Serious Orlando mass shooting

[Bughouse]

I mean theyll never be able to use the air force anyway the united states is too packed with people. As soon as innocents got involved it would just end any sympathy anyone had for the US government. Itd be like cutting the head off of a hydra. I mean if the US military can get their ass whooped in vietnam and afghanistan then god damn yeah I do think there would be a chance if we had things like AR 15s on american soil

Yeah when has law enforcement ever used gratuitous air power that affected more civilians than their actual targets? It would be a widely known and reviled moment in American history and not something that most people have no idea ever happened.

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

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

I dont know if thats the best example because they were a black power communist movement and it doesnt sound like they had very many people in the group if all who died was 11 people and 5 children. I actually never heard about that before until you told me, and ive never heard anyone ever talk about it before. Itd be a lot different and resistance would be more numerous if say it was something like taxing some exorbitant amount or actually trying to take hunting rifles or assault weapons away from people or any other dictatorial bullshit. Not like, communist communes. I had a second point there too being that if we got our butts whooped in afghanistan and then vietnam too and that was maybe a pyrrhic victory at best then yeah I do think resistance with assault weapons is solidly above 0% lol

 

[Rugi]

IF EVERYBODY OWN A GUN EVERBODY WILL SAFE!
No. The psychological aspects of this are terrifying. Everybody has the ability to kill anybody else at a moments notice. This is fucking scary.

THE GOVERNMENT WILL FACE OUR WRATH!
The government owns your ass. Look at what happens to people who truly incur the wrath of the government. Whether people are above killing civillians or not just depends on how paranoid everybody is. And should everybody own a gun I'd say thats pretty fucking paranoid. Whos to know if a sour waiter with anger issues will shoot you for not tipping enough or if that guy you just crashed into will be pissed to the point of firing bullet. Also lets be honest the U.S isn't gonna switch to a dictatorship anytime soon. You're not really going to have to overthrow the government. If you wanna see what a true dictatorship does to keep its people in check look at Singapore for a functional example and North Korea for a non functional one. Guns or not, you're not doing shit.

It amazes me that mass shooting after mass shooting there are still people that insist that universal ownership of guns will better society.

 

[faint]

How many more times will people say "I swear Islam has nothing to do with it"?

Maybe because, you know, Islam != ISIS.

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

If not guns then bombs, stones, hammers, knives, etc
The point is that the gun only enables the person so much, they first must have the desire to kill and also the balls to pull the trigger. My guesses are that any person willing to do this is pretty desperate and guns aren't always needed to kill multiple victims. Humans are creative creatures indeed, but also destructive. It's in our nature.​

 

[Aladyyn]

Love how for some people the only options are "NO GUNS FOR NOBODY" and "EVERYBODY HAS A GUN"

You know what's fucking scary? Being in a place where a shooting is happening with neither you nor anybody else has a way of defending themselves. THAT'S fucking scary. I'm not scared of mentally stable and healthy people pulling a gun on me. I am scared of that psycho with an illegal firearm that doesn't give a fuck about laws.

 

[aurora]

I am scared of that psycho with an illegal firearm that doesn't give a fuck about laws.

Except in this instance the guy had bought the gun legally and had a gun licence that was perfectly valid for the next year.

The good thing about limiting access to guns is that shit like this changes from 'I fucking hate gay people, so I'm going to pick my gun up and shoot up a gay bar' to 'hmm, now that I can't legally access a gun, I actually have to a) find out how to illegally purchase a gun via the black market, b) meticulously plan my assault, c) evade detection from the authorities.' Giving everybody access to guns is treating a symptom (deranged maniacs committing mass shootings) rather than the cause (guns are way too fucking available).

 

[Aladyyn]

Except in this instance the guy had bought the gun legally and had a gun licence that was perfectly valid for the next year.

The good thing about limiting access to guns is that shit like this changes from 'I fucking hate gay people, so I'm going to pick my gun up and shoot up a gay bar' to 'hmm, now that I can't legally access a gun, I actually have to a) find out how to illegally purchase a gun via the black market, b) meticulously plan my assault, c) evade detection from the authorities.' Giving everybody access to guns is treating a symptom (deranged maniacs committing mass shootings) rather than the cause (guns are way too fucking available).

