Mass Shooting at LGBT Nightclub in Orlando

[Vash01]

Exactly. Voting along party lines to stop ANY changes from happening is just shameful and completely irresponsible

This has been going on for a long time, and it has been particularly bad during the Obama administration. When GWB was the president, some dems actually went along with him/rep (after 9/11 in particular). The republicans' number one priority since 2008 has been to make Obama fail. They don't give a d*() about the country. I am surprised that people are still not fed up enough to boot some of these people out of the senate and the house. They are still sticking to their guns ideology. It's not just foolish, it's cruel to see innocent people die and yet the politicians sit on their hands.

 

[AxelAnnie]

What does that have to do with this thread at all?

And what teenager doesn't know how to bring in Midol without alerting the authorities?

Well, first of all, I was responding to post 635.

Second, it is illegal to smuggle drugs into school. The kids can be taken into police custody.

 

[Allskate]

There were four bills up for vote--two sponsored by GOP, and two by Dems. The GOP bills received a majority vote, but virtually no Dems supported the measures to pass the 60 vote threshold.

So if you're looking for names, you'd have to include all Dem senators.

Names for what? The major gun control organizations were opposed to the two GOP measures. The spokesman for the Brady Campaign was on Rachel Maddow last night and called them "horrible." Gabby Giffords's organization opposed them, too.

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/news/

The GOP "background checks" measure would not have expanded the number of gun sellers who had to do background checks and might even have made things worse, permitting greater access to firearms by the mentally ill. Those huge loopholes in the background check system are a major problem, but the NRA does not want them closed. There's a reason why the gun lobby backed the bill. If the NRA wants a gun bill passed, you should ask why. The assault weapons bill from the GOP was a farce and potentially counter-productive. The government would have had to meet a very high standard in court showing the person's involvement in terrorism and would have had to go to court, made its case, and obtained a court ruling all within 72 hours, which people who would be involved in such a process seem to think is not possible. I have heard televised reports that the FBI was concerned that this measure would not have been effective given the constraints and might actually have interfered with terrorist investigations. Feinstein's bill, backed by the FBI, was designed to address these concerns.

When proposed laws offer cover to NRA-controlled politicians, but act in ways that are not productive, or are even countrproductive, there is no good reason to vote for them, especially if they give the false impression that the problem is being addressed and that there is no need for the public to pressure politicians to actually do something. The Democrats already are offering compromises. Many of them want a total ban on assault weapons, reasoning that there is no reason for any regular citizen to have access to weapons of war. They were trying to take an incremental step here to at least decrease access to assault weapons by people on the terrorist watch list.

 

[VGThuy]

Names for what? The major gun control organizations were opposed to the two GOP measures. The spokesman for the Brady Campaign was on Rachel Maddow last night and called them "horrible." Gabby Giffords's organization opposed them, too.

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/news/

The GOP "background checks" measure would not have expanded the number of gun sellers who had to do background checks and might even have made things worse, permitting greater access to firearms by the mentally ill. Those huge loopholes in the background check system are a major problem, but the NRA does not want them closed. There's a reason why the gun lobby backed the bill. If the NRA wants a gun bill passed, you should ask why. The assault weapons bill from the GOP was a farce and potentially counter-productive. The government would have had to meet a very high standard in court showing the person's involvement in terrorism and would have had to go to court, made its case, and obtained a court ruling all within 72 hours, which people who would be involved in such a process seem to think is not possible. I have heard televised reports that the FBI was concerned that this measure would not have been effective given the constraints and might actually have interfered with terrorist investigations. Feinstein's bill, backed by the FBI, was designed to address these concerns.

When proposed laws offer cover to NRA-controlled politicians, but act in ways that are not productive, or are even countrproductive, there is no good reason to vote for them, especially if they give the false impression that the problem is being addressed and that there is no need for the public to pressure politicians to actually do something. The Democrats already are offering compromises. Many of them want a total ban on assault weapons, reasoning that there is no reason for any regular citizen to have access to weapons of war. They were trying to take an incremental step here to at least decrease access to assault weapons by people on the terrorist watch list.

 

[Artistic Skaters]

Nice to see you feel that you can practically gloat about this.

Practically? There are 23 pages of writing showing that a few still prefer to taunt with divisive remarks rather than memorialize 49 dead people.

TIME cover this week has names of those who were killed:

http://time.com/4370966/orlando-shooting/

 

[DAngel]

Names for what? The major gun control organizations were opposed to the two GOP measures. The spokesman for the Brady Campaign was on Rachel Maddow last night and called them "horrible." Gabby Giffords's organization opposed them, too.

