patrick.net

Straw Man says

The name of the mouthpiece who vomited that out doesn't really matter.

It does if you are trying to pin it on NPR. Was it an NPR talkshow host or a guest? Just because someone says something on an NPR show does not mean it's being espoused by NPR.

Ironman says

Why someone didn't rush him, throw a chair or object and try to disarm him

Some may have tried, but the jihadi was a roid-enhanced bodybuilder with professional training, and he may also have been carrying knives. The jihadi waited until 2am, when most customers had been partying for hours and were drunk or otherwise intoxicated, and tired, and he had the element of surprise. By the time people figured out what was happening and stopped the music and turned up the lights, most of the fatalities had probably already occurred. He took hostages who had cowered in a bathroom stall to call for emergency response, but probably they had nothing to throw at him and besides they were trapped in a stall and couldn't get anywhere near him without getting shot.

If he had attacked in the middle of the day, in broad daylight and when more customers were sober and wide awake, then they would have had a better chance of disarming him. That's why he waited until last call, when the crowd had already begun to thin out.

Ironman says

curious2 says

the primary issue is motive,

So how does banning AR-15's change that?

It doesn't, and besides as a licensed professional security guard who cleared multiple background checks, the jihadi would have been first in line to maintain his licenses for the weapons he had. Also, we've had several reports of federal agents leaving guns in parked vehicles in SF, where the guns got stolen, resulting in at least one homicide (so far). Adjusting the availability of particular weapons might affect somewhat the volume of the attacks, or cause the jihadis to use other means, but it would not stop them.

Dan8267 says

It's not. Discussions on gun control and religion are not mutually exclusive or even in conflict. It is a false dichotomy to say we need to choose which problem to address. We need to address both problems right now.

In any society, there will always be multiple problems that need to be worked on asynchronously and in parallel. No society can say forget about all problems except this one until it's fixed. That's not a practical way to run a business, nonetheless a society.

The biggest problem that is never talked about is abuse of the first amendment by the media to give such people free publicity.

MMR says

The biggest problem that is never talked about is abuse of the first amendment by the media to give such people free publicity.

That may be foolishness, but it is not abuse. A right, by definition, cannot be abused regardless of when, where, how often, or to what extent it is used.

Ironman says

MMR says

The biggest problem that is never talked about is abuse of the first amendment by the media

A bigger problem is allowing the media to print such blatant lies everyday and never be held accountable for them.

Biggest problem there is liberal stupidity and naive. The rest would fall into place. Hillary and Obama go around telling the world how Muslims are discriminated and how gays are so special. Well this is the result of weak and ineffective ass kissing liberal leadership. Got gays and muslims, because that's what they support, and hence have more of it. Stupid is what stupid does.

If Hillary gets elected, my gun's won't become illegal, they will become undocumented.

FortWayne says

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle". Its just a term liberals use to identify all rifles out there. And they don't care to just ban a few rifles, they want to ban everything. It's called chipping away at rights until they are gone, pushing the line. Screw em, this line doesn't move an inch. No bans period.

sturmgewehr is where assault rifle came from, and "liberals" generally don't include bolt action rifles, and many others without 'evil features' in that classification. I take your point though, and agree, that 'evil features' were drafted by people who don't know a lick about firearms in general, but they didn't coin 'assault rifle'. The WWII German army did.

We are already drawing lines on what can and cannot be possessed as an arm, so saying 'no bans' is simplistic and wrong. There are already bans on many things throughout every state in the USA. The term "arms" was carefully chosen to allow interpretation. Explosives, in general, have heavy restrictions against them. Armaments which explode, likewise. Generally, civilians cannot own military heavy arms at all.

FortWayne says

Biggest problem there is liberal stupidity and naive. The rest would fall into place. Hillary and Obama go around telling the world how Muslims are discriminated and how gays are so special. Well this is the result of weak and ineffective ass kissing liberal leadership. Got gays and muslims, because that's what they support, and hence have more of it. Stupid is what stupid does.

Hillary and Obama tell their scared-stupid-masses not to be moved to violence against themselves out of their own fear. They tell the scared masses not to discriminate against whole groups of people because of bigoted perceptions.

The type of thinking you express is what has lead to the severe backlash against the Sikh communities here in the US, over and over. A community which has nothing to do with radical islam at all.

Which political figures, past and present, have capitalized on human fear motivations, and incited violence, for political gain? A clever answer might be "all", which I could see as true in a very broad sense, but ask yourself which are the most gregarious and shameless examples? Who stokes the fear and for what purpose?

