50 dead at Orlando club shooting.

[Obelisk]

Except this guy wasn't a criminal.

I will say that this guy probably got his AR-15 legally, but I am betting you the other man - the one who arrested for having a car full of weapons and explosives powder - didn't get those things legally.

Edit: Tree'd on AR-15 comment.

Edit edit:

*sighs*

Your average mobster/cartel gunman/religious fundamentalist on a holy war will always be able to get a gun, regardless of legislation. Nobody misses that. BUT, your average psychiatric patient that just wants to shoot the people who bully him in college or the local gay club wouldn't because he woulnd't be able to get through the shady world that deals with guns in illegal countries.

This is correct, too. The idea behind the gun control laws is to stop those unstable people from getting a weapon. But as we've seen before with the Sandy Hook incident and other similar shootings, it doesn't work well.

 

[CarBastard]

Missing an important issue.

Terrorists are willing to kill themselves. There is no cycle there except terrorist leaders sending its followers to a willing death. Terrorists do not give 1 ounce of care for getting opportunities from us. They do not want what we have. The people in your country can reasoned with because they do not kill each other out of pure hate; there's agendas to fulfill to protect their own interests, you've said so your self in your 2nd sentence.


People can not just walk willy nilly into a store, and say, "You know what? I'll take a gun as well" when asked, "Is that all for you today" at the checkout. The gun laws are not that lenient.

1. The fundamentalist leaders that pull the strings are likely like you just described them. Just like people like most paramilitarist leaders were, just blood-thirsty psychos with an agenda they wanted to push regardless of any logic or negotiation. But do all people join the ranks of ISIS out of sheer religious fanatism? Or do they do it because they feel their hatred for the west is justified and they have nothing to lose by waging an all-out war against the decadent west that once colonized them or fought a war on their country they didn't ask for? It may be over-used but it reminds me of pre-WWII germany. There was Hitler and his chronies stirring the hate and willing to kill others out of pure hate. The german people? Most of them just followed believing Hitler's speech was justified after what they perceived was an unfair Treaty of Versailles.

2. Maybe I put it too lightly, but they're evidently lenient enough for a diagnosable psycopath to get his hands on one. Time and time again.

 

[Obelisk]

It may be over-used but it reminds me of pre-WWII germany. There was Hitler and his chronies stirring the hate and willing to kill others out of pure hate. The german people? Most of them just followed believing Hitler's speech was justified after what they perceived was an unfair Treaty of Versailles.

Oops, this happened again.

 

[CarBastard]

Oops, this happened again.

I was well aware of that law as I wrote it just that I had forgotten how it was called, that's why I said "It may be over-used". Still, WWII is a very recent and well-documented example of a lot of 🤬 that went wrong with mankind so I see no reason why it's not a valid example for certain discussions. It certainly has been for the seminars I've taken in college .

 

[McLaren]

This is correct, too. The idea behind the gun control laws is to stop those unstable people from getting a weapon. But as we've seen before with the Sandy Hook incident and other similar shootings, it doesn't work well.

IIRC, Sandy Hook was a man who killed his own mother & took her gun to commit the crime. Gun control laws can only do so much.

1. The fundamentalist leaders that pull the strings are likely like you just described them. Just like people like most paramilitarist leaders were, just blood-thirsty psychos with an agenda they wanted to push regardless of any logic or negotiation. But do all people join the ranks of ISIS out of sheer religious fanatism? Or do they do it because they feel their hatred for the west is justified and they have nothing to lose by waging an all-out war against the decadent west that once colonized them or fought a war on their country they didn't ask for? It may be over-used but it reminds me of pre-WWII germany. There was Hitler and his chronies stirring the hate and willing to kill others out of pure hate. The german people? Most of them just followed believing Hitler's speech was justified after what they perceived was an unfair Treaty of Versailles.

2. Maybe I put it too lightly, but they're evidently lenient enough for a diagnosable psycopath to get his hands on one. Time and time again.

All of that doesn't change the difference between your civil war & terrorists in relation to wanting a different response to terrorism.

The cruel reality is that there isn't much likely isn't one. There's no need for such groups on this earth as long they refuse to change their own ways.

 

[Obelisk]

IIRC, Sandy Hook was a man who killed his own mother & took her gun to commit the crime. Gun control laws can only do so much.

That's what I was trying to get to.

Anyone who really wants to hurt someone else, will find a way to do it.

 

[McLaren]

That's what I was trying to get to.

Anyone who really wants to hurt someone else, will find a way to do it.

Ok. I guess I'm trying to understand if you're agreeing with CarBastard on banning guns or not by bringing up the gun laws inability to prevent every shooting.

 

[Obelisk]

Ok. I guess I'm trying to understand if you're agreeing with CarBastard on banning guns or not by bringing up the gun laws inability to prevent every shooting.

Banning guns isn't gonna solve much.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

There's absolutely no practical reason for anyone to own or possess an assault rifle outside of military service. Even then it could be argued that it's not that necessary either.

Handguns for personal defense, shotguns and rifles for recreational use.

If anything, the ones that let the guns out into black market situations need to be held accountable.

No, Shotguns are actually a better personal defense weapon than most handguns in a home. Rifles for hunting and sport shooting are usually what they're used for and some small game can only be humanly hunted by .223 which most times is cheaper to by in a semi-auto rifle than a bolt action. Also assault rifles don't exist outside the military this has been explained up and down in the Guns thread. So yes there is a practical reason, also semi-autos rifles and carbines are used in international shooting competitions as well.

Black market isn't so clear and cut, if you own five hand guns and you keep them in a safe, and someone breaks into your home or personal office where you keep them and makes off. Should you be held accountable for them ending up in the hands of a gang member, murder or possible terrorist? Most black market weapons are stolen, people don't just wake up one day and say "you know that five thousand dollars worth of guns I have collected, I think I'll sell the to that shady character Pedro on the corner. Surely he'll get them to good homes"

 

[Snaeper]

You're taking your initial bad example and making it even worse. The limits of every single car on the road exceed those same road laws.

By that logic, we'd all still be walking.

I'm not. But what I am saying is exactly what @CarBastard said: A Ferrari isn't a weapon designed to kill people in large numbers.

If you guys miss the point, that doesn't make the example bad. Nowhere did I suggest that a Ferrari is a lethal weapon. The very notion of such a suggestion is preposterous. I even attempted to clarify that:

Please understand that I wasnt comparing the lethality of a Ferrari to an AR-15.

I am comparing a gun to guns and a car to cars. I'm not comparing a gun to a car or vice-versa. The suggestion by another member was that since a particular gun is not practical for every day use when there are other guns more suited to the roles needed, then it should be banned. I simply pointed out that, by that logic, a particular car that is not suited for practical use (when compared to other cars) should also, therefor be banned. I used a car as this board is closely linked with the culture and I was hoping to make a connection. My estimation was incorrect it seems, I apologize for any confusion you may have experienced.

You're missing the point.

Again. There's no harm in allowing the public to operate an impractical and exaggerate mean of transport, because it's a device meant for transport that accidentally can be deadly (much like anything can be accidentally deadly). There IS harm in allowing the public to operate an impractical and exaggerate mean of killing, because it's a device meant for killing that can only accidentally do something other than killing. See the difference?

Plenty of people operate AR-15's safely every day. I have a friend who currently has two and a number of other guns. He owns a business, is happily married, golf's every weekend, drives a BRZ and hasn't shot anybody yet. Would you be willing to fly up here and tell him he cant own his guns anymore because of some ******* halfway across the country decided to be an even bigger ******* and kill a bunch of innocent people?

Don't worry, he'd probably be pretty cool about it, sell them, and then point out that the remaining guns in his collection are just as lethal. Which will bring me to my last point.

Something shouldn't be illegal just because it's impractical, agree with you there. But something that is impractical AND designed exclusively for killing? That should categorically be illegal.

Yes, but technically, all guns would fall into that category. And since firearms are protected by the second amendment, you open up the argument of banning them all and then running into the 2A issue. Which of these guns would you ban and why? The M4 of course is already illegal to privately own.

The problem is that if you pick any one, then gun owners are afraid you'll get into a slippery slope of "Well then why not that one? And why not that one?" And then all the guns are banned and the constitution as a whole becomes open to interpretation, with all of the other amendments becoming "flexible".

Then there's the manner of the 300 million guns floating around that you'll never manage to collect. That would require tax-payer dollars to get those. Or would you rather the already massive American prison complex become overloaded with what were previously innocent civilians? All of them feeding of taxpayer's money to contribute absolutely nothing in return, only to get out with little to no positive impact on their rehabilitation and statistically fall right back into prison later on. Would you rather American citizens turn on each other in a witch hunt on gun owners? Would you rather the American government try to buy all of those guns back? With what money? Or should they pay to have a veritable army of LEO's and National Guardsmen go door to door and hope they get all of the guns back? How would they find them all?

 

[GTboyz]

Damn i don't know why i'm so pissed while posting that.

But still, we're on war with people who is capable of killing themselves to kill other people. Being the "better" man seems a bit useless in this present time, especially with guys like this scum.

About the torture, disgusting ? Maybe, but what can the world do to actually stop this ?

I don't know, it's frustrating to see headlines like this.

 

[Com Fox]

I don't think anybody is going to win if "we" take the "route of darkness" and go off with brute force.

It's the only solution we have at the moment, however it is too simple and dangerous IMO. If we retaliate, they'll retaliate back and so forth until 1 will eventually surrender and even then we are talking about a group of people who are willing to kill their own including themselves to get their goal which means we would have to push further to get them to stop by force, many people will be casualties of war, cities destroyed and turning everyone's overall mood much worse, when it'll be over, no one will be cheering, there will be so much mourning over the lost.

and even when it would be over, I wouldn't want to think about our governments in the aftermath of the chaos, we aren't just going to switch back to happy mode.

Granted, I don't have a clear answer to this either but brute force is definitely not the option either, too much would be on the line and would destroy our future this idea feels more like irrational than logically.

 

[Snaeper]

Except this guy wasn't a criminal.

We live in a country where weapons can be purchased legally, and he was indiscriminately able to exercise his right as a free American to do so as that was the most convenient route to take to perform the actions he was intent on committing.

If we did not live in a country with easy access to firearms, he likely would've purchased the guns illegally.

Regardless, 50 people die because whether the gun is legally purchased or illegally purchased, it kills all the same. If he can't purchase a gun illegally, then he just makes a bomb or two like the Boston Marathon bombers did.

 

[Grayfox]

Another insulting thing about this shooting is trump(et) is going on about how Muslims should be banned from entering despite the fact that the gunman was an american born Muslim, who's own father said he hated homosexuals.

So hypothetically if a christian or catholic american born non muslim did this would trump(et) would he shut up?

If we did not live in a country with easy access to firearms, he likely would've purchased the guns illegally.

Or he wouldnt have gotten any guns.

Just cause you cant get them legally does not mean you automatically go to illegal options.
He could have just chosen another means to complete his objective like using knifes.

 

[Snaeper]

Or he wouldnt have gotten any guns.

Just cause you cant get them legally does not mean you automatically go to illegal options.
He could have just chosen another means to complete his objective like using knifes.

This is a country that made a program called "Fast and Furious", which turned over a huge cache of firearms to criminals and cartels to track where they were used. One of these guns ended up being used to kill a border patrol officer here in Arizona.

This is a country where a Californian state senator who was pro gun-control was arrested after being willing to make deals to import fully automatic assault rifles and RPG's into the country in exchange for a hefty campaign donation. (His partner in that deal was an FBI agent).

The point being that there are avenues for a black market of fire arms here in the US. At the moment they don't exist because you can purchase guns legally instead. When alcohol was banned in the US almost a century ago, speak-easy's and moonshine sprung up to fill the void, and while a black market for guns wouldn't be as big as illegal alcohol establishments, it would still grow to fill the void where legal sales leave off. Especially when there's a huge cache of privately owned weapons that is insurmountable to collect. If even 1% of the 300,000,000 (three hundred million) guns goes into the black market, that's 3,000,000 (three million) guns floating around for invalids to do harm with. And when previously law abiding citizens see that their investment in firearms just became dead weight, there's going to be a small group that would be willing to part with them in exchange for cash, even if it means doing so illegally.

This shooter had an interest in what the Islamic State was doing, whether or not he was affiliated with them at the time he committed this. There's a very real possibility of him getting illegal fire arms where a lone wolf shooter might not, the crime doesn't happen as soon as a result.

But more likely, he would've used bombs like in Boston, with knives being a logical instrument as well.

 

[CodeRedR51]

This is a country that made a program called "Fast and Furious", which turned over a huge cache of firearms to criminals and cartels to track where they were used. One of these guns ended up being used to kill a border patrol officer here in Arizona.

This is a country where a Californian state senator who was pro gun-control was arrested after being willing to make deals to import fully automatic assault rifles and RPG's into the country in exchange for a hefty campaign donation. (His partner in that deal was an FBI agent).

The point being that there are avenues for a black market of fire arms here in the US. At the moment they don't exist because you can purchase guns legally instead. When alcohol was banned in the US almost a century ago, speak-easy's and moonshine sprung up to fill the void, and while a black market for guns wouldn't be as big as illegal alcohol establishments, it would still grow to fill the void where legal sales leave off. Especially when there's a huge cache of privately owned weapons that is insurmountable to collect. If even 1% of the 300,000,000 (three hundred million) guns goes into the black market, that's 3,000,000 (three million) guns floating around for invalids to do harm with. And when previously law abiding citizens see that their investment in firearms just became dead weight, there's going to be a small group that would be willing to part with them in exchange for cash, even if it means doing so illegally.

This shooter had an interest in what the Islamic State was doing, whether or not he was affiliated with them at the time he committed this. There's a very real possibility of him getting illegal fire arms where a lone wolf shooter might not, the crime doesn't happen as soon as a result.

But more likely, he would've used bombs like in Boston, with knives being a logical instrument as well.

So basically what you are saying is that there's nothing we can do and that we should suck it up and accept it? Or is giving every living being in this country a firearm for "protection" the only answer?

 

[McLaren]

I don't think anybody is going to win if "we" take the "route of darkness" and go off with brute force.

It's the only solution we have at the moment, however it is too simple and dangerous IMO. If we retaliate, they'll retaliate back and so forth until 1 will eventually surrender and even then we are talking about a group of people who are willing to kill their own including themselves to get their goal which means we would have to push further to get them to stop by force, many people will be casualties of war, cities destroyed and turning everyone's overall mood much worse, when it'll be over, no one will be cheering, there will be so much mourning over the lost.

and even when it would be over, I wouldn't want to think about our governments in the aftermath of the chaos, we aren't just going to switch back to happy mode.

Granted, I don't have a clear answer to this either but brute force is definitely not the option either, too much would be on the line and would destroy our future this idea feels more like irrational than logically.

You're speaking as if they're a country. They have no "government", they're an extremist group that have abducted villages in the Middle East and forced the civilians to follow their rules until they get pushed out.

Brute force is so far, the only option because it's the only thing that will eradicate them; you're not going to capture & rehabilitate them. It gives some hope that we won't continue to be an easy target where as a certain superpower in Asia would have possibly just carpet bombed the region (given their low tolerance of the Muslim religion). But, the US & Europe aren't going to fall to a terrorist group like your dramatic post may insinuate. You'd see another dropping of the atomic bomb before the US or Europe began to fall into terrorist hands & they simply do not have anywhere near the man power, technology, or equipment to ever hope of achieving that. ISIS is barely holding on to its own territories against the Middle Eastern forces fighting them on the ground.

 

[Snaeper]

So basically what you are saying is that there's nothing we can do and that we should suck it up and accept it?

As long as there is a gun, there is someone who will desire to use it. Gun violence is a symptom of hatred and mistrust we as a species experience towards each other, especially in regards to things we dont understand. Take away guns and you end up with knife violence like the UK is experiencing. We need to stop attacking the symptom and go straight to the cause. The teachings of Ghandi and MLK are appropriate to resolving this.

Many seek change as a form of dealing with tragedy, but this can lead to decisions that are clouded by emotion.

I would gladly turn in my gun if I thought an effective measure of gun control was presented that offered meaningful change (few would agree with me). But the government cannot physocally do everything. Especially in an age of such political polarity and distrust of law enforcement. And really, this is something where the people need to shoulder the burden of responsibility, because politicians are the last people I would trust in handling something like this.

This falls under the part of that saying "Accept the things you cannot change". Although I welcome those to try, it never hurts afterall.

Or is giving every living being in this country a firearm for "protection" the only answer?

Absolutely not. Just as those like myself dont want to be restricted in what we can buy and possess, I wouldnt dare wish to have someone possess something they do not want.

Guns are a massive responsibility. Statistically, their owner is more likely to use it on themselves than someone else and others simply do not have the self control or mental fortitude required to realize that using it is a massive decision. Many people realize this and do not purchase firearms because they fear them and what they represent. If you do not wish to own a gun then I respect that choice and would not want to make a political example of you by forcing one into your hands.

Given the rhetoric a lot of anti-gun advocates use when describing what they'd do to gun rights advocates... I'll just say that they are the last people I'd want to have a gun.

 

[GTboyz]

If the world don't fight back, it would make them easier to grow.

I'd say brute force is the beat possible option. Casualities will happen at war unfortunately, but it's either that or that group taking over and killing more people.

 

[Com Fox]

You're speaking as if they're a country. They have no "government"

I was talking about our government with that Paragraph.

Brute force is so far, the only option because it's the only thing that will eradicate them

which leaves many of us to pretty much be sacrifices for their destruction when they retaliate our Brute Force.

I don't think you read my post properly as you think I was writing about ISIS having a chance of beating U.S & Europe, I know if we went on the assault, we would be victorious but all the lives being lost and post-war attitudes and live would make the world much more darker.

Brute Force would just cause even more harm (even emotional harm when it is "said and done").

 

[McLaren]

I was talking about our government with that Paragraph.

which leaves many of us to pretty much be sacrifices for their destruction when they retaliate our Brute Force.

I don't think you read my post properly as you think I was writing about ISIS having a chance of beating U.S & Europe, I know if we went on the assault, we would be victorious but all the lives being lost and post-war attitudes and live would make the world much more darker.

Brute Force would just cause even more harm (even emotional harm when it is "said and done").

The world is already a dark place with these people living in it. Sorry you don't want to accept the harsh reality that they will not go away peacefully, but your post is far too dramatic.

 

[Grayfox]

The point being that there are avenues for a black market of fire arms here in the US. At the moment they don't exist because you can purchase guns legally instead. When alcohol was banned in the US almost a century ago, speak-easy's and moonshine sprung up to fill the void, and while a black market for guns wouldn't be as big as illegal alcohol establishments, it would still grow to fill the void where legal sales leave off

So if gun stricter control is brought in an and I can't get a gun all I would have to do is walk down very alleyway to find a shady guy in a trench coat selling stolen guns?
The way you make it sound is like a sunday market type thing where it will be easy to find the gun you are after.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If the world don't fight back, it would make them easier to grow.

Yes, undoubtedly. That's why so much of the world, including many many Muslims, are fighting back either physically or ideologically. People seem to forget that jihad is a two-way street - those fighting ISIS also consider themselves jihadi.

Given the rhetoric a lot of anti-gun advocates use when describing what they'd do to gun rights advocates... I'll just say that they are the last people I'd want to have a gun.

A lot? Source required.

 

[Com Fox]

The world is already a dark place with these people living in it. Sorry you don't want to accept the harsh reality that they will not go away peacefully, but your post is far too dramatic.

So how is attempting eradicate them forcing them to retaliate and hurt us even more going to turn this "dark place" better? I never said our goal is to solve it peacefully but going the complete opposite will make things worse I do believe there is an unexplored Grey Area.

I think you can't accept the reality of how dangerous a full on eradication would be, sounds like you'll just be happy knowing ISIS is gone even if a lot of innocent people were killed far more than necessary. Especially since you said it yourself, they are willing to kill themself to get their goals, so what makes you think they'll surrender easily by force when they aren't afraid of suicide.

 

[McLaren]

So how is attempting eradicate them forcing them to retaliate and hurt us even more going to turn this "dark place" better? I never said our goal is to solve it peacefully but going the complete opposite will make things worse I do believe there is an unexplored Grey Area.

What exactly do you think a grey area consists of then? Because right now, they either die or they continue to do what they're doing now, which ironically, already consists of dying for.

The best outcome is that eventually, enough die & whomever is left disband from the group. But, you'll have to get rid of the majority of them first.

I think you can't accept the reality of how dangerous a full on eradication would be, sounds like you'll just be happy knowing ISIS is gone even if a lot of innocent people were killed far more than necessary.

There is no "if" seeing as that's already happened & continues to remain a possibility of growing the longer they stick around.

Especially since you said it yourself, they are willing to kill themself to get their goals, so what makes you think they'll surrender easily by force when they aren't afraid of suicide.

I have not once thought that. I have said the exact opposite if you had not bothered to erase the rest of my post.

you're not going to capture & rehabilitate them.

 

[Com Fox]

I was referring to your previous comment might want to remember what you posted

You can't reason with a group of people who are willing to kill themselves as the first option in order to kill you in return

There is no way people with that mentality are going to surrender by force, not like when the Japanese surrendered.

As for the Grey Area, honestly it is a small glimmer that isn't explored, round them up, siege it all, go for the leaders while I do think it works better than just mindless killing of ISIS it is still rather dangerous and I do think a better option would be though of.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There is no way people with that mentality are going to surrender by force, not like when the Japanese surrendered.

It's ridiculous to confuse the two and, ultimately, pointless. They may not surrender under force but that doesn't mean that force shouldn't be brought to bear - they believe in their absolute ideology so diplomacy/reason are out of the question.

As for the Grey Area, honestly it is a small glimmer that isn't explored, round them up, siege it all, go for the leaders while I do think it works better than just mindless killing of ISIS it is still rather dangerous and I do think a better option would be though of.

It's a terrible option. "Siege" means holding the borders... well even if you could build a ring of steel so immensely long it doesn't fix the problem in the huge swathes of the middle east that they already hold. If anything a siege would equal "letting them get on with it". Going for the leaders... that's what the various alliances are doing, no?

I hear what you're ultimately saying (I think), there must be a better way than brute force. Sadly I don't think that there is.

 

[Rich S]

The way I see ISIS and other groups is that they have a bottomless supply it seems. Anyone can just join...this was,what led to the horrible patriot act and eventually well...donald trump's success.

Their over seas numbers are not impressive at any one time but they have a pool that they use based on the massive muslim population. They budget their numbers and as one "class" dies in battle the undergraduates come up out of woodworks... the recruiters themselves probably die off 3ventually too, almost like the life cycle of a wasps nest. The babies are not known to the US and allies until they are fully mature and in battle
You look at the Syrian war and its like the battle number stays and doesnt move. I think theres a replacement cycle going on here. This should be sensitive to us because we could kill 1,million through bombings and not solve this problem.

 

[McLaren]

I was referring to your previous comment might want to remember what you posted

There is no way people with that mentality are going to surrender by force, not like when the Japanese surrendered.

I never said they would surrender in the first place. Referring to my earlier post only reinforces me on that; a person with no ability to reason & accepts death will not surrender.

As for the Grey Area, honestly it is a small glimmer that isn't explored, round them up, siege it all, go for the leaders while I do think it works better than just mindless killing of ISIS it is still rather dangerous and I do think a better option would be though of.

And pray tell how easily that will be accomplished without having to fight them first, doing what we're doing now? We have killed their leaders & they just replace them.

Even if you round them up, what then? They offer no value to society.

 

[Com Fox]

It's ridiculous to confuse the two and, ultimately, pointless. They may not surrender under force but that doesn't mean that force shouldn't be brought to bear - they believe in their absolute ideology so diplomacy/reason are out of the question.

This'll will become endless then if they won't surrender, I don't think it is possible to just kill every one of ISIS and even then, are we truly the better side? We would be doing exactly the same thing as ISIS is doing but in Vice Versa?

I hear what you're ultimately saying (I think), there must be a better way than brute force. Sadly I don't think that there is.

You thought right about where I was going. I guess the other sentence is up for debate.

I never said they would surrender in the first place

All of ISIS getting killed off feels like a Pipe Dream, them surrendering is probably the only option to stop the madness.

They offer no value to society.

I think they can, I do believe in redemption and not hogging on what they did in past tense. Sure lifetime in prison or any punishment probably means nothing to you for what they did but I do believe that you can't just kill everyone off especially since not all people are alike.

Lets not forget this person was an American born.