50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10133
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:02 am UTC

Gmal,

My point is that in the strictest sense, punishing responsible gun owners by restricting what guns they have because of the actions of a few is at odds with the idea of not punishing the innocent to make sure we nab the guilty. You may not see restrictions on guns as "punishment", but I do, simply because of where I grew up.

However, I'm a consequentialist, and believe that it very much is ok to have restrictions on guns if the benefits from having fewer guns (and who is allowed to have one, and what variety) is greater than the loss of freedom. Likewise, I am also somewhat willing to send a potentially innocent person to jail if the expected amount of damage by the defendant is greater than the amount of damage prison would inflict on the defendant. This is what building a society looks like; you have these 'levers' you can pull, which adjust freedoms here for benefits there, and what may produce the "best" result depends not just on what each person's definition of "best" is, but also the environment the society is located in. A place like Vermont where the bears outnumber the police is going to need different gun laws than a place like Manhattan.


I really don't understand where we have the disconnect. Since we both seem to agree that we need a bit more gun restrictions, and we both seem to be consequentialists.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:15 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:My point is that in the strictest sense, punishing responsible gun owners by restricting what guns they have because of the actions of a few is at odds with the idea of not punishing the innocent to make sure we nab the guilty. You may not see restrictions on guns as "punishment", but I do, simply because of where I grew up.

I don't think that gun restrictions are punishment, and I don't see how "where [you] grew up" makes a difference.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:34 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:My point is that in the strictest sense, punishing responsible gun owners by restricting what guns they have because of the actions of a few is at odds with the idea of not punishing the innocent to make sure we nab the guilty.
No, it isn't.

Being willing to impart a small penalty on innocent people (restricting what guns they can buy) is not at odds with being unwilling to impart a huge penalty on innocent people (imprisoning them for crimes they didn't commit).

We're probably not disagreeing much about gun policies, which is why I've only been harping on your claim that a particular stance is hypocritical.

You might think the ideas are both right or both wrong, but that doesn't make it inconsistent for someone else to believe one is okay while the other isn't. The costs and benefits of the two positions are vastly different, so it's entirely possible for someone to have a consistent position somewhere in between them.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:40 am UTC

Plus a whole bunch of features definitive of punishment that aren't present every time the government restricts something.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10133
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:56 am UTC

Sorry, it's just personal biases because of where I'm from.

New York has pretty strict rules on gun ownership, and we were sick of the rules seeming to get stricter on us because of some idiots downstate killing each other, not us. And yet, it seemed every asshole downstate could still get their hands on a hunting rifle to come up and steal our deer so he could pretend to be a man and bring back a trophy, while we had fewer deer to eat. And when I say steal, I mean that literally. I actually know someone whose cousin had a rifle pointed at her head by someone from downstate (or so the story goes) who didn't seem to understand that just because a place had trees it was still private property.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6435
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:21 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:The 372 number for last year comes from the reddit 'shooting tracker' which has since changed to the guns archive criteria that reports only 330 incidents for 2015. Presumably the other 42 incidents involved pellet guns instead of actual firearms.

Besides counting incidents by injury instead of fatalities, the gun violence archive also doesn't distinguish gang-related shooting incidents.

Most reputable sources, such as the FBI, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, as well as and that bastion of right-wing, pro-gun rhetoric; Mother Jones, all use more strict criteria and exclude gang related incidents when specifically discussing these kinds of indiscriminate mass-killings.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... otings-map
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/s ... 0-and-2013

I've also posted previously that the CDC is not banned from reporting on firearm related phenomena, and has continued funding and publishing such research at a similar rate as to before they were barred from political advocacy.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why ... ch-budget/

Edgar, why is there a political divide on how limited the CDC is on researching guns. Are you really saying there's no limits on the CDC? Or merely that a government bureaucracy managed to spend exactly what they were earmarked that year? You're own link shows that the NRA and the GOP congress did limit gun research via "removing bias" aka don't bad mouth guns or die.
"Those who accuse the NRA, Republicans, and gun advocates of attempting to inject their political bias into federal research on gun crime are not telling the whole story. With the picture complete, we can see that political bias was already present, and the NRA and Congress had acted to remove it."
It be like me earmarking your movie night allowance and mandating you remove all political bias out of it or else I'll cut your allowance. Sure you spent the same amount on movies, but some of them weren't what you wanted to watch.
TLDR Based on the assumption of bias, the CDC no longer has a bias. Based on the assumption of no bias, the CDC has been limited in it's research.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Terror attack on Orlando gay club

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:18 am UTC

sardia wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:The 372 number for last year comes from the reddit 'shooting tracker' which has since changed to the guns archive criteria that reports only 330 incidents for 2015. Presumably the other 42 incidents involved pellet guns instead of actual firearms.

