shooting in gay club orlando

This has been a terrible tragedy indeed, of course most people which jump straight to gun control (myself included) which is a shame as instead of using this time right after the shooting to offer condolences we instead just choose to bicker... and since we are bickering, as much as I'd like to see guns banned outside of shooting ranges this is basically impossible in America, gun culture is far too ingrained into their psyche, I'm not sure anything can be done and these mass shootings are likely to continue.
 
Freakbro said:
Ahh, but as Longbow argued earlier, it's really important to protect the rights of a person with known affiliations to terrorist groups to own a gun, I mean it's just one of those inalienable rights you can't live without

Just a shame so many people can't live with them...
Click to expand...

Problem is what's a terrorist group? Black Lives Matter? Oathkeepers? Skull and Bones society? How come there wasn't all this clamour to ban guns after Paris? Oh yeah - they were already banned.
 
Jackie Smith was inside the club and told the AP the two friends next to her were shot.

"Some guy walked in and started shooting everybody," Smith said. "He had an automatic rifle, so nobody stood a chance. I just tried to get out of there.''
Click to expand...

I hope Phil is going to correct her and point out it wasn't an automatic weapon, but a semi-automatic and as such was not a problem as it was legally purchased.
 
flowrider99 said:
Apparently the gunman was on the FBI's watch list. ISIS are claiming responsibility but they could be looking for more false propaganda.
Click to expand...

And he phoned emergency services before the attack and pledged allegiance to Islamic State group.
 
diamount said:
What would you call his constant deflection and splitting hairs over stupid terminology which would've made no difference to the dozens of victims? If maybe a dangerous weapon wasn't as easy as buying a loaf of bread, well this could've been averted. Especially if he was on the watchlist as reported.
Click to expand...

It's not splitting hairs. Automatic firearms fall into a different category so you are talking about something different.

If you want to say "rifles should be restricted" then say that, but if you say "automatic firearms should be restricted" you're going to be told they already are. I get that you don't like firearms and they are all the same to you, but it's not a strawman to point out an incorrect statement even if you don't know the difference.

Raikiri said:
So why have guns? If you won't think they would shoot their own then the whole "defence against the government" argument doesn't work at all.
Click to expand...

Without the firearms the government could steam roll the populous, with the firearms they would have to shoot the people. It's a deterrent, like nuclear arms.

Freakbro said:
Ahh, but as Longbow argued earlier, it's really important to protect the rights of a person with known affiliations to terrorist groups to own a gun, I mean it's just one of those inalienable rights you can't live without

Just a shame so many people can't live with them...
Click to expand...

If they have committed a felony then convict them and they won't be able to have firearms.
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
Problem is what's a terrorist group? Black Lives Matter? Oathkeepers? Skull and Bones society? How come there wasn't all this clamour to ban guns after Paris? Oh yeah - they were already banned.
Click to expand...

As many people have pointed out to this repeated strawman, there is a huge difference between a funded terrorist cell, who will be able to get military weaponry, explosives etc etc and a sole civilian sympathiser who wouldn't be able to get banned weapons (unless it's a mac 10 of course ;)) but can easily get just as devastating weapons over the counter.
 
I doubt the government has any interest in steamrolling you. Besides what chance would you stand against the army unless you're under the impression the army would be on your side and the entire equivalent of their MPs are all as skilled and as hard to kill as John McClane...
 
Freakbro said:
As many people have pointed out to this repeated strawman, there is a huge difference between a funded terrorist cell, who will be able to get military weaponry, explosives etc etc and a sole civilian sympathiser who wouldn't be able to get banned weapons (unless it's a mac 10 of course ;)) but can easily get just as devastating weapons over the counter.
Click to expand...

So why not concentrate on stopping the terrorist funded cells rather than law-abiding citizens?
 
Caged said:
Just say you like guns and enjoy shooting them, then. There's no need to insist the discussion is about self defense and show zero ability to compromise on the second amendment position, meanwhile the bodies keep piling up.
Click to expand...

I didn't ? I will happily admit I like guns and enjoying shooting them. I don't need to own them for self defence as that's what the police are for. People on here just have to take into account there's people who like guns and folk like myself have to account for people disliking them, but trying to ban guns because someone isn't a fan shouldn't be done.



There will always be people killed by guns, yes it's sad but it shouldn't stop people owning them. I do believe the status goes about the purchasing and storing of the guns wrong in a lot of homes, if they could control that better it would go a long way.
 
Mynight said:
I doubt the government has any interest in steamrolling you. Besides what chance would you stand against the army unless you're under the impression the army would be on your side and the entire equivalent of their MPs are all as skilled and as hard to kill as John McClane...
Click to expand...

Him and phil seem to have this odd idea that the government are out to control / get them.

A bunch of civilians with guns won't do much anyway if they decide to bomb you with their billions of dollars in tech they have....
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
Him and phil seem to have this odd idea that the government are out to control / get them.
Click to expand...

Have to say I don't agree with this argument - our government has Apache helicopters and Challenger 2 tanks, an assault rifle isn't going to be much good against them. No, my argument for law-abiding citizens to be given access to firearms is for when the government fails and isn't there any more.
 
scorza said:
So why not concentrate on stopping the terrorist funded cells rather than law-abiding citizens?
Click to expand...

It's not an either or :confused:

They do concentrate on stopping terrorist cells....they could also save a lot of lives by tightening up their gun laws and restricting guns to 'law abiding citizens' as well.
 
Barely 36 hours after one of the most positive exposures to Islam and Muslims in America, via the funeral of Muhammad Ali, it appears all of that good will be wiped away by a senseless act of violence, perpetrated by a nobody who happens to have a Muslim name.

Such is the problem of being a minority under pressure: the actions of one become linked to all. Last I checked, Caucasian male mass-shooters (which is the default) do not represent all of white America. Mexican gangsters don't represent all Latinos. African American criminals are not representative of the entire African American population.

So why must I issue an apology for something perpetrated by a mentally unstable person simply because his name is 'Omar'?

I'm not trying to be callous with regards to the deaths in Orlando - any and all loss of human life in such a manner is a tragedy, and no religion or law or moral code would approve such an act.

I merely wish to point out that it seems unfair that the actions of one are extrapolated to represent all ONLY when the perpetrator is Muslim. We never have all churches issue condemnations when a Christian fanatic murders an abortion doctor. So why must we as a community somehow collectively 'own up' the crimes caused by a lone, deranged person? (And as of the writing of this paragraph, by all accounts it appears to be an act perpetrated by an individual acting on his own, who has not associated this act with religion nor acted on behalf of a terrorist group).

If you want a condemnation, I condemn every unjust killing equally, regardless of the religion, race or nationality of the shooter. But I'm afraid I will not be issuing an apology, as I have nothing to apologize for
Click to expand...

Saw this on another forum and have to say the guy is pretty much spot with his thoughts.

It's a shame that anyone with a Muslim name that carries out a mass murder, automatically all Muslims are labelled as bad people. When it's evident that the vast majority of Muslims are just peaceful law abiding citizens.
 
Yas786 said:
Saw this on another forum and have to say the guy is pretty much spot with his thoughts.

It's a shame that anyone with a Muslim name that carries out a mass murder, automatically all Muslims are labelled as bad people. When it's evident that the vast majority of Muslims are just peaceful law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

They kill gay people in most Muslim countries. :confused:
 
Aaaaand we're off.

[ ] It's all the West's fault
[ ] He's been suffering from anxiety and depression
[x] Mental illness is responsible for this
[ ] Lone nutter
[ ] False flag
[ ] Not a real muslim
[ ] Isolated case
[ ] Christians do bad things too!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom