Orlando Night Club Terrors

[Twins_Mercury]

A lot of people throw around the claim that there are more guns than there are people in the United States. Given that claim it's gonna be pretty damn hard to control that many guns. A more reasonable solution may be to train some people to become trusted protectors in case the police can't arrive on time (which is often the case).

[Python.]

Points I'd like to make

 

1. U.S. Citizens worry the government is trying to take away their guns and therefore their 2nd amendment rights, when in reality they're trying to make it more difficult to obtain. Mentally ill people shouldn't get a gun anywhere

2. There is no need for any innocent person to die by a gun/explosives/knives/etc. unless it is an active warzone. Orlando is not a warzone. Bringing up the fact people die by other means elsewhere is irrelevant

3. If we can't make it harder for people to get a gun or use one, we need to make stricter rules on where they can bring it. You don't need a gun in a zoo, a school, a concert, or a gay club.

 

Like it's really not complicated, but gun activists are too caught up in their pride to set it aside in an attempt to save lives.

We're not taking away your guns, just comply with a couple set rules that do not affect you (or very little) if you are not a murderer

[Tats]

Islam is a major source of schizophrenia. Love and hate are preached towards other religions for instance. Concerning homosexuality, on one side it is forbidden, but on the other side, some agreed hadiths report their prophet had homosexual and pedophile relationships. Islam contains many contradictions which makes their believers unstable. Tolerance was certainly according to him, just some kind of hypocrisy : that's how radical islam work, he's chosen one side.

 

As the USA are a multicultural society, it is not safe from islam most common issues, just like radical islam.

[Hyperqube]

To append to Tats' quote - that's pretty much true for many religions.

 

As 'close to home' example, just look at the westboro baptist church.

As I googled the name to get the correct spelling, this was the first hit:

 

The Westboro Baptist Church celebrated the Orlando mass shooting on Twitter.

That's ... well ...

[Gren]

Is it not worth trying? Is the solution to simply say "it will never work, let's not even bother and just accept mass shootings will always happen frequently in America"? Even if it doesn't stop every mass shootings, ensuring people who buy guns are not only mentally stable but also qualified to own and operate the gun they're using seems like a good idea to me.

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I find it absolute incomprehensible why someone other than a soldier in a war needs even a semi automatic weapon, let alone full automatics.  Same goes for Hand Canons (e.g. Magnum .45) and a bunch of other shit that couldn't possibly be used for hunting and instead are literally designed for the purpose of killing other humans.  I believe in our gun laws (Canadian) and they are much more restrictive than in the US.  However as I said, it's still possible here to get your hands on a shotgun which will allow you to go on a massive killing spree if you so wished.  Yet, this only happens here very rarely.  

 

Gun laws are one thing.  But then it seems like we'd be remiss not to mention that the US is also the biggest manufacturer of guns and weapons in general.  Then let's consider that the US has always glorified violence in popular culture, much moreso than any other Western nation (and yet, when a nipple makes an appearance, every freaks out).  It's all these things plus a bunch of other issues that are creating these murderers (let's not forget that only a small portion of these domestic terrorist acts are actually acted out by Islamic radicals - which is definitely a huge issue globally - however domestically as far the US is concerned, the problems run much, much deeper.  

[[Unactive Account]]

Islam is a major source of schizophrenia.

 

As the USA are a multicultural society, it is not safe from islam most common issues, just like radical islam.

?????

 

did you know that schizophrenia is a mental disorder that makes you distorted from reality (hearing voices etc.)

 

I don't think being Muslim makes you at a higher chance of have schizophrenia

[meme chan]

Oh don't get me wrong, I find it absolute incomprehensible why someone other than a soldier in a war needs even a semi automatic weapon, let alone full automatics. 

I believe the second amendment dictates that each capable man (maybe woman? I don't live in the US) is essentially a soldier of war in the form of a militia to ensure the people are safe from tyranny. This has been regulated, you can no longer have your own private warships or freely own cannons etc.

 

However I guess a more non-cliche argument for your point would be that they are used for enjoyment purposes down a range and self defense. 

I don't live in the US or anything and gun laws are extremely strict in my country so yeah.

Just thought I'd play devils advocate.

[Professional Map Painter]

I believe the second amendment dictates that each capable man (maybe woman? I don't live in the US) is essentially a soldier of war in the form of a militia to ensure the people are safe from tyranny. This has been regulated, you can no longer have your own private warships or freely own cannons etc.

Except for the fact that the Minutemen are now effectively the National Guard, and other countries that had similar laws in place have updated them since the 18th century.

 

Then again I suppose you could adopt the Swiss model and force people to do national service if they want to own a firearm.

[Utsoob]

Can we just shut the fuck up about the gun rights/restrictions bullshit?

 

The guy was a ISIS supporting, Islamic nutcase. If he had a knife or anything that would cause harm that night, he would still have killed somebody.

 

Let's talk about the event here.

[Professional Map Painter]

Can we just shut the fuck up about the gun rights/restrictions bullshit?

 

This ISIS nutjob was able to legally purchase firearms, so no, I won't.

[Chewi105]

I don't know why this thread has veered into gun control

 

Can we just shut the fuck up about the gun rights/restrictions bullshit?

 

The guy was a ISIS supporting, Islamic nutcase. If he had a knife or anything that would cause harm that night, he would still have killed somebody.

 

Let's talk about the event here.

Probably because that was one of the main points that the President himself mentioned above every other detail of the event, even the fact that this was an act of "Radical Islam", a phrase he refuses to say.

Liberals have made it certain that you cannot discuss any kind of shooting without the inclusion of the gun control debate. They aren't mutually exclusive topics anymore.

 

Id rather keep it to the gun law discussion rather than veer it into a discussion about religion, I don't think people would be able to discuss that topic without finding reasons to be offended.

[Spiritwalker]

Then again I suppose you could adopt the Swiss model and force people to do national service if they want to own a firearm.

 

You can actually get firearms without going to the military around here and in switzerland. If you don't go to the military you need to get some form of license to do so, though. 

 

Which kinda helps with mentally unstable and abusive people not being able to buy guns here.

I know though that at least in Switzerland there have been cases where members of salafist communities have a hard time getting such a license - rightfully so.

[meme chan]

@Shamefurr Display

 

The National Guard pledge allegiance to the nation and it's federal government; thus the militia is still somewhat relevant in the 2nd amendment's terms considering that it is alleged to the people; not to a single entity thus the whole tyranny thing.

[Gren]

Probably because that was one of the main points that the President himself mentioned above every other detail of the event, even the fact that this was an act of "Radical Islam", a phrase he refuses to say.

Liberals have made it certain that you cannot discuss any kind of shooting without the inclusion of the gun control debate. They aren't mutually exclusive topics anymore.

 

Id rather keep it to the gun law discussion rather than veer it into a discussion about religion, I don't think people would be able to discuss that topic without finding reasons to be offended.

 

Yes, 100% true.  The "Left" avoids blaming Islam at all costs.  They can't even go so far as saying that Radical Islam is a very legitimate part of the religion, instead just labeling them "Terrorists".  

 

And the hypocrisy here is once again astounding (there are massive hypocrisies on both sides, not just the left):  A large part of the Left is atheist and will reject anything Christian without so much as a critical thought.  Christian doctrine = Bad.  But for some reason, we are not allowed to have an honest discussion on Islam.  

 

I call myself an atheist, but I can see that Islam in its current state (and as matter of fact even historically) is by far the most violent of the three major monotheistic traditions.  Women are severely restricted in their freedom, non-believers are thought of as less than human and if you leave the religion, you are eligible to get killed.  This isn't shit some extremist made up, it's right there in the book.  

