• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Shooting at an Orlando Gay Night Club

BobStackFan4Life said:
So possibly a gay guy who couldn't accept himself because of the fucked up religious beliefs he'd been brainwashed with?
Click to expand...

Maybe. Or maybe he was scouting the place.. or maybe he was there to attack but backed off... [ from the article -- He also is believed to have visited other gay venues to check out as potential targets, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ]

I'm sure there's more to learn, but info-to-date continues to lean terrorist, not conflicted nice guy that snapped.
 
MysteryMen said:
Yeah, those laws aren't about preventing mass shootings. They're about preventing people from doing something impulsive because they happen to have a gun on them.

Keep fighting the straw man though
Click to expand...

Of course that's what the laws are about. But they have the side-effect of creating safe spaces for lunatics with guns to operate, just like the Aurora theater and Sandy Hook. An all-out gun ban like some of your buddies on this thread are talking about would make the entire US such a safe space.

To be sure, a ban would make guns more difficult to acquire. But we have 300 million guns in this country. Gang-bangers and other criminals aren't going to sell back their only means of protection against their enemies and the cops, so they aren't giving up their guns. And when they decide they want to hit my house, I'm not going to be standing there holding a baseball bat with one hand and my thumb up my ass with the other. I'm going to have my gun too.
 
Junebug said:
Yes, really. If just one person had had a gun in or behind the bar we likely wouldn't be talking about this. But instead you want to talk about gun registries and strict civil liability, like any of that is going to deter a homocidal maniac.
Click to expand...

MysteryMen said:
Dude, you know there was an armed off-duty police officer in the club that exchanged fire with the shooter right? Yet we're still talking about this
Click to expand...

Junebug said:
No, I didn't know that.

Obviously, it was very unlucky that the cop was on the losing end of that exchange. If there had been a few more people with guns the odds that the shooter would have been the unlucky one go up dramatically.
Click to expand...

i <3 this exchange. "If just one person had a gun"... oh wait they did.... "well if just a whole bunch of people had guns"

The hypothetical failed in the worst possible way, bro. The armed, trained citizen-hero had his chance, and 100 people still got shot. Take the L. Or keep living in the fantasy land where every citizen is a gun packing hero, and pretending that such a state of affairs represents an advance of civilization as opposed to its total failure.
 
Deacon923 said:
i <3 this exchange. "If just one person had a gun"... oh wait they did.... "well if just a whole bunch of people had guns"

The hypothetical failed in the worst possible way, bro. The armed, trained citizen-hero had his chance, and 100 people still got shot. Take the L. Or keep living in the fantasy land where every citizen is a gun packing hero, and pretending that such a state of affairs represents an advance of civilization as opposed to its total failure.
Click to expand...

Do you see that little word "likely" in my original post? It's small, so you might have missed it, but it means that chances are greater than 50% that something happens. The implication is that the odds are less, and, in truth, much less, than 100%. Here, I'll use it in a sentence:

"It is likely that 923 is so adamant about limitations on gun rights that he can't think clearly about practical measures to reduce gun violence."

Answer me this: other consequences aside, do you think it is more or less likely that the killer would have killed 49 people and wounded 53 if just 10% of Pulse patrons had been carrying?
 
beatrix said:
Maybe. Or maybe he was scouting the place.. or maybe he was there to attack but backed off... [ from the article -- He also is believed to have visited other gay venues to check out as potential targets, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ]

I'm sure there's more to learn, but info-to-date continues to lean terrorist, not conflicted nice guy that snapped.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree he definitely wasn't a nice guy who snapped. He cheered during 9/11, beat his wife, hated Jews, blacks, women, gays obviously. Pretty much everyone but his family says he was a terrible person.
 
black-square-1-1349462611_b.jpg


"Alright everybody, shoot the bad guy!"
 
Junebug said:
Do you see that little word "likely" in my original post? It's small, so you might have missed it, but it means that chances are greater than 50% that something happens. The implication is that the odds are less, and, in truth, much less, than 100%. Here, I'll use it in a sentence:

"It is likely that 923 is so adamant about limitations on gun rights that he can't think clearly about practical measures to reduce gun violence."

