Orlando: Worst Mass Shooting In US History

[thesloppy]

Culturally, I used to scoff and immediately dismiss the idea of video games and/or movies and television having an effect on America's level of gun violence....but I think I'm starting to come around. I'm certainly not going to say they're anything near the primary reason for this violence, or that pop-culture needs to be further regulated any way, but it does seem to belong somewhere in the discussion. Other countries where guns aren't so prevalent probably don't have 6 versions of Law & Order running concurrently at any given hour of the day.

[jeff061]

So it doesn't seem to me like this guy was insane to the degree that any mental healthcare reform would have helped. Packed night club, if he didn't have a gun he'd have used something else.

Bad shit happens. It's great that these horrible situations spark this kind of debate, but I don't think this one is terribly relevant. Unless we turn into a truly locked down repressive country, this shit will happen. Price of freedom.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I also think one of the problems we have is that a whole bunch of countries to the South of us would be more than willing to fill a black market. We can't stop drugs, what makes us think we could stop guns from coming into this country?

Do you think we should legalize Heroine? I'm fine with pot being legal (much like handguns and shotguns). But, I'm not a big fan of Heroine or Meth being legal. Just like with an AR-15 or M-4, there are very few ways to responsibly use those drugs.

[nol]

Originally Posted by jeff061

So it doesn't seem to me like this guy was insane to the degree that any mental healthcare reform would have helped. Packed night club, if he didn't have a gun he'd have used something else.

And been overtaken long before killing 50 people. What an asinine argument. Do you think there are samurai out there who regularly go on spree killings, but we just don't hear about it in the media? "Bringing a knife to a gunfight" is a saying for a reason.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

We are just trying to make it more difficult for criminals. Could they bring 3 semi-automatic handguns and fire off 90 rounds like the AR-15 did? Sure, but that's a tougher situation as it takes time to reload/switch guns and/or obtain all three weapons. Plus, maybe the criminal wants an AR-15 - but because it is illegal he uses a bigger ISIS channel, comes up on the FBI radar and triggers some kind of monitor action. The point is there really is no downside to making it tougher to get assault weapons. If you are a law abiding citizen without any prior ties/offenses, it just takes a little longer than a handgun.

In a vacuum I totally agree with you...if you could just remove assault weapons entirely, sure why not? It's certainly not a bad idea. However, I'd maintain that in reality there IS a couple downsides to trying to make it tougher to get assault weapons:

The first is that it's been proven time and time again that gun buying rates increase dramatically during legislation & threat thereof, in which case relatively small, incremental changes to gun laws could very possibly decrease ownership of a specific types of weapons while increasing gun ownership in total.

Secondarily, I think assault weapons bans and incremental changes to gun laws also foster the cultural/political divide between conservatives and liberals, as many liberals' ignorance about assault weapons will result in them being sorely disappointed in the reality of an assault weapons ban, & immediately looking for more effective action....which is exactly how the gun nuts arrive at the idea that "they're going to take all our guns!" A single, decisive action would likely be better for the country's psyche than further decades of divisive waffling.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by jeff061

So it doesn't seem to me like this guy was insane to the degree that any mental healthcare reform would have helped. Packed night club, if he didn't have a gun he'd have used something else.

Bad shit happens. It's great that these horrible situations spark this kind of debate, but I don't think this one is terribly relevant. Unless we turn into a truly locked down repressive country, this shit will happen. Price of freedom.

I dunno, it's kind of a philosophical debate at this point. For sure, no immediate changes to mental health care were going to do shit for this particular dude...a really good trip to the therapist wasn't the difference here, but maybe in a different environment he would've sought or been forced into help when he abused his wife (or before), and that might have either served to hold him back or made it easier to identify him as potential trouble.

That aside, I'm intrigued to hear if you're equating mental health care reform with repression? That's an interesting take. Are you imagining mandatory emotional screening, or something along those lines, or are you just saying you don't want to be financially responsible for anybody else's mental health? Personally, I'm thinking more along the lines of removing the stigma from seeking professional help, and drastically reducing the reliance on pharmaceuticals would be a good start.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by nol

And been overtaken long before killing 50 people. What an asinine argument. Do you think there are samurai out there who regularly go on spree killings, but we just don't hear about it in the media? "Bringing a knife to a gunfight" is a saying for a reason.

