Yeah, because I imagine the bloke walking round executing people with a 'long gun' will look just like all the rest of em.
Mass shooting at Gay night club in Orlando
- Thread starter Adisa
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yeah, because I imagine the bloke walking round executing people with a 'long gun' will look just like all the rest of em.
I've gone off what we've been told already. I know it's not a movie, so stop trying to push your point by being condescending.
In one off situations like this. Maybe. Overall, it would just lead to more dead bodies. You would have small quarrels turning into blood baths.
But wait, I thought a good portion of the crowd are going to be armed and seeking out the bad guy, they're not going to disperse.. they're going to be hanging round looking for the guy with the gun.
... no you're right, he'll most likely have a British accent and moustache.
Sorry but suggesting that loads of people in a nightclub having guns and being prepared to intervene is going to help is idiotic shit, the result of watching too many movies, it would invariably lead to more deaths.
Veeva I have to agree with Nick and Pops. It'd be absolute chaos if everyone was armed inside a nightclub and someone came in and started shooting at people. Between the people running for cover, the people trying to identify the killer and the stray bullets flying everywhere you'd probably end up with more dead than you otherwise would have.
Sadly mass shooting are always going to be an issue in the US until they ban ownership of guns.
It will never happen though.
Sadly mass shooting are always going to be an issue in the US until they ban ownership of guns.
It will never happen though.
Just for the argument, why would the crowd scatter, if they got guns themselves?. One of the shoots the man dead, lets assume. Some one from other floor doesnt see this man killing the "bad guy" and sees he is the only one having the gun and shoots him.
Like other posters have said, even in this scenario, lots of alcohol and adrenaline with guns cannot end in a good way.
Very true. As sad as it is a mass shooting in America doesn't move me anymore.
I'm not suggesting the majority of people in there having a gun would help. If you want to change what I'm saying to fit your narrative so that you can enjoy undermining it then so be it, but that's not what I'm saying, and nor does it stem from 'watching too many movies' despite you both really wanting that to be the case. Both of you, for some reason, are wanting me to be saying that everyone starts shooting in the room like some kind of Jackie Chan movie and everything turns out A OK.
How many guns is a safe number in a nightclub then?
Its a ridiculous argument, I'm sorry if having that pointed out to you hurts your feelings.
Rather than everyone having guns, everyone should be a rampant, homosexual - that way as soon as the first shot was fired they could all just dive on him and start gang-banging him, that would be a better solution IMO.
It has got to the point now where the gun lobby in the US are using these mass shootings to support their political agenda. Completely ignoring the fact that they are advocating the freer use of the weapons that are doing the killing.
Also, I don't buy the whole shootings are done by criminals, therefore gun laws are useless as criminals break the law. In countries with strict gun laws, the only people who can really get a hold of guns are hardened criminals. Even then it is a lot more conspicuous because of the lack of guns on the market. Hardened criminals don't, normally, do mass politicised shootings in schools or in clubs.
The only exception to this is extremist islamists but these occasions are much rarer in the US, for example, than non-religious shootings.
The fact that about 250 parents were shot by their kids last year in the US is evidence that the average citizen is not responsible enough to have these weapons.
Also, the 'if everyone had guns, the gunman would be dead quicker' argument is stupid. No way are night clubs going to allow clubbers to enter with firearms.
Wasn't it yesterday that a 22 year old starlet from The Voice was shot precisely in Orlando while she was giving autographs? Young girl chasing her dreams killed in cold blood like that. Her brother tackled the shooter but the later managed to kill himself on the spot.
Absolute insanity.
(EDIT: Her name was Christina Grimmie)
Absolute insanity.
(EDIT: Her name was Christina Grimmie)
"No problem with the 9mm mate, but you're not getting in here in those trainers!"
What you were saying is idiotic.
Upon sensing danger, fight or flee response kicked in. If everyone have guns, many will scatter, but just as many will draw their weapon and starts shooting. Enclosed space, panic, cig smoke, alcohol. Yeah, no chance at all the crossfire won't kill/injure many and cause absolute pandemonium.
His timeline... going on about Liberals and a "crisis actor"
It's not a ridiculous argument when talking about this specific scenario. In fact, any scenario when someone armed is going on executing unarmed people could potentially end up better if there were more armed people around (Breivik anyone?). We're talking about situations where there are already lots of deaths. You're being a bit condescending and making your own Hollywood movies in which everyone starts emptying their guns in the random guy in front of them. It could turn out with more deaths, or it could turn out with less, but it's not a ridiculous claim.
We could all agree that it would certainly not make up for the much more frequent bloodbaths from random quarrels of course, but I think Veeva was just speculating about this scenario in particular. Every answer was equally speculative, yet condescending.
As someone with 30 years shooting experience my opinion is that it is a ridiculous suggestion. More guns leads to more shots being fired, more shots being fired will invariably increase the likelihood of more people being killed.
No one has come up with any reasonable explanation as to how you differentiate between the bad guy and the numerous other armed club goers.
In this specific scenario I'd say everyone shooting anyone they see with a gun in blind panic is far more likely than people somehow being strategic, identifying and successfully stopping just the attacker, and thats before we start talking about stray bullets, or the difficulty involved, and skill required to shoot a single person in a packed, dark room - or the likelihood that the situation would be further complicated by the fact that several of the shooters are likely to be have been drinking.
Even police forces rely on special units with specific tactical training to deal with situations like this, you don't just see all the first responders rushing in and blasting away.
Part of your post seems to be suggesting that loads of people are going to be killed in a situation like this so what harm if some of them are killed by well intentioned people intervening rather than the attacker.
How about we not turn this incident into political ammunition for or against guns? I also believe that if people want to acquire guns they will find a way, legally or illegally. I think homophobia would be a bigger factor in this tragedy anyway.
People think that way if they're an idiot, yes.
I'm not trying to be condescending, but it's a ridiculous notion that crops up every time something like this happens and it needs to be shut down because it stands in the way of anything meaningful ever changing.
It's not a question of turning tragedies into political hay, it's a topic that needs discussing and it's only right that the conversation takes place when people are getting shot on a
This happens in America with disturbing frequency and there's a single common denominator in every case; the 2nd amendment and people standing in the way of a solution.
Drunk people with guns in a poorly lit place. What could possibly go wrong?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
I don't disagree with you in general of course, but there are specific scenarios where it seems that the alternative is that everyone who didn't manage to run away from the spot will be executed. It's a sort of "it couldn't get any worse than it already is" point of view.
I'm also surprised and disappointed to see homophobia being justified by @Drifter in here.
Have they reported the identity of the killer yet? Taking an awfully long time, they had Lanza's identity within 20 minutes of Sandy Hook.
I saw a name on twitter but refrained from posting here because it's unconfirmed.
My fellow Muslims trying their damnest to make sure a Trump presidency is a reality. #Geniuses
Confirmed at least 20 dead, 42 more injured.
I doubt very much the shooter in this incident with be anything other than white.
Even if for a second we assume it worked in this case, there would be countless other times when you would have cases of innocents mowing down other innocents due to bad aim.
Or a white hate crime illustrating how dangerous Trump like rhetoric can be.
That's what I thought initially...some right wing nut. There really isnt precedent for Muslim Terrorists to single out Gay establishments in the west. But, FBI saying they are looking at possible ties with Radical Islamic Terrorism. One spokesperson was on TV saying there may be leanings...but, they aren't confirming yet.
Last edited:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...b-shooting-injuries-reported-at-pulse-orland/
There is a tweet there claiming that FBI is linking it to Islamic terrorism, has this been confirmed in any way?
There is a tweet there claiming that FBI is linking it to Islamic terrorism, has this been confirmed in any way?
20 deaths?!
Interesting, will have to see what comes out.
The Mail are already saying Islamic related.
The Mail won't give a shit about waiting for confirmation on something like that.
I do get the need for such a conversation, regardless of which side of the fence you stand on, I just found it a little disheartening to see the entire thread being about that and not the tragedy itself. Maybe it was just an immediate reaction on my behalf.
I do get that, but we're at a point where the notion of "now isn't the time" just ends up leading to it not being discussed at all at the appropriate level.