Besides counting incidents by injury instead of fatalities, the gun violence archive also doesn't distinguish gang-related shooting incidents.

Most reputable sources, such as the FBI, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, as well as and that bastion of right-wing, pro-gun rhetoric; Mother Jones, all use more strict criteria and exclude gang related incidents when specifically discussing these kinds of indiscriminate mass-killings.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... otings-map
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/s ... 0-and-2013

I've also posted previously that the CDC is not banned from reporting on firearm related phenomena, and has continued funding and publishing such research at a similar rate as to before they were barred from political advocacy.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why ... ch-budget/

Edgar, why is there a political divide on how limited the CDC is on researching guns. Are you really saying there's no limits on the CDC? Or merely that a government bureaucracy managed to spend exactly what they were earmarked that year? You're own link shows that the NRA and the GOP congress did limit gun research via "removing bias" aka don't bad mouth guns or die.
"Those who accuse the NRA, Republicans, and gun advocates of attempting to inject their political bias into federal research on gun crime are not telling the whole story. With the picture complete, we can see that political bias was already present, and the NRA and Congress had acted to remove it."
It be like me earmarking your movie night allowance and mandating you remove all political bias out of it or else I'll cut your allowance. Sure you spent the same amount on movies, but some of them weren't what you wanted to watch.
TLDR Based on the assumption of bias, the CDC no longer has a bias. Based on the assumption of no bias, the CDC has been limited in it's research.



Didn't we just have this discussion in the last 'gun control' thread?
Should I just quote my post from that thread? Where I pointed out from the linked source that:
1. The amount of firearms related papers funded by the CDC hasn't measurably changed.
2. That the head of the CDC department which researched firearm violence went on the record repeatedly saying that he was using the position to build a case to ban firearms.
3. That the CDC funded the publication of non-research political advocacy pamphlets against firearms.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:02 am UTC

Sorry, hating gay people is not now, never has been, and never will be a Christian thing.


Yup. Well, in accordance with the correct interpretation of the religion.

Unfortunately there are very many "not competent" Christians who don't understand their religion properly or use it as an excuse for their actions against the LGBTQ communities. Although its pretty irrelevant when respected community and religious leaders still advocate for the repression of equal rights, to point out that they are doing their religion wrong. They are doing their religion or their interpretation of it that is advocating homophobia. I don't care if they are wrong. I care about what they are doing and their influences in doing it.

Similarly for this guy. He could be the worlds most incompetent Muslim. I don't care. Islam clearly has had an influence on who he is as a person. As has bigotry in the USA in general. Its not an either or. Lets be honest about all the sources of homophobia in the world.

Why are we talking about Islam specifically in this thread and not general homophobic bigotry in the USA? Everyone accepts that the USA has homophobic tendencies, we are in agreement, there isn't a debate here or a discussion. We agree.

People are disagreeing on the homophobic aspects of Islam. And that is why we are talking about it. We are in disagreement and thus we are having a discussion, with our words.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6435
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:57 am UTC

Edgar, we did go over this. You have ignored the effects on research at the CDC by repeating that money spent on research hasn't changed. Which isn't true if you looked deeper.
http://www.vice.com/read/the-cdc-just-r ... etwitterus
Despite a 2013 executive order by President Barack Obama to resume research on gun violence, the CDC has adhered to a two-decade-old congressional restriction that effectively bans such inquiries. Now here was a document suggesting it was tiptoeing back in. Read through the Wilmington report, though, and you get a different story—one about the strange contortions that result as the CDC seeks to fulfill its public health mission without violating Congress's orders. While the new study analyzed Wilmington's 127 recorded shootings in 2013, it does not address how the perpetrators acquired their weapons, or if attempts to limit access to firearms might lead to a dip in crime.
This study is emblematic of why your point, "The amount of firearms related papers funded by the CDC hasn't measurably changed", isn't true. What was the last study that told you anything meaningful about gun research funded by anybody?

