Hostage situation taking place now in Orlando. [50+ dead, suspect killed]
916 replies, posted
Killing yourself is deadly
[QUOTE=Rusty100;50514920]-snip-[/QUOTE]
You're basically arguing that we should bring back prohibition but for guns. Look at how well prohibition was enforced and realize that banning something that widespread and deeply ingrained in our society is an impossibility.
It's pretty sad to me and petty that people (specially politicians) are riding on the victims of this shooting to push their typical political bullshit. What makes it even more sad they only talk about it during shootings and not actually talk about it in crime ridden cities that have shootings on a daily basis.
What makes it worse for me is the white house is willing to tip toe around calling the person a Islamic extremist in order to avoid demonizing the Islamic community. Then the same person wants to go ahead and demonize gun owners.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515202]That there is an absurd gun culture in the US? It's not that hard? Pretty much the rest of the civilized world has far far less shootings than the US?[/QUOTE]
Oh this is one of my favorite arguments, people seemed to forget that things like this are more likely to happen when you are the 3rd most populated country on Earth, but here's some data for you to get your cognitive dissonance going.
[IMG]http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/OECD-and-Small-Arms-Survey.png[/IMG]
Real good read here and loads more graphs I'd like to post but don't want bloat my post with: [URL]http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/[/URL]
This one specifically is about what you are trying to assert with USA v "Civilized World": [URL]https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries[/URL]
if you factor murders + attempted murders together instead of considering them separate crimes you'll find fairly uniform rates across all first world countries
while firearms may in some cases increase a killer's odds of success it certainly did not motivate him to carry out an attack, which means banning the gun is no more a valid response than banning the backpack that he hid it in
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50515367]If we're gonna appeal to emotion Killuah why don't we talk about how your country enacted strict gun control with the Weimar Republic just before committing one of the most famous mass murderings in history? They even took away from "unreliables" and kept "ordinaries" in the same way that it's being suggested only hunters and government/police should have them[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/]Except this isn't what happened in Germany, nor did their gun laws enable them to commit the Holocaust.[/url]
Also, you'd be wise to study the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising]Warsaw Uprising (the largest resistance operation ever undertaken during World War II)[/url] where, in spite of the fact that they were armed and equipped with what they needed (not to mention given limited support by the Allies; also, the uprising was planned to coordinate with a Soviet push from the east), Polish resistance was nevertheless annihilated, and anywhere between 150,000 and 200,000 people ended up being slaughtered. The idea that "if the Jews/gypsies/communists/Poles/etc. had been armed then they could've resisted and survived" is complete bullshit.
Tsk tsk.
At the end of the day, the solution resulting in the fewest deaths isn't inherently the correct one.
It's a well established fact that freedom and security are held together by a very fine thread, it's often extremely difficult if not impossible to enjoy both at the same time. You could prove to everyone that banning guns absolutely positively would result in fewer deaths and all of the other aftershocks like collapsing an industry overnight leading to thousands and thousands of newly unemployed individuals [B]but[/B] you're still sacrificing liberty to do so and therefore it's a no-go for anyone who actually believes in the Constitution aka: the backbone of the United States. With freedom, comes the ability to do terrible things. Liberty goes hand in hand with sacrifice.
It ultimately becomes a losing battle for the anti-gun crowd. Banning and regulating the living shit out of guns infringes on the 2nd amendment, which was designed for people to at least have a small fighting chance against a professional military. You could counter that by saying the 2nd amendment is horseshit but then you're pretty much saying, "I want America to be not-America." You're trying to change the foundation of the house without damaging the house.
My request from the anti-gun crowd, especially those who aren't from the states, is to calm your nerves for a brief moment and imagine times of slavery. Try to imagine yourself as a slave at a farm/plantation/household/whatever who is treated extremely well. You're fed, clothed, treated with respect, maybe even make a little money and get free time to spend how you choose. But, at the end of the day, you still belong to someone else.
Would you be happy? I guess some people would be perfectly fine with that, but many wouldn't. That was actually the case for many slaves not too long ago, and many of them very willingly gave up roofs over their heads and food in their bellies just so they could call themselves free. Men and women would rather be free and barely scrape by than be a slave and be living well off.
This is the same way many people feel about firearms in America. You could make everything completely safe, ensure there's no way anyone could possibly hurt us, at the cost of taking away our ability to defend ourselves. But being at the mercy of your masters is not freedom, no matter how well they treat you. You sacrifice guaranteed security by choosing freedom, but at least you're free.
And at the end of the day, that's a decision every human being, American or not, should have the right to choose. If you want to leave your protection up to the government and do not fear your masters ever bringing the whip down on you, by all means, don't invest in a semi-automatic weapon. However, just because someone wants control of their own safety does not mean they hate the masters or are paranoid, they just want responsibility for their own life and should be allowed to own a weapon they believe will secure said responsibility.
[editline]13th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Govna;50517649][url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/]Except this isn't what happened in Germany, nor did their gun laws enable them to commit the Holocaust.[/url]
Also, you'd be wise to study the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising]Warsaw Uprising (the largest resistance operation ever undertaken during World War II)[/url] where, in spite of the fact that they were armed and equipped with what they needed (not to mention given limited support by the Allies; also, the uprising was planned to coordinate with a Soviet push from the east), Polish resistance was nevertheless annihilated, and anywhere between 150,000 and 200,000 people ended up being slaughtered. The idea that "if the Jews/gypsies/communists/Poles/etc. had been armed then they could've resisted and survived" is complete bullshit.
Tsk tsk.[/QUOTE]
Not many people think an armed resistance could defeat a professional military. However, there was undoubtedly a large number of people who wanted to fight back but couldn't. On the flipside, how many resistance members do you think sat there and thought, "Man, I really wish we didn't have the capability to fight back?"
The men and women who fought back died free men and women. Could you say the same for those who were put in camps to rot? Not everyone who can fight will, but all people deserve the right to choose.
[QUOTE=Govna;50517649][url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/]Except this isn't what happened in Germany, nor did their gun laws enable them to commit the Holocaust.[/url]
Also, you'd be wise to study the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising]Warsaw Uprising (the largest resistance operation ever undertaken during World War II)[/url] where, in spite of the fact that they were armed and equipped with what they needed (not to mention given limited support by the Allies; also, the uprising was planned to coordinate with a Soviet push from the east), Polish resistance was nevertheless annihilated, and anywhere between 150,000 and 200,000 people ended up being slaughtered. The idea that "if the Jews/gypsies/communists/Poles/etc. had been armed then they could've resisted and survived" is complete bullshit.
Tsk tsk.[/QUOTE]
Lol, did you even read what you posted there?
[quote]Carson said that under the Nazis, "German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s," which allowed the Nazis to "carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance."
This is a misreading of history on two levels. First, German citizens as a whole were not disarmed by the Nazis. [B]Jews and other supposed enemies of the state were subject to having their weapons seized.[/B] But for most German citizens, the Nazi period was one in which gun regulations were loosened, not tightened.
Second, a lack of guns was not the issue. If the majority of Germans had wanted to use these guns to fight the Nazis, they could have. But they didn’t. Carson ignores that the Nazis enjoyed significant popular support, or at least, broad acquiescence.[/quote]
Politifact are being deceptive in what Carson said anyway, pretending he meant all Germans were disarmed and not just minorities.
[editline]14th June 2016[/editline]
Politifact are really twisting the words there.
[QUOTE=wystan;50517551]Oh this is one of my favorite arguments, people seemed to forget that things like this are more likely to happen when you are the 3rd most populated country on Earth, but here's some data for you to get your cognitive dissonance going.
[IMG]http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/OECD-and-Small-Arms-Survey.png[/IMG]
Real good read here and loads more graphs I'd like to post but don't want bloat my post with: [URL]http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/[/URL]
This one specifically is about what you are trying to assert with USA v "Civilized World": [URL]https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries[/URL][/QUOTE]
I thought Mexico and Brazil were not developed countries.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50517734]I thought Mexico and Brazil were not developed countries.[/QUOTE]
Well, if you read the Mises article they go into that.
[QUOTE=download;50517758]Well, if you read the Mises article they go into that.[/QUOTE]
Ugh I'm blind.
I don't like how the article tries to shout reverse racism when we start saying that underdeveloped countries are underdeveloped, that's the first sign it's not a good source. I also don't like how it tries to shittalk people selectively choosing their data while the article is selectively choosing their data. It's effectively an argument of which bias method of selecting data is better for their side.
How about we agree that banning guns does nothing, and that proper registration and regulation would be better for everyone?
Except Canada has shown that gun registries that keep track of individual firearms are expensive and utterly useless.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;50517650][b]Not many people think an armed resistance could defeat a professional military.[/b] However, there was undoubtedly a large number of people who wanted to fight back but couldn't. On the flipside, how many resistance members do you think sat there and thought, "Man, I really wish we didn't have the capability to fight back?"
The men and women who fought back died free men and women. Could you say the same for those who were put in camps to rot? Not everyone who can fight will, but all people deserve the right to choose.[/QUOTE]
Which is the exact reason why even when German-Jews had access to firearms before the Nazis started confiscating them in 1938, they didn't bother resisting. Because they knew they had no hope of winning, so what was the point? If you resisted, you'd definitely die, and so would your family, you'd accomplish nothing, and that would be the end of the matter. And for what acts of resistance that did take place, especially when it came to so-called "subhuman" enemies of the Nazis, it wasn't so much a matter of them wanting to fight back so much as it was them desperately attempting to survive when faced with the prospect of genocide. And they routinely failed, the Warsaw Uprising being the most spectacular failure of the lot. Not for lack of trying, but the fact is they simply weren't fit for the task. They could not do it successfully as much as they wanted to.
In short, the entire argument about the Nazis is complete rubbish and worthless. The only reason it refuses to die and is brought up every time this debate appears (as it routinely does) is because it sounds good, and people either don't understand the historical facts behind the situation, or they do understand but they don't bank on other people knowing any better and think they'll fall for it unquestioningly.
That's also a disgusting mindset to have about the people who were interned in concentration camps and ghettos. Not to mention, again, being factually incorrect. In the majority of cases, even the ones who had access to firearms still chose not to resist against the Nazis. It made literally no difference. It made no difference in reality, it would've made no difference even in the hypothetical fantasies of people who politically claim that it would've if they'd just had greater access than they did.
[QUOTE=download;50517717]Lol, did you even read what you posted there?
Politifact are being deceptive in what Carson said anyway, pretending he meant all Germans were disarmed and not just minorities.
[editline]14th June 2016[/editline]
Politifact are really twisting the words there.[/QUOTE]
Yes. You clearly didn't though. From the same article:
[quote]"But this order was followed quite rarely, so that largely, only newly bought weapons became registered," said Dagmar Ellerbrock, an expert on German gun policies at the Dresden Technical University. "At that time, most men, and many women, still owned the weapons they acquired before or during the first World War."
When they came to power, the Nazis used whatever gun records they had to seize weapons from their enemies, but Ellerbock told us the files included very few of the firearms in circulation.
"In my records, I found many Jews who well into the late 1930s possessed guns," Ellerbock told us.
. . .
In addition to the restrictions, Ellerbrock said the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes and seizing weapons.[/quote]
They had incomplete records, so not even the Jews had everything confiscated. And as far as the ones that had weapons are concerned, they didn't resist. They didn't fight back, there were no great uprisings or resistance movements by them, and that's how simple it is. Access to firearms did not make any difference in reality, and moreover it would never have made any difference as people like to hypothetically claim it would've, and that's that.
Also, here's one of the quotes in question from Carson's book which was brought up by Wolf Blitzer against him:
[quote]German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler’s regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior ... Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance.[/quote]
Again, this is bullshit. Even the ADL acknowledges that it's bullshit. Carson claimed that all German citizens were disarmed, that gun control and propaganda were to blame for everything. Again, this is wrong, as plenty of experts have pointed out against him.
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-carsons-unusual-theory-about-pyramids/]But this is the same man who ridiculously believes that the pyramids were built by Joseph and used to store grain lol.[/url] Word for word:
[quote]"My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain," Carson said. "Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs' graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don't think it'd just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain."[/quote]
He's an idiot.
Why not do a drivers license for guns? It seems to me a pretty tame legal barrier to get guns fast while still allowing people to do what the fuck they want with guns... Wont solve everything ofc.
Also more money for mental health, far more...
[QUOTE=Govna;50517849]
Yes. You clearly didn't though. From the same article:
[/QUOTE]
I did read that :rolleyes:
You're completely missing the point.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50517852]Why not do a drivers license for guns? It seems to me a pretty tame legal barrier to get guns fast while still allowing people to do what the fuck they want with guns... Wont solve everything ofc.
