sites reporting on this seem to keep mentioning a time he saw some gay men making out in front of his family, and imply that was the reason he went on a shooting spree.

That seems like the dumbest reasoning since they blamed Benghazi on that ridiculous youtube video.

We may not ever know why he did it, exactly, but it seems like they're trying to cover up a more likely terrorism connection by blaming it on him seeing a couple dudes making out.