The weapon isn't the problem, the person using it is. Reduce magazine size and they carry more magazines; ban weapon types and they bring a different weapon. What weapon was used, anyway? I'm highly suspect it was an assault weapon, or fully automatic, or anything other than 1 trigger pull = 1 bullet. If he acquired the gun illegally then the gun control debate is moot.
Semi auto, 1 trigger pull, 1 shot. Probably 20 round standard magazine .223 caliber Handgun was 9mm Glock, 15 round magazine They were apparently out of pressure cookers at Kmart
And here we are talking about guns xD A couple years ago Sam Harris (the neuroscientists / New Atheist writer) was asked why he didn't criticize Israel, and part of his answer was to say that we're all living in Israel, some of us just don't know it yet (or I will add, refuse to see it). I found that interesting.
I'm not glad that so many people died or were injured in this shooting. However, I'm glad that it wasn't some self-identifying "conservative" that did this, but actually an individual that, from what I heard, was a registered Democrat. I only say that because, as a conservative myself, I get sick and tired of the liberals and Democrats making cracks about previous shooters being a "right-wing gun-happy nutjob." It's nice that they can't say that in this case. And I also find it amusing liberals don't want to talk about the shooter much because he was Muslim. Probably because they know that their always characterizing Islam as "the religion of peace" sounds so stupid in this case.
50 people lost their lives at the hands of a coward in a tragic, unspeakable, evil act. Tell me again how that's about politics?????
If those rumors are true, it would make for a great PR counter-campaign against the daesh social media presence, who currently see this guy as some kind of hero.
Look, I already conceded this is tragic. A bunch of people died. It was horrible. Though I'm totally against gay sexuality, them being gay didn't mean they deserved to be killed. And, yes, for the ignorant out there, it is possible to be against a person's sin and still view them as human and know that Jesus died for their sins, too. And to be against a person's sin does mean you "hate" them. : Anyway, I just thought it was a relief that liberals couldn't legitimately say, "Look! Another right-wing Christian out killing gays!" I know liberals had to be chomping at the bits to say that, and I'm sure in this age of instant social media they were spouting their rhetoric on various web pages when the tragedy first occurred. However, reality has kind of, well, stolen their thunder just a bit now that the facts have come out. No, no. Actually, it wan't a right-winger. It was a Democrat. No, no. It wasn't a Christian. It was a Muslim, thank you very much. But, of course, even though the liberals typically love to run their mouths loudly, we'll hear nothing but crickets out of them in this situation. Well, other than the false narrative that "stricter gun laws" would have prevented this shooting...
Politics is about determining how a population is governed. So long as there's so many of us in such close proximity, nearly every action we take and every thought we have will be inextricably linked to politics. Our noble adherent to the religion of peace believes, for example, that homosexual activity has no place within a population. He believed it so passionately he struck out on his own to establish a new governance, illegitimate as it is.
Awesome, I bet that made the victims feel just great. I don't think there's a face in the world, or a palm in the world, big enough for the facepalm that one warrants.
It's hard to see much sense in either of the soundbite-style "arguments" coming out from this. If we imagine that there had been a ban on firearms and that the perpetrator of this atrocity had been standing in line to turn in his guns prior to deciding to wage war on the gay community, what might his assault have looked like? Maybe he would have gone in armed with a machete or a meat cleaver or something. And I'm sure it is fair to say that a meat cleaver is a lot less efficient at killing people than an AR-15 but that wouldn't be a whole lot of consolation to the people closest to him as he was swinging it. And, short of running for the exits, there still wouldn't be a whole lot anyone inside could do except hope he didn't get to them. Maybe they'd have stood a little more chance against a man with a meat cleaver than a man with an AR-15 but the chances are it wouldn't have ended much better for them. And in the aftermath we'd probably see one side saying that tighter control of meat cleavers was the answer, and the other side saying that the answer to a bad guy with a meat cleaver was to have more good guys with meat cleavers. It's hard to conclude anything other than that the problem is people burning with a hatred that drives them to kill people in cold blood. If we take one killing tool away from them they'll just find some other way to act on their hatred. Even if we could remove every single gun from the streets the chances are people like that would just make pipe bombs or drive a fertiliser truck into the nightclub or some such.
The solution in this case should have been simple: his wife should have reported him to the police and warned them of the attack.
That's the first statement I've seen that warrants a hardy Amen. And gun control? Would that have stopped this atrocity? No, he'd have found some other way of doing his deed for sure. It wasn't the gun that killed the people there. It was the man wielding the gun who had a axe to grind in the wrong direction.
I must respectfully beg to differ. Gun control could has stopped this in a heartbeat. If the off duty Orlando cop had been given the time and resources to spend adequate time at the firearms range instead of attending sensitivity training, he would have been able to kill the terrorist in his initial gun battle before so many people were killed and injured. Gun control, that is, 15 rounds in center of mass, or 2 in the sternum and 1 in the forehead, would have stopped this problem. We need more gun control like that.
On the topic, shooter used a Sig Sauer MCX not an AR 15 (as reported). Ref: [youtube]zmyluo3aT0Y[/youtube] For reference an actual assault weapon (suppose I could find a video of an M16? Eh, I like HK): [youtube]Va9Jioond4c[/youtube] (Which I think is what Orlando SWAT used)
"I did not shoot the Deputy." I read an article this morning on line where the reporterette called the weapon , I'm sorry, it hurts me to do this... .... a Sig SAUCER. 0:0
This thing with the wife is unfathomable. Does it shed some light on the subjection of women in that culture or perhaps some light on the mindset of so many within that culture where it concerns LGBT? In other words, can anyone be that stupid?