Mass Shooting at LGBT Nightclub in Orlando

[Japanfan]

I have a question: what EXACT objections (other than hidden motivations of social justice, redistribution, and all sorts of class issues) do Liberals have against a law-abiding family or home owner owning a gun for home protection of his property and family from the buglers if he keeps his/her gun safe?

Because when one has a gun, one might use it.

Example 1: We live in the upper suite of a house, and the female part of the couple (who has since passed on) in the basement is one of the dearest friends I've ever had in my life. The male part is highly controlling, neurotic, immature, manipulative and self-centered - perhaps mildly sociopathic. We basically keep our distance from him and I essentially do not converse with him.

My friend was a brittle diabetic, and they went on drug-spree and took a holiday. There was an incident when he seemed to have put her in harm's way and put her life at risk. She regained consciousness in a ditch.

When they came home and I learned this, I was consumed with hatred of him. If I had had a gun at the ready, I fear I would have used it.

Example 2:

When we first moved here, I naively intervened to rescue an abused dog that one of the neighbor's had consigned to the back yard on a chain for life. Stupidly, I let my presence and opinion be known to the owner when he drove up at 3 a.m. and I was in the yard on a cold winter night, giving the poor dog a blanket in his lonely small doghouse.

I tipped off a rescue group, and the dog was taken.

The neighbour blamed me, and he burned down my husband's car (a beautiful vintage convertible). As arson of this kind is very difficult to prove, no police action was taken.

Although I see now I should have acted subversively and have learned my lesson, I'm not sure I can have done so at the time. I was just too upset and it was bad, unexpected timing for him to drive up.

The man never got another dog, and after a second attempt at burning a car, left us alone. I was grateful he did not go after our dog rather the car, as he couldn't understand loving an animal. Mr. Japanfan and he had a 'chat' and I'm not sure how, but some resolution was reached. Probably I was blamed and presented as irrational, but I didn't care or even mind that the patriarchy was at play for once.

We stay way clear of his house and have no contact with him. It's now been 18 years.

What would have happened if I had a gun, or he?

 

[Susan1]

I know that but in America there are people who believe in guns to protect their property. I am saying it makes no sense to have an easily broken in home and then turn around and say you need a gun. Which is what happens in my state I believe.

I am trying to explain how those ppl come to believe what they believe and how it doesn't make sense because they could have chosen to make the house more secure

Still trying to figure why some people think they should be allowed to purchase a military grade assault weapon to protect their home. Maybe it would be safer to move somewhere else? Or cheaper to buy better locks and a security system?

 

[olympic]

From 1994 - 2004, did the Assault Weapons ban work? Are their statistics that showed it worked?

Omar Sadique Mateen purchased his weapons legally. I think it would be time to consider an outright assault weapons ban again.

 

[misskarne]

From 1994 - 2004, did the Assault Weapons ban work? Are their statistics that showed it worked?

Omar Sadique Mateen purchased his weapons legally. I think it would be time to consider an outright assault weapons ban again.

Why stop at assault weapons?

 

[agalisgv]

From 1994 - 2004, did the Assault Weapons ban work? Are their statistics that showed it worked?

There were a series of studies conducted during that time to measure the effects of the ban on gun crime. Because assault style weapons were only used in about 2% of crimes, any effects were difficult to discern. But generally shootings didn't diminish during the ban while there was a slight decrease in crimes committed with assault style weapons.

Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result, the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.

Why didn't it have much of an effect?

the reduction in the use of assault weapons was “offset through at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other semi-automatics equipped with large-capacity magazines.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

The study author speculates bans on large capacity magazines could potentially reduce shootings, but no more than less than 5%.

So while there are some small effects, they are very marginal at best in the near to medium term.

 

[agalisgv]

Why stop at assault weapons?

Because the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that includes access to private ownership of handguns and rifles. It's settled law. What happened in Australia cannot happen here.

 

[Susan1]

Still trying to figure why some people think they should be allowed to purchase a military grade assault weapon to protect their home. Maybe it would be safer to move somewhere else? Or cheaper to buy better locks and a security system?

O.k. - after stewing for over 24 hours, here I go (as usual, thought flying out of my head through my fingers)...........

Anybody can do anything and say it’s in the name of their religion. What if it was just a hate crime, but they’ve turned his claim of allegiance to ISIS into a political controversy now. He probably knew he was going to die, so he gets everybody blaming everybody else and investigating everything else, making them all mad.

Following up on the gun thing, if other people in the club had guns, how would people know who the bad guy was. Gosh, what if the SWAT team came in and shot a club-goer because they were holding a gun. All this gun stuff, I just keeping thinking this is not the Wild West, you can’t go around carrying a gun just in case someone else has one, then the next person has one, then the next……………. Don’t cut somebody off in traffic because they might shoot you, but if they pull out a gun, that’s o.k., you can shoot them first………makes my stomach hurt.

And out of left field here - when did it become common practice to lower flags to half mast for every tragedy or death of a famous person who lived in your town? I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, because it is a sign of respect and support for the victims, but it has turned into an every time thing. They might as well leave all flags at half mast forever. Wasn’t it originally for government and military deaths, people who “worked for” and sacrificed their lives FOR America? Now it just means mourning of anybody’s death who makes the news? In Louisville, the flags were at half mast for Muhammad Ali! Which is fine. But it’s like saying the same word over and over again until it loses its meaning or something. Somebody died - put all the flags at half mast. I don’t know. I’m not trying to be difficult. Don’t yell at me!! (I'm not any kind of overly patriotic person or anything. I don't have a flag outside the house or wear red/white/blue on holidays! Although when I was fixing my dad's cemetery flag holder, I held the silly little flag in my mouth because you are not supposed to let them touch the ground!!!!) Maybe there should be mourning flags that they can PUT UP instead of “using” the American flag every time. The rainbow flags now are a GREAT IDEA. Just things that run through my head....................

 

[oleada]

Because the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that includes access to private ownership of handguns and rifles. It's settled law. What happened in Australia cannot happen here.

I know this is probably wishful thinking but the constitution has been amended in the past - couldn't we so that today? It's so hard for me to believe that we can't modify a document that was written in the 18th century based on how life is today.

 

[rfisher]

I know this is probably wishful thinking but the constitution has been amended in the past - couldn't we so that today? It's so hard for me to believe that we can't modify a document that was written in the 18th century based on how life is today.

It could, but it's very difficult to do so and very unlikely that 2/3 of the states would ratify. That's why there aren't that many amendments to the Constitution. Neither the Executive, Legislative nor Judicial branches can overturn an amendement or add a new one for that matter. They can suggest, propose, and evaluate the constatutionality thereof, but the states and specifically voters within those states make the actual determination.

 

[agalisgv]

I know this is probably wishful thinking but the constitution has been amended in the past - couldn't we so that today?

Of course constitutional amendments have been changed over time, but not easily (as it should be). Generally it's easier to add something than alter what's already there. In this case, we're talking about altering the Bill of Rights, and I just don't see that happening.

 

[kittyjake5]

I see no problem in lowering the American flag half mast. Sorry but I don't see what
lowering flags has to do with the much more serious issues going on in the US.

 

[skatesindreams]

If we couldn't agree about the Equal Rights Amendment; and add it to the Constitution within the timeframe required, I don't see much hope for anything like this.

 

[Tavi]

Most rant and ravers don't go beyond that point now.



The number of people who carry out deeds is very small, even with fluctuations over time. But you know that.

Compare that to the number of people who say ghastly things on Facebook.



But I don't believe that there is such a thing, something Obama addressed directly in the townhall video linked upthread--people can be put on the no-fly list because of suspected terrorist connections, but those same people can buy guns.

Your point is a very good one, but even here in the US, SCOTUS has upheld limits on some kinds of speech, and people who cross those limits can be penalized. The question, of course, is where we (or Congress or courts) draw the line. Can we decide that it's unacceptable for someone to rant and rave about threatening or slaughtering people - for whatever reason - and at least temporarily deny them the possibility of purchasing assault weapons? Perhaps not, with this court, in this political climate.

 

[BlueRidge]

I attended the vigil last night at Dupont Circle in D.C. It was largely attending by LGBT people as this is the heart of D.C.'s gay community. Many were people of color. The speakers were mostly LGBT Muslims. The names of those who died were read followed by the crowd saying "presente" after each name.

 

[Angelskates]

What happened in Australia cannot happen here.

Yes, it can. It wouldn't be easy, and is highly unlikely (as in any change at all, IMO), but of course it can happen. The US constitution can be changed, just like any law can be changed. It won't be, but it can be. I know plenty of Americans who are hoping that one day what happened in Australia will indeed happen in the US. I don't think it will happen in my life time, but I don't think any positive change will happen in the US with regards to gun controls in my lifetime. Probably just the opposite because unfortunately it can still get worse. There will always be angry people out there, and angry people who have guns usually kill others rather than themselves.

 

[sk9tingfan]

Because the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that includes access to private ownership of handguns and rifles. It's settled law. What happened in Australia cannot happen here.

I'm so proud of Jim Himes, the congressman from Connecticut who yesterday indicated that he's sick and tired of the repeated minute of silence in tribute to victims of gun violence, calling those who do nothing hypocritical. BTW, his district abuts Newtown. He said that if Connecticut and New York have acted on this already, passing law to start to deal with the problem, he cannot understand why Congress is not following through on what the majority of Americans supports. The NRA's powerful lobby is to blame as well as those whose self worth are tied to their weapons.

 

[agalisgv]

The US constitution can be changed, just like any law can be changed.

No, the Bill of Rights cannot be changed just like any other law.

Yes, gun control legislation can be passed. But handgun bans have already been ruled unconstitutional. It's settled law.

 

[Angelskates]

No, the Bill of Rights cannot be changed just like any other law.

Yes, gun control legislation can be passed. But handgun bans have already been ruled unconstitutional. It's settled law.

Hand guns are not banned in Australia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia), they're restricted. And the US Constitution can be changed.

 

[PRlady]

From 1994 - 2004, did the Assault Weapons ban work? Are their statistics that showed it worked?

Omar Sadique Mateen purchased his weapons legally. I think it would be time to consider an outright assault weapons ban again.

With a heavy heart I have to report to you that the assault weapons ban was very marginally successful. Because it grandfathered all existing weapons in, and guns are not dairy products, their sell-by date is about twenty years or so.

Unless you were to round up and confiscate existing guns, or make it excruciatingly difficult to purchase one at gun stores, gun shows and privately, another ban wouldn't do much.

Also, assault weapons were technically defined by having this-and-that feature. What the gun manufacturers did was go back to the drawing board and make minor fixes to the features -- e.g. no night scope, a different grip or slightly different barrel -- and sell them legally.

On another note, I admire and agree with this good man, the Catholic bishop of St. Petersburg: when it comes to exclusion and demonizing of those who are different, religion has a lot to answer for: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-including-our-own-that-targets-lgbt-people/

 

[skatesindreams]

On another note, I admire and agree with this good man, the Catholic bishop of St. Petersburg: when it comes to exclusion and demonizing of those who are different, religion has a lot to answer for: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-including-our-own-that-targets-lgbt-people/

Thank you for sharing this.

 

[Karina1974]

He said that if Connecticut and New York have acted on this already, passing law to start to deal with the problem...

There are a LOT of people here in NY State who abhor the SAFE Act, and they are yelling and screaming on Facebook every time something like this happens.

 

[sk9tingfan]

No, the Bill of Rights cannot be changed just like any other law.

Yes, gun control legislation can be passed. But handgun bans have already been ruled unconstitutional. It's settled law.

There's no such thing as "settled law". The Bill of Rights can be amended and/or repealed. While I agree it's not likely that the 2nd item in the Bill of Rights would be, an amendment could change the context of the right to bear arms. Remember that the Bill of Rights extended voting rights solely to men and this was amended to include women.

 

[once_upon]

@PRlady - religion can be evil as well as good. I belong to the Christian faith, but for a religion that claims to follow the commandment to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" we are responsible for much hate.

One of the basic tenets of the United Methodist Church is to do no harm. Yet the UMC continues to do harm to the LGBTQAI community. I hate that I often say - but I am only one person, what can I do to change the bias of religion. Yet I am one person who must work to make my religion inclusive. and do no harm.

 

[skatesindreams]

Press conference with survivors, doctors, and medical personnel at Orlando Regional Medical Center:
https://www.facebook.com/wftv/videos/10153977828918145/

 

[PRlady]

@PRlady - religion can be evil as well as good. I belong to the Christian faith, but for a religion that claims to follow the commandment to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" we are responsible for much hate.

One of the basic tenets of the United Methodist Church is to do no harm. Yet the UMC continues to do harm to the LGBTQAI community. I hate that I often say - but I am only one person, what can I do to change the bias of religion. Yet I am one person who must work to make my religion inclusive. and do no harm.

As zemgirl posted somewhere, at the Jerusalem pride parade last year, four people were knifed by an ultra-Orthodox man who hates "sodomites." A 16-year-old straight girl there to support her friends was killed.

The patriarchal, strict forms of all the Abrahamic religions take a very dim view of homosexuality. The reason it is outlawed in most Muslim countries isn't because Islam is more homophobic, it's because Muslim countries have no dividing law at all between mosque and state.

 

[Sylvia]

Press conference with survivors, doctors, and medical personnel at Orlando Regional Medical Center:
https://www.facebook.com/wftv/videos/10153977828918145/

Amazing professionalism by the Orlando Regional Medical Center staff!

ORMC worker's Facebook post details night Pulse shooting victims arrived: http://www.wftv.com/news/local/ormc...ight-pulse-shooting-victims-arrived/340312318

Orlando medical center pushed to its limits, continues saving lives: http://www.news-press.com/story/new...released-orlando-nightclub-massacre/85819092/

“It becomes a question of trying to work as rapidly as possible to identify what the injuries are and determine which patients were at the highest risk of dying in the next 5 or 10 minutes,” said Dr. Michael Cheatham, chief surgical quality officer. “We take care of a number of critically ill patients on a daily basis. … But certainly not to this extent.”
Orlando Regional Medical Center normally has one trauma surgeon on duty around the clock, but within an hour after the shooting at a gay Orlando nightclub early Sunday morning, six trauma surgeons were in the operating room.

 

[skatesindreams]

It is because of them that we are not mourning even greater loss of life and more catastrophic injuries.

 

[agalisgv]

Remember that the Bill of Rights extended voting rights solely to men and this was amended to include women.

The Bill of Rights never said who could and couldn't vote. And the Bill of Rights has never been repealed.

 

[Vash01]

O.k. - after stewing for over 24 hours, here I go (as usual, thought flying out of my head through my fingers)...........

Anybody can do anything and say it’s in the name of their religion. What if it was just a hate crime, but they’ve turned his claim of allegiance to ISIS into a political controversy now. He probably knew he was going to die, so he gets everybody blaming everybody else and investigating everything else, making them all mad.

Following up on the gun thing, if other people in the club had guns, how would people know who the bad guy was. Gosh, what if the SWAT team came in and shot a club-goer because they were holding a gun. All this gun stuff, I just keeping thinking this is not the Wild West, you can’t go around carrying a gun just in case someone else has one, then the next person has one, then the next……………. Don’t cut somebody off in traffic because they might shoot you, but if they pull out a gun, that’s o.k., you can shoot them first………makes my stomach hurt.

And out of left field here - when did it become common practice to lower flags to half mast for every tragedy or death of a famous person who lived in your town? I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, because it is a sign of respect and support for the victims, but it has turned into an every time thing. They might as well leave all flags at half mast forever. Wasn’t it originally for government and military deaths, people who “worked for” and sacrificed their lives FOR America? Now it just means mourning of anybody’s death who makes the news? In Louisville, the flags were at half mast for Muhammad Ali! Which is fine. But it’s like saying the same word over and over again until it loses its meaning or something. Somebody died - put all the flags at half mast. I don’t know. I’m not trying to be difficult. Don’t yell at me!! (I'm not any kind of overly patriotic person or anything. I don't have a flag outside the house or wear red/white/blue on holidays! Although when I was fixing my dad's cemetery flag holder, I held the silly little flag in my mouth because you are not supposed to let them touch the ground!!!!) Maybe there should be mourning flags that they can PUT UP instead of “using” the American flag every time. The rainbow flags now are a GREAT IDEA. Just things that run through my head....................

I agree with the first half of your post. About lowering the flags, I see nothing wrong. It is a way to express grief, sympathy, respect for the dead. I don't think we need to compartmentalize so much that there is a different flag for mourning. I am fine with using our national flag for multiple occasions.

 

[PRlady]

Another thing to note. Just as the majority of the dead were LGBTQ, they were also Latino. I note that Trump et al is not mentioning that, I wonder how many he would have liked to deport?