patrick.net

This morning I heard on NPR something to the tune of "the guy was more like regular, typical mass-murdering nutjob, than a real, bona fide ISIS terrorist"... :rolleyes:

Heraclitusstudent says

Most politicians are not proposing to ban hand guns

They should. The justification for allowing civilians to have hand guns is outweighed by the justification for not.

Heraclitusstudent says

Using a riffle was probably not ideal for the attack. Riffles provide an advantage at a distance, not at point blank or in a melee.

Depends on the rifle. A good old AK-47 is effective at short, medium, and long range.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes we need may need to prevent access to weapon for terror suspects. But I doubt this would be effective to stop terrorists (usually determined people) from getting weapons in a country that has 300 millions fire arms.

Which is why we need to disarm society in general. The fewer arms, the fewer mass shootings by terrorists, criminals, and crazies.

Heraclitusstudent says

But I'm worried the real point of this weapon focus is to distract the public and obfuscate the real causes of the attack.

It's not. Discussions on gun control and religion are not mutually exclusive or even in conflict. It is a false dichotomy to say we need to choose which problem to address. We need to address both problems right now.

In any society, there will always be multiple problems that need to be worked on asynchronously and in parallel. No society can say forget about all problems except this one until it's fixed. That's not a practical way to run a business, nonetheless a society.

Straw Man says

This morning I heard on NPR something to the tune of "the guy was more like regular, typical mass-murdering nutjob, than a real, bona fide ISIS terrorist"... :rolleyes:

Without a quote in context and knowing who said it, it's meaningless. NPR discussions almost always have multiple points of views from multiple guests with different areas of expertise. NPR doesn't present a monolith of talking points like Fox News. It conducts real debates.

Dan8267 says

It's not. Discussions on gun control and religion are not mutually exclusive or even in conflict. It is a false dichotomy to say we need to choose which problem to address. We need to address both problems right now.

At a logical level we need to do both. At the political, media management level, it's a distraction because non of what is proposed would change anything in this attack and because it takes media time and people attention away from the real issue.

Dan8267 says

They should.

But they aren't and they won't. For political, traditional, constitutional, and practical reasons.

Heraclitusstudent says

the AR-15 used in the attack

Although the OP does not specify, I infer from the context that you mean the jihadi terrorist attack June 12 on the Orlando Pulse perpetrated in the name of the "Islamic State" (ISIL/Daesh) by a Muslim, specifically the son of a Taliban supporter. Reading what Islam tells believers to do, I had been expecting that type of attack, and I expect sadly they will continue. The murderer in this latest example used both a Sig Sauer MCX (similar to the AR-15) and a semi-automatic handgun, so that he could kill people both near and far, whether they tried to fight or flee. The club had both indoor and outdoor areas, and a parking lot, so that combination explains probably why he chose a combination of weapons.

@Goran_K, I Liked your latest real estate thread, and I respect especially the analytical method that you used in choosing a new place to live. In a different thread, you expressed interest in the type of long gun that had been used in this attack and some others. I'm curious what advantage(s) might a rational, analytical person (i.e., not a jihadi) see in buying that product instead of saving the money or doing something else with it?

curious2 says

The murderer in this latest example used both an AR-15 and a handgun, so that he could kill people both near and far, whether they tried to fight or flee.

I'm not a specialist but having a panicked crowd in front of him, he probably didn't use the riffle to aim and shoot from a distance.
If anything a riffle made him more vulnerable to the weapon being grabbed and deflected or taken from him.

Heraclitusstudent says

being grabbed and deflected or taken

That's why he carried both. There is also an issue of magazine capacity. He could perhaps have bought a bag full of handguns, but that would have cost more and might have aroused suspicion. I haven't seen any reports about shortening the long gun, but I wonder if he might have done that, or at least considered that. He was also a roid-enhanced bodybuilder, brought up by a Mujahideen/Taliban supporter and trained by Wackenhut/G4S security, and might perhaps have had knives too.

BTW, the mind reels with alternative means. For example, remembering the 1993 WTC bombing, he could probably have rented a van or SUV, loaded it with fertilizer and shrapnel, and driven it into a weak point in the building. In a free society, self-destructive persons highly motivated by a false and irrational doctrine can always find other means.