Also more money for mental health, far more...[/QUOTE]
You don't need a drivers license to buy a car. You need a CCL to carry a handgun in public (but not needed to buy the gun), which is basically a drivers license for pistols. Looks exactly the same. At least here in Texas.
I was reading a local news article on facebook about this today and a woman literally commented "Too bad none of them were carrying". Like it's a bar? guns and alcohol don't go well together
Politifact is a god awful source, which isn't surprising since they felt the need to put "fact" in their name
[editline]14th June 2016[/editline]
I also didn't suggest that gun rights caused the holocaust
[editline]14th June 2016[/editline]
Ben Carson didn't even invent the point either, why even talk about him as a person
[url]http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr[/url]
A lot of info on it links back to this
Edit:
Also dunno why you brought up Warsaw Uprising. Isn't it one of the rebellions against them, using guns? How does that detriment the point?
A mod should lock tbis thread. It's so far off the rails from the original post
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50518380]A mod should lock tbis thread. It's so far off the rails from the original post[/QUOTE]
This is what happens with literally every thread in SH, discussions would end pretty quickly if you were only allowed to talk about the direct facts that appeared in the article.
I have just seen on news this morning, the ex-wife of shooter it's married to a Brazilian and gave interview to SBT (Second largest Brazilian channel). She said the shooter father had suspicions he was gay and keep calling him a queer/gay and that had influenced him. when asked if she told everything to FBI, she said yes but the FBI asked to don't reveal this to USA media.
Why the fuck is this thread now a gun control discussion now?
[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50518906]Why the fuck is this thread now a gun control discussion now?[/QUOTE]
Its an important relating topic to the OP, in the way: could this have been prevented with stricted gun control in America?
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;50517650]all of the other aftershocks like collapsing an industry overnight leading to thousands and thousands of newly unemployed individuals.[/QUOTE]
does this justify allowing it to operate with impunity?
remember that the arms manufactures are incredibly influential in politics and lobby hard to get laws they want passed. its in their interest to reduce restrictions on guns (just like coal miners want less pollution laws) because it means more profits for them
[editline]14th June 2016[/editline]
it's ironic that there are people that decry the influence of money in politics but somehow the arms manufacturers slip by. every presidential cycle or when even talk of gun control comes up, scared and fearful people go out to buy masses of guns (which I'm pretty sure they don't even use).
who benefits from this state of affairs? the people certainly don't
[QUOTE=Andre Gomes;50518719]I have just seen on news this morning, the ex-wife of shooter it's married to a Brazilian and gave interview to SBT (Second largest Brazilian channel). She said the shooter father had suspicions he was gay and keep calling him a queer/gay and that had influenced him. when asked if she told everything to FBI, she said yes but the FBI asked to don't reveal this to USA media.[/QUOTE]
He#s reportedly been seen visiting the club before
[QUOTE=G.I.U.L.I.O.;50518906]Why the fuck is this thread now a gun control discussion now?[/QUOTE]
Probably because it's a news thread for the deadliest mass shooting in US history?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50515175]That... Most are from suicides?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Killuah;50515190]Are you trolling or something?
....[/QUOTE]
He's not wrong in saying that most firearm violence is suicide. I mean if you only look at school shootings then yeah there's not as many suicides there but you have to realize gun violence isn't exactly restricted to schools. Here's an definition of what gun violence is just incase you didn't know what it really means.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence] [img]http://i.imgur.com/broKXip.png[/img] [/url]
[URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm"]I mean sure if you look at the total number of deaths that classify as gun violence then yeah it's a huge number. (33,636 deaths in 2013)[/URL]
But it would just be silly to stop right there when you can break firearm deaths up into more specific categories
[URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm"]Homicides and Assaults(11,208 also from 2013)[/URL]
[URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm"]Suicides(21,175 deaths also from 2013)[/URL]
I feel the bigger issue with guns now becomes Would banning guns prevent suicide? I feel that someone that was gonna kill themselves with a gun would probably just find a different method instead if guns were banned. In fact I would argue that instead of putting money into banning guns or restricting them it would probably be more effective to put into mental health services.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50519084]He#s reportedly been seen visiting the club before[/QUOTE]
Eyewitnesses claim he was a club regular going back years, and several people have claimed that he was active on gay dating apps.
