• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Mass shooting at Orlando gay nightclub [50 dead, 53 injured]

Status
Not open for further replies.
The 'right' to bear arms even in the US isn't a right given that felons are prohibited from owning firearms anyway (and even also prohibited from voting as well). Something being a right would imply all citizens should be entitled to them.

What about other weapons, like airguns, bows, crossbows, knives, swords, slingshots, etc. Should they be banned too because 'nobody really NEEDS a bow, right?' Here in the UK knife crime is a pressing issue. Many thousands die every year to them. Should we ban knives too just because someone might misuse them?

The vast majority of people using bows are going to be hunters, and in most states hunting legally requires the user to take a hunter safety course.
 
This is horrible but whats worst is the disgusting trend in Mexico twitter that says #MoreMassacresLessGays. Absolutely disgusted by this, stay strong USA.
 
I'm sure atheists could also do it, but here are some facts from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36513658



Compare and contrast with the fact that muslims are just 1% of US population. Yet 3 out of 8 of the deadliest shootings of the two last decades were carried out by muslims. Not to mention that small thing that happened a few years ago, what was it called, 9/11? Yeah, I seem to recall that was a bit of a problem too.

And people dare say religion has nothing to do with violence. Pee on my leg and tell me it's raining...

And you know what is common in all shootings both single and mass? Guns.

Considering we had a shooting incident 2 fucking days ago in the same fucking city that wasn't religion-affiliated I'd say the shooting problem extends beyond whatever bullshit people believe in.
 
Ckx8lFlUgAEEE37.jpg


FUCK
I legitimately wish I didn't see this. It's beyond heartbreaking.

Brb, calling my parents to tell them I love them
 
Do you have someone knifing down 50 people dead in a fucking club? Think a little, please.

I was sick when nothing happened after Sandy Hook, and I'll be sick to death when nothing (except more unneeded racism against brown people) gets done. Fuck guns, fuck the NRA, and fuck anyone who still needlessly clings to their guns despite the tragedy of gun culture in America.

You missed the post where I said I supported gun licensing and more gun control in general. I doubt however, that the illiberal practice of just outright banning shit would solve the problem other than making people feel good.
 
No, no we do not. Your constitutional right to bear arms is not absolute; there are limits, restrictions, and prohibitions on that right. We do not need to amend it to add additional restrictions and limitations.

There has never in the history of the country been a limitation on a group of people having or not having a right without due process. Restrictions such as not being able to take a gun into a school do exist.

I was only thinking of the Bill of Rights but the spirit of this statement is not true. Still, I don't think any of us want to go back to the days where women and minorities were second-class citizens.
 
And you know what is common in all shootings both single and mass? Guns.

True, it is incredible that guns are always linked to shootings somehow


Honestly, I'm in favor of moderate gun control. But these events actually don't register as gun control events to me, because I don't think it's going to stop an ISIS-inspired nutjob. ISIS isn't gonna say, "Oh, you can't get guns legally? Well, shit. Okay, nevermind then." Why would France get attacked, otherwise?

The far more compelling gun control argument to me is the everyday shootings between one or two people, the ones that are spontaneous fits of rage.

But planned attacks like these? If not legal guns, it's illegal guns, or it's bombs, or whatever. I view this as a failure of intelligence more than anything else.
 
I know enough about the USA to know that a gun discussion is futile. Oil from water and so on. The US is guns. I know too many responsible gun owners, sorry.

I'd rather talk about the fundamentalist homophone piece of shit who decided it was okay to kill 50 people for no reason. The bigger powder keg is religion.

Who gives a shit about responsible gun ownership? I'm not talking about religion right now, I'm talking about the fact that lax gun control laws are what caused this to happen. The people who consider (before and after) gun control laws to be an infringement on their rights and who pushed to prevent responsible gun laws, like improving background checks and implementing guns with fingerprint identification, are all complicit in these 50 deaths.

can a baby own a gun
 
Sometimes I wish the people who are completely and totally for their "right" to own guns would take a moment in a public, crowded space to imagine pulling out a gun then and there, and killing 50 people. Imagine the terror in their eyes as you end their lives in a violent and brutal manner. Imagine the bodies falling. Imagine the families destroyed.

All because you guys want to feel good about yourself and imagine yourself in some sick, twisted scenario where you are the good guy who stops something bad from happening (a literal impossible scenario in situations like these).

If you're willing to trade the lives of innocent people, including children, just so you can hold a shiny kill machine in your hands, you are an awful human being.

Fuck guns and fuck the people who want them.
 
There has never in the history of the country been a limitation on a group of people having or not having a right without due process. Restrictions such as not being able to take a gun into a school do exist.

Yes there has.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government

Read up on legal interpretation of the second amendment through history - its current application is very recent
 
I'm very interested in how this is being played out in the international media. It seems that at least in Japan the fact that the LGBT community was targeted is being minimized. Many news outlets (Yomiuri, Asahi, JiJi) have articles that report it as just a 'terror attack at a night club'. The ISIS (ISIL) angle is being played hard.

