Orlando

[Granny Gremlin]

There are conflicting reports of the configuration of the gun used and this bothers me a bit - the authorities say it was a semi AR-15; the people in the club have described fully automatic fire.  The fact is a semi AR-15 (legal to own if you go through the process up here - arduous, takes years, so few do, and the crazies are at least mostly weeded out by it) can easily be converted to full auto with some basic modifications.  The part required is readily available aftermarket.  I am somewhat surprised that I know this, but we have gun lovers (and gun clubs) up here too; the rules are just different.

Supposedly the shooter was on an FBI watch list, and had been investigated twice.  Yet he could still buy guns despite that?

Yes, I touched on that - see the link to the NYTimes article I posted above.  He was investigated but not on a watch list (they concluded his claims to be ISIS-affiliated were bogus shit-talking, but in retrospect should have taken him more seriously due to total nutter).

[Dave W]

My bad mixing Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee up!

As for the much toted gun discussion: America is America, keep your hunting rifles and hand guns, but where in the Second Amendment does it say that semi-automatics and other military weaponry are to be taken to dancehalls to mass-shoot people there? And how can someone who's on a watchlist of the FBI with repeated investigations and who openly supports ISIS walk into a gun store and come out an hour later fully equipped for the Orlando onslaught? Lenin is on record for saying "the capitalists will sell us the noose with which we will hang them".

I'm not going to discuss Second Amendment issues any more to keep this focused on Orlando except to say that you're right that the Second Amendment doesn't prohibit reasonable regulations. How reasonable would have to be decided by the courts.

By now you have probably heard that the killer was gay and a regular patron of the club, and that he also claimed allegiance to Hezbollah, which is a deadly enemy of ISIS. So I think we'll have to wait to get a fuller picture.

I've read something even more disturbing from two different sources this morning. Many of you may know that the FBI keeps foiling alleged terror plots of its own creation, having informants lure dupes into joining then busting them. According to these reports, the killer was actually introduced to informants by the FBI. If true, it's possible that he was lured into one of these plots and then acted it out. I sure hope this isn't true, because if it is, all hell will break loose.

It's just too early to tell.

[Pilgrim]

That's a very disturbing possibility, Dave.

I can't shake the feeling from what I've read and heard that the shooter's primary motivation may have been homophobia, and that his claims of influence from ISIS may have been a red herring. I doubt we'll ever know. But many people have latched onto this as an Islamic extremist event, which I think is still open to question. Blaming Islam makes it easier to avoid debating the issues related to homophobic hate groups and firearms.

[uwe]

I don't have a preference for him being either an Islamic Terror fan boy or a psychopath closet gay that couldn't live with what nature had in store for him. Being gay and not having a valve to let it out in a conservative Islamic setting is by Allah nothing new - I have gay Muslim friends who could write books about that.

What freaks me is that for either Islamic bliss or the eradication of gay life perceived unworthy he walks out and kills 50 innocent people one by one.

[Highlander]

The story in the UK is now being spun with the caveat "... in modern times".

[Aussie Mark]

In Australia you can't buy semi autos (longarms or handguns) without extensive red tape and due process to obtain the necessary permits, and any rifle is restricted to a magazine capacity of 5 rounds.  We haven't had a "gun massacre" since those regulations were brought in after Port Arthur 20 years ago.   Lots of Australians own guns - farmers, hunters, gun club members, security guards etc, but clearly it's the availability of high capacity magazines and weapons with semi auto capability that are the main contributing factor to civilian massacres (in any country). 

Yes, I know, the gun lobby will tell us that a skilled shooter with a bolt action or lever action rifle could kill the same number of people while changing mags every 5 rounds, but you don't generally see mass killers using those weapons, which is telling.

[uwe]

Exactly. And - especially if you favor a, uhum, historic interpretation of the Constitution popular in certain quarters - I don't believe the authors of the 2nd Amendment had those types of weapons in mind at all or even thought them conceiveable. Let everyone have their own nuclear bomb then, it's a God-given right.

I read something interesting yesterday: Historically, Islam isn't such a violently anti-gay religion at all, it is something that only evolved in the last 100 years or so, in part due to Western colonial influence. Persian and Osmanic poets, writers and even religious scholars praised the virtues of "boy love" for a millenium and more, to an extent actually that Western translations of their works altered/censored the genders of characters because the texts were deemed too frank (anyone remember the extended rape scene in Lawrence of Arabia in the Osmanic police station or military compound?). Apparently, the Quran - I have a copy at home, I really need to get around to reading it - mostly skips the subject and is not as damning about it as, say, The Old Testament. (BTW: Is Jesus supposed to have ever said something about gays? The whole Apostle thing was pretty homoerotic if you ask me.)