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/news/

The GOP "background checks" measure would not have expanded the number of gun sellers who had to do background checks and might even have made things worse, permitting greater access to firearms by the mentally ill. Those huge loopholes in the background check system are a major problem, but the NRA does not want them closed. There's a reason why the gun lobby backed the bill. If the NRA wants a gun bill passed, you should ask why. The assault weapons bill from the GOP was a farce and potentially counter-productive. The government would have had to meet a very high standard in court showing the person's involvement in terrorism and would have had to go to court, made its case, and obtained a court ruling all within 72 hours, which people who would be involved in such a process seem to think is not possible. I have heard televised reports that the FBI was concerned that this measure would not have been effective given the constraints and might actually have interfered with terrorist investigations. Feinstein's bill, backed by the FBI, was designed to address these concerns.

When proposed laws offer cover to NRA-controlled politicians, but act in ways that are not productive, or are even countrproductive, there is no good reason to vote for them, especially if they give the false impression that the problem is being addressed and that there is no need for the public to pressure politicians to actually do something. The Democrats already are offering compromises. Many of them want a total ban on assault weapons, reasoning that there is no reason for any regular citizen to have access to weapons of war. They were trying to take an incremental step here to at least decrease access to assault weapons by people on the terrorist watch list.

Thank you for the explanation and the link. I re-posted your post in the Gun thread in the political section, because it answers the question I asked there.

 

[Japanfan]

But but but... you don't see the absurdity of allowing people on terrorist watch lists to buy weapons? I simply cannot see any reasonable person (who is not personally paid millions by the gun lobby) being in favour of people on terrorist watch lists buying guns. I cannot get my head around it

I'm not American and don't follow the news on gun control efforts closely. But as I understand it, the NRA (National Rifle Association) is positively rabid about citizens' constitutional right to have a gun and blocks attempts to implement gun controls.

A documentary film made some years ago asserted that there are actually more guns per capita in Canada than in the US, but our rate of death by gunshot/murder is actually must less. Gun violence in the US and mass shooting in particular are a peculiar and deeply troubling phenomenon in my view.

 

[watchthis!!]

So much talk about guns in this thread. So much talk about gun laws as well. So little discussion about such a desperately strong need/desire to have a gun. Until the conversation takes a drastic turn in that direction, I expect many, many more mass shootings to occur.

 

[skatesindreams]

The need/desire starts with the misinterpreting (IMO) of the Second Amendment, and degenerates from there!

 

[Xela M]

So much talk about guns in this thread. So much talk about gun laws as well. So little discussion about such a desperately strong need/desire to have a gun. Until the conversation takes a drastic turn in that direction, I expect many, many more mass shootings to occur.

I want to have a gun, but I'm in England, so I can't have one. Tough luck for me. What's so difficult to understand about the connection between the ease of buying a gun and deadly shootings?

 

[VGThuy]

Go to a NRA discussion group and have that argument there. I don't think ranting about it in this thread where most, if not all posters, agree that guns should be much more heavily regulated is doing much to help your understanding of the other side.

 

[Xela M]

Go to a NRA discussion group and have that argument there. I don't think ranting about it in this thread where most, if not all posters, agree that guns should be much more heavily regulated is doing much to help your understanding of the other side.

There is no argument on the other side. People are just repeating what corrupt politicians on the NRA payroll tell them: "This is not the time to discuss gun laws. This is the time to mourn." They repeat it over and over again until people move on and the gun debate dies down... until the next shooting etc etc.

 

[VGThuy]

Actually, they LOVE talking about gun laws and love to argue why guns are great. They bring up their own stats of crime rates and compare states/municipalities with strict gun control v. looser gun control, discuss deterrence, protection, examples of when guns have saved lives, etc. I don't participate because it's a headache arguing with them. However, I think if you were genuinely interested, you'd actually engage with them and challenge their talking points rather than dismiss it all as them not wanting to talk about gun laws.

 

[Cachoo]

I am always amazed at the vitriol stirred up by the NRA for things like record-keeping. ATF isn't allowed the have a database of guns owners on a computer courtesy of the NRA and their congressional henchmen. I hope the group never broadcasts they are pro-police because I know of some officers who would loudly disagree.

Back to Orlando: I had no idea so many people were from Puerto Rico. Those poor families--you hope your child would be safe in a place like Orlando. I cannot imagine getting that phone call with the terrible news.

 

[Allskate]

John Lewis and other House Democrats are conducting a sit-in on the House floor because Paul Ryan refuses to even allow a vote on gun control. They read all the names of the people who were shot and killed in Orlando. Ryan called the House into recess, thus shutting off CSPAN cameras. But House members are streaming on Periscope, Facebook, etc., and CSPAN has picked up that feed.

http://floridapolitics.com/archives...embers-alan-grayson-reads-pulse-victims-names

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-democrats-gun-bills-sit-in_us_576ab443e4b0c0252e77ecb8

 

[snoopy]

So much talk about guns in this thread. So much talk about gun laws as well. So little discussion about such a desperately strong need/desire to have a gun. Until the conversation takes a drastic turn in that direction, I expect many, many more mass shootings to occur.

I agree with this. The bigger problem is not access to guns as much as worshipping guns. We idolize them.

 

[quartz]

I agree with this. The bigger problem is not access to guns as much as worshipping guns. We idolize them.

Yeah. Guns seem like the most popular religion of all.

 

[olympic]

One of my thoughts recently:

As I post my opinions re gun control on social media (and you can imagine some of the responses I get! Not everyone is the sweet FSU quilting circle ), the counter-argument by gun advocates is always: (1) [INSERT OBJECT] would kill just as many people, (2) the 2d amendment!, (3) no new law would've prevented the incident at [INSERT LOCATION]. So, don't do anything?

I often wonder if these people who purportedly are all about freedom and liberty would use their energy / passion and fight this hard for women's reproductive rights / birth control, where would be on this issues? How about tax reform to eliminate loopholes that funnel money upwards? Condom distribution or needle exchanges. Where would be on these issues? Gay Rights? I mean, it's all about freedom and liberty, equality. Correct? A woman's body is a right to privacy issue, right?

Or if their philosophy on guns is applied to reproductive rights: Imagine - 'Abortion happens, there is nothing we can do about it (throw hands up in the air)'. Would we have all these restrictive laws on the books??

 

[agalisgv]

I had no idea so many people were from Puerto Rico.

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet. The shooter's gay lover has come forward saying the shooter harbored a particular animus for Puerto Ricans. According to him, the shooter recently had a threesome where it turned out of them was HIV+, and this was supposedly the motivation for the shooting--revenge.

But it became clear that Mateen fostered a deep hatred for his own sexuality and for Puerto Rican gay men. 'He hated Puerto Rican gays for all the bad stuff they did,' Miguel said. 'Pulse is where he felt used, rejected.

'He was always there and he was there because he liked Latinos and he was attracted to dark skin. But sadly, from what he told me, he felt used. He felt anger, a lot of anger towards Puerto Ricans.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-man-claims-met-Omar-Mateen-sex-20-times.html

The lover was interviewed on Univision.
http://www.univision.com/univision-...rism-says-man-who-claims-he-was-gunmans-lover

 

[Cachoo]

Wow.....Mateen was so messed up even in childhood. How many Mateens are out there wandering around with, of course, guns?

 

[VALuvsMKwan]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet. The shooter's gay lover has come forward saying the shooter harbored a particular animus for Puerto Ricans. According to him, the shooter recently had a threesome where it turned out of them was HIV+, and this was supposedly the motivation for the shooting--revenge. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-man-claims-met-Omar-Mateen-sex-20-times.html

The lover was interviewed on Univision.
http://www.univision.com/univision-...rism-says-man-who-claims-he-was-gunmans-lover

If true, so much for the AQ/ISIL/ISIS terrorism angle. Still a hate crime.

As callous as this sounds, and I would much rather have had him seek intensive counseling, I would much rather that he just killed himself to end his own pain than kill/harm all of those that he did. Flame away at me.

 

[agalisgv]

If true, so much for the AQ/ISIL/ISIS terrorism angle.

Except that he pledged allegiance to ISIS and al Baghdadi during the shooting.

People can have multiple motivations.

 

[Xela M]

If true, so much for the AQ/ISIL/ISIS terrorism angle. Still a hate crime.

As callous as this sounds, and I would much rather have had him seek intensive counseling, I would much rather that he just killed himself to end his own pain than kill/harm all of those that he did. Flame away at me.

I don't think that's a controversial view point and if he hadn't had access to guns maybe he would have...

 

[PDilemma]

I think the "need" for guns is related to our state of constant fear. We are afraid of everything. The word "safe" is used to sell everything to us. There is currently a commercial for a company hawking diapers and such that uses the word "safe" over and over again. As a culture, we are even afraid that diapers might hurt us. There is a Christian radio station here whose marketing revolves around the slogan "safe for the whole family"--because there are people in our society who are afraid of the radio damaging themselves or their children.

Of course, people living in a culture where everything from diapers to the radio is scary and can potentially hurt us fall for the NRA's propaganda that we all must have a gun to protect us.

Never mind that crime rates are not that high. You are more likely to die in a car accident or from cancer or heart disease than to be murdered or be the victim of a home invasion.

But we live in a culture of fear. Until we fix that, we can't fix the gun problem, either.

 

[antmanb]

Except that he pledged allegiance to ISIS and al Baghdadi during the shooting.

People can have multiple motivations.

If he actually felt any allegiance to ISIS should he not have blindfolded himself and thrown himself off a tall building to deal with himself as ISIS would?

Given the picture we are getting of him as someone struggling with his sexuality, the theory that he threw out the ISIS thing at the last minute seems more likely to me. He would have known it would hit a wider audience to claim ISIS than gay hate crime. At the time of his 911 call, he couldn't have known how the outcome would end, whether he would take a few lives or many. Claiming it for ISIS would guarantee media coverage even if he only managed to kill one person.

 

[VALuvsMKwan]

I think the "need" for guns is related to our state of constant fear. We are afraid of everything...

But we live in a culture of fear. Until we fix that, we can't fix the gun problem, either.

^^^^
This a thousand times over. I lived in fear the vast majority of my life, and the means I used to "cope" with it very nearly destroyed me.

After that, and having lost too many people close to me, I think I've been through enough in my life that I simply, to the best of my ability, refuse to be AFRAID any more. Concerned and wary and prepared, perhaps, but not afraid. I wish more people felt this way and saw the truth in what PDilemma posted above.

 

[PDilemma]

^^^^
This a thousand times over. I lived in fear the vast majority of my life, and the means I used to "cope" with it very nearly destroyed me.

After that, and having lost too many people close to me, I think I've been through enough in my life that I simply, to the best of my ability, refuse to be AFRAID any more. Concerned and wary and prepared, perhaps, but not afraid. I wish more people felt this way and saw the truth in what PDilemma posted above.

Thank you.

I just posted similar thoughts on Facebook and an older relative answered that we have to be afraid, "just look at all the warnings about terrible things that we only find out from Facebook".

And there we have part of the problem...if you post and believe every stupid fear mongering social media meme, yes, you are going to be afraid. Never mind that most of it is complete nonsense.

As to crime, I highly recommend Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.

 

[Vash01]

If true, so much for the AQ/ISIL/ISIS terrorism angle. Still a hate crime.

As callous as this sounds, and I would much rather have had him seek intensive counseling, I would much rather that he just killed himself to end his own pain than kill/harm all of those that he did. Flame away at me.

I don't think it's callous to suggest that he should have received intensive counseling. Even a suicide without the mass murder would have been less painful to so many others (as against just his direct family). If he had just his own gun and not an assault rifle, may be he would have killed just himself (still a painful thing but less traumatic to the community).

Even though he claimed allegiance to ISIS, this sounds more like primarily a mentally troubled person than a terrorist. We can't completely rule out the terrorist angle since it seems ISIS influenced him in some ways (e.g. commit mass murder), but I see that as a secondary reason. My conclusion of course is based on the limited knowledge I gleaned from TV shows and reading related articles.

 

[agalisgv]

Given the picture we are getting of him as someone struggling with his sexuality, the theory that he threw out the ISIS thing at the last minute seems more likely to me.

Except that he was referred to the FBI by a friend a few years ago because he was following Awlaki and approved of what he was hearing. He also cheered the downing of the world trade towers when he saw them come down while watching tv coverage in high school, and praised bin Laden.

We're assuming he was struggling with his sexuality, but maybe he wasn't. According to the lover, the shooter said his wife knew of and accepted his gay trysts, and his father likely knew as well. The shooter also said Islam accepted everyone--gay, straight, and bisexual.

We're assuming embrace of ISIS means condemnation of gays, but people pick and choose all the time from ideological movements. There are gay Republicans and southern Baptists after all. Should also point out in many middle Eastern countries (Afghanistan being a big one), it's not uncommon for men to have anal sex with younger males. But that doesn't get tagged as gay.

At the time of his 911 call, he couldn't have known how the outcome would end, whether he would take a few lives or many. Claiming it for ISIS would guarantee media coverage even if he only managed to kill one person.

Except he also called media outlets after he had killed most of his victims claiming the same thing.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for one motivation over another. But I think explanations that try to say the shooter was only motivated by x and not y are missing the mark. I think it was more complex than that.

 

[Vash01]

Wow.....Mateen was so messed up even in childhood. How many Mateens are out there wandering around with, of course, guns?

There are a lot of messed up people in the world, some since childhood. While they need counseling and/or psychiatric help, what they don't need is easy access to guns.