Florida Night Club Shooting - at least 20 dead - impact on US elections?

Why is it odd? National outrage only occurs when these mass shootings occur and now folks see the repeated use of the AR-15 and it has entered the national consciousness.

Collectively, handguns are more lethal, but some random murder in Chi-raq won't make headlines.

Can you imagine what would have happened if that heavily armed suspect at the LA pride festival succeeded in utilizing his 5 gallons of Tannerite? I guarantee you that the general public doesn't give a damn about it, but sentiment would change overnight.

 

You have no idea how much higher Mexico's violence would be if they did not have a gun ban.

Australia seems to be a good example, that country found success after banning guns. Of course it's an island surrounded by water, but the similarities between Australia and USA greater than the similarities between USA and Mexico. Australia is a better comp for the USA than Mexico all things considered. Your example isn't a good one.

 

Yeah they are.

You don't get to hand pick who is and isn't Muslim.

 

Let's forget the part where she said that he was trying to get right with his faith, and how his faith really didn't like homosexuals.

 

An assault rifle ban would not have prevented the Orlando shooting -- there are other kinds of firearms that would have been effective. I don't think the Trumpian nativist schemes would have prevented it -- the perp was born in NY and an American citizen, and I don't think my radical idea of prosecuting religious leaders for incitement would have prevented it.

But I think preventing people on the no-fly list or under FBI investigation from buying firearms is not an authoritarian nightmare or an unacceptable affront to firearms ownership. It's not asking much. It's hard to say with conviction that it would have prevented the massacre outright, but it sure as hell would have kept the perpetrator of the Orlando massacre from holding a trusted position as a security guard.

 

The focus on assault rifles is a concession by gun opponents to the reality that they won't be able to get a total ban. Assault weapons are just the low-hanging fruit to make incremental change with the long-term goal of disarming the populace completely. You're right that hand guns are the biggest problem but that's been asked and answered -- Americans won't give up hand guns no matter how many people they kill. But they've shown a willingness to give up assault rifles in the past.

On motivations: I'm not disagreeing with you, except to say it answers one question -- is he ISIS (and obviously, yes) -- without answering any other, like why is he ISIS. Knowing he's ISIS is useful for a purpose, but understanding why he's ISIS can also be useful. I think you stop too soon.

On selectivity: What are you alleging here? That if no one would defend Muslims singled out on planes then... his wife would have pressed charges for domestic abuse and he'd have lost his chance at a gun license?

 

Now, I hate the Second Amendment. But, I can already see the NRA argument here. A mere investigation or suspicion is not vetted by the courts and therefore not due process for abrogating one's Constitutional rights. They may be tempted to look the other way for Islamic terrorists. But, once established the same rationale could be used to disarm right-wing militias too. You could even just start opening FBI investigations on anyone just to take away their gun rights. In doing so, you undermine the population's ability to resist tyranny. It's a huge affront and asking far too much.

 

Sure if Mateen didn't have access to an AR-15 the attack still might've happened. I doubt it would've been as lethal. All of these arguments along the lines of "he could've use a knife, a car or built a bomb." ignores the reality that he did use that particular weapon. He used it because it is a very effective tool for killing people. A kitchen knife or a car isn't that effective of a tool for killing people. They're not designed to do that. A bomb isn't easy to build.

 

Thanks for the links, but I'm a little confused on what you're trying to say.

 

The entire Mexican statistic is an anecdote, framed in the context of cross-comparison between many countries.

The thesis presented is that state gun laws don't matter. I am contesting that thesis. State gun ownership rates correlate with gun deaths. hmm.

The homicide rate dovetails with the gun ownership rate decreasing...hmm. And 3.5 is absurdly high compared to any other developed nation.

And yes, reduced gun ownership has been shown to reduce suicides.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

but who gives a s**t about those. let's make it as easy as possible to commit suicide, why not.

Anyways, assuming we don't care about suicides:

Read: Homicides declined overall
But homicides with guns declined the most

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

Doesn't require trampling the rights of anybody--Heller has plenty of space that needs defining and every Constitutional right is subject to a balance of sorts (just not the 4th and the 5th when it comes to certain minority groups). Not even being willing to explore that space shows a sincere desire to avoid discussion.

 

For once, I agree with Sam Fisher on something. Never mind if you think banning assault rifles helps or hurts the cause at this point. To Sam's point, how the **** were people allowed to buy weapons designed for mass killing?

We should be banning any weapons that an average citizen could slaughter that many people that quickly.

 

Thoughts and best wishes to the victims families.

I just cant grasp how a father and husband would just drop everything and do something like this.

 

RT UK - Orlando shooter Omar Mateen not first G4S employee to go on deadly rampage:

 

[Educational Post]
The solution to radical Islam is not to disarm law-abiding citizens -- who by the way would be the only people lawfully complying with the the type of gun regulations that the left is advocating.

Hear me now. I will tell you what is actually occurring with the left's call for gun control. The gun control calls by the media are an effort to distract from the Obama Administration's failed foreign policy initiatives regarding ISIS and their inability to safeguard our homeland from terrorist attacks. The last thing Obama wants to discuss right now is the rise of ISIS which has occurred on his watch. There is no objective way to describe Obama's efforts to destroy ISIS other than a complete and total failure. Obama is attempting to change the subject to a longstanding liberal domestic policy initiative which is merely tangentially related to the tragedy on Saturday night. The underlying motivations and root causes of the tragedy have not been addressed, and what's worse is that Obama has no intentions of addressing them.

Obama gives condescending lectures to the American people about gun control, but this is hardly leadership. He knows that nothing will get done. And once again, Obama proves himself to be a politician, not a person who has the ability to govern. He's simply not a leader -- so he must distract away from his failure to safeguard our country.

 

I'll chime in here.

I get the gun laws argument but I think this guy's history of violence (ex-wife story as an example) and hatred towards the homosexuals (that bit his father talked about) would've fueled him to acquire the necessary tools to carry out this attack with or without the necessary laws in effect. If someone is motivated enough, they will go to no ends to get it done. I don't think anything could've stopped this tragedy unfortunately. The dude is hell bent on anger. I originally thought this was another one of radical Islamist attack but after more news was revealed, it looks like it more like a hate crime. The two go hand in hand, I know.

 

A number of handguns are also very effective at killing large groups of people, especially with a semi auto assault rifle being used. Handguns are also easier to hide and reload.

I understand the position that guns should be banned. However the position to ban assault rifles I find odd. They are semi automatic, typically not even modified to be fully automatic. Honestly it just seems like an easy narrative by people that are not overly familiar with the differences between some hand guns and assault rifles.

 

I don't understand what you expect from authorities to do if Mateen was investigated by the FBI years ago and he purchased the weapons a week ago.

 

No, they're really not. This was a psychopath hiding under the guise of being a Muslim to excuse his cowardice. Just because someone claims to be something doesn't make it true.

 

Nothing. I expect if they didn't get convictions for anything in 2013, there's nothing they can do to deny him guns in 2016. Those are our rights. The Second Amendment is probably the stupidest and most damaging thing our forefathers ever did, but we're stuck with it now.

 

And this is the liberal mentality. Any change, regardless of how irrelevant, is better than no change at all. I wouldn't call assault weapons ban low-hanging fruit .. its more like the rotting fruit on the ground. It serves no purpose and accomplishes nothing except entrenching gun enthusiast further.

If you want low hanging fruit, go for full back ground checks and stricter gun responsibility.

And in regards to this subject, liberals talking more about gun control than the terroristic threats speaks volumes. The next time it could be a bomb.