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.

Maybe it seems that way at the moment. We'll have to wait for the results of the investigation to be sure.

There's evidence he was unstable and violent of his own accord.

Truth is, there is no excuse, and anyone who makes an excuse for him is probably not hindered by the burden of individual responsibility. The news is so full of gak that I can't even watch it anymore. It's almost like there is a filter all new goes through, gets cleared, then it can be said. Similar to Public Affairs any time a Soldier wants to talk on the record. (hers your script, don' t deviate, make sure you mention this or that, don't say this or that)

He committed a heinous hate crime/ domestic terrorism/ terrorism. He gets remanded with no bail, goes to trial, gets the death penalty, and we remove his ability to breed from the face of this earth.

 Smacks wrote:
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).

Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.

I think it's a bit illogical for the state to tell people we trust you to own and carry guns but we don't want you to do it in these particular places. I think it's a false distinction to trust a citizen with a gun if they're standing in one place but not trust them with a gun if they're standing someplace else.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
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.

Him calling 911 and saying he followed ISIL pretty much says why he did it.

 redleger wrote:
Truth is, there is no excuse, and anyone who makes an excuse for him is probably not hindered by the burden of individual responsibility. The news is so full of gak that I can't even watch it anymore. It's almost like there is a filter all new goes through, gets cleared, then it can be said. Similar to Public Affairs any time a Soldier wants to talk on the record. (hers your script, don' t deviate, make sure you mention this or that, don't say this or that)

He committed a heinous hate crime/ domestic terrorism/ terrorism. He gets remanded with no bail, goes to trial, gets the death penalty, and we remove his ability to breed from the face of this earth.

I think it's more important to permanently remove him from the face of the earth than it is to remove his ability to breed. It's not like becoming a mass murdering zealot is an inherited trait.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
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).

Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.

I think it's a bit illogical for the state to tell people we trust you to own and carry guns but we don't want you to do it in these particular places. I think it's a false distinction to trust a citizen with a gun if they're standing in one place but not trust them with a gun if they're standing someplace else.

I can agree with the private property issue, but the way I see it, if someone is breaking into your house and happens to have a weapon, I don't think your personal issues with fire arms are of any concern of his. If I wanna come over to your hosue for dinner with my wife, Ill leave it in the trunk. Your house, your rules. Its your castle after all. If you serve the public however, I think its silly to expect everyone to disarm as they enter your store. Once again, when that guy comes in to rob you, I don't think your gun free zone sign does anything but let him know he probably will have free reign of the place.

So, what facts are known about this event?

1. US-born citizen committed the attack with legally obtained firearms.

2. Radicalised via the internet. Is there any indication he had travelled to the ME for training or other support?

3. Chosen target based on attacker's personal extreme homophobia.

If the above facts are true then no amount of "immigrant banning" or "gun control" would have stopped this particular attack.

I think this is the physical manifestation of one person's extreme frustration and hatred.

A terror attack requires a political end. What is the political end of this attack?

A terror attack requires a political end. What is the political end of this attack?

ISIL ISIL ISIL. For an ISIL terrorist killing a bunch GLBT westerners is a twofer.

 feeder wrote:
So, what facts are known about this event?

1. US-born citizen committed the attack with legally obtained firearms.

2. Radicalised via the internet. Is there any indication he had travelled to the ME for training or other support?

3. Chosen target based on attacker's personal extreme homophobia.

If the above facts are true then no amount of "immigrant banning" or "gun control" would have stopped this particular attack.

I think this is the physical manifestation of one person's extreme frustration and hatred.

A terror attack requires a political end. What is the political end of this attack?

Agree on all, except if you commit an act that causes terror, and claim to be doing so in the name of a extremest group, then that links you to the group. therefore it is terror related. If I go out and run over someone, all the headline says is Soldier runs over this person, not SSG (name redacted for opsec) runs over this person. I am associated with my group. The group therefore becomes associated with me. I am an individual, but all anyone sees is Army guy does bad thing.

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
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).

Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.

I think it's a bit illogical for the state to tell people we trust you to own and carry guns but we don't want you to do it in these particular places. I think it's a false distinction to trust a citizen with a gun if they're standing in one place but not trust them with a gun if they're standing someplace else.

I can agree with the private property issue, but the way I see it, if someone is breaking into your house and happens to have a weapon, I don't think your personal issues with fire arms are of any concern of his. If I wanna come over to your hosue for dinner with my wife, Ill leave it in the trunk. Your house, your rules. Its your castle after all. If you serve the public however, I think its silly to expect everyone to disarm as they enter your store. Once again, when that guy comes in to rob you, I don't think your gun free zone sign does anything but let him know he probably will have free reign of the place.

