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
ucim
Posts: 5568
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 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:05 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Perhaps because a legally purchased gun was used to kill 50 people and injure 53.
This was a tragic event. It should be illegal to kill and injure that many people at once.

But you seem to be arguing that it should be impossible to do so.

Are you?

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
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

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

Postby Lucrece » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:44 am UTC

elasto wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Nope. Note, state sanctioned.

Not sure how relevant that is: There is only one Jewish state, and it happens through an accident of history not to support violence against homosexuals currently. But there are plenty of Christian and Atheist states that support violence against homosexuals. You'd have us think that we could therefore deduce from them whether or not Christianity or Atheism supports violence against homosexuals - which is obviously a non-sequitur.

The truth is, poverty, lack of education, lack of democratic accountability and so on correlate with violence much more so than which religion happens to dominate. Which is why a country like Turkey has a better record than a country like Russia, say, despite Turkey being predominantly Muslim and Russia being nominally Christian.

If Israel were a poor, badly educated, non-democratic third-world country it might very well have state sanctioned violence against homosexuals. That wouldn't tell us anything about whether Judaism was more or less homophobic than Islam though. Since, as has been stated, neither are monolithic entities.



Can you people stop bringing up Turkey when in the very beginning pages of this thread I just dug up several polls and linked studies on Turkey's opinion and treatment of LGBT?

Saudi Arabia's upper echelons set the laws for their country. They are filthy rich. They've decided the penalty of death is appropriate for homosexuality, if lashings aren't enough. So do the United Arab Emirates. Qatar demands 1-3 year imprisonment. Democratic accountability would likely make many of these penalties and their enforcement WORSE, considering the monarchs and other autocrats are often even ahead of the populace in these issues (by their miserable standards, at least).

Stop floating this bullshit that prejudice and violence is caused at the root by poverty and neglect. PhD's from ivy leagues, the very definition of privileged, have joined ISIS and other such organizations. The wealthy ruling political families in India have kept homosexuality illegal.

Colombia, third world, no state sanctioned violence of LGBT. In fact, gay marriage is legal there. Same applies to Uruguay, Argentina, South Africa (which has its own shares of troubles and deep social stratification), Mexico....you get the picture.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:22 am UTC

How is this even a discussion. If people are choosing to carry out attacks with assault rifles, its because they think assault rifles are the best tool for their purposes because of reasons that they have. Take that tool away from them and then they are forced to go to their second choice of tool with which to cause harm on society.

If someone wants to cause harm on society, not allowing them to use their tool of first preference, is a good thing.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

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

Postby Deva » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:58 am UTC

Rounded up additional information.
Source1 wrote:--School records that reveal he was in constant trouble as early as elementary school and throughout high school
--Law enforcement academy documents that reported he asked a fellow recruit in 2007 whether the classmate would report him if he brought a gun to school. The shooter, who also was caught sleeping in class several times, was later dismissed.
--Sources who told CNN the shooter in recent months apparently had made financial arrangements for his family, such as adding his wife to his life insurance and getting her access to his bank accounts.

Strayed down the wrong path long ago, most likely.

Nabbed sections from the next two articles. Spoilered them for length still.
Source2 wrote:
Spoiler:
William Winkler, 30, of Orlando was a classmate of Mateen’s at Mariposa Elementary, where his mother taught Mateen in fourth and fifth grades.

Winkler recalled Mateen taking other kids’ toys and acting like a bully, especially toward girls. Winkler said that Mateen acted superior to others and that teachers had great difficulty with him.

“I do remember the teachers at the school wanting to get him help desperately, as he was just such an angry kid,” said Winkler, who remembered Mateen having few friends. He was not sure whether Mateen was ever diagnosed with any learning difficulties but remembers him frequently requiring one-on-one tutoring with teachers.

“My mom tried to speak with his parents about him being angry, but they were very dismissive,” Winkler said.

Mateen’s father dropped his son off at school every day, Winkler said, and he had a reputation for being disrespectful of female teachers and dismissive of complaints about his son.


On Sept. 11, 2001, Mateen was 14 and a sophomore at the Spectrum alternative school, a campus in Stuart, Fla., for students with behavioral issues.
Months earlier, he had been expelled from Martin County High School for a fight with another student in math class, public records show. He was charged with battery and disturbing school functions. Officials declined to prosecute, but Mateen later listed the incident on job applications as an adult.


After watching the second tower get hit on a classroom TV, Mateen stood up and claimed that Osama bin Laden was his uncle, said the classmate, whose account was corroborated by others.

“Back then, we didn’t even really know who Osama bin Laden was,” he said. “But he talked about shooting AK-47s. . . . He said he shot them and his uncle taught him how to shoot them.”


Mateen’s father was called and came to pick him up. “I remember his dad walking up,” the classmate said. “And in the courtyard in front of everyone, the dad slapped him right across the face.”

“He was brutally bullied,” said Justin Delancy, who said he rode the school bus with Mateen for several years. “He was a chubby kid and got bullied about his weight. He was probably one of the only kids of [Afghan] descent. That made him stand out a bit as well.”

“He was eccentric,” Delancy said. “He was just one of those guys that people wanted to bully because he was a pushover. He’d try to get a seat [on the bus]. Couldn’t get a seat. Someone would slap him on back of head. He’d try to joke and laugh and make fun of himself to get the attention off of himself. But it didn’t work.”

Those who knew Mateen then said they saw nothing to suggest that he was especially religious or observant of his Muslim faith. One recalled going to Mateen’s house and being surprised to see Mateen pull out a mat and pray.

Addis Wilson, a classmate at Martin County High, said Mateen played football for a short time and was a “typical high school kid,” Martin said. “I never saw signs of religious stuff. Never dressed a certain way. Never said anything homophobic.”

Kenneth Winstanley, a friend of Mateen’s in junior high and high school, said he never saw signs of an extremist ideology and did not believe Mateen could have celebrated 9/11.

“I know Omar liked America,’’ he said. “Omar explained the Muslim religion to me. He didn’t go crazy into it. It was just some of the things his culture does, the food they eat. Nothing radical Islam at all.’


But in private, there were signs of domestic discord. In December 2002, the elder Mateen called police to report that during an argument, his wife had cursed at him, pulled his hair and pinched his bicep, leaving a red mark, according to a police report. Shahla Mateen was charged with domestic battery, but officials declined to prosecute.


