Another Mass Shooting In The Us...

[Vagrant Violet]

Every time I see this event and its aftermath posted online for news the whole world over, it positively churns my stomach on so many levels. Moreover, it's incredibly disheartening and disgusting to see RepubliCONs like Trump and Dan Patrick ("You reap what you sow") playing the finger-wagging, nausea-inducing blame game.

The same people who believe that Omar Mateen should not have been allowed to have been born in the US (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/12/11912348/donald-trump-islam-comment-orlando-shooting) are the same who believe that he should have access to semi-automatic weapons...

What. The. F*ck????

I think that one of the saddest facets of this event is that, despite the innocent lives lost, despite "thoughts and prayers," and despite the outrage and unfathomable pain, I cannot allow myself false hope that measure of any real importance is going to be done about this.

Sad, sad, sad.

 

[Happy Lady]

I'm in the USA at present, too. Everytime one hears of these mass killings, it makes one wonder what kind of a society we have and why. The NRA can sell weapons to just about anyone and unlike other countries, little or no background checks. I hate to think that this will become more and more common. So much hate and also mental illness plays a part. Donald Trump was so hateful in his response. What can be done to control the sale of weapons of this type and who is going to go up against the NRA and say "ENOUGH"?

 

[joeschmoe1920]

Lots of brainwashed idiots coming out of the woodwork here. The NRA didn't do this, folks. The fact that your first reaction is to blame them, and not islamic terrorism (with all its anti-gay baggage) shows how completely out of touch you are. Before you lament that politicians aren't likely to "do anything" about guns in America, pick up a copy of the Constitution. Then read Heller. Then get over the gun control red herring. In any event, gun control does zero to protect against events like this. France and Belgium have some of the most stringent gun laws in the world - how did that work out for them lately? We have laws against murder. Mateen didn't care much about them. How would gun laws have prevented this?

 

[thorsten]

Your post is wrong on so many levels...

The NRA didn't do this, folks.

Captain Obvious! No one claimed that the NRA did this. But they sure have a role in it in terms of making sure that anyone can buy an assault rifle. If Alice has a kid and send it to uncle Bob - a known pedophile - over and over gain despite knowing that bad things happen to the kid constantly, would you also argue that Alice didn't do anything wrong? *She* didn't abuse the kid...

Before you lament that politicians aren't likely to "do anything" about guns in America, pick up a copy of the Constitution. Then read Heller. Then get over the gun control red herring. In any event, gun control does zero to protect against events like this. France and Belgium have some of the most stringent gun laws in the world - how did that work out for them lately? We have laws against murder. Mateen didn't care much about them. How would gun laws have prevented this?

Laws can be and are made to protect the society from dangers. You cannot just go into a shop and buy highly toxic substances there - for a reason... Yet, any lunatic can go and buy an assault weapon. Also the argument that it happened in France/Belgium is not very smart. Regular murders happen in each country despite laws against it, so should we get rid of those laws because they are uneffective? That would be the logical conclusion from your argument. An objective look at the topic would be to compare gun murder rates per capita in the countries - did you check these statistics and compared the US to e.g., Belgium and France?

There are incidents that cannot be avoided 100%, but laws can make sure to reduce the risk of such incidents happening. You probably have a lock on your door, right? Why? Home invasions happen even in locked homes - and they always win. But making it more difficult for a burglar to get into your home reduces the likelihood of becoming a victim of a break in, just like more restrictive gun laws make it more difficult for a lunatic to arm up and kill dozens of people.

 

[EJLarson]

Many people are passionate about gun control and that will always be what registers first for them. But even if we agree to disagree, how can anyone's first take on a tragedy of this magnitude not be, "we need to do something about Islamic terrorism?"

Islamic terrorism is what this is about. After that, we can discuss gun control. But could anyone doubt that this particular cockroach, if he couldn't get guns, wouldn't have planted a few bombs? Or the low-tech hurling of a few molotov cocktails? He was on a holy mission and he would have done something horrendous using whatever tools he could find.

Be for gun control: it's your right, but talk about it after we assign responsibility where it belongs.

 

[scotttswan]

 

[thorsten]

Many people are passionate about gun control and that will always be what registers first for them. But even if we agree to disagree, how can anyone's first take on a tragedy of this magnitude not be, "we need to do something about Islamic terrorism?"

Islamic terrorism is what this is about. After that, we can discuss gun control. But could anyone doubt that this particular cockroach, if he couldn't get guns, wouldn't have planted a few bombs? Or the low-tech hurling of a few molotov cocktails? He was on a holy mission and he would have done something horrendous using whatever tools he could find.

Be for gun control: it's your right, but talk about it after we assign responsibility where it belongs.

To my knowledge, his motivations for the attack are still unclear to this point, but there's no evidence so far, that the attack was planned/organized by a terrorist group. It's not even clear whether he was just a mentally disturbed person who just claimed to be ISIS or if this was his true motivation.
Fact is, you cannot avoid that a single person runs amok for whatever reason - sad, but true. However, you can at least try to make it as difficult as possible that something like this happens. Let's just assume he was a single person without any support. How difficult was it to get an assault rifle capable of killing dozens of people in a few minutes? Just as easy as buying groceries. If he wouldn't have access to such a gun, how much damage could he have done otherwise? We don't know exactly, but most likely way less. Most people are not capable to build their own high-damage explosives, and running into a club with a huge knife would surely not have ended like this. So I don't think that's something one can argue away, just like I don't think the 2 topics (fight against any kind of terrorism and gun control laws) need to be discussed in sequence.
Lastly, I just want to remind that this attack was not a first of its kind. The motivations of the offenders might vary, but there's a clear pattern that 1) the US has a way larger number of mass shootings than any other developed country and 2) the number of mass shootings and victims thereof has an increasing trend.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

I am a life-long and passionate gun-owner, ex-NRA member, and a Republican. I think fire arms should be regulated, much like driver's licenses. One should need to pass a basic back-ground check and user certification, ie safety classes, to purchase a firearm. This allows you to purchase the first classification of firearms - say shotgun or single-shot rifle. If you want to purchase something more advanced, you need an advanced license. If you want to carry a firearm, that takes passing grades in an action shooting class. If you pass that class you get to open-carry your firearm on your hip, etc, etc.

You don't get to drive a semi truck carrying gasoline or explosive materials if you don't have a Commercial Drivers License with those endorsements. There are specific benefits that come with investing in these licenses. They are not free nor are they easy. We should think the same way about firearms.

GS

However, let's not forget that none of the terrorists on 9/11 used firearms.

 

[steveinbsas]

To my knowledge, his motivations for the attack are still unclear to this point, but there's no evidence so far, that the attack was planned/organized by a terrorist group. It's not even clear whether he was just a mentally disturbed person who just claimed to be ISIS or if this was his true motivation....Let's just assume he was a single person without any support. How difficult was it to get an assault rifle capable of killing dozens of people in a few minutes?

Here is what I have "learned" so far from watching CNN's non-stop coverage:

He was trained in the use of firearms and had a gun permit.
He had been vetted by his employer and worked as an armed security guard.
He passed the security checks to buy the guns he used.
He had been investigated by the FBI and was dropped from their watch list.
His wife (or ex-wife) said he was gay.
He frequented the club (Pulse) for the past several years.
He used a gay dating app.
He was Muslim.
He made a 911 call after entering the club and said he was doing it for ISIS.
ISIS has taken credit for the attack.

Here's a link to nine CNN videos about the shooter: http://edition.cnn.c...orlando-gunman/

PS: Just heard the second wife went with him when he bought ammunition and a holster and has also told the FBI she tried to talk him out of the attack at the club,

 

[EJLarson]

I am a life-long and passionate gun-owner, ex-NRA member, and a Republican. I think fire arms should be regulated, much like driver's licenses. One should need to pass a basic back-ground check and user certification, ie safety classes, to purchase a firearm. This allows you to purchase the first classification of firearms - say shotgun or single-shot rifle. If you want to purchase something more advanced, you need an advanced license. If you want to carry a firearm, that takes passing grades in an action shooting class. If you pass that class you get to open-carry your firearm on your hip, etc, etc.

You don't get to drive a semi truck carrying gasoline or explosive materials if you don't have a Commercial Drivers License with those endorsements. There are specific benefits that come with investing in these licenses. They are not free nor are they easy. We should think the same way about firearms.

However, let's not forget that none of the terrorists on 9/11 used firearms.

Excellent points. Nor did Timothy McVeigh use guns in Oklahoma City. The issue before us today is not whether new controls could reduce random violence. We can debate that. But is there any doubt whatsoever that this guy made a conscious decision to kill a lot of people? The fact that it was a gay club, and all the surrounding details are irrelevant behind that one fact: he decided to kill as many people as he could in that place.

So the next logical step is: how? Let's take guns out of the picture; say he couldn't get any. It takes zero technology to pour gas in bottles and stick a wick in. From the evidence, he didn't care if he died there - hell, he called 911!

With the dedication he obviously devoted to his project, it would not have been difficult at all for him to have blown up or burned about the same number of victims. A dedicated nut would have little trouble getting or making explosives adequate for his purposes.

So here's a question to ponder: you who are supporting more control are asking the US to adopt precisely the policies current today in Argentina. Is the average Argentine more or less likely to be injured or killed violently than the average US citizen?