Orlando attack - terrorism suspected

[IrishLion]

I think you vastly overestimate the power of the US military.

I'm over-estimating the effect that drones and bombers would have on citizens that are armed with assault rifles (if they're the *lucky* ones)?

 

[NorthDakota]

I'm over-estimating the effect that drones and bombers would have on citizens that are armed with assault rifles (if they're the *lucky* ones)?

That sounds like a PR nightmare for the government.

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

I can't think of a single man I served with that would attack US citizens let alone their family and friends.

The military would squash a small rebellion, but if it went widespread they wouldn't have a chance.

So the mighty US military would be decimated and depleted by brave men and women racing home to defend their people.

 

[Monk]

That sounds like a PR nightmare for the government.

You are missing the point. If it gets to the point where the government is shooting drone missiles at US civilians, then they don't care about PR.

 

[IrishLion]

You guys are missing the point I'm making, which is:

If it came to it, your guns wouldn't mean anything against the government. But it would never come to that.

So either way, don't feed me that stuff about needing your guns to protect yourself from the government. Find a different, better argument.

 

[NorthDakota]

I can't think of a single man I served with that would attack US citizens let alone their family and friends.

The military would squash a small rebellion, but if it went widespread they wouldn't have a chance.

So the mighty US military would be decimated and depleted by brave men and women racing home to defend their people.

This.

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

You guys are missing the point I'm making, which is:

If it came to it, your guns wouldn't mean anything against the government. But it would never come to that.

So either way, don't feed me that stuff about needing your guns to protect yourself from the government. Find a different, better argument.

The military isn't a bunch of robots.
They're men and women who felt a calling to defend their country and more importantly it's PEOPLE.
If you think they'd kill civilians because their CO told them to you're severely mistaken.

 

[GoIrish41]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS8cm3kmyWs&feature=player_embedded

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

I for one, feel very confident in the American people's ability to defend ourselves with our AR's.
God forbid it ever comes down to it.

 

[TDHeysus]

...You're right, you will never keep every gun away from every criminal. But that doesn't mean you just allow psychos like Omar Mateen to get them easily.

my point is, that psychos like Omar Mateen will always get guns easy, no matter any law that is in place.

We agree that the status quo is not effective and that something needs to be done.

Obama, by evidence of his press conference, isn't going to change a damn thing. I fear Hillary will be more of the same.

 

[IrishLion]

The military isn't a bunch of robots.
They're men and women who felt a calling to defend their country and more importantly it's PEOPLE.
If you think they'd kill civilians because their CO told them to you're severely mistaken.

Are you intentionally missing the part where I said "it would never come to it"?

The members of the military would never attack the American people. So you don't need to worry about having guns to defend yourself from the military. So don't use that part of the second amendment in any pro-gun argument. It's stupid and pointless.

(AND, in a vacuum, if the military WAS a bunch of brain-washed dudes and went after the common people, your AR's wouldn't help you against their drones and their stealth bombers.)

 

[IrishJayhawk]

my point is, that psychos like Omar Mateen will always get guns easy, no matter any law that is in place.

We agree that the status quo is not effective and that something needs to be done.

Obama, by evidence of his press conference, isn't going to change a damn thing. I fear Hillary will be more of the same.

Maybe I missed it, but what are you proposing?

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

Are you intentionally missing the part where I said "it would never come to it"?

The members of the military would never attack the American people. So you don't need to worry about having guns to defend yourself from the military. So don't use that part of the second amendment in any pro-gun argument. It's stupid and pointless.

(AND, in a vacuum, if the military WAS a bunch of brain-washed dudes and went after the common people, your AR's wouldn't help you against their drones and their stealth bombers.)

You're arguing against insurance.

 

[kmoose]

Lost in the din about gun control, or lack thereof; during the Ferguson riots, one of the big issues was "why does a police department need surplus military vehicles?". It was a military style vehicle that the Orlando Police Department used to breach the wall, allowing them to kill the gunman and free the hostages inside.

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

Lost in the din about gun control, or lack thereof; during the Ferguson riots, one of the big issues was "why does a police department need surplus military vehicles?". It was a military style vehicle that the Orlando Police Department used to breach the wall, allowing them to kill the gunman and free the hostages inside.

Hear hear.
I believe the great John Oliver had a whole segment ridiculing the police for having them.

 

[Legacy]

As was pointed out, the assault-style weapon used - and the weapon of choice for mass murderers - is the Sig Sauer AR 15, which was also used in San Bernadino, Aurora, and Newtown. A Bushmaster was used in Sandy Hook. In seven of the eight mass killings since last July, the AR-15 was used. Armalite, owned by the Strategic Arms Corps, makes these assault weapons, which can be acquired through their website or any of the other of their companies' websites.

U.S. Mass Shootings 1986-2016

I was a bit surprised that minorities are half as likely as whites to possess firearms while being more likely to be victims of gun violence.

The demographics and politics of gun-owning households

The new research also suggests a paradox: While blacks are significantly more likely than whites to be gun homicide victims, blacks are only about half as likely as whites to have a firearm in their home (41% vs. 19%). Hispanics are less likely than blacks to be gun homicide victims and half as likely as whites to have a gun at home (20%).

If we consider self-defense for gun ownership of the AR-15 for instance, U.S. minorities need to significantly increase their gun ownership.

 

[BobbyMac]

As was pointed out, the assault-style weapon used - and the weapon of choice for mass murderers - is the Sig Sauer AR 15, which was also used in San Bernadino, Aurora, and Newtown. A Bushmaster was used in Sandy Hook. In seven of the eight mass killings since last July, the AR-15 was used. Armalite, owned by the Strategic Arms Corps, makes these assault weapons, which can be acquired through their website or any of the other of their companies' websites.

U.S. Mass Shootings 1986-2016

I was a bit surprised that minorities are half as likely as whites to possess firearms while being more likely to be victims of gun violence.

The demographics and politics of gun-owning households

If we consider self-defense for gun ownership of the AR-15 for instance, U.S. minorities need to significantly increase their gun ownership.

What variable are you leaving out? You are really surprised? Pew is giving you "reported" ownership of guns. Can you please dig up the stats on estimated illegal guns in America and who are likely to own those? How many legally owned guns are being used on Chicago's southside or across the border in my hometown of Gary, IN?

 

[phork]

I still haven't seen anyone in this thread (or an elected Democrat) suggest which policy, specifically, would have prevented this attack? People keep suggesting this false dichotomy that we need gun control or mass shootings will continue, but NONE of the gun control policies suggested would have had the tiniest impact on any of these incidents.

Even if I conceded "gun control is okay" on principle, what law or program can be put in place that will prevent mass shootings?

A stricter policy on back ground checks including psych evals would have stopped this turd from walking off the street and buying his legal guns. Again no one ever said anything was going to stop it, but why make it easy?

stricter gun control will definitely work. I mean drugs are illegal, and coke and meth are so hard to get that no one is using them anymore. its simply to just too hard to get, so no one tries to get those illegal substances anymore. Stricter gun laws will make guns not so easy to get, and therefore criminals wont have them anymore....just like drugs.

Right because Jimmy Joe dealer at the corner has AR15s kicking around.

I read somewhere that the registered hunters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia alone would make it the world's largest army.
I don't think the government could stop or even control a full fledged rebellion from it's citizens.

Especially considering 1/2 of it's military would quit and join the other side.

And wiped out easily by superior air power.

Interesting, I get the logic I suppose but that'd be one aspect to gun control I'm not sure I could get behind personally, I mean the entire reason I want a gun in the first place is for home security (just me). Also, I could see the wrong people making a go at over running the depot... anyway.

Never against that, but a pistol would probably be a better solution than an AR15.

I can't think of a single man I served with that would attack US citizens let alone their family and friends.

The military would squash a small rebellion, but if it went widespread they wouldn't have a chance.

So the mighty US military would be decimated and depleted by brave men and women racing home to defend their people.

Well then wouldn't they be shot for treason? Ignoring the orders of the commander-in-chief etc etc.

You guys are missing the point I'm making, which is:

If it came to it, your guns wouldn't mean anything against the government. But it would never come to that.

So either way, don't feed me that stuff about needing your guns to protect yourself from the government. Find a different, better argument.

You get the cookie for today!

my point is, that psychos like Omar Mateen will always get guns easy, no matter any law that is in place.

We agree that the status quo is not effective and that something needs to be done.

Obama, by evidence of his press conference, isn't going to change a damn thing. I fear Hillary will be more of the same.

My bet is that those 50+ people would still be alive today if there was stronger checks in place. While he might have gotten something on the street he might have been caught before hand.

 

[BobbyMac]

My bet is that those 50+ people would still be alive today if there was stronger checks in place. While he might have gotten something on the street he might have been caught before hand.

And if our wonderful neighbors to the north outlawed alcohol today, 50 people wouldn't needlessly lose their lives at the hands of drunk drivers in the next 17 days. Where is the outrage? I'd tell you what to do with that problem but that's YOUR problem. Now run off and fix YOUR problems and be glad the American Wild West mentality survived past the 1800's, otherwise you might be speaking German or Russian right now.

 

[Legacy]

What variable are you leaving out? You are really surprised? Pew is giving you "reported" ownership of guns. Can you please dig up the stats on estimated illegal guns in America and who are likely to own those? How many legally owned guns are being used on Chicago's southside or across the border in my hometown of Gary, IN?

I don't have those statistics. Would you estimate that the same number of minority households as whites have guns - 40%? Perhaps Strategic Arms Corp could provide a box on their Internet sale site for race.

 

[ACamp1900]

The point this thread is getting to now:

 

[BobbyMac]

I don't have those statistics. Would you estimate that the same number of minority households as whites have guns - 40%? Perhaps Strategic Arms Corp could provide a box on their Internet sale site for race.

Of course you don't nor did you mention it. They represent a large percentage of the total guns in America and a HUGE portion of the guns used to commit the murders in this country... numbers that dwarf the total amount of people killed in mass shootings.

 

[NorthDakota]

A stricter policy on back ground checks including psych evals would have stopped this turd from walking off the street and buying his legal guns. Again no one ever said anything was going to stop it, but why make it easy?

My bet is that those 50+ people would still be alive today if there was stronger checks in place. While he might have gotten something on the street he might have been caught before hand.

Just read on FOX his job was a security guard. Dude already passed psych evaluations in '07 and '13.

 

[Legacy]

A stricter policy on back ground checks including psych evals would have stopped this turd from walking off the street and buying his legal guns. Again no one ever said anything was going to stop it, but why make it easy?



Right because Jimmy Joe dealer at the corner has AR15s kicking around.



And wiped out easily by superior air power.



Never against that, but a pistol would probably be a better solution than an AR15.



Well then wouldn't they be shot for treason? Ignoring the orders of the commander-in-chief etc etc.



You get the cookie for today!



My bet is that those 50+ people would still be alive today if there was stronger checks in place. While he might have gotten something on the street he might have been caught before hand.

From another poster, different thread:

The only ways that I know to avoid a background check when purchasing a gun are: (1) to buy from a private seller within certain states; or (2) to present a qualifying state permit issued within the last 5 years to a federally licensed dealer. The latter allows a purchaser to avoid the background check because most state permits include a background check as part of the application process.

To purchase online, you'll either buy from a classified-type private listing site (such as armslist.com) or from a federally licensed dealer (like budsgunshop.com). The former is essentially a Craig's List for guns, and as long as you live in the right state and purchase from a local, you'll avoid the background check. The latter is required to ship your gun to a nearby FFL dealer, who will then run a background check on you before letting you pick it up (though you may be able to avoid that check via the 2nd method mentioned above).

Getting back to the Orlando victims, seeing those survivors tell their stories and the mother in agony when her son was not returning her call and realizing how much the police, first responders, and health care workers fight to save lives, I'm sure we all wonder if we can put a stop to this in even a small way. Or is this a death spiral?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Rahm Emmanuel is scum but that mindset has been used in public policy for basically an eternity. Getting public support for changing laws is tough, and usually happens after a game-changing event, as public policy is normally reactionary.



Nice.

For what it's worth, here was Obama's take on gun control last week:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6imFvSua3Kg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



What is embarrassing is an entire political party, and its members, having apparently no ability to comprehend why they don't use that phrase.

How many times do we have to spell it out for you? There are 1.5 billion Muslims around the world, with a small percentage of them riled up enough to actually join a militant organization. By having the leader of the free world label an entire mass of people as the enemy, you do nothing more than encourage more impressionable young people to start reading extremist propaganda and start radicalizing themselves.

You might say "he'd only be calling out the radicals though! Not the peaceful ones," and that's completely irrelevant, because they don't see themselves as being radicals.

You'd rather pick an argument with me than say the president should just call it what it was...another mass murder in the name of radical Islam. And I didn't say one word about labeling the entire mass of people the enemy, so don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You'd rather pick an argument with me than say the president should just call it what it was...another mass murder in the name of radical Islam. And I didn't say one word about labeling the entire mass of people the enemy, so don't put words in my mouth.

Did you miss the part where I explained that calling out radical Muslims specifically doesn't mean squat to impressionable Muslims who don't think they're being radicalized? Radical clerics over there are selling the idea of a West vs Islam battle for supremacy, having Western leaders put the sort of language on video for them to propagandize is so fucking stupid I don't even know how to put it into words.

The fact that Republicans are using this as a political weapon, baiting Obama into using language that nonpolitical advisors say would make things worse (read: endanger more Americans) so they can score cheap points is pretty embarrassing stuff. But that's where we are in politics today.

 

[Wild Bill]

Did you miss the part where I explained that calling out radical Muslims specifically doesn't mean squat to impressionable Muslims who don't think they're being radicalized? Radical clerics over there are selling the idea of a West vs Islam battle for supremacy, having Western leaders put the sort of language on video for them to propagandize is so fucking stupid I don't even know how to put it into words.

The fact that Republicans are using this as a political weapon, baiting Obama into using language that nonpolitical advisors say would make things worse (read: endanger more Americans) so they can score cheap points is pretty embarrassing stuff. But that's where we are in politics today.

When will we see the results of this brilliant strategy?

 

[Irish YJ]

Did you miss the part where I explained that calling out radical Muslims specifically doesn't mean squat to impressionable Muslims who don't think they're being radicalized? Radical clerics over there are selling the idea of a West vs Islam battle for supremacy, having Western leaders put the sort of language on video for them to propagandize is so fucking stupid I don't even know how to put it into words.

The fact that Republicans are using this as a political weapon, baiting Obama into using language that nonpolitical advisors say would make things worse (read: endanger more Americans) so they can score cheap points is pretty embarrassing stuff. But that's where we are in politics today.

Buster that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Doesn't mean your opinion is correct, or the people that disagree with you are idiots. It's not like we've seen a drop off lately of radical Islamic terrorism lately because Obama has decided not to call it what it is.

Also, you call out the GOP but Hilldog just said she'd use the term radical Islamism.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Did you miss the part where I explained that calling out radical Muslims specifically doesn't mean squat to impressionable Muslims who don't think they're being radicalized? Radical clerics over there are selling the idea of a West vs Islam battle for supremacy, having Western leaders put the sort of language on video for them to propagandize is so fucking stupid I don't even know how to put it into words.

The fact that Republicans are using this as a political weapon, baiting Obama into using language that nonpolitical advisors say would make things worse (read: endanger more Americans) so they can score cheap points is pretty embarrassing stuff. But that's where we are in politics today.

So we shouldn't speak the truth, for fear of violent reprisal. This is called giving into terrorism.

 

[Irish YJ]

So we shouldn't speak the truth, for fear of violent reprisal. This is called giving into terrorism.

Global PC