Guns SHOULD be available to people, but the rules SHOULD be stricter than they currently are. Banning guns outright is simply stupid. Deranged maniacs ARE NOT a symptom of guns being available.

Not to mention the guy was a security officer and had access to a gun via his job regardless.

 

[Solace]

i can't believe there are people who genuinely believe the solution to mass violence is to add more violent weapons. how would that help in a movie theater or a night club where they're dark and chaotic and filled with people and the likelihood of innocent people getting caught in the crossfire would increase dramatically? how does that help anyone feel any safer when literally anyone could be carrying an assault rifle? that's a fucking nightmare.

everyone who is calling for some kind of middle ground or "nuance" is ignoring the fact that the current political atmosphere doesn't allow for nuance. the fucking NRA gives money to politicians to vote against disallowing people on the TERROR WATCH LIST from buying guns. they're a lobby that specifically benefits from the proliferation of guns and have no moral conscience or nuance. there's no compromising if their interests are better served with potential/suspected terrorists owning guns. i don't understand how people aren't aware of how the NRA is making this a black and white issue.

i agree that there's going to have to be some sort of compromise in order to fix these laws, but it isn't just the Liberal Left that's unwilling to compromise, it's the GOP taking money from the NRA to vote against any sort of law that could save innocent lives.

 

[aurora]

Guns SHOULD be available to people, but the rules SHOULD be stricter than they currently are. Banning guns outright is simply stupid. Deranged maniacs ARE NOT a symptom of guns being available.

Not to mention the guy was a security officer and had access to a gun via his job regardless.

Nice strawman? Nowhere in my post did I imply anything in the first paragraph of your reply. I didn't say anything about banning guns outright and I didn't say that deranged maniacs exist because guns are available.

I concede I overlooked his occupation, but my point still stands. Think of deranged maniacs like Elliot Rodger. It was obvious that there was something extremely wrong with him - a history of mental health issues, etc. - but nothing stopped him from buying a gun and committing the disgusting crimes he did.

 

[Rugi]

Well lol there is a lot of incentive to not try to kill someone with a gun when you know people will shoot back at you in the case of a pissed off driver or a waiter. You might be on a backroad sure but that guy still has to contend with you - there is a lot of incentive not to get into an altercation

And I assume that North Koreans dont have access to guns lol, so thats why they cant do any resisting. And they are also super indoctrinated so they think being poor and thinking your leader is god is cool and shit idk lol

OK so what you do is you have a US military which is already incredibly republican and would sympathize with whatever resistance the US was putting up if it was gratuitous against freedom and not some communist anarchy movement, then you have the civilian casualties that would incur with airstrikes and shit, and it wouldnt be like the civil war where it was easier to do since it was geographically set in 2 separate pieces, so those military people would have to think of their family and friends, and there are stupid backwater places like afghanistan and vietnam which were able to be uneducated hillbillies pretty much and resist the military until they just fuckin left lol. And the terrain would be similar because it would be in urban jungles and wooded rural areas. I think you could definitely make a strong argument that with assault weapons and whatever DYI shit you could come up with the 80 million gun owners or even a fraction of that could pull off a resistance or coup on the US government if it was partaking in egregious nonsense

You know im worried about shit like Common Core teaching young people left ideology with no honest examination of conservative economic ideas and social ideas like emphasis on family but not any of the stupid shit like bashing gays and stuff. I could definitely see a world in the future where because of indoctrination we may go down a road of even more extreme inefficient spending on failed socialist ideals because nobody was ever taught otherwise. I know I wasnt until one fateful day I watched Milton Friedmans Free to Choose. I was just taught by school and Jon Stewart that republicans were bad and because they were against gays and for war that absolutely none of their ideas were good at all. There might be a time where good people need to say no, and not just trying every 2 years to elect officials to change things for the better. Now Im not saying aggressively go out and confront the government and take it over, but just say no and defend yourself if they try to aggress on you and make you do stupid shit. I dont government boarding schools and hate speech laws to shoehorn out any opposing conservative viewpoints in this country because we need them now more than ever. Facebook and Twitter scare with their antics and idk how far they will go

These ridiculous wedge issues like who can use what bathroom when you should be focusing on the fact that there are a good amount of people out there who think that people should be taxed more to give moree money to a functional monopoly you can only maybe change every 4 years so they can waste it and give you shitty stuff like they always do. Most of these people arent even taxpayers. If you took out all the non taxpayers who voted in the 2012 election, romney wins in a landslide its insane. Barack Obama doesnt even win california i dont think. If you want a shot of having our country work like sweden or denmark or all the places you love (and its up for debate whether these places or any good) then you need to go to smaller government because those places dont have 320 million people and 2 separate underclasses of people, Black and Mexicans, that are on the dole draining away at whatever welfare system they have. This is what needs to happen.

I cant believe that a good amount of young people choose to spend their intellectual capital on tumblr rather than the things ive outlined

Look tik if you believe that I've been corrupted by my upbringing and I'm part of a new blind left generation of kids go ahead but then dont rebutt because your not going to take my points seriously anyways. As cool as theorycrafting an alternate history of a 2016 American Civil War is, its not gonna happen so lets just not for now. People snap all the time and when they do you dont want them to have a gun on them. Crazy people will kill people regardless and if they have to go through illegal channels to get a weapon capable of killing the chances of catching them before they do anything increase drastically. I can assure you that U.S having more mass shootings then most western European countries and British colonies with stricter gun laws has somthing to do with the ease of which guns can be obtained in the U.S.

Australia has plenty of minorities. My friends group seems like those stereotypical multicultural sitcoms and I live in an Anglo area. Yet I've never seen a proper gun in Australia outside the hands of a policeman. Nor has there been a mass shooting of above ten people dead since 1996. I think those two are related.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

I did take them seriously. I gave you a serious response lol. It just so happens I have thought about all the stuff youve mentioned before.

 

[ManOfMany]

From New York Times:

"The F.B.I. investigated Mr. Mateen in 2013 when he made comments to co-workers suggesting he had terrorist ties, and again the next year, for possible connections to Moner Mohammad Abusalha, an American who became a suicide bomber in Syria, said Ronald Hopper, an assistant agent in charge of the bureau’s Tampa Division. But each time, the F.B.I. found no solid evidence that Mr. Mateen had any real connection to terrorism or had broken any laws.

Mr. Mateen, who lived in Fort Pierce, Fla., was able to continue working as a security guard with the security firm G4S, where he had worked since 2007, and he was able to buy guns. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Mr. Mateen had legally bought a long gun and a pistol in the past week or two, though it was not clear whether those were the weapons used in the assault, which officials described as a handgun and an AR-15 type of assault rifle."

And here we see the obvious failure in the system. Mateen had been investigated by the FBI (even if no evidence was found) and yet that information was not translated to the gun seller who sold him the guns. Besides the obvious idiocy of selling an assault rifle to a guy named Omar Mateen, the FBI failed here by not blacklisting this guy for the background check.

 

[Stellar]

From New York Times:

"The F.B.I. investigated Mr. Mateen in 2013 when he made comments to co-workers suggesting he had terrorist ties, and again the next year, for possible connections to Moner Mohammad Abusalha, an American who became a suicide bomber in Syria, said Ronald Hopper, an assistant agent in charge of the bureau’s Tampa Division. But each time, the F.B.I. found no solid evidence that Mr. Mateen had any real connection to terrorism or had broken any laws.

Mr. Mateen, who lived in Fort Pierce, Fla., was able to continue working as a security guard with the security firm G4S, where he had worked since 2007, and he was able to buy guns. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Mr. Mateen had legally bought a long gun and a pistol in the past week or two, though it was not clear whether those were the weapons used in the assault, which officials described as a handgun and an AR-15 type of assault rifle."

And here we see the obvious failure in the system. Mateen had been investigated by the FBI (even if no evidence was found) and yet that information was not translated to the gun seller who sold him the guns. Besides the obvious idiocy of selling an assault rifle to a guy named Omar Mateen, the FBI failed here by not blacklisting this guy for the background check.

