Orlando attack - terrorism suspected

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
The problem with this argument is that it would further stigmatize mental health and deter people from seeking help if they think the consequence might limit their access to firearms. Mental health is already too stigmatized in this country and we don't want to give people more reasons to avoid therapists. Who knows, this might have been prevented if this guy had regular therapy.

You don't have to explain the stigma of mental health to me. I've sat on the national board of a mental health advocate for many years. I agree with your premise, but how would this make more stigma? If anything, it will encourage people to evaluate and understand their personal mental health. It would let people have a reason for getting help. A reason for self evaluation. The first step of improving mental health systems is to convince the public that it's part of general health. Not something only "crazy people" need to evaluate.

Telling people that conditions like PTSD aren't something that should be addressed is ignoring the issue. We need more awareness that it's okay to get help. That seeing a therapist is something that is something that isn't looked down upon. If a veteran with ptsd wants an AR-15, then that's okay. This gives us a great opportunity for them to self address a problem without any stigma. All they are doing is following the law in order to get it. They are getting help without the stigma.
 

DomerInHappyValley

dislikes state penn
Messages
3,297
Reaction score
1,694
You don't have to explain the stigma of mental health to me. I've sat on the national board of a mental health advocate for many years. I agree with your premise, but how would this make more stigma? If anything, it will encourage people to evaluate and understand their personal mental health. It would let people have a reason for getting help. A reason for self evaluation. The first step of improving mental health systems is to convince the public that it's part of general health. Not something only "crazy people" need to evaluate.

Telling people that conditions like PTSD aren't something that should be addressed is ignoring the issue. We need more awareness that it's okay to get help. That seeing a therapist is something that is something that isn't looked down upon. If a veteran with ptsd wants an AR-15, then that's okay. This gives us a great opportunity for them to self address a problem without any stigma. All they are doing is following the law in order to get it. They are getting help without the stigma.

The major issue I could see with this would be reinstatement. If PTSD is a problem now what about 5 years from now. How would they go about restoring their rights?
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
The major issue I could see with this would be reinstatement. If PTSD is a problem now what about 5 years from now. How would they go about restoring their rights?

By getting sign off from a mental health provider. A service that should be a free fundamental right of our returning servicemen.
 

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019

Well Duh.

Chicago doesn't fit the narrative so we should just ignore, huh?

We are talking about mass killings, and while Chicago grouped together is a mass killing every week the crimes aren't related.

I don't get why reasonable people can't agree that we should probably make people currently being watched by the FBI, with mental instability, wait at least a day for an AR-15. You know, maybe run a background check or something?

Because the second you mention the term gun control its all about banning guns and taking away their rights and blah blah blah. You know, while the bodies pile up.

I would not oppose a mental health evaluation. My only question is how do we handle those who properly treat their mental health deficiency? Do we assume the treatment will continue and give them a pass or are they immediately excluded once diagnosed.

Excluded.

I do think it's clearly a problem when you can buy an AR-15 in 7 minutes.

I bought an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in Philly in 7 minutes

*I'm taking this article as fact.

Not only that, but heres a video on how to "hip bump" an AR15 and essentially make it full auto:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/a38VAENw_04" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Killings using rifles are barely a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme, ranking well behind handguns (by a factor of about 15), knives, blunt objects and hands/fists/feet. While mass killings definitely spark fear and anxiety, people are the problem. The slippery slope argument may seem dumbass to you and me, but the problem is you won't have a chance to pump the brakes before its too late.

As a simple example, let's say we do ban AR-15/10 rifles. Will that stop the terrorist attacks, or will it simply drive them to other types of semi-automatic rifles? So the next logical step is to ban all semi-automatic rifles. Then the crazies start using handguns. Mass killings may go down in severity, but I'm guessing they won't stop. So then we decide that any mass killings are unacceptable and ban all semi-automatic handguns because those killings have been on the rise (since we took away everything else).

None of the above is particularly hard to imagine. Firearm murders are on the decline, but we keep using sensationalism and the depraved acts of lunatics and terrorists to keep pushing the goal post. You want a solution? Enforcement and severe punishment. Caught trying to purchase a weapon illegally? Enjoy 10 years in prison with no chance of parole. Felon trying to circumvent a background check? Here's 20. We keep decriminalizing everything (because everyone is a victim in some way, right?) and wonder why evil people do evil things.



This is scary, and I honestly think you should have (if you haven't already) a serious conversation with his parents, and failing that, if you genuinely think he's a danger to himself or others, this might be a case of see something say something....or would that be considered bigotry/oppression? I've lost track....

I can agree with about everything you've said. Controls in place to make sure it is not EASY to get your hands on these weapons. Therefore they have to go through illicit means to acquire which might make them get caught.

I fail to see how not addressing the root of the problem is 'America coming to its senses'. In the hypothetical I posed, the number of murders doesn't change, simply the tool. If you really want what you propose, simply call for an outright ban on all firearms and stop beating around the bush. Let's just go all out authoritarian and be done with it.

There were some ~60 murders in Chicago in May....that's 2 per day. By what measure are mass killings more of a problem?

Since you agree on enforcement, I would propose we start there....give it a few years and reevaluate.

You don't see a problem with mowing down 50 people at one time compared to a random shooting? Any shooting is a problem but to suggest that they are on the same level is not correct. Again no one is talking bans, I haven't mentioned that and I don't think anyone else has either. But lets find better ways to control sales.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
I fail to see how not addressing the root of the problem is 'America coming to its senses'. In the hypothetical I posed, the number of murders doesn't change, simply the tool. If you really want what you propose, simply call for an outright ban on all firearms and stop beating around the bush. Let's just go all out authoritarian and be done with it.

There were some ~60 murders in Chicago in May....that's 2 per day. By what measure are mass killings more of a problem?

Since you agree on enforcement, I would propose we start there....give it a few years and reevaluate.

But what if they did change? What if we pulled AR-15s off the streets, and a noticable drop in mass shootings occurred? We won't know if we don't try. The problem I have, is that every suggestion is met with ridiculous naysayers insisting they know what will or won't work, and since they know, doing nothing is the most prudent course of action. That's ridiculous NRA-sponsored nonsense.

I'm not saying that mass killings are more of a problem than onsies and twosies. But that doesn't mean that they are not a problem at all. If you can fix the problem by getting semi-automatic guns with massive bullet capacity off the streets, why shouldn't we do that? Would that stop every murder or shooting? No. Would it even stop every mass shooting? Probably not. But it could make a difference? I think so, and we won't know unless we try.

I'm all about enforcement. Here's some other ideas ...

- Guns in a house must be stored in locked, fixed containers.

- If a gun is stolen, the owner must report it immediately, and if they don't and it is used in the commission of a crime, the owner faces criminal liability.

- All new guns purchased must have biometric identification to the owner, or else they will not function

- Expanded background checks, to include psychological testing.

- Any firearm found with no identifying serial numbers will be confiscated and destroyed.

- Restricting the sale of semi-automatic and automatic weapons and a maximum of 8-bullet capacity.

Of course, the NRA would lose their shit if any of this were seriously proposed by lawmakers, so none of them will happen. And, that is just nonsensical. This problem has become a domestic security threat to citizens of this country. Are we going to continue to let the NRA decide which laws are OK, how much risk is acceptible, how many deaths are acceptable?
 
Last edited:

Bubbles

Turn down your lights
Messages
661
Reaction score
76
You don't see a problem with mowing down 50 people at one time compared to a random shooting? Any shooting is a problem but to suggest that they are on the same level is not correct. Again no one is talking bans, I haven't mentioned that and I don't think anyone else has either. But lets find better ways to control sales.

You are making an emotional argument against mass killing and I am saying, with evidence and data points, if the idea is to protect ALL life, then mass killings are not the primary problem. For the record, I see a PROBLEM with every kind of killing.

My earlier comment to you about dolphins was not made as a joke, it was designed to prevent the strawman rhetoric by shining a light on ridiculous statements like that.....also....as a joke. I guess it was not as effective as I had hoped.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
What privilege would you sacrifice for the safety of the common good?

Consider all restrictions erased and we have a blank slate - no airport security, no registering of firearms, etc.

Taking a small situation, when I go to a ND game, I would keep airport security, a gun-free zone on campus and even metal detectors entering the stadium. (I'm still up in the air about allowing Trojans on campus.)

You may agree or disagree with these:
Why I'm for the Brady Bill By Ronald Reagan (1991)
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.

Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.

This level of violence must be stopped.

Decision of the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller (the majority opinion written by Antonin Scalia, 2008) (see whole decision, but here's one excerpt)
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
 
Last edited:

bkess8

Us vs. Them
Staff member
Messages
7,626
Reaction score
1,419
They sell AR-15's at hardware stores in MI.

EB8643DB-867B-4AA6-A17D-6F01F1B1E21D_zpsbm1i3zuj.jpg


You know... Get a little fertilizer, some porch flowers, a couple tarps and your AR-15 of course.

Can I use my food stamps to purchase said AR-15 or is that out of the question?
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Scalia in D.C. vs Heller

Scalia in D.C. vs Heller

Justice Scalia further said, in his majority opinion in Heller (5-4):

For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought
applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did
not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by
law-abiding citizens.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.
 
Last edited:
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
What a great thread, discussion, and some awesome posts.

I have learned a lot, and have enjoyed not wallowing over spiteful ideological rhetoric.

My two cents worth :

In another thread someone asked me who thought that the nightclub patrons got what they deserved. Unfortunately, many more than one source did. But the post above referencing the CA minister was just absolutely chilling, wasn't it?

Colt bought the rights from Armalite. The Armalite AR-15 became the M-16 with a few modifications. When talking about any of the AR designated or .223Cal weapons all except the military issues are legally limited to semi-automatic fire. Which is all someone needs. When people talk about purchasing assault weapons, they are not talking about the fully automatic models as depicted in the video above, although that is a fairly easy modification to make.

To me the real problem is this :

There is a personality profile of a disturbed human being that would commit suicide if possible. They are in such an abused, painful state, that they would enjoy taking as many with them as possible.

Key to this profile is certain mores (strongly held religious beliefs among them) that would prohibit that individual from taking their lives; anything from being a quitter, or looser, to being condemned for eternity.

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!

This guy was an American citizen. One of the times the FBI looked at him was because of his passing acquaintance with a Fla native the went to the Middle East and strapped a bomb on his chest for Allah. A redneck, no less.

I feel we are wasting time talking about gun laws, (to a degree), and definitely wasting our time deciding what a terrorist is.

It is clear as hell to me that ISIS took credit for this mentally ill individuals actions, not for glory, but to send out a clear message to many other candidates, that if they act on their impulses, ISIS will declare them martyrs!

They couldn't have poste a more effective add : "Life got you down? Opt out, and take oodles with you to show what your life really meant! We have a low terms, low cost program that will make you a martyr who died as a freedom fighter against the oppressors who have been causing you problems (to fail) your entire lifetime. So do something. Learn our prayers - check out the weapons and tactics your predecessors used, and go out with a big splash, as a hero. We guarantee your fame will spread far, and last forever!"

We really need to attack their winning psychological strategy first. Even giving up freedoms won't help, at this point.
 

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
Last edited:

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,693
Reaction score
5,992
Frankly, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. This guy killed 50 people in one sitting. AR15, Sig Sauer, M16 whatever. They all shoot bullets at a high rate.

Here is the Sig in full auto:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Bj3tmGQXbpQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Would love to have one of those.
 

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
Frankly, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. This guy killed 50 people in one sitting. AR15, Sig Sauer, M16 whatever. They all shoot bullets at a high rate.

Yup.

But, but, but ... James Jones took out over 900 members of The Peoples Temple in Jonestown, Guyana using cyanide. Only a few were gunned down.
 

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
Yup.

But, but, but ... James Jones took out over 900 members of The Peoples Temple in Jonestown, Guyana using cyanide. Only a few were gunned down.

True. Most were forced into drinking it. Those who ran were shot. Pets were injected and parents watched their kids die an insufferable death.
 

Monk

Active member
Messages
593
Reaction score
41
Would love to have one of those.

I wouldn't mind owning one of those myself, but I can't justify spending $700+ on a toy with no real purpose for me.

If I did want to spend the money to purchase the firearm I would want my dealer to:

1. Make me show proof of taking some sort of training with firearms
2. Do an extensive background check possibly contacting law enforcement to check my status
3. I wouldn't have a problem with some sort of mental health evaluation
4. Have a waiting period of at least 7 days.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
To me the real problem is this :

There is a personality profile of a disturbed human being that would commit suicide if possible. They are in such an abused, painful state, that they would enjoy taking as many with them as possible.

Key to this profile is certain mores (strongly held religious beliefs among them) that would prohibit that individual from taking their lives; anything from being a quitter, or looser, to being condemned for eternity.

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!

This guy was an American citizen.

I could not help but think of this:
For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack

Anti-abortion violence
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Frankly, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. This guy killed 50 people in one sitting. AR15, Sig Sauer, M16 whatever. They all shoot bullets at a high rate.

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?
 

BobbyMac

Staff & Stuff
Staff member
Messages
33,950
Reaction score
9,294
Frankly, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. This guy killed 50 people in one sitting. AR15, Sig Sauer, M16 whatever. They all shoot bullets at a high rate.

Here is the Sig in full auto:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Bj3tmGQXbpQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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?
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126

Not an apt comparison:

Hey, do you remember the story about the guy who shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic and later said something to police officers about "baby parts"?

When this story broke last fall, countless pundits and progressive interest groups seized on the idea that only one thing might have led Robert Lewis Dear to kill three people and injure nine more at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs: the rhetoric of pro-lifers.

Don't take my word on it. It happened so much that The Washington Post made a story out of it, titled, imaginatively, "Abortion rights groups: Political rhetoric contributed to shooting". "To many abortion rights advocates, it seemed only a matter of time before something like this happened," reported the Post's Sandhya Somashekhar.

CNN's Chris Cuomo attacked then-presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, seeming to blame her and other conservatives for the shooting. "Do you feel any sense of regret about how you characterized what was going on at Planned Parenthood after the attack in Colorado?" he asked. "Because of what the man said which seems as though he was influenced by some of the rhetoric coming out of you and others that painted a very ugly picture and unfair one about Planned Parenthood."

The Guardian's Jessica Valenti went even further, not only accusing pro-lifers of prompting the Dear shooting with their rhetoric, but of doing so intentionally.

I point all this out because a judge has now ruled that Dear is mentally incompetent to face trial.

Here are some of the beliefs of Robert Lewis Dear, according to CNN: "He believes the FBI cuts holes in his clothes and leaves feathers in his home. (...) That President Obama will declare martial law and rebuild himself as the antichrist."

Since the beginning of his trial, Dear has shown erratic behavior, shouting at his lawyers and the judge, once calling the judge a "filthy animal," muttering to himself, declaring he's guilty, and trying to fire his court-appointed lawyer. A court-appointed psychologist explained that Dear suffers from a "delusional disorder" that means he cannot have a "rational understanding" of what goes on around him, adding that "his decisions are not based on logic."

Robert Lewis Dear is not some smoking gun proving that pro-life rhetoric causes abortion clinic shootings. If anything, he is simply evidence that insanity plus guns leads to shootings.

It has long been obvious that Dear was unstable. But that still didn't stop political hacks from using a senseless tragedy as a political club.

As I wrote at the time, while it's true that all mass political movements have a violent fringe, what's astonishing about the pro-life movement is how non-violent it is:

Psychopaths are around 1 percent of the general population. Roughly half of Americans identify as pro-life, which means that if psychopaths are evenly spread among pro-lifers, there are about one million and a half pro-life psychopaths going around. Not even counting the countless "normal" people who surely have been turned into bloodthirsty maniacs by pro-life rhetoric.

So, how many people have these millions of pro-life psychos murdered over the past 40 years that the pro-life movement has been around? Eight.

Eight people is not nothing. It's also less people killed over 40 years than Nidal Hasan killed in 10 minutes, less than were killed in Columbine High School over the span of an hour. [The Week]

Which is not too surprising when you realize that pro-life people are, you know, pro-life. That's what the whole movement is about. To be pro-life is to believe that problems, even very hard problems, are only made worse with violence. Violent people pretty much self-select themselves out of the pro-life movement.

All of this is so obvious as to border on the tautological — to be pro-life is to be in favor of life. It's sad that in a political culture so polarized, where we are so quick to presume bad faith on the part of our counterparts, one has to point out the obvious.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
To be fair...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/02/americans-obama-anti-christ-conspiracy-theories

The survey, which was conducted by Public Policy Polling, asked a sample of American voters about a number of conspiracy theories, phrasing the questions in eye-catching language that will have the country's educators banging their heads on their desks. The study revealed that 13% of respondents thought Obama was "the antichrist", while another 13% were "not sure" – and so were at least appeared to be open to the possibility that he might be. Some 73% of people were able to say outright that they did not think Obama was "the antichrist".
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464

I know you were being somewhat sarcastic. But stories like this actually illustrate the very point you're arguing against. People who are crazy will find a way to kill. It's not guns that kill people...people kill people. Right?

In this case, a crazy person goes off with a knife with intent to harm. One person is injured with non-life-threatening injuries.

Would the result have been the same if he had an AR-15? Or whatever weapon the Orlando shooter had...
 
Last edited:

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
3,260
I know you were being somewhat sarcastic. But stories like this actually illustrate the very point you're arguing against. People who are crazy will find a way to kill. It's not guns that kill people...people kill people. Right?

In this case, a crazy person goes off with a knife with intent to harm. One person is injured with non-life-threatening injuries.

I understand the point but the weapon of choice is a red herring. The issue here is Islam and whether it can co-exist with the western world.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
I understand the point but the weapon of choice is a red herring. The issue here is Islam and whether it can co-exist with the western world.

Both are conversation points. People are arguing that killers will find a way to kill no matter what and that gun regulations won't help. He was clearly making that point by facetiously saying we should ban knives.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
I understand the point but the weapon of choice is a red herring. The issue here is Islam and whether it can co-exist with the western world.

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
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?

Three million dollars worth of Muslim Americans? Dang. That's a lot. ;)
 
Top