50+ dead, 50+ more injured in shooting at Orlando gay club

[Kirbi]

Your right, it does need to be addressed, but tightening the ability to obtain legal does nothing for this.

What evidence is there to support this? One of the countries in which it's easiest to buy guns is the country with the highest incidence of mass shootings, gun related violence, accidental gun deaths and suicide by firearm. It's an easy connection to make. If all of these incidents were simply because of guns obtained illegally, shouldn't we be seeing more of them in other countries too?

Also, it follows that in a country with more guns, it would be easier to obtain guns illegally anyway.

[War Daddy]

I see a bunch of humans but not much fucking humanity.

[VaderBomb]

I'm going to make a couple of statements...

1.) This was a terrible tragedy and my heart is in pain for the people and their families who were murdered in Orlando.

2.) With that being said, who is to say that this attack was not another false flag to unarm US civilians like the blatantly sloppy "Sandy Hook shooting" and false flag "terrorist attacks".

Although I am extremely liberal and progressive on most social and political opinions, I do not agree with stricter gun control laws in the US. I have never owned a gun nor have I have romanticized the idea of shooting or owning one. It comes down to this straight simple fact: The US is on it's way to becoming a totalitarian nation, especially if someone like Trump or Hillary wins the election.

If you don't live here (or perhaps even if you do), it may be hard for you to accept another fact which is:

Unarm the population and allow police and the military access to the same weapons that you take away from the civilians, we are one step closer to a police state, martial law and/or complete power and control over the people.

Sadly, this is the route that we are on, and each time one of these mass shootings happens at a strategically placed time within our social/political atmosphere, I always question the motives on a much larger macro level. I don't trust most "terrorist attacks". This one could've been easily planned by our intelligence associations, especially considering the fact that this was the biggest shooting in US history and was an attack on the LGBT community in 2016 when progressive issues are a huge moral topic of discussion.

I ask of you to please not take my previous statements the wrong way, I am super liberal and a huge supporter of civil rights and equal rights for all people. Many of my best friends are gay or trans and this isn't me being closed minded to any sort of social struggle. This shooting just seems very sketchy to me, and my gut tells me that it could have been potentially orchestrated to continue an agenda with an easy patsy and a slightly tougher endgame.

Let the people keep their guns so that when civil war breaks out, the nation has a feasible way to fight the establishment which has blatantly proved to have the intention to enslave us more than they already do.

[Kein]

All that being said, I still look at people saying that the issue is purely or almost entirely about gun control, kinda like somebody going to a person with a tumor in their brain and saying, 'just take some tylenol for your headaches. It entirely misses the point.

I agree a lot with this, above someone compared German statistics to American statistics in terms of shootings, it's a flawed logic. Just because you inflate the size of Germany to be the same size as America in terms of population doesn't really give a fair comparison. America is really a huge place, people in other countries always ask me how long it would take for me to drive to New York, or to California, and are baffled, completely blown away to hear it would take a week, or over 6 hours. The distance is extremely relevant to this data because America is really more like a couple countries unified under the same name.

Given our reputation as land of opportunity (or was) we have radically different cultures and beliefs living all over the place. A small densely populated country compared to America is no comparison.

Gun laws, I don't care, I have guns, I go to shooting ranges, I don't hunt. I could live without them, but depending where you live, in America, having no guns or more strict gun laws, could impede and radically change some lifestyles. Most of use don't need them, but a fair mount do. I wouldn't be surprised in other countries, given more rural areas, people there have some means of self-protection, guns or not.

[DBSoT]

We could all debate this shit over the course of the next 20 mass shootings, but the biggest issue is NOTHING ever changes. Whether it is mental health, access to guns or extremism, nothing is being done to prevent the next attack. How many of these shootings have to happen before something is done? If I read one more politician tweet "my thoughts and prayers are with the victims", I am going to puke. They don't give a shit about the victims because if they did, they would work to creating a solution to this very major problem!

[PorkChop]

Was the Orlando shooting worth it for the freedom to carry a gun?

[AkydefGoldberg]

On the shooter, his religious and allegiance to ISIS can be severely questioned when his ex-wife, quite quickly after the shootings, said he was unstable, used to beat her up and hadn't shown much religious devotion. His dad said he saw two guys kissing and had enough - so he was a homophobic prick to add to that list. Then he calls 911 to pledge allegiance to ISIS. It doesn't sound like a well-planned, thought out attack from a devoted fanatic to ISIS and their religious interpretation of Islam.

If he had mental health problems, then the issue needs to be on how he got a gun in the first place (background checks not sufficiently undertaken). Never mind the fact the FBI had some knowledge of this individual yet he wasn't monitored or no action was taken so that needs assessing if you're looking for reasons as to why this happened.

[UTK]

https://youtu.be/LSEoVkl0W30?t=1m55s

Obama was on PBS last week where he discussed how little legislation can get written about gun control on any level, meaning that fucking suspected terrorists can still purchase guns legally. And unsuprisingly, that's exactly what happened here. The shooter was investigated three times in regards to ties with ISIS before he did this, yet he was still able to get an assault rifle. Unreal.

[Ali]

I try not to get into this debate, considering I know very little about it, but one aspect I feel is overlooked in the gun control issue is the TYPE of guns used in mass shootings. Please excuse any broad generalizations I may make that are incorrect and point out where I am wrong.

The arguments I hear about gun control seem to always come back to two things from the "pro-guns" camp: Hunting and Personal/Home Defense. I don't have an issue with either of these, and I'm sure few people do. But I do have to question the availability of assault rifles and automatic weapons in relationship to these two activities.

For Hunting, I imagine two weapons in general: hunting rifles and shotguns. Now, to me, both of these tools have this as their MO: Aim, Fire, Reload, Repeat. I might be wrong about how often reloading is necessary, but I am relatively sure you have to properly aim the weapon in order to hit anything. When it comes to Personal Defense, I think about handguns, sometimes shotguns and small rifles. And again, I have no problem with these, because, from my limited knowledge of firearms, you have a limited number of shots in a handgun before you have to reload.

The problem I have with automatic weapons as I understand them (which could be wrong) is that they seem to be designed to spread a massive amount of ammunition with a small amount of effort. You can fire a lot more bullets a lot faster. Now, I can see where this might be useful in a military firefight, but what about Hunting or Defense? For hunting, it seems completely counter-intuitive, you'd seem to ruin a lot of good meat with all those bullets, if you don't scare off all the animals. For defense, it just seems escalatory, if that's even a word, just feeding into a cycle of panic. I get the impression that it goes something like, "I need this weapon because I need to outgun THAT weapon if its used against me."

So, I don't mean to sound patronizing, but is there a practical, non-military reason for a private citizen to use an automatic weapon/assault rifle?

[War Daddy]

Are we really surprised that he had a gun? It's fucking Florida.

[Kein]

So, I don't mean to sound patronizing, but is there a practical, non-military reason for a private citizen to use an automatic weapon/assault rifle?

It's not patronizing at all. I don't really see a reason private citizens should have automatic weapons, and it is a little more difficult to get one than a normal firearm. Not that much harder though... Apparently it's mostly just dishing out more money.

But you make great points. Full-automatics are not for hunting game, and for defense is very excessive.

[Matteo]

Unarm the population and allow police and the military access to the same weapons that you take away from the civilians, we are one step closer to a police state, martial law and/or complete power and control over the people.

I always respect your input, Vader, but I have to respectfully disagree here. The United States has the most technologically developed and prodigious military in the entire world. They don't need to disarm the population if they want to implement a police state or impose martial law. Some citizens having an assault rifle means nothing when you look at the sheer intricacy and immensity of the United States military inventory. I find this argument very unsound, to be honest, and I mostly hear it from the ardent reactionaries like Alex Jones. My country, Australia, disarmed the population following the Port Arthur massacre, and we haven't had anything like a police state.

Also, when you say Sandy Hook is a false flag operation, are you saying it didn't happen or it did happen but the perpetuator was acting as an agent to the US government?

[DBSoT]

Not that it really matters, but here is basically my feelings on the whole debate, but through Conan O'Brien's mouth.

[VaderBomb]

Unarm the population and allow police and the military access to the same weapons that you take away from the civilians, we are one step closer to a police state, martial law and/or complete power and control over the people.

I always respect your input, Vader, but I have to respectfully disagree here. The United States has the most technologically developed and prodigious military in the entire world. They don't need to disarm the population if they want to implement a police state or impose martial law. Some citizens having an assault rifle means nothing when you look at the sheer intricacy and immensity of the United States military inventory. I find this argument very unsound, to be honest, and I mostly hear it from the ardent reactionaries like Alex Jones. My country, Australia, disarmed the population following the Port Arthur massacre, and we haven't had anything like a police state.

Also, when you say Sandy Hook is a false flag operation, are you saying it didn't happen or it did happen but the perpetuator was acting as an agent to the US government?

Australia is very different from the US. I don't live there and don't know much about the relationship between government and the people but over here it's pretty scary. They've rigged our presidential election to move towards a more totalitarian state. Mass shootings mostly happen during important socio-political times. As far as Sandy Hook goes, I believe it to be a hoax considering the multiple 2 to 3 plus hour documentaries that I've seen. I'm not going out and say that I have absolute proof that it was a hoax but all signs point to that. Many other false flags did in fact happen, such as Orlando. I have no doubt that he was hired to pull it off during a very tumultuous week in US politics. The final primary took place and Bernie refuses to endorse Clinton while she steals the election. Of course the media won't talk about voter fraud and suppression because the big news channels are her handlers.