 

Judaism went through many changes, Christianity had the reformation, and Islam had....nothing.  Jack shit.  It's never been reformed and it's still in more or less the same shape as it when their prophet came up with all his crazy ass nonsense.  But I can't talk about that.  That's racist.  So I guess I'll just go back to criticizing the Pope, since that's still considered cool and edgy.  

[GMSkaldak]

Points I'd like to make

 

1. U.S. Citizens worry the government is trying to take away their guns and therefore their 2nd amendment rights, when in reality they're trying to make it more difficult to obtain. Mentally ill people shouldn't get a gun anywhere

 

I agree with the mentally ill part, however, if you were faced with the "dilemma" of finding a good way to eradicate the 2nd amendment, while there are close to, or over, three hundred million guns in the U.S., with people having the mentality of "Take it from my cold dead hands", would you opt for a total ban on all weapons? Or simply start by restricting access to a certain type of weapon, then adding a national firearms registry, then banning semi-automatic handguns, then all handguns, then long guns, etc.

 

Point is, if you were to creep additional restrictions to firearms into law under the guise of "common-sense gun control", you can effectively erode the 2nd amendment away to nothing; which is exactly what some politicians and activists want to do.

 

 

 

3. If we can't make it harder for people to get a gun or use one, we need to make stricter rules on where they can bring it. You don't need a gun in a zoo, a school, a concert, or a gay club.

 

 

Newsflash: "Pulse", the gay bar in Orlando where all this went down, was ALREADY a "gun free" zone. Lot of good that "No Guns" sign on the door did, huh?

 

Edit for source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/12/orlando-pulse-gay-bar-gun-free-zone-state-law/

[Piterek]

Stop telling that it happened, because the law isn't strict enough about guns or that because he was kebab.

It was obviously the brutal games fault! Probably because he played too much this violent series called GTA and lost control.

We should ban games, not guns!

 

 

Also: 

Another mass shooting in murica? "Happens and he was Muslim - that explains a lot."

Trying to ban or do something with guns? "Hurr, durr stop taking away my freedom, you chicken mcnugget!"

After they had their guns for so many years then won't leave hem just like that. Even if the law would do something about it then it wouldn't change anything.

This country is the best example why you shouldn't make guns for everyone in the first place.

[Explosion-chan]

That's true and I agree with you but the distinguishing difference here is that you would now have madman with a knife or a robber with a knife which would obviously be different from them holding a gun with X amount of rounds each with the potential to kill one life. Guns are made to kill and in this case the guy literally downed 50 people in a matter of seconds.

 

Make the tests for owning a gun harder, have regular assessments of the mental health of owners either of these would have prevented so many of the pass mass shootings where the gunman legally owned their gun. Think right now most states you just need to pass a simple background check and wait the 10 day period but even then you can bypass that via private seller who arn't legally required to run a background check or even from a gunshow.

 

Again not saying you should ban guns just at the very least dont make it so piss poor easy for people to purchase them :l

 

I didn't check to see if anyone made this point yet, but nobody wins a knife fight. In many ways, knives are a lot more dangerous to fight with than guns. Not saying in situations of mass shootings, but just in general fights.

[Hyperqube]

If he had a knife or anything that would cause harm that night, he would still have killed somebody.

Explain how he realistically would stab 103 people (50 of which fatal)? in ... ac ouple of hours?

 

 

we are not allowed to have an honest discussion on Islam.

Oh - but you're wrong about that. We aleady /had/ the honest discussion.

And the conclusion was that the problem isn't Religion X - it's radicalisation; the moment when people decide to resort to violence for what they believe (be it a religion, a political stance, ...)

 

The history of terrorist attacks and such, that confirms it (there's a famous article on this called "all terrorist attacks are done by Islam, except the 99% that isn't" or something like that)

 

And if we look look at the last 24(?) hours, it confirms it:

• "moderate" islam communities around the world condemmed the attack
• Westboro ("radical" christianity) celebrates it

[Gren]

Explain how he realistically would stab 103 people (50 of which fatal)? in ... ac ouple of hours?

