Orlando attack - terrorism suspected

[Whiskeyjack]

Haha... I suppose I always have dolla billz on the brain.

Where's the money, Lebowski?

 

[ulukinatme]

All semi-automatic guns, both pistols and rifles, fire at the same rate--however fast you can pull the trigger. Do you think semi-automatic technology is inherently too dangerous for civilians to own? If so, what's your proposed solution?

Muzzle loaded, single shot guns, like the fore-fathers intended!

 

[Wild Bill]

There are over 3M Muslim Americans. If they all hated us and wanted to wage war, don't you think there would be a hell of a lot more terrorist attacks?

This is the idealogy that radicals want. The general American hating all Muslims. It's a hell of a lot easier to recruit non-violent Muslims when their fellow Americans group all of them together. Why try to assimilate at all if we are going to assume every Muslim American is a terrorist? If the chips are against them no matter what, then what do we really expect?

I don't assume all Muslims hate the western world, and I certainly do not believe they are all violent radicals.

I think we should have an open discussion regarding their ability and willingness to assimilate into our country. The family friends you have from Bosnia are a good example of how it can be done but are they the exception rather than the rule? My mother's family is from Bosnia and the dynamic there is far different than other predominately Muslim countries, as I'm sure you know.

Polls suggest that an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in Africa and Asia support Sharia law. The same is true for their treatment of women and homosexuals - there is a clear cultural clash. I just don't believe these people can assimilate into our society and culture.

 

[Legacy]

Leaving aside the abortion clinic aspect, we have what Bogs characterized:

BUT, if you give them an ideology or religious cause to fight for, one with underpinnings common with any person who was of poverty, or limited social skills, and promised them a prominent place in heaven, things change drastically!

You suddenly have taken an ineffective mentally insufficient person from the margins, and given them everything they need to become a mass killer!

The similarities I saw were that Dear (and perhaps others who murder rationalizing a religious reason) caught the eye of concerned neighbors, abused his wives (4), came to the attention of authorities, had limited social skills, connected on the Internet with a cause (Army of God), and his mental instability was not caught by any background checks, Whiskey.

Subsequently, Paul Ryan called for better mental health care, which he has again urged after San Bernadino. All of this is based on a study done by a Republican Rep. after the Sandy Hook mass murders in 2012.

 

[NorthDakota]

Muzzle loaded, single shot guns, like the fore-fathers intended!

Muzzle loaded..single shot...

 

[BobbyMac]

When you watch terrorists around the world, what gun do you see them use? The M-16 / AR-15? No. The gun of choice is the Kalashnikov AK-47. That is the gun that would flood your streets when the AR's and other currently legal semi auto rifles are made illegal. They will be brought in by the same cartels that currently bring in crack, weed and meth by the metric ton...everyday.

So how are you gonna stop the cartels from doing that my progressive masterminds? What, are you gonna build a wall or something?

It's not about saving lives, if that were the case progressives would be pro-life and alcohol prohibitionists. Two issues that kill millions more Americans than mass shootings. It's about spoon fed agendas because they aren't here complaining about those.

Would you believe you are 3x more likely to become a millionaire via a lottery than to be killed in a planned mass shooting?

 

[GATTACA!]

There are over 3M Muslim Americans. If they all hated us and wanted to wage war, don't you think there would be a hell of a lot more terrorist attacks?

This is the idealogy that radicals want. The general American hating all Muslims. It's a hell of a lot easier to recruit non-violent Muslims when their fellow Americans group all of them together. Why try to assimilate at all if we are going to assume every Muslim American is a terrorist? If the chips are against them no matter what, then what do we really expect?

Should we have stayed out of WWII out of fear of radicalizing the German and Japanese immigrants living here? Japanese citizens faced terrible racism after pearl harbor, but I don't remember any mass shootings or suicide bombings carried out by disgruntled Japanese Americans.

 

[woolybug25]

Should we have stayed out of WWII out of fear of radicalizing the German and Japanese immigrants living here? Japanese citizens faced terrible racism after pearl harbor, but I don't remember any mass shootings or suicide bombings carried out by disgruntled Japanese Americans.

You're right... The religions of Japanese and German sure were the reason to go to war.

I don't even know where to start on that comment. You even stop halfway through and acknowledge terrible racism. What kind of answer do you expect anyone to have from that nonsensical post?

 

[bkess8]

The Truth About Assault Weapons

Just some food for thought.

 

[BobbyMac]

Which makes sense, since a prospective shooter can always just bring more magazines. Reloading doesn't take longer than a couple seconds.

Exactly.

They'd all be fine if you could have one of these here "farmer guns"

 

[GoldenDomer]

Kenya attack: 147 dead in Garissa University assault - BBC News

Must be their outdated 2nd Amendment... Islam does not have a problem, you bigot!!!

 

[BobbyMac]

Exactly.

They'd all be fine if you could have one of these here "farmer guns"

Because that becomes this with 20 dollar magazines and a 90 round drum.

 

[Legacy]

Who would disagree with Scalia writing the majority oplnion in D.C. vs Heller?

Posts 355 & 358

 

[GATTACA!]

You're right... The religions of Japanese and German sure were the reason to go to war.

I don't even know where to start on that comment. You even stop halfway through and acknowledge terrible racism. What kind of answer do you expect anyone to have from that nonsensical post?

What does the difference between nationality and religion have to do with the argument? I'm comparing groups of people facing unwarranted bigotry.

My point wasn't that racism towards Japanese or German Americans was justified. It was wrong and misplaced when it happened, in the same way people being bigoted against Muslim Americans now is wrong. You have to question the ideology behind individuals reacting to diversity with mass violence, when in similar situations other groups never resorted to similar actions.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Leaving aside the abortion clinic aspect, we have what Bogs characterized:

The similarities I saw were that Dear (and perhaps others who murder rationalizing a religious reason) caught the eye of concerned neighbors, abused his wives (4), came to the attention of authorities, had limited social skills, connected on the Internet with a cause (Army of God), and his mental instability was not caught by any background checks, Whiskey.

Subsequently, Paul Ryan called for better mental health care, which he has again urged after San Bernadino. All of this is based on a study done by a Republican Rep. after the Sandy Hook mass murders in 2012.

I agree that there are similarities. Mateen's case is especially complicated because it's hard to pin-point what drove him to kill. Was it Islamism? Homophobia? Easy access to weaponry? Mental illness? He was also a first generation Afghani Pashtun, whose culture includes a very complicated relationship between Islam and homosexuality.

But the violence perpetrated by insane people like Dear is fundamentally different from that involved in San Bernadino or Fort Hood. Even if there are common lessons to be learned regarding gun control, conflating the two forms of violence is dangerous and counter-productive, as it makes it harder for us to address the latter (and far more dangerous) sort.

And it should be self-evident why comparing the pro-life movement's capacity to "radicalize" to that of ISIS is absurd on its face.

 

[IrishLax]

I just have a really hard time believing that there are any gun laws that will stop a terrorist from committing murder. I'm in France and a police captain/his significant other were murdered today by an Islamic extremist. Despite strict gun laws. My French isn't good, but I think he used a knife... on one of the few people in this country who has a gun and is trained to use it. The guy also threatened to turn the Euro Cup into a "cemetery" (again, assuming I understood that correctly.)

I totally buy the idea that gun laws would curb general gun fatality rates. But banning "assault weapons" that are used in like 1% of murders makes about as much sense as banning 3 million Muslims because we have an attack by an extremist once every few years. If they can't get a rifle, they'll use a hand gun. If they can't get a gun of any type, they'll Google how to make a bomb. At that point do we start banning fertilizer?

Just really seems a little weak on both sides trying to make the case of "Muslims are bad!" or "guns are bad!" by pointing at one visible incident (although the "Republican Christians are bad and caused this by proposing bathroom laws!" has to be the dumbest stretch of them all.)

 

[johnnycando]

Would love to have one of those.

I think I'll buy one:

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I just have a really hard time believing that there are any gun laws that will stop a terrorist from committing murder. I'm in France and a police captain/his significant other were murdered today by an Islamic extremist. Despite strict gun laws. My French isn't good, but I think he used a knife... on one of the few people in this country who has a gun and is trained to use it. The guy also threatened to turn the Euro Cup into a "cemetery" (again, assuming I understood that correctly.)

I totally buy the idea that gun laws would curb general gun fatality rates. But banning "assault weapons" that are used in like 1% of murders makes about as much sense as banning 3 million Muslims because we have an attack by an extremist once every few years. If they can't get a rifle, they'll use a hand gun. If they can't get a gun of any type, they'll Google how to make a bomb. At that point do we start banning fertilizer?

Just really seems a little weak on both sides trying to make the case of "Muslims are bad!" or "guns are bad!" by pointing at one visible incident (although the "Republican Christians are bad and caused this by proposing bathroom laws!" has to be the dumbest stretch of them all.)

To put a finer point on this, here's a snippet from a recent article about the Assault Weapons Ban:

If the cosmetic features used to define an “assault weapon” in the 1994 law strike you as really stupid ways to define an “assault weapon,” it’s because the 1994 law was a stupid law with stupid definitions written by stupid people. And not only was it a stupid law, it was a stupid law that didn’t even accomplish its stated goal. How do we know? Because today, more than a decade after the law’s expiration, the number of people murdered by rifles is 36 percent lower than it was during the last full year the assault weapons ban was in effect.

The law expired in September of 2004, making 2003 the last full calendar year in which the law was in effect. According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) crime statistics, 390 people were murdered with rifles in 2003, making rifles the weapon of choice in 2.7 percent of murders that year. But in 2014, more than a decade after these vile weapons of war flooded American streets, the number of rifle murders surely skyrocketed, right?

Not so much. Quite the opposite. In 2014, the most recent year for which detailed FBI data are available, rifles were used in 248 murders. And not only are rifles used in far fewer murders over a decade following the expiration of the 1994 gun ban, they’re also used in a smaller percentage of homicides. In 2003, when the gun ban was in full effect, rifles were used in nearly 3 percent of murders. In 2014, they were used in barely 2 percent.

That’s the exact opposite of what gun banners said should happen. After the assault weapons ban, guns were supposed to flood the streets and just start killing people. Crime was supposed to skyrocket. But that’s not what happened. Yes, Americans bought a ton of rifles after the law expired, but rather than going up, the number of homicides in which rifles were used drastically fell. There were way more guns, but way less crime.

 

[dshans]

Just to put a controversial point on the whole well regulated militia, the right to bear arms and the fight against tyranny: Just how did the War Between The States/The Civil War go?

How many lives wasted?

How much economic enterprise was wasted?

How long did/has the political fallout lasted?

The Thompson Machine Gun (the Tommy Gun) was banned.

The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was not available to the general public.

Did either restrictions prevent citizens from hunting or protecting their home, hearth and family?

Did they prevent law abiding citizen gun owners from blasting the shit out of watermelons or exploding pop bottles in quarries?

I wants me a nuke – I loves me the glorious sight of a mushroom cloud.

 

[IrishLax]

Just to put a controversial point on the whole well regulated militia, the right to bear arms and the fight against tyranny: Just how did the War Between The States/The Civil War go?

How many lives wasted?

How much economic enterprise was wasted?

How long did/has the political fallout lasted?

Hot take alert! Is your contention that without the 2nd Amendment the Confederacy would not have been able to arm their troops?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Since many are talking about what won't help curb gun violence, let me add that doing nothing will not help. We've done nothing after San Bernadino, Umpqua Community College, Chattanooga, Sandy Hook, Charleston, and all of the other mass shootings that have happened in this country in the past few years ... maybe doing something is better than doing nothing. We've tried nothing and we just keep getting more of the same. The same tired, defeatest arguments keep being made ... the same 2nd Amendment BS ... the same "guns don't kill people, people kill people" nonsense ... as bodies continue to pile up. Hopefully, Orlando will compel us to finally come to our senses and do something for once ... at least try to get our arms around this problem that is leaving a lot of people dead. I worry every time my kids leave the house that they might not come home because some nutjob with access to a AR-15 has had a bad day.

Obama should just do something on his own, with or without this Congress. Trump, on the other hand, would NEED to have Congress' support.

As for worrying about your kids, events in the past 15 years tell us you should be less worried about a nutjob on a bad day with an AR-15 and more worried about someone waging jihad on the West in a train station, school, nightclub, etc.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Obama: What Exactly Would Using "Radical Islam" Change? A "Political Distraction" | Video | RealClearPolitics

Step 1 is identifying the enemy, sir.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Obama: What Exactly Would Using "Radical Islam" Change? A "Political Distraction" | Video | RealClearPolitics

Step 1 is identifying the enemy, sir.

He beautifully outlined the argument. The enemy isn't Islam. That's what they want. The enemy is extremists who hide behind Islam. We fight those extremists. But we don't fall into the trap of making it a holy war.

 

[gkIrish]

He beautifully outlined the argument. The enemy isn't Islam. That's what they want. The enemy is extremists who hide behind Islam. We fight those extremists. But we don't fall into the trap of making it a holy war.

How do you respond to the fact that many Muslim governments and/or Muslim courts more or less permit/turn a blind eye to killing homosexuals?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ere-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

He beautifully outlined the argument. The enemy isn't Islam. That's what they want. The enemy is extremists who hide behind Islam. We fight those extremists. But we don't fall into the trap of making it a holy war.

The enemy isn't radical Christianity, radical Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Judaism. All the SOB's doing this shit are praising Allah and waging jihad in the hope of entering paradise.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

How do you respond to the fact that many Muslim governments and/or Muslim courts more or less permit/turn a blind eye to killing homosexuals?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ere-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/

I obviously think that's terrible. But there are millions of Muslims in this country and around the world who don't think that.

The enemy isn't radical Christianity, radical Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Judaism. All the SOB's doing this shit are praising Allah and waging jihad in the hope of entering paradise.

I know. And they are horrible, terrible people who are fitting their radical ideas into a religion.

I disagree with George Bush on many things. But he was right about this one.

Why President Obama Won't Use the Term 'Radical Islam' - ABC News

Bush’s Precedent

While Obama has been careful to keep the distinction, it was a premise laid out by his predecessor President George W. Bush in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Americans understand we fight not a religion. Ours is not a campaign against the Muslim faith. Ours is a campaign against evil," Bush said in September of that year.

The rationale for not using “radical Islamic terrorism” can also be applied to Obama’s decision to refer to ISIS as ISIL and not use the name it prefers, the Islamic State — denying legitimacy to the terrorist group.

“ISIL is not Islamic,” he said in September 2014. “And ISIL is certainly not a state."

“It is recognized by no government nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple,” he went on to say.

 

[GoIrish41]

Obama should just do something on his own, with or without this Congress. Trump, on the other hand, would NEED to have Congress' support.

As for worrying about your kids, events in the past 15 years tell us you should be less worried about a nutjob on a bad day with an AR-15 and more worried about someone waging jihad on the West in a train station, school, nightclub, etc.

Oh ... not a nut job, but an Islamic nutjob. Should I be more frightened of one than the other? C'mon man, if someone can shoot my kids I care less about their beliefs and more about how easy it is for them to get a gun. It's easier to pass gun laws than to affect a person's beliefs.

 

[NDgradstudent]

He beautifully outlined the argument. The enemy isn't Islam. That's what they want. The enemy is extremists who hide behind Islam. We fight those extremists. But we don't fall into the trap of making it a holy war.

When the kid waving the Confederate flag shot up the black church last year, we were all supposed to burn the Confederate flag, take down statues of Confederate generals, and dig up the graves of Confederate veterans. Now, though, we aren't supposed to even mention "Islam," the obvious cause of all of this, because it is inconvenient for the Democratic coalition. Absurd.

And about Islam: can you please specify which actions ISIS takes that Muhammad either (a) did not engage in himself or (b) would have clearly disapproved of? I cannot. Therefore I cannot say that ISIS's interpretation of its religious duties are incorrect interpretations of Islam.

 

[phork]

All semi-automatic guns, both pistols and rifles, fire at the same rate--however fast you can pull the trigger. Do you think semi-automatic technology is inherently too dangerous for civilians to own? If so, what's your proposed solution?

The specific guns you're objecting to are almost always chambered in common hunting calibers. Any bullet capable of killing a large ungulate will be more than effective against humans. Do you think rifles are inherently too dangerous for civilians to own? If so, what's your proposed solution?

Whiskey the point of my posts, with videos, is to show that they can be made automatic or close to it very easily. My solution is to make it illegal to do so. There is NO reason why you need a fully automatic weapon. There is nothing wrong with hunting rifles at all. In fact if you were to go on a rampage with a hunting rifle you would kill people, but not a whole lot of people.

And just like I tell your snowbirding countrymen when they offer their unsolicited opinions regarding American issues in my bar in Arizona... "That's nice but your opinion is meaningless, you're not an American."

Why do you continue to ramble on?

And do you want to know why people dislike Americans around the world? The fact is decisions you make affect my country to. We are tied to your hip. And frankly once you have exhausted all your cold dead hands bullshit the best you got is "your opinion is meaningless, you're not an American".

When you watch terrorists around the world, what gun do you see them use? The M-16 / AR-15? No. The gun of choice is the Kalashnikov AK-47. That is the gun that would flood your streets when the AR's and other currently legal semi auto rifles are made illegal. They will be brought in by the same cartels that currently bring in crack, weed and meth by the metric ton...everyday.

So how are you gonna stop the cartels from doing that my progressive masterminds? What, are you gonna build a wall or something?

It's not about saving lives, if that were the case progressives would be pro-life and alcohol prohibitionists. Two issues that kill millions more Americans than mass shootings. It's about spoon fed agendas because they aren't here complaining about those.

Would you believe you are 3x more likely to become a millionaire via a lottery than to be killed in a planned mass shooting?

Because in other parts of the world thats the most easily acquired weapon. And I seriously doubt AK47s would flood the streets. They aren't made over here. And again, no one is saying make the guns illegal but make the controls stricter. This is part of the problem as well. Gun control doesn't mean ban guns but yet time after time you go 0-60 and jump to that conclusion.

I just have a really hard time believing that there are any gun laws that will stop a terrorist from committing murder. I'm in France and a police captain/his significant other were murdered today by an Islamic extremist. Despite strict gun laws. My French isn't good, but I think he used a knife... on one of the few people in this country who has a gun and is trained to use it. The guy also threatened to turn the Euro Cup into a "cemetery" (again, assuming I understood that correctly.)

I totally buy the idea that gun laws would curb general gun fatality rates. But banning "assault weapons" that are used in like 1% of murders makes about as much sense as banning 3 million Muslims because we have an attack by an extremist once every few years. If they can't get a rifle, they'll use a hand gun. If they can't get a gun of any type, they'll Google how to make a bomb. At that point do we start banning fertilizer?

Just really seems a little weak on both sides trying to make the case of "Muslims are bad!" or "guns are bad!" by pointing at one visible incident (although the "Republican Christians are bad and caused this by proposing bathroom laws!" has to be the dumbest stretch of them all.)

I woud rather someone use a knife than a fully automatic rifle, if you can't see the logic there then I can't help you.
Again no one said to ban anything. We are trying to have a discussion about the problem and solutions to it. But some people clearly can't debate or carry on rational conversation without slinging mud and telling people that their opinion doesn't matter.
As for fertilizer I believe that after OklahomaCity any large purchases came under scrutiny.

You are right, are these guys going to try stuff? Yup. But again, why make it EASY for them to do?

 

[military_irish]

Why don't we call it what all these mass shootings are? The perpetrators are just bat sh-t crazy. They have multiple screws loose. They will proclaim it as their form of "just cause" but that is just a mask for the pure evilness that embodies that specific individual.

It's not guns or religion or any other fabrication of the media. People can be extremely cruel with the false vail of a reason.

There does not need to be a reason for every mass shooting.