Also, regarding the Democrats' repeatedly lost & found focus on gun control, I remember them campaigning on the same promises in 1992 and 2008. They won the White House and both houses of Congress, but then, somehow, changed their minds about what they had campaigned on. Some people love recycling so much that they extend it even to their political promises. I love to read, but I get tired of reading the same thing over and over again.

Add a pistol grip to your Ruger 10/22 and it's an Assault Weapon.

Ironman says

the conversion kit

Just curious, what motivates buying the conversion kit, instead of yams or sweet potatoes or other SHTF products?

Meanwhile, if a burglar runs off with your yams, it isn't the end of the world, but if a burglar runs off with your weaponry, that could end the neighborhood. I don't worry overmuch about that scenario, because most burglars want only money, but we might start seeing more exceptions if the "no fly" list becomes a "no buy" list.

Well, I wish you continued health and safety, but I remember riding the NYC subways during the post-9/11 anthrax attacks. Supposedly to reassure us, the Republicans dispatched National Guardsmen carrying assault rifles, either alone or in pairs. Unlike some other people, I did not find that reassuring. To the contrary, I could not help wondering what might happen if a small number of snackbars boarded with concealed small weapons, neutralized the guard(s), and then scored a free upgrade to assault weapons at your expense. I doubt anyone can be always vigilent at all times, as under most conditions such hypervigilence would risk errors in the opposite direction.

Ironman says

The data would seem to indicate the answer is "obviously not."

I agree, the primary issue is motive, followed by opportunity. The third issue is acquiring the means, but jihadis can always find other means if allowed the opportunity. Also, it would not be possible to screen most migrants as carefully as the FBI and others had screened the Orlando and San Bernardino jihadis.

Dan8267 says

Straw Man says

This morning I heard on NPR something to the tune of "the guy was more like regular, typical mass-murdering nutjob, than a real, bona fide ISIS terrorist"... :rolleyes:

Without a quote in context and knowing who said it, it's meaningless.

This meaningless message re will be all over the media for days and weeks to come. The name of the mouthpiece who vomited that out doesn't really matter. It was obvious that it wasn't her original thought.

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle". Its just a term liberals use to identify all rifles out there. And they don't care to just ban a few rifles, they want to ban everything. It's called chipping away at rights until they are gone, pushing the line. Screw em, this line doesn't move an inch. No bans period.

Straw Man says

The name of the mouthpiece who vomited that out doesn't really matter.

It does if you are trying to pin it on NPR. Was it an NPR talkshow host or a guest? Just because someone says something on an NPR show does not mean it's being espoused by NPR.

Ironman says

Why someone didn't rush him, throw a chair or object and try to disarm him

Some may have tried, but the jihadi was a roid-enhanced bodybuilder with professional training, and he may also have been carrying knives. The jihadi waited until 2am, when most customers had been partying for hours and were drunk or otherwise intoxicated, and tired, and he had the element of surprise. By the time people figured out what was happening and stopped the music and turned up the lights, most of the fatalities had probably already occurred. He took hostages who had cowered in a bathroom stall to call for emergency response, but probably they had nothing to throw at him and besides they were trapped in a stall and couldn't get anywhere near him without getting shot.

If he had attacked in the middle of the day, in broad daylight and when more customers were sober and wide awake, then they would have had a better chance of disarming him. That's why he waited until last call, when the crowd had already begun to thin out.

Ironman says

curious2 says

the primary issue is motive,

So how does banning AR-15's change that?

It doesn't, and besides as a licensed professional security guard who cleared multiple background checks, the jihadi would have been first in line to maintain his licenses for the weapons he had. Also, we've had several reports of federal agents leaving guns in parked vehicles in SF, where the guns got stolen, resulting in at least one homicide (so far). Adjusting the availability of particular weapons might affect somewhat the volume of the attacks, or cause the jihadis to use other means, but it would not stop them.

Dan8267 says

It's not. Discussions on gun control and religion are not mutually exclusive or even in conflict. It is a false dichotomy to say we need to choose which problem to address. We need to address both problems right now.

In any society, there will always be multiple problems that need to be worked on asynchronously and in parallel. No society can say forget about all problems except this one until it's fixed. That's not a practical way to run a business, nonetheless a society.

The biggest problem that is never talked about is abuse of the first amendment by the media to give such people free publicity.

MMR says

The biggest problem that is never talked about is abuse of the first amendment by the media to give such people free publicity.

That may be foolishness, but it is not abuse. A right, by definition, cannot be abused regardless of when, where, how often, or to what extent it is used.

Ironman says

MMR says

The biggest problem that is never talked about is abuse of the first amendment by the media

A bigger problem is allowing the media to print such blatant lies everyday and never be held accountable for them.

Biggest problem there is liberal stupidity and naive. The rest would fall into place. Hillary and Obama go around telling the world how Muslims are discriminated and how gays are so special. Well this is the result of weak and ineffective ass kissing liberal leadership. Got gays and muslims, because that's what they support, and hence have more of it. Stupid is what stupid does.

If Hillary gets elected, my gun's won't become illegal, they will become undocumented.

FortWayne says

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle". Its just a term liberals use to identify all rifles out there. And they don't care to just ban a few rifles, they want to ban everything. It's called chipping away at rights until they are gone, pushing the line. Screw em, this line doesn't move an inch. No bans period.

sturmgewehr is where assault rifle came from, and "liberals" generally don't include bolt action rifles, and many others without 'evil features' in that classification. I take your point though, and agree, that 'evil features' were drafted by people who don't know a lick about firearms in general, but they didn't coin 'assault rifle'. The WWII German army did.

We are already drawing lines on what can and cannot be possessed as an arm, so saying 'no bans' is simplistic and wrong. There are already bans on many things throughout every state in the USA. The term "arms" was carefully chosen to allow interpretation. Explosives, in general, have heavy restrictions against them. Armaments which explode, likewise. Generally, civilians cannot own military heavy arms at all.

FortWayne says

Biggest problem there is liberal stupidity and naive. The rest would fall into place. Hillary and Obama go around telling the world how Muslims are discriminated and how gays are so special. Well this is the result of weak and ineffective ass kissing liberal leadership. Got gays and muslims, because that's what they support, and hence have more of it. Stupid is what stupid does.

Hillary and Obama tell their scared-stupid-masses not to be moved to violence against themselves out of their own fear. They tell the scared masses not to discriminate against whole groups of people because of bigoted perceptions.

The type of thinking you express is what has lead to the severe backlash against the Sikh communities here in the US, over and over. A community which has nothing to do with radical islam at all.

Which political figures, past and present, have capitalized on human fear motivations, and incited violence, for political gain? A clever answer might be "all", which I could see as true in a very broad sense, but ask yourself which are the most gregarious and shameless examples? Who stokes the fear and for what purpose?

FortWayne, I think you are a great example of why the US military has worked so hard on general ROE understandings for their forces. Scared people do stupid shit, and that is why Obama/Hillary speak the way they do.

zzyzzx says

If Hillary gets elected, by gun's won't become illegal, they will become undocumented.

'If Hillary gets elected my guns won't' ... I believe is what you are trying to say?

Your guns, are already "undocumented", as in the only person who could provide ownership information would be the authorized dealer who sold it to you, and there is no greater national firearms ownership registry for law enforcement or any other higher national authority. You can also gift a firearm to a relative breaking the link to the original custody chain.

Typically when new firearms legislation is passed, all currently owned but now under new restrictive policy components/guns, are grandfathered in and remain legal.

No one is coming for your guns. Fantasy land. pew-pew-pew get the bad guys.

You don't need a gun in a nightclub shooting in a major city, just dial 9/11.

And they'll resolve the situation before you know it, 3 hours later.

Rew says

sturmgewehr is where assault rifle came from, and "liberals" generally don't include bolt action rifles, and many others without 'evil features' in that classification. I take your point though, and agree, that 'evil features' were drafted by people who don't know a lick about firearms in general, but they didn't coin 'assault rifle'. The WWII German army did.

I think we both agree that "liberals" just use term "assault rifle" interchangeably with weapon slightly longer than a hand gun. At least majority of them anyway.

Rew says

We are already drawing lines on what can and cannot be possessed as an arm, so saying 'no bans' is simplistic and wrong. There are already bans on many things throughout every state in the USA. The term "arms" was carefully chosen to allow interpretation. Explosives, in general, have heavy restrictions against them. Armaments which explode, likewise. Generally, civilians cannot own military heavy arms at all.

I don't disagree with you man. I just don't see a need for them to further restrict more and more. They've already pushed their crap too far. It's stupid really, in CA if you are a law abiding citizen you are effectively disarmed (no open carry and no concealed carry... you lost all your rights). Naturally criminals don't follow rules, so your only option is to die when in a situation. Cops show up to pick your body, not to stop the from killing you.

Ironman says

YOu forgot

Glock!

Ironman says:""Perception IS reality" and FACTS are Fiction."

Rep/Con/Teas allow their Big Govt. to tell you where you cannot take your"arms".
Areas in airports/planes,many govt.properties,etc.that are paid for with Republican taxes.
Now they are talking about restricting gun sales to a group that might include Americans citizens.
Nothing like destroying our greatest Amendment,that be number 2.
Sounds like a"Minority Report",you're guilty before you commit a crime.
Next pre-crimes:
If your a female child you might take birth control to pre-kill a creation of god.
If you ever smoke that killer weed you might become a drug cartel.
Prosecute criminals now!
When will they execute weed smokers or birth control taking women.
R/C/T are here to protect America.

Why discuss this issue in terms of jihadists, when 9/10 of the shootings have nothing to do with Muslim fanatics?

HydroCabron says

Why discuss this issue in terms of jihadists, when 9/10 of the shootings have nothing to do with Muslim fanatics?

Why discuss a terrorist attack as if it were a common crime?

Heraclitusstudent says

Why discuss a terrorist attack as if it were a common crime?

Sandy Hook, James Huberty @McDonalds, Virginia Tech, Aurora etc. are common crimes?

The "terrorist" adjective is imprecise, and conveniently applied: Cliven Bundy and his buddies are arguably as much terrorists as the Orlando asshole, who did not coordinate with ISIS, and has claimed kinship at various points with ISIS, Hezbollah, the Tsarnaev brothers and al Qaeda, despite the remarkable differences in ideology among these groups - strong evidence that he was whackaloon as much as terrorist. The Bundys have a consistent ideology, threatened local merchants with violence if they helped move Bundy cattle onto the market, and sought attention through threats of violence.

Notice how the Jo Cox killing is not being called a terrorist act, though the monster asshole terrorist who killed her followed far-right hate groups and acted against one of their enemies. Seems that word is applied only to certain ideologies. Some British newspapers refer to him as a quiet, gentle gardener who has only ever assassinated a member of parliament just the one time.

HEY YOU says

Ironman says:""Perception IS reality" and FACTS are Fiction."

What would you expect an idiot like CIC to say?

1.) How many gun killings are from rifles?

4%(But you can go verify).

2.) Most of the rest of the gun killings are by handgun. Handguns are VERY easy to smuggle into the US, esp with the ineffective nature of US border policy.

3.) Even if banned, handguns would get into the country. I would not have one. Criminals would.

If you want to increase the minimum penalty for handgun possession to 15 years mandatory in every state AND insta deport anyone illegally crossing into the US AND implement insta arrest/deportations for visa overstays then we can at least have a conversation.

I've never once met a Democrat/lefty who would agree to the above provisions. I have no clue why not so maybe someone here can explain to me why its wrong to immediately deport those who enter illegally and immediately arrest and deport those overstaying their visa.

It seems there are many that believe that simply banning guns will end or drastically reduce killings and murders. It won't. The criminals will still get guns. I won't, but then that solves nothing because I wasnt going to kill anyone anyway, Statistically, mass murders comprise very few of the murders in the US, and I'm guessing that psychos would just move on to bombs or whatever. So eliminating guns(which is the real goal of the left here) wouldn't actually do anything to reduce murders and in fact would likely increase lesser violent crimes as a populace of sheep is left without means to defend itself.

The way I shoot my guns...
The way I lock and load!
To defend everything...
Oh no they can't take that away from me.

Under the Circumstances I'm sure Gershwin would be endorsing Trump today. And the 2nd thingy.

Look, we all know the Tsarnaev Brothers, Farook, Mateen, the DC Snipers, they were all Lone Gun Nuts outraged at the potential of a liberal supreme court. Only Islamophobes say otherwise.

HydroCabron says

Sandy Hook, James Huberty @McDonalds, Virginia Tech, Aurora etc. are common crimes?

Whether or not they are is irrelevant. Weapon regulations are about shootings in general, most of which are not mass shootings. They are about common crimes.

Again making a terrorist attack, a gun control issue is absurd.
Anyone sufficiently determined will always be able to find 2 hand guns and do what the Orlando guy did.

Heraclitusstudent says

Weapon regulations are about shootings in general, most of which are not mass shootings. They are about common crimes

Once again, then: Why focus on discussions of weapons regulations solely as they apply to Jihadi attacks?

First you nonsensically connected my "90% of mass shootings are not perpetrated by Islamists" to an attempt to equate terrorism with common crimes (?). Now you wave it all aside by stating that weapons regulations are about shootings in general - that was the direction of my original point. For some reason, my saying mass shootings are about more than Jihadi acts is attempting to equate terrorism with common crimes, while your saying that shootings are about far more than even mass shootings, and include common crimes, is a sage and definitive point.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, all I literally said was that 90% of mass shootings are not Jihadi acts, which is why limiting these policy discussions solely to "What would stop Jihadism?" seems PC and dainty to me. It's as if we're saying "Well, the Virginia Tech and Aurora shooters were not Muslim, so those situations are off the table. Ditto with gangbangers knocking over a liquor store."

Could you pull up stakes and move to at least the suburbs of coherence and logic?

Ironman says

A bigger problem is allowing the media to print such blatant lies everyday and never be held accountable for them.

Exactly what I meant

Dan8267 says

That may be foolishness, but it is not abuse. A right, by definition, cannot be abused regardless of when, where, how often, or to what extent it is used.

You sound like Bill Clinton in the lewinsky trial arguing the definition of 'is'. I would ask you to apply your logic to the second amendment.

I'm against all forms of gun control, especially requiring safety classes. How will we ever weed out the dumbasses from the gene pool if we keep making it harder for them to die from a misfire accidents?

www.youtube.com/embed/E33Z0RPWuHs

MMR says

You sound like Bill Clinton in the lewinsky trial arguing the definition of 'is'. I would ask you to apply your logic to the second amendment.

1. If you think a right can be abused, then you don't really think it's a right.
2. I have applied my logic to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment hasn't been in effect since at least WWII since as it is written and as it is intended, the Second Amendment means you can have nuclear arms. After all, nuclear arms are arms and the Second Amendment says the right to bear "arms" not "guns". There is nothing special about guns that would make the Second Amendment apply only to them and not any other type of arm.
3. The Second Amendment is just plain stupid having been written at a time when all people had were muskets and pitch forks.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

They should.

But they aren't and they won't. For political, traditional, constitutional, and practical reasons.

Also the data ive seen doesnt support this, so add rational to your list.

HydroCabron says

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, all I literally said was that 90% of mass shootings are not Jihadi acts, which is why limiting these policy discussions solely to "What would stop Jihadism?" seems PC and dainty to me.

You fully lost the thread. I don't object to weapon regulations, I'm only object to presenting these as a solution of what happened in Orlando.
These regulations are irrelevant to stop terrorism. They may be adapted to stop other shootings, but this is irrelevant in the current thread, because we are discussing Obama/Clinton's response to a terrorist event.

jazz music says

Islam may be the banner but it's clear that this man's psychological distress about himself played a tragic role in these killings.

This is a distinction without a difference. Why was he feeling psychological distress about his impulses? Why did he feel guilty? Why did he blame others for their dirty life styles? Obviously the cause of all this is the teaching that gays are perverts who will burn in hell for eternity. Here is the dogma that corrupted his entire universe. Every vital impulse is a sin in this dogma. Every impulse must be controlled, hidden, veiled, and appropriately expiated and punished, be it by stoning, or by being thrown out a roof top.

Add to this the teaching that redemption is automatic provided you die for the faith and take a sufficient number of infidels with you. You will go straight to paradise, and get to take some of your family with you.

This is the cocktail of beliefs Islam offered him.

Granted the texts do not specify if there will be 72 gay Bavarian giants "virgins" waiting to pound him. But outside of this detail, the cause here is clearly only Islam, not gayness.