Mass shooting at Gay night club in Orlando

Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
5-10 round magazines are all that civilian semis require.
Click to expand...

Dwayne man, I know you love shooting as a hobby, but you must see that even that sounds pretty crazy.

They should get rid of all military style weapons, and anything more than hunting style double barrel shotguns. I know that might sound daft coming from me, but it's surely a very real solution isn't it? Sure, damage can still be done with a hunting rifle, but it'd be much more limited, particularly in the hands of Spazzy McIsisface.
 
Rado_N said:
Obama wants to ban people from buying guns who are on FBI watch lists, so no, this guy would not have been able to guy his guns. Unsurprisingly Drumpf is talking out of his arse. Again.
Click to expand...
Oh, no doubt the populist approach but if you are on FBI watchlist in a country as big as the USA with every state having different legislation I have no doubt you can buy a gun, even automatic one, on the street.

What you can do is have tighter security - police forces in those areas where there are hundreds of people. Taking the guns off people won't solve it and to be honest I think it's for the better than to have a fecking bomb detonated at a place like that.
 
MJJ said:
He was gay, drank, visited a gay nightclub for three years while pledging allegiance to three rival organizations. For some reason, I doubt religion was his main motivation.
Click to expand...
What was it then? Did the DJ play the wrong set that night?

Also, pledging allegiance to three rival organisations? Wait what? You for real here? Do they have many gang wars in the gay night scene?
 
FlawlessThaw said:
New saying going round too: Guns don't kill people, but homophobic dipshits with licensed guns are able to kill 50 people on their own.
Click to expand...

Well what can you do? In an era when you have hundreds of clips on YouTube of walkthroughs how to make a bomb with DIY materials..

In France you have those restrictions and yet we saw what happened.

Apart from having a cop at every corner.
 
JustAFan said:
Because it can encourage companies to be more diverse is they also see it as a way of encouraging investment. Yeah the reasons should be for a company to do that should be for more than money but you use whatever you can to move people forward. Also, why would a member of the LGBT community not want to support these companies or put another way doesn't it make sense that they would not want to invest in companies that have poor records of being supportive of the LGBT community?
Click to expand...

I was talking from an investors point of view. To buy/sell ideally depends on more than just one or two reasons like LGBT-equality but rather from an overall evaluation of said company. That can of course be influenced positively by things like LGBT but to just decide on that factor alone - and that is how I understood the idea - doesn't seem wise.

I understand that it's a way of encouraging LGBT developments and how it's incentive for companies but it from an investors side it seems to be a rather "exotic" way of supporting the LGBT movement compared to other seemingly more straight forward alternatives like actually supporting a LGBT campaing or the like.
 
Vato said:
What was it then? Did the DJ play the wrong set that night?

Also, pledging allegiance to three rival organisations? Wait what? You for real here? Do they have many gang wars in the gay night scene?
Click to expand...

No, am sure it was his religion telling him that hey bro, the life you have been enjoying for the past three years is wrong time to shoot stuff up.

As for the second part of your post, that just shows your ignorance.
 
MJJ said:
No, am sure it was his religion telling him that hey bro, the life you have been enjoying for the past three years is wrong time to shoot stuff up.

As for the second part of your post, that just shows your ignorance.
Click to expand...
Hey, at least I'm not burying my head in the sand, right?
 
Enigma_87 said:
I don't think you can ban owning one for various reasons. What you can ban is walking on the streets carrying it. I agree with that sentiment.
Click to expand...
So you can buy and own a type of weapon but you can't take it out of you're house. The thing that can be done right now is a national limit on round capacity. Limit weapons to a certain amount per clip and if the worst happens it could give a crowd of innocent people a chance to run from or engage the shooter. But I disagree with you, certain chemicals can be banned for public sale and you cant drive around town in a Formula One car. Guns are a product and should be stringently regulated for the safety of the public. This guy walked in to a store to purchase this weapon and walked out in minutes with it under his arm.
BCM%20Carry%20Handle%20AR-15-3.jpg

This weapon has no place in the hands of someone outside of military or law
Enforcement.
M17FR_full.JPG

Firearm during the writing of the second amendment.

Times change, especially over the last two hundred years, shouldn't the interpretation of this amendment change when considering the difference in weapons?
 
I don't agree with the calls for a firearms equivalent to the no fly list. Do we know who is on the no fly lost or why? Is there an appeal process in an open court? The no fly list as currently constructed is a blatant violation of due process. Why is it a good thing to have a government official answerable to no one making secret lists abridging rights without being required to provide evidence?
 
I'm more inclined to think that the pledged allegiance was just an attempt at red herring to conceal his homosexuality.

Whatever that means in the broader context, I have no clue.
 
RedTiger said:
The three organisations he refers to are Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and ISIS, all in direct conflict with each other.
Click to expand...
Ah ok, makes a bit more sense indeed.

That reinforces my point though. So it has nothing to do with religion yet somehow he pledged allegiance to 3 islamic terrorist organisations?
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
Lehman may well have had LBGT friendly policies and having LBGT membership at board or senior executive level might well have made significant impact on their risk appetite or other business practices. Then again, they may have had that and it was only greed that ruined them. Using one example is as beneficial to the discussion as the what ifs and maybes I just listed.

Point is, some investors want to invest ethically and choosing companies that don't discriminate based on sexual preference may be important to them. The fund Jippy notes comes as no surprise in that context.
Click to expand...

Well it does if they are serious about getting money from their investment. The don't want to buy from a fund that is selected based solely on LGBT policies and if it's a fund it's even worse as you only buy to whole package. As I said above I understand perfectly that it might be a sign of progressed company structure and therefore a good investment but its a criteria among others.
 
Vato said:
Ah ok, makes a bit more sense indeed.

That reinforces my point though. So it has nothing to do with religion yet somehow he pledged allegiance to 3 islamic terrorist organisations?
Click to expand...
Who hate each other which shows his ignorance. If he was "radicalised" then the first thing he would know is to kill shia, not to pledge allegiance to them. This shows that the pledges were a last minute thing to justify in his mind the slaughter.
 
RedTiger said:
The three organisations he refers to are Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and ISIS, all in direct conflict with each other.
Click to expand...
He is really given the perfect excuse to commit this massacre when the real reason is more obvious. Paris attacks are far more complicated then this. If he really was alligent to these groups and he and traveled to the region to join he would have been quickly found out and executed or thrown from the roof of a building Isis style.
 
Vato said:
Ah ok, makes a bit more sense indeed.

That reinforces my point though. So it has nothing to do with religion yet somehow he pledged allegiance to 3 islamic terrorist organisations?
Click to expand...
3 Islamic terrorist organisations that are actively fighting AGAINST ONE ANOTHER in Syria right now, 2 of them is Sunni, one of those is a branch of Al-Qaeda, the third is Shia, so allegiance to 3 terrorist groups that have nothing to do with one another except they hate each others guts.
 
RedTiger said:
Who hate each other which shows his ignorance. If he was "radicalised" then the first thing he would know is to kill shia, not to pledge allegiance to them. This shows that the pledges were a last minute thing to justify in his mind the slaughter.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
GiddyUp said:
So you can buy and own a type of weapon but you can't take it out of you're house. The thing that can be done right now is a national limit on round capacity. Limit weapons to a certain amount per clip and if the worst happens it could give a crowd of innocent people a chance to run from or engage the shooter. But I disagree with you, certain chemicals can be banned for public sale and you cant drive around town in a Formula One car. Guns are a product and should be stringently regulated for the safety of the public. This guy walked in to a store to purchase this weapon and walked out in minutes with it under his arm.
BCM%20Carry%20Handle%20AR-15-3.jpg

This weapon has no place in the hands of someone outside of military or law
Enforcement.
M17FR_full.JPG

Firearm during the writing of the second amendment.

Times change, especially over the last two hundred years, shouldn't the interpretation of this amendment change when considering the difference in weapons?
Click to expand...
Trouble is, and correct me if I'm wrong as I read it somewhere, in the USA you have the largest number of PMC's in the world so you would still most probably aquire one if you are on FBI watchlist.

The better idea IMO is if it is proven to have connection with terrorists or other similar groups you have no place in that country.
 
GiddyUp said:
So should we ban all firearms and take our chances with people with knives. I'm all for that, at least it will give me a chance to fight the cnut the way nature intended. Shit will happen with firearms and countries like yours have sensible controls in place. That's does not get away from the fact that innocents are more likely to be killed by any gun then a criminal or intruder. The person most likely at risk from a gun in the home are women.
I feel it has gone too far in the US for a Canadian or European system in regards to firearms unfortunately. Too many people want to be cowboys here. But you could limit the amount and type of firearms available to the general public. You can't get away from the fact that this guy was employed in a security capacity or the sheriff who shot that guy in the cinema for throwing popcorn at him and telling him to feck off, these are the NRAs definition of a good guy with a gun. They don't allow you to walk around with these weapons on you're shoulder on a military base or police station so why should a member of the public be allowed?.
By all means have a gun that a law abiding citizen should possess for hunting or home security but please don't tell me it's ok to unload with a semi automatic on a deer or bear or blow the shit out of the intruder in you're house. Rifle/ shotgun to hunt, handgun/ shotgun for home protection and semi automatic with 30 round clips for law enforcement and war. What's the problem with that? And before it's mentioned again Jared Laughner shot up a constituency meet in a parking lot with a handgun and extended clip and was taken down during the reload, seven dead I believe, an AR would of shredded that place up. A guy in China went to a school armed with blades and injured a lot of children, if I recall, no deaths. That week Adam Lanza walked in to Newtown armed with his mothers semi automatic, who he shot in her sleep, a few handguns and killed over thirty people, the majority under six years of age. It disgusts me the use of this argument you have put forth. Where does it stop?, using you're argument it should be ok for me to drive around with a 50 cal bolted to my vehicle for protection just because I can.
Click to expand...

It all boils down to access to firearms. Many of those you named had no business being allowed unfettered access to guns.

How do you justify to the electorate allowing semiautomatic handguns but not allowing the same type of action for rifles? Limiting magazine capacity for civilian rifles is reasonable and I'm not talking about pinned 30 rounders but mags specifically made to hold 5 or 10 rounds, no more.

Fifty caliber rifles are pretty well irrelevant to the discussion due to price and utility. The image has quite an emotive effect, though.
 
Last edited:
Enigma_87 said:
Trouble is, and correct me if I'm wrong as I read it somewhere, in the USA you have the largest number of PMC's in the world so you would still most probably aquire one if you are on FBI watchlist.

The better idea IMO is if it is proven to have connection with terrorists or other similar groups you have no place in that country.
Click to expand...

This guy was a US citizen. How do you stop that?
 
VeevaVee said:
Dwayne man, I know you love shooting as a hobby, but you must see that even that sounds pretty crazy.

They should get rid of all military style weapons, and anything more than hunting style double barrel shotguns. I know that might sound daft coming from me, but it's surely a very real solution isn't it? Sure, damage can still be done with a hunting rifle, but it'd be much more limited, particularly in the hands of Spazzy McIsisface.
Click to expand...

As ideas go it would be completely unsellable in the US. I advocate small steps as more likely to effect change over massive measures that guarantee opposition from the NRA et. al.
 
MJJ said:
:lol:
Click to expand...
So...
Vato said:
What was it then? Did the DJ play the wrong set that night?
Click to expand...
Where the Madrid attackers also struggling with their inner sexuality? What about the guys who blew themselves up in Bali? Or Zaventem? London? Paris? New York?

I sometimes wonder when it will be ok to start questioning things.
 
syrian_scholes said:
3 Islamic terrorist organisations that are actively fighting AGAINST ONE ANOTHER in Syria right now, 2 of them is Sunni, one of those is a branch of Al-Qaeda, the third is Shia, so allegiance to 3 terrorist groups that have nothing to do with one another except they hate each others guts.
Click to expand...
If he would have pledged allegiance to the KKK, Isis and the local boyscouts I would have agreed, they would have had nothing in common.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
It all boils down to access to firearms. Many of those you named had no business being allowed unfettered access to guns.

How do you justify to the electorate allowing semiautomatic handguns but not allowing the same for rifles? Limiting magazine capacity for civilian rifles is reasonable and I'm not talking about pinned 30 rounders but mags specifically made to hold 5 or 10 rounds, no more.

Fifty caliber rifles are pretty well irrelevant to the discussion due to price and utility. The image has quite an emotive effect, though.
Click to expand...
It's a tough one buddy especially the handgun and semi issues. I just really hate feeling this way every few months it seems. I'm not anti gun, just anti tens of innocent people shot up with no hope of escape or opertunity to fight for their lives.
 
Vato said:
So...

Where the Madrid attackers also struggling with their inner sexuality? What about the guys who blew themselves up in Bali? Or Zaventem? London? Paris? New York?

I sometimes wonder when it will be ok to start questioning things.
Click to expand...

To question something you need basic knowledge about it which you sadly lack, what you are doing isnt questioning more like spreading misinformation if I am being kind or hatred if I am not.
 
MJJ said:
To question something you need basic knowledge about it which you sadly lack, what you are doing isnt questioning more like spreading misinformation if I am being kind or hatred if I am not.
Click to expand...
What a load of shite.
 
MJJ said:
To question something you need basic knowledge about it which you sadly lack, what you are doing isnt questioning more like spreading misinformation if I am being kind or hatred if I am not.
Click to expand...
Oh boy.. so questioning things is spreading hatred now?

But yeah, that would bring a halt to any discussion I guess, which is clearly what you want to do.
 
Sweet Square said:
Which is ?
Click to expand...
Gay man, Muslim heritage, deep phsycological conflict. The bottom line is this was a hate crime but due to the viciousness and number of victims, terrorism. Because he was most likely gay and by some accounts from those club goers, quiet to drunk and belligerent the mental conflict must of been fierce. I don't believe the alliegence to Isis or any other Muslim group that uses violence to be a reason for him basically caving in to this heinous act.
 
Vato said:
So...

Where the Madrid attackers also struggling with their inner sexuality? What about the guys who blew themselves up in Bali? Or Zaventem? London? Paris? New York?

I sometimes wonder when it will be ok to start questioning things.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know what you are eluding to Vato, what do the incidents that you've mentioned have in connection with this sad unfortunate case? No one is denying the background reasoning to any of the attacks you've mentioned, just that this specific nutter had more issues than just killing kafirs.
 
Vato said:
Ah ok, makes a bit more sense indeed.

That reinforces my point though. So it has nothing to do with religion yet somehow he pledged allegiance to 3 islamic terrorist organisations?
Click to expand...

It would be sort of like shooting up a night club and claiming allegiance to the UVF & IRA.
 
Vato said:
Oh boy.. so questioning things is spreading hatred now?

But yeah, that would bring a halt to any discussion I guess, which is clearly what you want to do.
Click to expand...
Vato said:
@MJJ, do you think that in his mind he was a muslim?
Click to expand...

Unlike you I have no idea what goes on in other people's mind.

You clearly have very little knowledge about Islam, the current state of affairs regarding terrorists and even this shooter, it would be wiser for you to spend some time googling rather than "questioning Islam"
 
berbatrick said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Bellei

His status as a citizen, especially one born in the US, gives him basic protections.

And in your world, suspicion of terrorist links would be enough to revoke citizenship and destroy a life.
Click to expand...
Yeah but what can you do? He was employed at a security company. Even if he can't buy guns he would have had access to them.

I'm not fan of false allegations either what I meant is if it is proven to have connection to them.

The other thing that comes to mind is to put a tracker on the weapon and it would signalize if you carry it into populated areas.

Either was the incident in question is somehow one of those you can't really prevent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.