Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[Dave2512]

I thought I was having a bad couple days and woke up to this, literally. So sad. 

[Elmer]

This is the America we live in! 
We as a society decided a few years back that this was acceptable. The day we decided the lived of 20 children worth the cost of using an outdated amendment to reinforce your right to own a "sporting rifle".

One side will yell up and down that guns should be banned or regulated.
The other side will say "if only those club goers were armed they could have protected themselves"
Some will say it is the guns fault, some will blame a certain religion. Others will blame mental illness, some clown will say that had the club goes not been "gay" they would have been home and in church where they belong.
There will be those that politicize this.
There will be those who point out we are the only civilized society with the most mass shootings.

But ultimately, nothing will done, because this is the America we become!

[newtogolf]

Ultimately this is a failure on the part of the government for two reasons.  

1. He was investigated twice by the FBI for radical statements and behavior and both times they decided to end the investigations without follow up.  Minimally they should have prevented him from being cleared for security guard duty where carrying a gun was required.  I don't know who they spoke to, but his ex-wife was interviewed and said he had a history of violence, so I doubt they spoke to her.  His father is also heavily aligned in Middle East politics.  Seems like the ball was dropped here big time.
    
2. Current Federal gun laws should have prevented him from being able to purchase any guns if he was investigated twice by the FBI.  The FBI provides the approval for gun purchase, someone that was investigated twice should have at least been flagged for additional review which is built into the current law.  

If proper procedures and laws aren't enforced, passing new laws isn't going to solve the problem.  The problem isn't the guns, it's that these radicals are being permitted to walk among us.

If he had detonated an explosive vest we'd still have lost all those lives needlessly but the focus would be on stopping these individuals within our country and from allowing new ones to enter our country, not on banning guns.  

[Braivo]

18 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

The thing I'm most surprised about today's events is that gay men are still categorically excluded from blood donations. Beyond that, I have no words.

There are valid and important reasons for this. 

17 hours ago, nevets88 said:

This is the 18th time President Obama made a speech after a mass shooting.

We’re 164 days into 2016. We’ve had 133 mass shootings.

This was a terrorist attack, not a mass shooting. A foreign group of radical muslims has declared war on the USA and just hit us on our home soil. 

[drmevo]

11 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Ultimately this is a failure on the part of the government for two reasons.  

1. He was investigated twice by the FBI for radical statements and behavior and both times they decided to end the investigations without follow up.  Minimally they should have prevented him from being cleared for security guard duty where carrying a gun was required.  I don't know who they spoke to, but his ex-wife was interviewed and said he had a history of violence, so I doubt they spoke to her.  His father is also heavily aligned in Middle East politics.  Seems like the ball was dropped here big time.
    
2. Current Federal gun laws should have prevented him from being able to purchase any guns if he was investigated twice by the FBI.  The FBI provides the approval for gun purchase, someone that was investigated twice should have at least been flagged for additional review which is built into the current law.  

Absolutely agree on these two points.

[Elmer]

11 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Ultimately this is a failure on the part of the government for two reasons.  

1. He was investigated twice by the FBI for radical statements and behavior and both times they decided to end the investigations without follow up.  Minimally they should have prevented him from being cleared for security guard duty where carrying a gun was required.  I don't know who they spoke to, but his ex-wife was interviewed and said he had a history of violence, so I doubt they spoke to her.  His father is also heavily aligned in Middle East politics.  Seems like the ball was dropped here big time.
    
2. Current Federal gun laws should have prevented him from being able to purchase any guns if he was investigated twice by the FBI.  The FBI provides the approval for gun purchase, someone that was investigated twice should have at least been flagged for additional review which is built into the current law.  

If proper procedures and laws aren't enforced, passing new laws isn't going to solve the problem.  The problem isn't the guns, it's that these radicals are being permitted to walk among us.

If he had detonated an explosive vest we'd still have lost all those lives needlessly but the focus would be on stopping these individuals within our country and from allowing new ones to enter our country, not on banning guns.  

Should, but dont. There is no law in place which would stopped this idiot from purchasing a gun.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/dec/29/patrick-murphy/terrorist-watch-list-no-obstacle-buying-guns-rep-m/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/gun-amendment-democrats-216389

Just now, Braivo said:

There are valid and important reasons for this. 

This was a terrorist attack, not a mass shooting. A foreign group of radical muslims has declared war on the USA and just hit us on our home soil. 

and yet a mass shooting was carried out by an American Citizen, with a legally purchased sporting rifle.
You can turn this into a war on Radical Muslims, you can change the name of "mass shooting" to "terrorist attack", but none of this brings the dead back and none of it gets us 1 step closer to preventing the next one!

[newtogolf]

9 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Should, but dont. There is no law in place which would stopped this idiot from purchasing a gun.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/dec/29/patrick-murphy/terrorist-watch-list-no-obstacle-buying-guns-rep-m/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/gun-amendment-democrats-216389

TSA should prevent weapons and dangerous objects from getting on airplanes but they don't.  Passing new laws doesn't prevent incompetence.  

The FBI under current laws can flag individuals so they aren't automatically approved to purchase guns and require additional review before approval. 

[Ernest Jones]

34 minutes ago, Braivo said:

There are valid and important reasons for this. 

Such as?

[Groucho Valentine]

5 hours ago, Silent said:

No words for this kind of hate....

You cant go to war against ideas and mindsets. You cant police hate. The types of attacks on innocents like in Orlando over the weekend is only going to lead to Orwellian shit were we all have to surrender freedoms in the name of safety, IMO. 

[Bay20]

This won't stop here, they brought this war to our soil with the 9/11 attacks. Everyone needs to be more vigilant of their surroundings and not be afraid to speak up and alert the authorities when needed. This happened about 50 miles from where I live and I still can't believe it. Sad day in the great old USA. 

[saevel25]

16 minutes ago, Braivo said:

There are valid and important reasons for this.

This type of logic is just blatant ignorance. 

21 minutes ago, Braivo said:

This was a terrorist attack, not a mass shooting.

A terrorist attack can be a mass shooting. They are not mutual exclusive. A terrorist can go and kill one person and it's a terrorist attack. 

34 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

1. Current Federal gun laws should have prevented him from being able to purchase any guns if he was investigated twice by the FBI.  The FBI provides the approval for gun purchase, someone that was investigated twice should have at least been flagged for additional review which is built into the current law.  

It still might not have stopped him from getting a gun. There are many people who sell guns illegally. 

---

The fact is these people do these things not because of gun free zones, not because we have lax gun laws, but because these people want a world of slavery and oppression, where women are sold and rapped, and those not of their radical faith are tortured and killed.  

To quote a line from The Dark Knight, 

Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

[Braivo]

1 hour ago, Elmer said:

and yet a mass shooting was carried out by an American Citizen, with a legally purchased sporting rifle.
You can turn this into a war on Radical Muslims, you can change the name of "mass shooting" to "terrorist attack", but none of this brings the dead back and none of it gets us 1 step closer to preventing the next one!

France has very restrictive gun laws and ISIS still massacred people there. Belgium is the same and they still blew up their airport. Taking guns away isn't solving this problem. 

Calling it a terrorist attack does in fact help us prevent the next one because it identifies the enemy we are facing. 

30 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Such as?

The uncomfortable truth is that nearly all new cases of HIV occur in men who participate in gay sex. The rate of HIV among gay men is astronomically higher than it is in the general population. 

20 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

This type of logic is just blatant ignorance. 

Incorrect, you are ignorant of the facts regarding gay men and disease rates. 

24 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

A terrorist attack can be a mass shooting. They are not mutual exclusive. A terrorist can go and kill one person and it's a terrorist attack. 

Calling it a terrorist attack correctly identifies it as an attack against Americans on American soil. 

 

25 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The fact is these people do these things not because of gun free zones, not because we have lax gun laws, but because these people want a world of slavery and oppression, where women are sold and rapped, and those not of their radical faith are tortured and killed.  

This is 100% the truth. Radical Islam does not care about our laws or our "compassion". 

[Elmer]

6 minutes ago, Braivo said:

 

Calling it a terrorist attack correctly identifies it as an attack against Americans on American soil. 

Every Mass Shooting on US soil is an "attack against Americans on American soil."

A Mass shooting can be both a "mass shooting" & a "terrorist attack".

However by calling it a "terrorist attack" you make it sound like the shooter was a foreign agent and not an American Citizen, since the preconceived notion is that "terrorists" are only from the middle east!

Calling it a "terrorist attack" just makes Fox News and their sheep feel good!
Once again it does nothing to stop what we come to have determine as acceptable!

[newtogolf]

41 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

This type of logic is just blatant ignorance. 

A terrorist attack can be a mass shooting. They are not mutual exclusive. A terrorist can go and kill one person and it's a terrorist attack. 

It still might not have stopped him from getting a gun. There are many people who sell guns illegally. 

---

The fact is these people do these things not because of gun free zones, not because we have lax gun laws, but because these people want a world of slavery and oppression, where women are sold and rapped, and those not of their radical faith are tortured and killed.  

To quote a line from The Dark Knight, 

Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

You're exactly right, people that are determined to hurt others will find a way.  

I saw a quote the other day that really hit the mark.  

Quote

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

 

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Incorrect, you are ignorant of the facts regarding gay men and disease rates. 

No I am not.  Diseases transmitted by the blood are not isolated to the gay community. When you give blood your blood is tested for diseases anyways.

Here's a great fact for you. Gay men can donate organs. You want to know why, because the FDA is the organization that runs blood donations not organ donations. Yet there has been no massive headlines about tons of transmitted diseases from gay men or women who donate organs. Why, because they examine the person for diseases before they get put on the donor list. 

[newtogolf]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

No I am not.  Diseases transmitted by the blood are not isolated to the gay community. When you give blood your blood is tested for diseases anyways.

Here's a great fact for you. Gay men can donate organs. You want to know why, because the FDA is the organization that runs blood donations not organ donations. Yet there has been no massive headlines about tons of transmitted diseases from gay men or women who donate organs. Why, because they examine the person for diseases before they get put on the donor list. 

My understanding is there isn't a lifetime ban on blood donation by the gay community, the deferral period was reduced to 12 months versus lifetime.  

[Elmer]

This....

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, Elmer said:

This....

Assault weapons are illegal for private citizens to purchase in the US, which means Jim Trumm is very ignorant.  

He also seems to forget the major recent fail by TSA during competency testing to prevent weapons from getting on airplanes.