Earlier today on MSNBC there was some official (sorry I forgot) stating that in Europe it was already being compared to the Bataclan attacks. This was before Obama's speech and before many news outlets specifically released the information about previous FBI investigations into him, and before they presented any strong evidence that this was ISIS (ISIL) inspired.

Does anyone have any insight into how this playing out internationally?
 
I'm sure atheists could also do it, but here are some facts from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36513658



Compare and contrast with the fact that muslims are just 1% of US population. Yet 3 out of 8 of the deadliest shootings of the two last decades were carried out by muslims. Not to mention that small thing that happened a few years ago, what was it called, 9/11? Yeah, I seem to recall that was a bit of a problem too.

And people dare say religion has nothing to do with violence. Pee on my leg and tell me it's raining...
What was the reasoning those three Muslims gave for their actions, or what did the authorites say led to their "radicalization"? What was the reasoning the 9/11 plotters gave? Was it political or theological? Be precise as possible.
 
Given the context of the second amendment is explicitly talking about "a well regulated militia", it is extremely likely that they were talking about - for example - ensuring The National Guard are armed. And regulated.

e:
And for the vast majority of American History that is exactly how it was interpreted legally.

You forgot the second part of the 2nd Amendment, the part about how it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And if it was "extremely likely" that is what they meant, then why didn't the Federal Government take away everyone's firearms who were not in a state or federal militia after they wrote the Constitution?
 
Who gives a shit about responsible gun ownership? I'm not talking about religion right now, I'm talking about the fact that lax gun control laws are what caused this to happen. The people who consider (before and after) gun control laws to be an infringement on their rights and who pushed to prevent responsible gun laws, like improving background checks and implementing guns with fingerprint identification, are all complicit in these 50 deaths.

can a baby own a gun

Unless you want to completely ban guns or allow the government to put you on secret lists without an appeal or reason why and take away constitutional rights this guy wasn't going to be stopped.

The investigation into him back in 2013/14 was closed due to lack of evidence and he apparently had no other record.
 
I'm sure atheists could also do it, but here are some facts from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36513658



Compare and contrast with the fact that muslims are just 1% of US population. Yet 3 out of 8 of the deadliest shootings of the two last decades were carried out by muslims. Not to mention that small thing that happened a few years ago, what was it called, 9/11? Yeah, I seem to recall that was a bit of a problem too.

And people dare say religion has nothing to do with violence. Pee on my leg and tell me it's raining...
3 out of 8? Boy that's some sample size you've got there.
 
When I left for work today the fatal casualties was at 20, and now it's 50! Did many of the injured die or is there a reason for the huge discrepancy between the numbers?
 
Sometimes I wish the people who are completely and totally for their "right" to own guns would take a moment in a public, crowded space to imagine pulling out a gun then and there, and killing 50 people. Imagine the terror in their eyes as you end their lives in a violent and brutal manner. Imagine the bodies falling. Imagine the families destroyed.

All because you guys want to feel good about yourself and imagine yourself in some sick, twisted scenario where you are the good guy who stops something bad from happening (a literal impossible scenario in situations like these).

If you're willing to trade the lives of innocent people, including children, just so you can hold a shiny kill machine in your hands, you are an awful human being.

Fuck guns and fuck the people who want them.

That's a broad fucking brush.
 
I'm very interested in how this is being played out in the international media. It seems that at least in Japan the fact that the LGBT community was targeted is being minimized. Many news outlets (Yomiuri, Asahi, JiJi) have articles that report it as just a terror attack at a night club. The ISIS (ISIL) angle is being played hard.

Earlier today on MSNBC there was some official (sorry I forgot) stating that in Europe it was already being compared to the Bataclan attacks. This was before Obama's speech and before many news outlets specifically released the information about previous FBI investigations into him, and before they presented any strong evidence that this was ISIS (ISIL) inspired.

Does anyone have any insight into how this playing out internationally?
The same thing is happening domestically so I wouldn't be shocked if it is happening internationally. So many playing into it being a terrorist act but shying away or refusing to acknowledge that it is foremost a hate attack against LGBT people.
 
Unless you want to completely ban guns or allow the government to put you on secret lists without an appeal or reason why this guy wasn't going to be stopped.

The investigation into him back in 2013/14 was closed due to lack of evidence and he apparently had no other record.

So instead of asking whether his legal purchase of a firearm speaks poorly of alleged responsible gun sales, we should just ignore it?

That's a broad fucking brush.

Yep! The same brush that gets whipped out when people get just a -little- tired of watching people murdered by people wielding these awful things.
 
I really hope that poor person that texted out mommy actually survived. That is so sad, but it would be a tiny bright spot if they actually made it. :s
 
Can you guys at least spoiler or hide those texts behind a link? This is like shoving a video of someone being murdered in people's faces. Its gross.
 
I'm pro gun control in general, but I know far too many normal, nice people who happen to own guns to simply go 'oh, but fuck all guns, right'. I'm interested in military and historical stuff, which naturally leads to an interest in guns, personally.
 