It's a messed up world.

[Granny Gremlin]

Technically speaking, Christianity has very weak anti-gay scriptural support.  Yes there is that bit in the Old Testament about it being abonination and such, BUT, it is not one of the commandments AND, it is in the same section of the bible as not shaving your beard, not eating pork/shellfish, and women being considered unclean during menses (and all the rules around that - must stay in bed with legs wrapped up together etc)... and lets not forget circumcision, all of which have been established in the post ascention books of the New Testament to no longer apply due to being part of the 'old covenant' the new one based on the blood of Christ supersedes (the specific argument is based on whether Christians need to be circumcised and the answer was a clear no, not at all).   

This is one of the things that bothers me generally about modern organised/popular Christianity; picking and choosing bits of the bible and applying them selectively, as well as taking random rules from the Old Testament and placing them above the basic teachings of Christ - that is to love (icluding your enemies) and do unto others (...).  The irony of Christianity becoming so Phariseeonic is mindblowing considering Jesus' explicit and frequent criticism of the unwavering and uncaring dogmatic nature of that sect/social class.  Then there's the further irony of how much certain Christian elements hate the LGBT community while professing a religion of peace and love; how gays get more anger directed towards them by that community than rapists, thieves and murderers, for whom there is ample forgivenes, even with repeat offenses.  Those asshats with the 'God hates a fag' signs are actually committing a blasphemy (a bigger sin than being gay, by a country mile).

[Dave W]

In Australia you can't buy semi autos (longarms or handguns) without extensive red tape and due process to obtain the necessary permits, and any rifle is restricted to a magazine capacity of 5 rounds.  We haven't had a "gun massacre" since those regulations were brought in after Port Arthur 20 years ago.   Lots of Australians own guns - farmers, hunters, gun club members, security guards etc, but clearly it's the availability of high capacity magazines and weapons with semi auto capability that are the main contributing factor to civilian massacres (in any country). 

Yes, I know, the gun lobby will tell us that a skilled shooter with a bolt action or lever action rifle could kill the same number of people while changing mags every 5 rounds, but you don't generally see mass killers using those weapons, which is telling.

From what I've read, no mass shootings in Australia before Port Arthur involved semi-automatics with large capacity magazines. If that's true, one unfortunate event led to those restrictive laws. And I've also read that those regulations have had no effect on Australia's overall homicide rate. Regardless, you're talking about Australian society. The culture is different here.

FYI, the Columbine and Virginia Tech shooters used smaller magazines and reloaded. IIRC, the Virginia Tech shooter used 17 10-round magazines.

Then there's the slow police response in Orlando, as with Columbine and Virginia Tech. Turns out it took police three hours before police entered the nightclub. Hell, if it really was that long, Mateen could have used a musket. And now Orlando's police chief has admitted that some victims may have been shot by police. What a clusterf***.

Exactly. And - especially if you favor a, uhum, historic interpretation of the Constitution popular in certain quarters - I don't believe the authors of the 2nd Amendment had those types of weapons in mind at all or even thought them conceiveable. Let everyone have their own nuclear bomb then, it's a God-given right.

(sigh)  And I said I wasn't going to discuss the Second Amendment any more.

No, the Founding Fathers obviously didn't have modern weaponry in mind. But in District of Columbia v. Heller -- the landmark  Second Amendment case -- DC tried to use that argument as justification for their refusal to issue carry permits, and the US Supreme Court specifically rejected that argument. In any case, there's no popular support for unrestricted weapons ownership.

[Granny Gremlin]

So now apparently there's witnesses (and a 911 call that the shooter made) saying the motive was the US bombing of Afganistan.  Starting to think this guy just had a perfect storm of reasons/motives and may not have been so insane (in the legal not responsible sense); premeditation and PR awareness (not saying it was about LGBT people) kinda rule that out.

[TBird1958]

Did I mention I  F*&^%)G hate guns................






Sorry, it's the only constructive input I have at this point.

[4stringer77]

Whether or not the guy was a patsy, when a mainstream media outlet like the Rolling Stone calls for an outright repeal of the second amendment, the event has been exploited in such a way that it may as well be considered state sponsored terrorism.

[patman]

+1 Tbird1958

[Granny Gremlin]

Whether or not the guy was a patsy, when a mainstream media outlet like the Rolling Stone calls for an outright repeal of the second amendment, the event has been exploited in such a way that it may as well be considered state sponsored terrorism.

Well that's a feasible constructive suggestion.  That rag has been shit for years.

[Highlander]

I think I'll remain diplomatically quiet...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-x2UoF6isg