Also, fuck Alex Jones.

[The Legend]

Unarm the population and allow police and the military access to the same weapons that you take away from the civilians, we are one step closer to a police state, martial law and/or complete power and control over the people.

I always respect your input, Vader, but I have to respectfully disagree here. The United States has the most technologically developed and prodigious military in the entire world. They don't need to disarm the population if they want to implement a police state or impose martial law. Some citizens having an assault rifle means nothing when you look at the sheer intricacy and immensity of the United States military inventory. I find this argument very unsound, to be honest, and I mostly hear it from the ardent reactionaries like Alex Jones. My country, Australia, disarmed the population following the Port Arthur massacre, and we haven't had anything like a police state.

Also, when you say Sandy Hook is a false flag operation, are you saying it didn't happen or it did happen but the perpetuator was acting as an agent to the US government?

Australia is very different from the US. I don't live there and don't know much about the relationship between government and the people but over here it's pretty scary. They've rigged our presidential election to move towards a more totalitarian state. Mass shootings mostly happen during important socio-political times. As far as Sandy Hook goes, I believe it to be a hoax considering the multiple 2 to 3 plus hour documentaries that I've seen. I'm not going out and say that I have absolute proof that it was a hoax but all signs point to that. Many other false flags did in fact happen, such as Orlando. I have no doubt that he was hired to pull it off during a very tumultuous week in US politics. The final primary took place and Bernie refuses to endorse Clinton while she steals the election. Of course the media won't talk about voter fraud and suppression because the big news channels are her handlers.

Also, fuck Alex Jones.

It must be a very scary place inside your head.

[Circled Square]

Lol even I think Sandy Hook was a hoax. Easily the strangest coverage of a shooting I've ever seen with more holes in the official story than swiss cheese.

[DBSoT]

Apparently we are all living in a Jason Bourne movie or a less religious version of the Da Vinci Code. Whatever helps people try to understand these terrible situations, I guess.

Things that I believe:
- 9-11 was not an inside job
- Sandy Hook was perpetrated by a mentally unstable individual with extremely easy access to his parents guns
- Tupac is dead and not living in any foreign country
- George Bush was a horrible president, not the orchestrator of the largest conspiracy in history
- When Congress does shady shit, it is very obvious and well documented. We live in a world where we have access to information 24-7. You couldn't get away with a large conspiracy without evidence to completely counteract it. I am not talking about some speculation, I mean obvious evidence.
- If I am wrong in anyway, then there is nothing we as a society can do to stop it anyway. Outside of full scale revolution, there is nothing that can be done if all the people in charge have the power to stay there.
- (Hang on Vaderbomb) If there is a government conspiracy, Bernie would likely be apart of it. Doesn't it seem odd that he made it as far as he did in the national elections. If the powers that be really didn't want him causing trouble they would have stopped him way before he got into a position to voice his opinion on a debate stage.

[Circled Square]

I might make a Sandy Hook thread if I feel autistic enough today. It's one of those conspiracies with a decent amount of evidence to back it up. And believing the official 9/11 story is actually going against the popular opinion.

[Daz]

I might make a Sandy Hook thread if I feel autistic enough today. It's one of those conspiracies with a decent amount of evidence to back it up. And believing the official 9/11 story is actually going against the popular opinion.

I haven't actually heard much about this theory, so that could be interesting.

[AkydefGoldberg]

Apparently we are all living in a Jason Bourne movie or a less religious version of the Da Vinci Code. Whatever helps people try to understand these terrible situations, I guess.

Things that I believe:
- 9-11 was not an inside job
- Sandy Hook was perpetrated by a mentally unstable individual with extremely easy access to his parents guns
- Tupac is dead and not living in any foreign country
- George Bush was a horrible president, not the orchestrator of the largest conspiracy in history
- When Congress does shady shit, it is very obvious and well documented. We live in a world where we have access to information 24-7. You couldn't get away with a large conspiracy without evidence to completely counteract it. I am not talking about some speculation, I mean obvious evidence.
- If I am wrong in anyway, then there is nothing we as a society can do to stop it anyway. Outside of full scale revolution, there is nothing that can be done if all the people in charge have the power to stay there.
- (Hang on Vaderbomb) If there is a government conspiracy, Bernie would likely be apart of it. Doesn't it seem odd that he made it as far as he did in the national elections. If the powers that be really didn't want him causing trouble they would have stopped him way before he got into a position to voice his opinion on a debate stage.

Security services in many Western countries - the FBI/CIA, M15 etc - are probably the only organisations capable of being involved in any sort of conspiracy because transparency is hardly likely to be present which I can understand. There's work they do I imagine that is covertly done not in the interests of their own countries.

Governments do fuck up and things like the Freedom of Information Act in the UK is a great tool to get official documents but it's a shame when the media seem unwilling (due to their own interests) or incapable of investigating acts of government that should not happen.