[QuickTidal]

http://www.cc.com/vi...rlando-shooting

[amphibian]

The critical gap regarding law enforcement came about because the gay community was nice to OM. He'd get drunk at the bar once or twice a month for years and occasionally yell and try to fight people. At least once he threatened someone with a knife and the Pulse people hustled him out and didn't involve the police as a kindness.

That's why the FBI or background checks didn't get anything - because people were trying to be kind to a guy who repaid that with murder.

It's long been true that the LGBTQ community is super welcoming and even to the point where they'll welcome those who hurt them. So sad.

[Vengeance]

 Macros, on 14 June 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

This might have been made up, but I had someone tout a statistic you're still 30* more likely to be shot by a cop than a terrorist in America?

 Gust Hubb, on 14 June 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

Depends on what race you are Macros.

It depends on what race and where you are located in the country. Certain areas have a much higher chance of being shot by either police or other people then other area's.

[Vengeance]

 Nicodimas, on 14 June 2016 - 01:35 AM, said:

 Hairshirt, on 13 June 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

 worry, on 13 June 2016 - 09:24 PM, said:

Hate crimes are terrorism. The reasons for differentiating between them are sociopolitical, with assumptions about victims and perpetrators baked in. It's shameful.

Exactly. Unfortunately in the States the media is either far left or far right even with the vast majority falling in the middle. On the left the narrative is gun control, and shock at "how could this possibly happen???" On the right it's "Look it's true! All Muslims are terrorists!" Both narratives play to what their percieved audience, in the case of news networks or to electorate in the case of politicians. The majority of us are left scratching our heads trying to get down to the truth which is usually somewhere in between. Islamic extremism is a major problem and does actually exist, and it wouldn't hurt to actually do some tougher background checks for purchasing weapons.

I have no problem with adding tougher background information, but here is the thing: If this guy was interviewed 1-3 times by the FBI and I guess absolved.( I don't know how this interview, or probe went in any shape or form. I just have an idea in my head...). How is a background check of any sort not going to be beaten by a semi-intelligent driven person? I am really left pondering this point in particular as everyone here should be if the above is remotely true.

The authorities are going to deconstruct everything that led to this and I am going to let them do their thing.

If there was still an federal assault weapons ban then it would have been a lot harder for him to get his hands on something that can fire rapidly and be that easy to reload. The thing that I have with everyone walking around armed and ready to shoot at a moments notice is that in a firing situation like the one at Pulse when the authorities come in they will not know which people with guns are good guys and which are the hostile targets. So they will be forced to treat all with equal hostility. Plus unless everyone who has guns are spending significant amounts of there personal time at a range every week they will be hitting a lot of other bystanders that may have otherwise made it out with out injury or alive. Thus leading to more death and confusion.

More guns is not an answer to bad guys with guns. Restricting the types of guns that can be purchases and requiring people who have guns to register and to keep track of individual to individual sales of guns will lead more responsible gun owners which is really what we require. How many times do we need to see a child shoot another child with a parents unsecured firearm or see someone easily access a high powered firearm to kill people who are just trying to go about there day. Before some common sense laws are passed. If people truely believe that the government can not and will not help them then they should move to a country that has no rule of law. May I suggest spending quality time in Afghanistan, Yemen, or Syria.

This country is based on rule of law. Which does not mean that everyone needs to walk around fully armed to protect themselves. It means that everyone SHOULDN'T have to walk around fully armed to protect themselves. In the year 2016 here in the USA we shouldn't have to carry more guns then people did in the 1800. What does that say about us as a society? Have we really came so far that our national mentality should be to shoot first?

You are correct regardless of what gun laws are in place there will still be shootings. The object is to try to minimize the amount of shootings. Yes places like France and Norway have had horrendous shootings but they have very few of them. While we average a mass shooting somewhere in the US everyday ( Everyday Mass shootings ).

Should not the citizens of our country have the ability to go about daily life with out having to act like we are involved in a war movie. Do we all want to live and raise our children in a heightened environment of constant warfare. That isn't the America that I was raised in and I was raised in a household that has a lot of firearms. That isn't the America that I want my children to grow up in. That isn't the America that anyone should want there children to grow up in.


End rant.

[Nicodimas]

 Vengeance, on 14 June 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

 Nicodimas, on 14 June 2016 - 01:35 AM, said:

 Hairshirt, on 13 June 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

 worry, on 13 June 2016 - 09:24 PM, said:

Hate crimes are terrorism. The reasons for differentiating between them are sociopolitical, with assumptions about victims and perpetrators baked in. It's shameful.

Exactly. Unfortunately in the States the media is either far left or far right even with the vast majority falling in the middle. On the left the narrative is gun control, and shock at "how could this possibly happen???" On the right it's "Look it's true! All Muslims are terrorists!" Both narratives play to what their percieved audience, in the case of news networks or to electorate in the case of politicians. The majority of us are left scratching our heads trying to get down to the truth which is usually somewhere in between. Islamic extremism is a major problem and does actually exist, and it wouldn't hurt to actually do some tougher background checks for purchasing weapons.

I have no problem with adding tougher background information, but here is the thing: If this guy was interviewed 1-3 times by the FBI and I guess absolved.( I don't know how this interview, or probe went in any shape or form. I just have an idea in my head...). How is a background check of any sort not going to be beaten by a semi-intelligent driven person? I am really left pondering this point in particular as everyone here should be if the above is remotely true.

The authorities are going to deconstruct everything that led to this and I am going to let them do their thing.

If there was still an federal assault weapons ban then it would have been a lot harder for him to get his hands on something that can fire rapidly and be that easy to reload. The thing that I have with everyone walking around armed and ready to shoot at a moments notice is that in a firing situation like the one at Pulse when the authorities come in they will not know which people with guns are good guys and which are the hostile targets. So they will be forced to treat all with equal hostility. Plus unless everyone who has guns are spending significant amounts of there personal time at a range every week they will be hitting a lot of other bystanders that may have otherwise made it out with out injury or alive. Thus leading to more death and confusion.

More guns is not an answer to bad guys with guns. Restricting the types of guns that can be purchases and requiring people who have guns to register and to keep track of individual to individual sales of guns will lead more responsible gun owners which is really what we require. How many times do we need to see a child shoot another child with a parents unsecured firearm or see someone easily access a high powered firearm to kill people who are just trying to go about there day. Before some common sense laws are passed. If people truely believe that the government can not and will not help them then they should move to a country that has no rule of law. May I suggest spending quality time in Afghanistan, Yemen, or Syria.

This country is based on rule of law. Which does not mean that everyone needs to walk around fully armed to protect themselves. It means that everyone SHOULDN'T have to walk around fully armed to protect themselves. In the year 2016 here in the USA we shouldn't have to carry more guns then people did in the 1800. What does that say about us as a society? Have we really came so far that our national mentality should be to shoot first?

You are correct regardless of what gun laws are in place there will still be shootings. The object is to try to minimize the amount of shootings. Yes places like France and Norway have had horrendous shootings but they have very few of them. While we average a mass shooting somewhere in the US everyday ( Everyday Mass shootings ).

Should not the citizens of our country have the ability to go about daily life with out having to act like we are involved in a war movie. Do we all want to live and raise our children in a heightened environment of constant warfare. That isn't the America that I was raised in and I was raised in a household that has a lot of firearms. That isn't the America that I want my children to grow up in. That isn't the America that anyone should want there children to grow up in.


End rant.

@ Vengy Rant

I have a good response to this, but am slowing my roll as I get older. I want to prepare a valid and well thought out response and consider the way you structured your argument. I think everyone want's a better America for their children to grow up in.

[amphibian]

Why is owning firearms more important than mitigating the frequency and severity of murder sprees/terrorist attacks?

The prime reason most people give is in the possible eventuality of an armed insurrection against the state. Given how large the country is and the resources available to the average person in it, I don't think giving up a specific chunk of our small arms will make a difference in the success or failure of said insurrection if it becomes a necessity. The state/military has all the heavy arms and support platforms anyways.

[champ]

How often has the AR-15 been used in the recent mass shootings.

It's just stupid that they are allowed to be purchased, there is not one argument that can be made to justify needing to own one of these weapons, how they are not already banned I don't know.

This post has been edited by champ: 14 June 2016 - 07:28 PM

[worry]

On top of what Vengeance said -- because one of the most common counterarguments is we don't need more laws/regulations, we just need to enforce the ones we already have -- is the fact that it hasn't exactly been a stalemate between pro and anti-gun control factions. Anti-gun control lobbyists are winning, regulations are loosening or even disappearing at the federal and state levels (the Federal Assault Weapons Ban the most obvious, but not the only instance by a long shot). And things are worse as a result.
Missouri is a Petri dish for this: https://newrepublic....fabric-missouri

Aside from stripping existing law, the gun lobby has also been able to get congress to ban the CDC from studying gun violence. They've blocked legislation to screen out people who are on terrorist watch lists. They've blocked legislation to screen out domestic abusers (people with a history of committing domestic violence are five times more likely to subsequently murder an intimate partner when a firearm is in the house) -- which may be especially pertinent to the Orlando shooter.

This is one the most clear cut, shameless examples of an industry buying off legislators to the detriment of the citizenry. There isn't really any anti-gun control argument (as "gun control" exists in the real world) that isn't demeaning to both the speaker and the listener.

[amphibian]

We're at 180 mass shootings for 2016, btw.

We are almost having this discussion with gunfire and blood intervals.

[LinearPhilosopher]

 amphibian, on 14 June 2016 - 09:59 PM, said:

We're at 180 mass shootings for 2016, btw.

We are almost having this discussion with gunfire and blood intervals.

that high? we're only half way through 2016, that's gotta be a record

[Terez]

A British MP was assassinated yesterday by someone who apparently supported the far-right Britain First party:

http://www.bbc.com/n...ngland-36550304

This post has been edited by Terez: 16 June 2016 - 11:05 PM

[worry]

Family of the AR-15's inventor describe its purpose as military, never meant for civilians: http://time.com/4371...ivilian-family/

[Maark Abbott]

 Terez, on 16 June 2016 - 11:04 PM, said:

A British MP was assassinated yesterday by someone who apparently supported the far-right Britain First party:

http://www.bbc.com/n...ngland-36550304

All the major news programmes this morning were stating the man taken in for doing it had known mental health issues; I think based on that it's doubtful that he'll have acquired a weapon legally (the checks to become a license holder and maintain that license are very, very strict). Still extremely worrying that it happened at all.

[Nicodimas]

Missed this one :

http://www.professio...ead.php?t=40772

Definitely will help expose some of people across the ocean to the culture behind this debate..

[worry]

To be frank, I think most people already understand those arguments, and have deemed them not good enough. They understand American gun culture, and find it toxic. There's no misunderstanding, no failure of communication, no lack of information. Gun rights advocates have done their outreach, nobody is in the dark, and the conclusion is that their logic is unsound and their insistence that guns aren't the problem destroys lives. There's no reason to start the conversation from the beginning EVERY TIME, as if people haven't been fed these arguments over and over. They're rejected. Period. The only thing keeping them alive is a stubborn minority and a corrupt cash-saturated industry lobby.

[Gorefest]

 Nicodimas, on 17 June 2016 - 08:26 PM, said:

Missed this one :

http://www.professio...ead.php?t=40772

Definitely will help expose some of people across the ocean to the culture behind this debate..

Nope, sorry. As someone from across the ocean I can only frown in amazement when reading posts like the one quoted above. It is just bonkers to me. The answer to a problem is never introducing more versions of the problem.
To me it is the same flaw of logic and rationality that inflicts people that take the Bible literally. Take a document written ages ago and rigidly stick to it in the modern day, despite completely different circumstances and changes in society and government. 'No, we got this right to arm ourselves to the teeth, because it says so here in this text that was written over 300 years ago when we were fighting wars all over the place and fighting colonial oppression.' Next week, we are reintroducing scurvy in Europe because we are convinced that vitamin C has taken all the romance out of seafaring. When there was scurvy, Brittannia and the Netherlands ruled the waves, so they must have been on to something back then.

[Nicodimas]

 Gorefest, on 17 June 2016 - 11:23 PM, said:

 Nicodimas, on 17 June 2016 - 08:26 PM, said:

Missed this one :

http://www.professio...ead.php?t=40772

Definitely will help expose some of people across the ocean to the culture behind this debate..

Nope, sorry. As someone from across the ocean I can only frown in amazement when reading posts like the one quoted above. It is just bonkers to me. The answer to a problem is never introducing more versions of the problem.
To me it is the same flaw of logic and rationality that inflicts people that take the Bible literally. Take a document written ages ago and rigidly stick to it in the modern day, despite completely different circumstances and changes in society and government. 'No, we got this right to arm ourselves to the teeth, because it says so here in this text that was written over 300 years ago when we were fighting wars all over the place and fighting colonial oppression.' Next week, we are reintroducing scurvy in Europe because we are convinced that vitamin C has taken all the romance out of seafaring. When there was scurvy, Brittannia and the Netherlands ruled the waves, so they must have been on to something back then.

Your going to make these really big targets and make them completely defenseless..with targets on them............

It depends..Are you the type that would rather be shot in the back..or shot in the front?

That's the larger argument that some must truly realize.

Remember the argument goes both ways. One, a singular number, person did all this this destruction with one semi-automatic gun! 9-12+ people with similar weapons took 3 hours to respond, with advanced weaponry and breaching equipment. This situation is very unique too and I understand that. I want you/everyone to truly think about that encounter. The people bleeding out/dieing on the floor. The sheer horror of the situation and praying/striving for help. The help that was too slow in arriving. Is it truly fair and appropriate to train a modern civilized country, to be totally incapable to survive against the armed..... What exactly does this impart toward a civilization as a whole. There is a greater responsibility that is very important to really consider.

That's what you are arguing for...The helpless, to be more defenseless.

I really want you to dwell on that.

And that's really fucking sad.

Please consider. I don't understand this^ in particular.

@ Vengy: Proper response still being drawn up.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 20 June 2016 - 04:34 AM

[worry]

You're thinking of self defense in the most individualistic terms possible. Like not only might it circumstantially be up to an individual to protect him or herself from gunmen, but that's the way it should be. But that's missing the forest for the trees imo. We're a society, and a society has the right to defend itself. Other societies have done so successfully on the gun issue in particular. We do so in pretty much every other instance of massively life-threatening events that I can think of (nominally at least -- I recognize the moneyed right wing has obviously done its best to gut infrastructure, emergency, and safety net programs, leading to situations like the GOP deliberately poisoning Flint, MI for a year, for example). And why are we pretending that these mass shootings are happening in like a gun-control advocates utopia instead of the place that's a hair away from the one you recommend? These events are happening in the country where the NRA has its way. Like we're in the version of the USA where the 2nd Amendment is interpreted broadly, where gun restrictions are weak and few, where guns have flooded the populace...and that's the version of the country where the mass (and for that matter vast numbers of smaller) shootings are happening.

[amphibian]

There's a fundamental lack of trust Nicodimas has that makes this discussion not really a discussion. He does not believe that he should rely upon another person to save him from a bad situation - even if the bad situation isn't of his own making.

That's kinda fucked up, but it's what he believes. Addressing that, rather than the "have guns/not have guns" flavor discussion, will see better results.

[worry]

I dunno. I've found Nico to be more open to at least discussing ideas than people usually give him credit for (we talk in PMs sometimes too, and I think he knows that we often have fairly strong opposing views), and we've found points of agreement on occasion. I think he's even recently softened a bit on the arch-libertarian views on the social safety net and private enterprise (read: soulless corporations) as panacea for all things. That said, guns might be the issue he never changes his mind about, so you could be right. The culture in this thread's title isn't just an afterthought, after all -- and it's not just broad American gun culture, but our capacity to turn seemingly any issue into a subculture as well. Which of course breed in-groups and (little 'z') zealous loyalty.

Anyway, I dunno, it's a message board, so maybe there's good served even by thinking aloud even if nobody involved changes their mind immediately.