I don't have an issue with treating private property the same whether it's a residence or a place of business. If that business really doesn't want to do business with armed citizens I can just not do business there or not carry when I go there. I don't think posting or not posting no gun signs is going to make a big difference in whether or not criminals try to rob a business.

There are plenty of states that have high firearm ownership rates and break ins and robberies still happen there. We had a few break in in my neighborhood this month and most of the neighbors I know are armed. Seems to me that breaking into a house to steal a tv or whatever isn't worth the risk of getting shot but if criminals were smart they probably wouldn't be doing break ins in the first place.

We don't know if he was radicalised or how. It is one of the key questions to be answered.

 feeder wrote:
So, what facts are known about this event?

1. US-born citizen committed the attack with legally obtained firearms.

2. Radicalised via the internet. Is there any indication he had travelled to the ME for training or other support?

3. Chosen target based on attacker's personal extreme homophobia.

If the above facts are true then no amount of "immigrant banning" or "gun control" would have stopped this particular attack.

I think this is the physical manifestation of one person's extreme frustration and hatred.

A terror attack requires a political end. What is the political end of this attack?

Terrorism requires a political connection?

i though it was ideological. which is why its basically impossible to stop them all.

Ouze- there have been many cases were the shooter specifically targeted gun free zones. The Theater shooter specifically mentioned he picked that particular theater because it was the only one of the 7 local theaters that had an anti-gun policy. Its also a bit daft not to notice the direct correlation between mass shootings and gun free zones. That's where they happen, almost every time. To say otherwise is ignoring the obvious.

The military is death on carrying personal weapons on base although that is slowly changing. Even if you have a concealed carry permit, as soon as you drive onto federal property you are committing a crime if you have a gun in your car despite it being perfectly legal a few feet away. I don't know the Army's policy on this but in the AF that is changing to be the base commander's prerogative My unit is on an army base though so even though our HQ's base is cool with it, the base I am on is not and we have to obey their rules. Not that it really stops people. Concealed carry people aren't carrying massive armories in their car so a hidden hold out pistol isn't uncommon inside vehicles. No one I know of carries them on their person however. Kind of defeats the purpose of having a permit if you cant have it on hand for 90% of your driving to and from work.

 feeder wrote:
So, what facts are known about this event?

1. US-born citizen committed the attack with legally obtained firearms.

2. Radicalised via the internet. Is there any indication he had travelled to the ME for training or other support?

3. Chosen target based on attacker's personal extreme homophobia.

If the above facts are true then no amount of "immigrant banning" or "gun control" would have stopped this particular attack.

I think this is the physical manifestation of one person's extreme frustration and hatred.

A terror attack requires a political end. What is the political end of this attack?

The attacker called 911 specifically to mention he wanted to be associated with ISIS/ISIL and even if there is no evidence of a stronger connection than that, it still creates a lot of publicity for ISIS and associates it with killing homosexuals in a western country which is good propaganda for them in their part of the world. The publicity is enough of a political benefit to make it terrorist attack in my opinion.

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

Earlier it seemed like you didn't want to make this needlessly about guns, but now it seems like are trying to make it about religion.

The guy was an angry, unstable, wife beating, homophobe, who's wife had left him. He probably had a tiny penis too. His religion is almost incidental. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools? Anders Breivik was diametrically opposed to radical Islam. These people are just twisted.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
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).

Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.

I think it's a bit illogical for the state to tell people we trust you to own and carry guns but we don't want you to do it in these particular places. I think it's a false distinction to trust a citizen with a gun if they're standing in one place but not trust them with a gun if they're standing someplace else.

I can agree with the private property issue, but the way I see it, if someone is breaking into your house and happens to have a weapon, I don't think your personal issues with fire arms are of any concern of his. If I wanna come over to your hosue for dinner with my wife, Ill leave it in the trunk. Your house, your rules. Its your castle after all. If you serve the public however, I think its silly to expect everyone to disarm as they enter your store. Once again, when that guy comes in to rob you, I don't think your gun free zone sign does anything but let him know he probably will have free reign of the place.

I don't have an issue with treating private property the same whether it's a residence or a place of business. If that business really doesn't want to do business with armed citizens I can just not do business there or not carry when I go there. I don't think posting or not posting no gun signs is going to make a big difference in whether or not criminals try to rob a business.

There are plenty of states that have high firearm ownership rates and break ins and robberies still happen there. We had a few break in in my neighborhood this month and most of the neighbors I know are armed. Seems to me that breaking into a house to steal a tv or whatever isn't worth the risk of getting shot but if criminals were smart they probably wouldn't be doing break ins in the first place.

