Attack on gay nightclub in Orlando leaves 50 dead.

[Rezzy]

No, Mateen acquired his guns legally and passed all background checks.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/dealer-who-sold-orlando-massacre-guns-i-don-t-make-n591456

Mateen also had a security clearance, an armed security guard license, and had passed various background checks and tests (which goes to show you that stricter background checks won't necessarily help).

I don't want to get into a debate about gun control or anything, because I've already stated my views before. I support the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to defend themselves, and I do not wish to see that right infringed.

I wonder how he passed a background check when he was twice investigated by the FBI.

[Lord Raven]

But what is an American gun control advocate to do, given that he otherwise professes to value the rights protected by the Constitution? These are the people engaged in mental gymnastics. I was simply trying to explain why the text gets misinterpreted.

So you are saying I am engaging in mental gymnastics when I say I advocate for gun control? Because I guarantee you, I am not doing mental gymnastics.

I'm not sure whether or not you're arguing for a border-less society, but that simply isn't realistic. A functioning immigration policy is a necessary facet of any healthy state, and the lack of a functioning immigration policy for continental Europe is likewise indicative of a collection of unhealthy states.

It's not about advocating that, but I'm saying that discriminatory immigration policies are quite unfair, and it seems contradictory to tighten regulations for religion despite being a country originally made up of people trying to escape persecution due to religion. The spirit of the law vs the letter is the idea I'm trying to get at here. Immigration regulations should not be based upon things like religion, especially since there's no way to really tighten policies on religion.

My conception of rights apply to everyone everywhere, but the American government is not equipped for and does not have the authority to go beyond its own borders. Responsible nations will (more or less) respect the sovereignty of other nations, and it is neither our duty nor within our ability to take in everyone.

But again, why do you not advocate to make these rights more universal? Isn't the first step to doing so through not discriminatory immigration policies?

[Moblin Major General]

No, Mateen acquired his guns legally and passed all background checks.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/dealer-who-sold-orlando-massacre-guns-i-don-t-make-n591456

Mateen also had a security clearance, an armed security guard license, and had passed various background checks and tests (which goes to show you that stricter background checks won't necessarily help).

I don't want to get into a debate about gun control or anything, because I've already stated my views before. I support the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to defend themselves, and I do not wish to see that right infringed.

I think that anyone on a terror watch list should be treated as if they were a felon and monitored like they were a mafioso. Sounds extreme, and maybe it violates their civil rights, but as far as I'm concerned, if you exhibit the capabilities of causing terror, you forfeit your rights. This goes for everyone. If they get tipped off, good. They realize that their on notice, and will be deterred. If not, the law will find them before something bad happens.

[Lord Raven]

The issue with that is that the terror watch list is almost a guilty before proven innocent type of thing. This can cause a lot of issues and reasonable suspicion can stem from almost anything.

[Anacybele]

Yes, people kill people. But that fact is that these people have disturbingly easy access to weapons with which they can kill dozens of people. Gun control is not about banning guns for everyone, it's about making it impossible for these mentally ill and violent people to acquire them and if you think you have a valid reason why that's a bad thing, then I'm all ears.

Yeah, but we have proof that stricter gun laws don't help. Chicago has the strictest gun laws of like anywhere in the country, I hear, but they have the highest gun crime rates.

Also, these shootings happen in "gun free" areas like schools, parties, and work areas. Not legal gun shops, shooting ranges, or gun expositions. See the issue here?

Edited June 15, 2016 by Anacybele

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Yeah, but we have proof that stricter gun laws don't help. Chicago has the strictest gun laws of like anywhere in the country, I hear, but they have the highest gun crime rates.

Also, these shootings happen in "gun free" areas like schools, parties, and work areas. Not legal gun shops, shooting ranges, or gun expositions. See the issue here?

The main issue is that he had access to an assault weapon and got it virtually instantly.

[Lord Raven]

Yeah, but we have proof that stricter gun laws don't help. Chicago has the strictest gun laws of like anywhere in the country, I hear, but they have the highest gun crime rates.

Also, these shootings happen in "gun free" areas like schools, parties, and work areas. Not legal gun shops, shooting ranges, or gun expositions. See the issue here?

did you ignore everything everyone else said

[Rezzy]

The issue with that is that the terror watch list is almost a guilty before proven innocent type of thing. This can cause a lot of issues and reasonable suspicion can stem from almost anything.

I may be entering tin foil hat territory, but if we hand over that kind of power to the state, we might enter a world where the stuff that Snowden exposed starts to look like small potatoes.

I don't want some bureaucrat reading the texts about the lurid things I want to do with my spouse after I get home from work.

[CyborgZeta]

I think that anyone on a terror watch list should be treated as if they were a felon and monitored like they were a mafioso. Sounds extreme, and maybe it violates their civil rights, but as far as I'm concerned, if you exhibit the capabilities of causing terror, you forfeit your rights. This goes for everyone. If they get tipped off, good. They realize that their on notice, and will be deterred. If not, the law will find them before something bad happens.

I don't agree with that. Terror watch lists/No-Fly Lists are prone to system errors and inaccuracies that often result in people that shouldn't be on there getting flagged.

[Anacybele]

did you ignore everything everyone else said

Of course. They were talking about terror watch lists, which wasn't what I was talking about.

[Lord Raven]

I'm sorry but

more people responded to your posts than just him

I think you should pay more attention

[Time the Crestfallen]

Yeah, but we have proof that stricter gun laws don't help. Chicago has the strictest gun laws of like anywhere in the country, I hear, but they have the highest gun crime rates.

Also, these shootings happen in "gun free" areas like schools, parties, and work areas. Not legal gun shops, shooting ranges, or gun expositions. See the issue here?

Yes, well I see you're Chicago and raise you 'my entire country' (Australia).

I want to pre-face this by saying that the gun buyback program implemented after Port Arthur massacre was a little bit bullshit, but we haven't had a single mass shooting since then. The closest we've come to since 1996 was Monash University shooting which had 2 people die and 5 injured.

Here's a website you can look at for gun statistics up to 2014 (I'll find a more modern source if you want). You can even look at the number of gun related deaths by homicide specifically rather than gun deaths or homicides as a whole and you can plainly see that gun violence has gone down since gun laws were implemented, down from 104 in 1996 to 31 in 2014, reaching a low-point of 17 in 2004.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia (I was so busy typing my response, I forgot the link. My bad).

EDIT: I also acknowledge that a policy that works in one country might not necessarily work in another due to social differences, but the statistics suggests that gun control does reduce gun violence

Edited June 15, 2016 by Phillius

[Tryhard]

did you ignore everything everyone else said

There is absolutely no point. I've (and I believe you've as well) have argued with people like Duff Ostrich in the past, and it's the same arguments. Same back and forth. Same bullshit about what America stands for.

I will say that I've never seen a point of contention get so bitter, so heated, so defensive and so quickly as if you just mention gun control. It wasn't even what I was even trying to draw attention to in my post, and yet immediately that's all that's been argued about for the past few pages. I shouldn't have even bothered replying in the first place.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Balcerzak]

You wouldn't count the Sydney seige?

Edit: This was directed at the discussion of "no mass shootings in Australia" comment.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Balcerzak

[Time the Crestfallen]

You wouldn't count the Sydney seige?

Edit: This was directed at the discussion of "no mass shootings in Australia" comment.

Depends on how you define 'mass shooting'. The most frequent one I see is '4 or more people killed indiscriminately, not counting the gunman' so the Syndey siege falls just short of that (2 victims + gunman).

EDIT: Also, only one of the victims was killed by the hostage taker. The other was killed by ricochet from Police bullets.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Phillius

[Anacybele]

Yes, well I see you're Chicago and raise you 'my entire country' (Australia).

I want to pre-face this by saying that the gun buyback program implemented after Port Arthur massacre was a little bit bullshit, but we haven't had a single mass shooting since then. The closest we've come to since 1996 was Monash University shooting which had 2 people die and 5 injured.

Here's a website you can look at for gun statistics up to 2014 (I'll find a more modern source if you want). You can even look at the number of gun related deaths by homicide specifically rather than gun deaths or homicides as a whole and you can plainly see that gun violence has gone down since gun laws were implemented, down from 104 in 1996 to 31 in 2014, reaching a low-point of 17 in 2004.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia (I was so busy typing my response, I forgot the link. My bad).

EDIT: I also acknowledge that a policy that works in one country might not necessarily work in another due to social differences, but the statistics suggests that gun control does reduce gun violence

Well yeah, I'm not saying there shouldn't be ANY gun laws. But just adding more all the time won't automatically solve the problem. You still have to go after the criminals who are using the guns and selling them illegally. And there's still a chance that these laws could hurt law-abiding citizens as well.

Take mentally ill people. Yeah, some of them shouldn't be getting guns. But if you implement a law that says NO mentally ill people can have them, you're banning them from the ones who actually WOULD be responsible. I would be responsible, but I can be considered mentally ill because of autism. I don't actually want a gun, I'm just using this as an example, but still.

[Lord Raven]

Well yeah, I'm not saying there shouldn't be ANY gun laws.

Gun control is bullshit and will hurt responsible gun owners more than the people that shouldn't have them. The criminals buy guns illegally, and the monster that attacked this gay club so obviously did that. Increasing the laws for the places He DIDN'T buy this gun from won't do shit.

You said gun control is bullshit...

Take mentally ill people. Yeah, some of them shouldn't be getting guns. But if you implement a law that says NO mentally ill people can have them, you're banning them from the ones who actually WOULD be responsible. I would be responsible, but I can be considered mentally ill because of autism. I don't actually want a gun, I'm just using this as an example, but still.

This is why legislation is long as fuck, as opposed to being a single statement.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

An update from the Orlando community:

A local tattoo shop is donating all of its proceeds to the victims' fund:

"This Saturday at all Atomic Tattoos locations in Orlando we will donate 100% of all proceeds from pulse memorial tattoos to the victims and families from the Pulse Nightclub shooting so come get an awesome tattoo and help those suffering. You can bring you own design or chose from these ‪#‎weareorlando‬ ‪#‎pulse‬"

So far over $2 Million have been raised for the victims and their families.

[Anacybele]

Okay, I worded that poorly, my mistake. I really meant that blaming gun control and just asking for more is bullshit. We really should be blaming terrorists and like I said, just making more laws and that's it isn't the answer.

[Balcerzak]

Depends on how you define 'mass shooting'. The most frequent one I see is '4 or more people killed indiscriminately, not counting the gunman' so the Syndey siege falls just short of that (2 victims + gunman).

Well, you seemed inclined to include (with a caveat) the "Monash University shooting which had 2 people die and 5 injured." 3 dead and 3 injured is certainly in the same ballpark in my book, although you're right that it doesn't hit the 4 people threshold. I was just surprised because that incident stuck out quite a bit in my memory, and was fairly recent and high profile.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Well yeah, I'm not saying there shouldn't be ANY gun laws. But just adding more all the time won't automatically solve the problem. You still have to go after the criminals who are using the guns and selling them illegally. And there's still a chance that these laws could hurt law-abiding citizens as well.

Take mentally ill people. Yeah, some of them shouldn't be getting guns. But if you implement a law that says NO mentally ill people can have them, you're banning them from the ones who actually WOULD be responsible. I would be responsible, but I can be considered mentally ill because of autism. I don't actually want a gun, I'm just using this as an example, but still.

I agree with you on the fact that simply stacking on more and more gun laws won't completely solve the problem. It's just that I find the US' gun control laws to be ridiculously lax and ineffective considering that this guy was investigated by the FBI twice and was still able to acquire a gun with no issues.

There's also a difference between being autistic and being violent as a result of mental illness. Again, the US doesn't have to ban all guns for everyone ever, I just find the current system wanting, think it could be improved and find the use of the Second Amendment as a defence to be infuriating.

Well, you seemed inclined to include (with a caveat) the "Monash University shooting which had 2 people die and 5 injured." 3 dead and 3 injured is certainly in the same ballpark in my book, although you're right that it doesn't hit the 4 people threshold. I was just surprised because that incident stuck out quite a bit in my memory, and was fairly recent and high profile.

I mention Monash because both victims were killed by the shooter in question. With the Sydney siege, only one of the victims was killed by the shooter with the one of them being killed by ricochet from Police bullets and the other was the shooter himself, both of which are unfortunate but don't really feel like they should 'count' to me. I think it's because you and I are using different qualifications for 'mass shooting' than anything else.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Phillius

[Moblin Major General]

I don't agree with that. Terror watch lists/No-Fly Lists are prone to system errors and inaccuracies that often result in people that shouldn't be on there getting flagged.

I would rather have an innocent fall under suspicion and be proven false then have a terrorist not be caught before he or she committed their planned act. There will always be victims of justice and law, but the innocent man condemned is still better than the criminal who got away with it, because it's the question of who would be more affected, the circle of influence, or the community entire? Just a thought either way, as many of my postulates can be interpreted as slippery slopes.

[Magical CC]

That's the hypocrisy of religion sometimes, even mine. The more a religion calls something taboo, the more it is done behind closed doors.

Back then, if you have money and you want to play around then Baghdad, Damascus and later, Istanbul are where you go. Things like prostitution (boy&girl), gambling, slave trading, foreign entertainments and foods, play and smoking were available as you as have money. It's even more wild than nowadays Dubai. They also more opened about sexual thing, culture and science. Muslim back then were way more open and tolerating than eve nowadays radical Muslim.

[Rezzy]

I would rather have an innocent fall under suspicion and be proven false then have a terrorist not be caught before he or she committed their planned act. There will always be victims of justice and law, but the innocent man condemned is still better than the criminal who got away with it, because it's the question of who would be more affected, the circle of influence, or the community entire? Just a thought either way, as many of my postulates can be interpreted as slippery slopes.

You are entitled to that opinion, but it's the opposite of how the Justice system is set up in America, which is explicitly innocent until proven guilty. The reverse may very well serve society as a whole, unless you're the innocent that is wrongly accused. Being punished when in fact innocent is not a benign process.

[solrocknroll]

I absolutely support gun control, and I even would enjoy seeing guns eventually be phased out of existence. I'm also American, so Duff Ostrich's point about blah does not apply to me.

Guns are terrible instruments of war and should absolutely be abolished. People complain and say that it would be infringing on our rights, but I'd rather know I can go enjoy myself without fear. I mean, I was watching X-Men Apocalypse last week and something fell down in the lobby. However, I had no idea what made the sound. It absolutely terrified me and I worried about it for about ten minutes.