Do you disagree with the "Innocent until proven guilty" mantra of the US judicial system?
Do you agree with stripping citizens of rights based on conjecture?

 

[ManOfMany]

Do you disagree with the "Innocent until proven guilty" mantra of the US judicial system?
Do you agree with stripping citizens of rights based on conjecture?

I disagree in the case of FBI terrorism investigations which concern national security. If someone has been under investigation, they should be prevented from doing certain high-risk things like gun purchases. If evidence hadn't been found that only means that nothing has been found yet

Buying a gun really shouldn't be seen as a right, but a privilege.

 

[apt-get]

From New York Times:

"The F.B.I. investigated Mr. Mateen in 2013 when he made comments to co-workers suggesting he had terrorist ties, and again the next year, for possible connections to Moner Mohammad Abusalha, an American who became a suicide bomber in Syria, said Ronald Hopper, an assistant agent in charge of the bureau’s Tampa Division. But each time, the F.B.I. found no solid evidence that Mr. Mateen had any real connection to terrorism or had broken any laws.

Mr. Mateen, who lived in Fort Pierce, Fla., was able to continue working as a security guard with the security firm G4S, where he had worked since 2007, and he was able to buy guns. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Mr. Mateen had legally bought a long gun and a pistol in the past week or two, though it was not clear whether those were the weapons used in the assault, which officials described as a handgun and an AR-15 type of assault rifle."

And here we see the obvious failure in the system. Mateen had been investigated by the FBI (even if no evidence was found) and yet that information was not translated to the gun seller who sold him the guns. Besides the obvious idiocy of selling an assault rifle to a guy named Omar Mateen, the FBI failed here by not blacklisting this guy for the background check.

Except they didn't sell him an assault rifle? It's very difficult to buy one. AR-15 =/= M-16. It's not fully automatic.

Besides the obvious idiocy of selling an assault rifle to a guy named Omar Mateen

That's pretty racist

 

[ManOfMany]

Except they didn't sell him an assault rifle? It's very difficult to buy one. AR-15 =/= M-16. It's not fully automatic.


That's pretty racist

I agree, what I said was pretty racist and I didn't mean it either. I was just a bit angry and just wrote without thinking. I don't actually believe they should not sell guns to Muslims. And the gun seller was obligated to give him the gun anyway if he passed the background check.

However I do believe that the fact that he was a young Muslim man should have maybe set off a few red flags in the gun seller's mind (I also believe should be the case for young men of any race who don't appear entirely stable)...Unfortunately still nothing could be done about it under these laws since buying guns is a right unless you show up under the background check. But maybe they could rework the laws to make it more under the gun seller's discretion about who can purchase a gun or not? That may certainly help. Stronger/more rigorous background checks would be great as well of course, as well as maybe having them pass some intensive test that can screen their mental health. I really don't know, but something has to be done.

sorry for poor wording, I'm a bad writer

 

[termi]

sorry for poor wording, I'm a bad writer

wording it better won't somehow make your statement less racist tho lmao

 

[jrp]

What the fuck does him being a "young muslim man" have anything to do with him wanting a gun?

Reworking the law to allow discretion just adds all sorts of problems to the process. "Selling guns to gay people goes against my religion" and other shit like that. Allowing discretion just adds bias to the process.

We need to implement the tighter gun laws that the right keeps resisting and we need to accept that Islam isn't as peaceful as the left wants to make it out to be.

Both sides of the political spectrum are at fault here.

 

[ManOfMany]

What the fuck does him being a "young muslim man" have anything to do with him wanting a gun?

Reworking the law to allow discretion just adds all sorts of problems to the process. "Selling guns to gay people goes against my religion" and other shit like that. Allowing discretion just adds bias to the process.

We need to implement the tighter gun laws that the right keeps resisting and we need to accept that Islam isn't as peaceful as the left wants to make it out to be.

Both sides of the political spectrum are at fault here.

I agree mostly with your post, although there is one way to solve the bolded part. That is by replacing your typical gun sellers with government officials, this way the only way you can buy a gun is from a government official. It would prevent any redneck gun-seller from just denying gay people guns, for example. Of course, this would also totally kill the gun industry, so passing such a law may be unrealistic.

Then I agree that for now the best we can do is to tighten up gun loophole laws and make background checks much more rigorous.

also @others: I already owned up that my statement was racist, and that I didn't actually mean it. Why don't you focus on actually saving lives instead of bashing me for not being politically correct?

 

[jrp]

I actually wouldn't be completely against nationalizing gun sales, although the chances of that happening in america are next to nothing. The gun lobby would never let it happen

Pennsylvania has something of a similar idea going on, where you have to buy alcohol from state stores. I would definitely make the claim that guns are a better fit for this sort of setting, but again, it's never going to happen

 

[Icing On Da Cake]

However I do believe that the fact that he was a young Muslim man should have maybe set off a few red flags in the gun seller's mind (I also believe should be the case for young men of any race who don't appear entirely stable)

also @others: I already owned up that my statement was racist, and that I didn't actually mean it. Why don't you focus on actually saving lives instead of bashing me for not being politically correct?

"Yeah, I didn't mean to say racist remarks about Muslims, but I'm just gonna single out suspicious, young Muslim men out of all other groups cuz reasons." The point of this thread was to discourage this kind of poor behavior, focusing more on the actual massacre and issues surrounding it rather than just saying these type of comments, which just turn the discussion into an even bigger mess for no reason at all other than spreading those racist views. Anyways, one thing we could for gun control is actually keeping a closer eye on potential/confirmed violent offenders, rather than forgetting/ignoring them until they kill someone when something could've been done to prevent a tragedy like this.

 

[ManOfMany]

"Yeah, I didn't mean to say racist remarks about Muslims, but I'm just gonna single out suspicious, young Muslim men out of all other groups cuz reasons." The point of this thread was to discourage this kind of poor behavior, focusing more on the actual massacre and issues surrounding it rather than just saying these type of comments, which just turn the discussion into an even bigger mess for no reason at all other than spreading those racist views. Anyways, one thing we could for gun control is actually keeping a closer eye on potential/confirmed violent offenders, rather than forgetting/ignoring them until they kill someone when something could've been done to prevent a tragedy like this.

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the majority of people joining Islamic terror organizations are males in their 20s, would it? Let's not pretend that Islam is a blind entity of evil or something like that- the face of Islamic terror is largely made up of highly religious males in their 20s and 30s, not women or old people or anything. Also mass shootings in the U.S. are very disproportionately caused by young males (young white males cause U.S. is very white). I'm not calling for people to ostracize such segments of the population, in fact that's awful, but when selling such a dangerous commodity such as guns some degree of caution, and yes profiling, has to be applied. I hate stereotyping and as a brown male living in the U.S. myself I know how awful it can be. But when dealing with something as ridiculously dangerous as guns you have to throw everything like that out of the window.

The second part of your post hit the nail on the head though. It's exactly what I was saying, the guy was a potential threat investigated by the FBI. But they ignored it and didn't note it down on the database where he was background checked. And so he was allowed to buy guns.

 

[Icing On Da Cake]

Racial profiling is just an unfair way to judge someone based on their background. As a person of color yourself, the fact that you would allow such a practice to occur confuses me. As long as Muslims live in this country, they deserve all the rights everyone has. Denying these rights violates the Constitution, the Supreme law of the land, which is a big no-no. If we do restrict Muslims the right to bear arms (have guns) more than other groups, that is clear violation of laws, and it will just be yet another shitstorm to deal with. Not every young Muslim is a terrorist, and all should be treated fairly (unless they prove those negative sterotypes true for themselves and damage the public's view of Muslims even further). Gotta reduce gun violence somehow, but discrimination isn't the answer.

 

[apt-get]

if 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', I suppose alcohol also rapes people, rather than rapists?

What? It's the opposite. If guns don't kill people, then alcohol doesn't rape people.

Did you even try making a valid argument in the first place?