Answer me this: other consequences aside, do you think it is more or less likely that the killer would have killed 49 people and wounded 53 if just 10% of Pulse patrons had been carrying?
Click to expand...

A: Less.
 
WFFaithful said:
black-square-1-1349462611_b.jpg


"Alright everybody, shoot the bad guy!"
Click to expand...

...

Real life convo with a patient today...
Patient: yeah, but if everyone carries guns, how do you know who the good guys and bad guys are?
Me: bad guy opens fire on innocents
good guy = guy who shoots back
at the guy killing innocent people
Patient: yeah, but how do you know which one is the good guy?
Me: **blink blink** So... How about that dry mouth situation you're having.
Click to expand...
 
Junebug said:
Do you see that little word "likely" in my original post? It's small, so you might have missed it, but it means that chances are greater than 50% that something happens. The implication is that the odds are less, and, in truth, much less, than 100%. Here, I'll use it in a sentence:

"It is likely that 923 is so adamant about limitations on gun rights that he can't think clearly about practical measures to reduce gun violence."

Answer me this: other consequences aside, do you think it is more or less likely that the killer would have killed 49 people and wounded 53 if just 10% of Pulse patrons had been carrying?
Click to expand...

How do 10% of the patrons with a gun and 90% of the patrons without guns know who the bad patron with a gun is in a dimly lit night club?

How do they know there's only one bad patron with a gun and when to stop shooting?

How do the police know which guy to shoot carrying a legal AR-15?
 
Last edited:
beatrix said:
Maybe. Or maybe he was scouting the place.. or maybe he was there to attack but backed off... [ from the article -- He also is believed to have visited other gay venues to check out as potential targets, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ]

I'm sure there's more to learn, but info-to-date continues to lean terrorist, not conflicted nice guy that snapped.
Click to expand...

Did he have a profile on Jack'd, a gay dating site, just to scout out gay guys? Cmon man.
 
bobknightfan said:
So, all we get are meaningless words....like everything that has been posted on this thread. Some guy says that "Hate will never win" at a television awards ceremony. What the fuck does that mean? Nothing. In the words of one famous person, "it's all just sound and fury, signifying nothing". In the end, money will continue to rule over everything else....and tragedies like this one will continue to happen, on a more & more frequent basis. There is no room for a political middle ground on important issues between the left & right in our super-polarized country today, because neither side is willing to budge an inch off of its position..
Click to expand...

Interesting that you chose the words of a cold-blooded murderer through which to espouse your nihilism.
 
PhDeac said:
How do 10% of the patrons with a gun and 90% of the patrons without guns know who the bad patron with a gun is in a dimly lit night club? How do they know there's only one bad patron with a gun?
Click to expand...

The bad guy knows that there are 10% of the people capable of stopping him, and he doesn't start. Basic deterrence.
 
jhmd2000 said:
The bad guy knows that there are 10% of the people capable of stopping him, and he doesn't start. Basic deterrence.
Click to expand...

No way. The bad guy knows he's going to die anyways. The possibility of a gun fight probably thrills him.
 
PhDeac said:
How do 10% of the patrons with a gun and 90% of the patrons without guns know who the bad patron with a gun is in a dimly lit night club?

How do they know there's only one bad patron with a gun and when to stop shooting?

How do the police know which guy to shoot carrying a legal AR-15?
Click to expand...

1. He'll be the one shooting at unarmed people.
2. He'll be dead.
3. See 1.
 
Junebug said:
1. He'll be the one shooting at unarmed people.
2. He'll be dead.
3. See 1.
Click to expand...

You think in the flashing lights of a nightclub, the good guys are going to be able to see which person is shooting at unarmed people versus which person is shooting at the bad guy?
 
Junebug said:
1. He'll be the one shooting at unarmed people.
2. He'll be dead.
3. See 1.
Click to expand...

1. I've never fired a gun but from what I've heard, people don't always hit their intended target.

2. See 1.

3. See 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top