domestic terrorism/tragedy: florida nightclub shooting

obirano wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'm pretty sure that Trump and his supporters think that Muslims are *actively* trying to kill Americans and bring down our country.

No, there are still plenty that sound like you.

Sorry, I just don't care for being called a future murderer. I guess it's just this quirk of mine.

Heck, I didn't even realize I was a future murderer.

Oh dear, a massive number of people have died before completing their future murderer obligation. Maybe that's what actually starts the zombie apocalypse.

Twitter is mixing some defiance in with the mourning.

#queerselflove

I love queer people <3

bekkilyn wrote:
obirano wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'm pretty sure that Trump and his supporters think that Muslims are *actively* trying to kill Americans and bring down our country.

No, there are still plenty that sound like you.

Sorry, I just don't care for being called a future murderer. I guess it's just this quirk of mine.

Heck, I didn't even realize I was a future murderer.

Oh dear, a massive number of people have died before completing their future murderer obligation. Maybe that's what actually starts the zombie apocalypse.

I'd watch this movie.

Kannon wrote:

Paleocon had a summation... somewhere about why AR-15s are so common in mass shootings. (I think this was a different model).

In short, for AR-15s specifically, they're pretty easy to use. Some anecdata for you: A while ago I had the chance to kill some time at a police training range, and a family friend had an AR-15 (and a few other rifles). I'm a decent shot, but have no real experience with weapons in that family, and it did not take me long to get down reloading quickly, basic tactical drills, so on. It's a very easy to use gun.

Compare that to something like the old M1 Garand I learned to shoot with, which kicks like a mule (higher caliber rounds), was much fiddlier to reload. I eventually got pretty good at it, but it took some practice.

Now, once upon a time, I was arguing from a similar place, so I can see where they're coming from. It *is* a fiddly definition, but I think it can be done, *IF* there is the will to do it, and competent people drafting it. Especially if we're willing to say "f*ck all clip loaded semiautomatic rifles".

So, sure, you could compare it to other hunting rifles, and the .223 cartrage is pretty common, but there's a world of difference between a bolt-action (manual action) rifle with an internal magazine (think shotgun), and the civilian version of a rifle meant for assaults and to be easy to master.

https://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/...

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Sorry, I just don't care for being called a future murderer. I guess it's just this quirk of mine.

I don't care that your feelings are hurt because I said there's a non-zero chance you could do something horrible with the firearm(s) you own (which is also very different than calling you a future murderer). That's simply reality.

Numerous studies have shown that simply having a firearm in your house makes the chance that something bad will happen go up many fold. That could be any number of things from you deciding to off yourself to you brandishing it during a drunken argument to you showing it to a friend and forgetting to unload it.

People make mistakes and do stupid things. And gun owners are still people.

I simply wish that gun owners would stop trying to shift the blame to the "bad guy with a gun" and take responsibility for the fact that their fellow gun owners do terrible things (and do so with surprising regularity).

I don't know what caused a gun owner to decided to hunt down and shoot his ex-wife right a few blocks from my house two days ago, but it happened. Was he a "good guy with a gun" right up until the second he pulled the trigger? Or, perhaps, he was never a good guy and should have never been allowed to own a firearm (or the government should have taken them away)?

You're still countering a stupid and reductive argument (that no one here is making) with an equally stupid and reductive argument. If you want to argue with people who are making that former argument, go do it.

*actually sounding more like this belongs in the brexit thread instead. never mind. *

I see some wisdom in OG's angle, though. I think of myself as a responsible person, but I won't claim that I will always be responsible and in control. As anyone who deals in emergency preparedness will tell you, it's usually the human element where safety breaks down. There's enough potential downside should I lose control of myself that I do consider that as part of thinking about owning a gun.

This is how I feel about the whole "thoughts and prayers" thing. NSFW language.

wordsmythe wrote:

I see some wisdom in OG's angle, though. I think of myself as a responsible person, but I won't claim that I will always be responsible and in control. As anyone who deals in emergency preparedness will tell you, it's usually the human element where safety breaks down. There's enough potential downside should I lose control of myself that I do consider that as part of thinking about owning a gun.

"You never know" is one thing, "definitely will given time" is a whole other stupid thing.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

I see some wisdom in OG's angle, though. I think of myself as a responsible person, but I won't claim that I will always be responsible and in control. As anyone who deals in emergency preparedness will tell you, it's usually the human element where safety breaks down. There's enough potential downside should I lose control of myself that I do consider that as part of thinking about owning a gun.

"You never know" is one thing, "definitely will given time" is a whole other stupid thing.

Sort of like folks saying that if you drive a car and you have alcohol in your house, you will eventually kill someone with your vehicle.

As we're seeing an attack on LGBT people being used to further an Anti-Muslim agenda I can't help but think of this article by a white woman who doesn't want to be used as an excuse to further anti-black activities.

(That particular article is also more than a little bit of a call-to-arms to white women to be more aware of being passively complicit by not being outspoken against this behavior, which doesn't apply here because I have seen several instances of the LGBT community publicly pushing back against this narrative, but it's the most recent article I read on that general topic, and the first one I found searching.)

Paleocon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

I see some wisdom in OG's angle, though. I think of myself as a responsible person, but I won't claim that I will always be responsible and in control. As anyone who deals in emergency preparedness will tell you, it's usually the human element where safety breaks down. There's enough potential downside should I lose control of myself that I do consider that as part of thinking about owning a gun.

"You never know" is one thing, "definitely will given time" is a whole other stupid thing.

Sort of like folks saying that if you drive a car and you have alcohol in your house, you will eventually kill someone with your vehicle.

Or if you're a man, you're a rapist.

Although cars even without the alcohol are deadly weapons that people often take for granted and frequently use irresponsibly. But I also don't think it's a given that if we own a car, we are inevitably going to drive it into a huge crowd of people and run them all down.

The question in my mind is whether or not Democrats are still stuck in the 90s and are going to try and resurrect the assault weapons bill. I've seen lots of articles still about "assault-style rifles". What they seem to have trouble grasping is that it's as basic as semi-auto + detachable high-capacity magazines. Instead they've focused on pistol grips, bayonet lugs, folding stocks... none of the things that make a weapon open to this kind of abuse.

Shivgee Specialist wrote:

Sort of like folks saying that if you drive a car and you have alcohol in your house, you will eventually kill someone with your vehicle.

I think a better parallel can be more like leaving your car running, unattended and -depending on whether you have a gun lock, leave it loaded, and/or leave it under your bed instead of a gun safe- that car can have its doors unlocked, left in neutral instead of park with a broken shifter, be a v-10 SUV or a 50cc dirt bike and a brick on the accelerator.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Instead they've focused on pistol grips, bayonet lugs, folding stocks... none of the things that make a weapon open to this kind of abuse.

It's a half-formed thought, but I wonder how many people who maybe shouldn't be buying these weapons are more interested in a 'tacticool' gun with black composite stock and accessory rails and all the other greebles than they are in a certain mechanical performance. I'm sure that people who have a plan will be able to figure out what they need, but maybe some people who just wanted a cool gun won't have one when the impulse strikes.

fangblackbone wrote:
Shivgee Specialist wrote:

Sort of like folks saying that if you drive a car and you have alcohol in your house, you will eventually kill someone with your vehicle.

I think a better parallel can be more like leaving your car running, unattended and -depending on whether you have a gun lock, leave it loaded, and/or leave it under your bed instead of a gun safe- that car can have its doors unlocked, left in neutral instead of park with a broken shifter, be a v-10 SUV or a 50cc dirt bike and a brick on the accelerator.

I know Quintin personally and know that he properly secures his firearms. None of the above applies to him.

Edit: He lives with a Hippie for Zeus' sake. Leaving a loaded gun in the nightstand would likely result in being beaten to death with a gem grinder.

Paleocon wrote:

Edit: He lives with a Hippie for Zeus' sake. Leaving a loaded gun in the nightstand would likely result in being beaten to death with a gem grinder.

Who do you think got me the safe?

qaraq wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Instead they've focused on pistol grips, bayonet lugs, folding stocks... none of the things that make a weapon open to this kind of abuse.

It's a half-formed thought, but I wonder how many people who maybe shouldn't be buying these weapons are more interested in a 'tacticool' gun with black composite stock and accessory rails and all the other greebles than they are in a certain mechanical performance. I'm sure that people who have a plan will be able to figure out what they need, but maybe some people who just wanted a cool gun won't have one when the impulse strikes.

Probably quite a few. There is a lot of crossover between folks who buy Star Wars memorabilia and AR15 owners. I joke that the AR15 is a Barbie for rednecks. Considering, though, how long the Silly Purchase thread has gotten, however, I don't think this alone should be any point of real criticism.

So I have been watching youtube videos of the victims talking about this shooting. Some of them actually had a conversation with the guy and overheard him while talking to police. The shooter states why he did this. According to the survivors he was upset over US attacks on his country. So far I haven't heard any talk at all over US drone and bombing attacks on non terrorists on a attempt to remove terrorists also being a motivating factor in this attack.

I bring this up because before I watched the victims I pretty much thought this was 100% a hate on LGBT issue. Now I only think that was a factor but not the only factor. Meaning he wanted to kill Americans for killing his people and thought killing LGBT people would be the perfect target. I think this is a important point because if he had no hate for the LGBT community he would have just shot up the closest club.

I guess I would rather have people kill random people instead of focusing on a specific group. I would also rather people not go on mass killing sprees at all. Ignoring part of the motivating factor behind the shooting isn't going to stop more shootings from happening. I also think it might go beyond that and people might think American foreign policy has no ties at all to this shooting.

I can understand why members of the LGBT community would only be focused on LGBT hate factor. They probably even should focus on the one issue to not split their message. However, I don't understand why everyone else is not talking about the other factors, well besides guns I guess. Is it because as Americans we can not except that our government policies had a hand in creating this guy?

It could be a combination of U.S. foreign policy and LGBT hate. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

bekkilyn wrote:

Or if you're a man, you're a rapist.

Although cars even without the alcohol are deadly weapons that people often take for granted and frequently use irresponsibly. But I also don't think it's a given that if we own a car, we are inevitably going to drive it into a huge crowd of people and run them all down.

Ugh. This (bolded) and "if only there was a good guy with a gun" are two of the arguments that I personally can't stand. They are specious at best. I have actually quite softened my stance on the legal ownership of weapons, but I can't stand the boilerplate arguments that are trotted out buy gun supporters.

Bekkilyn, I am not saying this as a direct attack on you personally, but you used the phrase. Cars are not weapons. Weapons, guns as a subset, are weapons. The primary purpose of cars are transportation. The primary purpose of weapons are to kill (whether the target is game or humans). Cars, when used inappropriately, can become weapons, as can a great multitude of things, if said things are used incorrectly. I just hate that argument.

/soapbox

Of course people love the cool factor. How else do you explain the popularity of the Tec-9, a SMG-looking pistol with a large mag capacity that is otherwise a sh*tty gun in every other aspect?

Speaking of which, it isn't just "assault-style" weapons with high capacity magazines that are the public threat. You can easily get pistols with 15 round magazines (or more). In fact, multiple pistols with high-ammo capacities may be cheaper to get than a single AR-15. Of course, ridiculously, there would be a longer waiting period for the pistols.

I'm fine with limited gun ownership. As Paleo has put forth, setting up stringent training requirements for any gun owner is a great idea. I'd also like to see the limitation of hunting firearms to single action weapons (pump, bolt, lever, etc). It kind of defeats the idea of "hunting" if, after opening up on a deer with a semi-auto, 30-round AR-15 that all you get is a hoof. Any long gun with a semi-auto action should be relegated to Class III status (which many gun owners avoid like the plague).

Nevin73 wrote:

Of course people love the cool factor. How else do you explain the popularity of the Tec-9, a SMG-looking pistol with a large mag capacity that is otherwise a sh*tty gun in every other aspect?

Speaking of which, it isn't just "assault-style" weapons with high capacity magazines that are the public threat. You can easily get pistols with 15 round magazines (or more). In fact, multiple pistols with high-ammo capacities may be cheaper to get than a single AR-15. Of course, ridiculously, there would be a longer waiting period for the pistols.

I'm fine with limited gun ownership. As Paleo has put forth, setting up stringent training requirements for any gun owner is a great idea. I'd also like to see the limitation of hunting firearms to single action weapons (pump, bolt, lever, etc). It kind of defeats the idea of "hunting" if, after opening up on a deer with a semi-auto, 30-round AR-15 that all you get is a hoof. Any long gun with a semi-auto action should be relegated to Class III status (which many gun owners avoid like the plague).

State restrictions for game like deer already exist in regard to magazine capacities. I would have to review what they are in NC, but I would be very surprised if you were allowed to hunt deer with a 30 round magazine.

There are, however, a number of hunting applications for which the AR15 excels. One such one is the "varmint" class for medium sized "nuisance" animals like raccoon, coyote, ground hog, prairie dog, and the like. Part of that has to do with the fact that shooting a relatively small, often moving target is tricky and a semiauto that provides for a very controllable follow up shot is just about ideal for the purpose.

Another class in which it is ideally suited is wild boar. Not only does the boar have the speed and size that makes varmint so difficult, it is also a sporadically aggressive animal that can and will charge and injure you if provoked. And a charging Russian boar is not the sort of thing you want to hit only once.

bekkilyn wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

I see some wisdom in OG's angle, though. I think of myself as a responsible person, but I won't claim that I will always be responsible and in control. As anyone who deals in emergency preparedness will tell you, it's usually the human element where safety breaks down. There's enough potential downside should I lose control of myself that I do consider that as part of thinking about owning a gun.

"You never know" is one thing, "definitely will given time" is a whole other stupid thing.

Sort of like folks saying that if you drive a car and you have alcohol in your house, you will eventually kill someone with your vehicle.

Or if you're a man, you're a rapist.

Although cars even without the alcohol are deadly weapons that people often take for granted and frequently use irresponsibly. But I also don't think it's a given that if we own a car, we are inevitably going to drive it into a huge crowd of people and run them all down.

No, but if you own a car the insurance industry has crunched the numbers and found that the average driver will file a claim for a collision once every 17.9 years. That could be a fender bender or that could be an accident with multiple fatalities. What is known, however, is that statistically speaking every driver will f*ck up several times in their life.

At least with driving and cars we've agreed that it's a privilege and not a right. If someone is physically or mentally incapable of safely driving then we don't let them drive. And if someone has proven themselves to be unsafe when they drive then we yank their licenses.

But we don't do that with firearms. It doesn't matter if you're a drunk, have a drug problem, anger issues, or, whatever. The poorly written 2nd Amendment--as well as the millions of dollars spent by NRA lawyers--says you get to own as many firearms as you want (and the NRA is working hard to make sure that even if you're a felon convicted of a violent crime you can still get your guns back).

Even if you do something horrible, like threaten someone with your firearm, you'll probably be able to keep it (or the police won't bother making sure you've turned over all your weapons).

Take the Indiana man, James Wesley Howell, who was arrested in California. The one people thought was going to shoot up LA Pride. Howell had previously been arrested for getting into a fight and drunkenly pointing one of his guns at his neighbors (who referred to him as a "sociopath with an automatic").

Howell was convicted of a misdemeanor was and supposed to turn over all his firearms as part of his punishment for threatening to kill people: one year of probation. But he was found in California with three loaded long guns and 25 pounds of explosives. So either local and state police failed to confiscate all his weapons or he was somehow still able to purchase new weapons. Either scenario is bad and neither should have happened.

Even better was the reason Howell was in California. He had fled Indiana because he raped the preteen daughter of one of his friends. As much as a lot of supposedly responsible gun owners don't want to admit, Howell is as much the face of gun ownership as they are. As is the idiot who stalked and shot his ex-wife just a few blocks from my house earlier this week.

But the pro-gun crowd has to support Howell, even if he is a pile of human sh*t, because they can't publicly admit that not everyone should be allowed to own firearms or that there should be serious restrictions about what kind of firearm can be owned. They've gambled everything on the idea that "shall not be infringed" means as few restrictions, no matter how practical or how many lives would be saved, as the NRA's lawyers and lobbyists can manage.

U.S. officials say American Muslims do report extremist threats

Muslim-Americans have repeatedly informed authorities of fellow Muslims they fear might be turning to extremism, law enforcement officials say, contrary to a claim by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump this week.

"They don't report them," Trump said in a CNN interview on Monday, in the wake of the mass shooting at an Orlando nightclub of 49 people by an American Muslim who claimed allegiance to Islamic State. "For some reason, the Muslim community does not report people like this."

But FBI director James Comey said, "They do not want people committing violence, either in their community or in the name of their faith, and so some of our most productive relationships are with people who see things and tell us things who happen to be Muslim.

“It’s at the heart of the FBI’s effectiveness to have good relationships with these folks,” Comey said at a press conference following the Orlando shootings.

I am perfectly okay with yanking someone's firearms and access to firearms for being a knucklehead.

bekkilyn wrote:

It could be a combination of U.S. foreign policy and LGBT hate. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

Oh that is what I'm saying. I'm just wandering why foreign policy aspect is being completely ignored. I think I might have watched 10 hours or so of news programs about this and only LGBT and gun aspect have been talked about. I don't expect the LGBT community or even the anti gun community to touch on the foreign policy issue but a news organization should and the general public should.

I personally think our foreign policy is creating more terrorists than removing them. I don't agree with people turning to murder in protest but I can understand why they would when their people are being murdered. Ignoring this will just make the problem worse. All aspects have to be dealt with not just a few.

Gun control and LGBT rights represent major policy differences between the two parties (in general) and so fit into our standard tribal politics narratives.

On the subject of foreign policy, unfortunately neither party seems to have any intention to reduce drone strikes.

Paleocon wrote:

I am perfectly okay with yanking someone's firearms and access to firearms for being a knucklehead.

Absolutely agree.