 

 

Oh - but you're wrong about that. We aleady /had/ the honest discussion.

And the conclusion was that the problem isn't Religion X - it's radicalisation; the moment when people decide to resort to violence for what they believe (be it a religion, a political stance, ...)

 

The history of terrorist attacks and such, that confirms it (there's a famous article on this called "all terrorist attacks are done by Islam, except the 99% that isn't" or something like that)

 

And if we look look at the last 24(?) hours, it confirms it:

• "moderate" islam communities around the world condemmed the attack
• Westboro ("radical" christianity) celebrates it

 

 

Please don't do that.  Please don't say something like "we've had the discussion and we know what's going on.".  It's a ridiculous statement and one that you cannot prove.  Prominent atheists like Hitchens and Sam Harris are still arguing against this misconceptionthat it's not inherent in Islam, it's just a few bad seeds when again - it is right there in their book, preached in all caliphates (e.g. Saudi Arabia, etc.).  The debate is far from over.  So go ahead and ask all the "moderate" muslims in Saudi Arabia (the West's biggest Arab ally in the middle East) what they think of these attacks.  They'll probably be too busy to answer you though since they'll be beheading people in soccer stadiums precisely because it's in their book.  

[Hyperqube]

Prominent atheists like Hitchens and Sam Harris are still arguing against this misconceptionthat it's not inherent in Islam.

.... Hitchens is dead for 5 years ...

it is right there in their book

sigh ... ORLY?

 

if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that firstly, Harris would also point out that it's also in the bible that gays are sinners. if "it is right there in their book", to use your words, were a decent argument you just not only pitted every muslim in the category you wanna blame for the shooting - but you also added the 72% of the US that is Christian or Jewish.

 

if you actually knew what you were talking about, I wouldn't need to point out, to quote your man Sam Harris

 

One sign of religious moderation is not being too sure about the divine origin of any book. Moderate Muslims, therefore, will understand that all texts and doctrines should be susceptible to criticism without fear of violent reprisal.

In an HONEST discussion "it's right there in the book", is the argument that seperates moderates from radicals.

 

 

 

Sorry mate - but the honest discussion IS over. It ended when people started to differente between "moderate" & "radical" people.

 

You wanna hate on Islam, go hate somewhere else.

 

 

There are now 1.3 billion Muslims on earth, and Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. There is no question that we must give Muslim moderates every tool they need to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists.

-- Your source. Sam Harris

So go ahead and ask all the "moderate" muslims in Saudi Arabia (the West's biggest Arab ally in the middle East) what they think of these attacks.

*cough*

Saudi Arabia strongly condemned on Monday a deadly mass shooting in Orlando, Florida which claimed the lives of 50 people a day earlier and left scores injured.

 

Saudi Ambassador to the United States Abdullah Al-Saud said in a statement: “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia condemns in the strongest terms the attack on innocent people in Orlando, Florida, and sends its deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims and to the people of the United States.â€

Ya can say what ya want about Saudi Arabia. Unlike Westboro, they condemned the attack.

[Gren]

.... Hitchens is dead for 5 years ...

sigh ... ORLY?

 

if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that firstly, Harris would also point out that it's also in the bible that gays are sinners. if "it is right there in their book", to use your words, were a decent argument you just not only pitted every muslim in the category you wanna blame for the shooting - but you also added the 72% of the US that is Christian or Jewish.

 

if you actually knew what you were talking about, I wouldn't need to point out, to quote your man Sam Harris

 

One sign of religious moderation is not being too sure about the divine origin of any book. Moderate Muslims, therefore, will understand that all texts and doctrines should be susceptible to criticism without fear of violent reprisal.

In an HONEST discussion "it's right there in the book", is the argument that seperates moderates from radicals.

 

 

 

Sorry mate - but the honest discussion IS over. It ended when people started to differente between "moderate" & "radical" people.

 

You wanna hate on Islam, go hate somewhere else.

 

 

There are now 1.3 billion Muslims on earth, and Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. There is no question that we must give Muslim moderates every tool they need to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists.

-- Your source. Sam Harris

*cough*

Saudi Arabia strongly condemned on Monday a deadly mass shooting in Orlando, Florida which claimed the lives of 50 people a day earlier and left scores injured.

 

Saudi Ambassador to the United States Abdullah Al-Saud said in a statement: “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia condemns in the strongest terms the attack on innocent people in Orlando, Florida, and sends its deepest condolences to the families and friends of the victims and to the people of the United States.â€

Ya can say what ya want about Saudi Arabia. Unlike Westboro, they condemned the attack.

 

 

I never defended Christianity.  I think Christianity is slightly less retarded than Islam, mostly due to being a reformed religion which Islam of course is not.  However, if you asked me to defend Christianity, I would probably say something like "Westoro holds signs, Saudi Arabia executes people for adultery in soccer stadiums".  And of course, homosexuality is technically punishable by death in Saudi Arabia.  So much for Saudi Arabia's stance on homosexuals.  Of course they condemned the attacks, they're the US' biggest Arab ally, so no big surprise there. In the meantime, women aren't allowed to drive there, let alone live their lives autonomously.  Do you know of any predominantly Christian countries where women aren't allowed to drive?  Oh hey, speaking of Sharia Law - the Muslim legal code as per the Koran - did you know that 91% of Muslims in Iraq think that Sharia law should be instated?  In Pakistan it's only 84% so it's definitely better than in Afghanistan where the number is a whopping 99%.  Should we get into stats that show how many Muslims in Europe look favourably on suicide bombings?  I'm sure you can do the research yourself, it will be quite educational for you.   

 

The issue is that some people (like you evidently) are hellbent on proving that only a tiny part of the Muslim world even sympathizes with these attacks, let alone condones them.  The reality is that it isn't a small minority, it's at the very least a significantly large minority.  Look at the Muslim nations.  Go look at Saudi Arabia's atrocious human rights record.  Go look at Iran's stance on homosexuals and cartoons depicting the prophet.  No, this is not a small minority.  Nobody is arguing that moderate Muslims don't exist, they obviously do, but they do not make up a significant majority of the Islamic faith.  

 

Also, I'm going to remind you of my original statement which you took one sentence out of and quoted.  My original statement was that Islam is currently the most violent of three major monotheistic traditions.  Look at the points I've made above.  Look up what life is actually like in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia or Sudan (all have Sharia Law and obviously have predominantly Muslim populations) and then tell me: does that sound moderate to you?  What if a bunch of countries with predominantly Christian populations in Western Europe, like Germany, France, Spain, etc. had a legal code where adultery, idolatry and homosexuality (all sins according to the bible) were punishable by law?  Let's not even go as far as a death sentence, let's just assume it was just a "mild" prison sentence of 6 months.  What would that do to your perception of Christianity?  Would you call it an overall peaceful, tolerant and welcoming religion, even though there are entire countries using its' "virtues" to punish those they deem sinners because it's in a book written 2,000 years ago?  It's not a rhetorical question.  

[Explosion-chan]

 

Just to add to your statements on Christianity, after reformation, Christians no longer see homosexuality as a sin to kill for.

[Hyperqube]

And of course, homosexuality is technically punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. So much for Saudi Arabia's stance on homosexuals.

and the rethoric in the world doesn't chance the fact that they condemn the attack.

 

They might have a different set of laws - laws we find unjust - but the simple fact you're trying to pit the terrorists together with the people who condemn the terrorists actions. And that just shows how much you are incapable or worse, unwilling, to have an honest discussion.

 

Just to add to your statements on Christianity, after reformation, Christians no longer see homosexuality as a sin to kill for.

And that's the problem, ain't it? Why does Westboro celebrate the attacks? They are christians.

 

Look, just use common sense:

Should the 70% of the US that is christian - be judged on what Westboro does? Of course not.

Or, should the 40%(?) of the US that is is right wing - be jugded on what the KKK does? Of course not.

...

 

in an HONEST debate - we don't consider radicals & moderates the same. Because we realise that in some way or some form, everyone can be pitted in a group which contain horrible people. People who's actionas we are appauled by, yet in some shape or form have simelar (though twisted & perverted as they are) ideas

 

if you judge by the worst of us, why should we not judge by the worst of you?

[♠Derpeh♤]

Look at the Muslim nations.  Go look at Saudi Arabia's atrocious human rights record.  Go look at Iran's stance on homosexuals and cartoons depicting the prophet.  No, this is not a small minority.  Nobody is arguing that moderate Muslims don't exist, they obviously do, but they do not make up a significant majority of the Islamic faith. Go look at Saudi Arabia's atrocious human rights record.  Go look at Iran's stance on homosexuals and cartoons depicting the prophet.  No, this is not a small minority.  Nobody is arguing that moderate Muslims don't exist, they obviously do, but they do not make up a significant majority of the Islamic faith 

 

Also, I'm going to remind you of my original statement which you took one sentence out of and quoted.  My original statement was that Islam is currently the most violent of three major monotheistic traditions.  Look at the points I've made above.  Look up what life is actually like in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia or Sudan (all have Sharia Law and obviously have predominantly Muslim populations) and then tell me: does that sound moderate to you? 

 

This is like the textbook definition of bigotry, do realise you're trying to generalise the faith to ~1.5 billion Muslims? Yes, it's horrible for those you listed above but that isnt a Muslim problem that's a problem for the country you can't look at basically what is probably the most extremist/radical in the world and think it's the "significant majority" to the other 1.3 billion in this world. Why not look at the countries which actually are the majority like Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, Malaysia or Turkey? Using your example of Saudi arabia they have a population of 25million muslims, just Indonesia they have 205 million.

 

You cannot just point to an what you think is the "significant majority" and then assume because that a small fucked up nation is an example of everyone else, the biggest victims for these extremist groups if anything are Muslims. You think that a mass shooting or a few bomb threats are a big deal? Muslims are literally having their holy grounds bombed every day, their Mosques are getting destroyed on the daily more Muslim lives are lost from these terrorist attacks in a single day than America has lost in a bloody year. But please keep telling me how they are the "significant majority".

 

I agree on your points about Saudi Arabia but you cannot honestly think that they are representative of a majority of Muslims... That is like me pointing to the westboro baptist church and saying that all american christians are like that.

[Gren]

and the rethoric in the world doesn't chance the fact that they condemn the attack.

 

They might have a different set of laws - laws we find unjust - but the simple fact you're trying to pit the terrorists together with the people who condemn the terrorists actions. And that just shows how much you are incapable or worse, unwilling, to have an honest discussion.

 

And that's the problem, ain't it? Why does Westboro celebrate the attacks? They are christians.

 

Look, just use common sense:

Should the 70% of the US that is christian - be judged on what Westboro does? Of course not.

Or, should the 40%(?) of the US that is is right wing - be jugded on what the KKK does? Of course not.

...

 

in an HONEST debate - we don't consider radicals & moderates the same. Because we realise that in some way or some form, everyone can be pitted in a group which contain horrible people. People who's actionas we are appauled by, yet in some shape or form have simelar (though twisted & perverted as they are) ideas

 

if you judge by the worst of us, why should we not judge by the worst of you?

 

 

You didn't answer any of my points.  I presented you with facts.  You keep coming back with 1) the fact that some Saudi official condemned these attacks (which is at best hypocritical considering what goes on in Saudi Arabia) and something about Westboro nutbags.  Westboro comprises 0.0000001% of Christians worldwide.  Radical Islam, as practiced in at least 10 countries wordlwide does not not constitute a small minority.  

 

I also love how you evaded all of my points.  Respond to the facts please.