FortWayne, I think you are a great example of why the US military has worked so hard on general ROE understandings for their forces. Scared people do stupid shit, and that is why Obama/Hillary speak the way they do.

zzyzzx says

If Hillary gets elected, by gun's won't become illegal, they will become undocumented.

'If Hillary gets elected my guns won't' ... I believe is what you are trying to say?

Your guns, are already "undocumented", as in the only person who could provide ownership information would be the authorized dealer who sold it to you, and there is no greater national firearms ownership registry for law enforcement or any other higher national authority. You can also gift a firearm to a relative breaking the link to the original custody chain.

Typically when new firearms legislation is passed, all currently owned but now under new restrictive policy components/guns, are grandfathered in and remain legal.

No one is coming for your guns. Fantasy land. pew-pew-pew get the bad guys.

You don't need a gun in a nightclub shooting in a major city, just dial 9/11.

And they'll resolve the situation before you know it, 3 hours later.

Rew says

sturmgewehr is where assault rifle came from, and "liberals" generally don't include bolt action rifles, and many others without 'evil features' in that classification. I take your point though, and agree, that 'evil features' were drafted by people who don't know a lick about firearms in general, but they didn't coin 'assault rifle'. The WWII German army did.

I think we both agree that "liberals" just use term "assault rifle" interchangeably with weapon slightly longer than a hand gun. At least majority of them anyway.

Rew says

We are already drawing lines on what can and cannot be possessed as an arm, so saying 'no bans' is simplistic and wrong. There are already bans on many things throughout every state in the USA. The term "arms" was carefully chosen to allow interpretation. Explosives, in general, have heavy restrictions against them. Armaments which explode, likewise. Generally, civilians cannot own military heavy arms at all.

I don't disagree with you man. I just don't see a need for them to further restrict more and more. They've already pushed their crap too far. It's stupid really, in CA if you are a law abiding citizen you are effectively disarmed (no open carry and no concealed carry... you lost all your rights). Naturally criminals don't follow rules, so your only option is to die when in a situation. Cops show up to pick your body, not to stop the from killing you.

Ironman says

YOu forgot

Glock!

Ironman says:""Perception IS reality" and FACTS are Fiction."

Rep/Con/Teas allow their Big Govt. to tell you where you cannot take your"arms".
Areas in airports/planes,many govt.properties,etc.that are paid for with Republican taxes.
Now they are talking about restricting gun sales to a group that might include Americans citizens.
Nothing like destroying our greatest Amendment,that be number 2.
Sounds like a"Minority Report",you're guilty before you commit a crime.
Next pre-crimes:
If your a female child you might take birth control to pre-kill a creation of god.
If you ever smoke that killer weed you might become a drug cartel.
Prosecute criminals now!
When will they execute weed smokers or birth control taking women.
R/C/T are here to protect America.

Why discuss this issue in terms of jihadists, when 9/10 of the shootings have nothing to do with Muslim fanatics?

HydroCabron says

Why discuss this issue in terms of jihadists, when 9/10 of the shootings have nothing to do with Muslim fanatics?

Why discuss a terrorist attack as if it were a common crime?

Heraclitusstudent says

Why discuss a terrorist attack as if it were a common crime?

Sandy Hook, James Huberty @McDonalds, Virginia Tech, Aurora etc. are common crimes?

The "terrorist" adjective is imprecise, and conveniently applied: Cliven Bundy and his buddies are arguably as much terrorists as the Orlando asshole, who did not coordinate with ISIS, and has claimed kinship at various points with ISIS, Hezbollah, the Tsarnaev brothers and al Qaeda, despite the remarkable differences in ideology among these groups - strong evidence that he was whackaloon as much as terrorist. The Bundys have a consistent ideology, threatened local merchants with violence if they helped move Bundy cattle onto the market, and sought attention through threats of violence.

Notice how the Jo Cox killing is not being called a terrorist act, though the monster asshole terrorist who killed her followed far-right hate groups and acted against one of their enemies. Seems that word is applied only to certain ideologies. Some British newspapers refer to him as a quiet, gentle gardener who has only ever assassinated a member of parliament just the one time.

HEY YOU says

Ironman says:""Perception IS reality" and FACTS are Fiction."

What would you expect an idiot like CIC to say?

1.) How many gun killings are from rifles?

4%(But you can go verify).

2.) Most of the rest of the gun killings are by handgun. Handguns are VERY easy to smuggle into the US, esp with the ineffective nature of US border policy.

3.) Even if banned, handguns would get into the country. I would not have one. Criminals would.

If you want to increase the minimum penalty for handgun possession to 15 years mandatory in every state AND insta deport anyone illegally crossing into the US AND implement insta arrest/deportations for visa overstays then we can at least have a conversation.

I've never once met a Democrat/lefty who would agree to the above provisions. I have no clue why not so maybe someone here can explain to me why its wrong to immediately deport those who enter illegally and immediately arrest and deport those overstaying their visa.

It seems there are many that believe that simply banning guns will end or drastically reduce killings and murders. It won't. The criminals will still get guns. I won't, but then that solves nothing because I wasnt going to kill anyone anyway, Statistically, mass murders comprise very few of the murders in the US, and I'm guessing that psychos would just move on to bombs or whatever. So eliminating guns(which is the real goal of the left here) wouldn't actually do anything to reduce murders and in fact would likely increase lesser violent crimes as a populace of sheep is left without means to defend itself.

The way I shoot my guns...
The way I lock and load!
To defend everything...
Oh no they can't take that away from me.

Under the Circumstances I'm sure Gershwin would be endorsing Trump today. And the 2nd thingy.

Look, we all know the Tsarnaev Brothers, Farook, Mateen, the DC Snipers, they were all Lone Gun Nuts outraged at the potential of a liberal supreme court. Only Islamophobes say otherwise.

HydroCabron says

Sandy Hook, James Huberty @McDonalds, Virginia Tech, Aurora etc. are common crimes?

Whether or not they are is irrelevant. Weapon regulations are about shootings in general, most of which are not mass shootings. They are about common crimes.

Again making a terrorist attack, a gun control issue is absurd.
Anyone sufficiently determined will always be able to find 2 hand guns and do what the Orlando guy did.

Heraclitusstudent says

Weapon regulations are about shootings in general, most of which are not mass shootings. They are about common crimes

Once again, then: Why focus on discussions of weapons regulations solely as they apply to Jihadi attacks?

First you nonsensically connected my "90% of mass shootings are not perpetrated by Islamists" to an attempt to equate terrorism with common crimes (?). Now you wave it all aside by stating that weapons regulations are about shootings in general - that was the direction of my original point. For some reason, my saying mass shootings are about more than Jihadi acts is attempting to equate terrorism with common crimes, while your saying that shootings are about far more than even mass shootings, and include common crimes, is a sage and definitive point.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, all I literally said was that 90% of mass shootings are not Jihadi acts, which is why limiting these policy discussions solely to "What would stop Jihadism?" seems PC and dainty to me. It's as if we're saying "Well, the Virginia Tech and Aurora shooters were not Muslim, so those situations are off the table. Ditto with gangbangers knocking over a liquor store."

Could you pull up stakes and move to at least the suburbs of coherence and logic?

Ironman says

A bigger problem is allowing the media to print such blatant lies everyday and never be held accountable for them.

Exactly what I meant

Dan8267 says

That may be foolishness, but it is not abuse. A right, by definition, cannot be abused regardless of when, where, how often, or to what extent it is used.

You sound like Bill Clinton in the lewinsky trial arguing the definition of 'is'. I would ask you to apply your logic to the second amendment.

I'm against all forms of gun control, especially requiring safety classes. How will we ever weed out the dumbasses from the gene pool if we keep making it harder for them to die from a misfire accidents?

www.youtube.com/embed/E33Z0RPWuHs

MMR says

You sound like Bill Clinton in the lewinsky trial arguing the definition of 'is'. I would ask you to apply your logic to the second amendment.

1. If you think a right can be abused, then you don't really think it's a right.
2. I have applied my logic to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment hasn't been in effect since at least WWII since as it is written and as it is intended, the Second Amendment means you can have nuclear arms. After all, nuclear arms are arms and the Second Amendment says the right to bear "arms" not "guns". There is nothing special about guns that would make the Second Amendment apply only to them and not any other type of arm.
3. The Second Amendment is just plain stupid having been written at a time when all people had were muskets and pitch forks.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

They should.

But they aren't and they won't. For political, traditional, constitutional, and practical reasons.

Also the data ive seen doesnt support this, so add rational to your list.

HydroCabron says

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, all I literally said was that 90% of mass shootings are not Jihadi acts, which is why limiting these policy discussions solely to "What would stop Jihadism?" seems PC and dainty to me.

You fully lost the thread. I don't object to weapon regulations, I'm only object to presenting these as a solution of what happened in Orlando.
These regulations are irrelevant to stop terrorism. They may be adapted to stop other shootings, but this is irrelevant in the current thread, because we are discussing Obama/Clinton's response to a terrorist event.

jazz music says

Islam may be the banner but it's clear that this man's psychological distress about himself played a tragic role in these killings.

This is a distinction without a difference. Why was he feeling psychological distress about his impulses? Why did he feel guilty? Why did he blame others for their dirty life styles? Obviously the cause of all this is the teaching that gays are perverts who will burn in hell for eternity. Here is the dogma that corrupted his entire universe. Every vital impulse is a sin in this dogma. Every impulse must be controlled, hidden, veiled, and appropriately expiated and punished, be it by stoning, or by being thrown out a roof top.

Add to this the teaching that redemption is automatic provided you die for the faith and take a sufficient number of infidels with you. You will go straight to paradise, and get to take some of your family with you.

This is the cocktail of beliefs Islam offered him.

Granted the texts do not specify if there will be 72 gay Bavarian giants "virgins" waiting to pound him. But outside of this detail, the cause here is clearly only Islam, not gayness.

Heraclitusstudent says

But outside of this detail, the cause here is clearly only Islam, not gayness

I'd say the cause is religion--he would have felt the same pressure and stigma as a Christian.

tatupu70 says

Heraclitusstudent says

But outside of this detail, the cause here is clearly only Islam, not gayness

I'd say the cause is religion--he would have felt the same pressure and stigma as a Christian.

Except of course Christianity doesn't teach it's all forgiven provided you go postal and start shooting in the crowd.

Heraclitusstudent says

the texts do not specify

Technically, they do offer elaborate descriptions, but those don't solve the problem. The purportedly omnipotent deity has power to answer prayers, but decides for himself when he will answer them. So, if Omar tried to pray away the gay, and asked why his prayers had not been answered, the Imam's answer would be that it isn't the right time yet. When is the right time? When he proves himself worthy. On June 12, he became everything he and his family wanted him to be, by accomplishing his particularly special mission on earth. All is now right with the world, according to Islam: the Muslims get the house and life insurance money, and the infidels burn in hell, and the shaheed gets to enjoy his 72 virgins, as described, according to the charlatan Mohamed's fraudulent promise.

Heraclitusstudent says

Except of course Christianity doesn't teach it's all forgiven provided you go postal and start shooting in the crowd.

What Christianity teaches is irrelevant. What matters is how Christians behave.

According to the Christian god a person is morally obligated to allow a home intruder to rape his or her entire family to death and not lift a finger in violence against that person. Yes, this is exactly what the Christian says, and this is the justification.
1. It is always immoral to kill or harm another regardless of your reason. Life is created by the Christian god and no human should take it or desecrate a person's body with harm.
2. All the suffering in this life, including your entire family being raped to death, is utterly insignificant compared to an eternity of either perfect bliss or unimaginable torture.
3. You should forgive and love the raping murderer even while he is raping and murdering your family.
4. You and your entire family will be rewarded in heaven for all the suffering you endure in while following the commandments of the Christian god including taking no violent action to stop the home intruder from raping and killing your family. The more you suffer, the better because the greater the rewards in heaven will be. It's also morally good that you suffer because not using violence to stop the suffering is the right thing to do according to the sole unquestionable moral authority in existence.
5. Any punishment the home intruder receives should only be doled out by the Christian god, but you should hope the person who raped your family to death repents and joins you in heaven because that is the Christian's god will and if you are a devote Christian you'll look forward to playing Parcheesi with him and your family in heaven for the rest of eternity.

This is what Christianity teaches, and there isn't a Christian in all of human history who accepts this teaching. The more devote Christians are gun enthusiasts who would want a person to try to break into their home and rape their family just so they have a justification to murder the "bad guy" and be a hero. Devote American Christians want to murder bad guys and "save the day" even though this life is supposed to only be a test of faith according to their religion and they are failing that test of faith by attacking the intruder.

So no, the Christian mythology gets no credit for making the world a less violent or more moral place. In fact, all religions especially Christian ones have held back the advancement of morality for thousands of years. Scientific study of morality and social living including in non-human species and mathematical development of Game Theory are the truly effective tools for better understanding morality and applying it to both simple and very complex situations. Put simply, morality is a scientific, not religious, subject and only science can make us live together better.

Dan8267 says

So no, the Christian mythology gets no credit for making the world a less violent or more moral place.

I'm not sure a rant against Christianity is warranted here.
I'm not saying Christianity is exempt from the perversions I described. Clearly it shares into the same corrupted vision of the universe. Every natural instinct if a sin in this tradition like it is with Islam. Nature has fallen.

Nonetheless it is far more benign and less virulent than Islam is, both in terms of teachings and based on how its adherents behave.

Dan8267 says

1. If you think a right can be abused, then you don't really think it's a right.

It seems like a right on paper, but in practice, I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment that it isn't truly a right.

Dan8267 says

2. I have applied my logic to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment hasn't been in effect since at least WWII since as it is written and as it is intended, the Second Amendment means you can have nuclear arms. After all, nuclear arms are arms and the Second Amendment says the right to bear "arms" not "guns". There is nothing special about guns that would make the Second Amendment apply only to them and not any other type of arm.

That's at least one significant reason why I'm not inclined to consider the second amendment a right, in practice.

Dan8267 says

3. The Second Amendment is just plain stupid having been written at a time when all people had were muskets and pitch forks

Once again, I also fundamentally agree with this sentiment, that the second amendment is somewhat antiquated; its shortcomings, while not addressed fully have at least been addressed periodically over the years, albeit imperfectly. Having said that, the founding fathers also did not understand that there is no such thing as bad publicity and that publicity is valuable compensation for illegal acts in the context of a terrorist act. The First Amendment needs to be modified to allow the media to be punished harshly for giving of terrorists free publicity. I would like to see such vigor in pursuing the first amendment reform as is the case with the second amendment.

HydroCabron says

Cliven Bundy and his buddies are arguably as much terrorists as the Orlando asshole

guy might be a kook but who did he kill again?

curious2 says

On June 12, he became everything he and his family wanted him to be, by accomplishing his particularly special mission on earth. All is now right with the world, according to Islam: the Muslims get the house and life insurance money, and the infidels burn in hell, and the shaheed gets to enjoy his 72 virgins, as described, according to the charlatan Mohamed's fraudulent promise.

Yep. We must have the same policies in these cases as the British and Israelis had. Demolish the family member's homes or at least seize any insurance and asset transfers done in the lead up to the killing, with broad unspecified timeframes based on when the radicalization happened (otherwise terrorists will just space these things outside the date range, ie 90 days)

Dan8267 says

According to the Christian God a person is morally obligated to allow a home intruder to rape his or her entire family to death and not lift a finger in violence against that person. Yes, this is exactly what the Christian says, and this is the justification.

There is no scripture I've ever read that says that. In fact, if you see a wrong being done and stand by, you are just as guilty as the person doing it:
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/WhenGoodMenDoNothing.htm

Try pulling that at my house, I'll introduce you to my intruder alert system. It's got high accuracy, and is the best cure for recidivism known to man, the bullet.

Dan8267 says

I have applied my logic to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment hasn't been in effect since at least WWII since as it is written and as it is intended, the Second Amendment means you can have nuclear arms.

No, it doesn't, and that explains why your logic is that of a binary machine programmer and not a judge of laws and evidence. The statue of justice holds a scale, not a PC. You have to weigh evidence and reason towards the most likely conclusion. I enjoyed Rew's comment about a "need to be armed with ships of the line and horse", which I doubt the founders intended.

If you believe in original intent, as Scalia claimed to, then you start with the kind of arms the founders could keep and bear, i.e. carry, and those would be flintlock pistols and muskets, each capable of firing a single shot before reloading. If you stick within that same order of magnitude, you might get to something like the assault weapons ban that we had from 1994-2004. SCOTUS recently let stand a 2nd circuit decision upholding a similar ban at the state level. High capacity magazines (10+) and semi-automatic fire are an order of magnitude greater than what the founders could keep and bear, and nuclear weapons were not even theoretically possible at that time.

If you don't believe in original intent, then you can apply whatever logic you like, but if you're a bodybuilder bulking up to carry your own personal ICBM, you won't get many to agree with you now that Scalia is gone.

NuttBoxer says

Dan8267 says

According to the Christian God a person is morally obligated to allow a home intruder to rape his or her entire family to death and not lift a finger in violence against that person. Yes, this is exactly what the Christian says, and this is the justification.

There is no scripture I've ever read that says that

The gospel according to Luke 6:27-36

27“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

NuttBoxer says

Try pulling that at my house, I'll introduce you to my intruder alert system. It's got high accuracy, and is the best cure for recidivism known to man, the bullet.

Which is why Christianity has done NOTHING to make Christians more moral. You are confirming exactly what I said.

Dan8267 says

This is what Christianity teaches, and there isn't a Christian in all of human history who accepts this teaching. The more devote Christians are gun enthusiasts who would want a person to try to break into their home and rape their family just so they have a justification to murder the "bad guy" and be a hero. Devote American Christians want to murder bad guys and "save the day" even though this life is supposed to only be a test of faith according to their religion and they are failing that test of faith by attacking the intruder.

So no, the Christian mythology gets no credit for making the world a less violent or more moral place. In fact, all religions especially Christian ones have held back the advancement of morality for thousands of years.