This is a man who was struggling with his sexual identity and masculinity, and who had a history of mental illness and violent tendencies. He was a deeply confused and angry person until he eventually snapped under the weight of his insecurities and self loathing.
At the end of the day, his lukewarm religious beliefs (again, people close to him claim that he was not a very religious person) were his attempt at justification for his actions, NOT the cause.
[url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/14/admit-it-these-terrorists-are-muslims.html[/url]
Maajid Nawaz is right on the money (for the most part)
[QUOTE]The killer of Orlando was a homophobic Muslim extremist, inspired by an ideological take on my own religion, Islam. In just the first seven days of this holy month of Ramadan, various jihadists have carried out attacks in Tel Aviv, Baghdad, Damascus, Idlib, Beirut Orlando and now Paris.
This global jihadist insurgency threatens every corner of the world and has killed more Muslims than members any other faith. So why pretend it does not exist? Why shy away from calling it by name?
So far do many of us liberals go in denying the problem, that we’re happy to stigmatize other vulnerable minorities in the process. “He was not a Muslim, he was nothing but a mad lunatic,” we cry in exasperation. As if those with mental health issues are somehow automatically predisposed to murder, or immune to manipulation and exploitation by cynical Islamists and jihadists.
Then there’s that other old tactic to try and avoid discussing the Islamist ideology. “He wasn’t from the Muslim community,” we proclaim. “He was acting in isolation, a lone wolf.”
Apart from the fact that research highlights how incredibly rare it is for jihadists to act in a vacuum, we need look no further than the Orlando attacker Omar Mateen’s father, who praised the Taliban as “warriors” to realize this avoidance tactic for what it is. Clearly Omar Mateen had moved in an atmosphere that glorified jihadist ideology.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Poll after poll of British Muslims has revealed statistically significant levels of homophobic opinion. A 2009 poll by Gallup found that 0 percent of Britain’s Muslims believed homosexual acts to be morally acceptable. Despite polling methodology, what previous polls have shown us time and again is more of the same.
In a 2013 Pew poll Muslims overwhelmingly say that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, including three-quarters or more in 33 of the 36 countries where the question was asked.
The latest ICM poll from April 2016 asked a slightly different question about whether being gay should be legal. Over half of British Muslims surveyed said they supported making homosexual acts illegal.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The second danger is in the non-Muslim context. What happens if we don’t name the Islamist ideology and distinguish it from Islam? We leave a void for the vast majority of Americans—who are unaware of the nuances in this debate—to be filled by Donald Trump and the Populist Right. They will go on to blame all versions of Islam and every Muslim, and their frustration at not being able to talk about the problem will give in to rage, as it has done. By refusing to discuss it, we only increase the hysteria. Like “he who must not be named”—the Voldemort Effect, I call it—we increase the fear.
So this is my appeal to President Obama, Hillary Clinton and to all liberals and Muslims, for humanity’s sake let’s stop playing politics with evil. Just as this so obviously has something to do with lax gun laws, it so clearly has something to do with Islam. Hillary Clinton nearly conceded as much after these recent attacks. But liberals must own this debate, not merely appear to be defensively reacting to Trump’s agenda.
This September will mark 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, and we still haven’t devised a strategy to address Islamist extremism, let alone identified voices who can do so globally. Not al-Qaeda, not ISIS, nor any other theocratic jihadist group that may emerge in the future, but a strategy that recognizes we are in the middle of a Cold War against theocracy. If we refuse to isolate, name and shame Islamist extremism, from fear of increasing anti-Muslim bigotry, we only increase anti-Muslim bigotry. If the rise of Trump has not convinced us of this yet, then nothing will.[/QUOTE]
[editline]14th June 2016[/editline]
I would say he doesn't put enough emphasis on military intervention, which to me, as a neoconservative, is the first step. But he is completely correct about the need to tackle the ideology itself.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50519762]Eyewitnesses claim he was a club regular going back years, and several people have claimed that he was active on gay dating apps.
This is a man who was struggling with his sexual identity and masculinity, and who had a history of mental illness and violent tendencies. He was a deeply confused and angry person until he eventually snapped under the weight of his insecurities and self loathing.
At the end of the day, his lukewarm religious beliefs (again, people close to him claim that he was not a very religious person) were his attempt at justification for his actions, NOT the cause.[/QUOTE]
Is it not possible that the conflict between his sexuality and his religion tipped him over?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.