Orlando, Florida mass shooting. 50 dead, 53 wounded

[Aerion Brightflame]

I already gave you the reason?  Our government wants to rid the United States people from owning assault rifles.  The government, which is probably the ones behind the hoax, are getting a certain community into a state where they think their lives are always at risk since people can shoot up a gay bar with assault rifles.  These people, and all the people behind them will petition for congress to move a bill to outlaw assault rifles.  They've been on this since Sandy Hook.

 

In the interview with that woman, she literally says "And can we please do something about the assault rifles".  They're pushing this anti-gun mentality on the lgbt community and all of it's supporters.  

 

But why would this instance attract more pull to that kind of bill than a shooting at a school? It's a cliche but the phrase 'Think of the Children' comes to mind. Maybe you can argue that the LGBT community is more likely to rally around an idea than all parents, but it still seems like a stretch to go that far for something so minor in the scheme of things. 

 

The fact the situation seemed far too perfect from an anti-gun perspective (Mentally ill shooter whom another individual with a gun failed to stop him from committing this massacre who happened to be using an assault weapon amongst other things all of which he obtained legally) means I'm willing to humour that idea since that's just too perfect, but the motive cannot be that tiny. I would also think you'd see a bigger focus on a bill if it were true. As in someone would have proposed something by now. 

[Mr. Hyde]

But why would this instance attract more pull to that kind of bill than a shooting at a school? It's a cliche but the phrase 'Think of the Children' comes to mind. Maybe you can argue that the LGBT community is more likely to rally around an idea than all parents, but it still seems like a stretch to go that far for something so minor in the scheme of things. 

 

The fact the situation seemed far too perfect from an anti-gun perspective (Mentally ill shooter whom another individual with a gun failed to stop him from committing this massacre who happened to be using an assault weapon amongst other things all of which he obtained legally) means I'm willing to humour that idea since that's just too perfect, but the motive cannot be that tiny. I would also think you'd see a bigger focus on a bill if it were true. As in someone would have proposed something by now. 

 

 

Yes the shock value of Sandy Hook using kids as the main shooting victims was powerful, but with this they used the headline of "Worst Shooting in US history at gay bar" to oomph the shock value even further.  

 

The house and senate will probably receive all sorts of backing from constituents to make an anti assault rifle bill...or maybe even anti gun all together.  

 

And you're right, it is far too perfect.  The only visual evidence we have that this even occurred was either awfully shot snapchat stories, or it's in the hands of the government.  If it's the latter, I don't think will ever see security tape footage from what happened inside.  

[Slinky]

You're taking things out of context. Security footage isn't shown for mass shootings ever, why would this be any different?

[Mr. Hyde]

You're taking things out of context. Security footage isn't shown for mass shootings ever, why would this be any different?

 

Are you daft?  I can grab a columbine shooting video anytime I wanted?  With technology advancements since then, I highly doubt that should be the case.  Not one photo taken during...or video.  Okay then.  

[Jord200]

YEAH, BECAUSE EVERYONE WAS funking PANICKING, AND RUNNING FOR THEIR LIVES! 

 

 

What person in their right mind would stop and take a photo or video when they are getting shot at?

[Face McShooty]

here's a timeline of the events of that night

[Mr. Hyde]

YEAH, BECAUSE EVERYONE WAS f***ing PANICKING, AND RUNNING FOR THEIR LIVES! 

 

 

What person in their right mind would stop and take a photo or video when they are getting shot at?

 

out of 400 something patrons, not one single photo was taken of a man geared to the teeth with weaponry?  Or video at least?  Running for their lives...that girl on snapchat was practically sitting down, not looking panicked at all I might add.  

 

Also, that video just proves the part where they take the injured man back towards the pulse bar.  If I were a good Samaritan, instead of taking them back to the bar where they just got shot, I'd take the man in my own vehicle and drive him to the hospital.  The rest is just actor testimony and some greenscreen.

[Face McShooty]

Geared to the teeth? He had a handgun, which he could conceal, and an AR-15, which could be hidden in his shirt or pants... and to my knowledge, that's it except for the ammunition

[Mr. Hyde]

Geared to the teeth? He had a handgun, which he could conceal, and an AR-15, which could be hidden in his shirt or pants... and to my knowledge, that's it except for the ammunition

I heard he had an undetonated explosive device as well.  but with all this actor witness testimony, maybe one actor forgot to mention the grenade.  And that's a lot of ammo required to shoot all of those people.  that's pretty much armed to the teeth in my book.  

[Delibirb]

out of 400 something patrons, not one single photo was taken of a man geared to the teeth with weaponry?  Or video at least?  Running for their lives...that girl on snapchat was practically sitting down, not looking panicked at all I might add.  

 

Also, that video just proves the part where they take the injured man back towards the pulse bar.  If I were a good Samaritan, instead of taking them back to the bar where they just got shot, I'd take the man in my own vehicle and drive him to the hospital.  The rest is just actor testimony and some greenscreen.

I feel called out for no reason. It's even capitalized. wtf?

[Mr. Hyde]

I feel called out for no reason. It's even capitalized. wtf?

 

Lmao that's a coincidence.  It said it wasn't spelled correctly unless I capitalized it.  

[Aerion Brightflame]

I heard he had an undetonated explosive device as well.  but with all this actor witness testimony, maybe one actor forgot to mention the grenade.  And that's a lot of ammo required to shoot all of those people.  that's pretty much armed to the teeth in my book.  

 

I would say people tend to bring more ammo than needed than less ammo than needed when they plan on committing mass murder. For example Anders Behring Breivik, the man who killed 77 individuals in Norway in 2011 had 300 rounds of assault rifle ammo and around 140 for a pistol. Admittedly like 8 of those were with a car bomb but still. 

 

And he only caused injuries in another 60 odd. So it's not an extreme amount of ammunition compared to the causalities inflicted. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Oh. You were....serious.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell my dad when he starts this stuff.

If the government wants to push a ban on assault rifles. They don't have to go through all this to do it.

 

gdi I'm going to my dad's tomorrow he's probably going to bring this up....

[Mr. Hyde]

 

If the government wants to push a ban on assault rifles. They don't have to go through all this to do it.

 

Of course they do?  Government isn't just one mind that runs the nation.  The president can't just outright ban guns?  In order for that to happen, the masses have to petition against the laws, or in this case the constitution, to get this to happen.  But majority of republicans aren't going to agree with outright banning assault weapons, but if their constituents urge them to, they'll have to make a bill against it.  This was made with the idea that it was the worst shooting in US history...it's going to make a lot of people scared of people acquiring arms as easy as the guy who supposedly shot the place up did.  

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Of course they do?  Government isn't just one mind that runs the nation.  The president can't just outright ban guns?  In order for that to happen, the masses have to petition against the laws, or in this case the constitution, to get this to happen.  But majority of republicans aren't going to agree with outright banning assault weapons, but if their constituents urge them to, they'll have to make a bill against it.  This was made with the idea that it was the worst shooting in US history...it's going to make a lot of people scared of people acquiring arms as easy as the guy who supposedly shot the place up did.  

Theoretically they also can't just stage a hoax. Your whole premise is based on the government doing things that they are not allowed to do

So why wouldn't they go through a much easier illegal route to get it through than something like this.

Not to mention, let's be honest, if they want Republicans to agree shooting up a gay bar isn't the best option.

[Progenitor]

I'm supposed to believe that a single gunman had enough rifle ammo on hand to kill 50 people in 7 minutes?  There are countless cases of eye witness testimony countering each others.  The majority says its one gunman, but others went on to say that there were two or even three gunmen.

A standard AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle fires 5.56×45mm NATO rounds at a rate roughly as fast as the user is able to pull the trigger, and at a speed of 975 m/s, or roughly x3 the speed of sound. This results in an impact energy of roughly 1,767 joules.

 

Now while these NATO rounds don't have a ton of penetrating power compared to military grade ammunition, at speeds above 762 m/s (which an AR-15 MORE than matches and goes beyond) the rounds have a tendency to yaw and fragment. This equates to basically a shotgun burst of shrapnel INSIDE the initial wound. This will literally tear you to shreds. It takes a single shot anywhere remotely close to a vital area to cause fatal damage, and even if they don't die instantly, the shredded insides will generally put the victim in a state of fatal bleed out of not given immediate medical treatment. If you get hit in the leg, your femur is gone. Not just broken or shattered; like there will literally be nothing left except maybe the joint bones.

 

It takes 1 shot to either fatally wound a person, and at the very least it's physically impossible to "tank" a round from this gun because it will tear apart the area it hit, and completely incapacitate you. And if the bullet actually fully penetrates after already fragmenting, then congrats you have a semi auto low power shotgun. So yes, it is ENTIRELY possible that you could kill 50 in 7 minutes. Because even if they don't die instantly, remember the police and this guy were in a standoff for THREE HOURS. That's MORE than enough time to bleed out from that type of wound.

 

In fact, I'm surprised he didn't kill MORE people due to how dense the place was packed with fleshy targets. If that's one of the major focal points of your schepticism then you need to go back to the drawing board

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I mean the Bush Admin knew about 9/11 being possible from Mossad's intel. Yet they let it all happen and didn't even scramble raptors to shoot down the planes

 

I don't buy that it was a hoax, but I can see the gov letting it happen

 

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/home

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

So, this happened: http://abcnews.go.com/US/car-crashes-funeral-procession-orlando-shooting-victim/story?id=39960422

[vla1ne]

letting it happen and saying it was staged are two different things though, both are unlikely, but one is standing by and letting a nut job do his nutty thing, and the other is literally wasting gods know how many resources to convince people something that didn't happen happened, just so you can try to pass a piece of legislation that the majority of the house is going to negate anyways. in the first case, the shooting still happened, and whether they knew or not becomes less important than fixing the aftermath, at least for the time being, in the second case, the government would be faking an event, have hundreds of people claim the event happened, and leave absolutely no traces or leaks from any area of them planning such an event. it's foolishness to the utmost degree.

 

 

So, this happened: http://abcnews.go.com/US/car-crashes-funeral-procession-orlando-shooting-victim/story?id=39960422

apparently since there's no official pictures, or bystanders filming, the government staged that as well.

[Mr. Hyde]

apparently since there's no official pictures, or bystanders filming, the government staged that as well.

 

Cute.  Apparently since ABC wrote 4 paragraphs about the incident, you're going to take it as the truth.  No victim name, no driver name?  Probably just an attempt to keep the news relevant and shocking.  Or at least that's what I think.  

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

No, you really do have to explain. If I'm willing to break the law and commit murder, do you really think I'll hesitate to break a no-carry law?

 

If we're talking about isolated incidents (maybe you see someone with a girl you like) doesn't that speak of your own mental frailty?

 

 

Maybe for premeditated instances, but I don't believe those are the majority of violent incidents. 

 

More often it's just someone who had a moment of anger, or a very shitty day, who uses the gun without thinking. It happens, it's not a sign of mental weakness. Arguably it's a sign of not respecting firearms enough, but it's not a sign of mental weakness. 

 

Essentially this. Bringing a gun into a club is a dumb decision because it's a place filled with drugs, sex and alcohol. It's not even just a matter of keeping yourself under control but also keeping your gun away from other similarly mentally-addled individuals. Allowing people to carry in a club would just increase the lethality of drunken altercations - though it's ultimately to the discretion of the property owners. If anything the issue is how he managed to get past the guards and/or security checks. I don't know specifically how this happened, but it sounds like he started unloading from inside the club. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I'm not making any statements for or against gun control. I just don't like the whole stance against areas with incredibly good reason to ban guns doing so. At risk of oversimplifying it seems that 'Anti-gun' individuals don't grasp that despite mass shootings 'Pro-gun' individuals have concluded that on average they make people safer; conversely 'Pro-gun' individuals don't grasp that despite the presence of unarmed individuals in the case of a shooting, 'Anti-gun' individuals have determined that it's better on average to not allow guns in a given area. In the case of allowing guns in a place where no one will be in their right mind I heavily lean towards the against argument.

[Delibirb]

Cute.  Apparently since ABC wrote 4 paragraphs about the incident, you're going to take it as the truth.  No victim name, no driver name?  Probably just an attempt to keep the news relevant and shocking.  Or at least that's what I think.  

To be fair the only reason it's in the news is the keep Orlando relevant, but that's just the media being more or less forced to cater to shock factors. Not evidence of anything shady.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

To be fair the only reason it's in the news is the keep Orlando relevant, but that's just the media being more or less forced to cater to shock factors. Not evidence of anything shady.

Yeah, I'm sure that 50 people dying in a shooting from a single person is only in the news to keep one specific city relevant.

C'mon man that's just a silly assumption.

As for the media being forced to cater, nah man. They do that on their own.

[vla1ne]

Essentially this. Bringing a gun into a club is a dumb decision because it's a place filled with drugs, sex and alcohol. It's not even just a matter of keeping yourself under control but also keeping your gun away from other similarly mentally-addled individuals. Allowing people to carry in a club would just increase the lethality of drunken altercations - though it's ultimately to the discretion of the property owners. If anything the issue is how he managed to get past the guards and/or security checks. I don't know specifically how this happened, but it sounds like he started unloading from inside the club. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I'm not making any statements for or against gun control. I just don't like the whole stance against areas with incredibly good reason to ban guns doing so. At risk of oversimplifying it seems that 'Anti-gun' individuals don't grasp that despite mass shootings 'Pro-gun' individuals have concluded that on average they make people safer; conversely 'Pro-gun' individuals don't grasp that despite the presence of unarmed individuals in the case of a shooting, 'Anti-gun' individuals have determined that it's better on average to not allow guns in a given area. In the case of allowing guns in a place where no one will be in their right mind I heavily lean towards the against argument.

guns are already allowed inside florida bars under concealed carry, and at the discretion of the bar owners. this has been the case since 2014, and had there been any shooting inside of the bars that allowed guns, you can be sure we'd hear about it day in and day out every time, even in this case, because it drives the anti-gun narrative that the media is often fond of. in other words, this was the only bar shooting (or mass shooting not involving family) in florida since the law allowing concealed carry in bars came into effect, and funny enough, it was in a bar that banned concealed carry. 

[IQuitDolphin]

Just saying that while we're talking about guns we forget about the fact that he was influenced by ISIS and arguably a terrorist, regardless of whether he was actually part of the group or not.

 

The media is extremely influential, and they usually manipulate their wording to give off a sense of urgency and fear. Using primary media sources is incredibly stupid. I believe that it was stated sometime after initial reports that the gun used was NOT an AR-15, but rather a likeness of it.