((Context: 2006.))
At the same time, Mateen changed his name. His birth name, Omar Mir Seddique, followed Afghan tradition and means “Omar, son of Seddique.” But in August 2006, he went to court and legally added the ¬Mateen surname to the end of his name, more in keeping with modern Afghan and American style.

Mateen was also quickly starting to transform himself physically.

Friends at the time said the chubby teenager, who stood just under 6 feet tall, was working out constantly and starting to add massive amounts of muscle — with a little help from chemical “juice.”

Margaret Barone, a former manager of the GNC where Mateen worked in 2006, recalled Mateen as a sweet young employee who always called her “Miss Margaret.” She said she and other employees always assumed Mateen was gay.

She remembered Mateen and other employees talking about drugs they had taken and Mateen saying that he had taken ecstasy. Barone recalled another employee, an assistant manager who was also Muslim, becoming upset after going out with Mateen a few times and seeing him drink to the point of blacking out.

“He said he didn’t like the things Omar was doing,” she said. “He says to me: ‘He gets too crazy. He blacks out. He starts fighting. He didn’t care whether he got beat up or killed, the way he was acting.’ ”


In one glowing letter of recommendation, Port St. Lucie police officer Steven J. Brown, who said he knew Mateen from his days working at Gold’s Gym and GNC, wrote that Mateen’s character was “beyond reproach” and his “judgment, work ethic, sensibility, and problem solving are impeccable.”


The classmate, who is gay but was not out yet in 2006, said he and Mateen and other classmates would sometimes go to gay nightclubs after classes. On one such evening, the classmate said, Mateen asked him whether he was gay, which he denied.

“He said, ‘Well if you were gay, you would be my type.’ I said okay and just went on with the night,” said the classmate, who was not identified by the newspaper. “It was not anything too crazy, but I take that as a pickup line.”

Paints two different pictures. Suspects one face towards friends and another towards others.

Source3 wrote:
Spoiler:
I met Omar for the first time in 2006 at an iftar meal at my brother-in-law’s house. As the women, including his mother and sisters, chatted in the living room, I sat with the men on the patio and got to know him and his father. Omar broke his Ramadan fast with a protein shake. He was quiet — then and always — and let his dad do the talking.


Partly, he was upset at what he saw as racism in the United States – against Muslims and others. When he worked as a security guard at the St. Lucie County Courthouse, he told me visitors often made nasty or bigoted remarks to him about Islam. He overheard people saying ugly things about African Americans, too. Since Sept. 11, I’ve thought the only way to answer Islamophobia was to be polite and kind; the best way to counter all the negativity people were seeing on TV about Islam was by showing them the opposite. I urged Omar to volunteer and help people in need – Muslim or otherwise (charity is a pillar of Islam). He agreed, but was always very worked up about this injustice.


((Context: Refers to Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha. Became a suicide bomber. Self-radicalized through Anwar al-Awlaki’s lectures.))
After my talk with the FBI, I spoke to people in the Islamic community, including Omar, abut Moner’s attack. I wondered how he could have radicalized. Both Omar and I attended the same mosque as Moner, and the imam never taught hate or radicalism. That’s when Omar told me he had been watching videos of Awlaki, too, which immediately raised red flags for me. He told me the videos were very powerful.
After speaking with Omar, I contacted the FBI again to let them know that Omar had been watching Awlaki’s tapes.

Plays up their sense of justice. May have pursued law enforcement for that reason.

Released an event rundown of the shooting. Noticed nothing particularly new. Omitted the specific allegiance originally. Restored most instances.
Source4 wrote:
Spoiler:
ORLANDO—In order to provide an update on the progress of the investigation into the Pulse nightclub shooting, the FBI is releasing an excerpt from the timeline of events inside the Pulse nightclub during the early morning hours of Sunday, June 12, 2016. Out of respect for the victims of this horrific tragedy, law enforcement will not be releasing audio of the shooter’s 911 calls at this time, nor will law enforcement be releasing audio or transcripts of the calls made by victims at the Pulse nightclub during the incident. (See joint statement from DOJ.)

The following is based on Orlando Police Department (OPD) radio communication (times are approximate):
- 2:02 a.m.: OPD call transmitted multiple shots fired at Pulse nightclub.
- 2:04 a.m.: Additional OPD officers arrived on scene.
- 2:08 a.m.: Officers from various law enforcement agencies made entrance to Pulse and engaged the shooter.
- 2:18 a.m.: OPD SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) initiated a full call-out.
- 2:35 a.m.: Shooter contacted a 911 operator from inside Pulse. The call lasted approximately 50 seconds, the details of which are set out below:

Orlando Police Dispatcher (OD)
Omar Mateen (OM)
OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.
OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent [Arabic]
OD: What?
OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [Arabic]. I wanna let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.
OD: What’s your name?
OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.
OD: Ok, What’s your name?
OM: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.
OD: Alright, where are you at?
OM: In Orlando.
OD: Where in Orlando?
[End of call.]

(Shortly thereafter, the shooter engaged in three conversations with OPD’s Crisis Negotiation Team.)
- 2:48 a.m.: First crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately nine minutes.
- 3:03 a.m.: Second crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately 16 minutes.
- 3:24 a.m.: Third crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately three minutes.

In these calls, the shooter, who identified himself as an Islamic soldier, told the crisis negotiator that he was the person who pledged his allegiance to [omitted], and told the negotiator to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq and that is why he was “out here right now.” When the crisis negotiator asked the shooter what he had done, the shooter stated, “No, you already know what I did.” The shooter continued, stating, “There is some vehicle outside that has some bombs, just to let you know. You people are gonna get it, and I’m gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid.” Later in the call with the crisis negotiator, the shooter stated that he had a vest, and further described it as the kind they “used in France.” The shooter later stated, “In the next few days, you’re going to see more of this type of action going on.” The shooter hung up and multiple attempts to get in touch with him were unsuccessful.

- 4:21 a.m.: OPD pulled an air conditioning unit out of a Pulse dressing room window for victims to evacuate.

(While the FBI will not be releasing transcripts of OPD communication with victims, significant information obtained from those victims allowed OPD to gain knowledge of the situation inside Pulse.)