Politically, it's theoretically much safer for everyone involved to do more research. Too bad it's incredibly boring for everyone who isn't the NRA. Since there's technically not a ban, just no political advocacy, it would take a friendly Congress(or a really ballsy bureaucrat) to prevent revenge budget cuts for posting research( some of which makes the gun lobby look bad). I expect a window of opportunity past 2020* barring a Trump meltdown taking down the House and Senate. No his current antics aren't bad enough yet, he still has GOP allies. Anyway, it's pretty toxic, but until control of Congress changes, the only option is to convince people that research can be done that isn't biased and still be meaningful. What would convince a diehard gun owner that research is legit?

* Control of redistricting is controlled by the state, which depends on redistricting. Once you control redistricting, you get big boost in how many seats you get in Congress, which means you influence the budget. The Democrats will have opportunities to redistrict during presidential census years, 2000, 2020, 2040, while the GOP will be ahead during midterm census years 2010, 2030, 2050.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6476
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby ucim » Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:28 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:People are disagreeing on the homophobic aspects of Islam.
No, people are disagreeing on the degree to which Islam is the reason for homophobia, with special consideration for the US, and as highlighted by this case.

(That is, people may disagree on the homophobic aspects of Islam, but that's not the important piece.)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:38 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Edgar, we did go over this. You have ignored the effects on research at the CDC by repeating that money spent on research hasn't changed. Which isn't true if you looked deeper.


I never said that the money hadn't changed, only that the amount of research hadn't changed.
(Edit: And it's not like I'm against funding the CDC more to study firearm violence better. It's just disingenuous to say they've been 'banned' from doing the research and that as a result no research gets done.)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02 ... latestnews
Far from it, the study claims. “Federal funding declined, but research either remained constant or even increased,” the authors wrote.

The study shows the number of firearms-related journal articles published every year, after hitting 69 in 1996, rarely dipped below 60 and even spiked to 121 last year.


Also that the researchers most vocal in saying that the CDC 'doesn't do research on guns' are the ones who stopped getting funded because they were so blatantly anti-firearm.

Of course Hemenway says that the CDC is ineffectual at studying firearms, he is the director of two anti-gun research and advocacy groups that don't get CDC funding. Hasn't exactly stopped him from publishing though, there are still plenty of organizations willing to fund that research it seems.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:46 pm UTC

CDC is literally the CENTER of Disease Control and Prevention. Their job is to determine the risk of Zika, Ebola, and other diseases. (More practically, they do a lot of research to determine flu shots / flu vaccinations and stuff like that)

The fact that CDC happens to have a death department where they count how and why people die doesn't necessarily make them the best agency for studying firearm related deaths. I'd argue the FBI or ATF would be better agencies in that regard. Besides, death certificate data is state-based and non-standardized at a federal level. While some facts can be gleaned from death certificate data reliably (Person A died to a gunshot wound to the head), death certificates don't necessarily hold "deeper" reasons. (Was it a suicide? A homicide? Accidental discharge? Was it a pistol? An AR-15? Death certificate won't necessarily say)

CDC being ineffectual at studying firearms deaths is... a meh point. I wouldn't expect the State department to know firearm related deaths either. Unless you can somehow count firearm related deaths as a "disease" somehow, I'm not really sure if the CDC being less-than-optimal in studying firearms is a problem.

Again: that really seems more like something ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), or the FBI should take a lead on. CDC is filled with a bunch of medical policy people and doctors. Their job is to tell you that gunshots are bad for someone's health, and that's about it. On the other hand, police investigations (ie: ATF or FBI) can determine deeper reasons and deeper facts that are far far more relevant to the gun debate.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:58 pm UTC

On that note, the ATF is specifically banned from releasing firearm trace information to non-law enforcement entities, so the CDC can ask how people acquire firearms, but they won't get an answer.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:04 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:On that note, the ATF is specifically banned from releasing firearm trace information to non-law enforcement entities, so the CDC can ask how people acquire firearms, but they won't get an answer.


My point is that the CDC shouldn't be asking that kind of question anyway.

Their job is to study and control diseases. Firearms aren't a disease. Firearm related deaths aren't caused by microorganisms eating away at a person's body.

EDIT: And yes, I do realize the CDC is in charge of death certificate data and are in charge of also analyzing that data to some degree. (The Heroin "epidemic" was a study done by the CDC). But in the case of heroin, its a much simpler question of reading through death certificates and noticing the pattern of heroin-related deaths on a bunch of death certificates.

