Jump to content

Mass Shooting in Orlando Gay Club, 50 killed


Len Cnut

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, but to most of them not having access to hand guns would mean they would not perpetrate massacres.

There is no such thing as "no access to guns"; guns can be gotten anywhere, at any time, in any country, if one is willing enough. The issue, in America, is the broken society.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, but to most of them not having access to hand guns would mean they would not perpetrate massacres.

Hand guns are just the easiest means for them to kill. They are not the only means, or the most effective means. A random, unintelligent, or unimaginative jihadist would probably find it difficult to kill without an easily available gun, but a motivated, trained, or remotely guided jihadist would probably find an illegal gun, or with time and patience, use an alternative method.

Edited by The Archer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

Obama made a statement. I am sure his opponents will say something negative about it. Or pretend he never made one and make a meme about how he never made a statement. 

Well has to say something. Doesn't change the fact Obama is a shitty president and a complete bitch 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another very sad event. I don't know how gun control will stop all this madness?

A lot of these people buy the guns legally and then go out and shot and kill.

Even if this wasn't a terrorist attack, it's still an attack on innocent people.

It's getting to be where we will be too scared to leave our homes.

My heart goes out to the family and friends of the dead and wounded. I have no words to express how shocked and disgusted I am at human beings and the horror they do to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

There is no such thing as "no access to guns"; guns can be gotten anywhere, at any time, in any country, if one is willing enough. The issue, in America, is the broken society.

The issue is complex, too easy to get hold of guns is one component, broken society another.

14 minutes ago, The Archer said:

Hand guns are just the easiest means for them to kill. They are not the only means, or the most effective means. A random, unintelligent, or unimaginative jihadist would probably find it difficult to kill without an easily available gun, but a motivated, trained, or remotely guided jihadist would probably find an illegal gun, or with time and patience, use an alternative method.

Yes, absolutely. I have never said stricter guns laws would end terrorism, have I? I have said it would reduce the number of terrorist attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

It's getting to be where we will be too scared to leave our homes.

This lies at the root of the problem. There is no reason to be afraid of terrorist attacks, or gun violence. The probability of something like this happening to you is ridiculously small. You should be afraid of other things, not a terrorist killing you. But because you can't assess the actual risk you are afraid. And because you believe the risk is greater than it is, you [not literally you, surely] buy guns for self protection. And because this is "okay'" and because this leads to guns permeating your society, you will have a large part of the population being against stricter gun control and lots of weapons ending up in the hands of soon-to-be killers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The issue is complex, too easy to get hold of guns is one component, broken society another.

Yes, absolutely. I have never said stricter guns laws would end terrorism, have I? I have said it would reduce the number of terrorist attacks.

I'm all for implementing the no-fly list for guns. A guy who is a risk to an airplane shouldn't have guns.

Edited by The Archer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Archer said:

I'm all for implementing the no-fly list for guns. A guy who is a risk to an airplane shouldn't have guns.

Yeah, here's what I would do:

* Less expensive and better educational system. Because education is a great bulwark against irrational faith.

* Good day-care centres/kindergardens. Because attending kindergardens is great for developing normative behaviour and prevent parents traferring their belief laterally to their kids.

* Much better surveilance of potential terrorists. This would include the monitoring of red flag behaviour. Because this would prevent terrorism.

* Much better handling of people with mental disorders. Better and less expensive options that would ensure that the mentally ill is better taken care of. Because this would prevent homicides.

* Much harder to get access to guns. Much, much harder. Because this would prevent both terrorism and general gun violence.

It costs money but I think USA would be better off from it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The issue is complex, too easy to get hold of guns is one component, broken society another.

It is absolutely complex, which is why the trite nonsense that people spew out about "this wouldn't have happened if guns were more tightly controlled" which occurs every time there is a shooting is so laughable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to come off like I'm trying to find a light hearted side to this cuz there clearly isnt one but usually after these sorts of incidents even the most innocuous photos tend to take on a sinister tone but apparently this man was such a bell-end that even in the wake of such a grossly evil act, he still doesnt look much more than a fucking bellend :lol:

omar-mateen.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PappyTron said:

It is absolutely complex, which is why the trite nonsense that people spew out about "this wouldn't have happened if guns were more tightly controlled" which occurs every time there is a shooting is so laughable.

It would have been less likely to have happened. Unless you happen to think there is no or only very weak connection between gun accessibility and prevalence of gun violence. Take road rage and gun violence as an example. If stricter gun laws made it illegal to carry guns in cars, then there would be much less incidents of people shooting when they suffer from road rage andn many more people in the USA woould be alive today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It would have been less likely to have happened. Unless you happen to think there is no or only very weak connection between gun accessibility and prevalence of gun violence. Take road rage and gun violence as an example. If stricter gun laws made it illegal to carry guns in cars, then there would be much less incidents of people shooting when they suffer from road rage andn many more people in the USA woould be alive today.

Historical gun accessibility in the United States is such that up until the 1930s anyone could walk into a hardware store and walk straight back out with a gun, no checks or anything, as long as you could pay for it. You could order a Thompson submachine gun in a Sears catalogue and have it delivered via the US Mail. The ease of access to firearms, and particularly those firearms which people go nuts over today, was much, much more readily available than it is today, and that was through 100% legal routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PappyTron said:

Historical gun accessibility in the United States is such that up until the 1930s anyone could walk into a hardware store and walk straight back out with a gun, no checks or anything, as long as you could pay for it. You could order a Thompson submachine gun in a Sears catalogue and have it delivered via the US Mail. The ease of access to firearms, and particularly those firearms which people go nuts over today, was much, much more readily available than it is today, and that was through 100% legal routes.

I don't believe in comparing data across decades when the overall changes in society is not kept stable. That is why youo cannot compare USA today with USA in the 90s, or 30, or compare USA with Israel or Norway works. There are other factors at hand that may affect the data, and these may be different across time and geography.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Glow Inc. said:

I'm not pro-guns at all but reforming gun control wouldn't prevent these attacks : there is gun control in France, it didn't prevent six guys from getting AK47s.

Your argument would only work if you knew that without the gun control no more violence would have taken place. As it is youo just assume that since these six guys got their hands on AK47s there is no point in gun control. Maybe the gun controls prevented many other killings from happening? Not necesarrily determined terrorists but suicides, domestic violence, rage killings, children who accidently killed their siblings when playing with the guns?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...