- 4:29 a.m.: As victims were being rescued, they told OPD the shooter said he was going to put four vests with bombs on victims within 15 minutes.
(An immediate search of the shooter’s vehicle on scene and inside Pulse ultimately revealed no vest or improvised explosive device.)
- 5:02 a.m.: OPD SWAT and OCSO Hazardous Device Team began to breach wall with explosive charge and armored vehicle to make entry.
- 5:14 a.m.: OPD radio communication stated that shots were fired.
- 5:15 a.m.: OPD radio communication stated that OPD engaged the suspect and the suspect was reported down.

Based on OPD radio communications, there were no reports of shots being fired inside Pulse between the initial exchange of gunfire between responding officers and shooter, and the time of the final breach. During this time, the shooter communicated with an OPD 911 operator and an OPD crisis negotiator, and OPD radio communications reported that victims were being rescued.

Cited bombings in Iraq and Syria as their reason. Questions how much to believe still.
_______________

Revises previous thoughts. Dealt with anger issues early on. May have learned it at home. Coupled poorly with being bullied, both for weight and being Muslim. Attempted to change both in 2006. Fixed the former. Could not escape "just some of the things his culture does, the food they eat", though. Nearly exploded in 2007. Removed them from that school first, however.

Detailed less over the following years. Married, divorced, and remarried. Discovered a new (and in some ways, old) outlet for anger, perhaps. Witnessed continued discrimination against Muslims, both foreign and domestic. Hated watching their story repeat in others (possibly especially their child). Presumes killing people with kindness failed (if ever tried). Opted for the ubiquitous solution: violence. Knew the final outcome, of course. Accepted the role of sacrifice. Prepared their family for a life without them.

Could have assumed too much again. Still feels incomplete too. Cannot explain the target. Why there? Familiarity? Low likelihood of Muslims? A high nighttime population? Guilt?
Changes its form depending on the observer.

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:25 am UTC

Witnessed continued discrimination against Muslims, both foreign and domestic. Hated watching their story repeat in others (possibly especially their child).


Cannot explain the target. Why there?


Of all the unknowns in this story, target selection isn't one of them. Because he is a homophobic cunt? Violence against homosexuals is normalised?

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

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:31 am UTC

ucim wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Perhaps because a legally purchased gun was used to kill 50 people and injure 53.
This was a tragic event. It should be illegal to kill and injure that many people at once.

But you seem to be arguing that it should be impossible to do so.


It should be harder to do so than it is today. Everything is a gradient, I rarely argue in absolutes.

FOUR proposals were shutdown today which would have made it illegal to give guns to people on various lists. One was utterly ridiculous and I was against it (IIRC, the list was with

But there was a very moderate discussion about simply restricting people on the no-fly-list and a few other lists, which constitute fewer than 3000 Americans. Furthermore, the proposal had mechanisms which forced the FBI to pay for attorney fees of anyone who was hampered by the rule due to a mistake from the FBI.

Lets put it this way: under current law, the background check system of the USA is utterly broken. Not only in the sense of the "gun show loophole", but if everything goes "right" (as what happens here in Orlando), even someone on the no-fly list (a list of fewer than 2000 people) who is strongly suspected to be a terrorist is still 100% allowed to buy a gun.

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

I guess in this case, the point is moot though since the FBI stopped investigating Omar. But a few common-sense proposals (such as the one above) should be pushed forward. Fixing the system and making it reasonable through incremental steps is still progress.

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

In any case, if we were to ban the guns that seem to be used in these kinds of attacks, I think that'd be a good thing. I'm leaning closer to the assault weapon ban (provided that a good definition of "assault weapon" can be defined).
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

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

Postby Deva » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:01 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Of all the unknowns in this story, target selection isn't one of them. Because he is a homophobic cunt? Violence against homosexuals is normalised?

Gives high odds to being homosexual. Frequented that nightclub for years. Also, from previous sources:
She said she and other employees always assumed Mateen was gay.

Mateen hung out at the mall with an openly gay former classmate, Samuel King, and many of King’s gay friends.

“He had to know [we were gay], but I never got any sense of homophobia or aggression from him,” King said.

From as early as his days at Indian River Community College, some friends and co-workers wondered whether Mateen was gay. Some simply assumed it.

One former classmate at the college told the Palm Beach Post that he believed Mateen was gay and that Mateen once tried to pick him up at a bar.

The classmate, who is gay but was not out yet in 2006, said he and Mateen and other classmates would sometimes go to gay nightclubs after classes. On one such evening, the classmate said, Mateen asked him whether he was gay, which he denied.

“He said, ‘Well if you were gay, you would be my type.’ I said okay and just went on with the night,” said the classmate, who was not identified by the newspaper. “It was not anything too crazy, but I take that as a pickup line.”

But a number of men have told media outlets in the past week that they traded messages with Mateen on gay dating apps such as Jack’d.

One Orlando man, Cord Cedeno, 23, told The Post that Mateen reached out to him on Grindr, another gay dating app.

Other Source wrote: The ex-wife of Orlando mass killer Omar Mateen claimed Monday that she believed he was homosexual.

Versus their father.
The elder Mateen has expressed strict conservative views about homosexuality, posting a video on his Facebook page saying that “God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality. This is not for the servants” of God.

Seddique Mateen said he didn’t believe his son was gay, telling reporters, “I don’t believe he was a whatever-you-call-it.”

He said his son Mateen had become enraged a few months earlier at the sight of a pair of gay men being affectionate with each other.
Changes its form depending on the observer.

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:05 am UTC

Homosexuals often make the worst homophobes. Considering how homophobic he was, its really not surprising that the target of his violence was a gay night club.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4384
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

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

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:08 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:In any case, if we were to ban the guns that seem to be used in these kinds of attacks, I think that'd be a good thing. I'm leaning closer to the assault weapon ban (provided that a good definition of "assault weapon" can be defined).


I'm not a gun person, so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about here, but couldn't you just define assault rifles as, say, guns that fire bullets at a rate of greater than X bullets/minute or with a muzzle velocity greater than Y mph, for some sensible values of X and Y? This seems easier and more straightforward than a lot of the definitions I've heard floating around.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

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

Postby Deva » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:14 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Homosexuals often make the worst homophobes. Considering how homophobic he was, its really not surprising that the target of his violence was a gay night club.

Please elaborate. How were they homophobic?
Changes its form depending on the observer.

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:45 am UTC

Deva wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Homosexuals often make the worst homophobes. Considering how homophobic he was, its really not surprising that the target of his violence was a gay night club.

Please elaborate. How were they homophobic?


Woah. Are you actually positing the idea, that someone can go to a gay establishment, for the express purpose of killing gay people, and not be homophobic?

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

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:49 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:In any case, if we were to ban the guns that seem to be used in these kinds of attacks, I think that'd be a good thing. I'm leaning closer to the assault weapon ban (provided that a good definition of "assault weapon" can be defined).


I'm not a gun person, so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about here, but couldn't you just define assault rifles as, say, guns that fire bullets at a rate of greater than X bullets/minute or with a muzzle velocity greater than Y mph, for some sensible values of X and Y? This seems easier and more straightforward than a lot of the definitions I've heard floating around.


Not really. A big component of something like an AR-15 is the accuracy that comes with the long-gun. The AR-15 is also modular as all hell, with components that you can mix-and-match to your liking. X bullets/minute is already regulated to some degree. Fully-automatic machine guns are severely restricted and hard to get for a civilian.

Muzzle velocity is also weird, due to the potential of high-velocity rounds and whatnot. So its not like a single gun has a consistent muzzle velocity or anything. All in all, its difficult to differentiate a hunting rifle / shotgun from something like the AR-15 using muzzle-velocity alone.

I mean, the best definition may very well be "Whatever ISIS is recommending on their Facebook page". The FBI definitely keeps tabs on ISIS propaganda and Al Qaeda's "Inspire" magazine. We know the guns that these guys are recommending on Facebook for mass shootings.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

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

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:01 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Woah. Are you actually positing the idea, that someone can go to a gay establishment, for the express purpose of killing gay people, and not be homophobic?
I didn't assume the Aurora shooter was a film critic.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:11 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Woah. Are you actually positing the idea, that someone can go to a gay establishment, for the express purpose of killing gay people, and not be homophobic?
I didn't assume the Aurora shooter was a film critic.


I get the impression you are trying to communicate but, its just not working.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

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

Postby Deva » Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:13 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Woah. Are you actually positing the idea, that someone can go to a gay establishment, for the express purpose of killing gay people, and not be homophobic?

Challenged "for the express purpose of killing gay people". Echoes Copper Bezel's comment. (Thought about using various school shootings as anti-education. Never delved into those motives, though.) Reported no homophobic behavior besides one remark from their homophobic (and possibly violent) father.
Changes its form depending on the observer.

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:17 am UTC

Deva wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Woah. Are you actually positing the idea, that someone can go to a gay establishment, for the express purpose of killing gay people, and not be homophobic?

Challenged "for the express purpose of killing gay people".


I feel like I am Alice in wonderland. Why do you think he went there with an assault rifle?!

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3544
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 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:03 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:

FOUR proposals were shutdown today which would have made it illegal to give guns to people on various lists. One was utterly ridiculous and I was against it (IIRC, the list was with

But there was a very moderate discussion about simply restricting people on the no-fly-list and a few other lists, which constitute fewer than 3000 Americans. Furthermore, the proposal had mechanisms which forced the FBI to pay for attorney fees of anyone who was hampered by the rule due to a mistake from the FBI.

Lets put it this way: under current law, the background check system of the USA is utterly broken. Not only in the sense of the "gun show loophole", but if everything goes "right" (as what happens here in Orlando), even someone on the no-fly list (a list of fewer than 2000 people) who is strongly suspected to be a terrorist is still 100% allowed to buy a gun.



Turns out, due process is a thing in this country, you can't actually violate guaranteed rights based on suspicions, thoughtcrime or having a suspicious name. The 'terrorist watch list' is extremely specious and unconstitutional even for its alleged purpose.

I guess in this case, the point is moot though since the FBI stopped investigating Omar. But a few common-sense proposals (such as the one above) should be pushed forward. Fixing the system and making it reasonable through incremental steps is still progress.


This case is emblematic of the whole mess. No mass shooter in recent memory would have been stopped by any proposed anti-gun legislation.

In any case, if we were to ban the guns that seem to be used in these kinds of attacks, I think that'd be a good thing. I'm leaning closer to the assault weapon ban (provided that a good definition of "assault weapon" can be defined).


So called 'assault weapons' aren't proportionally represented in mass-shootings. They're consistently among the best selling civilian firearms, but are represented in less than half of mass-shootings and are barely represented at all in other violent crime statistics. Pistols, shotguns and rifles lacking 'assault' features make up the majority of firearms used in mass shootings. 'Assault weapons' aren't even exceptionally deadly when used in mass shootings, the V-tech shooter used a pistol with one standard capacity magazine and a backpack full of restricted capacity magazines, the Oslo shooter used a hunting rifle.

I've said before, the deadliest firearm in American history is probably the humble .38 caliber snub-nose revolver.
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 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:08 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Turns out, due process is a thing in this country, you can't actually violate guaranteed rights based on suspicions, thoughtcrime or having a suspicious name.


Yeah, the issue here isn't with the due process part. But the fact that one of the guaranteed rights, at least as view by the result of the world, is extremely stupid. Which sort of made sense back in the 18th century but has no place in the 21st.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3544
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 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:43 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:Turns out, due process is a thing in this country, you can't actually violate guaranteed rights based on suspicions, thoughtcrime or having a suspicious name.


Yeah, the issue here isn't with the due process part. But the fact that one of the guaranteed rights, at least as view by the result of the world, is extremely stupid. Which sort of made sense back in the 18th century but has no place in the 21st.



the ACLU disagrees
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

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 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 11:57 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:I feel like I am Alice in wonderland. Why do you think he went there with an assault rifle?!


Are you being intentionally obtuse? He definitely went there to kill a large number of people. Now, the question is whether he went there specifically because there were a lot of gay people there, or just because there were a lot of people in general. There were articles mentioning he had scoped our Disney Land as well which, if true, is a strike against the purely homophobic angle. Since reports had him frequenting that night club for years prior, it could easily have been chosen for his familiarity of the place as well.