I'm not going to sit here and list methods, but running around a packed club knifing people is not what I had in mind.

And really, just for the record, they could ban guns 100 percent tomorrow and I'd be just fine
Not a gun owner, never will be a gun owner. Since you seemed so eager to pigeon hole me into a side.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Arles

Do you think we should legalize Heroine? I'm fine with pot being legal (much like handguns and shotguns). But, I'm not a big fan of Heroine or Meth being legal. Just like with an AR-15 or M-4, there are very few ways to responsibly use those drugs.

We should absolutely legalize heroin. Sweden legalized, then set up places where heroin addicts could get it, with clean needles and safe places to take it. It was overseen in case something went wrong. They also provided counseling and job skill training.
Sweden saw a 60% reduction in heroin addicts.

Yes, all drugs should be legalized.

[jeff061]

Really I guess the stance I take is to not make change for change's sake. Everyone understandably gets emotional and does the exact opposite of that.

[tarcone]

There is no reason to criminalize guns. This guy was a nut. Had it not been a gun, maybe a bomb.
Or we can go to the argument, what if everyone was armed in the club? How many would have died? That is the extreme flip side.

Im ok with gun regulation. I get it. But crazy people who want to damage will do damage if guns are legal or not.

[Edward64]

Just some of my thoughts ...

1) If AR15 like assault weapons were banned/tightly controlled, other handguns and rifles will be used. I don't think access to AR15 like assault weapons is the root cause, criminal and crazies will go to other available pistols or rifles.

2) I don't see much of a difference between a AR15 and other guns/rifles out there. Now if you want to outlaw all guns, that's a different discussion

3) For the NRA and other like minded, I think their staunch stance is based on the deep distrust of the US government. Shotguns and pistols may be fine for home defense but they are not going to stop the UN troops, Commies, Illuminati etc. when they "Red Dawn" us

4) I remember when automated background checks were resisted back in the 90's. Its been implemented. It may not be 100% but its better than nothing. I think there is room for more interim steps/restrictions

5) Pistol calibers can do just as much if not more damage than a standard 5.56. However, a AR15 has more range and probably more reliable

6) Not sure how he made it through the background check process. It'll be interesting to hear how/why/what the criteria is. I suspect its because "he did nothing or said anything legally wrong" even with the FBI inquiring

I own weapons. I don't believe in #3 conspiracies but do think disasters occur (e.g. Katrina) where law and order breaks down for a long period of time. If I'm a law abiding citizen, I want to be able to own weapons.

I'm for more gun control and restrictions, do think there are too many out there but I am not for eliminating a class of weapons just because its been used the most in shootings. With that said, I'm all for breaking the NRA grip on gun control.

[nol]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I'm not going to sit here and list methods, but running around a packed club knifing people is not what I had in mind.

And really, just for the record, they could ban guns 100 percent tomorrow and I'd be just fine
Not a gun owner, never will be a gun owner. Since you seemed so eager to pigeon hole me into a side.

I'm pigeonholing you into the side of people like NobodyHere who pretend to have some laundry list of efficient methods of killing people outside of using guns but don't bother specifying anything because I guess it makes you sound super mysterious or dangerous or something.

I'm sure you're a secret agent or hitman and being an IT guy is just your cover-up job, so spill the beans! Keep in mind that this is in reference to a person who, as you said, was insane to a degree which no therapist could help, so probably stay away from any suggestions that would require any kind of complex long-term planning (after all, he apparently didn't know or care to delete any files from his devices).

[timmae]

Originally Posted by nol

I'm pigeonholing you into the side of people like NobodyHere who pretend to have some laundry list of efficient methods of killing people outside of using guns but don't bother specifying anything because I guess it makes you sound super mysterious or dangerous or something.

New to the discussion but... grenades, pipe bombs, gas bomps, nuclear grade materials, semi trucks, airplanes, helicopters, flamethrower, nailguns, construction vehicles... I am sure more adventurous souls can come up with more. Is this list really needed?!

[nol]

Originally Posted by timmae

New to the discussion but... grenades, pipe bombs, gas bomps, nuclear grade materials, semi trucks, airplanes, helicopters, flamethrower, nailguns, construction vehicles... I am sure more adventurous souls can come up with more. Is this list really needed?!

Oh my God, you've just balanced our budget! Why are we wasting all this money on assault rifles for our soldiers when we can just pick up some nail guns at Lowe's? Everything else you listed is incredibly easy for an insane person already on a government watchlist to acquire and use properly (not to mention inexpensive), so great post.

[timmae]

Originally Posted by nol

Oh my God, you've just balanced our budget! Why are we wasting all this money on assault rifles for our soldiers when we can just pick up some nail guns at Lowe's? Everything else you listed is incredibly easy for an insane person already on a government watchlist to acquire and use properly, so great post.

So what is your stance on this again? I ask seriously (no sarcasm)..

[nol]

That we in theory live in a democracy so we should try enacting solutions that 80-90 percent of people support. If they cut down on gun violence, that's good. If not, most people would then want to get rid of them in the face of actual evidence (the kind of stuff that results from observing what happens in the real world as opposed to throwing out "if someone really wanted to kill a bunch of people in a club they could just assemble their own military-grade explosives!!" because the bad guys did it in some movie or video game).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by nol

That we in theory live in a democracy so we should try enacting solutions that 80-90 percent of people support.

I haven't been paying much attention to this thread and just jumped to the bottom after work, so I'm not sure if you're advocating for a conservative or liberal viewpoint here. Regardless, I strongly suspect that there are *very* few meaningful policies (and practically none regarding firearms) that 80-90% of people support.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola...ah, I see. After reading past the first sentence it appears to be a position for more control. Either way, the point stands.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I also think one of the problems we have is that a whole bunch of countries to the South of us would be more than willing to fill a black market. We can't stop drugs, what makes us think we could stop guns from coming into this country?

Aren't drugs consumable while guns are not? While one can having a buying of guns addiction, the amount of people needing an endless supply of weapons is more limited than that of gun buyers. It's like a more dangerous version of buying exotic animals, no? There will be a demand from a segment of the population but probably not that significant. I can't see that many gun buyers risking health and career on buying the next big gun

[whomario]

First off i was really shocked about what happened, as i have been way too frequently these last couple of years. I will always have a deep connection to US culture from my upbringing and my repeated stays in various parts of the country ...

And i normally stay away from these discussions, knowing full well that i cannot fully comprehend them on an emotional level, looking in from the outside. But with that being said:

So you are back to a) "There´s other ways to kill than Guns" (to which the sane response is: Yes, but it´s harder to do and much less efficient) and of course b) "it´s not possible to prevent everybody from getting them" (to which the sane response is pretty much the same as above).

Why the hell not at least make it harder to murder people ? I mean, that´s the same rule of thumb that´s used in every other field of the law or in the economy or, well, life.

It´s much more attainable to make doing bad stuff hard than it is to change people in a way that they wouldn´t want to do bad stuff.

There´s a significant gap between the US and every other highly developed country in terms of murders by firearm and shootings and to still be claiming that there isn´t a major correlation between this and also having the most firearms (again, by a large margin) per person is beyond ludicrous.

I love the US, but there is a major blind spot at work here.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Dola...ah, I see. After reading past the first sentence it appears to be a position for more control. Either way, the point stands.

Or not: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...un-background/

If you want to get into semantics where it's "only" the idea that 90 percent of people agree with, but then when push comes to shove lobbyists are able to convince some fraction of dumb people that it actually means Obummer's taking the guns and the freedom (similar to what happens when people are polled on how they feel about the specific provisions of the Affordable Care Act when they do not realize "Obamacare" is actually what's being described) to the point that it becomes politically untenable, that's exactly what I was referring to when I said in theory we live in a democracy.

[bob]

Originally Posted by nol

That we in theory live in a democracy so we should try enacting solutions that 80-90 percent of people support. If they cut down on gun violence, that's good. If not, most people would then want to get rid of them in the face of actual evidence (the kind of stuff that results from observing what happens in the real world as opposed to throwing out "if someone really wanted to kill a bunch of people in a club they could just assemble their own military-grade explosives!!" because the bad guys did it in some movie or video game).

Or at the Boston Marathon. Oh wait that was real.

[nol]

Originally Posted by bob

Or at the Boston Marathon. Oh wait that was real.

50 > 3. To spell it out for you, the one crazy person with a gun killed 16.67 times as many people as two crazy people putting together pressure cooker bombs. These are not Lex Luthor genius supervillains we're talking about here.

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Culturally, I used to scoff and immediately dismiss the idea of video games and/or movies and television having an effect on America's level of gun violence....but I think I'm starting to come around. I'm certainly not going to say they're anything near the primary reason for this violence, or that pop-culture needs to be further regulated any way, but it does seem to belong somewhere in the discussion. Other countries where guns aren't so prevalent probably don't have 6 versions of Law & Order running concurrently at any given hour of the day.

I had been driving for years when I played GTA for first time, was visiting someone. When I left, I actually felt weird stopping at a stop sign. You can't tell me video games don't have some effect on people. Not saying it's huge but it's there.

[bob]

Originally Posted by nol

50 > 3

Ok, fine. Oklahoma City was real too.

[nol]

Originally Posted by bob

Ok, fine. Oklahoma City was real too.

Nice sleuthing. Just list 9/11 (FYI they changed some laws after this to make future plane hijackings more difficult) and you'll have covered every major non-gun terrorist attack on US soil that's occurred over the past 20+ years. Now what about the mass shootings that happen every single day on average?

[bob]

If I could eliminate every gun in the US I'd do it in a heartbeat. And the fact guns exist make it so these other methods aren't required. But I do think it's disingenuous to say no guns, no mass casualties. Crazy will find a way to be crazy.

[nol]

Originally Posted by bob

If I could eliminate every gun in the US I'd do it in a heartbeat.

That's extreme. I surely wouldn't.

But I do think it's disingenuous to say no guns, no mass casualties. Crazy will find a way to be crazy.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread (or any other monthly "mass shooting big enough to get its own thread" thread) or in real life suggesting that. You are actually arguing against the idea that fewer (or at least slightly more difficult to obtain) guns would lead to fewer mass casualties, which is quite the leap of faith considering the evidence that exists from comparing from state to state or among industralized Western nations.

It's the equivalent of after 9/11 saying 'welp, even if we make it harder for terrorists to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, they can just drop a nuke on us or poison the water supply, so let's not just change things for the sake of changing them.'

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I dunno, it's kind of a philosophical debate at this point. For sure, no immediate changes to mental health care were going to do shit for this particular dude...a really good trip to the therapist wasn't the difference here, but maybe in a different environment he would've sought or been forced into help when he abused his wife (or before), and that might have either served to hold him back or made it easier to identify him as potential trouble.

That aside, I'm intrigued to hear if you're equating mental health care reform with repression? That's an interesting take. Are you imagining mandatory emotional screening, or something along those lines, or are you just saying you don't want to be financially responsible for anybody else's mental health? Personally, I'm thinking more along the lines of removing the stigma from seeking professional help, and drastically reducing the reliance on pharmaceuticals would be a good start.

No, I agree we need to take care of the mentally ill better, but using this shooting as an example of why is disingenuous and obscures the fact that we really just need to toughen the fuck up and realize there is a price to pay for living in a free society. I'm generalizing, but these shootings happen and one side inevitably says "Mental healthcare!" and the other says "Gun control", without fail. Generally one of those two apply, in this case neither do.

At best you can make an argument that if the guy is on a watch list made up of just a few hundred, which appears to be the case here, he shouldn't be able to purchase a gun. Even then, that list is arbitrary and without proper oversight, so I wouldn't be comfortable supporting that.

Everyone talks about how strong and resilient they are when these tragedies happen, it's feel good bullshit. Strong people don't cower and try to permanently change things that clearly have no effect on preventing a similar situation from happening, simply to provide the false illusion of being safer for a very short time. Sometimes shit happens, that's the price we pay for living with the freedoms allowed to us.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Are you honestly comparing the situation gays face in the United States from Christians to that they face in the Muslim world?

Our biggest battles are over whether someone should bake a cake or which restroom is used. These are countries where you will be executed.

Nonsense

1. In USA 30-40% queer teens attempt sucide, i guarante you its not over cake.
2. In your maps, it is also easy to see poverty as a more common denominator than religion. Also, given India and Uganda I would say if it is a Muslim majority, it's not much. Yes, death penalty, but that seems way more political than across the board religious.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by jeff061

No, I agree we need to take care of the mentally ill better, but using this shooting as an example of why is disingenuous and obscures the fact that we really just need to toughen the fuck up and realize there is a price to pay for living in a free society. I'm generalizing, but these shootings happen and one side inevitably says "Mental healthcare!" and the other says "Gun control", without fail. Generally one of those two apply, in this case neither do.

At best you can make an argument that if the guy is on a watch list made up of just a few hundred, which appears to be the case here, he shouldn't be able to purchase a gun. Even then, that list is arbitrary and without proper oversight, so I wouldn't be comfortable supporting that.

Everyone talks about how strong and resilient they are when these tragedies happen, it's feel good bullshit. Strong people don't cower and try to permanently change things that clearly have no effect on preventing a similar situation from happening, simply to provide the false illusion of being safer for a very short time. Sometimes shit happens, that's the price we pay for living with the freedoms allowed to us.

Yeah, I'm both entirely with you and against you on this one. I don't like the TSA approach, attempting to regulate away tragedies just results in slowly sucking the joy out of life for everybody, and the gun control debates are contentious for everybody, but I can't come up with who gets inconvenienced or fucked over by the idea of better mental health care. That said, I can certainly understand why you'd be terrified about the political discussion/circus it would take to get that further health care, and/or a distrust that it would actually happen to the benefit of the average citizen.

[NobodyHere]

Gunman visited gay nightclub a dozen times before shooting, witness says

I would've expected perhaps a couple visits to scout out the joint. However this makes it sound like he may have been more of a regular.

[NobodyHere]

Some other minor sites say that he may have had a profile on a gay dating app.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by jeff061

obscures the fact that we really just need to toughen the fuck up and realize there is a price to pay for living in a free society.

Horse fucking shit.

A "free society" and "making casual mass murder harder" are not mutually exclusive.

The Wild fucking West had more "gun control" than we have, but I don't see anybody pointing to the Westward expansion as "man what a horrible police state we escaped aren't we glad we don't live under THAT oppressive regime anymore?"

The price you pay for living in a free society is the recognition that the rights you enjoy require that you bear certain responsibilities, and that sometimes one of those responsibilities is that you cede certain rights for the benefit OF that free society.

You have property rights, but those property rights no longer include other human beings.

You have freedom of travel, but we've accepted restrictions on what you can say or do in a public travel terminal, as well as what sort of items you can bring on a plane with you.

You have freedom of speech, but that freedom of speech is not absolute. There are restrictions. You cannot cry "fire!" in a crowded theater. Advocating for the assassination of a government figure will get you a nice sit-down chat with the Secret Service.

The Second Amendment, for over two hundred years, was not recognized as an implicit right of the individual to keep and bear any and all desired arms. It's been fewer than ten years since the Court said "welp nope we were wrong for 200 years there actually IS such a right" and that ruling rests almost entirely on the ability of Antonin Scalia, the original originalist, to ignore the bit about "a well regulated militia" and focus instead on "shall not be abridged." Judicial activism from an originalist, in other words.

The point of militias in the first place were, yes, as a bulwark against tyranny from a strong central government (to prevent the Federal government from disbanding state militias and then using the Army to, I dunno, end slavery), but also to give each State the ability to defend herself from invasion, either by other States, or by other polities. The Constitution lays that responsibility at the feet of the federal government, yes, but 230 years ago, information and armies both traveled slowly. If Georgia got attacked by Spanish Florida, she was on her own until the Army got wind, got organized, and showed up.

That's the bit about "being necessary to the security of a free State." That's security against enemies both foreign and domestic.

We still have militias. We call them the Coast Guard and the National Guard. But, weirdly, the NRA ignores that when they put the Second Amendment on their headquarters. They're not concerned with a well-regulated militia or the security of a free State. They're concerned exclusively with the right to keep and bear arms, and most of their right-leaning allies are the same way.

When Ted Cruz warns that a Clinton SCOTUS pick would destroy the Second Amendment, what he means is that SCOTUS might overturn Heller and go back to the previous 200 years of jurisprudence on which they relied.

Did you feel significantly less free from the time of your birth until 2007? Was it only in 2008 that you felt the stirrings of patriotism within your breast and hear the refrains of "God Bless America" swell from the hills?

Things which ARE the price of living in a free society: accepting the responsibilities of society as the cost of the preservation of individual liberties.

Things which are NOT the price of living in a free society: the casual murder of doctors and their patients; of dancers at a nightclub; or of children in an elementary school.

We can, should, and must do better. And we can do that without the fallacy that any change to gun laws must necessarily mean the government has to take all the guns.

[jeff061]

A "free society" and "making casual mass murder harder" are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah? How far you going to push it? Is there one step you can take that will make it much harder? Or is it dozens of small ones every time this happens until there is nothing left to take.

Fine, take away all the guns, never had a gun, don't want a gun. Doesn't matter to me, but you're fooling yourself if you think you couldn't kill 50 people in a packed night club with any number of other means. When that happens what are are you going to ban or "monitor" and after that doesn't work, what next....

Edit: I didn't read 90% of your post, I'm not making a pro-gun/pro-NRA argument, so it looked very repetitive, irrelevant and boring.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think the goal is to strike a balance between allowing lawful citizens to protect themselves and removing as many weapons as possible from potential criminals. I think an argument can be made that someone would like a semi-automatic handgun or shotgun for personal protection. Unless you are Jason Bourne, it's doubtful you need an AR-15 or M4 carbine for home protection. I just can't see any lawful reason for a normal citizen to need an AR15 or M4 over a semi-handgun or old school shotgun.


We are just trying to make it more difficult for criminals. Could they bring 3 semi-automatic handguns and fire off 90 rounds like the AR-15 did? Sure, but that's a tougher situation as it takes time to reload/switch guns and/or obtain all three weapons. Plus, maybe the criminal wants an AR-15 - but because it is illegal he uses a bigger ISIS channel to get it legally, comes up on the FBI radar and triggers some kind of monitor action. The point is there really is no downside to making it tougher to get assault weapons. If you are a law abiding citizen without any prior ties/offenses, it just takes a little longer than a handgun. To be honest, I'd be fine with an all-out ban on M4s and AR-15s for non law enforcement - but for some reason everyone freaks out when they may not have access to a certain type of weapon. It's already illegal to own a Beretta AR70, but a colt AR-15 or M-4 carbine are legal - why?

Just so we are all clear.
An M-4 falls under Title II and is illegal everywhere in the US.

So you are literally campaigning for a change to make something illegal that has never been legal to own for a US civilian.

This is where, for me, much of the gun debate breaks down. I own guns. I like guns. There is rarely a week that goes by that I dont shoot guns at least 1 day and frequently multiple days that week. They also serve a utilitarian purpose in my life.

That said, unlike most I know who are gun "advocates", I can support certain specific measures to restricted ownership. What scares me more than the slippery slope argument is the nomenclature argument. I'd suggest that as a whole the mean intelligence of FOFC as a group is substantially higher than the mean intelligence of either the US HOR or Congress. If amongst this group of highly intelligent people, who feel very passionately and emotionally tied to this debate, we can't get basic nomenclature right I have zero hope that Congress can get it right in a bill of law, And I fear we would end up with unintended consequences of outlawing many weapons that were never intended to be outlawed. Because make no mistake, if and when regulation seems inevitable the gunmakers themselves will turn it into sales game and attempt to influence the law to make the technology of their competitors restricted and their preferred technology legal.

My final point on regulation, I think there is a major slippery slope argument however I dont think its that a ban on assault stylized weapon leads to a ban on bird hunting shotguns. Instead its the logistics argument. Ok tomorrow you wake up and every AR-15 is now illegal. Now what? Voluntary turn ins and buy backs. Ok, now what? Do we ignore the 4th amendment and go door to door with forced searches? Ok, so you ban ammunition. I load my own bullets as most serious target shooters do. Do you know ban the possession of gun powder? Do you ban the ownership of brass? I seriously have no idea how that ban is ever enacted without radical stripping of constitutional rights having nothing to do with A2.

That said what happened Saturday is an untenable situation. Changes HAVE to be made. Where and how is a good starting point. Are guns the right target? Is mental health? is Religious Extremism? Are lax enforcement of laws currently on the books.

I think reform is needed in multiple areas. Gun control may be one. But maybe a soft penal system is a more pressing one. Maybe we need to assess who gets to be a member of our society. Maybe not all people earn the right to ever regain freedom. Or maybe we actually need to rehabilitate and analyze criminals. We can turn this debate 1,000 ways. None of them are easy. Guns are a convenient scapegoat, and one with SOME culpability. But a total gun ban would not have prevented Saturday night. This was a man who plotted, planned, reconned and carried out an intentional strike on a group of people he (allegedly) loathed. How do we fix him and his kind?

I dont have many answers. But I think a whole lot of government reform is in order. This was once the greatest Nation the world has ever known. Her tide it is a waning, and I fear that cant be reversed. I dont think fall is imminent. Not in my lifetime. But I do think history tells us every super power has a finite life cycle.

[corbes]

Out of curiosity, does anyone here believe we should ban Muslim immigrants or immigrants from that part of the world? And if so, what do you make of the fact that this terrorist was born here?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by corbes

Out of curiosity, does anyone here believe we should ban Muslim immigrants or immigrants from that part of the world? And if so, what do you make of the fact that this terrorist was born here?

I feel like the unique and remarkable frequency with which civilians shoot groups of other civilians in America effectively makes global issues of religion/immigration/sex/race/whatever a red herring. Pointing fingers at folks/causes outside the borders seems pretty ridiculous at this point, regardless of how obviously fucked various flavors of those folks/causes may also be.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

That said what happened Saturday is an untenable situation.

I know I chose one sentence out of a very intelligent post, but this sentence really captures my thought process since I heard the news besides sadness. I am beginning to wonder if this is actually true. One or two incidents a year has been very tenable for as long as I can remember for the country at large.

I am not saying I have any answers either. Just thinking aloud

[Fidatelo]

I have no real side in this (and if anything would fall on the side of increased gun control), but I feel like this whole debate is potentially meaningless when we are at the dawn of the 3D printing age. By the time any kind of gun legislature has the time to be introduced, enacted, and have any sort of impact, nutjobs are going to be printing what they need in their basements.

[Groundhog]

3D technology has to get a lot better before people are printing out semi-automatic weapons that don't melt after a couple of shots.

I think the worst thing about waking up to this the morning it happened was thinking "really? that's the most deadly ever?"... I was honestly surprised no one had killed more people in one attack.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

3D technology has to get a lot better before people are printing out semi-automatic weapons that don't melt after a couple of shots.

Are you suggesting this isn't likely to happen in the near future? I'm no expert on guns or 3D printing technologies but I think it's going to be a reality within the next 5-10 years. Aren't they creating printers that can use multiple materials, including things like iron? And in these types of uses, the gun doesn't have to really last very long. Just needs to be the gun equivalent of a Kodak throwaway camera.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Are you suggesting this isn't likely to happen in the near future? I'm no expert on guns or 3D printing technologies but I think it's going to be a reality within the next 5-10 years. Aren't they creating printers that can use multiple materials, including things like iron? And in these types of uses, the gun doesn't have to really last very long. Just needs to be the gun equivalent of a Kodak throwaway camera.

You can 3d print a gun now that will fire a single bullet.
The challenge is each successive round generates more and more heat. A material to hold up to 100+ explosions isnt a light material. An Iron based AR-15 platform would probably weigh around 90lbs, for example. Not feasible to carry and fire.

Various Polymers are the long term game changers...plenty of polymer handguns already. Their properties arent far of from what 3d printers can work with currently.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Gunman visited gay nightclub a dozen times before shooting, witness says

I would've expected perhaps a couple visits to scout out the joint. However this makes it sound like he may have been more of a regular.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Some other minor sites say that he may have had a profile on a gay dating app.

Orlando Shooter Was Reportedly a Regular at Pulse and Had a Profile on Gay Dating App

So yeah, there's a possibility this guy was closeted and possibly self-loathing because he was part of a family/sect that absolutely wouldn't accept that. Dealt with it in the absolute worst way possible, then threw around "ISIS" to distract from his real issue/safe face.

I could buy it.

[Fidatelo]

Earlier someone mentioned the idea of video games like GTA affecting how they drove afterwards. Just wait until people are playing GTA or Call of Duty in VR.

Between 3D printing, VR, and advanced AI/drones/robotics, our society is going to undergo so many seismic shifts in the next 10-15 years that I believe will directly or indirectly have more of an impact than the implementation of any conventional gun control laws. I'm much more concerned about the impacts of incorrect policy-making with regards to all these upcoming techs than whatever decisions do or don't get made regarding gun control.

[stevew]

can make multiple refiring 3d printed weapons now using existing parts from other guns.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Orlando Shooter Was Reportedly a Regular at Pulse and Had a Profile on Gay Dating App

So yeah, there's a possibility this guy was closeted and possibly self-loathing because he was part of a family/sect that absolutely wouldn't accept that. Dealt with it in the absolute worst way possible, then threw around "ISIS" to distract from his real issue/safe face.

I could buy it.

Before that even came up I was saying this dude's character appeared to be intersection of too many stereotypical nutjobs, but throw in some kind of self-loathing gender/sexuality issues and this fellow really had it ALL going on, and in an election year too! FREE NARRATIVES FOR EVERYBODY!! I'm sure he was a terrific date {shudder}.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by stevew

How long until it comes out that this guy was gay/engaging in sex chat with men/gay porn watcher, etc.

He seems like a real gem of a guy regardless of this act. Beat his wife, etc.

I guess 12 hours or so from my post was the correct answer

[thesloppy]

Anybody consider voting Green Party based on this stuff? I see lots of liberal folks in my Facebook feed saying they're pissed, passionate and wanting a political change...as long as that means voting for the exact same people and ideas they were before, but maybe REALLY HARD this time? The Green Party is fruity as hell, but they're also the only semi-established party with a platform presently and formerly pushing drastic gun control changes.

I'm fruity enough that I started voting Green like 12 years ago, so no real changes to my fragile mindset, but I'm intrigued if this stuff has caused anybody to cross political/party lines? If you're generally conservative but favor some sort of further gun control who do you vote for? Is there an option for such a person, or do they even exist?

[wustin]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Anybody consider voting Green Party based on this stuff? I see lots of liberal folks in my Facebook feed saying they're pissed, passionate and wanting a political change...as long as that means voting for the exact same people and ideas they were before, but maybe REALLY HARD this time? The Green Party is fruity as hell, but they're also the only semi-established party with a platform presently and formerly pushing drastic gun control changes.

I'm fruity enough that I started voting Green like 12 years ago, so no real changes to my fragile mindset, but I'm intrigued if this stuff has caused anybody to cross political/party lines? If you're generally conservative but favor some sort of further gun control who do you vote for? Is there an option for such a person, or do they even exist?

Gary Johnson endorsed Kasich and is the most socially liberal libertarian I've seen to date. His running mate Bill Weld was pro-gun control while he served as governor of Mass. Kind of weird since Johnson has stated he is very pro-2nd amendment.

The people I see who are in favor of Jill Stein are the Bernie people who refuse to vote for Hillary and/or have been brainwashed by the propaganda on Reddit.