Orlando, Florida mass shooting. 50 dead, 53 wounded

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Come to think of it, even if this does spur new federal gun laws, it's probably going to be like same sex marriage being ruled legal and those so-called "religious freedom" laws. As in, the GOP will definitely find ways to get around the law or laws, especially in the red states. I wonder if a stricter law or laws would even be enforced in certain areas and/or states.

 

Something should be done or at least attempted, but if those nutjobs didn't budge for Virgina Tech or Sandy Hook, I doubt they're going to budge because of this, even if the death and injury toll is higher.

[a bad post]

I mean there are limits. But it more common sense than "how gay" you are

 

Don't Twerk on the streets in BDSM outfits. I don't want to see that from gay people, and I also don't want to see that from Straight people. 

 

It's not what you did, (guess), but there are people in the LGB(T) community who do pull stunts like that and that turns off otherwise sympathetic people

 

There's a reason I don't identify with the movement even though I'm bisexual, and it's cause of people like the ones I described. 

 

That being said, this is murder, maybe for Daesh, but murder never the less

 

Edit: So are people really buying the parent's story now?

Quite frankly that makes me uncomfortable as well, however if that's how those people want to express themselves that's they're right. There are far more obnoxious things that happen in this country than to worry about what people do once a year at a pride parade.

 

Also any reason that the T was put into parenthesis?

 

 

This is exactly how I felt when that a****** shot up the church about a year ago.  Now replace gay and LGBT with black and I can tell you exactly why I know what you're going through.

I understand completely. It's just crazy to me that some people do want to acknowledge these types of crimes for what they actually are. No matter what motivation these murderers have they're still crimes of hatred, and I don't get why some people don't get that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Quite frankly that makes me uncomfortable as well, however if that's how those people want to express themselves that's they're right. There are far more obnoxious things that happen in this country than to worry about what people do once a year at a pride parade.

 

Also any reason that the T was put into parenthesis?

I mean, you can do what ever the hell you want in private. Clearly it's not illegal to do it in public either. But that being said, it's not hard to understand why people feel like we're alien to them if that's how people want to represent us

 

Um, well that's a controversial topic for another time, but in the gist it strives from my personal experience. I've been given more grief by Gays and Lesbians for being Bi than by any straight person. And likewise Trans people almost seem to be a different struggle, but no less a struggle.

 

I think they should split into 3 groups, but 2 atleast. So LGB & T 

 

It was not meant as a slight, and I apologize if it was seen as one

[vla1ne]

Something should be done or at least attempted, but if those nutjobs didn't budge for Virgina Tech or Sandy Hook, I doubt they're going to budge because of this, even if the death and injury toll is higher.

alright, if you're arguing for repeated background checks, that go further in depth, then i agree fully, i even agree if you are arguing for adding more security and longer wait times for gun owners to purchase, and i even agree if you want to change the laws regarding gun ownership to require gun use/ safety courses or something(s) similar. but if you're supporting something like revoking the right to open/ concealed carry, i'm going to have to politely disagree.

 

it's not that the people opposing are nutobs, it's that the restrictions being pushed have often been far to much to accept. people often view the 1st amendment the same way. placing reasonable restrictions is something that you can ease into law, but considering those on the gun side often have to deal with people wanting to erode the 2nd amendment into nothing, it's actually understandable that they fire back with equal vigor. there's very good reasons to strengthen gun control, but at the same time, there's equally valid reasons to not touch it. the death toll might be tragic, but a proposal to place larger bans on guns, or something similar is probably going to be the first thing thrown, and if that is the case, then they wouldn't be wrong to oppose it.

[a bad post]

I mean, you can do what ever the hell you want in private. Clearly it's not illegal to do it in public either. But that being said, it's not hard to understand why people feel like we're alien to them if that's how people want to represent us

 

Um, well that's a controversial topic for another time, but in the gist it strives from my personal experience. I've been given more grief by Gays and Lesbians for being Bi than by any straight person. And likewise Trans people almost seem to be a different struggle, but no less a struggle.

 

I think they should split into 3 groups, but 2 atleast. So LGB & T 

 

It was not meant as a slight, and I apologize if it was seen as one

Ah I see. I apologize that you've been unfortunate enough to have to deal with that kind of sheet. Unfortunately like all groups our has its ugly side as well, but I hope that you can at some point find people in our community who treat you well.

 

No slight taken, just an honest question.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

alright, if you're arguing for repeated background checks, that go further in depth, then i agree fully, i even agree if you are arguing for adding more security and longer wait times for gun owners to purchase, and i even agree if you want to change the laws regarding gun ownership to require gun use/ safety courses or something(s) similar. but if you're supporting something like revoking the right to open/ concealed carry, i'm going to have to politely disagree.

 

it's not that the people opposing are nutobs, it's that the restrictions being pushed have often been far to much to accept. people often view the 1st amendment the same way. placing reasonable restrictions is something that you can ease into law, but considering those on the gun side often have to deal with people wanting to erode the 2nd amendment into nothing, it's actually understandable that they fire back with equal vigor. there's very good reasons to strengthen gun control, but at the same time, there's equally valid reasons to not touch it. the death toll might be tragic, but a proposal to place larger bans on guns, or something similar is probably going to be the first thing thrown, and if that is the case, then they wouldn't be wrong to oppose it.

I mean universal background checks, and closing the loopholes. I'm not against concealed carry, but I am very unsure on open carry. Concealed carry does have a bit of risk of its own, though. The Chad Oulson case comes to mind for that.

 

Nutjobs=The GOP and the most extreme of extreme of gun nuts, as they don't budge at all. Even when the Dems want something reasonable.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/politics/democrats-chant-wheres-the-bill-orlando-shooting/index.html

 

"Clyburn wants the House to act on three gun control measures: One dealing with what he called the "Charleston loophole" that allowed gunman Dylann Roof to buy weapons since a background check that he would have failed was not completed in three days; the second would prevent people on the FBI's terrorist watch list from buying guns; the third would block anyone convicted of a hate crime from buying a gun."

 

He didn't mention a ban on assault weapons. He didn't mention taking anyone's guns away. He didn't mention gun confiscation. Sounds like he wants a better effort to make sure the people who shouldn't get guns don't, which is pretty reasonable in my eyes. Yet, he and the other House Democrats were completely ignored by the GOP, who either are avoiding the issue out of fear of the ever so powerful gun lobby, or they just don't give a sheet.

 

EDIT: Yeah, a bigger emphasis on gun safety and education should also be implemented, with a course being a requirement. It could help to solve the other crisis.

[vla1ne]

that's something reasonable, and the GOP really is retarded for not taking the fix when it doesn't entail curbing guns at all for normal citizens. if those are the only three clauses than it's a sound bill, and is likely the best one to put forward in the aftermath since it solves the issue, and as far as i can see, has no collateral damage. alright then, i'm in agreement with you here. if they push this (and only this) i see no reason not to support it. it (as described in the article) is literally the perfect fix to the issue at hand.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I might add that getting on the FBI watchlist isn't too difficult. And it's quite difficult to get off it. 

 

Something needs to change on that angle too before supporting that bill

 

Hell on the other two I don't think the bill goes far enough

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

that's something reasonable, and the GOP really is retarded for not taking the fix when it doesn't entail curbing guns at all for normal citizens. if those are the only three clauses than it's a sound bill, and will likely be the best one to put forward in the aftermath since it solves the issue, and as far as i can see, has no collateral damage. alright then, i'm in agreement with you here. if they push this (and only this) in the aftermath i see no reason not to support it. it is literally the perfect fix to the issue at hand.

I mean, we don't really know if there's anything more, but these are three I think many could get behind.

 

Although, going back to open carry for a bit, as I think openly carrying any firearm might not be the wisest thing to do given America's current situation. I mean, handguns are probably acceptable, but there's no way in hell someone going to the airport to drop off someone or pick someone needs a fully loaded AR-15 on him(reference to a thing in Georgia that happened last year I think). I'm not saying anyone is bad. I just don't think it is the wisest move when people are so terrified. Even if the person carrying it has no bad intentions, if you walk around like you're in the Wild West, you're probably going to attract a lot of unwanted attention, including maybe even the police because someone called them out of concern. Just my two cents.

 

In addition, I also feel that the biggest threat to gun rights is gun violence, because if gun violence continues to be as rampant as it now, you will see more and more calls for widespread bans and such. Many people, including me and I imagine many others on herre, are growing tired of this, and you can't blame them.

[vla1ne]

Hell on the other two I don't think the bill goes far enough

that depends on what qualifies as an actual hate crime.

 

I mean, we don't really know if there's anything more, but these are three I think many could get behind.

 

Although, going back to open carry for a bit, as I think openly carrying any firearm might not be the wisest thing to do given America's current situation. I mean, handguns are probably acceptable, but there's no way in hell someone going to the airport to drop off someone or pick someone needs a fully loaded AR-15 on him(reference to a thing in Georgia that happened last year I think). I'm not saying anyone is bad. I just don't think it is the wisest move when people are so terrified. Even if the person carrying it has no bad intentions, if you walk around like you're in the Wild West, you're probably going to attract a lot of unwanted attention, including maybe even the police because someone called them out of concern. Just my two cents.

 

In addition, I also feel that the biggest threat to gun rights is gun violence, because if gun violence continues to be as rampant as it now, you will see more and more calls for widespread bans and such. Many people, including me and I imagine many others on herre, are growing tired of this, and you can't blame them.

if they're the extent, then yeah, i could get behind them.

 

open carry within reason is a perfectly valid line of thought, AR-15 is clearly overenthusiastic on that. considering there was a man shot by the cops just by carrying an airsoft gun, yeah, open carrying something that powerful is not the brightest of ideas.

 

gun violence (of the mass shooting variety) happens primarily in no-gun zones from what i know of it. regular (if there is such a thing) gun violence won't be something that stops with a ban on guns. US has too much open room and too many wide open borders (including sea transport) for guns to be removed to any truly effective degree. not to mention the loss of revenue and the backlash from law abiding gun owners. similar to the "war" on drugs, a "war" on guns would do more harm to the country than good.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

that depends on what qualifies as an actual hate crime. 

Background checks and wait times alone

 

Even as a gunowner I don't get the idea behind a background check. We have a right to a well regulated militia and that entails the right to bear arms.

 

Militias usually had a list of people who were part of them. Let them have a list of 100K people, if the FBI has manpower enough to Captain America 2 style take each of those people out. We've already lost. But the ability to cross reference between gun owners and people on the terror watch list is useful atleast

 

One time background checks are dumb, cause I could be sane last year and not be so this year

 

But as Hillary so eloquently did, the problem is clearly "assault" weapons. Nothing else, no sire

[vla1ne]

government would have to have enough willing citizens to perform something like that. if it came down to a war, the government would lose half its forces off the bat since i assume not many american people would be willing to kill their fellow countrymen for the government. i could be wrong, but holding out hope for general humanity and all that. 

 

I think we can all agree that one time background checks are relatively stupid when it comes to entrusting a gun to people. the right to bear arms doesn't, and shouldn't mean that every sane man gone nuts and their schizophrenic mother is allowed to get weapons.

 

also, i edited the post prior, didn't think i'd get a response that fast, so i just opted to change the comment that was already there.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Background checks and wait times alone

 

Even as a gunowner I don't get the idea behind a background check. We have a right to a well regulated militia and that entails the right to bear arms.

 

Militias usually had a list of people who were part of them. Let them have a list of 100K people, if the FBI has manpower enough to Captain America 2 style take each of those people out. We've already lost. But the ability to cross reference between gun owners and people on the terror watch list is useful atleast

 

One time background checks are dumb, cause I could be sane last year and not be so this year

 

But as Hillary so eloquently did, the problem is clearly "assault" weapons. Nothing else, no sire

That's probably the one thing that irks me about the Democrats view. It's one thing to try to make it so those weapons are harder to obtain, but another if you're saying it's the only problem.

 

On one hand, there are many problems that tie into this crisis, however, ay the same time, it's not exactly wise to rule out that in Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Orlando, the shooters all had at least one common weapon: an AR-15. So, while I do not agree with the absolute main goal being banning assault weapons or whatever, it's not something to ignore either, because they are tools capable of mass slaughter.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

that depends on what qualifies as an actual hate crime.

 

if they're the extent, then yeah, i could get behind them.

 

open carry within reason is a perfectly valid line of thought, AR-15 is clearly overenthusiastic on that. considering there was a man shot by the cops just by carrying an airsoft gun, yeah, open carrying something that powerful is not the brightest of ideas.

 

gun violence (of the mass shooting variety) happens primarily in no-gun zones from what i know of it. regular (if there is such a thing) gun violence won't be something that stops with a ban on guns. US has too much open room and too many wide open borders (including sea transport) for guns to be removed to any truly effective degree. not to mention the loss of revenue and the backlash from law abiding gun owners. similar to the "war" on drugs, a "war" on guns would do more harm to the country than good.

You'll never get rid of guns in America, and that's pretty much a fact. You can't stop all gun violence, but that's no excuse not to pass reasonable laws.

 

However, it does seem like because of all this, owning a gun is viewed in a negative light, even if the person is a good person.

 

EDIT: Oops, thought it would add on to my last post.

[Βyakuya]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-orlando-nightclub-shooter-visited-222620444.html

 

Update on the Orlando shooter's motive being revealed. 

 

Adding my personal standpoint here, after I heard about this horrific incident that left so many dead, I honestly didn't see LGBT supporters seem too compelling to me that because of this tragedy; that it was apparently because of homophobia that led to many victims who had indistinguishable sexuality and just happened to die at a gay nightclub. ISIS supporting this incident didn't seem too strong either...it seemed very tacked on like a mild applause for a lone wolf who "supported" them.

 

But apparently the truth is that all along, it was only a security guard who had severe mental issues and was actually a closeted homosexual. Though he did reveal to be gay, he wasn't too open about it barring some witness' recalls. In the times that he did come to visit and meet his friends who consoled him, he was going through some demons and was probably flustered at how happy everyone else was compared to how repressed his feelings were. Combined with past dementia and adrenaline, he did the reckless action and did a last minute call to "side" with ISIS. So...he was never a terrorist, nor a homophobic, but he was just a confused individual with a lowly job, and due to his contrived mental illness, he did the heinous act out of cowardice and recklessness. 

 

Though ISIS was still the one that jumped the gun. At this point they're just saying to themselves..."Oh sheet he was gay..."

[Aerion Brightflame]

He probably was homophobic, but simply one because he was gay - It's suprisingly common to see people with very servere homophobia to be gay themselves with the homophobia a result of being unable to cope with being gay themselves. The mental illness probably didn't help with that. So it's a very tragic thing to have happened to the man, but it's not unsurprising either. 

 

So now the issue become one of mental illness and guns again, instead of terrorism. What fun. 

[Progenitor]

Honestly, as far as gun control measures go, I don't understand why we don't enforce gun ownership just like owning a car. A car is a powerful machine that requires its user to be well educated in its operation in order to avoid harming the driver or others while in operation, as well as educated on what countermeasures to take when things inevitably don't go as planned. So is a gun. It takes a MINIMUM of 6 months with a learner's permit before you are even eligible to take the test for your license (in PA at least), and in order to obtain said permit you need to first complete a written test. Once you obtain a license, you must follow the rules and regulations that follow, as well as renew it every so often.

 

Why not implement the same system? In order to own a gun, you must be of age, head down to wherever, and take the written test that is geared towards your state's personal gun regulations, and/or gun maintenance and usage. When you can and can't use it, how and when you can concealed carry, what guidelines must you follow when you DO have to use it, etc. Once you have a permit, you still cannot own a gun. Instead you must first head down to a gun range where you can present your permit for a discounted price to use said range, and clock in a set number of hours over a minimum of several months using guns and getting more familiar with how to properly shoot one. During these several months is ALSO when background checks go into effect, giving the people in charge plenty of time to dig as deep as they need. Finally, once you've done all of these steps and are approved by your background check, you have your final exam, where you are taken to the shooting range and instructed to do things like shoot with correct form, reload the weapon, demonstrate how to clean and maintain your weapon, and where it can be used and when, all on a very basic firearm that the permit holder was approved to practice with (such as a very basic, low caliber pistol). If you pass, you have obtained your license and can now buy and own a gun. However, there are different levels of driver's license. Just like you have to take a follow up test to drive a large truck or a motorcycle, you can also apply to legally weild higher grade firearms (if, for example, you need them for work) by taking another test over another trial period.

 

Like is that really that hard? It would be more tedious, yeah, but not by much. You already have to wait an average of 3 months to get approved under the current system anyway.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/13/killer-wife-about-attack/

 

Take it with a grain of salt

[VCR_CAT]

Honestly, as far as gun control measures go, I don't understand why we don't enforce gun ownership just like owning a car. A car is a powerful machine that requires its user to be well educated in its operation in order to avoid harming the driver or others while in operation, as well as educated on what countermeasures to take when things inevitably don't go as planned. So is a gun. It takes a MINIMUM of 6 months with a learner's permit before you are even eligible to take the test for your license (in PA at least), and in order to obtain said permit you need to first complete a written test. Once you obtain a license, you must follow the rules and regulations that follow, as well as renew it every so often.

 

Why not implement the same system? In order to own a gun, you must be of age, head down to wherever, and take the written test that is geared towards your state's personal gun regulations, and/or gun maintenance and usage. When you can and can't use it, how and when you can concealed carry, what guidelines must you follow when you DO have to use it, etc. Once you have a permit, you still cannot own a gun. Instead you must first head down to a gun range where you can present your permit for a discounted price to use said range, and clock in a set number of hours over a minimum of several months using guns and getting more familiar with how to properly shoot one. During these several months is ALSO when background checks go into effect, giving the people in charge plenty of time to dig as deep as they need. Finally, once you've done all of these steps and are approved by your background check, you have your final exam, where you are taken to the shooting range and instructed to do things like shoot with correct form, reload the weapon, demonstrate how to clean and maintain your weapon, and where it can be used and when, all on a very basic firearm that the permit holder was approved to practice with (such as a very basic, low caliber pistol). If you pass, you have obtained your license and can now buy and own a gun. However, there are different levels of driver's license. Just like you have to take a follow up test to drive a large truck or a motorcycle, you can also apply to legally weild higher grade firearms (if, for example, you need them for work) by taking another test over another trial period.

 

Like is that really that hard? It would be more tedious, yeah, but not by much. You already have to wait an average of 3 months to get approved under the current system anyway.

 

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for the US to grasp, and every time I hear opposition towards readily available weapons, I often just hear "BUT MAH SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS"

 

Listen, just because it's on the constitution, doesn't mean it's automatically correct. The Second Amendment, just like the rest of the first 10, was adopted in 1791 where the most advanced gun was air-powered, and the most commonly used were flint-flocks and muzzle loaders. Guns where, the worst you can do with them is kill one, maybe two people before you're taken down; and beyond that use wasn't nearly as simple as putting in bullets, turning off the safety, and pulling a trigger. And beyond THAT, availability wasn't as simple as it is now. The Second Amendment was made in a context where it was, frankly, much safer for a population to be able to bear such arms and there was a point to it considering what police (or lack-there-of) and military would have looked like back then.

 

Now adays? The second amendment is an obsolete right that needs a serious reworking considering both the advancement of weaponry and government-run protection services (police, military, etc.) Honestly, there is a lot of evidence regarding countries that have adopted stricter gun control laws and how much good it's done for them; the legality and availability of assault weapons in the US is just ridiculous and something should have been done a long time ago.

[Darjkle]

If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a bullet

[bury the year]

-snip-

Excellent post: I was going to say something similar. It disheartens me that the gun lobby here has so twisted discussion that any attempts at curtailing acces to guns is seen as "an attack on muh Second Amendment!"

 

To summarize what Progenitor said earlier, just because we require you to have a driver's license doesn't mean the government wants to repossess your car.

[epicmemesbro]

The perpetrator was under FBI investigation for being a suspected terrorist several times. Apparently there was nothing the Feds could do to stop him from obtaining weapons or to scrutinize him even further. Perhaps they can make it so someone under police/federal investigation can't obtain a firearm?

[Βyakuya]

The perpetrator was under FBI investigation for being a suspected terrorist several times. Apparently there was nothing the Feds could do to stop him from obtaining weapons or to scrutinize him even further. Perhaps they can make it so someone under police/federal investigation can't obtain a firearm?

 

He was never a terrorist though, he probably just had mental issues and said bizarre and jarring things that gave the likes of terrorism to his coworkers. But the thing is that they should have noticed sooner and monitored what he was doing. If gun control were to be prioritized, then you would also have to put some sort of mental health check in addition to background information and learning handling.

[Aerion Brightflame]

The perpetrator was under FBI investigation for being a suspected terrorist several times. Apparently there was nothing the Feds could do to stop him from obtaining weapons or to scrutinize him even further. Perhaps they can make it so someone under police/federal investigation can't obtain a firearm?

He was under FBI investigation twice for very very fringe links to terrorism. Once for making certain choice remarks to co-workers, and once for having a loose connection a known suicide bomber. At least those are the two I saw mentioned earlier. 

 

I don't believe he was actively under investigation when he purchased the firearms, it was simply a thing that had happened to him to the past. Neither was he considered a likely terrorist threat.  

 

As for the idea - It makes sense in theory, but what happens when you have a say a covert investigation into someone? Which most of these investigations probably are. 

[vla1ne]

-snip-

put simply, not one person here has objected to reasonable restrictions. in fact, we are all asking for them to improve the current methods because none of us think they are actually good as they are. the thing we are all in opposition of is the removal or complete gimping of the right to bear arms.  now, i am not 100% sure that you're saying that we should simply outlaw guns, but if you are, be aware that many of the places that have strict gun control laws are countries where it is not exactly profitable to start up a robust illegal weapons business. america does not have that luxury, we are in a perfect place to start up as robust a weapons business as the drug industry. not to mention to ban guns would remove revenue from industries that manufacture, sell and maintain such weapons. you not only remove an amendment right, but you lose a lot of this countries revenue, and begin a useless and expensive fight against a side that you would have been better off properly regulating instead of abolishing. listen carefully, not all countries can commit to completely banning guns, because not all countries have as robust, and effective industry relating to them. now, i'm not sure if you've read past subjects on this matter, but something that all (successful) mass shootings have in common (success being defined as a high body count) is that they were performed in "no gun zones" there are an abundance of mass shootings that were attempted in open, or concealed carry zones, and they were, for the most art neutralized by the citizens on scene. your argument appears to stem from a misunderstanding of the contexts around these shootings, now, i'll say it again, i support improves regulations, and linguine literally wrote out what would be an effective solution to the problem.

 

the second amendment might be old, but to many Americans, it is a fundamental right. do you know how many citizens carry pistols and higher calibur weapons daily? yet mass shootings, while tragic, are rare occurrence in relation to the numbers of citizens who carry legal guns. the anomalies often come from flaws in the system, societal problems, and willful banning of weapons in specific areas. the second amendment is as valid an amendment as the rest of them. the regulations relating to it, as they are now, are what are flawed, and i would never say they aren't. they are the problem, not the law itself. this is america, those of us who live here value the right to choose freedom above the restrictions of safety. years before the first school shooting, people brought guns to school like it was nothing, and there was never a problem, they were taught safety, and instructed properly on how to inspect and respect the power of the weapons they wield.  that was taken away years ago, along with the right to bear arms on campus, and then the shootings started. fear and restriction is not the answer, knowledge, understanding, and respect of what a gun is capable of are. you can call for a ban all you like,  but i call for a return to rational restriction, and increased education. of course people shouldn't get guns as easily as they do today, the flawed regulations demand to have their flaws repaired. higher caliber weapons truly do need to be harder to obtain, and gun free zones deserve to be protected, but i will never support the complete banning of guns.