Not being omnipotent, I can not speak for criminals so much as, based on my level of intelligence, and ability to plan operations, I would most definately hit "gun free zones" first. This is obviously just me talking. I am not saying everyone thinks this way, but if I was omnipotent, I think the answer to this would surprise you.

and yes, if they didn't want me to carry in the store, I have a choice to vote with my dollar. I can agree with that. I don't need to spend money in there anyway. However I am speaking from the other side of the table. I am a law abiding citizen, and always will be, but if I didn't want to be, soft targets would be my first targets.

 Smacks wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

Earlier it seemed like you didn't want to make this needlessly about guns, but it now it seems like are trying to make it about religion.

The guy was an angry, unstable, wife beating, homophobe, who's wife had left him. He probably had a tiny penis too. His religion is almost incidental. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools? Anders Breivik was diametrically opposed to radical Islam. These people are just twisted.

He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that?
wife beating, check
homophobe, check
His religion is almost incidental. unless you disagree with the ISIL interpretation of it of course then its dying time for you.
How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools-you mean like the Beslan school? check

 feeder wrote:
So, what facts are known about this event?

1. US-born citizen committed the attack with legally obtained firearms.

2. Radicalised via the internet. Is there any indication he had travelled to the ME for training or other support?

3. Chosen target based on attacker's personal extreme homophobia.

If the above facts are true then no amount of "immigrant banning" or "gun control" would have stopped this particular attack.

I think this is the physical manifestation of one person's extreme frustration and hatred.

A terror attack requires a political end. What is the political end of this attack?

1. 2nd generation are more prone to radicalization.

2. http://www.newsmax.com/US/mateen-orlando-nightclub-saudi-arabia/2016/06/13/id/733568/

3. That is your guess, not based on any actually revealed facts from the investigation.

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
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).

Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.

I think it's a bit illogical for the state to tell people we trust you to own and carry guns but we don't want you to do it in these particular places. I think it's a false distinction to trust a citizen with a gun if they're standing in one place but not trust them with a gun if they're standing someplace else.

I can agree with the private property issue, but the way I see it, if someone is breaking into your house and happens to have a weapon, I don't think your personal issues with fire arms are of any concern of his. If I wanna come over to your hosue for dinner with my wife, Ill leave it in the trunk. Your house, your rules. Its your castle after all. If you serve the public however, I think its silly to expect everyone to disarm as they enter your store. Once again, when that guy comes in to rob you, I don't think your gun free zone sign does anything but let him know he probably will have free reign of the place.

I don't have an issue with treating private property the same whether it's a residence or a place of business. If that business really doesn't want to do business with armed citizens I can just not do business there or not carry when I go there. I don't think posting or not posting no gun signs is going to make a big difference in whether or not criminals try to rob a business.

There are plenty of states that have high firearm ownership rates and break ins and robberies still happen there. We had a few break in in my neighborhood this month and most of the neighbors I know are armed. Seems to me that breaking into a house to steal a tv or whatever isn't worth the risk of getting shot but if criminals were smart they probably wouldn't be doing break ins in the first place.

Not being omnipotent, I can not speak for criminals so much as, based on my level of intelligence, and ability to plan operations, I would most definately hit "gun free zones" first. This is obviously just me talking. I am not saying everyone thinks this way, but if I was omnipotent, I think the answer to this would surprise you.

and yes, if they didn't want me to carry in the store, I have a choice to vote with my dollar. I can agree with that. I don't need to spend money in there anyway. However I am speaking from the other side of the table. I am a law abiding citizen, and always will be, but if I didn't want to be, soft targets would be my first targets.

I think we agree that criminals aren't going to follow the law or posted signs so it's not going to stop them if they want to attack a gun free place. I'm supportive of giving people the freedom to decide if they want their private business to be a gun free zone even if that makes it more attractive for criminals. Soft targets are always going to be vulnerable and as long as we want to be a free and open society we're going to have plenty of soft targets everywhere. Thankfully the vast majority of people aren't ever going to even attempt to commit mass murder at one of those soft targets.

Seaward wrote:

 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.

If you continue to ignore the rest of a quoted post just so you can make random points, you light as well stop responding to me and waste the time of everyone that has to read your pointless replies.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

Earlier it seemed like you didn't want to make this needlessly about guns, but it now it seems like are trying to make it about religion.

The guy was an angry, unstable, wife beating, homophobe, who's wife had left him. He probably had a tiny penis too. His religion is almost incidental. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools? Anders Breivik was diametrically opposed to radical Islam. These people are just twisted.

He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that?
wife beating, check
homophobe, check
His religion is almost incidental. unless you disagree with the ISIL interpretation of it of course then its dying time for you.
How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools-you mean like the Beslan school? check

Was he ever convicted of beating his first wife? A domestic violence conviction should have prevented him from owning guns in Florida.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

Earlier it seemed like you didn't want to make this needlessly about guns, but it now it seems like are trying to make it about religion.

The guy was an angry, unstable, wife beating, homophobe, who's wife had left him. He probably had a tiny penis too. His religion is almost incidental. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools? Anders Breivik was diametrically opposed to radical Islam. These people are just twisted.

He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that?
wife beating, check
homophobe, check
His religion is almost incidental. unless you disagree with the ISIL interpretation of it of course then its dying time for you.
How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools-you mean like the Beslan school? check

Was he ever convicted of beating his first wife? A domestic violence conviction should have prevented him from owning guns in Florida.

If he owned the guns legally, then probably not.

PS thanks for making my lunch break interesting guys and gals. Lets keep it civil so we don't get locked like the last one i participated in.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Was he ever convicted of beating his first wife? A domestic violence conviction should have prevented him from owning guns in Florida.

I don't think he was ever charged let alone convicted.

Just got back from lunch and was listening to the radio. FBI official speaking live. The killer actually made statements in support of radical Islami to his co workers at a court house where he was a guard "I hope the police come to my house so I can martyr myself for allah" - this was after he made some statements in support of the Taliban. The killer was then questioned by the FBI in an investigation after he explain that he only said that because they were "picking on him for being Muslim and was feeling discriminated against". He was later released and allowed back to work and went off the radar.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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.

And my post explained that the law in Oklahoma has no problem with you going to the place with your wife/relatives to eat dinner and where they can have a drink, but says no to hanging out at the bar.

I don't usually speak about US politics, and even less about their right to carry guns, but in France, it is forbidden to have a weapon: it saved no one in Paris.
I used to think "everyone should be able to carry a gun, but not an automatics gun / a rifle, a handgun is enough to protect his own life", but, in fact, it doesn't work, the bad guys always have the weapons they want.

What was his weapons ? I heard a handgun and a rifle.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
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).

Private property owners should be allowed to dictate whether or not people can carry on their premises, it's their property and their right to control who they allow on their premises.

To be fair, and to be technically correct, the state does not tell private property owners that they cannot let people carry on their premises. They state tells individual people where they cannot carry.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

Earlier it seemed like you didn't want to make this needlessly about guns, but it now it seems like are trying to make it about religion.

The guy was an angry, unstable, wife beating, homophobe, who's wife had left him. He probably had a tiny penis too. His religion is almost incidental. How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools? Anders Breivik was diametrically opposed to radical Islam. These people are just twisted.

He was an ISIL terrorist. Why do you not accept that?
wife beating, check
homophobe, check
His religion is almost incidental. unless you disagree with the ISIL interpretation of it of course then its dying time for you.
How many times have we seen white guys go off like that, and shoot up schools-you mean like the Beslan school? check

I think you got the wrong end of the stick. I'm just trying to explain to Xenomancers that there are other factors beyond simply "he's a Muslim", which made this guy murder 49 people. Just being a Muslim doesn't make someone a violent murderer. He was probably already violent and angry in the first place, which is what attracted him to extremism. Not the other way around.

 godardc wrote:
I don't usually speak about US politics, and even less about their right to carry guns, but in France, it is forbidden to have a weapon: it saved no one in Paris.
I used to think "everyone should be able to carry a gun, but not an automatics gun / a rifle, a handgun is enough to protect his own life", but, in fact, it doesn't work, the bad guys always have the weapons they want.

What was his weapons ? I heard a handgun and a rifle.

First off that was a tragedy, and the world is still feeling the effects of that horrid day. I do have a question though. If someone, or multiple persons would have had access to even a handgun, would they not have had a chance, even a small one of ending it sooner?

 redleger wrote:
Truth is, there is no excuse, and anyone who makes an excuse for him is probably not hindered by the burden of individual responsibility. The news is so full of gak that I can't even watch it anymore. It's almost like there is a filter all new goes through, gets cleared, then it can be said. Similar to Public Affairs any time a Soldier wants to talk on the record. (hers your script, don' t deviate, make sure you mention this or that, don't say this or that)

He committed a heinous hate crime/ domestic terrorism/ terrorism. He gets remanded with no bail, goes to trial, gets the death penalty, and we remove his ability to breed from the face of this earth.

Are we talking about the killer? Didn't he die in the shootout?