There has never in the history of the country been a limitation on a group of people having or not having a right without due process. Restrictions such as not being able to take a gun into a school do exist.

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.

Not absolute, there can be restrictions...as there are restrictions, limitations, and prohibitions. All of our rights from the Bill of Rights have limitations, restrictions, etc. not sure why people think the 2nd amendment is somehow different.
 
So instead of asking whether his legal purchase of a firearm speaks poorly of alleged responsible gun sales, we should just ignore it?

I'm just saying that all of those ideas you just said wouldn't have done anything to stop him.

As long as guns are legal in the U.S there are gonna be people slipping through and doing terrible things.
 
Compare and contrast with the fact that muslims are just 1% of US population. Yet 3 out of 8 of the deadliest shootings of the two last decades were carried out by muslims. Not to mention that small thing that happened a few years ago, what was it called, 9/11? Yeah, I seem to recall that was a bit of a problem too.

And people dare say religion has nothing to do with violence. Pee on my leg and tell me it's raining...
And two of those eight were carried out by Asians, despite being only 5% of the US population. There must be someone evil about them Asians!
 
When I left for work today the fatal casualties was at 20, and now it's 50! Did many of the injured die or is there a reason for the huge discrepancy between the numbers?
The initial number released by Orlando Police was merely a ballpark estimate.
Clearly their numbers were off. They did run out of ambulances after all.
 
Not to mention the strawman that all gun owners are secretly fantasizing about being action heroes

It's people reacting to one of the greatest losses of life in American history, sorry that the response to people handwaving the gun control debate in this topic away isn't 100% reasonable and logical.

I'm just saying that all of those ideas you just said wouldn't have done anything to stop him.

As long as guns are legal in the U.S there are gonna be people slipping through and doing terrible things.

There are a lot of ways to do it.

1. Fingerprint identification

2. Longer wait times to get a firearm (with more stringent background checks, proof of your psychological fitness, proof of your ability to handle a firearm safely and responsibly)

Would this have stopped him? Given that he slipped through the cracks and that he was clearly devout, possibly not. There are however plenty of people who would have been stopped.
 
Who gives a shit about responsible gun ownership? I'm not talking about religion right now, I'm talking about the fact that lax gun control laws are what caused this to happen. The people who consider (before and after) gun control laws to be an infringement on their rights and who pushed to prevent responsible gun laws, like improving background checks and implementing guns with fingerprint identification, are all complicit in these 50 deaths.

can a baby own a gun

You're wrong - you're trying to use this tragedy to push a gun control agenda. this was motivated by religion and terrorism and hatred by a hateful religious homophobe.

The FBI/CIA/US Gov't fucked up by not getting this asshole sooner.
 
True, it is incredible that guns are always linked to shootings somehow


Honestly, I'm in favor of moderate gun control. But these events actually don't register as gun control events to me, because I don't think it's going to stop an ISIS-inspired nutjob. ISIS isn't gonna say, "Oh, you can't get guns legally? Well, shit. Okay, nevermind then." Why would France get attacked, otherwise?

The far more compelling gun control argument to me is the everyday shootings between one or two people, the ones that are spontaneous fits of rage.

But planned attacks like these? If not legal guns, it's illegal guns, or it's bombs, or whatever. I view this as a failure of intelligence more than anything else.

Christina Grimmie died in Orlando, Florida just two days ago in a premediated single-target shooting. THE SAME FUCKING CITY.

There is a gun-issue in this country and mass shootings are a part of that.
 
This is so sad. Sadly, most of America is not even going to shed a tear over this. So are we just going to accept that this will happen again? Because it will. Okay, America keep your guns.
 
You right wing gun nuts are seriously awful. So transparent. You give ZERO FUCKS about ANYONE except yourselves. Gross human beings.

I was all in favor for reasonable gun control, but fuck it. You could shoot 50 ppl up in a club, or a classroom full of children and you'll find some scapegoat. Just ban them.
 
What was the reasoning those three Muslims gave for their actions, or what did the authorites say led to their "radicalization"? What was the reasoning the 9/11 plotters gave? Was it political or theological? Be precise as possible.

Yeah because I have nothing else to do except to provide you with an in-depth study of the reasons behind that striking statistic.

3 out of 8? Boy that's some sample size you've got there.

3 out of 8 is definitely statistically significant, when we're talking about a 1 out of 100 ratio in the population. You would expect 3 out of 300, so there's a 37 to 1 discrepancy in deadly attack frequency.
 
You forgot the second part of the 2nd Amendment, the part about how it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
You're assuming that that's a "second part." The entire problem is that the wording is incredibly ambiguous.

The second amendment is one of the most poorly-written pieces of legislation ever.

And if it was "extremely likely" that is what they meant, then why didn't the Federal Government take away everyone's firearms who were not in a state or federal militia after they wrote the Constitution?
Because not guaranteeing something isn't the same as banning that thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom