50 dead at Orlando club shooting.

[mustafur]

Given everything I have read on this investigation i think i got an idea of the scenario from the shooters angle(could be totally wrong).

He was Brought up as a Strict Sunni Muslim by his dad, including support for known radical groups without actually joining them, as when he grew older he noticed he was more interested in the same sex but it was at odds with Religion and what he grew up being told, his mental illnesses made this scenario extremely confusing and he decided he would attack the night club that he associated with his homosexual tendencies as a way to tell his god that he is repenting his sins.

The guy was brainwashed to think being gay was unacceptable, combine that with Bipolar tendencies and mental illness makes this a lethal combination when given access to guns.

 

[-Cheezman-]

The act of carrying an assault rifle into a night club doesn't imply it will be used... but would you be worried? I would.

You should go to Maine sometime.

I've seen people walking around with rifles and shotguns a few times while there. No one really cared.

It was quite a culture shock considering I live not that far away in Massachusetts. But, you realize Maine has a different culture than say, Massachusetts or New York, and, guns aren't much of a big deal; most people have them. So you get used to it quickly.

My neighbor told me, how, when he was a kid, he would get on the city bus with his hunting rifle over his shoulder, and ride the bus to the furthest bus stop, then meet his father to go hunting in the woods. This was in Massachusetts in the 1950s.

What has changed in society that this can no longer be the case? Shouldn't we be addressing this radical change instead?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Thank you for clarifying. I did not realize (and I should have) that you were both using the perspective of the gun itself, in which case, that would be a terrible analogy. I was under the impression that there was fear and/or disdain for gun owners, which, if you didn't know them and were afraid/hated them, would indeed be prejudice.

I said a few times I don't like guns. I don't recall ever saying I didn't like gun owners. Though I don't care for some of their attitudes for obvious reasons.

 

[Snaeper]

Again, all of my argument is based on two premises:

- The first one is that making guns readily accessible to people makes it much easier for them to get it.
- The second is that they are so easily accessible it causes people who may not even go the whole way to get them through the black market to be able to get their hands on them. (The "I'm hungry but I'm lazy to make me a sandwich" example).

Well, see, the problem is that, because guns are easily available here in America, it's easier to regulate transfers between sales. I know the "Gun show loophole" is an issue that I'm all for closing down, but really, most gun owners hate going to gun shows because they charge exorbitant prices for weapons they'd rather get online and go through the legal process there to save a few hundred dollars.

When you ban guns, even if the black market isn't as convenient, it still grows to be easier than what we have here in America. To give you an example from Argentina:

https://news.vice.com/article/argentinas-most-violent-city-has-its-own-guns-for-sale-facebook-group

By keeping guns legal, it's easier to prevent a 12 year old from owning a revolver.

I said a few times I don't like guns. I don't recall ever saying I didn't like gun owners. Though I don't care for some of their attitudes for obvious reasons.

Yes, that's my fault. Not even I like most gun owners, but I've also met some very nice ones as well. I'm fairly new to gun ownership, myself, but I've been interested in the politics of gun ownership for a few years.

 

[mustafur]

https://news.vice.com/article/argentinas-most-violent-city-has-its-own-guns-for-sale-facebook-group

By keeping guns legal, it's easier to prevent a 12 year old from owning a revolver.

Poor example, Guns are legal in Argentina and there is more guns in circulation then most other countries, the facts are the more guns in circulation the more deaths related to guns, and the easier it is to get a gun.

Argentina's poor policing has more to do with Lax Facebook selling of weapons.

 

[Snaeper]

Poor example, Guns are legal in Argentina and there is more guns in circulation then most other countries, the facts are the more guns in circulation the more deaths related to guns, and the easier it is to get a gun.

Argentina's poor policing has more to do with Lax Facebook selling of weapons.

I'm actually unfamiliar with gun laws in Argentina, so I suppose I walked into that one.

 

[mustafur]

I'm actually unfamiliar with gun laws in Argentina, so I suppose I walked into that one.

Regardless, the policing of guns is a major factor as well, if there was a Facebook group selling weapons in the US, the FBI an NSA would be all over that at the speed of light.

 

[McLaren]

Yes, because everyone and their mother knows how to use pressure cookers as explosives.

Just as everyone and their mother actually knows how to properly handle an AR-15? There are people who hurt themselves just shooting pistols because they don't know how correctly fire a weapon.

But I'm sure it's all just, "Aim, pull the trigger, and bang bang, things get shot".

I understand the fun of owning guns to shoot stuff (not really, I don't and America's gun culture really contributes to that aspect, as I'm guessing if Americans were born somewhere else, their innate "I NEED TO SHOOT STUFF" gene wouldn't trigger), but you are comparing a pressure cooker, and every day item, to something designed to hurt and kill.

Thanks for clarifying. It makes taking your opinion that less seriously if that's your perceived notion of us.

Maybe next you can understand a lot of people don't use a gun for what you claim it's designed for.

 

[Lucas]

Just as everyone and their mother actually knows how to properly handle an AR-15? There are people who hurt themselves just shooting pistols because they don't know how correctly fire a weapon.

But I'm sure it's all just, "Aim, pull the trigger, and bang bang, things get shot".

Are you implying it's easier to build explosives with pressure cookers than to fire a gun and kill someone?

Thanks for clarifying. It makes taking your opinion that less seriously if that's your perceived notion of us.

I'm sorry that's the picture you paint to the world. If I were to take 100 Americans and 100 Argentinians, I have no doubt which group will have a far more extensive knowledge of firearms. And I'm not talking economics or politics, which are useful to humanity (and thus something to be really proud of), but rounds, cartridges, models and so on.

I know an obsession when I see one, like Argentina's with football, and that's definitely a picture we paint to the rest of the world.

 

[Snaeper]

Regardless, the policing of guns is a major factor as well, if there was a Facebook group selling weapons in the US, the FBI an NSA would be all over that at the speed of light.

The ATF would probably be the responding agency, unless the firearms for sale were connected to a criminal organization (at which point then the FBI would get involved).

Which just goes to show the level of policing and regulations that firearms are held to here.

 

[McLaren]

Are you implying it's easier to build explosives with pressure cookers than to fire a gun and kill someone?

Of course not. The point is you originally thought banning the knife argument was stupid because nobody could kill the same number of people as a gun. So then if we're going by what can do the most damage, then ban pressure cookers as those have done even more damage as the ideal bomb. Difficulty is irrelevant when you're dismissing the damage caused by 1 item vs another.

I'm sorry that's the picture you paint to the world.

Nope, just you & your ignorance.

Because for a country that has people with a "NEED TO SHOOT STUFF" gene, it's amazing how half the population argues against having guns "TO SHOOT STUFF".

 

[A2K78]

Poor example, Guns are legal in Argentina and there is more guns in circulation then most other countries, the facts are the more guns in circulation the more deaths related to guns, and the easier it is to get a gun.

Argentina's poor policing has more to do with Lax Facebook selling of weapons.

First of all regardless of where you live in world it's far more easy to get a gun on the blackmarket than through the visible manner e.g. through a store hence why gun bans and background checks are stupid. In fact this is why criminals love the blackmarket so much and what led to the massive killings in Paris.

Anyhow if this guy really wanted to do a better job and leave no survivors he should've employed either a MG42 or Type 99 LMG..there would've been no survivors.

Anyhow guns like the AR15, Sig MCX and guns in their class are not really great for mass shooting as their nothing semi autos unless modified. Now a SPAS 15 that's another story


BTW this how you turn a ar15 into a beast

 

[mustafur]

First of all regardless of where you live in world it's far more easy to get a gun on the blackmarket than through the visible manner e.g. through a store hence why gun bans and background checks are stupid. In fact this is why criminals love the blackmarket so much and what led to the massive killings in Paris.

Anyhow if this guy really wanted to do a better job and leave no survivors he should've employed either a MG42 or Type 99 LMG..there would've been no survivors.

Anyhow guns like the AR15, Sig MCX and guns in their class are not really great for mass shooting as their nothing semi autos unless modified. Now a SPAS 15 that's another story


BTW this how you turn a ar15 into a beast

OK please try and get a gun illegally in Australia, and then try get a gun legally in the US let's see which is easier and quicker.

 

[A2K78]

OK please try and get a gun illegally in Australia, and then try get a gun legally in the US let's see which is easier and quicker.

I'm sure like every country in the world Australia has a black market. As for why black market are easier to get...it all come to the fact they're untraceable.

 

[mustafur]

I'm sure like every country in the world Australia has a black market. As for why black market are easier to get...it all come to the fact they're untraceable.

Ignorance of Information is not information.

 

[Tornado]

Anyhow guns like the AR15, Sig MCX and guns in their class are not really great for mass shooting as their nothing semi autos unless modified.

That makes it all the more curious how they've been employed to such great effect in that exact capacity, then.


I'm actually starting to wonder if there is a language barrier in play here.

 

[Crash]

@R1600Turbo stated that a gun has only one function - to shoot something. A gun's only practical purpose is to harm, maim or kill something. It's not a tool, it's a weapon. That's not "prejudice" - it's not a misinformed opinion - it's a fact. No matter if you're pro or anti-gun, I don't see any reason to dispute that fact, much less try and compare it to being bigoted or racist. Of all the ridiculously way off-point posts I've seen on GTP, that ranks fairly high.

So for all the guns that have never been used to harm, maim or kill something, are they wrongly being used, or are they serving the wrong purpose?

Cars are designed to get you from point to point. They carry some inherent dangers, but they have a prime purpose. That prime purpose is not to injure, kill or damage something. A gun, no matter how many novel uses you can invent for it, is a weapon. It's a terrible comparison.

I'm glad that you have a use for a gun that differs from its intended purpose. That doesn't change what a gun is, or what it's designed to do.

Why is the original driving force behind something's invention so important in how that item is adapted and used years, decades, centuries, or even longer later? Spears and javelins were originally invented to harm, maim or kill. Should javelin be treated and thought of only as a weapon that only has that one function? Bows and arrows were originally invented to harm, maim or kill. Should they be treated and thought of only as weapons? The list goes on for things invented to facilitate injuring, killing or damaging something: axes, swords, knives, GPS, rockets and so on. Those are all weapons and their design was and still is to injure, kill or damage something?

 

[mustafur]

That makes it all the more curious how they've been employed to such great effect in that exact capacity, then.


I'm actually starting to wonder if there is a language barrier in play here.

Exactly, by saying an AR-15 is not Ideal for Mass shootings yet was the weapon of choice for the biggest mass shooting means the argument is invalid.

 

[Lucas]

Of course not. The point is you originally thought banning the knife argument was stupid because nobody could kill the same number of people as a gun. So then if we're going by what can do the most damage, then ban pressure cookers as those have done even more damage as the ideal bomb. Difficulty is irrelevant when you're dismissing the damage caused by 1 item vs another.

The problem with guns is that:

- They are fairly easy to get.
- They cause more destructive power than a knife (ranged as opposed to close-quarters).
- They are fairly easy to use.

Assault rifles make everything worse, they are not easy to use, but if you get your hands on one you probably know how to use it well. And they serve no purpose outside a shooting range and shooting things for fun.

Pressure cookers are useful things and not used "just for fun". That's why you can't compare the two.

Nope, just you & your ignorance.

Because for a country that has people with a "NEED TO SHOOT STUFF" gene, it's amazing how half the population argues against having guns "TO SHOOT STUFF".

Yet the people who favor having guns end up winning the argument just because of the Constitution, and refuse to ban assault rifles because "We have fun shooting stuff". What's the drawback to banning assault rifles if nobody in the USA cares about them?

 

[A2K78]

That makes it all the more curious how they've been employed to such great effect in that exact capacity, then.


I'm actually starting to wonder if there is a language barrier in play here.

Unless a person is willing invest the time and money to modify an AR for greater effect then it's worth buying one. That said if you're on a mission to rack up massive body counts then a fully auto belt/drum fed gun is the way to go.

Overall a AR is really nothing but a poor man's gun and certainly not a military-style gun as our clueless politicians would have us believe

 

[Tornado]

Unless a person is willing invest the time and money to modify an AR for greater effect then it's worth buying one.

This guy in Orlando just killed nearly 50 people. Did he invest time and money to modify his "poor man's" AR-esque rifle to do so, or is 50 people just not enough to count as a massive body count?




Or are you simply as clueless as the politicians you're chewing out?

 

[A2K78]

This guy in Orlando just killed nearly 50 people. Did he invest time and money to modify his "poor man's" AR-esque rifle to do so, or is 50 people just not enough to count as a massive body count?




Or are you simply as clueless as the politicians you're chewing out?

Your point is? Anyhow its quite clear this guy wanted to do maximum damage he just chose the wrong weapon for the show.

@Lucas

A gun is by far not an easy weapon to use.

 

[Obelisk]

A gun is by far not an easy weapon to use.

Have you ever touched a gun in your life? Don't make a claim like that unless you have actual firearm experience.

I've fired perhaps 20 different styles of gun, including an AR-15 and a handgun like the one used in the shooting. They're super easy to use, it just takes a bit of practice to get used to the recoil.

 

[Lucas]

Your point is? Anyhow its quite clear this guy wanted to do maximum damage he just chose the wrong weapon for the show.

@Lucas

A gun is by far not an easy weapon to use.

It certainly is when you recieve a minimum training which is readily accessible in the U.S.. Pressure cookers, though...

 

[Tornado]

Your point is?

That nothing you've said has any basis in reality.

Anyhow its quite clear this guy wanted to do maximum damage he just chose the wrong weapon for the show.

Since you've avoided every other question on the matter I realize this is a moot question to ask, but how then did he end up accomplishing what is apparently the most deadly shooting in American history?

 

[Blood Eagle]

it just takes a bit of practice to get used to the recoil.

On an AR15?

 

[Obelisk]

On an AR15?

It's not the force of the kick, but it does hurt after a few shots (for me at least).

 

[Blood Eagle]

It's not the force of the kick, but it does hurt after a few shots (for me at least).

The buffer spring absorbs most all recoil and pulls the whole bolt and carrier group into the stock area. They have almost zero recoil. Believe me, I have real experience not just fired one once.

 

[Joel]

Anyhow guns like the AR15, Sig MCX and guns in their class are not really great for mass shooting as their nothing semi autos unless modified. Now a SPAS 15 that's another story


BTW this how you turn a ar15 into a beast

Real life isn't Call of Duty.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Real life isn't Call of Duty.

I'm not so sure anymore.