The gun debate is more complicated than just counting gunshot wounds on death certificates. I think the CDC can release data related to gunshot related deaths, but any further study would definitely be out-of-scope of that agency. They have plenty of other important jobs to do, and bureaucratic creep is a real concern of mine.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:09 pm UTC

Since there is no mandatory reporting for firearms deaths at the Federal level, nor does a national database exist of those events, ATF and the FBI work with less than stellar data. I'm not sure that even the CDC gets that data. From Wired.
Until recently, the CDC’s National Violent Death Reporting System—the best database on firearm deaths available—had data from only 18 states. Collecting the data is expensive, and states report it voluntarily. Last year, the CDC awarded $7.5 million in grants to expand NVDRS to 14 more states, though it’ll be years more before there are enough data from the new states to make comparisons.
KnightExemplar wrote:Their job is to study and control diseases. Firearms aren't a disease.
Their job is public health. However the issue is moot because as long as Republican hold the house no funding will be available.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:13 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Their job is to study and control diseases. Firearms aren't a disease.
Their job is public health. However the issue is moot because as long as Republican hold the house no funding will be available.


http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm

CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.


You're going to have to bend-over backwards before you convince me that firearms are a health-related threat. The mission statement is clear: they are more about studying viruses and diseases... and potentially bioweapons (should bioweapons ever be deployed against the US).
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:15 pm UTC

Two minutes on Wikipedia would show that the CDC covers all kinds of preventable conditions, workplace safety, etc., and that they've been doing this for decades. That is, if you want to understand what their mission is by looking at their actual mission statement and activities, rather than reading the name and guessing.

Edit for ninja:

KnightExemplar wrote:You're going to have to bend-over backwards before you convince me that firearms are a health-related threat.

You gotta be fucking kidding me.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:22 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Two minutes on Wikipedia would show that the CDC covers all kinds of preventable conditions, workplace safety, etc., and that they've been doing this for decades. That is, if you want to understand what their mission is by looking at their actual mission statement and activities, rather than reading the name and guessing.


Dude, its a government agency. What they do is public information. Why use Wikipedia (a secondary source) when the primary source information is available at our fingertips?

http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/orgchart.htm

Look at their org chart. I don't see anything in there even remotely associated with firearms or firearm related deaths. The closest you've got is workplace injuries.

-----------

We already have several agencies whose explicit job is to count crime statistics and gun statistics. If anyone should be in charge of tracking firearm related deaths, it should be an agency who knows about guns.

https://www.atf.gov/about/firearms-trace-data-2014
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:23 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats

You're going to have to bend-over backwards before you convince me that firearms are a health-related threat. .

Pretty sure they're a safety threat, and I'm pretty sure that death or injury by gunshot is bad for one's health, so it doesn't require too much bending.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6435
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:26 pm UTC

In addition to Edgar's point, the reason the CDC studies guns is they are tasked with studying violence, abuse etc etc. Guns fall under that portfolio because of urban violence, suicides accidents etc etc.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... n-violence
The authorization doesn't explicitly forbid research; rather, it says that no funds may be used "to advocate or promote gun control." But scientists got the message that firearms-related research was politically fraught.
that's the main point. Do scientists feel threatened? does the congressional mandate to not politically advocate have force behind it? Can we do federally funded science with the mandate on political neutrality on guns?
We disagree on how intimidated scientists are, since you're saying only the ones with an axe to grind are complaining. You don't think that an analyst who doesn't want trouble will avoid gun science if it could threaten his grant money? Aka his career.
I think you agree that the Congressional mandate isn't an empty threat.
The issue with politically neutral on guns is there's no hard and fast rule on what it means. Like is a study on the effectiveness of types of background checks neutral? Or how guns affect death in suicide rates above replacement?
Last edited by sardia on Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:30 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:27 pm UTC

... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:28 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Look at their org chart. I don't see anything in there even remotely associated with firearms or firearm related deaths. The closest you've got is workplace injuries.
No, the closest you've got is the Office of Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health.

Specifically the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (whose profile is linked to from the org chart) is in charge of "innovative research and science-based programs to prevent injuries and violence and to reduce their consequences."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:30 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats

You're going to have to bend-over backwards before you convince me that firearms are a health-related threat. .

Pretty sure they're a safety threat, and I'm pretty sure that death or injury by gunshot is bad for one's health, so it doesn't require too much bending.


You're not getting my argument. The scope of the CDC's powers in collecting these statistics is literally the death certificate data. That's their bread-and-butter. If the information isn't on a death certificate, the CDC won't be able to delve deeper into analysis.

The CDC already publishes cause of death statistics. I'm perfectly fine with the CDC releasing information regarding number of firearm related deaths in America.

To ask any more of the CDC however, is utter nonsense. The agency just isn't set up to collect deeper information. An agency like FBI or ATF in charge of the data would have legal authorization to investigate and determine further relevant details.

The CDC is composed of a bunch of doctors and statisticians. You don't go to the doctor to ask if the firearm was an AR15 or a Glock.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:32 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Wow, what? Isn't this obvious?

A religion is only the people within it and their actions. No more, no less.

It's obviously false that this is what people ordinarily mean when they talk about Islam doing this or that.

"How many hamburgers has Islam eaten in the last year?"
"Islam believes that Abu Bakr was the legitimate successor of Muhammad, although Islam also stringently denies this."
"Has Islam now, or has it ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"

It makes sense to talk about groups of people in this way, but we ordinarily distinguish between groups of people and the features that those groups have in common.

Now, if what you mean by "Islam causes violence" is really "Homophobic Muslims cause violence," then you ought to say that. But then this is precisely the manner of speaking which I've been advocating from the start.


I could add all manner of qualifiers to everything, but it wouldn't actually be more accurate. It would be difficult to say that the cause of every instance of Islamic violence stems from homophobia. Sure, there's an obvious overlap there, but I suggest that you are interested in avoiding unpleasant truths, not in speaking accurately.

Islam causes a disproportionate amount of violence is a verifiable fact. We can discuss correlation vs causation, if you wish. Perhaps you believe it is merely coincidence that the religion commonly upholds as virtuous the disproportionately common acts of violence that they commit. That seems...improbable, but sure, go on, demonstrate an alternate cause or something. Demonstrate your alternative hypothesis, don't just insist that there MUST be some other answer than the one you dislike.

cphite wrote:
Belial wrote:I think it's worth pointing out that if the shooter were actually a practicing muslim, even if he was the most homophobic piece of shit on earth (WHICH HE WAS), he probably wouldn't be committing murders in the middle of Ramadan, when you're not even supposed to be holding grudges. You can't go on and on about how religious doctrine and practice played into this and then just...skip over the part where the shooter in question openly violated it.


That may be true for moderate, mainstream Muslims... groups like ISIS consider Ramadan to be a month of conquest and jihad. They have no qualms about killing during Ramadan. In fact, for many years now, violence and crime has tended to actually increase - in some cases dramatically - during the month of Ramadan in places where groups like ISIS, al Queda, and the like are present.

Christians aren't allowed to murder any time of the year - and yet people who consider themselves devoutly Christian occasionally do. Often rationalized in some bizarre manner to make it okay.


At a certain point, this ends up being a "no true Scotsman" exercise. Christians do murder, even if their rules say they shouldn't.

Belial wrote:
cphite wrote:Does it really have to be one or the other?


Yeah, it super does. Because if there's anything every conversation about this has proven it's that people, especially shitty conservative homophobes, only want to focus on one of these things.

Specifically, the one that doesn't make them culpable.

But hey, would anyone like to compare the rate of homophobic violence in america to the rate of islam-inspired violence in america (start with an average of about 1200 anti-LGBTQ hate crimes a year and work from there) ? There are a *fuckton* more goodhearted, nonviolent, generally decent muslims in america than there are goodhearted, nonviolent, decent homophobes. Basically by definition. So why are we focused on that part of his identity which, according to his family and his ex-wife, wasn't even a big deal for him, and which definitely wasn't the biggest predictor of violence in his personality.


Sure, we can look at trends. Let's look at say, hate crimes targeting Islamic folks, if we want to examine this idea of irrationally hating Muslims. And we can compare that to say, people targeting folks based on sexual orientation. Bam, should be EASY to see who is hated more, in practice.

So, FBI data, we have, for 2014, 1,154 known offenders for a hate crime based on sexual orientation. (and of those, a whopping 10 were for being heterosexual)
For being Muslim, we have....148.

So, we can conclude that anti-homosexual violence is roughly an order of magnitude higher than anti-Muslim violence, and anti-heterosexual violence is frigging irrelevant. Oddly enough, anti-Jewish incidents/offenders/victims are roughly three times as frequent as anti-Muslim hate crimes. Huh. Why don't we hear more about those?

mcd001 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:they are...less Christian. They stop doing Christian things, such as going to church, and hating gay people.

Sorry, hating gay people is not now, never has been, and never will be a Christian thing. Christians are commanded (by Christ himself) to love their neighbors (Matthew 22:36-40). *ALL* their neighbors. We even have to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44), which is a feat almost impossible to us mere mortals. Yes, there are Christians who hate gays, but this is a sin in the eyes of God and does not conform to Christian doctrine. There are also gays who hate Christians. Does this make hating Christians a 'gay' thing?


Murder is also a violation of the ten commandments, but Christian people have totally murdered people.

You can't just define away problems. Yeah, it may be morally superior to act in a given way...but that group of people still, in practice, does those things.

CorruptUser wrote:Sorry, it's just personal biases because of where I'm from.

New York has pretty strict rules on gun ownership, and we were sick of the rules seeming to get stricter on us because of some idiots downstate killing each other, not us. And yet, it seemed every asshole downstate could still get their hands on a hunting rifle to come up and steal our deer so he could pretend to be a man and bring back a trophy, while we had fewer deer to eat. And when I say steal, I mean that literally. I actually know someone whose cousin had a rifle pointed at her head by someone from downstate (or so the story goes) who didn't seem to understand that just because a place had trees it was still private property.


It's a nigh-universal rural/urban divide in the US. Folks in cities casually refer to "flyover country", hillbillies, rednecks, etc, and just sort of take it for granted that they are living the "better" life in some fashion. There usually isn't an awareness of just how much the other half feels the same in turn.

How guns are used in each place differ in the extreme, and what each side means by "gun culture" is wildly different. Rural firearm owners do *not* view urban gangs and such as if they were in any way part of their culture.

EdgarJPublius wrote:
sardia wrote:Edgar, we did go over this. You have ignored the effects on research at the CDC by repeating that money spent on research hasn't changed. Which isn't true if you looked deeper.


I never said that the money hadn't changed, only that the amount of research hadn't changed.
(Edit: And it's not like I'm against funding the CDC more to study firearm violence better. It's just disingenuous to say they've been 'banned' from doing the research and that as a result no research gets done.)


Exactly. If literally nothing changed, the law would be pointless, and not really worth either protesting or defending, or even caring about.

What's happened is that now, it's studying gun violence, with rather less advocacy of a specific "cure". This is the obvious intent of the restriction. It's not a backdoor ban, it's a removal of advocacy. And it's this, not any "unable to study" that is really bothering anti-gunners. But they're not attacking it on that grounds, they invariably resort to language about banning.

This indicates that they do not feel that describing the situation accurately will result in public sympathy for their position. If you feel like you *have* to lie to accomplish things...that's...kind of sketchy. And an attitude that doesn't really make one a great defender of science.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:34 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:[…] I'm pretty sure that death or injury by gunshot is bad for one's health[.]

Shotgun bullets certainly is.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:37 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Look at their org chart. I don't see anything in there even remotely associated with firearms or firearm related deaths. The closest you've got is workplace injuries.
No, the closest you've got is the Office of Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health.

Specifically the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (whose profile is linked to from the org chart) is in charge of "innovative research and science-based programs to prevent injuries and violence and to reduce their consequences."


Hmm, looking closer...

I wasn't aware of the NVDRS, although its as incomplete as I expected it to be. I know that this sort of data is non-standardized and the States themselves take lead on it, which is why I'm not 100% trusting of the CDC to take that sort of data.

With that said, reading through the NVDRS database pages gives you an idea of why things are so incomplete.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6435
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:38 pm UTC

Knight exemplar, it took me a while to find anything but here's something that might explain why.
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/20 ... lence.aspx
n December 2011, Congress added language equivalent to the Dickey amendment to fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation that funded the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (PDF, 1.3MB), stating that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.

That explains why the NIH doesn't research guns. Edgar already mentioned why the atf doesn't research guns. I don't think it's too strange the CDC researches guns, the British health ministry researches guns as well.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4549
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:42 pm UTC

Senate Democrats have apparently shamed the Republicans into agreeing to look at some gun control measures after a 15 hour filibuster. Topics on the table include the ability for the government to restrict the sale of firearms to suspected terrorists, as well as enhanced background checks.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:43 pm UTC

I'm not really against the CDC collecting data on sources of death. That seems relevant enough to what they do. They've done odder things, like the zombie comic book(I've got a copy). It's full of hilarious lines such as "we can't shoot the zombies, they're our fellow Americans!"

In comparison, collecting a bunch of data seems downright on mission.

There's unfortunately a lot of bad blood here. Every time an agency uses a tool for advocacy and/or unilateral action instead of dispassionate study, they get slapped down. Instead of stopping that as a strategy, because it's obviously not working, the anti-gun faction simply demands more of it, often from different organizations, in different methods, resulting in a proliferation of red tape. This may not hinder private studies, but it does contribute to the partisan standoff where data is treated as a weapon more than as a tool to learn.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

sardia wrote:That explains why the NIH doesn't research guns. Edgar already mentioned why the atf doesn't research guns. I don't think it's too strange the CDC researches guns, the British health ministry researches guns as well.


Its a matter of cultural expectations however. I'd frankly expect the FBI to be in charge of violence-related death studies. And it seems entirely redundant to me that the FBI would be tracking "violent crimes" across the USA, and then the CDC to be replicating the work as they try to track "violent related deaths".

Its a matter of inefficiency and double-work. And I bet you that the FBI statistics will not match up with the CDC statistics.

And when policy makers are given two sets of statistics, they'll pick-and-choose the ones that better suit their political goals. Redundancy is very, very bad. A singular source of trusted data is what is needed to break deadlock. (or at least, prevent unnecessary arguments) In any case, now a bunch of work needs to be done to resolve the FBI and CDC statistics so that they match up, or inter-agency collaboration to make sure both statisticians are on the same page.

See the problem now?
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:47 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:46 pm UTC


I hav to ask this every time: if you want to discuss gun control, please sticm to aspects that are particular to this case. For a general discussion, use the gun control thread.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:00 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:You're not getting my argument. The scope of the CDC's powers in collecting these statistics is literally the death certificate data. That's their bread-and-butter. If the information isn't on a death certificate, the CDC won't be able to delve deeper into analysis.

The CDC already publishes cause of death statistics. I'm perfectly fine with the CDC releasing information regarding number of firearm related deaths in America.

To ask any more of the CDC however, is utter nonsense. The agency just isn't set up to collect deeper information. An agency like FBI or ATF in charge of the data would have legal authorization to investigate and determine further relevant details.

The CDC is composed of a bunch of doctors and statisticians. You don't go to the doctor to ask if the firearm was an AR15 or a Glock.
The CDC doesn't delve into anything. It issues grants to science to do research. And if data can be collected it can be analyzed. But it isn't collected so again the point is moot. The FBI and the ATF are hard pressed to do anymore than what they are doing. You may have noticed that we can't say reliably how many cops shoot people not guilty of crimes. We don't know how many guns are in circulation or who is selling them, assuming they are sold by private individuals. We don't know much of anything. But this is pointless. Nothing is going to be done. This discussion occurs every time there is a mass shooting like Orlando. It didn't change anything before and won't change anything now.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby Zamfir » Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:25 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
I hav to ask this every time: if you want to discuss gun control, please sticm to aspects that are particular to this case. For a general discussion, use the gun control thread.

mcd001
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby mcd001 » Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote: they are...less Christian. They stop doing Christian things, such as going to church, and hating gay people.

mcd001 wrote: Sorry, hating gay people is not now, never has been, and never will be a Christian thing. Christians are commanded (by Christ himself) to love their neighbors (Matthew 22:36-40). *ALL* their neighbors. We even have to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44), which is a feat almost impossible to us mere mortals. Yes, there are Christians who hate gays, but this is a sin in the eyes of God and does not conform to Christian doctrine. There are also gays who hate Christians. Does this make hating Christians a 'gay' thing?

Tyndmyr wrote: Murder is also a violation of the ten commandments, but Christian people have totally murdered people.

Of course Christians have totally murdered people. (Probably even partially murdered people, too!) How does that contradict anything I've said? I am stating that Christianity teaches against these things (hating gays, committing murder, adultery, shoplifting, insert your favorite crime here...)

I'm really not sure what your point is. I'm pretty sure you're not saying that murder is a Christian thing just because some Christians have murdered, but that seems to be what your words imply.

You can't just define away problems.

The basic tenants of Christian doctrine are well documented and available to anyone with access to a bible. What exactly am I defining away?

Yeah, it may be morally superior to act in a given way...but that group of people still, in practice, does those things.

Yes, they do those things. But they do them because they are humans, and humans are flawed and imperfect beings. They do them *in spite* of Christianity, not *because* of Christianity.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:09 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote: they are...less Christian. They stop doing Christian things, such as going to church, and hating gay people.

mcd001 wrote: Sorry, hating gay people is not now, never has been, and never will be a Christian thing. Christians are commanded (by Christ himself) to love their neighbors (Matthew 22:36-40). *ALL* their neighbors. We even have to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44), which is a feat almost impossible to us mere mortals. Yes, there are Christians who hate gays, but this is a sin in the eyes of God and does not conform to Christian doctrine. There are also gays who hate Christians. Does this make hating Christians a 'gay' thing?

Tyndmyr wrote: Murder is also a violation of the ten commandments, but Christian people have totally murdered people.

Of course Christians have totally murdered people. (Probably even partially murdered people, too!) How does that contradict anything I've said? I am stating that Christianity teaches against these things (hating gays, committing murder, adultery, shoplifting, insert your favorite crime here...)

I'm really not sure what your point is. I'm pretty sure you're not saying that murder is a Christian thing just because some Christians have murdered, but that seems to be what your words imply.


If Christians murdered at significantly disproportionate rates, I would indeed say that murder is a Christian thing. Regardless of the words on paper.

Things like "gay conversion camps" are indeed Christian things.

You can't just define away problems.

The basic tenants of Christian doctrine are well documented and available to anyone with access to a bible. What exactly am I defining away?


You are what you do, not what you say.

Yeah, it may be morally superior to act in a given way...but that group of people still, in practice, does those things.

Yes, they do those things. But they do them because they are humans, and humans are flawed and imperfect beings. They do them *in spite* of Christianity, not *because* of Christianity.


To use the example of gay conversion camps, I'm pretty sure they do them because of Christianity. Because their interpretation of doctrine endorses it. Now, maybe *you* don't support such things, plenty of people don't...but that doesn't change the statistics. Overall, the problem is stemming from the religion and it's teachings.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6435
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:18 pm UTC

So you painted Muslims with a higher propensity \odds to do various bad things. Now where does this lead?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:21 pm UTC

sardia wrote:So you painted Muslims with a higher propensity \odds to do various bad things. Now where does this lead?


Hard to have an honest discussion if people can't handle even looking at the facts.

Understanding the facts doesn't require you to pursue any one thing, but it does allow you to look things over more accurately. Where do you think it leads?

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4549
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:23 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:Of course Christians have totally murdered people. (Probably even partially murdered people, too!) How does that contradict anything I've said? I am stating that Christianity teaches against these things (hating gays, committing murder, adultery, shoplifting, insert your favorite crime here...)


Depends which parts of the Bible that you are looking at. There are certainly plenty of examples in the Bible of people being murdered, with divine approval, for all kinds of things. The Biblical view of adultery is, at best, incoherent to modern sensibilities (Abraham apparently doesn't commit adultery when he sleeps with his servant, for example), to say nothing of the fact that having adultery a crime at all leads to some rather undesirable outcomes.

The basic tenants of Christian doctrine are well documented and available to anyone with access to a bible. What exactly am I defining away?


The basic tenets of Christianity vary wildly depending on the denomination and are often mutually exclusive.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6435
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:30 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Hard to have an honest discussion if people can't handle even looking at the facts.

Understanding the facts doesn't require you to pursue any one thing, but it does allow you to look things over more accurately. Where do you think it leads?

It should lead to better outreach for those left behind in the economy(reduces unemployed men causing trouble), more research into gun violence, more social services, and more protections for minorities. What I actually think will happen is a bunch of Muslims or gays are gonna get hurt in the name of security.
You have-not convinced me of anything yet but I wanted to know what you're hoping will happen as well.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 50 Dead, 53 Injured in Orlando Gay Club Shooting

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:33 pm UTC

There's some contradictions with earlier stories. The wife of the shooter alleges that she was helping him "scout" the location. Perhaps the earlier interviews were unreliable? If the shooter already knew this club and was a regular, why would he need to "scout" it out?

On the other hand: the knife story is quite vivid. It demands us to believe the story because its so detailed. But in the face of contradictory evidence, I'm thinking that the "shooter visited bar years before" story is suspect.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... -massacre/?
The attacker — 29-year-old Omar Mateen — posted that day on Facebook about the Islamic State, pledging allegiance to the group’s leader and claiming that the shooting was “vengeance” for airstrikes, according to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.


This sort of evidence lends itself more to the the Islamic terror angle, and is more reliable than witness testimony.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests