domestic terrorism/tragedy: florida nightclub shooting

Bloo Driver wrote:

The dude claimed to be part of several contradictory groups.

I remember this too from the first day after the attack but I can't find any quotes about it. Do you have a link?

OG_slinger wrote:

How, exactly, do you get from my statement--"There are no 'good guys with guns.' There are only people who haven't done something horrible with their guns yet."--to every gun owner is 100%, absolutely going to murder someone?

How do you not?

Seriously OG, that's exactly what you're saying.

farley3k wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

The dude claimed to be part of several contradictory groups.

I remember this too from the first day after the attack but I can't find any quotes about it. Do you have a link?

Best I could come up with in summary -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...

FBI Director James B. Comey said earlier this week that there were no signs that Mateen was directly tied to any kind of network, and he added that it remained unclear exactly which extremist group he supported. Mateen’s references to terrorist groups have at times been muddled. Officials say he made comments in recent years to co-workers claiming he had family connections to ­al-Qaeda and was a member of Hezbollah, two opposing terrorist groups that have clashed repeatedly in Syria.

Thanks.

farley3k wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

The dude claimed to be part of several contradictory groups.

I remember this too from the first day after the attack but I can't find any quotes about it. Do you have a link?

Here's one.

Saying you're part of ISIS doesn't make you one, in the same way that my saying "Hail Hydra" doesn't make me part of a nefarious supervillian organization.

That said, it does sound like Omar Mateen had at least some interactions with radical islamists in the past. To the extent those are legitimate connections, that certainly should be investigated. But my support for that is scoped to this criminal investigation - I don't believe Muslims inherently pose any more a threat to my family or this nation than any other group.

West Coast Marine Threatens Another Attack

Everyone stay safe, please.

Yonder wrote:

I believe he is trying to clarify that he doesn't mean that every gun owner is destined to do something horrible with their guns. They can (and most will) remain "gun owners that haven't done something horrible with their guns yet" until the day they die. It is the idea that people can be accurately categorized into a group of "these people are good guys with guns and will never, ever do anything horrible with their guns, nor allow others to do horrible things with their guns, they are 100% safe" which I think he is disputing.

That shifts it from stupid to vapid and borderline tautological. There are no decent people, just people who haven't murdered yet. There's no reason to restrict it to gun owners. There are no good men, just men who haven't raped yet. There are no good Muslims, just Muslims who haven't committed terrorism yet. There are no good women, just women who haven't filed false rape charges.

The flaw in the "only good guys with guns" argument is not that there are no good guys with guns, it's that it takes more than a guy with a gun. It takes professional training, experience, equipment, and support. In other words, the team of law enforcement that eventually took down Omar when a single LEO could not. There's no need to go to stupid extremes to demonstrate the original argument is wrong.

Demosthenes wrote:

West Coast Marine Threatens Another Attack

Everyone stay safe, please. :(

Well, yesterday I started pulling out of this nosedive of anger, despair, and self-loathing.

that was fun while it lasted

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I believe he is trying to clarify that he doesn't mean that every gun owner is destined to do something horrible with their guns. They can (and most will) remain "gun owners that haven't done something horrible with their guns yet" until the day they die. It is the idea that people can be accurately categorized into a group of "these people are good guys with guns and will never, ever do anything horrible with their guns, nor allow others to do horrible things with their guns, they are 100% safe" which I think he is disputing.

That shifts it from stupid to vapid and borderline tautological. There are no decent people, just people who haven't murdered yet. There's no reason to restrict it to gun owners. There are no good men, just men who haven't raped yet. There are no good Muslims, just Muslims who haven't committed terrorism yet. There are no good women, just women who haven't filed false rape charges.

The flaw in the "only good guys with guns" argument is not that there are no good guys with guns, it's that it takes more than a guy with a gun. It takes professional training, experience, equipment, and support. In other words, the team of law enforcement that eventually took down Omar when a single LEO could not. There's no need to go to stupid extremes to demonstrate the original argument is wrong.

Exactly.

My guns, which live in my safe, which is bolted to my floor and wall joists, and are properly registered are no more harm to you than the cast iron pan sitting in the bottom rack of my oven right now.

bekkilyn wrote:

"Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you."

Bullsh*t! Wolves are cowards who can't look themselves in the mirror unless they artificially place themselves above others or accumulate tools that endanger others with their bravado. They can't handle the responsibility or emotions of being unique and equal.

Giving a scared, untrained, person a gun does make him any less a sheep. It just makes him a dangerous sheep with little or no context or understanding of the use of force.

If the only force option you have is at the far end of the continuum, your use of force calculation is likely to be binary. And for those unaccustomed to force at all, knowing when and where to apply it responsibly is a foreign language with a grammar all its own.

Maybe that is a more concise way of putting it:
Wolves are just bad, emasculated sheep.

bekkilyn wrote:
Bfgp wrote:

But really, bekkilyn, are you making a philosophical statement about individual liberty trumping (see what I did there) social security? I've readily admitted to Australia being a police state in the eyes of an American so maybe I'm more used to surrendering personal liberties. I just can't see how a lax and unenforced gun regime is preferable to living in a strict and regulated environment.

As I understand pro gun proponents on GWJ, most accept more measures can be introduced and that would still be preferable to leaving things as they are. Or am I missing something?

I think it's some of both, but like I said earlier, you have the "give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile" risk. And based on some of the conversation I've seen here, that's exactly what would happen, so I don't see most 2nd amendment rights supporters budging even an inch at this point. It's a good part of why I believe that we need to put our focus elsewhere when it comes to preventing more of these attacks and dig the problem of hatred out from its root.

Sure. No point in trying to improve the situation by addressing it's symptoms. What good could that possibly do? /s

Folks need to be budged. Period.

fangblackbone wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:

"Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you."

Bullsh*t! Wolves are cowards who can't look themselves in the mirror unless they artificially place themselves above others or accumulate tools that endanger others with their bravado. They can't handle the responsibility or emotions of being unique and equal.

Ignore and mock predators at your peril, but I think I'll personally stick with continuing to use situational awareness when I'm out and about, and taking advantage of the various options for self defense that are available to me.

Paleocon wrote:

Giving a scared, untrained, person a gun does make him any less a sheep. It just makes him a dangerous sheep with little or no context or understanding of the use of force.

Yes, but part of becoming something other than a sheep may include getting that training and being prepared, rather than meekly sticking one's head in the sand and hoping someone else can save them in time if accosted by a predator.

bekkilyn wrote:

Yes, but part of becoming something other than a sheep may include getting that training and being prepared, rather than meekly sticking one's head in the sand and hoping someone else can save them in time if accosted by a predator.

We live in a ludicrously safe society, and personal firearms are used for violence far, far, far more than they have ever been used for self-defense. The idea that I am sticking my head in the sand and hoping is patently silly. The message that "there are predators everywhere and you need to defend yourself" is silly. I have no guns. I have never, ever felt the need to own guns. I'm not hiding. I'm making a thoroughly rational decision that I live in a safe society, and that my personal safety would actually be reduced and not increased by ownership of firearms.

bekkilyn wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:

"Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you."

Bullsh*t! Wolves are cowards who can't look themselves in the mirror unless they artificially place themselves above others or accumulate tools that endanger others with their bravado. They can't handle the responsibility or emotions of being unique and equal.

Ignore and mock predators at your peril, but I think I'll personally stick with continuing to use situational awareness when I'm out and about, and taking advantage of the various options for self defense that are available to me.

Paleocon wrote:

Giving a scared, untrained, person a gun does make him any less a sheep. It just makes him a dangerous sheep with little or no context or understanding of the use of force.

Yes, but part of becoming something other than a sheep may include getting that training and being prepared, rather than meekly sticking one's head in the sand and hoping someone else can save them in time if accosted by a predator.

The above speaks more to me about mandatory physical and mental fitness requirements than it does the benefits of arming a society. If someone can't run three blocks without falling dead of a heart attack, perhaps a diet and regular exercise would be a better plan for avoiding an assailant than carrying a gun. The same goes double for demanding investment in adequately funded, trained, and policied police departments.

The idea that one can and should marginally reduce the likelihood of individual predation by drastically increasing the likelihood of negligent or ignorant deadly incidents (and their resultant damaging impacts on the fabric of civility and social interaction) is, at least to me, more than a bit misguided. It is very much burning down the house because there is a spider in the upstairs bathroom.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

We live in a ludicrously safe society, and personal firearms are used for violence far, far, far more than they have ever been used for self-defense. The idea that I am sticking my head in the sand and hoping is patently silly. The message that "there are predators everywhere and you need to defend yourself" is silly. I have no guns. I have never, ever felt the need to own guns. I'm not hiding. I'm making a thoroughly rational decision that I live in a safe society, and that my personal safety would actually be reduced and not increased by ownership of firearms.

I am honestly glad that you are able to feel that way. It's a privilege that, unfortunately, not all of us share.

Edit: removed derail, thought I was in the gun control thread

Maybe we should all try being nice to each other, and rather than doubling down on what aspect of all this is the most salient to us, try and understand that probably everyone I see involved in this particular conversation right here has a valid take on the situation given their lived experience, and that finding how to fit all of those together won't be a perfectly smooth process, but it's up to us to decide whether to make it a tougher process than it needs to be.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Maybe we should all try being nice to each other, and rather than doubling down on what aspect of all this is the most salient to us, try and understand that probably everyone I see involved in this particular conversation right here has a valid take on the situation given their lived experience, and that finding how to fit all of those together won't be a perfectly smooth process, but it's up to us to decide whether to make it a tougher process than it needs to be.

Eh, also, it's a derail -- reading the posts before I responded, I thought I was in the gun control thread.

Farscry wrote:

Eh, also, it's a derail -- reading the posts before I responded, I thought I was in the gun control thread.

Sorry Farcry, didn't see your post--it's ahead of mine by mere seconds!

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:

Yes, but part of becoming something other than a sheep may include getting that training and being prepared, rather than meekly sticking one's head in the sand and hoping someone else can save them in time if accosted by a predator.

We live in a ludicrously safe society, and personal firearms are used for violence far, far, far more than they have ever been used for self-defense. The idea that I am sticking my head in the sand and hoping is patently silly. The message that "there are predators everywhere and you need to defend yourself" is silly. I have no guns. I have never, ever felt the need to own guns. I'm not hiding. I'm making a thoroughly rational decision that I live in a safe society, and that my personal safety would actually be reduced and not increased by ownership of firearms.

"to the man with a hammer, the world appears to be a nail" M K Gandhi

And to the man with a gun, every potentially frightening situation appears to be a deadly confrontation necessitating at least the threat of deadly force.

I am a big fan of guns. I shoot a lot (or used to). I have hours upon hours of practical training in the use of firearms and the more I learn about it, the more I recognize that I want no part of a gunfight. Moreover, it is through such training and the observation of others that I have come to realize that "thinking with the gun" is extraordinarily difficult to escape. Like Gandhi said, to the man with a hammer...

It is precisely that "thinking with the gun" that often results in folks limiting far more rational options available. Folks "stand their ground" when the rational and most effective course of action is to retreat. Folks fail to recognize conflict reduction options because the presence of a lethal response gives them a very skewed starting point for interpreting force appropriateness.

Consider Michael Dunn in Florida. He didn't like that some black kids at a gas station were playing their music "too loud". Rather than suck it up, pump his gas, and drive off like a normal human being, he decided to approach the kids and deputize himself as the loud music police BECAUSE HE HAD A GUN. They told him to go fcuk himself and he, opened fire and killed one of them and injured two. He would later state in court that he "swore he saw one of them pull a gun" and I am inclined to believe that is what he thought he saw. His mind was primed for it from the start of the confrontation and anything approaching a sudden movement would have been all the excuse his untrained mind needed to fill in the gaps. He will likely die in prison now.

This is what your "armed sheep" do.

RoughneckGeek wrote:

This is uncomfortably close to comments that gay folks died on Sunday because they didn't fight back.

No, gay folks died on Sunday 100% because of a *person* who went in with the intent of doing them great harm. The blame falls completely on the person committing the crime.

With that said, and speaking in *general* terms, it can be wise to take some precautions when you know that the dangers are out there.

Edit: And Paleocon I agree with you that if you *can* run away from an assailant, that's the best possible self defense you can do. While I strongly support our right to own firearms, I have never suggested they should be the first option we resort to using when other options exist. I'm just grateful we have the option for when it *is* needed.

Double edit: Just to add, I think our *attitudes* towards each other as human beings are a large part of the problem.

Or Crissy and Bradley Turner in my own state of NC, who, when a carload of teenagers cut them off on the highway, followed them for 30 miles to their home (with their kid in a child seat in the back), confronted the teens and unprovokedly punched them. Bradley, after getting his ass kicked seemed ready to walk away when his wife Crissy HANDED HIM A LOADED GUN, which he used to shoot several shots into the house and car the teens were in.

He would later state in court that he did so IN SELF DEFENSE despite the video evidence demonstrating that he was at all points the aggressor.

This is how one "thinks with the gun". And trust me, the average CCW holder is ill-equipped to think any other way.

Paleocon wrote:

Or Crissy and Bradley Turner in my own state of NC, who, when a carload of teenagers cut them off on the highway, followed them for 30 miles to their home (with their kid in a child seat in the back), confronted the teens and unprovokedly punched them. Bradley, after getting his ass kicked seemed ready to walk away when his wife Crissy HANDED HIM A LOADED GUN, which he used to shoot several shots into the house and car the teens were in.

He would later state in court that he did so IN SELF DEFENSE despite the video evidence demonstrating that he was at all points the aggressor.

This is how one "thinks with the gun". And trust me, the average CCW holder is ill-equipped to think any other way.

I mean, as noted, Zimmerman did pretty much the exact same thing and he was let off on Stand Your Ground. That cop Frost in Michigan/Wisconsin did the same thing, escalate, escalate, escalate, lose control of the situation and somehow still considered perfectly valid to shoot in "self-defense" while pushing the situation to one that might require it.

Demosthenes wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Or Crissy and Bradley Turner in my own state of NC, who, when a carload of teenagers cut them off on the highway, followed them for 30 miles to their home (with their kid in a child seat in the back), confronted the teens and unprovokedly punched them. Bradley, after getting his ass kicked seemed ready to walk away when his wife Crissy HANDED HIM A LOADED GUN, which he used to shoot several shots into the house and car the teens were in.

He would later state in court that he did so IN SELF DEFENSE despite the video evidence demonstrating that he was at all points the aggressor.

This is how one "thinks with the gun". And trust me, the average CCW holder is ill-equipped to think any other way.

I mean, as noted, Zimmerman did pretty much the exact same thing and he was let off on Stand Your Ground. That cop Frost in Michigan/Wisconsin did the same thing, escalate, escalate, escalate, lose control of the situation and somehow still considered perfectly valid to shoot in "self-defense" while pushing the situation to one that might require it.

Brad and Crissy Turner were never charged with a felony and got probation. My understanding is that they will likely be allowed to reapply and likely get their CCW permits reissued.

RoughneckGeek wrote:

What precautions should I be taking next weekend? I will be spending my days at street fairs and the Pride march. My evenings will be spent in clubs not unlike Pulse.

You're going back to specifics when I was speaking in very general terms, but I'd suggest things like being aware of your environment and the other people around you, and if you notice anything that seems suspicious, get out of that area and/or notify others who are authorized to check it out.

There may have been no reasonable measures those people in that nightclub could have taken that would have guaranteed their safety. I recently read that this man was having issues with violence and sex even back when he was in grade school, which leads me to think there were plenty of opportunities throughout his life where we, as a society, *could* have intervened to prevent his decision even long before guns were even brought into the picture, but we never did, apparently. It happens a lot for some reason in our culture.

RoughneckGeek wrote:

What precautions should I be taking next weekend? I will be spending my days at street fairs and the Pride march. My evenings will be spent in clubs not unlike Pulse.

IMAGE(http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/iron-man-gif-1.gif)

Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

How, exactly, do you get from my statement--"There are no 'good guys with guns.' There are only people who haven't done something horrible with their guns yet."--to every gun owner is 100%, absolutely going to murder someone?

How do you not?

Seriously OG, that's exactly what you're saying.

I agree with you that is how it sounded but he has clarified that isn't what he meant so shouldn't we let it go now? This seems to be going in a circle for no real reason I can see.

Whatever happened to the guy they arrested in LA? James Wesley Howell?

I only mention it because while his alleged intention to do harm is obviously different than what happened in Orlando it seems like it might be at least potentially relevant to how this is being framed? Is he only being ignored because he was arrested beforehand?