There just doesn't seem to be much evidence that supports that aside from one anecdote from his homophobic father. The rest of the evidence/testimony we have from people tend to show, at least in the past, that he didn't seem to display any homophobic tendencies. Now, granted, that was the past and something more recently could certainly have changed, driving him to be more of a homophobe. I haven't seen any evidence of that though.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
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 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 11:59 am UTC

The ACLU makes a clear distinction between guns and the other things in the Bill of Rights. They seem to be arguing against the lack of due process, rather than in favor of the NRA's ahistorical interpretation of the second ammendment in particular.

@Chen, were you also one of those people who kept arguing that Dylan Roof was just anti-religious and his choice of a black church for his mass shooting was just a coincidence?
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 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:37 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:@Chen, were you also one of those people who kept arguing that Dylan Roof was just anti-religious and his choice of a black church for his mass shooting was just a coincidence?


No, especially considering the evidence at the time definitely pointed towards a racial motivation for Roof, rather than a religious one. In fact I'd make the same argument I am here if people actually started saying that Dylan Roof did it based on religious reasons. There was no evidence showing he chose a church in particular, except he knew there'd be black people (his actual targets) there. The evidence that has come forth for Mateen don't seem to show any real homophobic leanings, and in fact tend to show he was fairly comfortable interacting/socializing with homosexual people. Now I am willing to accept that perhaps his views did change more recently, especially if he had become more radicalized (as it appears from the released transcripts).

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

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

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:49 pm UTC

He was (for whatever reason of his prior visits) quite familiar with Pulse. He will have known the layout intimately enough to not have to worry too much about being surprised by counter-attacks through hidden service-entrances behind him, nor inadvertently herding intended hostages out of an exit and losing them.

Rather than 'classic' homophobia, I think self-loathing was the trigger. He felt one thing, whilst indoctrinated to believe another. The tensions, perhaps due to certain individuals that he may have targeted for (unknowingly?) slighting the other side of his compartmentalised life, then snapped (or an escalating discontent, that he had knowingly prepared for, breached a nominal threshold) and he knew that particular barrel of fish intimately.

But we can't ask him what his base purpose was, only theorise and attempt to deduce.

(Not replying to Chen, who ninjaed me.)

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:37 pm UTC

The evidence that has come forth for Mateen don't seem to show any real homophobic leanings, and in fact tend to show he was fairly comfortable interacting/socializing with homosexual people.


A gay man struggling to come to terms with his own sexuality, embedded in a culture that is inherently homophobic. No, I don't suppose that would have any effect at all on how he views gay people or intensify his own homophobia. And that he picked a gay establishment was pure coincidence on his part. Simply pure coincidence I am sure.

Just FYI, coming to terms with ones own sexuality can be a pretty fucking awfully difficult journey. And if you know your own family, culture and friends would reject you if you were ever to be honest and open about it, that can seriously fuck with someones psyche.

EDIT:
He felt one thing, whilst indoctrinated to believe another.


This is classic homophobia or at the very least, a subset of classic homophobia. We tend to hate other people when they display the characteristics that we hate within ourselves. Gay people often make the worst homophobes.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5568
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 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:47 pm UTC

Edited for quote misattribution. Sorry about that BattleMoose.

KnightExemplar wrote:
ucim wrote:...should it be impossible...?
It should be harder to do so than it is today. Everything is a gradient, I rarely argue in absolutes.
Your argument here sounds like an emotionally driven absolute. Given that I misattributed the quote, I retract the accusation. However, there do seem to be emotionally driven absolutes being thrown around.
KnightExemplar wrote:But there was a very moderate discussion about simply restricting people on the no-fly-list
There are a few problems with this, not the least of which is the "all things remaining equal" fallacy. First of all, the no-fly list is (AFAIK) a list of suspects, not a list of convicts. It gets more than a little problematic in a supposedly free country to pile on restrictions of freedom based on suspicion. Besides the ethical issues, it leads to otherwise legitimate laws being misused for political and supressive purposes. Just consider the racketeering laws, the DCMA, laws enabling mass surveillance... the list isn't endless but it's very long and quite disturbing.
KnightExemplar wrote:I guess in this case, the point is moot though since the FBI stopped investigating Omar. But a few common-sense proposals (such as the one above) should be pushed forward.
"Common sense" is the word we use to justify horribly misguided practices and prejudice. Why should laws like this be pushed forward when they would be ineffective at best?
KnightExemplar wrote:In any case, if we were to ban the guns that seem to be used in these kinds of attacks, I think that'd be a good thing.
If the guns were made illegal, then the attacker would use illegal guns. The bullets don't care. The underlying problem isn't the gun, it's the person behind it, who would just get behind something else, since their desire for mass murder is unabated, and there are plenty of other ways to accomplish the task.
BattleMoose wrote:Are you actually positing the idea, that someone can go to a gay establishment, for the express purpose of killing gay people, and not be homophobic?
Is that what happened? It's quite clear that the purpose was to kill large numbers of people, but it's not clear that the fact that they were gay was important beyond the fact that it was a gathering place.
KnightExemplar wrote:I mean, the best definition [of guns we should ban] may very well be "Whatever ISIS is recommending on their Facebook page".
That's sweet. Let's let ISIS determine how our laws should be written.
BattleMoose wrote:Yeah, the issue here isn't with the due process part. But the fact that one of the guaranteed rights, at least as view by the result of the world, is extremely stupid. Which sort of made sense back in the 18th century but has no place in the 21st.
I hate to bring this up, but we may actually need these guns to take back the country from a dictatorship we are very close to electing. The parallels to 1930s Germany are too close to ignore, and while some circumstances are not as bad as that era, others are far more dangerously horrible. Now yes, the US has many checks and balances in our government, and if the presumptive Republican candidate is actually elected, I expect that his more tyrannical aspects would be kept in sufficient check for four years and we will escape the fate of the Wiemar republic, but given how his campaign has progressed, how much hate and resentment he is tapping into, and how his opponents keep seeming to fall in line behind him, this is far from certain.

No - that "stupid" guaranteed right is not there for nothing - it's there because the United States was created out of an escape from tyranny, and the founding fathers wanted to ensure that tyranny would not recur. Tyranny doesn't disappear because "18" changes to "21" in the century number. In fact, it becomes even stronger and deadlier. Eternal vigilance is required to maintain freedom, and vigilance against tyranny is dangerous - because tyranny is dangerous. You can't wish that away.

Disarming the populace always sounds nice, like rainbows and ponies. The reality is that you can't disarm the bad guys - they are the ones doing the disarming. That's why you can never disarm the good guys either, no matter how sweet it sounds.

Jose
Last edited by ucim on Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
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.

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:53 pm UTC

Many of those quotes are miss attributed to me. Please fix.


Spoiler:
I hate to bring this up, but we may actually need these guns to take back the country from a dictatorship we are very close to electing.


The USA army is so massive and technically advanced with so many different machines of war, that the idea that a force comprising of civilians brandishing small arms could defeat it is just so asinine. If a portion of the USA is part of the revolution then you don't need civilians brandishing small arms. Its just so absurd and off topic.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10135
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:00 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
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.


Yup. And if he'd been found guilty of anything in the investigations, he'd not have been able to. It is deeply unfortunate that he wasn't identified as a genuine threat, but...restricting rights based on mere suspicion, or even if found innocent is a kind of troublesome thing to propose. And the actual proposals all center around some variation of this.

Look, we shouldn't overlearn fear of Islamophobia, but we also shouldn't err on the side of authoritarian stripping of rights from people, merely because we view them as "suspicious". Either impulsive reaction is dangerous, and potentially harmful.

BattleMoose wrote:How is this even a discussion. If people are choosing to carry out attacks with assault rifles, its because they think assault rifles are the best tool for their purposes because of reasons that they have. Take that tool away from them and then they are forced to go to their second choice of tool with which to cause harm on society.

If someone wants to cause harm on society, not allowing them to use their tool of first preference, is a good thing.


The difficult bits are:

1. "assault rifles" functionally, are not different from other rifles.
2. The plans mostly center upon denying firearms to broad swathes of society. People are not upset over mass shooters lacking access. They're upset over the denial of access to *them*.
3. The US has giant piles of firearms. It's hard to conceive of a program that significantly impacts this that isn't ridiculously draconian.

But again, this is straying down the gun control rabbit hole to some degree. And it doesn't fix the problem of someone trying to murder everyone. Reducing access is not the same as eliminating access, and it's difficult to imagine that people will never have access to ANY way to hurt large numbers of other people. Plus, proposed bills are mostly pretty much irrelevant to this instance. And it's not as if mass shooters are always, or even frequently, on watch lists/no fly lists. So, actual effect on averting violence by these bills is probably negligible, but it creates kind of a nasty precedent if you care about due process. Cost/Benefit seems worrisome.

LaserGuy wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:In any case, if we were to ban the guns that seem to be used in these kinds of attacks, I think that'd be a good thing. I'm leaning closer to the assault weapon ban (provided that a good definition of "assault weapon" can be defined).


I'm not a gun person, so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about here, but couldn't you just define assault rifles as, say, guns that fire bullets at a rate of greater than X bullets/minute or with a muzzle velocity greater than Y mph, for some sensible values of X and Y? This seems easier and more straightforward than a lot of the definitions I've heard floating around.


Muzzle velocity is ammo/barrel dependent. Note that the types of firearms used in these shootings are generally comparatively small, in terms of rifles. An AR-15 is usually not legal for deer hunting, because the bullet is too small.

Rounds/minute does not have any reasonable values of x that will significantly impact a mass shooter, and also does not ban essentially everything. Usually, rounds/minute is used to describe rate of fire of machine guns, but none of these weapons are machine guns. Usually, we're talking about semi autos, revolvers, etc. They fire when you pull the trigger, until all ammo is expended. Pull the trigger faster, it shoots faster. Reloading is not difficult, and is rapid.

That said, attempting to look at the problem in a technical fashion is a good step, I think. I do not believe any technical solution exists here, but understanding the problem never hurts.

BattleMoose wrote:
Deva wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Homosexuals often make the worst homophobes. Considering how homophobic he was, its really not surprising that the target of his violence was a gay night club.

Please elaborate. How were they homophobic?


Woah. Are you actually positing the idea, that someone can go to a gay establishment, for the express purpose of killing gay people, and not be homophobic?


Of course they could be. One can postulate scenarios such as a jealous lover, etc. We just don't have a lot of information pointing to such a scenario, so it doesn't seem especially probable given the current evidence.

Though there is light evidence that "they were gay" is not the primary reason. For instance, the report that he also scouted out Disney parks. It may simply be that of the areas he knew of, this had lighter security or some other reason(the mouse is basically fascist).

But it ain't hard for me to believe that homophobia was at least a partial cause. Though, as an aside, homophobia doesn't seem like exactly the right word to describe what it's used to describe. It doesn't usually seem to be like fear. Seems like disgust.

BattleMoose wrote:The USA army is so massive and technically advanced with so many different machines of war, that the idea that a force comprising of civilians brandishing small arms could defeat it is just so asinine. If a portion of the USA is part of the revolution then you don't need civilians brandishing small arms. Its just so absurd and off topic.[/spoiler]


*shrug* People dismiss small arms all the time, but...modern asymmetric warfare basically revolves around the resistance using primarily small arms and improvised weapons. They can and do mount major conflicts against world powers in this way.

Now, ideally, I would hope that we also focus on other civil rights, protections, etc, so we don't have to rely on such a messy, costly method of protecting rights as civil war. However, decreasing things like due process does chip away at those protections.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
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 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:38 pm UTC

@ucim: You repeat the old claim that outlawing guns will just mean murderers use illegal guns (with the implication that they will do so at the same rate), but without evidence to support your claim that guns are different from every *successfully* restricted thing, that's just a baseless bit of propaganda.
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)

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:41 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:*shrug* People dismiss small arms all the time, but...modern asymmetric warfare basically revolves around the resistance using primarily small arms and improvised weapons. They can and do mount major conflicts against world powers in this way.


The thing about asymmetric warfare, or insurrections, is that they can only work, in so far as they make it very uncomfortable for the occupying power, so much so that they don't want to be there anymore and go home. The thing about civil wars is that, going home isn't exactly a viable option. Which is also the reason why violence in civil wars has a horrible way of spiraling out of control. They are extremely difficult to opt out of. And losing is usually the worst case scenario.

Now, ideally, I would hope that we also focus on other civil rights, protections, etc, so we don't have to rely on such a messy, costly method of protecting rights as civil war. However, decreasing things like due process does chip away at those protections.


You didn't consider that its possible to change the USA constitution in accordance with due process? Something to do with amending the constitution?

You might not know this but the rest of the world, literally thinks that the USA policy on guns is utterly insane. The USA is the only country that has such a legal mandate to own guns. The only country who believes that it needs an armed citizenry to protect it from a repressive government, never needing to do so in over 300 years. Also is the country with the most powerful military in the world and is the least capable to overthrow its military by a movement of armed citizenry. There just aren't words.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

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

Postby Deva » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:53 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:I feel like I am Alice in wonderland. Why do you think he went there with an assault rifle?!

Certainly cannot deny anti-gay thoughts. (Listed guilt as a possible reason.) Seemed likely initially. Uncovered zero support since then, however. Considered bringing a firearm to school earlier in life too. Doubts homophobic reasons there.

Alternatively, can you break these?
1. Aimed to kill a large number of people. Cannot easily conceal an AR-15 rifle, however. Risked being spotted before reaching large concentrations of people. Opted for a nighttime operation, consequently. Knew one location where many people gather at night.

2. Specifically attacked gay people for greater publicity. Touched on many political issues by design. Guaranteed political commentary. Spread their message far and wide.

3. Spent time there. Experienced enough hate for being Muslim to finally snap.
Source wrote:In one incident, Mr Callen said Mateen had pulled a knife on a friend after being angered by a religious joke.

Beat out other locations that did not immediately exhibit anti-Muslim behavior.
Changes its form depending on the observer.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3756
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 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:55 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:@ucim: You repeat the old claim that outlawing guns will just mean murderers use illegal guns (with the implication that they will do so at the same rate), but without evidence to support your claim that guns are different from every *successfully* restricted thing, that's just a baseless bit of propaganda.


Are guns somehow different from every *unsuccessfully* restricted thng?
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.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10135
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

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

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:09 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:*shrug* People dismiss small arms all the time, but...modern asymmetric warfare basically revolves around the resistance using primarily small arms and improvised weapons. They can and do mount major conflicts against world powers in this way.


The thing about asymmetric warfare, or insurrections, is that they can only work, in so far as they make it very uncomfortable for the occupying power, so much so that they don't want to be there anymore and go home. The thing about civil wars is that, going home isn't exactly a viable option. Which is also the reason why violence in civil wars has a horrible way of spiraling out of control. They are extremely difficult to opt out of. And losing is usually the worst case scenario.


Yup. Civil wars are freaking awful.

But our military might also rests on the idea of a huuuge industrial base and resupply. We're frigging great against defined armies where we can straightforwardly match our industrial might against theirs. But in any fight that isn't that, well, it gets messy.

One would hope that the prospect of such a mess would serve as a disincentive to go down that route.

Now, ideally, I would hope that we also focus on other civil rights, protections, etc, so we don't have to rely on such a messy, costly method of protecting rights as civil war. However, decreasing things like due process does chip away at those protections.


You didn't consider that its possible to change the USA constitution in accordance with due process? Something to do with amending the constitution?


This isn't merely "it's an amendment", but pointing out that the current proposals would deny firearms to those on various watch or no-fly lists. Lists for which getting on them is not a matter of being found guilty by a court of one's peers.

This strategy represents a more straightforward attack on due process than previous gun control efforts.

You might not know this but the rest of the world, literally thinks that the USA policy on guns is utterly insane. The USA is the only country that has such a legal mandate to own guns. The only country who believes that it needs an armed citizenry to protect it from a repressive government, never needing to do so in over 300 years. Also is the country with the most powerful military in the world and is the least capable to overthrow its military by a movement of armed citizenry. There just aren't words.


I'm aware. US policy on *many* things diverges from the rest of the world. This isn't inherently good or bad. Those are just trends and norms.

However, it is not a mandate to own guns. There are protections for owning firearms, but nobody is mandated to carry firearms.

And in fairness, the reason outlined in the constitution applies to external threats as well. Which, granted, doesn't come up a lot these days, but the idea of firearms for national defense isn't unique to us. The Swiss, for instance, also embraces this concept. How they go about it isn't exactly the same, but the core idea is still there.

Dauric wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:@ucim: You repeat the old claim that outlawing guns will just mean murderers use illegal guns (with the implication that they will do so at the same rate), but without evidence to support your claim that guns are different from every *successfully* restricted thing, that's just a baseless bit of propaganda.


Are guns somehow different from every *unsuccessfully* restricted thng?


Guns are not special in either regard. Guns are just a thing.

How easy it is to restrict something is based on a few things.

How difficult it is to make the thing, for instance. Nuclear bombs, sure. Hard to make, so easier to restrict. Drugs...lots easier to make, and thus we have meth labs everywhere. Guns are super easy to make.

How many are already out there. Something that is not yet common is easier to restrict than something that is. People are going to have more familiarity, and tracking down what's out there is an easier task. The US has a lot of guns.

How many people want the thing. Prohibition of booze mostly failed because people really, really want to get drunk. You can make whatever law you want, but if they've got the ability and the desire, shit's gonna happen. See also, abstinence only sex ed. People in the US fuckin' love guns.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25662
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

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

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:19 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:How is this even a discussion. If people are choosing to carry out attacks with assault rifles,

LaserGuy wrote:I'm not a gun person, so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about here, but couldn't you just define assault rifles as

Tyndmyr wrote:1. "assault rifles" functionally, are not different from other rifles.


Yes, Tyndmyr, they are.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. This is not debatable, this is not in question, this is the international standard. An assault rifle a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. If it does not have all three of those qualities, it is not an assault rifle.

An AR-15 does indeed use a detachable magazine and can indeed fire an intermediate cartridge. It is not capable (off the shelf at least) of selective fire. So an AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

There are kits out there one can purchase to convert an AR-15 to fully automatic fire. Illegality aside, this requires a bit of knowledge - not a lot, but a bit - and has not been utilized in a US shooting as far as I am aware.

Perhaps you mean Assault Weapon, a term that only carries some form of meaning in the US and may have 51 different definitions depending on if you're using the Federal or a particular State's definition. The term assault weapon has no international standard meaning, and depending on what you're using as your definition can include or specifically exclude assault rifles.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, for example, named some rifles explicitly as assault weapons (The AR-15 being named and, no matter what was done to it or how it operated, was therefor an Assault Weapon) and gave a list of characteristics for weapons not explicitly named. For rifles, the weapon had to have a detachable magazine and two or more of the following - Folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor [or barrel designed to accommodate one] and/or a grenade launcher mount. Meaning that a semi-automatic rifle that could fit a 100 round magazine with a pistol grip but was not explicitly named was completely legal with no problems at all, but an AR-15 with a 5 round magazine and no pistol grip was banned.

That's one of the reasons many gun owners and opponents found the ban to be moronic. Because it was. I mean, yes, it was better than nothing, but the criteria was .... absurd and arbitrary.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:23 pm UTC

The Swiss, for instance, also embraces this concept.


No, they don't. While its true that army reservists are required to keep their military issued weapon with them, it is not an armed citizenry. It is militarily trained people, who have their military issued weapon on hand, so should they be called to action, they then form up into military units.

It is so far removed from the untrained armed citizenry of the USA who are somehow expected to, I just don't even.

Its really not a unique concept that army personnel are required to keep their weapon on hand, I know my family members needed to when they were on leave from the South African army.

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

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:25 pm UTC

A side note: "Assault Rifles" are effectively banned for civilian use in the US. "Assault Weapons" are not.

This terminology sucks. I've been writing about "Assault Weapons" but now that I'm rereading posts, it seems like a lot of people were saying "assault rifles" (probably due to the confusing terminology in this discussion). Uggghhhh... I'm pretty sure most people are talking about "Assault Weapons", the vague term that is utter bollocks.

In any case, "Assault Rifles" can be set into fully-automatic mode, which is very, very strictly regulated and are effectively banned since 1986. So yes, it is 100% legal and possible to ban firearms in the USA should the political will be given.

And note that NONE of the 12 shootings I've discussed used machine guns or "assault rifles". They used only the easy-to-get AR15 or similar weapons. This should be taken as proof that the 1986 ban on "assault rifles" is working.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:29 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:29 pm UTC

When it comes to gun bans, I think for the most part, no one really cares about the assault terminology. For the most part I think people just think civilians should not be able to own guns, period. That's the culture here in Australia.

IF you want something for hunting, which is a thing, then, you better be living in the sticks and single round breach loading thing, is the most I think people could agree to.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25662
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

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

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:30 pm UTC

Battlemoose, that's where you're wrong.

As I keep saying to people in various places - if you can't be bothered to learn the difference between Assault Rifle (something very difficult, time consuming, expensive, and invites the Feds to be all up in your business) and Assault Weapon (Definition varies), you will never get a gun rights supporter to even give your argument a second glance.

Ever.

The moment you say anything close to "Assault rifles should be heavily restricted or banned" they stop reading/listening.

Because if you're so ignorant to not already be aware that assault rifles manufactured before 1986 are difficult to get your hands on (and are illegal if manufactured post-1986) then obviously you're ignorant on all the other "facts". And yes, I'm using the term facts loosely there, as they're far more truthiness than truth usually, but nevertheless...

Basically, saying various mass shooters are using Assault Rifles is not unlike saying CSI gets computers 100% correct.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5568
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 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:32 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Many of those quotes are miss attributed to me. Please fix.

Done. Sorry about that. (I'll have to be more careful when manually putting tags in.) (note: most of the quotes I misattributed to BattleMoose were from KnightExemplar)

BattleMoose wrote:The USA army is so massive and technically advanced with so many different machines of war, that the idea that a force comprising of civilians brandishing small arms could defeat it is just so asinine.
It won't start with the army, it will start with the police. And it will start small. And the mere presence of resistance makes it harder. Disarm the public and you don't even need the army to enforce tyranny.

Yes, if it's gone that far, we're ch*rped. But it must never get that far.

There is a price to pay for freedom. It's easy to see what that price is, but if you've lived your whole life with the freedom we have (even as it's being chipped away at bit by bit), it's easy to forget what the price of tyranny is. This is a very young country. It's only been a handful of generations, and already we take its benefits for granted.

gmalivuk wrote:@ucim: You repeat the old claim that outlawing guns will just mean murderers use illegal guns (with the implication that they will do so at the same rate), but without evidence to support your claim that guns are different from every *successfully* restricted thing, that's just a baseless bit of propaganda.
Not necessarily the same rate, but in the same ballpark. What *successfully* restricted things are there, that are so useful in murderous criminal activity?

How successful is our restriction of illegal drugs? And what are the side effects?

KnightExemplar wrote:And note that NONE of the 12 shootings I've discussed used machine guns or "assault rifles". They used only the easy-to-get AR15 or similar weapons. This should be taken as proof that the 1986 ban on "assault rifles" is working.
Or irrelevant.

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.

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

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

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:45 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Battlemoose, that's where you're wrong.


I am saying civilians shouldn't have guns. Period. Assault or any other possible adjective that describes them. I don't care about convincing the crazy folk in the USA about their guns, I don't live in the same country as them. Fortunately for me,the attitude in the country that I live is in agreement with me.

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

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

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:46 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:And note that NONE of the 12 shootings I've discussed used machine guns or "assault rifles". They used only the easy-to-get AR15 or similar weapons. This should be taken as proof that the 1986 ban on "assault rifles" is working.
Or irrelevant.


Your argument is that gun bans do not work, am I right? Where are all the "assault rifles" mass murders today? It looks to me like the assault rifle ban is working.

The last major assault-rifle attack was the LA North Hollywood Attack (at least, the last one that I remember). So it takes over a decade before the gun-ban becomes effective. But indeed, as time went on, AK47s and other "Assault rifles" have become harder and harder to get. Therefore, modern terrorists no longer use Assault rifles and instead opt for easier-to-get weapons.

Even then: the fully-automatic rifles that were used in the North Hollywood Attack were illegally modified. So the attack required a gunsmith... as opposed to a simple purchase of those from a convenient gun store. Making their job more difficult is the goal.

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

ISIS's recommended mode of attack is as follows:

1. Walk into gun store
2. Buy a good weapon
3. Start killing people

This is discussed in ISIS propaganda and Al Qaeda propaganda all the time. So why aren't we doing something to actually hurt their strategy? Can't we at least try to stay ahead of ISIS / Al Qaeda and do something whenever someone comes into a gun store asking for a weapon that's been mentioned in Inspire or something?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests