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
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7302
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

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

Postby Zamfir » Sat Jun 18, 2016 5:41 am UTC

EMTP, stop the modified quotes, or at least mark them clearly as modified.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7502
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

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

Postby Zohar » Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:46 am UTC

Thanks for the update, Deva, and also for getting us slightly back on track.

For the person who was interested in seeing the list of Muslim-majority countries that legalized homosexuality, this is literally copied and pasted from Wikipedia:
Spoiler:
Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Niger, Tajikistan, Turkey, West Bank (State of Palestine), and most of Indonesia (except in Aceh and South Sumatra provinces, where bylaws against LGBT rights have been passed), as well as Northern Cyprus).
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

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

Postby sardia » Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:21 pm UTC

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... calization

investigators say Mateen's profile is more like that of a "typical mass shooter" than an individual radicalized by ISIS, as NPR's Dina Temple-Raston reports.
In fact, intelligence officials and investigators say they're "becoming increasingly convinced that the motive for this attack had very little — or maybe nothing — to do with ISI

It's a fast changing presumption, but it looks very much NOT an Islamic attack. Just your old fashion Columbine/mass shooter etc etc.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 20, 2016 4:50 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Comparing the US military to acts of mass violence as we are discussing here is...dishonest. Yes, war has casualties, and if we're comparing wars between countries, fine. But that's not really the same thing as the mass shooting that happened here. All you're doing is being evasive.


Nonsense. What I am doing is illustrating the many unspoken assumptions and unspecified conditions in your claiming the Jews disproportionately "cause violence." I am using a clear and unambiguous definition of violence: "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." You are using a poorly described idea of "violence" that is already coded with the conclusion you want to reach about the violent nature of the Jews.

If you want to talk about mass shootings, then say "mass shootings" rather than "violence." But as you have often pointed out, mass shootings are a very small proportion of the killings by gun owners. Most of you who kill kill one or two people at a time. That is presumably violence as well?


We're talking about mass shootings and similar events because...that's the topic. Discussing all violence ever really isn't in scope. The discussion may meander in that direction from time to time, but we're mostly discussing this event and others like it.

Words mean something. Changing it from a true statement to a false statement is significant. I have absolutely no issue looking at crime rates by demographic, but switching the demographics arbitrarily without considering the resulting factual nature is kind of ridiculous.

Do you believe that any statement saying a given demographic is causing more violence than average is inherently bigoted? Even if, yknow, it's correct?


Words do mean something. Bigotry means something as well. Would you prefer we modify the substitution to address you concern about accuracy (even though your claim is so poorly defined to begin with it's not even wrong)? Very well:

Tyndmyr wrote:That the Negros cause a disproportionate amount of violence is a verifiable fact.


I don't think that's any better, but YMMV.


I would, again, prefer that anything within quotation tags be an actual quote.

I also point out that you're using language that is not popular. People today say either "African American" or "black", generally speaking. You're not trying to make an apples to apples comparison. You're fishing for offense.

That said, it is pretty obvious to anyone who looks at demographics at all that yes, violence is disproportionately high in the black community in the US. That's the starting point. From there, you explore why.

I also don't feel like religion is a good analogy for race or gender. It is significantly easier to change one's religion than the other two. Much more of a choice, even considering that religion is often inherited.

elasto wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Historically, Christianity had many problems, yes. However, the situation *now* is the present problem. Discussing historical superiority is mostly unimportant.

It matters because people are trying to claim Islam itself is more homophobic than, say, Judaism or Christianity - whereas it's entirely about how fundamentalist the followers happen to be - which fluctuates over time.


So? Almost all trends fluctuate over time. That doesn't change the facts that are correct right now.

In some hypothetical world where Christianity was super fundamentalist and Islam wasn't, sure, things might look different. But that's not the world we live in.

Words matter, because moderate Muslims don't appreciate being tarred with the same brush as Isis any more than moderate Christians appreciate being put into the same camp as the Lord's Resistance Army - who's stated goal is the formation of Bible-based state that uses the Ten Commandments as guide posts - kidnapping children for use as sex slaves and soldiers, and massacring entire villages in an effort to bring that about.


So? In either case, they are still a problem, and I believe that in either case, simply defining everyone they dislike as "not really x religion", and ignoring the problem is pretty horrible. Religions attempt to define away everything they dislike ALL the time. It's ridiculous. I see no reason why I should respect their wishes for good PR.

Describing it as an "accident of history" trivializes the historical causes, and sounds like distancing language to avoid looking too closely at why things happen/

(And the distinction between the religion itself and its followers may seem like pedantry, but it's not. The reason it's not is that some actions we take can drive a community towards fundamentalism, and other actions can moderate it. Whereas if we just throw our hands up and say 'oh it's the religion itself that's flawed', that absolves us of any responsibility to address our own failings. It leads us to think that policies from people like Trump would make things better, when in fact they'd make them much worse.


Given that I do not think Trump is very likely to make things better, your impression of my chain of reasoning is obviously flawed.

The religion being flawed(and the religion is inseparable from the people that practice it. With no practitioners, any religion is irrelevant) is a starting point. Recognizing that a religion is flawed is like recognizing that a government is flawed. Recognition is a necessary precursor to fixing things, not a way of avoiding things.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

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

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 20, 2016 4:58 pm UTC

Tyndmyr, you keep pointing to religion being flawed, specifically Islam. What are you suggesting to do with this assumption? Like black people are a large source of violence.... Something... Profit? I get where you're coming from, but I want to know where you're going. More safety nets for Muslims? Free gun safes for them? Conversion camps? Parties with booze and pork?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:04 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, you keep pointing to religion being flawed, specifically Islam. What are you suggesting to do with this assumption? Like black people are a large source of violence.... Something... Profit? I get where you're coming from, but I want to know where you're going. More safety nets for Muslims? Free gun safes for them? Conversion camps? Parties with booze and pork?


Look, if you realize violence is disproportionate among black folks, you start looking for causes. Some of them are obvious(say, lower incomes), but as you dig further, you realize the obvious causes are insufficient to explain the discrepancy. So, people who dug into this why realize that other factors are at play(say, geographical isolation in roadbuilding around predominantly black communities). Sure, you can just label the whole thing "racism", if you like, but that doesn't give you actionable information like digging into the data does.

The alternative is tacit acceptance of the discrepancy, but refusing to discuss it because it's not polite to point it out. Ignoring the problem, really. This has a poor track record of fixing anything.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

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

Postby Lazar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:47 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Parties with booze and pork?

You kid, but that would likely have little effect. Studies (like this one) actually tend to find that consistent piety in Muslims correlates positively with civic engagement and negatively with radicalization. Radicals generally grow up disaffected and apathetic before turning to the religion with a revert's zeal. And this is emblematic of the often-overlooked reality that Islamism is in many ways an innovation in the Muslim world.
Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:07 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
sardia wrote:Parties with booze and pork?

You kid, but that would likely have little effect. Studies (like this one) actually tend to find that consistent piety in Muslims correlates positively with civic engagement and negatively with radicalization. Radicals generally grow up disaffected and apathetic before turning to the religion with a revert's zeal. And this is emblematic of the often-overlooked reality that Islamism is in many ways an innovation in the Muslim world.


Which makes sense in principle to me. Religious rituals and religious gatherings are social events at their core. As long as people are out talking with each other and socially working together, there's a low chance for them to be radicalized.

Social isolation is a leading cause of radicalization.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

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

Postby elasto » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:08 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:In some hypothetical world where Christianity was super fundamentalist and Islam wasn't, sure, things might look different. But that's not the world we live in.

Religions can't be 'super fundamentalist' - only followers can be. That's the point.

The religion being flawed(and the religion is inseparable from the people that practice it. With no practitioners, any religion is irrelevant) is a starting point. Recognizing that a religion is flawed is like recognizing that a government is flawed. Recognition is a necessary precursor to fixing things, not a way of avoiding things.

I think we here would all agree that Islam is flawed. I think we'd also agree that Christianity is flawed. As is Judaism. (As is capitalism or socialism. All can be improved upon.)

Recognising a religion is flawed isn't useful to determining how to deal with followers of that religion though. I'd argue the correct approach is to encourage the followers to moderate. The problem is that the actions of some encourages them to fundamentalise.

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

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

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:26 pm UTC

Islam and anything else can never be better that the humans practicing it. The NRA is closer to the truth than most people are comfortable with when they say, guns don't kill people, people do.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

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

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:42 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Islam and anything else can never be better that the humans practicing it. The NRA is closer to the truth than most people are comfortable with when they say, guns don't kill people, people do.

I get that, but what Tyndmyr is warning us not to overlearn the Islamaphobia of the Bush years. What I'm trying to figure out is if he has anything concrete for us to critique. I'm biased towards spending on research, so yea a vague increase in scientific spending is great.
What I was curious about is whether Tyndmyrs e was arguing for policies that specifically target Muslims, for better or worse. We've had a mix record on our ability to do this so the details really matter.
Last edited by sardia on Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:45 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Islam and anything else can never be better that the humans practicing it. The NRA is closer to the truth than most people are comfortable with when they say, guns don't kill people, people do.


Guns are still an enabler. Another profoundly uncomfortable truth is that this man walked into a gun shop and LEGALLY purchased all the weapons he used in this attack.

As I noted before: I'd fully expect that radicalized individuals will switch to other weapons should guns be banned. China has vehicular manslaughters for example. Britain has knife and even sword violence.

But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword and absolutely no formal training. Just no way.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3755
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

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

Postby Dauric » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:05 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword and absolutely no formal training. Just no way.


Of course not. They'll use a car bomb to kill over twice as many.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

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

Postby sardia » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:10 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword and absolutely no formal training. Just no way.


Of course not. They'll use a car bomb to kill over twice as many.

Why do you think there's been a shift towards guns over bombs ? Are bombs just as accessible or much harder?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:21 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword and absolutely no formal training. Just no way.


Of course not. They'll use a car bomb to kill over twice as many.


Last time I checked, the FBI has begun to track people who buy insane amounts of fertilizer to prevent attacks like this from happening again. There's a reason why this attack hasn't been used for over 20 years.

Terrorists are welcome to try and build a massive bomb by themselves of course. But you need to purchase all that material from somewhere, and that is where you get caught. It takes an explosives expert and training (training that is more than just a manual distributed on Al Qaeda's or ISIS's facebook page) to build a bomb without blowing yourself up, or without tipping off police forces.

All the safe stuff is getting tracked by FBI. The harder stuff to use risks you blowing yourself up. In any case, its going to take weeks or months of preparation, instead of a 3-day background check (that doesn't do anything).

And in all cases, building a bomb in your basement requires patience and dedication over a multi-week period. Give people the chance to give up, and many would-be terrorists will give up due to laziness or procrastination. Maybe their social networks will be repaired 3 months from now and they'll decide against the bomb.

But lets be frank here: 3-day background check is an entirely different beast from a multi-week or multi-month bomb-manufacturing experiment. Waiting for you gun to arrive doesn't risk blowing yourself up, or blowing your cover.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

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

Postby Chen » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:32 pm UTC

Yeah I don't see people moving on to bombs if there was a ban on firearms. I'd imagine cars would be better for mass casualty situations. Highly unlikely to ban those too. At least your crowd needs to be outside for them to work very well though.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:37 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Islam and anything else can never be better that the humans practicing it. The NRA is closer to the truth than most people are comfortable with when they say, guns don't kill people, people do.

I get that, but what Tyndmyr is warning us not to overlearn the Islamaphobia of the Bush years. What I'm trying to figure out is if he has anything concrete for us to critique. I'm biased towards spending on research, so yea a vague increase in scientific spending is great.
What I was curious about is whether Tyndmyrs e was arguing for policies that specifically target Muslims, for better or worse. We've had a mix record on our ability to do this so the details really matter.


Morris is right in that yes, the people themselves are always essential. I do not believe in any 'true' religion separated from the people actually practicing it. Nor do I believe in some concept of 'America' that can be wholly divorced from the actual Americans. How people actually live is always what matters. A given rule might be drafted with the best of intentions, but fail upon contact with people because of any number of unanticipated things.

Studying, sure. Some areas of data are annoyingly spotty, so...I can't extend conclusions too far without a really large margin of error. With data like that, having preset conclusions of what policies we *should* do is...premature. Study first. Decide later. If you decide first, then the studying risks becoming mere justifications for preferred courses rather than genuine inquiry. The caution against the overlearning is pretty much as far as I'd gotten, as it seemed that had significant opposition, but of course, once you get past hesitance to study, the first thing you do, is...study. I can't completely predict where that will lead as an ideal solution.

KnightExemplar wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Islam and anything else can never be better that the humans practicing it. The NRA is closer to the truth than most people are comfortable with when they say, guns don't kill people, people do.


Guns are still an enabler. Another profoundly uncomfortable truth is that this man walked into a gun shop and LEGALLY purchased all the weapons he used in this attack.

As I noted before: I'd fully expect that radicalized individuals will switch to other weapons should guns be banned. China has vehicular manslaughters for example. Britain has knife and even sword violence.

But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword and absolutely no formal training. Just no way.


I do hope the line about "not able to slaughter 50 people with a sword" is sarcasm, yes? Because back in sept, a knife attack in Xinjiang, China killed 50-110. Granted, there were nine people if current reporting is to be believed, but still. It included multiple police teams. Horrifyingly, trying to google it for further details results in a barrage of search results returning the OTHER mass sword/knife massacres in the area. China doesn't seem very interested in providing good data about these attacks, but...yeah, it's at least possible.

Anyway, back on track. Banning ideologies, to extend your metaphor, has not traditionally worked very well. Honestly, governments aren't very good at bans in general, and usually only manage to successfully ban things that most of the population are not very interested in doing. "Just ban it" is likely a poor solution to many of these problems, and is merely another type of not really engaging with the problem in detail. If you stop and think about what, exactly, banning would entail, difficulties begin to emerge.

sardia wrote:Why do you think there's been a shift towards guns over bombs ? Are bombs just as accessible or much harder?


A good question, honestly. Publicity/copycat effects, at least in part? It certainly seems like mass shooters have been given a great deal of publicity, and that might matter.

I think, nationwide, there's very little practical difference in accessibility of firearms. Granted, Obama's admin is hitting record lows at actually prosecuting bad NCIS checks, so you might be able to make something of that in terms of enforcement, but in terms of law, I don't think we've had very significant changes recently. They don't track well. Likewise, I don't think laws about bombs have changed significantly in any meaningful way. They've been pretty restricted for long enough that it's hard to justify it solely on these grounds.

Last time I checked, the FBI has begun to track people who buy insane amounts of fertilizer to prevent attacks like this from happening again. There's a reason why this attack hasn't been used for over 20 years.


Well, the law Congress passed was only done in 2007. Then, the agency collected comments from the public until 2011. Then they reviewed them. Wait, no, they're STILL reviewing them. You can still buy tons of fertilizer with minimal effort today.

So, I don't think this adequately explains the trend in terms of ease of effort.

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

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

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:44 pm UTC

I'm having a hard time keeping up with what exactly he wants. But for me, I need to understand the why of mass murder in terms of humans rather then the institutions they invent. And it isn't so much what will they kill you with, but why do we kill in that fashion at all.
sardia wrote:Why do you think there's been a shift towards guns over bombs ? Are bombs just as accessible or much harder?
In the areas bombs are used, the mats are easier to get. It's a matter of convenience. It could just as well be a train carrying something flammable and toxic in the middle of a city. There are always ways to kill people.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25787
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 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:55 pm UTC

Tyndmyr, nine people killing 50-100 with knives in no way refutes KnightExemplar's point that a single man likely wouldn't be able to do that.

(And a lot of the knife attacks in China have very low lethality, compared to guns. I remember after Sandy Hook the false equivalence crowd started going on about a recent school attack in China that had a similar number of total casualties. They all seemed to conveniently miss the fact that those were all *injuries*, with zero deaths.)
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)

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

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

Postby Chen » Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:02 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/18/482621690/investigators-say-orlando-shooter-showed-few-warning-signs-of-radicalization

investigators say Mateen's profile is more like that of a "typical mass shooter" than an individual radicalized by ISIS, as NPR's Dina Temple-Raston reports.
In fact, intelligence officials and investigators say they're "becoming increasingly convinced that the motive for this attack had very little — or maybe nothing — to do with ISI

It's a fast changing presumption, but it looks very much NOT an Islamic attack. Just your old fashion Columbine/mass shooter etc etc.


Well: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/us/orland ... -shooting/

Definitely seems to show there is some Islamic radicalization link there. The demands to stop American bombing in Syria and Iraq, calling himself an Islamic soldier and pledging allegiance to presumably ISIS and some ISIS leader (or other radical Islamic group), is all present. Now, the other information doesn't seem to indicate it was any way directed by ISIS or the like. Just someone who took to their "cause" and decided to do something in their name.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

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

Postby Lazar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:08 pm UTC

Yes, the picture seems to be that he had no contact with outside groups, but that a naive kind of Islamism did play at least some role in his thinking.
Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:09 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Islam and anything else can never be better that the humans practicing it. The NRA is closer to the truth than most people are comfortable with when they say, guns don't kill people, people do.


Guns are still an enabler. Another profoundly uncomfortable truth is that this man walked into a gun shop and LEGALLY purchased all the weapons he used in this attack.

As I noted before: I'd fully expect that radicalized individuals will switch to other weapons should guns be banned. China has vehicular manslaughters for example. Britain has knife and even sword violence.

But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword and absolutely no formal training. Just no way.


I do hope the line about "not able to slaughter 50 people with a sword" is sarcasm, yes? Because back in sept, a knife attack in Xinjiang, China killed 50-110. Granted, there were nine people if current reporting is to be believed, but still. It included multiple police teams. Horrifyingly, trying to google it for further details results in a barrage of search results returning the OTHER mass sword/knife massacres in the area. China doesn't seem very interested in providing good data about these attacks, but...yeah, it's at least possible.


When was the last time that nine people coordinated an attack in the USA? Yeah, the 19 hijackers of 9/11.

Coordination and groups of people exponentially aggravate the results. The goal of a gun ban is to mitigate the Lone Wolf scenario. Only in the US are single men so deadly.

Stopping a group of attackers requires an entirely different strategy. But it is clear that this lone-wolf (and near-lone wolves: like San Bernadino or Boston Marathon Bombing) issue is the FBI's current blindspot.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:07 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Tyndmyr, nine people killing 50-100 with knives in no way refutes KnightExemplar's point that a single man likely wouldn't be able to do that.

(And a lot of the knife attacks in China have very low lethality, compared to guns. I remember after Sandy Hook the false equivalence crowd started going on about a recent school attack in China that had a similar number of total casualties. They all seemed to conveniently miss the fact that those were all *injuries*, with zero deaths.)


There have been single person attacks with deaths in the 30s*, which is...still pretty high. Keeping in mind that these are fairly low-frequency events, and that this particular one is a record, describing it as impossible seems to be an implausible bar. I have no doubt that a firearm is a superior weapon to a knife, in that I'd rather have a firearm in a 1v1 matchup in most scenarios, but in practice, an armed person bent on murder vs an unarmed and unprepared civilian population seems to be a very uneven matchup regardless of the particular weapon.

KnightExemplar wrote:When was the last time that nine people coordinated an attack in the USA? Yeah, the 19 hijackers of 9/11.

Coordination and groups of people exponentially aggravate the results. The goal of a gun ban is to mitigate the Lone Wolf scenario. Only in the US are single men so deadly.

Stopping a group of attackers requires an entirely different strategy. But it is clear that this lone-wolf (and near-lone wolves: like San Bernadino or Boston Marathon Bombing) issue is the FBI's current blindspot.


No. Breivik still holds the record at 77 for shooting, and he's Norwegian.

Oaklahoma City Bomber is probably the highest recent history in the US, and that was a bomb, not a gun, with 168. So, your causality with (US is especially lethal) and (because of access to guns) is highly suspect if we're sticking to your methodology of focusing on the records.

* Siquijor, 32 deaths, machete, for instance.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:When was the last time that nine people coordinated an attack in the USA? Yeah, the 19 hijackers of 9/11.

Coordination and groups of people exponentially aggravate the results. The goal of a gun ban is to mitigate the Lone Wolf scenario. Only in the US are single men so deadly.

Stopping a group of attackers requires an entirely different strategy. But it is clear that this lone-wolf (and near-lone wolves: like San Bernadino or Boston Marathon Bombing) issue is the FBI's current blindspot.


No. Breivik still holds the record at 77 for shooting, and he's Norwegian.

Oaklahoma City Bomber is probably the highest recent history in the US, and that was a bomb, not a gun, with 168. So, your causality with (US is especially lethal) and (because of access to guns) is highly suspect if we're sticking to your methodology of focusing on the records.

* Siquijor, 32 deaths, machete, for instance.


This response made no sense to me.

----------------

I'm talking about lone wolf attacks. The knife-attack you were talking about had 10 knife-users attacking a crowd in a coordinated fashion.

If you want to find a case study where a Lone wolf attacker uses a knife to commit a death-or-injury-count similar to this Pulse Club shooting, you can be my guest. But my core statement remains the following:

But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword and absolutely no formal training. Just no way.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:20 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:When was the last time that nine people coordinated an attack in the USA? Yeah, the 19 hijackers of 9/11.

Coordination and groups of people exponentially aggravate the results. The goal of a gun ban is to mitigate the Lone Wolf scenario. Only in the US are single men so deadly.

Stopping a group of attackers requires an entirely different strategy. But it is clear that this lone-wolf (and near-lone wolves: like San Bernadino or Boston Marathon Bombing) issue is the FBI's current blindspot.


No. Breivik still holds the record at 77 for shooting, and he's Norwegian.

Oaklahoma City Bomber is probably the highest recent history in the US, and that was a bomb, not a gun, with 168. So, your causality with (US is especially lethal) and (because of access to guns) is highly suspect if we're sticking to your methodology of focusing on the records.

* Siquijor, 32 deaths, machete, for instance.


This response made no sense to me.

----------------

I'm talking about lone wolf attacks. The knife-attack you were talking about had 10 knife-users attacking a crowd in a coordinated fashion.


Siquijor is in the Phillipines. There are others, such as Mutsuo Toi, who primarily used an axe, despite having a shotgun.

None of those hit the 49 victims of this fellow, but when single assailants are apparently able to kill 30, and events exceeding that number are extremely rare for shooters as well, you have fairly weak evidence that such totals are impossible.

And you have very poor evidence that US folks are better at mass violence because of guns due to looking at records, because...we don't hold it.

And bombs have MUCH higher casualty records than guns do.

So, your gun/US centric theory seems reasonably weak.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:27 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Siquijor is in the Phillipines.


Are you talking about the 1905 attack with almost no references and almost no details that I can find?

There are others, such as Mutsuo Toi, who primarily used an axe, despite having a shotgun.


The obscurity and age of your examples speak for themselves. Furthermore, he used a shotgun as part of the attack.

And you have very poor evidence that US folks are better at mass violence because of guns due to looking at records, because...we don't hold it.


I don't care about USA. I care about just mass shootings. All the examples you've given still involve firearms.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:34 pm UTC

You're looking at low-frequency events. Yeah, a lot of them are not going to be terribly recent. If you only want to look at what's really current, then the latest event is going to skew your perception of trends.

Nightclubs are not a venue that have recently gotten a lot of attention for this, for instance. But, we've got Paris and Orlando recently. So, people are probably going to talk about dangers to nightclubs a lot.

This doesn't mean that the next event won't happen to be in, say, a school. A trend is being drawn from two data points. It's inherently weak.

Let's break apart your argument. You were saying that people with knives CAN'T kill fifty. Not "they haven't yet", or "it's less probable", but that they can't. Why not? Is there some physical limitation there? How do you differentiate "impossible" from "it just hasn't happened yet, because it's rare"?

A month ago, it'd never happened in the US with guns, either.

But it HAD happened with bombs. Your position now is no different from someone a month ago saying it was impossible for the Orlando event to happen with a gun. You're extrapolating based solely on the fact of a very rare event not occurring yet.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You're looking at low-frequency events.


No we're not. There have been at least sixteen thirteen mass-shootings during Obama's 7 and a half year term. Methinks if the facts were more skewed in your favor, you'd have some decent example in the last half-century.

Here are the twelve examples:

1. Fort Hood 2009
2. Tucson 2011 / Gabby Giffords
3. Aurora 2012
4. Wisconsin Sikh temple, 2012
5. Sandy Hook 2012
6. Navy Yard 2013
7. Fort Hood, part 2. 2014
8. Kansas Jewish Community Center. 2014
9. Charleston Church Shooting, 2015
10. Chattanooga recruiting center 2015
11. Roseburge Community College 2015
12. San Bernardino attack 2015 <---- Woops, forgot an obvious one.
13. Orlando Pulse Night Club, 2016

And no, that's not an invitation for you to start your Wikipedia search on the year 1966 to match the technicality of my point above. I'm simply pointing out that knife and sword attacks happen with significantly less frequency than gun attacks, and when they happen, they tend to have lower-deaths than the mass-shootings in the US.

Furthermore, the vast majority of these cases involved 100% legally purchased firearms. I think only Sandy Hook is the exception.

And the Fort Hood x 2 shootings, Navy Yard, AND Chattanooga Recruiting Center attacks were all at military locations. I don't buy the NRA's argument of "arm everyone" to stop these attacks.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:05 pm UTC, edited 6 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

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

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:43 pm UTC

According to one report those machete attacks happened over a long period of time among isolated groups. However if machetes or butcher knives were efficient killing machines guns would never have been invented. The increase lethality at range.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:53 pm UTC

High casualty events like this are rare, even among mass shootings. Usually it's like, six*. Drawing conclusions based on the record event, rather than average, etc, is suspect.

Now, each source seems to count them a little differently, so it'd be helpful if you'd either list them, or link to the source. But I'm pretty sure the average is not close to the record high, because that's not how numbers work. So, if you want to use the all time high for one category, you probably should do the same for other categories.

Or, you could look at averages, which would be somewhat saner.

According to one report those machete attacks happened over a long period of time among isolated groups. However if machetes or butcher knives were efficient killing machines guns would never have been invented. The increase lethality at range.


My point is not "knives are better than guns", it's that his methodology is garbage, because he has a predefined conclusion that he's reaching for, and his specific arguments are not well suited to his conclusion.

*In 2016, the deaths are 6(Michigan), 6(PA), 49(Florida)**. Since the definition requires 4 to qualify, it's obvious that events such as this are extreme, and relatively unlikely overall, and lower death-count events are much more frequent.

**Congressional definition of 4 or more deaths, excluding shooter.

Edited to respond to addition of list:
KnightExemplar wrote:Another crazy statistic is that THREE of these mass shootings occurred on a military base. The Chattanooga recruiting center attack was military as well, but a freaking military base is about as heavily armed as you can get. I don't buy the NRA's argument of "arm everyone" to stop these attacks. Not at all.


...no, it's not. I'm former military, we don't all carry guns around all day like GI Joe action figures. Private carry of firearms is generally highly restricted on military bases. The correlation between areas where carrying guns is generally banned and mass shootings with guns is pretty high.

The fact that there might be planes locked up in a hangar is pretty much irrelevant to a mass shooting or to defensive firearm use.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:57 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:High casualty events like this are rare, even among mass shootings. Usually it's like, six*. Drawing conclusions based on the record event, rather than average, etc, is suspect.


Why don't we just count all of the lone-wolf (or nearly-lone wolf, like San Bernadino) mass-knife or mass-sword killings (defined as 4 or more) in America in the past 10 years.

And then we'll compare those numbers against the 13 mass-shootings with lone-wolves (or near lone wolves) I laid out in my post above.

We don't need to be complicated. America-only to focus on American-specific policies and American culture. And then we work from there.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:06 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:High casualty events like this are rare, even among mass shootings. Usually it's like, six*. Drawing conclusions based on the record event, rather than average, etc, is suspect.


Why don't we count with all of the mass-knife or mass-sword killings (defined as 4 or more) in America in the past 10 years.

And then we'll compare those numbers against the 12 mass-shootings I laid out in my post above.


People in the US use guns, not knives. People in China use knives, not guns. People elsewhere use bombs, or arson, or poison...there are cultural factors here.

Again, you are deliberately framing things to reach a specific conclusion, not to actually examine anything. Nobody here is arguing that people in the US do NOT shoot each other...but there is nothing intrinsically different about a person in the US, Norway, China, England wherever. What one can do, another can do.

Look, if you want to demonstrate that a gun ban would save lives, you probably want to look at casualties in the AVERAGE event for each, and assume that people will switch methods to the easier method as a gun ban makes it acquisition harder(good luck with reaching that point in the US, where we all have guns everywhere). Calculate average lives saved by defensive gun use, etc, and subtract that from lives saved, see what the number crunch out to.

But you can't reasonably assume that because we have no mass stabbings now, that will remain constant even with gun bans. Methodologies change over time. They are changing from bombs to guns right *now*.

As an aside, making guns harder to get might reverse that trend, which, given that bombs tend to reach higher totals, might be something else to consider in the cost column.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:09 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:As an aside, making guns harder to get might reverse that trend, which, given that bombs tend to reach higher totals, might be something else to consider in the cost column.


Bombs also get the perpetrators to blow-themselves up. People making bombs also seek demolition experts, which often gets them caught by the FBI. Even a lone-wolf attempting a large-scale bomb attack will be forced to buy tons of fertilizer (or some other chemical), which will set off an FBI investigation.

I'd say its a win if terrorists move towards bombs. That gives the FBI more room to stop the attack.

People in the US use guns, not knives. People in China use knives, not guns. People elsewhere use bombs, or arson, or poison...there are cultural factors here.


Okay. In the world's freest country, where you are free to buy a gun, a knife, and a sword, or a car / truck. What is the weapon of choice for these people?

You don't think that the weapon decision is indicative of anything?

Do you think the Perpetrator would have been able to do as much damage as he did in Pulse Nightclub with a Knife, Sword, or vehicle as he did with his SIG Sauer MCX ?
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:14 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:As an aside, making guns harder to get might reverse that trend, which, given that bombs tend to reach higher totals, might be something else to consider in the cost column.


Bombs also get the perpetrators to blow-themselves up. People making bombs also seek demolition experts, which often gets them caught by the FBI. Even a lone-wolf attempting a large-scale bomb attack will be forced to buy tons of fertilizer (or some other chemical), which will set off an FBI investigation.

I'd say its a win if terrorists move towards bombs. That gives the FBI more room to stop the attack.


As I mentioned up-thread, they are *still* working on implementing that post-Oaklahoma City federal tracking. Government moves slowly.

Some states do keep records, now. So, after the boom, they have the name of individuals who bought a lot to investigate. This seems mostly pointless in the context of mass murderers, who generally don't put a lot of effort into survival anyway.

But hey, it's only been 21 years, and they still haven't managed to handle a mostly-uncontroversial fertilizer regulation. I'm sure banning all guns will go smoothly.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:17 pm UTC

Tyndmyr: you still don't even have a case study for a mass-knife or mass-sword attack for us to discuss or compare/contrast with Pulse.

I'm just asking for a reasonble case study. Not some bullshit pulled from the top of a list from Wikipedia from 1905 or the 1930s. I hope you can trust me to be reasonable with your choice of case-study.

I know there are knife / sword case studies available. But I made a very specific claim, and you seem to be arguing against it. I'm going to remain firm with my statement despite your attempts to deflect me off argument.

But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword and absolutely no formal training. Just no way.


And so far, all you've managed to tell me is that someone in Norway has a worse death-count (something about 70+ killed with a firearm). So... yeah... that helps my argument. Not yours.

---------------------

Note that homemade bombs are a technique available to ALL perpetrators in the world. Anybody can mix the right amounts of fertilizer, mix it with some nails for shrapnel and put it in a pressure cooker for extra pressurization. Chinese, British (Irish even), Australian, American. The reason people don't use bombs is because they are dangerous in the hands of the untrained. And most of these assholes are untrained.

Fuck up a bomb, and you kill yourself before the event. Firearms are safer and reliable weapons for the user. Forcing the terrorists to use more dangerous weapons (for themselves) is a win on our part.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25787
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 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:24 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:* Siquijor, 32 deaths, machete, for instance.
Really? Your evidence that this even happened comes, as far as I can tell, from a 111-year-old newspaper article about something that had allegedly happened "many years" earlier. Wikipedia calls it an "unconfirmed event".

Then when called out on the obscurity of that event, you brought up one from 1938 where the guy also had a shotgun. You claim it was primarily the axe but offer nothing to back that claim up.

There have been five shootings with double-digit fatalities in the past five years in the US, and you're bringing up examples from the 1930s and earlier?
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)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:33 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Tyndmyr: you still don't even have a case study for a mass-knife or mass-sword attack for us to discuss or compare/contrast with Pulse.

I'm just asking for a reasonble case study. Not some bullshit pulled from the top of a list from Wikipedia from 1905 or the 1930s. I hope you can trust me to be reasonable with your choice of case-study.

I know there are knife / sword case studies available. But I made a very specific claim, and you seem to be arguing against it. I'm going to remain firm with my statement despite your attempts to deflect me off argument.


You made a case that it was not possible for a single person to kill fifty people with a sword.

Your evidence is only that it has not happened yet. This is pretty crap evidence of impossibility. Perhaps what you *meant* was "guns are bad, m'kay", but your actual argument was terrible.

But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword and absolutely no formal training. Just no way.


And so far, all you've managed to tell me is that someone in Norway has a worse death-count (something about 70+ killed with a firearm). So... yeah... that helps my argument. Not yours.


You have changed around my response with another of your arguments. That response was to your claim the US was better at killing with guns(due to this event).

Note that homemade bombs are a technique available to ALL perpetrators in the world. Anybody can mix the right amounts of fertilizer, mix it with some nails for shrapnel and put it in a pressure cooker for extra pressurization. Chinese, British (Irish even), Australian, American. The reason people don't use bombs is because they are dangerous in the hands of the untrained. And most of these assholes are untrained.

Fuck up a bomb, and you kill yourself before the event. Firearms are safer and reliable weapons for the user. Forcing the terrorists to use more dangerous weapons (for themselves) is a win on our part.


...going into a building and shooting people is also dangerous. People who snap and commit mass murder do not appear to be overly concerned with danger to themselves. If allowed to continue long enough, it appears to be quite frequent that they kill themselves. I doubt that their thoughts are dominated with concerns of risk.

gmalivuk wrote:There have been five shootings with double-digit fatalities in the past five years in the US, and you're bringing up examples from the 1930s and earlier?


....so? That's not relevant to the argument we're having.

He didn't merely claim that guns are selected to kill people more frequently in the US at present. That's obvious. We're literally not discussing that.

We're discussing his ludicrous claim that it is not possible for someone with a sword to kill as many.

And then his equally ludicrous claim that "only in the US are single men so deadly".

And then his claim that US military bases are heavily armed, etc.

In short, I'm pointing out that his arguments are based on speculation and incorrect information. I have even given pointers as to how he might make more accurate, coherent anti-gun arguments. Stop looking at "who is on what side" and consider "is this argument even vaguely valid as written".

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:47 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword and absolutely no formal training. Just no way.


And so far, all you've managed to tell me is that someone in Norway has a worse death-count (something about 70+ killed with a firearm). So... yeah... that helps my argument. Not yours.


You have changed around my response with another of your arguments. That response was to your claim the US was better at killing with guns(due to this event).


And then his equally ludicrous claim that "only in the US are single men so deadly".


I don't recall saying this. And if I did say it, I never meant for it to have this interpretation. Please get rid of this argument, its a distraction.

My argument is about knives / swords violence vs guns. If I did say the above at some point, it was probably a manner of speech with regards to gun violence, and not meant to be taken literally.

Note that homemade bombs are a technique available to ALL perpetrators in the world. Anybody can mix the right amounts of fertilizer, mix it with some nails for shrapnel and put it in a pressure cooker for extra pressurization. Chinese, British (Irish even), Australian, American. The reason people don't use bombs is because they are dangerous in the hands of the untrained. And most of these assholes are untrained.

Fuck up a bomb, and you kill yourself before the event. Firearms are safer and reliable weapons for the user. Forcing the terrorists to use more dangerous weapons (for themselves) is a win on our part.


...going into a building and shooting people is also dangerous. People who snap and commit mass murder do not appear to be overly concerned with danger to themselves. If allowed to continue long enough, it appears to be quite frequent that they kill themselves. I doubt that their thoughts are dominated with concerns of risk.


Killing yourself in your basement because you made a mistake while preparing bomb #6 would go against your plans for sure. Consistently building multiple bombs without blowing yourself up is definitely a problem most terrorists don't seem to want to put themselves in.

Especially when obtaining a firearm is as simple as walking into a store and waiting about 3-days max.

We're discussing his ludicrous claim that it is not possible for someone with a sword to kill as many.


I've done fencing and have participated in some low-level martial arts stuff. I'm not necessarily saying that I'm an expert with swords, but I know how they work: poke them with the pointy end. I've also used shotguns and rifles for sport shooting. I'm not any good at it, but I get the concept. Shoot them with the blasty end.

This is my core argument. So I'd appreciate it if you attacked it more. Do you really think that swords would be as effective as a gun for mass murder? Do you have any case studies or news articles that we can use as a case study?

And perhaps my conditions earlier were bad. Here are my real conditions: no bullshit. 1905 articles and 1930s era shotgun attacks do not count as a "sword being used for mass murder". Lay out your argument. It is impossible for either of us to discuss this issue until you bring up a case-study that demonstrates your point.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:00 pm UTC

You're really, really intent on using this topic to argue about gun control, and really want me to defend some ridiculous strawman.

I do not care about the argument you wish me to defend.

However, I care a great deal about people using hyperbole instead of actual arguments, and who accept supporting the right side as a substitute for logic.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You're really, really intent on using this topic to argue about gun control, and really want me to defend some ridiculous strawman.


Perhaps because a legally purchased gun was used to kill 50 people and injure 53. I stand by my core statement. You're welcome to attack it whenever you want to.

But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword and absolutely no formal training. Just no way.


If you want me to add some qualifications to that so that its more 'sane' for you. Then perhaps this is better:

But a single man will not be able to slaughter 50 people in a crowded room and injure another 53 when only armed with a sword in a short period of time... with very little training or preparation (ex: within a few days after acquiring said weapon).

And once again, if you dispute this, please use some news event that "isn't bullshit", like your first examples (Murdering 30+ people with a shotgun as one of your examples?? That's hardly an indicator of modern sword violence and you know it. )

-----------

I 100% expect terrorists to move onto other weapons should a gun ban take place. Vehicular manslaughter, Swords (or Machetes), and Knives come to mind immediately. Maybe Crossbows. Or Bombs. But there's a reason why guns are the preferred weapon of choice. Bombs seem like a close 2nd but due to the dangers of creating your own bombs, I would prefer terrorists risk blowing themselves up with bombs rather than them safely buying a gun in 3 days or less.

Or you know... be like the San Bernadino shooters and make many, many bombs. None of which actually worked at all.

The fact of the matter is that bomb-making is a more limited skill than puling a trigger on a relatively cheap weapon.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sardia and 29 guests