world

50 dead, 53 wounded in Florida nightclub shooting

284 Comments
By MIKE SCHNEIDER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

284 Comments
Login to comment

This is the result of insanity.

Crazy has no reason.

Too bad crazy has such easy access to weapons designed for war.

It is inconceivable that the Citizens of the United States, Congress and the President are hamstrung by a single lobby in the face of this unimaginable slaughter.

This is not what the U.S. Constitution was written for.

16 ( +30 / -14 )

Crazy has no reason.

And that's the same everywhere.

But this isn't.

"Mateen purchased multiple guns in the past few days, the FBI spokesman said." (from the BBC)

12 ( +15 / -3 )

911, 612...presidents come and go away but terrorism prevails.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

The Federal Bureau of Investigation three times interviewed Omar Mateen for having alleged terrorist ties before he killed 50 people and injured 53 others at a gay nightclub in Orlando, the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. FBI learned of Mateen in 2013 after he made inflammatory remarks to coworkers and alleged terrorist ties, said FBI Special Agent In Charge Ron Hopper. The FBI investigated and interviewed witnesses and Mateen, but closed the investigation. He came to the FBI's attention again in 2014 for making contact with a suicide bomber. FBI determined their connection was minimal and closed the investigated

They knew about this registered Democrat terrorist, but decided to do nothing.

-29 ( +11 / -40 )

ISIS affiliated media stated IS fighter carried out attack..

His father said he was angry when he watched two men kissing in Miami two months ago and that might be reason he shot. It is a L GBT noght club.

Assauq type rifle and hand gun His profile is revealed.

Omaha Malden born in NY

2 ( +4 / -2 )

One insane person with a weapon made for war.

The "terror" was one insane person with firepower made possible by military grade weapons.

It is simply impossible to begin to fathom the suffering this insane person created.

It is clear enough, however, military weapons are the easiest way for insane people to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time. That isn't protecting anyone.

8 ( +15 / -7 )

And Obama and Merkel are all for immigrants from Islamic countries!

What a colossal screw up our so called leaders are making !

Trump has been vindicated by this......

-18 ( +20 / -38 )

"Mateen purchased multiple guns in the past few days, the FBI spokesman said."

And some people still insist that mandatory waiting periods are for the birds. Geesh.

I've gotta say, its all rather telling. It wasn't but last week when Pres. Obama shutdown a gun store owner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSEoVkl0W30

I cannot help but wonder how things would be different if we actually had the stones to enact common sense legislation. If you are in a hurry, fast forward to around the 2 minute mark. Almost prophetic.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

If the shooter was a licensed security officer who worked for a company that provides security to fedral buildings I'm pretty sure he was approved to carry any type of weapon that was legal in Florida.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

Obama will allow 10000 Syrians into the US this year!

How will these people react to the permissive American culture?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

More then 100 people died in the Paris attack and yet strict gun laws in most if not all of Western Europe make gun possession nearly impossible.

What could be expected if a law was passed tomorrow making it illegal to own any gun or rifle in the US? About 99% of law-abiding citizens would conform. 0% of criminals would obey the law.

Problem solved?

We don't have to speculate on this. New York and Connecticut outlawed all modern semi- automatic guns after Sandy Hook. Through discovery, in their appeal of this reactive legislation, gun groups were able to flush out data on compliance with those laws at 4%. This after threats of severe punishment for non-compliance and in solidly democrat states.

Just like heroin and cocaine, if guns are outlawed, they WILL be available, if you have the cash to do the transaction.

It seems to me the issue isn’t the gun, but the incompetence of the FBI and the fear of “political correctness” that is putting us in danger.

-15 ( +19 / -33 )

One insane person with a weapon made for war.

On what basis can you say that Mateen was insane? The uncomfortable truth is that Mateen was acting very rationally according to his beliefs. Unless you are ready to label his (and others') religious beliefs as insanity, there is really no basis for claiming that he was crazy. The facts are disturbingly clear:

a.) His god strongly disapproves of homosexuality (stoning for those who 'practice their lusts on men in preference to women) [Quran (7:80-84)],

b.) There are 'special rewards' available in the afterlife for those who kill for god [Quran (4:95)],

c.) there may be consequences for just ignoring the unbelievers [Quran (8:15-16), Quran (9:39) ]

d.) Regardless of what they may have done in the past, those who are 'slain in Allah's way' (killed while doing what god's work) go straight to paradise without and risk of ending up in hell [Quran (3:169-170)]

The last point is particularly disturbing. This is probably why so many suicide bombers/terrorists turn out to have a very chequered and un-Islamic past of criminality, drinking etc. I wouldn't be surprised if we discover the same thing in this case.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

Those who promote religious prejudice will use any story to promote religious prejudice. (One candidate is doing just that.)

This story is about an insane person killing with military grade weapons.

His reasons were as crazy as he was, the only difference was the firepower to kill as many as possible in the briefest period of time.

Spreading hate for religion won't change military weapons sold and transferred without appropriate protections.

The sorrow of so many, the anguish of so many and so many suffering because a crazy person could access military weapons.

The lesson isn't about any religion. The lesson is about military weapons.

-11 ( +8 / -19 )

It seems to me the issue isn’t the gun, but the incompetence of the FBI and the fear of “political correctness” that is putting us in danger.

No, the problem is people who think like you, people detest even the slightest of gun control measurements.

Just last week Obama addressed a gun store owner and stated, "It is ridiculous that, we can put people on a no fly list, but because of the NRA, we cannot put people on a list to prevent them from buying guns."

But, the NRA do not care, because they receive billions in blood money from gun makers.

Just like heroin and cocaine, if guns are outlawed, they WILL be available, if you have the cash to do the transaction.

And that's a bad thing? If there are less guns, there are less guns on the black market, making guns more expensive. Sounds good to me.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

"I cannot help but wonder how things would be different if we actually had the stones to enact common sense legislation."

Yes, if the US had sane gun control rules, like say the Belgians and French, this kind of thing would have never happened. Oh, hang on....

I agree that the US needs stricter laws on handguns. But his incident says much more about radical Islam -- and even current immigration trends -- than it does about gun availability.

-8 ( +9 / -17 )

He wasn't an insane person, he was a RADICAL MUSLIM TERRORIST!!!!!

We don't even know his mental health status for sure. His father for one certainly looks like he needs help in videos that show him rambling, incoherent and pretending to be the president of Afghanistan.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Where was the 'good guy with a gun' ?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

And that's a bad thing? If there are less guns, there are less guns on the black market, making guns more expensive. Sounds good to me.

If there are no legal guns, there are only guns on the black market, making guns only available to criminals.

Is that what you meant to type?

-13 ( +8 / -21 )

America is no doubt cursed by guns, maybe forever.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

The lesson isn't about any religion.

Simple question, Why?

You may not realise this but your comment is actually offensive and degrading to people with serious mental illness. I've had experience dealing with people who are legally insane but never in a million years can I imagine any of them being disturbed about where someone chooses to put their genitals. The hatred of homosexuality is exclusive the province of religious people acting rationally in accordance with their holy books.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There is absolutely no reason a civilian should have access to assault weapons. As for handguns, though I am against them, I am willing to accept that as a part of American culture. However, stricter laws, perhaps background checks and longer waiting periods, should be implemented. I understand that making guns more difficult to own and purchase will not curb gun violence completely. But it will help. And the majority of Americans would support steps like these.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

If there are no legal guns, there are only guns on the black market, making guns only available to criminals.

Again, guns do not save lives. In any given year there are only 500 instances of justifiable homicides and over 8,000 gun homicides.

Bare in mind, the constitution was written at a time when there was no police force, and no phones to call them even if there were. High time to amend the constitution. Tough luck, gun lobers.

4 ( +13 / -9 )

This ghastly tragedy could have been minimized if there was gun control. The easy way out is to blame ISIS or Al Qaeda or whatever. My reading of this 'Right' that was part of the US Constitution, is that it needs re-interpretation in the context of current times. The original document certainly applied to the days in which it was framed. The govt. then did not have a police force, or other means of protecting it's citizens.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

On this board, people on the left ignoring the danger of Islam. People on the right dismissing the danger of America's gun situation.

Thank god I'm a centrist. Widen your perspectives, folks. America's worst mass murder since 911 (also done by Islamists) should prompt reforms to both Islam and gun control.

-3 ( +13 / -16 )

Obama and many other liberals cannot say this was Islamic extremism, why? This guy under Islam hated homosexuals.

He also was investigated by the FBI two times and yet had an armed security job. A registered democrat who despised homosexuality and people in general. This man had a lot of hate and now 50 people dead. Family and friends who were not homosexual will suffer in the loss of their loved one.

The system is broken. He was cleared for his employment and firearm purchase. Guns do kill and one was used to stop this jihadist. Unfortunately is was not soon enough to stop his rampage.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

Yes, if the US had sane gun control rules, like say the Belgians and French, this kind of thing would have never happened. Oh, hang on....

I agree that the US needs stricter laws on handguns. But his incident says much more about radical Islam -- and even current immigration trends -- than it does about gun availability.

Until the whole story comes out, I have to agree with this statement.

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

So, it seems that lifting the restrictions on the sales of assault rifles in 2014 was not a good idea. It probably wouldn't have stopped the incident, but it may have prevented him killing so many in such a short time.

Sadly, this is the result of the worldwide Muslim invasion. I am aware that only a very small percentage are extremists, but it seems to be a percentage that is increasing. The protest and demands for sharia law in Europe, the US and Australia are a good example of the Muslim invasion. Unfortunately for the earnest Muslims I think it's time the world stopped accepting them as refugees and immigrants. Yes, it seems discriminatory and racist, which it is, but events like this make a pretty strong argument to support such a ban.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

There needs to be a constitutional amendment giving any victim or victim's family the right to sue gun makers if their product was involved in a shooting. Make it so incredibly expensive for these companies to do business, that the price of their product would have to be astronomical. And it's infuriating that many of these companies hail from countries with very strict gun laws. Basically, they're profiting off the abject misery in the States where they couldn't do locally.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/charts-foreign-gun-companies-laws-nra

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Would love to know Ted Cruz opinion on that. Didn't he, his dad and their evangelical followers endorse 'kill the gays' comments made by some pastor a few months ago?

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Getting rid of Muslims will solve this problem! - oh, wait, most mass shootings in America are done by Christians. Let's get rid of them, too! Let's get rid of each ethnic group to which a maniac belongs until America is populated solely by guns - only at that time will the adage "Guns don't kill people" come true.

Or we could insist on common-sense regulation. Gee, which would be more logical?

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Thanks to the US Senate unwilling to pass even the most basic common-sense legislation --- like preventing people whose names are on no-fly lists from buying unlimited amounts of guns and ammunition, or courts preventing law enforcement agencies from sharing information about potential suspects --- I'd been thinking it was only a matter of time before something like this would happen. Since the US government remains gridlocked, nothing will result from this but a lot of hand-wringing. (Or possibly firing a drone-aimed missile at a compound in Afghanistan or Syria.) And of course more Americans will be rushing to gun shops to buy more weapons for their "protection" from the ominous "something" that's coming to get them.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Such a very tragic and sad event.

@JeffLee - interesting you received a couple of down votes for agreeing with both sides of the arguments here. Another indication of how divided people (especially Americans) have become. It seems you either have to agree 100% with someone's point of view or you are completely disregarded. That said it is no wonder we have Clinton and Trump the U.S. Presidential candidates.

There is plenty of evidence of Muslim violence, globally as there is plenty of evidence the U.S. needs to re-examine gun legislation. Both are complex subjects.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

This incident in loves guns and radical Islam which Obana can't or won't acknowledge! Americans wring and wring their hands about gun crime yet US popular culture venerates gun culture! A large part if the US economy depends on mass production of weaponry. Mass invasion of the Middle East by US soldiers fosters hate and resentment then the US allows mass immigration of Muslims and.....

Not surprising that this happens......

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

@MarkG: Obama and many other liberals cannot say this was Islamic extremism, why? This guy under Islam hated homosexuals.

That is a question that is also perplexing to me - but I suppose I am expecting logic from the Left. I have observed that when it comes to competing groups of whom the Left considers oppressed, a great deal of the kind of wrong doing that would earn any person or organization right of center (stereotyped as white, straight, Christian, and male) considerable condemnation garners but only minimal acknowledgement. Somehow Obama and the Left view Muslims as oppressed and powerless and therefore they cannot be blamed for what they do. Mateen cannot be an "Islamic Extremist" because he is perceived as fighting against Western colonialism and oppression. Therefore, despite his atrocities they ultimately sympathize with his oppressed condition.

So when Muslim societies in the Middle East routinely murder homosexuals by throwing them off of the top of buildings the practice is hardly ever talked about by the Western elites that one would think would be infuriated by it. Doing so they rationalize would blame all Muslims for their oppressed state. Yet the same people have no qualms about associating the brutal murder of the gay man Matthew Shepard with "homophobic" Christians and the right in general although that myth was proven to be false.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/28/uncomfortable-truth-behind-matthew-shepards-death/

So with the slaughter in Orlando, Mateen will be condemned in passing but the focus will be on the oppressed victims of this heinous crime - the gay community. The fact that Mateen is a Muslim extremist representing a very powerful ideology is of secondary in concern. The Left has learned that they do not go after groups that they support even when they commit atrocities against other "oppressed" groups. it is the same way of thinking that allows the Left to tolerate hundreds and hundreds of murders in big cities like Chicago of black people by other black people without blaming black culture and behavior as producing such a terrible result.

This type of thinking by the Left makes no logical sense of course but it somehow seems rational to them.

2 ( +12 / -10 )

I 'm sad to say that this does not shock me anymore. President Obama has now addressed the nation 15 times during his term following mass shootings. 15 times in eight years.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Wolfpack - Exactly right.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Tokyo-EngrJUN. 13, 2016 - 09:06AM JST @JeffLee - interesting you received a couple of down votes for agreeing with both sides of the arguments here. Another indication of how divided people (especially Americans) have become. It seems you either have to agree 100% with someone's point of view or you are completely disregarded. That said it is no wonder we have Clinton and Trump the U.S. Presidential candidates.

This is a pretty fallacious argument. The fact that you perceive two sides to the argument does not mean there actually are only two sides, nor does the fact that people disagree with one and not the other show that people are "divided". Public policy should be chosen by what is the best governance, not by what lets a team feel like they've won.

The anti-Islam side would have you believe that Muslims are somehow inherently dangerous, as if somehow the vast numbers of mass shootings committed by non-Muslims in the US somehow never happened, or as if the millions of completely peaceful Muslims who live in the US and never had anything to do with this attack are still part of the problem. It's using religious identity to demonize people rather than their actions, a principle that Americans have claimed they rejected right back to the foundation of the country.

Meanwhile on the other side, most of us don't demand a total gun ban. We just want some sensible regulations to reduce the frequency of these mass shootings. I mean, if some lunatic guns me down along with a crowd of bystanders because he thinks Allah wants him to or because he thinks the big government black helicopters are sending thought control waves through his digital TV, I'm just as dead either way so their motivation really doesn't matter that much from a policy perspective.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Wait a sec, got to pull on my "mass shooting in the U.S." boots.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

This guy was the most gun control compliant mass murderer in history, clearing background checks, medical examination, registration and dozens of hours of mandated training but being Muslim he was once again let off the hook by employers and the FBI.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/crime/2016/06/12/who-omar-mateen/85791280/

A former Fort Pierce police officer who once worked with 29-year-old Omar Mateen, the assailant in an Orlando nightclub shooting that left at least 50 dead, said he was "unhinged and unstable."

Gilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim. Gilroy quit after he said Mateen began stalking him via multiple text messages — 20 or 30 a day. He also sent Gilroy 13 to 15 phone messages a day, he said.

“I quit because everything he said was toxic,” Gilroy said Sunday, “and the company wouldn’t do anything. This guy was unhinged and unstable. He talked of killing people.”

Gilroy said this shooting didn’t come as a surprise to him.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

His ex-wife divorced for seven years after being married to him for just four months.. after meeting him online date site...she also from Muslim heritage...she said on TV just now cnn that he is mentally ill and she saw it up close.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@katsu78

I will address gun control first. I agree there need to be more restrictions on gun ownership in the U.S. If you are for more sensible regulations, then we are in agreement. For example I see no reason for members of the general public to have an AR 15 or other semi-automatic weapons. There are others who wish to see a total ban on guns, which at this point of time is just not possible as there are too many in circulation and many of those are not registered.

Regarding Islam. I am not saying, by any means, the state should control religion or religious identity should be used to demonize people. Recognizing the fact that there is a problem with a faction of the religion does not mean I am demonizing the group. As a matter of fact some of the worst and most horrific crimes are being committed by Muslims against other Muslims (and this has been going on a very long time). There are issues with Muslims integrating into non Muslim nations (i.e. the "no go zones" in Paris and Brussels). This needs to be talked about openly and addressed. Unfortunately we have become too polarized to have a conversation about this issue to identify the issues with integration and finally find a good solution to the problem. I believe the answers need to come from within the Muslim community but for whatever reason (fear, intimidation, or others) this is not happening.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"The fact that you perceive two sides to the argument does not mean there actually are only two sides,"

You may concoct several sides. The two sides I identify are the most operative ones at this point.

"The anti-Islam side would have you believe that Muslims are somehow inherently dangerous..."

They -- more precisely their religion/ideology -- can be extremely dangerous to members of the LGBT community. We have a long list of real-world examples proving that.

Just take a look at the state of the Islamic world today, from Syria, to Aceh to western China, to southern Philippines, to north Africa, to Beeston Hill, Leeds. Not exactly happy, tolerant, humanistic places, are they?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Nothing like a terrorist incident to queue the anti-Islam bigotry.

I feel for the 99.9999% of American Muslims who are going to have to deal with it, through simple association.

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

Sorry, gun lovers. Your argument about if just one person who was carrying a gun in situations like this, would have been able to stop him. Well guess what, you did have a licensed, off duty police officer who was there for security and he was not able to stop him. An assault weapon of any kind should be banned in this country and once again, nothing will be done by our Congress to do this.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

"The anti-Islam side would have you believe that Muslims are somehow inherently dangerous, as if somehow the vast numbers of mass shootings committed by non-Muslims in the US somehow never happened, or as if the millions of completely peaceful Muslims who live in the US and never had anything to do with this attack are still part of the problem. It's using religious identity to demonize people rather than their actions, a principle that Americans have claimed they rejected right back to the foundation of the country."

Why can't people address all issues? The US has a sick gun culture, US gun laws are insane, the US has a problem dealing with the mentally ill and Islam does produce murderous fanatics at an alarming rate.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Will this remind people of Paris shooting incident again.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If there is anything that would have the potential to get Americans to re-think their gun laws, it's a Muslim who got guns legally and went on to kill dozens.

But, that is slightly mitigated by the fact that the victims are gay - the pro-gunners are unlikely to see themselves as potentially being one of the victims, so they are unlikely to react as strongly.

And finally it's mitigated by the fact that we're talking about guns. Logic doesn't come into the equation when it comes to guns.

So, 50 people will have died, and nothing will change. The only real question is how long will this shooting hold the record for the most deaths from a mass shooting in the USA?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Tokyo-EngrJUN. 13, 2016 - 09:51AM JST There are issues with Muslims integrating into non Muslim nations (i.e. the "no go zones" in Paris and Brussels).

It's interesting that you choose to blame a failure of governments to police the areas they are responsible for with the people living there, not with the governments that choose not to police them. Or rather not even just with the people living there, but with everyone who shares their religion.

It's amazing that so many people get away with othering Muslims, and when a tiny fraction of those othered Muslims respond by banding together and not integrating into the society that denigrates them, this is used as justification for the othering in the first place. It would be a hilarious failure of rational thought if it weren't for all the dying and lives being ruined because of it.

JeffLeeJUN. 13, 2016 - 10:09AM JST They -- more precisely their religion/ideology -- can be extremely dangerous to members of the LGBT community. We have a long list of real-world examples proving that.

Christians can be extremely dangerous to members of the LGBT community. We have a long list of real-world examples proving that. Shall we demonize Christians? Americans can be extremely dangerous to members of the LGBT community. We have a long list of real-world examples proving that. Shall we demonize Americans?

JimizoJUN. 13, 2016 - 10:25AM JST Islam does produce murderous fanatics at an alarming rate.

I assume that by making this claim, you have factual, verifiable evidence of the rate that Islam "produces murderous fanatics" compared to the rate all non-Islam conditions "produce murderous fanatics". I also assume you have gathered extensive evidence that this "murderous fanatics" production rate is directly caused by Islam, and not merely coincident to it. I look forward to your rational, well-reasoned, evidence-driven post supporting this claim.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Sharia law has no place in western nations. Sharia law should have no place in the 21st century either. Religeons have devout followers and will not go away anytime soon. This was Islamic extremism at its worste. To absolve this behavior and turn it into he had easy access to guns won't prevent the next Islamic extremist from taking lives.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

At least some good will hopefully come out of this awful massacre; Trump getting elected.

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

It seems that Americans are shooting each other. They love guns. That's tragedy or fate.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

I feel for the 99.9999% of American Muslims who are going to have to deal with it, through simple association.

You don't need to. Coming from the Detroit suburbs and the largest Muslim population in the States, we know who our friends and coworkers are. You don't hear about anything happening in the Detroit area because the Muslims there are capitalists and family people first, there religion comes second, which is why the thrive in peace. A Christian Lebanese friend had her brand new restaurant trashed after 911, and eventually went out of business. Very sad because the humus and their garlic lentel soup was excellent. It's really sad to see what the warmongering elite have done to my country with their phony 911 attacks. Put the blame and responsibility at the leadership, yes you Obama, for continuing this hegomonic resource war, and now some want to keep the war machine rolling with Hillary. Idiots!

Some other news about G4S, the multinational company that employed this psyco, I'm sure has many contracts with the US government, have been picking up illegal's at the border and dropping them off in bus loads in the Pheniox area because they don't have enough prison space. Here's the link.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-12/orlando-shooter-worked-security-company-which-tranports-illegal-immigrants-deep-insi

Hillary will take a big hit when, not if, info comes out about how much this company gave to her campaign.

We like our guns and we will keep our guns. Anyone arguing the opposite is just wasting your finger muscles. How about stopping the war machine first hypocrites? Your Peace Prize winner is a jester dancing to two crowds, the war mongers and the dreamers. How odd is that?

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

@Katsu78 - The failure of the French police to enter the areas in question are due to the fact that they are harassed or even shot at when attempting to enter these zones. In Britain some cases are being submitted to Sharia councils when Muslims are involved in crimes. In Islamic states it is illegal to practice Christianity and there are several Islamic countries where the penalty for being homosexual is death. I would call that "othering" to an extreme. This all occurs as western nations are bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims and the religion.

It seems you feel that the issue related to Islamic extremism either does not exist or it is the fault of western society. Please correct me if I am wrong.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Katsu78:

" The anti-Islam side would have you believe that Muslims are somehow inherently dangerous, "

....and the regressive Left would have you believe that Republicans are somehow inherently dangerous.

How about looking in the mirror and checking your own argument? Either people`s beliefs matter, or they do not. In case of Republicans (or NRA members, or any other of your pet hate groups), you completely insist that beliefs matter. You disagree with the belief, so you have no problem condemning the believers.

But for islam, which demands that homosexuality and apoostesy is punished by death, somehow beliefs do not matter. Somehow the content of the belief system is irrelevant now.

What is it with the double standards?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

"this "murderous fanatics" production rate is directly caused by Islam, and not merely coincident to it. I look forward to your rational, well-reasoned, evidence-driven post supporting this claim."

Merely coincident to it? Very slippery and very predictable. It's next to impossible to argue against this. It's old and tired but very effective.

Let's start with the question at hand. Do you think this massacre had anything at all to do with this man's Muslim beliefs? Just a couple more. Do you think the massacres in Paris ( Charlie Hebdo and the larger, later one ) had anything to do with the religious beliefs of the murderers?

I just want to clarify where you are coming from.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Tokyo-EngrJUN. 13, 2016 - 11:02AM JST @Katsu78 - The failure of the French police to enter the areas in question are due to the fact that they are harassed or even shot at when attempting to enter these zones.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize police were only responsible for dealing with the organized and well-behaved criminals.

You shoot at police, you go to jail. If the police aren't willing to do their job, that's a failure on the part of the police, not on the part of the entire population being policed.

In Britain some cases are being submitted to Sharia councils when Muslims are involved in crimes.

This claim requires evidence.

In Islamic states it is illegal to practice Christianity and there are several Islamic countries where the penalty for being homosexual is death. I would call that "othering" to an extreme.

Here we go. So much for "Recognizing the fact that there is a problem with a faction of the religion does not mean I am demonizing the group". When the rational arguments to justify Islamophobia fail, we always have to fall back on these appeals to backwards authoritarian regimes as though they represent the entire religion. You do realize that the overwhelming majority of Muslims don't even live in the Middle East, let alone have responsibility for the authoritarian policies of the handful of nations you're vaguely referencing, don't you?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Fizzbit:

" You don't hear about anything happening in the Detroit area because the Muslims there are capitalists and family people first, there religion comes second, "

I take your word for it. Except what happens, when they start putting their religion first? And with open-ended Saudi support for radical mosques, that happens to an increasing degree.

Note that 99% of Afghani immigrants, including this shooter, support Shariah law: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/12/afghanistan-migration-surging-america-99-support-sharia-law/

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

No bickering please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JimizoJUN. 13, 2016 - 11:11AM JST Let's start with the question at hand. Do you think this massacre had anything at all to do with this man's Muslim beliefs? Just a couple more. Do you think the massacres in Paris ( Charlie Hebdo and the larger, later one ) had anything to do with the religious beliefs of the murderers?...I just want to clarify where you are coming from.

No, I'm afraid you don't understand how this works. You made the claim that "Islam does produce murderous fanatics at an alarming rate." It is your responsibility to provide evidence for that claim. You've not done so, you've simply vaguely waved your hands at a couple of attacks as though two cases of a thing you don't like somehow prove it happens more often with the group you're afraid of than other groups, including the group you're a part of.

Extreme claims require extreme evidence. Until you back up your claim with evidence, I owe you no responses to any questions you ask because such questions are obviously nothing more than attempts to distract from the fact that you don't want to back up your claim.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Seems like liberals want to blame guns and conservatives want to blame the ideology.

Rational thinking will clearly show the ideology is much more dangerous. They'll just use other methods. The gon is useless without a user to use it for good or evil and in between. Sport!

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Awad said members of the LGBT community have stood with Muslims in the past and today they stand that community.

What?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Katsu

No, you are avoiding the question. I've seen this slipperines before. It's like arguing with a Trump supporter who says "yes, but can you prove he's really a bigot?" They were simple yes/no questions I asked you. I've been here before where I've given examples only to read "yes, but that's nothing to do with Islam".

I don't waste my time with this kind of argument. Your 'merely coincident to it' was a giant red flag.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Let' s see .... Shooter was a registered democrat of Muslim heritage (parents from Afghanistan); his father is an avid supporter of the Taliban; ISIS has claimed responsibility for this mass murder.

And yet, Obama's address to our nation did a pretty good job of disconneting those connected dots.

I wonder who will fall for it?

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Looking forward for President Trump to deal with this sort of nonsense. Cant get here fast enough.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Obama and many other liberals cannot say this was Islamic extremism, why?

Because, they'd rather not admit Trump is "right." No look, Tashfeen Malik's cousin picked up where she left off.

This guy under Islam hated homosexuals.

Islam forbids homosexuals. In the US its accepted now and "tolerated" -just goes to show muslims cannot assimilate to the wests' tolerance of LGBT in our society. They cannot assimilate to our culture period. This is why they do NOT belong here.

Do you think the massacres in Paris ( Charlie Hebdo and the larger, later one ) had anything to do with the religious beliefs of the murderers?

Yes. They believe it is their religious duty to kill infidels.

Why were (are) Obama / Kerry willing to allow islamic refugees into the US? The ones with ISIS screensavers on their cellphones and like to shout, "God is Great."

No thank you. Keep them out! Vote for TRUMP!!

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Trump is scheduled to give a speech on this Monday. Likely his remedy will be to trash all other Amendments from the Bill of Rights in favor of the Second. We'll see how many panic-driven sheep follow this piper - many on this thread already clearly do.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=g4s (None)

Sort of interesting that ZeroHedge did not pick up on the G4S City of London connection better. -Must be an off day or not in the office.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Orlando shooting: Isil claims responsibility for Pulse nightclub attack in which Omar Mateen gunned down 50 in America's worst ever mass shooting...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/florida-gay-nightclub-shooting-injuries-reported-at-pulse-orland/

A effective response to this atrocity must be swift and retaliatory. Omar Mateen allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIL. Whatever it takes ISIL must be rooted out and confronted with overwhelming force.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Katsu:

" No, I'm afraid you don't understand how this works. You made the claim that "Islam does produce murderous fanatics at an alarming rate." It is your responsibility to provide evidence for that claim. "

THat is not an extreme claim. Just look at the number of islamic terrorist attacks around the world. There is no other ideology or religion that has a similar record. In fact, I don´t you can name any country with a significant muslim population that does NOT have its own radical islamist group, from Nigeria to Kenia to Chechnia to Bosnia to India to the Philippines, to Thailand, to China to Indonesia.... seriously, you are unaware of that fact, and of all the islamist clerics calling for jihad? That is pretty mind-boggling.

" Christians can be extremely dangerous to members of the LGBT community. We have a long list of real-world examples proving that. Shall we demonize Christians? "

Christians are famous for dong things like refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, and the media throw hysterical fits about that. Are you seriously putting that in the same class as mass murder??

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Seriously. So many nay-sayers keep on denying the truth. They try to over-simplify by saying, It's only this problem..." or "It's only that problem." because they can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept that is 3 issues culminating into one serious situation.

Issue # 1 Islamic ideology. It is an problem, It needs to be addresses for what it is, not what excessive progressives want to believe it to be.

Issue #2 Gun control laws. It is a problem, it needs to be addressed for what it is, not what the "you'll only pry this gun away from my cold dead fingers" crowd wants to believe. And on a side note, there are gun owners from many different walks of life. Anyone stating "Homosexuals never own guns..." or "There are no gay Republcians" and , "Republican all hate homosexuals" is a stupid "argument".

Issue #3 Immigration of citizens that have a hostile mentality from their country of origin against the democratic system needs to be re-evaluated. Obviously there is not way to "weed" them all out (short of having a telepath). But it is another example of the excessive progressive. Pandering to foreign nationals while your own citizens have to deal with negative consequences and aren't getting their own problems solved is the epitome of stupidity. Somewhere on youtube is a little interview about immigration with a Native American. He stated very plainly, that our government is doing the exact same mistake the First Nation folks did when the first pilgrim arrived from Britain. Open the door to your home and tell the stranger all that is yours is theirs... and then they take it from you, and literally make what is yours... theirs. Including your culture, your standards, and your way of life. Only a fool would allow that. And obviously there are too many fools in political office today regardless of party affiliation.

Now, culminate all those problems together, and we end up wit what happened in Orlando Florida. A US born citizen indoctrinated with Islamic Ideology from parents born and raised in a country that they support the actions of hostile affiliates, getting his hand on an assault rifle to kill infidel sinners in a "gay" bar.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Soon the religious nut jobs will say it's God getting revenge on gay people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We'll see how many panic-driven sheep follow this piper - many on this thread already clearly do.

With obama its the blind-leading-blind. Why won't he acknowledge "Radical Islam?" Step #1, lets cut this PC crap.

Whatever it takes ISIL must be rooted out and confronted with overwhelming force.

Why? Obama has already stated, "They're contained." Then they hit Paris, Brussels, San Bern & now Orlando.

Shooters like Omar and his (afghan) parents shoud NEVER have been allowed to immigrate here. Same goes for the Boston Marathon bomber and his family.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Of course, it is a gun control issue. The fact that tens of thousands of illegal aliens are allowed each year to flood across the border plays no part in this. The fact that the State Dept. gives visas to people who should not be allowed to enter the country for any reason has nothing at all to do with this. The fact that the shooter was under investigation by the FBI but was still allowed to carry out the attack is not a factor.

No, the only cause can be that Americans have the right to arm themselves to protect against threats the government can't be bothered with.

There should be a long line of agency and department heads and higher standing in the unemployment line. But just as under Bush after 9/11, I doubt anyone whose incompetence is actually responsible for this is even reprimanded.

As for the need of a citizen to have military weapons, a chief reason for the Americans gaining independence from Great Britain on their first try and the Irish needing several tries is that the American colonists had access to the same fire power the British army had and the Irish did not. That is the main reason for the second amendment. Those who had just gained independence from an abusive government understood very clearly the need of a people to be able to defend themselves from abusive governments.

Police can not protect you. Police were called during the shooting and they finially killed the shooter AFTER 53 were already dead. All the police can do is pick up the pieces afterwards and try to put someone away for it. Protect, they can not, unless there are multiple officers in every classroom, theater, boardroom, nightclub...

To say the second amendment causes these ignores the facts of the recent attacks in Europe where very strict gun control exists.

Most Americans do not wring their hands over gun crime. Certain government official wring their hands over it, but not most citizens.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Trump was right?

Only if Trump said that the US should ban assault rifles. This was a very avoidable tragedy. Another avoidable tragedy.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Except what happens, when they start putting their religion first?

This guy was born and raised in America. It can happen to anyone with a lack of imagination in their minds or corrupted by a religion. Not so hard to do these days with the hegomonic warmongers reaking havoc in their motherland.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Katsu78, you're really sticking it to the man today!,.. the straw man unfortunately. According to the Global Terrorism Index 2015, the top 5 terror groups, by number of victims, are all Islamic groups that have sprung up in recent decades. Terrorism around the world is at an all-time high and the rate of increase has been pretty alarming.

I don't want to get into a religious debate here, but I think it's important to point out exactly why Islam gets extra scrutiny compared to Christianity or Judaism, despite the fact that they have equally violent and intolerant holy texts.

Islam is the only religion which claims that their holy book is the direct, unalterable and final word of God. This is very different from the Bible which is accepted to be a man made interpretaion or at best a transcription of the word of God.

Other religions can credibly pick and choose which parts of their holy books to believe and which to dismiss as being influenced by the prejudices of bronze age men. Muslims cannot do this without disobeying the direct, unalterable and final word of God. No Muslim can accept that homosexuality should be tolerated, or that the punishment for apostasy should not be death. So, unless proved otherwise, it's only reasonable to assume that anyone who identifies as a Muslim believes in every word of the Quran. Thankfully for all of us, most Muslims routinely ignore the direct word of God.

(Also, just in case your interested, I'm an atheist but members of my family are also Muslim. I can assure you that they don't consider me to be an Islamophobe etc.)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Trump was right?

Yeah, because he wants to do temp ban on muslims coming in "until we can figure out" what's going on. Because he refuses to allow masses of islamic refugees into the US they way Canada, Germany, UK and Sweden have.

Of course, it is a gun control issue.

Yes, a gun control issue. And equally, a radical islam issue. How many 9/11's, Chatanooga TN, San Bern CA, Orlando FL acts of terrorism will occur before being exposed to what they really are? -Radical Islam.

Guns are used in the deadly campus shootings, drive-byes etc (this is bad). . . . but when islam pulls the trigger, should we ignore their main cause and ideology / doctrine simply be ignored?

Oh yeah, its more convenient and quicker to blame guns and NRA.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

W626;

" Because he refuses to allow masses of islamic refugees into the US they way Canada, Germany, UK and Sweden have. "

Canada really does not belong on that group (yet?). Canada has admitted 35,000 "refugees" last year, to reach Merkels German figure, adjusted for population size, you would have to make that 700,000. Ditto for Sweden. Plus the Canadians have the luxury of selecting families, while the uncontrolled flood reaching Germany and Sweden consist almost exclusiveyly of young men (meaning that for each one of them, multiple family members are waiting in the wings.

If I was Canadian, I would count my blessings...

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

A bouncer knocked down a partition between the club area and an area in the back where only workers are allowed. People inside were able to then escape through the back of the club.

Props to the bouncer. Good thinking.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

There would be no reason for global terrorism from Muslims if the hegomonic resource warmongers were hanged for their killing of 3000 Americans on 911. As long as people and the MSM continue this lie, the world will remain in flames and murder. Islam is not the cause. Read some history people!

And a blast from the past:

The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (French: Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy) in 1572 was a targeted group of assassinations and a wave of Catholic mob violence, directed against the Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants) during the French Wars of Religion. Traditionally believed to have been instigated by Catherine de' Medici, the mother of King Charles IX, the massacre took place five days after the wedding of the king's sister Margaret to the Protestant Henry III of Navarre (the future Henry IV of France). This marriage was an occasion for which many of the most wealthy and prominent Huguenots had gathered in largely Catholic Paris.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Badsey: "They knew about this registered Democrat terrorist, but decided to do nothing."

And yet you probably support the NRA's shooting down any attempt to restrict weapons to people on the FBI's database as potential terrorists, right? It's those people who allowed the guns in the hands of this monster, and this is a personal high score for the NRA. No doubt they are jumping for joy at the moment, planning speeches on how we all need MORE guns to stop this kind of person, etc. Those are the people who allowed this to be what it is.

And no sooner than ONE DAY after many people said "just another day in the US", this happens. Just another day in the US, and gun nutters clamouring to blame this on terrorism without addressing the fact that they say it is the 2nd Amendment right that even people on the watchlist be free to buy weapons. Well done, Americans!!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

. Canada has admitted 35,000 "refugees" last year, to reach Merkels German figure, adjusted for population size, you would have to make that 700,000.

I hope they adjust well in Canada. I hope they don't resort to extremism. Canada has had their little terrorism incident a couple yrs back. remember that jihadi sympathizer who was shot in Parliment before running over Canadian soldiers?

I hope Canada can keep them in order, lest (a sleeper cell) they spill south into US.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

aphodJUN. 13, 2016 - 11:08AM JST How about looking in the mirror and checking your own argument? Either people`s beliefs matter, or they do not. In case of Republicans (or NRA members, or any other of your pet hate groups), you completely insist that beliefs matter.

Yeah, that's a lie.

I don't care what you believe about guns. A given person can believe that their gun ownership makes them a superior man, smarter citizen, and a better lover than me. It's no skin off my nose. The beliefs don't matter. What matters is facts and the actions people take in response to them. And the fact is that no post-modern country has both lax gun gun regulations like the US and the huge amounts of gun violence that the US has. We can be sensible, rational people and pass common sense gun regulations that reduce the likelihood of violence, or we can put our fingers in our ears and try to ignore every mass-shooting that happens in our country.

What we can't do is ignore the gun violence which has been endemic in our society for years and has been inflicted by and upon people of every race, religion, sexual orientation, and creed for decades and then suddenly when a Muslim does it pretend their Islam is the only factor that matters. Because that is utter lunacy.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yet another multiple shooting in a gun-free zone. "Gun Free Zones" = "Mass Murder Magnets"

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Yeah, because he wants to do temp ban on muslims

Durp. There are 8.5 million Muslim Americans already here and considering that both the SB attack and the this attack were perpetrated by Muslim American, Don the Con's would have done sweet all to prevent the terrorist attacks. Just a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking and populism.

Because he refuses to allow masses of islamic refugees into the US they way Canada, Germany, UK and Sweden have.

Get a grip. The US isn't Europe, we have several thousands miles of water between us and the ME, and no one, one is calling for the US to take allow masses of Muslim (not Islamic, Muslim) into the US. President Obama's plan called for accepting just 10,000.

Guns are used in the deadly campus shootings, drive-byes etc (this is bad). but when islam pulls the trigger, should we ignore their main cause and ideology / doctrine simply be ignored?

Excuse me? You are the one that admits that guns cause problems, but are unwilling to do anything about it, because its your "right" to own guns. Its a little more than ironic that thousands upon thousands are murdered each year with guns in the US, and you claim its "unavoidable" until its a terrorist attack happens, then you are more than willing to throw the rights of others out the window.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

The NRA is still smiling you bet ..........

7 ( +8 / -1 )

This is not only about assault weapons but allowing individuals to buy massive amounts of ammunition to kill that many people at one time. What sane person or government would allow anyone to purchase hundreds or thousands of rounds of bullets?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Excuse me? You are the one that admits that guns cause problems, but are unwilling to do anything about it, because its your "right" to own guns.

@takeda. Yeah, that's right. Guns are part of the problem. (Yes, I legally own. And I hate reading about gun violence in America.)

The other part of the problem is when Islam pulls the trigger on Americans. Its unacceptable. . . . what did obama say about Sandy Hook before he started to tear up? "It makes me angry-"

Obama should also be angry and recognize that there is in fact a "radical islam." He's pro LGBT right? (like every other lib) Is a gay or transgender's life less than a other victims from radical islam's violence?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

@takeda. Yeah, that's right. Guns are part of the problem. (Yes, I legally own. And I hate reading about gun violence in America.)

So, there. Now, if Obama or congress tries to tighten gun control laws, will you object?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Wc626:

" Obama should also be angry and recognize that there is in fact a "radical islam." He's pro LGBT right? (like every other lib) Is a gay or transgender's life less than a other victims from radical islam's violence? "

Actually, it is zero. Homosexuality is punished by death in all Sharia countries. The concept of "transgender rights" -- well, good luck explaining that anywhere in the islamic world.

The shooter acted completely in line with Shariah. In fact, the high level of visual homosexuality in Western countries is routinely cited by islamic clerics as one of the signs that our free society are decadent and in violation of gods will.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Wc626: "He's pro LGBT right? (like every other lib) Is a gay or transgender's life less than a other victims from radical islam's violence?"

This is another tragic thing about this gun massacre; people who don't give one wit, and in fact in the case of Ted Cruz and the like, are probably cheering that so many LGBT were attacked, suddenly 'caring' about them or demanding that Democrats or people who support them put the terrorism issue first because that is proof they love gays somehow, but tackling the gun issue is somehow proof that they don't care.

As if anti-LGBT people suddenly care and are not just using this as a political issue when they have zero ground to stand on. I guarantee it's only a matter of time before one of them slips and says it was god's punishment for their choice of lifestyle or something like that.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

but 9/11 one is one of the patently absurd. It would be nice if we could do without the tinfoil hats..

Then you're either blind or stupid. Please explain to me, Mr. Intelligent, how a 7 story concrete building free falls in 7 seconds without demolitions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The shooter acted completely in line with Shariah.

Oh, is that so? Care to site the text? Where exactly did you study Islam?

Here is a quote from one of my Muslim friends following the Orlando terror attacks:

"While the actions of the Orlando shooter do NOT represent the views of all Muslims, or even of a majority of Muslims, we as Muslims need to realize that even casual or unintentional homophobia is dangerous and should not be tolerated. LGBT people do not deserve to be hated or despised, and they DO NOT deserve to be killed or attacked. If you even slightly think that they do, please just leave me alone."

She sounds like a raging terror loving, gay hating terrorist, doesn't she?

And if what you say is even remotely true, why are there not more terror attacks or attacks against homosexuals from Muslims in the US? I guess 8.5 million Muslims are all part of one big sleeper cell conspiracy.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Trump was right?

Yeah, because he wants to do temp ban on muslims coming in "until we can figure out" what's going on.

How would his ban have stopped this attack?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Is it really surprising this guy was a democrat? With Trump bleating on about banning Muslims, and the Republican party having made minorities feel uncomfortable for the past decades, a disenfranchised Muslim being a democrat is unsurprising. That doesn't make him a representative of democrats, it just means he was joining the party he felt wasn't alienating him.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Progressiveness or "the Left" has become like a religeon with its own dogma - and at the top of the list is blind adherence to the fallacy that Islam is compatible with non-Islamic society or values. Europe, led by Germany, is going to commit cultural suicide to adhere to this tenet of their faith. Hillary is part of it too. Fifty people slaughtered here, three hundred and fifty slaughtered there, its worth it to keep that warm cozy feeling " Look at me - Im progressive!"

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

with Trump bleating on about banning Muslims

You're no different from the lying MSM. Trump never said that. He said he wanted to stop the immigration of muslim refugees until they can be properly vetted. Im guessing you really don't care about all the female rape victims in Europe.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

JimizoJUN. 13, 2016 - 10:25AM JST Islam does produce murderous fanatics at an alarming rate.

I assume that by making this claim, you have factual, verifiable evidence of the rate that Islam "produces murderous fanatics" compared to the rate all non-Islam conditions "produce murderous fanatics". I also assume you have gathered extensive evidence that this "murderous fanatics" production rate is directly caused by Islam, and not merely coincident to it. I look forward to your rational, well-reasoned, evidence-driven post supporting this claim.

@katsu78

Actually Jimizo's statement is that "Islam produces murderous fanatics at an alarming rate", not that Islam produces them at a higher rate than other ideology driven groups.

If you look at the year 2015 alone, world wide there were 2865 attacks that were directly attributed to radical Islamic ideology. These attacks took place in 53 different countries and resulted in 27,626 fatalities and 26,149 injuries. By any measure that should be alarming.

It doesn't matter which group produces murderous fanatics at a higher rate, unless it is some kind of contest. The fact that any of them do should be alarming. No one group should get a pass just because the other guys do it, too.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I was simply stating a fact.

Nonsense. You are spewing pure rubbish. You nothing about the Quran. You simply see passages in the Quran that confirm your hatred of Muslims and run with it. The bible, too says plenty of nasty awful things. No one, except for the WBC actually believes in interpreting the bible literally. Same goes for Islam, only radical Islamists interpret the Quran literally.

Your muslim friend either gave you a nice dose of "taquiyya" (deception) or he does not know his Koran and Haditth

Bollocks. 8.5 million Muslim Americans. Where are the terrorist attacks? One big sleeper cell, yes or no?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And yet you seem unable to back up that fact with any supporting evidence.

Yes, because when people say they are "just stating facts," it generally means they are full of sh@#

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This just drives me up the friggin wall. Just because Trump wants to put a halt on certain Muslims, particularly the radical ones, or scrutinize them more, especially if we know they are on a FBI list, why shouldn't we. If Trump said, NO Muslims EVER again, you have an argument and that would be very wrong, no one said that. But the anger and the passion that he speaks with, is what millions of Americans are thinking. We tried Obama's pacifist ways and it got us nowhere. We have president that refuses to call radical Islam for what it really is, I'm surprised he didn't call it workplace violence yet. The man is a coward, you are NOT allowed to call radical Islam for what it is and we should all just be content and accept it as normal. Liberals are ok with Jihadists waging war on everyone, as long as we can get rid of guns, even from the law-abiding citizens, it would be preferable to just live with and alongside Jihadism than to carry a gun legally. Again, November can't come soon enough.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

How would Trump's ban have stopped this attack?

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Trump wants to put a halt on certain Muslims, particularly the radical ones, or scrutinize them more, especially if we know they are on a FBI list, why shouldn't we.

Earth to Bass, SB and Orlando were Americans. How would building a wall do anything?

If Trump said, NO Muslims EVER again, you have an argument and that would be very wrong, no one said that. But the anger and the passion that he speaks with, is what millions of Americans are thinking

No, no. We still have a valid point. Ever heard of unintended consequences? What might be the message be to the 99.99999% of Muslims Americans living peacefully amongst us?

We tried Obama's pacifist ways and it got us nowhere.

You mean Obama's pacifist ways in the middle east?

We have president that refuses to call radical Islam for what it really is,

And if only he would, no one would have been killed in these terrorist attacks.

Again, November can't come soon enough.

Anything else you would like to blame on Obama? Cancer maybe?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

"Actually Jimizo's statement is that "Islam produces murderous fanatics at an alarming rate", not that Islam produces them at a higher rate than other ideology driven groups."

Don't bother engaging with this kind of argument with people of a certain mindset. You'll get the "What about the ( insert religion) fundamentalists?" or the "nothing to do with Islam" crowd. Thankfully, there are decent Muslims who do see the danger in this kind of disingenuous tripe.

I've found you get all kinds of weird and not so wonderful answers. I can remember being told that IS, a group which calls itself Islamic State, has the expressed purpose of creating a caliphate under brutal Islamic law and butchers people who do not share their religion is actually a purely political movement. The tone seemed to suggest I was being judgmental or even Islamophobic by connecting Islamic State to Islam in any way.

It is exasperating.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Earth to Bass, SB and Orlando were Americans. How would building a wall do anything.

It can stop and hinder at least, making it more difficult for anyone, illegal, terrorist anyone, beef up the border with the National guard, infiltrate the Mosques like we used to, there is a lot that can be done, waging war on radical Islam is NOT waging war on Islam itself, I know that libs like to lump them together for some odd reason....

No, no. We still have a valid point. Ever heard of unintended consequences? What might be the message be to the 99.99999% of Muslims Americans living peacefully amongst us?

If Islam is a tolerant religion, then the law abiding majority Muslims would understand.

You mean Obama's pacifist ways in the middle east?

I meant his entire foreign policy strategy was abysmal.

And if only he would, no one would have been killed in these terrorist attacks

Not saying that at all, but at least we can see he has the will and desire and fortitude to send the radical jihadists a message, he didn't and he won't, got it. Just 6 more months and we don't have to get worked up over this guy anymore. But the next will hopefully have enough cahones to fight this and NO, I'm not calling for a full scale war, there are other ways we have at our disposal to fight this.

Don't bother engaging with this kind of argument with people of a certain mindset. You'll get the "What about the ( insert religion) fundamentalists?" or the "nothing to do with Islam" crowd. Thankfully, there are decent Muslims who do see the danger in this kind of disingenuous tripe.

And yet, the moderate Muslims are not doing anything about this, even though they are greatly impacted by this as well, even more so....

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

All of these murders, around the world, call it terrorism or call it freedom fighters, goes back to 911, the instance where a cabal organized an attack on their own people to further their hegemonic plans. Unfortunately, Japan Today and the MSM want you to forget that fact. Im sure JT will delete this but the truth needs to be told. Please, can someone explain to me how a 7 story concrete building can free fall in 7 seconds by fire?

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

"And yet, the moderate Muslims are not doing anything about this, even though they are greatly impacted by this as well, even more"

There are moderate Muslims speaking out and trying to confront the reality of extremism rather than attempting to shut it up with cries of Islamophobia. One of the best examples is Maajid Nawaz, the founder of Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank. Nawaz was an extremist Muslim who was jailed in Egypt where he discarded these revolting ideas.

I wish there were more like him, but as usual, you fall into 'all Libs are devoid of morals' type sweeping nonsense.

They are there and deserve our respect.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

bass4funk: "It can stop and hinder at least, making it more difficult for anyone, illegal, terrorist anyone, beef up the border with the National guard..."

In your rant against Islam, 99.9% of which the people are peaceful -- moreso than Christians have been historically -- you forgot that building a wall would have done NOTHING to stop what happened here; the scum bag that did this was your brother in nationality; he was American. What MIGHT have stopped it from being on the scale of what it was would have been to not allow him, despite being watched, such easy access to guns. But you're even against Muslims getting guns!! THat's the hilarious part!! For all your ranting and raving about the evils of Islam and how we should ban it all and even wage war on 1/4 of the world, you would still give them guns and declare it's their right to have them so long as they are American. Classic! Better go buy more, quick!!

"And yet, the moderate Muslims are not doing anything about this, even though they are greatly impacted by this as well, even more so...."

BS. They have already decried the attacks. And unlike you, they have done so with integrity and common sense, not just screaming and blaming everyone and everything else when YOU espouse the same hatred, lust for violence (you think it's okay to wage war on an entire people, and not to do so is wrong), and need for guns. Take a good, long, hard look in the mirror, bud.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It can stop and hinder at least, making it more difficult for anyone, illegal, terrorist anyone, beef up the border with the

Exactly how many of terrorist attackers came across the Southern border. Building a wall is utter nonsense, there is 0 reason to waste billions of dollars to "keep terrorists out. You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

infiltrate the Mosques like we used to,

Pray tell, when did THAT happen??

If Islam is a tolerant religion, then the law abiding majority Muslims would understand.

Bollocks. You are suggesting that Muslims accept being treated as second class citizens. Why the hell would anyone, Black, White, Asian or whatever accept that garbage?

I meant his entire foreign policy strategy was abysmal.

You said "pacifist." What exactly do you mean, "pacifist?" Do you mean the middle east? Yes or no?

Not saying that at all, but at least we can see he has the will and desire and fortitude to send the radical jihadists a message, he didn't and he won't, got it.

Come again? How many sorties have the US sent over IS territory?

And yet, the moderate Muslims are not doing anything about this, even though they are greatly impacted by this as well, even more so....

And yet, Muslim leaders are coming out en masse to condemn this terrorist attack: http://www.businessinsider.com/muslim-leaders-condemn-orlando-mass-shooting-2016-6

Perhaps you mean people in IS territories? Rather easy for you to criticize from the comfort of your own home. I'd imagine you'd feel quite differently if you were stuck in terrorist territories under the threat of death by beheading.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

bass4funk: "It can stop and hinder at least, making it more difficult for anyone, illegal, terrorist anyone, beef up the border with the National guard,"

How would ANY of this stop an American, and this guy was, from carrying out this kind of attack? How about making it illegal for terrorists (or even people being watched by the FBI) to get guns instead of protecting their 2nd Amendment rights and crying foul when someone wants to limit said people from getting guns? That would have an actual impact on this kind of attack, unlike building a wall when the people are already inside.

"And yet, the moderate Muslims are not doing anything about this, even though they are greatly impacted by this as well, even more so...."

BS. Plenty have already spoken out about this in a collected and intelligent manner, not just screaming about anti-Islam everything and saying we should wage war on 1/4th of the world, including Americans.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Re Islamic outrages,It takes horrendous events like this to make it to the news. The rape epidemic by muslims in Europe, the crime etc is covered up or ignored by the mainstream media. German citizens are afraid to speak out for fear of being charged with Hate Crime. Its going that way in Britain too. Take the Brexit my Brit friends and give yourselves a chance.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Liberals demand that we are to not judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

-3 ( +8 / -10 )

It can stop and hinder at least, making it more difficult for anyone, illegal, terrorist anyone, beef up the border with the

So let's get this straight Bass. Building a wall makes sense, because it makes it difficult for anyone, illegal or terrorist, to cause terror. But increasing gun control, which would make it more difficult for anyone, legal, illegal, or terrorist, to kill, makes no sense. Please explain why one makes sense and the other doesn't.

Liberals demand that we are to not judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Bam! You took down that strawman like no ones business! Amazing!

1 ( +7 / -6 )

"Liberals demand that we are to not judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics."

Yes, the cognitive dissonance is deafening.

Just imagine if he had gone in there with some kind of explosive device instead.

What this evil person did is inexcusable in every way. He was hell-bent on killing, and no law would have stopped him. What finally stopped him were some well-placed slugs.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Terrorism.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Just imagine if he had gone in there with some kind of explosive device instead.

It's a little harder to get an explosive device, particularly with homeland security looking for people who are buying things to make explosive devices. And someone has to really go to the effort to find an explosive device, they cannot just go buy one at the store like this guy did with guns.

The cognitive dissonance among the gun nuts is mind boggling.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

The other part of the problem is when Islam pulls the trigger on Americans. Its unacceptable. . . . what did obama say about Sandy Hook before he started to tear up? "It makes me angry-"

Actually, he was referring specific legislation to close the loophole that allows people to purchase guns without background checks online or at gun shows. The full quote is:

All of us should be able to work together to find a balance that declares the rest of our rights are also important. Second Amendment rights are important, but there other rights that we care about, as well, and we have to be able to balance them, because our right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Christians in Charleston, South Carolina, and that was denied Jews in Kansas City, and that was denied Muslims in Chapel Hill and Sikhs in Oak Creek. They had rights, too. Our right to peaceful assembly, that right was robbed from moviegoers in Aurora and Lafayette. Our unalienable right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those rights were stripped from college kids in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first graders in Newtown—first graders—and from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun. Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad. And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day.

Wc, some only feel outrage when a massacre is perpetrated by a Muslim; otherwise, it is simply a fact of life in gun-crazed, Second Amendment-glazed America. You seem to be one. You may have heard about that white dude from Indiana headed towards a gay rights parade in Los Angeles who was arrested this morning with two semiautomatic rifles, a handgun, and explosive materials - basically, the same stuff the Orlando maniac possessed, just one more rifle. Only chance clued the police to his location. However, even if he had evaded capture and had caused a massacre, something tells me that you and many other posters on this thread would be singing quite a different song. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gay-pride-la-weapons-20160612-snap-story.html

Islam did not pull the trigger - no more so than does Christianity when some nut job shoots up an abortion clinic because God told him so. The man was sick and had provided enough clues in his behavior with others that his ability to possess guns should have been zilch. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution. The problem is "squirrel!" while the solution is common-sense gun measures - in particular, banning semi-automatic rifles. (The weapons the man in Los Angeles was caught with were illegal there, which was the main reason he was arrested; in other states, they'd have had to let him go.)

5 ( +8 / -3 )

@Laguna, Islam did not pull the trigger - no more so than does christianity...**

now Ive heard it all.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

This is the 15th time that Obama has had to address the nation after a mass shooting.

Since sandyhook where 20 children and 6 adults were killed there have been NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY EIGHT mass shootings where more than four people have been killed.

NINE HUNDRED AND NINETY EIGHT

and yet people still say that guns aren't the problem.

Tens of thousands of Americans are killed every year. But guns aren't the problem.

How many thousands more innocent people need to die before the majority of people start realising that guns ARE the problem.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

@Strangerland

Building a wall defends the law by providing a physical barrier to those who are breaking the law.

Banning gun ownership in the US violates US law. The only legal way to revoke the second amendment is for the States, not the federal government, for the States to call a Constitutional Convention. Any talk of legislation to end private gun ownership is ignoring US law and advocating the violation of it.

@SmithinJapan.

Following your logic, then the attacks in paris did not happen. How could they, as gun ownership in France is not allowed. As you and many others state that the solution to gun violence is banning gun ownership, then gun crimes can not happen in countries that that have banned firearm ownership.

@Any and All

Would someone please explain how banning guns (if US law allowed for it) would cause gun crime to cease? Do you believe that by passing a law that all guns in the US would just disappear?

Several western nations have banned firearm ownership to some degree or another in the not so distant past. Many tout the decreae in gun crime, but are remarkably silent on the increase of other violent crimes, especially against women. I guess, in the antigun nutters mindset, getting knifed, bottled or beaten to death is far preferable to being able to protect oneself with a firearm.

And again, banning any kind of fire arm is not only inconsistsnt with the law, but defeats one of the major original intents of the second amendment, to allow the citizens to defend themselves from abuse from their own government. For the citizens to be able to defend themselves against their government, then they must be able to possess some of the same weaponry.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

"How many thousands more innocent people need to die before the majority of people start realising that guns ARE the problem."

It's love and faith. It's the same thing as believing the ideas of your religion couldn't possibly be to blame. They work from that base and do all kinds of bizarre mental gymnastics to try to make things fit.

Don't try the rational approach. These people are in love.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Strangeland:

" s it really surprising this guy was a democrat? With Trump bleating on about banning Muslims, "

Didn´t another poster from the regressive left just claim that the shooter "behaved like a Trump supporter"? You guys should really align your talking points...

And of course, you as well as I do how the press would run with it if they had found he was a rep party member. We would not hear the end of it.

Actually, I find it quite silly that the US partisans turn this into a US party tirade onece again. Fact is, both US parties have been disastrously wrong in their Mideast policy for many years.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

When you are talking about terrorists, guns are just the present weapon of choice, not the opportunity to kill. The Tsarnaev brothers chose pressure cooker bombs; IEDs and car bombs do nicely in Iraq, and was attempted in Times Square. Underwear or shoe bombs can take down a plane better than a gun. Gun control is the low hanging fruit in rhetoric about mass killings. The constant harping on gun control seems to give our elected and appointed leaders cover for total failure to address root causes.

1,651 people shot in Chicago thus far in 2016.

10 people killed in a weekend in normal activity in Chicago where gun stores are banned.

Plano, TX has highest per capita population of gun ownership and its one of the safest cities in America.

But according to the liberals, there is no correlation.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Fizzbit:

" All of these murders, around the world, call it terrorism or call it freedom fighters, goes back to 911, the instance where a cabal organized an attack on their own people to further their hegemonic plans. "

Actually, no. There were plenty of islamic terror attacks prior to 9/11, including one on..... drum rolll.... the WTC itself, in 1993, while Clinton was president. Was that also a government cabale? Organized by Clintons friends perhaps??

Really now, the idea that in the middle of a wave of islamist terror attacks some government would go to byzantine lengths to simulate yet ONE MORE islamist error attacks needs a lot of social smokes to sound plausible.

Can we please do without the tinfoil hat stuff? There are enough real conspiracies out there to invent yet another one.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Following your logic, then the attacks in paris did not happen. How could they, as gun ownership in France is not allowed.

Terrorist attacks in Europe are generally the result of very sophisticated networks who smuggle in weapons from the Balkans at great risk and expense. Amazingly, a crazed lone wolf in Florida was able to inflict as much damage as an operation planned for months and involving a dozen perpetrators simply because he was allowed to go into a store and buy a semi automatic rifle and unlimited rounds of ammunition without raising concern.

God help Europe if it ever adopted the American system. Time has a good look at weapons smuggling in Europe. (Ironically, Mexico prohibits gun manufacturing, so a similar route exists from the United States to Mexico.)

http://http://time.com/how-europes-terrorists-get-their-guns/

5 ( +7 / -2 )

"They are there and deserve our respect."

"Respect has nothing to do with it."

Respect has a lot to do with it. The man who I mentioned, Maajid Nawaz, is on the hitlist of murderous religious knuckle-draggers who want him dead for speaking out. These people have been known to murder those who 'offend' them - often in particularly gruesome fashion. Nawaz has real guts.

You can rant, whatabout, LOL, Obamamaybeamuslim and HillarybenghaziROFL from the safety of your keyboard all you like but not respecting people like Nawaz makes me very suspicious of your values.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

How many thousands more innocent people need to die before the majority of people start realising that guns ARE the problem.

Why is it that so many care about the gun issue yet seem oblivious to the global waepons trade. I hope someday you dindalings wake up to the fact that the modern civilizations are manufacturing these wars and the hatred that goes with that. If our government started acting responsible and not selling themselves out (Hillary) and represent the people and not the banksters, it's very possible the people would get along. The MSM is part of the elite cabal, why would any intelligent person put ANY faith in what they sell. 911 was a scam people. Open your mind!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

As Laguna said

The July 7 bombings in the UK killed 52 people. They spent months preparing. Some flew to the Middle East for training. Four guys got on public transport during the rush hour and detonated four suicide bombs.

In the US one person. One single guy walked into a club with a gun and killed 50 people and injured 53 more. No effort. No training. No planning. Not a complicated network of links across the globe. Just a man over 18 years old who is legally allowed to buy guns.

But guns aren't the problems. The foreigners and their funny religions are.

An American dies every sixteen minutes from gun violence. But it's not the guns that are the problem.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Why is it that so many care about the gun issue yet seem oblivious to the global waepons trade.

Fizz, respectfully, it is possible to be concerned about both. The topic at hand, though, is the ridiculous ease with which anyone can purchase an assault weapon in America. Hillary would act against that, though she might not act with the restraint many would prefer against international arms sales; Trump would be full-sheets-to-the-wind on both sides. Deals to be made, after all!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

When you are talking about terrorists, guns are just the present weapon of choice, not the opportunity to kill.

Yeah, so why not take away the weapon of choice? It makes no sense to leave it out there for them to use. That's like saying 'suicide bombers weapon of choice are bombs, but lets just let them have their bombs, since preventing people from getting bombs is only dealing with their method of choice, and not the root problem'. Makes zero sense.

But according to the liberals, there is no correlation.

Bam! Another strawman taken down just like that!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I'm just so glad that I don't live in the U.S. anymore, where I would have to actually entertain the thought of owning a gun for protection. Although for the life of me I can't even understand how it would've done any good in a crowded club, while being half-drunk. I would've probably caused more friendly fire damage if I was in this situation.

At least in Japan, I can go to a dance club and not have to pack heat. Imagine trying to pick up a girl (or guy ) at a club with a loaded weapon on you. I'm pretty sure it would be pretty uncomfortable.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If our government started acting responsible and not selling themselves out (Hillary) and represent the people and not the banksters, it's very possible the people would get along. (sic)

Ahh, the happy ending with unicorns under rainbows. If only the nihilists, anarchists and the terminally angry could rid the world of bankers, the MSM, the CFR and crows... Imagine. But sadly, there'd just be another group to take their place. As Pete Townsend sang, 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

stragerland- those things are incompatible with Islam. Anyone being ok with them cannot be a muslim and its not just ISIS that will tell you that. Speak to a muslim.

You tell me to speak to a Muslim, yet you obviously never have. There are varying degrees of Muslims, from moderates to extremists. I've been to strip bars with Muslims, and I've gotten drunk with Muslims - things that according to you would make them not a Muslim.

Here is the problem - the bigots want to reduce all Muslims to a single extremist definition, ignoring the reality of the world. The fact that there are thousands and thousands of Muslims already successfully living in the US should show you that some of them can indeed get past these things. Some want nothing to do with them, and will avoid them altogether, while some are Muslims in name and culture only, and believe in a god about as much as I do (which is to say not at all).

The problem is that the bigots, by grouping all Muslims together as extremists, end up pushing some of the moderates towards extremism. It's the same as a girlfriend who is always accusing her boyfriend of cheating - at some point many guys will say screw it, and cheat, for if they are going to get accused of it, they may as well do something worth getting accused of.

If theyre ok with those things theyd best leave Islam - oh, but we know what happens if they do that, dont we.

Exactly. So some of them stay Muslims, without believing in the things the extremists would have them believe. Thereby disproving your narrow view that they are all extremists.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Laguna

Thanks for respect, I like it when we can discuss issues without the typical attacks. The topic at hand about this nut bar is all over the MSM, but where is the criticism about Obama and his war machine? The MSM drives the message. I think your wrong about Trump. War is great business for politicians and war manufacture, you have no proof that Trump will "play along", and if you take him for his word, which I think you can, Trump will NOT play the the hegomonic s warmongers game.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Change the debate and they'll often start bleating about the gay agenda, transgenders and toilets and looney-left liberal feminists.

They hate the comparison to being the western version of the extremists, yet if the shoe fits...

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

@Laguna

Same damage? I seem to remember over 120 people dying in the latest attack in Paris.

No, he was not allowed by law. There are laws to prevent this. Incompetent administration of the law is not solved by either more laws or breaking the law and disarming law abiding gun owners.

Look into how many of those guns got to Mexico from the US. It will surprise you who was behind it.

@Strangerland

Americans do not make muslims in the outsiders. It is those who do not assimulate that make themselves outsiders. Why do people immigrate to the US yet not wish to assimulate? If someone does not want to become an American, to assimulate into American culture, then they should not immigrate to the US.

And again, Congress can not legally legislate gun rights away, nor can the President legally dictate them away. You may not like it, but facts are facts.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

PTownsend

Nice. How about addressing the issues? Pimp. You and your globalist pals at the UN are finally being exposed. The normal people don't want your expiriment. How can the US try to control the world when we can't even take care of our own people. But your peace prize winning president and his MSM tool have brainwashed you. Keep dreaming PT, maybe you will write a movie script someday about rainbows and unicorns

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

It's a little harder to get an explosive device, particularly with homeland security looking for people who are buying things to make explosive devices

Except for insiders like Manteen who was employed by a major contractor to the Department of Homeland Security. There might well have been unexploded devices in the club.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

It's a little harder to get an explosive device, particularly with homeland security looking for people who are buying things to make explosive devices

Except for insiders like Manteen who was employed by a major contractor to the Department of Homeland Security. There might well have been unexploded devices in the club.

So you're countering my point by a guess that there may have been unexploded devices in the club. Seems legit.

It also ignores the fact that the overwhelmingly huge majority of people are not contractors to homeland security.

Basically you just made an empty argument.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

No, he was not allowed by law. There are laws to prevent this. Incompetent administration of the law is not solved by either more laws or breaking the law and disarming law abiding gun owners.

Yup, he was allowed by law to purchase an AR-15 type assault rifle, along with a handgun. Nope, in Florida, there are no laws to prevent this (there are in California, which might have prevented a similar shooting a few hours later) - despite flags that had been raised both with the FBI and (more importantly), his employer. Nope, the law was not improperly administered: The man was completely within his lawful rights until he killed someone (by which point, you might notice, it's a bit late to do anything about it). And nope: If a type of weapon is declared illegal, owning it does not make you law-abiding. Want a bazooka? AR-15s and their type will, hopefully, someday be as difficult to obtain as that.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/gunman-used-ar-15-style-rifle-in-mass-shooting-what-are-floridas-gun-laws/

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It's looking more and more like Trump might be the next president the way things are going....

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

It's looking more and more like Trump might be the next president the way things are going....

You're probably right.

Which really proves what a lot of people already believe about America.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Ban guns and no more mass shootings. Ban pot, cocaine, heroin, etc. and no more recreational drug use. If government is so powerful that it can end social problems simply by outlawing them, why not just ban mass shootings?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Laguna

What do you want? Do you want a better world? How has the the globalists been doing so far? Why do you put your faith in them? Sending away the manufacturing jobs to the third world was done on purpose. Why is that so hard to understand? Block heads!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Of course, on the other side of the US a similar sort of attack on gays was thwarted by luck. But the guy in that case was Christian, so I wonder if the folks who say that this attack traces back to the American citizen's religion (Islam) will say that the attempted attack traces back to that American citizen's religion (Christianity)? If not, well then we can file their opinions right next to the opinions of racists, sexists, homophobes, antiSemites, antiVaaxers and Birthers (and then leave the lavatory)

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Laguna

conspiracy theories????

Please please please, mr anti "conspiracy theories" explain to me how a huge 7 story concrete building free falls in 7 seconds? If you can explian that then you have have every right to call me a nut case, but you can't, and you you won't, because you're living I fear, just like the elite want you to do.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But I think both white nationalists and Trump contribute to the US's gun problems and so are germane. I mention white nationalists because many in it are in the 'come and take it' crowd that threaten citizens and governments (as many complaints as I may have about government I don't see them as the evil forces that some do) and are people who strive to see the US remains awash with weapons that can be used to murder innocent people - in the name of their 'freedom'. I mention Trump because he is leading this iteration of the white nationalist movement and doing the bidding for the gun industry. I think I'm addressing the issues at hand.

Pure nonsense! What about the gang members? Most of them are NON-White and have a lot more guns. I seriously doubt, Hillary appeals to them, knowing that she's for serious gun control.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

This sort of thing is normal in America, it's a cultural thing. Sad to hear but not surprising at all. The only surprising thing is the numbers involved here.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm sorry for the victims and their families and friends.

but I can't help becoming more and more indifferent to any incidents which involve guns. Just want to say, good luck.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

One person could kill more than 50 people and wounded more than 50 people. Death toll can rise more than current figure.The reason is semi automatic rifle has transformed as fully automatic machine gun. Imagine ordinary civilian can not buy military style assault rifle, casualty will not be high as that tragedy.

Civilians need only revolver with 2 real bullets for self defense as cow boys. Killing duck or pigeon does not require military style assault rifle too.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

bass4funk: "It's looking more and more like Trump might be the next president the way things are going...."

Keep trying to convince yourself. Just yesterday on such a topic you said, "That's what you said about 2010 and 2014", as though Trump were a sure thing. Now you are saying, "Looks more and more like...", which means even you don't believe he has a chance of winning.

In any case, why on earth would this help him? He WANTS guns out on the street, which is part of the problem. He WANTS to build a wall, which is a MAJOR part of the problem for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it would not stop this kind of thing from happening, but would help ensure it happens more often. He wants all Muslims out, and other, despicable racism and hatred -- part of the reason they target your nation, and hell, part of the reason the GOP people are such sell-outs; they disagree with him, but support him at the same time. Because he demands Obama apologise? Why would he, when he has been right all along, and if he had his way the criminal in this case might not have gotten the guns in the first place -- something YOU openly support him being able to do.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@smith

Badsey: "They knew about this registered Democrat terrorist, but (FBI) decided to do nothing."

And yet you probably support the NRA's shooting down any attempt to restrict weapons to people on the FBI's database as potential terrorists, right? It's those people who allowed the guns in the hands of this monster, and this is a personal high score for the NRA. No doubt they are jumping for joy at the moment, planning speeches on how we all need MORE guns to stop this kind of person, etc. Those are the people who allowed this to be what it is.

I don't think the NRA has any effect of gun law on FBI "terrorist" suspects. People do these types of attacks because their minds are dead set on doing it. In Japan you have knife/blade attacks -very hard (almost impossible) to stop these people. This person is also born in America, muslim , security officer with security clearances. There was not enough info for the FBI to make a case against this person for prosecution. This person chose his targets well, but it is sort of surprising that a concealed carry person(s) was/were not there (and that hopefully would have helped).

@Smith (again)

You are a pro-Syrian War person (you have tapered off some) even though you were against the War in Iraq (smart). Why do you continue to support/fund politically the destruction of Syria and its' people by "terrorist", "rebel moderate" and now "militia" groups using these same weapons you say you are against. Are you just waiting for the new Democrat (and Republican) political declaration/direction. If you are truly anti-gun you should also be against these "Wars", anti-military Abe, anti-military Okinawa, anti-Obama sabre rattling (Ukraine/Russia/NK/Venezuela/Iran).

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Military weapons were designed to kill as many as possible in the shortest period of time, they do not belong in the hands of hate or the insane. That can be stopped.

Religious hatred, some promote, means hating the children of the faithful as much as the faithful who have harmed no one and never would.

When hating children becomes the expression of religious hatred, the conclusion is clear enough. Those who hate for religion or hate religion in fear have nothing to offer the American People or the World.

The thousands directly harmed in this insane attack will never forget these simple truths. And for those who reject them, they have learned nothing.

There is a better way. How many children will die before that simple truth ends the hate and ignorance that created this slaughter.

Americans deserve better and ignorance and hate are the enemy.

Not the children of the faithful or the children and friends of these loved People slaughtered for no reason except an insane persons' access to weapons made for war in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

The suffering of these innocent People, their families, their friends and their loved ones will never be forgotten.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

On the one hand it can be said that it is because the gunman had legal access to guns that he was able to perpetrate his crime.

On the other hand, it can be said that criminals intent on carrying out a crime will never let statutory restrictions on guns & ammo deter them from acquisition.

On the third hand, it may be also that, because no one in the club was armed, that the extent of the gunman's havoc was not contained until armed people (police) showed up to offer resistance.

It is this third idea that, for some, proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the only way to protect oneself and one's compatriots against the murderous criminal activity of a bad player is to be able to "shoot back" ...

So let's take the guns away for a moment, from even the shooter, and look at what the American anti-gun sentiment is: It should be illegal to own and operate the means of self defense because such means are also the means of criminal assault. In such cases whereby a criminal physically assaults an innocent person, that person must not offer effective resistance to protect themselves against such an assault.

I worry about that mentality, but if you drill down to the fundamental argument of anti-gun supporters you get an obligation of the public against effective self-defense.

And it is because we already know that criminals have little problem getting their hands on any kind of contraband, we also know that the only people who will be defenseless are law-abiding private citizens. That is a worrisome situation, as well.

The USA is in a terrible situation, given that there are over 300 million legally-obtained firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens as I write this, and who knows how many millions more in the hands of criminals of all varieties (the population of criminal gangs already outnumbers the USA's full standing army) ... what means of effective self-defense would otherwise be available to the private citizen against the aggressions of an armed criminal if not also a gun?

Answer that question, and you may find the solution to the problem of gun violence in America.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

And it is because we already know that criminals have little problem getting their hands on any kind of contraband I have not heard of any machine gun massacres ever since those are registered strictly. Need the same for this semi autos unless you are part of the authority. Has anyone heard of any lone individual like this getting their hands on a machine gun? No? Then registration works and they need to do this for those ARs etc. That Colorado shooter had a magazine of 100 which jammed. Really, this is common sense and what needs a general sale ban is those semi autos. Registration works because look at machine guns and how they have never been used in anything like this.

And it's time for at least universal checks which will overall reduce gun crimes. Personally I'm for registering every gun in a database and the deadlier it is to more stringent it is.

Remember all that stuff the US did after the 9/11 attacks to make the situation more secure? They did it because they had to and so can they with what needs to be done with semi auto weapons like Glocks.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

...look at what the American anti-gun sentiment is: It should be illegal to own and operate the means of self defense because such means are also the means of criminal assault.

Chris, no, no and no. The club had three armed security guards on duty; would you prefer that each patron in a nightclub be armed? "Means of self defense" you have left so vague as to be completely devoid of meaning. And those of us who are anti-gun generally accept the reality that some gun types are ingrained in American society - but seriously, should military assault-style semi automatic weapons with large-capacity clips be among them? At which caliber of weapon will the NRA and its ilk stop? Do you not agree that the acceptance of guns along with rational control is not compatible in America? - because, if not, Orlando is now Hometown USA (don't forget about that idol gunned down there just two days ago).

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"So let's take the guns away for a moment, from even the shooter, and look at what the American anti-gun sentiment is: It should be illegal to own and operate the means of self defense because such means are also the means of criminal assault." - comments

The comment is based on falsehood, the claim American anti-gun sentiment is what the comment believes it is. That is called an opinion. This opinion has no relation to facts and its conclusion is the product of opinion, not fact.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Wait!!!! Just because this guy Mateen was born in America, and a muslim doesn't mean he was an American!! That is the problem the US allow foreigners in THINKING they will BECOME AMERICAN, well the parents were from Afghanistan and I can bet you their value and his home values were based on those of his parents NOT AMERICAN VALUES. When is America going to wake up and realize you can't change a persons belief which is basically ingrained by their culture. Inclusion is delusional, because it is not working at this moment. Yes in the past maybe but now days with all the different radical groups out their its not going to happen. I am sure this is not the last event, the government looked at this guy 3 times and look what happened, this guy was a security officer with security clearances, his own ex-wife said he was a mental case and they gave him the right top own a gun. I don't care what the people are saying about Americans having to many guns, having to many guns is not the problem its the idiots with the guns that are killing innocent people. Sane people do not kill insane people with mental cases and gangster do this. Lets say this if the police officer had the club didn't have a gun to suppress this guy maybe more people would have been dead. Lets say if the government allow people to carry a concealed weapon maybe this too could have helped. Its not the guns that kill its the people who have them use them our of irrational thinking! Total mental cases. Guns Kill, Knives kill death is death. In some places knives are the weapon of chose used to kill people, so my question is do you take all the knives from people homes?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The club had three armed security guards on duty I always say that some people posting here have been watchign too many Diehard movies. Reality vs. Hollywood when it comes to guns is very very different. Let me post:

Here is reality:

Hundreds of holiday shoppers were in the Tacoma Mall on Sunday, November 20th, 2005 when Dominick Maldonado opened fire, randomly shooting stores and people. Dan McKown, legally armed with a concealed pistol, tried to stop the rampage. McKown was shot five times and left partially paralyzed. He's a standup comic, and fellow comedians put on a benefit days after the shooting..

Read the rest at:

http://komonews.com/news/local/survivor-marks-mall-shooting-anniversary-with-comedy

People who think that just having a gun makes you safe need to get out of TV land. I can believe in gun ownership reasonably. But it needs to be approached from the other end with gun control with teeth.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Just because this guy Mateen was born in America, and a muslim doesn't mean he was an American!!

Actually, the fact that he was born in America exactly means he was American. American citizenship is given upon birth in America. Nothing has shown that he was not American.

I don't care what the people are saying about Americans having to many guns, having to many guns is not the problem its the idiots with the guns that are killing innocent people. Sane people do not kill insane people with mental cases and gangster do this.

But as long as you allow people to walk into a store and buy guns, idiots will buy guns, and idiots will kill people with those guns.

It would be nice if the world was a utopia where you could tell if someone was going to murder someone else when they buy a gun, but unfortunately, no one has ever been able to come up with that test.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The comment is based on falsehood, the claim American anti-gun sentiment is what the comment believes it is. That is called an opinion. This opinion has no relation to facts and its conclusion is the product of opinion, not fact.

Who says? I think it's a fact. How can you say it's an opinion, how so?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Nishikat in the US, studies have proven time after time states that have the most conceal to carry permits have the lowest crime rates. No one said that guns make you safe, its a great equalizer to make you safe if that is the case, the 3 officers at the clubs could have just been policing the nigh club with batons and not have guns!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No one said that guns make you safe, its a great equalizer

Actually, the NRA claims guns make you more safe. As do so many posters here.

And if it's such an equalizer, then why are 50 people dead in Florida?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

As promised, here comes Trump vomit - worse than I'd expected, as he indicates multiple times that Obama may have been complicit. Kinda the "Squirrel!" tactic with a good measure of treason thrown in.

Obama doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands. It’s one or the other. And either one is unacceptable. ... We are led by a man who is either not tough, not smart, or he has something else in mind. And the something else in mind, people can’t believe it.

Sheesh, he could have played this so well, but he can't help himself. Even Ryan won't be able to explain these accusations away.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Sheesh, he could have played this so well, but he can't help himself.

He obviously doesn't know the approval rating Obama has either.

Or he does, and he's just playing to his redneck core again. I bet Bass was nodding along with those comments going 'yeah, yeah!'.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Strangerland yes he is an American, but his views are not AMERICAN!! That is the problem citizenship is given to the people because their parents get citizenship and they are born in America. The parents don't change they keep their customs and what they believe in in their own little word their home. When they do get out side they can't deal with other Americans. I have an Indian neighbor from India who just slaps the crap out of his wife in front of all the neighbors he feels he can do it because that is what he did in India . When I and another neighbor told him about it, he said simply mind your own business which we did, and we called the cops. He was arrested. That is the problem inclusion is not something America can force on people coming from other cultures no matter what they will teach their kids the way they learned and this is the problems America face!! Yes he was an American, but his ideas weren't!!!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@strangerland. You tell me to speak to a Muslim, yet you obviously never have.

Not true. And why "obviously" - because my opinion differs from yours?

@strangerland.

There are varying degrees of Muslims, from moderates to extremists. I've been to strip bars with Muslims, and I've gotten drunk with Muslims - things that according to you would make them not a Muslim.

Yeah, keep talking. I guess you're unaware that the muslims who flew into the twin towers were frequenting strip clubs and packing porn magazines right up to the night before they died for Allah.

@Outrider. If theyre ok with those things (gay rights, equality for women, etc ) theyd best leave Islam - oh, but we know what happens if they do that, dont we.

@strangerlandExactly. So some of them stay Muslims, without believing in the things the extremists would have them believe. Thereby disproving your narrow view that they are all extremists.

Could you explain your above response to my statement?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

This was not about Muslim. It's about Crazy. What is the argument about the mass shootings with automatic weapons in these last years where there was no claim of allegiance to allah and all that? Just crazy and the need to ban new transactions of semi autos like Glocks and ARs. This guy passed background checks. That means the problem is with the gun and they need a general ban (for semi autos)...this is a start

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Guns Kill, Knives kill death is death. In some places knives are the weapon of chose used to kill people, so my question is do you take all the knives from people homes?

Uh huh. But I'd much rather take my chances against a knife than a semi-automatic. Those club patrons didn't stand a chance. In a matter of minutes, he was able to gun down dozens upon dozens of people.

And your logic about knives vs guns is flawed. A knife's main purpose is to cut things with. For what other purpose is there for a gun, than to kill? After all, if you're allowing the sales of guns to exist, then why not allow the sales of rocket launchers, machine guns, and bazookas?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

in the US, studies have proven time after time states that have the most conceal to carry permits have the lowest crime rates. No one said that guns make you safe, its a great equalizer to make you safe if that is the case, the 3 officers at the clubs could have just been policing the nigh club with batons and not have guns.

Exactly, there is never a guarantee of what the outcome will be when using a gun, but it is a tool and as you said, a great equalizer, no doubt about it.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I have an Indian neighbor from India who just slaps the crap out of his wife in front of all the neighbors he feels he can do it because that is what he did in India Is this in the USA? Is this a real story? Why don't you take a YouTube of it and show the police so he can be charged with domestic violence? I would do this. Learn to be more clever, man! (Or stop making up stories) Report this as domestic violence and get him out of her life.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Actually, the NRA claims guns make you more safe. As do so many posters here.

And if it's such an equalizer, then why are 50 people dead in Florida?

Answering your question is like asking why are so many people poor? Duh even in war guns are used and regardless lives are going to be lost. If you been keeping up with the news the chief of police said they had to go in and suppress the guys gun fire, going in with their guns drawn was the equalizer it prevented more lives from being lost. Do you think they would have went in their with sticks!! Equalizer means guns plus guns and not necessary lives lost!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Don't run from the truth. This was ALL about Muslim And about the Colorado theater, Sandy Hook, and Black church shootings? Among others? Common denominator? Semi auto gun restrictions.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This guy passed background checks. That means the problem is with the gun and they need a general ban (for semi autos)...this is a start

Wow so the guy passed background checks and you are saying the problem is with the guns!! That's like saying you passed your high school equivalency exams and you are an expert on every subject matter. How could you say the problem is with the guns? The gun did not pull the trigger by itself the idiot pulled the trigger, just because he passed background checks doesn't mean he isn't the problem if the gun was left at the store would you still blame it on the gun for being at the store on the shelf"" Where is your logic or idiotic logic?

And your logic about knives vs guns is flawed. A knife's main purpose is to cut things with. For what other purpose is there for a gun, than to kill? After all, if you're allowing the sales of guns to exist, then why not allow the sales of rocket launchers, machine guns, and bazookas?

Wow the main purpose for a knife is to cut things, "THINGS" is a very broad word so that includes people!! If not knives would not be used to kill why not use your hands or another object? And your analogy about allowing why not allow the sales of rocket launchers, machine guns, and bazookas? Dude you are just about as crazy as the guy who pulled the trigger because you have no sense of reasoning.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Wow so the guy passed background checks and you are saying the problem is with the guns!! That's like saying you passed your high school equivalency exams and you are an expert on every subject matter. How could you say the problem is with the guns? The gun did not pull the trigger by itself the idiot pulled the trigger, just because he passed background checks doesn't mean he isn't the problem if the gun was left at the store would you still blame it on the gun for being at the store on the shelf"" Where is your logic or idiotic logic

Liberals see everything gun color. It goes over their head, passing gun background checks means NOTHING, the only thing liberals care about is: you should NEVER have them, that's it, logical reasoning is not their forté.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Strangerland yes he is an American, but his views are not AMERICAN!!

Buying guns and shooting people? Hating on gay people? Sounds pretty American to me. Lot's of rednecks who do the exact same thing.

So please tell me, who defines what is American? Where is this written?

@strangerland. You tell me to speak to a Muslim, yet you obviously never have.

Not true. And why "obviously" - because my opinion differs from yours?

Obviously because your comments on Muslims are all based in stereotypes and bigotry, rather than the reality of actual Muslims.

Yeah, keep talking. I guess you're unaware that the muslims who flew into the twin towers were frequenting strip clubs and packing porn magazines right up to the night before they died for Allah.

Now you're changing your tune. You previously said:

those things are incompatible with Islam. Anyone being ok with them cannot be a muslim and its not just ISIS that will tell you that.

Make up your mind. Are they Muslim or not?

Could you explain your above response to my statement?

My response speaks for itself. What exactly are you unclear on?

If you been keeping up with the news the chief of police said they had to go in and suppress the guys gun fire, going in with their guns drawn was the equalizer it prevented more lives from being lost

Guns were an equalizer? Since when does 50 equal 1?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Bass4funk this guy passed background checks bought guns and still look at the out come. So whats your point? My point is this, the gun did not shoot by itself! Just as when you sit to respond to this posting your words are thoughts not is going to be read or posted unless you type them and hit send other wise there is nothing!! Guns do not kill people do just as in the computer world computers do what they are programmed to do and people do the same thing they do what they are programmed to do!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"why not allow the sales of rocket launchers, machine guns, and bazookas?"

Hey, knock the dirty talk off. It's 11:30. The gun-fetishists have got to sleep as well you know. How are they going to sleep with images of bazookas and machine guns going off in their heads?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nothing like a terrorist incident to queue the anti-Islam bigotry.

I feel for the 99.9999% of American Muslims who are going to have to deal with it, through simple association.

And cue the virtue signalling by the clueless, whereupon religion had NOTHING to do with the worst mass shooting in US history..

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Weird that you'd want to call attention to yourself that way, but hey, if that's what makes you happy.

official announcement of a lightweight who has not one more thought in his head. Sweet dreams, virtue signaller. Sweet dreams...

Moderator: You can have 48 hours off from posting.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Liberals demand that we are to not judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge all gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

@kabubideath -Bingo.

Buying guns and shooting people? Hating on gay people? Sounds pretty American to me. Lot's of rednecks who do the exact same thing.

So do Black and Latino thugs. Heck, their acts and notoriety are far worse than "rednecks" (so u say).

If Trumps ban was in place (ohh lets say at the beginning of the Reagan Administration) these islamic terrorists like Tashfeen, Omar Mateen and Boston Marathon Bomber wouldn't have happened.

Sure. Blame "guns" all you want. The terrorists still hit Paris, London, Brussels, Madrid (train bombings), & NYC. ISIS' lone wolves and other islamic wackos have taken their toll on Chatanooga, San Bern, Orlando, Fort Hood . . . you guys know what it is-

They ought to deport Omar's imam back to ME. If he's not from there, they ought to deport him anyway. He shouldn't be allowed to remain in America while teaching radical islamic views.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Clinton: I'll say the words 'radical Islamism'

...and she will promote gun restrictions needed

She has my vote. I can't wait for the Clinton vs. Trump debates. She is going to make him look like an idiot.

She has this covered on both ends, Radical islam and gun control.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

If Trumps ban was in place (ohh lets say at the beginning of the Reagan Administration) these islamic terrorists like Tashfeen, Omar Mateen and Boston Marathon Bomber wouldn't have happened.

/Enters the strong, tough, all-knowing Monday morning QB./

Sure. Blame "guns" all you want. The terrorists still hit Paris, London, Brussels, Madrid (train bombings), & NYC. ISIS' lone wolves and other islamic wackos have taken their toll on Chatanooga, San Bern, Orlando, Fort Hood . . . you guys know what it is-

Your fetish for guns kills far more than any terrorist ever has in the US. Wear that shoe boi.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

nishikat, get real. NOW she"ll say 'radical islam'. She will do jack. She's a professional politician. She and Bill hadn't even ever bought furniture in their lives until they left the whitehouse cos they'd always lived in govt housing in their years of 'public service'. hopeless.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Off to bed now. Tomorrow we'll have more outrageous statements my Trump (reactions to his insinuation that Obama was complicit in this have yet to come, but they'll likely be met by brain-numb pushback) and reactions against whatever consoling words Obama offers. As solace to the sane, I offer this Onion flashback (save it - you'll have ample chances to use it in the future):

Following yesterday’s speech by the president addressing the recent events in Roseburg, OR, local 42-year-old Tim Moss expressed his outrage to reporters that President Obama was attempting to capitalize off a tragedy to push his anti-tragedy agenda. “It’s just disgusting and shameful that, once again, the first thing out of Obama’s mouth after a tragedy is that he wants to limit tragedies,” said Moss, adding that it is both insensitive and opportunistic of the president to suddenly shift the conversation toward curbing the number of tragedies as the nation mourns in the wake of this tragedy. “Every single time this happens, he makes the tragedy all about clamping down on tragedies, and it’s simply not the time or the place for him to be going in front of the camera and pushing for steps to decrease the number of tragedies. Christ, this is a national tragedy we’re dealing with right now.” Moss added that he hopes Obama conducts himself more appropriately during the next tragedy.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

If the open sales of semi autos like Glocks had never happened this incident (and many others) would not have happened (almost always by non Mulsims)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

WC626 LMFAO So do Black and Latino thugs. Heck, their acts and notoriety are far worse than "rednecks" (so u say).

If Trumps ban was in place (ohh lets say at the beginning of the Reagan Administration) these islamic terrorists like Tashfeen, Omar Mateen and Boston Marathon Bomber wouldn't have happened.

Some of the worst mass shooting in america was and has been committed by WHITE MEN so where are you getting your Black and Latino thugs notoriety worse that "REDNECKS"

Dylann Roof. Adam Lanza. James Holmes. Jared Loughner. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

Their names stir painful memories and conjure images of hate and violence. The killers have other characteristics in common too: They either were, or are, young, white and male.

Are young, white men more likely than anyone else to become mass murderers?

Well, it's complicated. Analysts say a variety of factors could be at play. According to data compiled by Mother Jones magazine, which looked at mass shootings in the United States since 1982, white people -- almost exclusively white men -- committed some 64% of the shootings. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

2 ( +3 / -1 )

She will do jack Obama killed BinLaden. She will continue Obama's legacy of hunting down terrorists. Trump will just make ISIS stronger (he has ISIS's vote and for what reason?)

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

She has this covered on both ends, Radical islam and gun control.

She WAS against the LGBT issue some yrs ago. But recently she's pro LGBT. She will be trying to score some cheap cool points with them in reference to this terror incident.

So you're wrong dude- Crooked Hillary has covered 3 ends; gun control / Radical Islam and the LGBT issue.

She is going to make him look like an idiot.

Now she's a hypocite and an idiot.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Hey, I wonder if Obama will now, after all this time, utter the words 'radical islam'? I guess he has to if he's gonna stand with Hillary. What a dilemma!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

What a dilemma!

Not really a dilemma. Hillary is an ol' chip of the block. She was "mano y mano" (hand in hand) with hawks like Bush, Cheney and D. Rumsfeld. She supported a post 9/11 invasion. Ohh Hillary . . . if you still got it "in you" bring-it (if) you're elected. Go USA - Go !!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Hillary supported invasion of Iraq, Hillary pushed a reluctant Obama into ousting Gadaffi and laughed about Gadaffi being killed (lets not forget Gadaffi had renounced terrorism years before and was waging war on radical Islam) Look at Libya now. Hillary is bad bad news.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

She WAS against the LGBT issue some yrs ago. But recently she's pro LGBT. I'm glad you now think the way the Conservatives treated LGBT was disgusting labeling them pedophiles stalking children in public bathrooms.

Now she's a hypocite and an idiot. How will she do in a debate vs. Trump? Trump just says stuff like all Mexicans are rapists and we have to deport all the Muslims to Islam. He sounds too simple. No wonder why ISIS supports Trump.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@Strangerland Americans do not make muslims in the outsiders. If you don't think that Trump calling for a registry of Muslims, and saying that any relatives of those American Muslims should be banned outright for being Muslim creates disaffected outsiders, you're kidding yourself.

Attacks in the US by muslims did not start with Trump's proposals. You are putting the cart before the horse.

...and it would be nice if we could get along and sing kumbaya and all guns would just disappear.

"And if it's such an equalizer, then why are 50 people dead in Florida?"

Can't be an equalizer if it is in only one side of the equation.

For someone who loves using the word "bigot", you sure are not very tolerant of people who have views that differ frim your own.

@Launa He had two licenses to own firearms, each requiring a background check and a job as a security guard which also requires a background check. Each of these should have, if done properly, turned up the information now being reported about him. Coworkers reported him to their employer which shpuld have resulted in his employer and the authorities knowing what we now know about him.

With his history this should have lost his security job and firearm licenses if, and I believe they were, they were issued inconjuction to his security position. This in turn should have red flagged him for futher investigation. But he somehow passed these background checks.

Additionally, he pased the National Instant Background Check System because he didn't have a criminal record. Not the first to do so either, yet we keep hearing how Federal background checks are essential to public safety.

"And don't forget that idol who was gunned downed".

Don't forget that idol who was stabbed here in Japan. The attacker in the Florida case would have used a knife to attack her if he was denied a gun.

@Nishikat Machine guns are a bit harder to handle than semiautos. they take a little more practice to keep the muzzle level, otherwise the shooter would be shooting up the ceiling. And they use a lot more ammo, which weighs a lot more. These are also factors in the fact that they ate not used for mass killings. BTW, how many machine gun attacks before registration of them was required?

And you are ignoring the main reason for the second amendment.

What has the US done after 9/11 that has made the US safer? It should be common knowledge that if all the current security measures regarding passengers were in place on that day that it would not have stopped the attack.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And the idiot father says it has nothing to do with religion. Moron.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

People keep attacking the Father and ex-Wife, but in reality they are both very good people. This shooter guy had a temper (anger), used steroids, registered Democrat etc. -lot's of issues there.

https://youtu.be/TSMR6TCdDQY (Ex-Wife is a total humanist = good person). If a good Wife like that cannot change a person -no one can.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Attacks in the US by muslims did not start with Trump's proposals.

No, they have been around a lot longer, but in full force since 9-11. Trump is just making things even worse.

But I see you managed to completely avoid the fact that hatred of Muslims disenfranchises them.

For someone who loves using the word "bigot", you sure are not very tolerant of people who have views that differ frim your own.

Of course I'm not tolerant of bigotry. Bigotry deserves no tolerance.

With his history this should have lost his security job and firearm licenses if, and I believe they were, they were issued inconjuction to his security position. This in turn should have red flagged him for futher investigation. But he somehow passed these background checks.

Yep - and yet the gun nuts think that there should be no increases in gun control - even after a tragedy like this.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

If a good Wife like that cannot change a person -no one can.

What about a religion?

And the idiot father says it has nothing to do with religion. Moron.

A moron indeed. Let's all remember. Islam is a peaceful and loving religion. Ask Tashfeen Malik too, who was a "devout" muslim, she's laffing her ass off somewhere in Hell.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

badsey3: "I don't think the NRA has any effect of gun law on FBI "terrorist" suspects."

The NRA has not allowed any legislation that would give the FBI and other watch groups the power to put people they suspect of terrorism on lists that would not allow them to purchase guns. This guy, despite being on watch lists, had the "gawd given right!" to buy guns thanks to the NRA and gun nutters.

"@Smith (again) You are a pro-Syrian War person (you have tapered off some) even though you were against the War in Iraq (smart). Why do you continue to support/fund politically the destruction of Syria and its' people by "terrorist", "rebel moderate" and now "militia" groups using these same weapons you say you are against. "

I have never, EVER said anything towards the war in Syria, or any war for that matter, in terms of support. Ever. So, either you have me mistaken with someone else, or else you are just unable to read comments; likely the latter, given some of your posts on here today. So, bye bye credibility. Pro-Syria war! haha. Hilarious! Feel free to show me a SINGLE post where I have condoned the war in Syria, though.

"Are you just waiting for the new Democrat (and Republican) political declaration/direction. If you are truly anti-gun you should also be against these "Wars", anti-military Abe, anti-military Okinawa, anti-Obama sabre rattling (Ukraine/Russia/NK/Venezuela/Iran)."

I am anti-war, plain and simple, and anti-military Abe, and anti-military Okinawa (they can't leave yet, though, because of the threats from China, NK, etc.). As for the "Anti-Obama sabre rattling", that's just more BS. No one did more sabre-rattling than Obama's predecessor, not to mention illegal war starting (notice how I still call it that? because it still is, and again I am very much against war). How on earth has he been sabre-rattling?

bass4funk: "logical reasoning is not their forte."

Says the guy who thinks having 24 guns is 'normal'.

"He wants radical jihadist Islamists out, as do most Americans. That's not a hatred of Muslims, that's a hatred of radical Islam. Why liberals always conflate the two?"

Was this guy radical Islam before this, or only now that he's done it? How would you know whom to kick out, and whom to bar entry from? The guy was American -- you can't kick him out or keep him out.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Strangerland "Attacks in the US by muslims did not start with Trump's proposals. No, they have been around a lot longer, but in full force since 9-11. Trump is just making things even worse. But I see you managed to completely avoid the fact that hatred of Muslims disenfranchises them." Evidence that Trump is making it worse? Again, they feel disenfranchised only if they don't wish to assimulate. "For someone who loves using the word "bigot", you sure are not very tolerant of people who have views that differ frim your own. Of course I'm not tolerant of bigotry. Bigotry deserves no tolerance. " LOL "With his history this should have lost his security job and firearm licenses if, and I believe they were, they were issued inconjuction to his security position. This in turn should have red flagged him for futher investigation. But he somehow passed these background checks. Yep - and yet the gun nuts think that there should be no increases in gun control - even after a tragedy like this." The only way to legally increase gun control is via a Constitutional Convention. Your continued attack on those you lable "gun nuts", a rather bigoted view I might add, and calling for more gun control is nothing more than a red herring. Unless, you are advocating breaking the law. In which case, different issues must be taken stock of. The system is bad and the only solution, in your mind, is to deny law abiding citizens the right to defend thenselves. @SmithinJapan Lots of people who have nothing to do with terror find themselves on no fly lists. The bureaucrats have conclusively shown that they are incompetent and I for one, am not going to trust incompetent bureaucrats with deciding who can and can not exercise any of their rights. The best chance any single individual has of surviving a situation like this is being sufficiently armed to end the attack. Not a guarantee by any measure but by far the best chance.

@Nishikat H. Clinton is a criminal and should be in prison and yet you support her?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

https://youtu.be/N4KbAHBHAv8 (6:00)

His Father is quite an amazing person: White House and State Department photo ops, own YouTube channel etc.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The best chance any single individual has of surviving a situation like this is being sufficiently armed to end the attack.

So with all the gun-wielding heroes out there, why did it take the SWAT to end this lone terrorist?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I personally can see Trump making a deal for restrictions on semi automatic weapons in return for tighter immigration controls much more easily than Clinton getting Congress to go along with gun control, never mind border control which she isn't even going to try.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

So with all the gun-wielding heroes out there, why did it take the SWAT to end this lone terrorist?

Because the average armed Joe Shmoe might crap his pants when the gunfire erupted.

SWAT are highly trained and motivated. They live for those scenarios. Plus SWAT officers make big bucks, when all they really do is train and stay fit, & train more. Think about it. They're not deployed into "hot spots" every other day. Only once in a while.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's a shame to take advantage of this and justify a political stand of any kind.

I just remember from 911, papers on every windows around my house in NY, on which it said "These colors don't run". Now even though I'm not a gay, the rainbow colors don't run too.

This is the time to come back to principals, not for political this and that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Liz: I personally can see Trump making a deal for restrictions on semi automatic weapons in return for tighter immigration controls much more easily than Clinton getting Congress to go along with gun control, never mind border control which she isn't even going to try.

I agree to an extent. However the Left will also have to throw in an acknowledgement that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. I do not know if the far Left has it in them to do that. The reason gun owners and Constitutionalists will not support Obama and Clinton on gun rights is because they do not believe in the right to bear arms - plain and simple. Obama has stated that he prefers Australians confiscation law but he isn't willing to seek a Constitutional amendment to make it happen.

To the American Left, the Constitution is simply an impediment to social control (social justice) because it gives power to each individual citizen and not to government experts. They also want to limit other sections of the Bill of Rights - most prominently the freedom of speech and religion. Their idea of a "living Constitution" makes the document meaningless. That way of thinking is hugely polarizing in today's America.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I guess I'm one of the smart people. I don't think I need to invest in a firearm.... I think the money would be better invested in body armor/bulletproof vests. That way the only person at fault is the person with the gun. And my survivability from being shot at goes much higher than owning a gun for "self protection". I survive the shooting, the gun-owner (legal or illegal) will have a lot of splainin' to do!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The best chance any single individual has of surviving a situation like this is being sufficiently armed to end the attack.

Maybe for someone trained in using a firearm at close quarters. Otherwise you run the risk of collateral damage as well as drawing the shooters attention to you.

For the average club goer the best bet would be to hit the deck, locate the source of the threat and then, while maintaining visual contact, maneuver (crawl) to take advantage of any available cover. The main thing is to not draw attention to yourself and be aware of the shooter at all times.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You make a good point. But the blacks and latino gang members have been constantly killing each other, on a consistent basis, too. Tell me, do rednecks shoot up other rednecks? Isn't black-on-black crime more notorious in america than say, white-on-white crime?

The reasons Rednecks don't shoot up other rednecks is they are to drugged up on moonshine, prescription pills and heroine. The news papers fell to report this and if they did people like you would refuse to believe it because you are a redneck yourself living in the OC. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-16/drugs-white-americas-painkiller-problem-is-getting-worse there is not a posting that comes out where you have to blame Hispanics and blacks you have entire REDNECK towns wiped out by heroine. White people have a painkiller problem. According to new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, painkiller overdoses accounted for almost 17,000 deaths in 2011. The majority of deaths were among whites, at a rate that’s growing faster than for any other racial group. I bet you are missing your front teeth too!!

Mexicans too. La "eme" (surrenos) vs Nuestra Familia (notenos). You obviously don't know a lot about guns. AR-15's? Gangbangers love the AK-47. Higher caliber, fully automatic and accurate up to 250-300 meters. Far more effective than an AR-15, depending on your objective.

You are funny you are I own and built several AR-15's so how can you tell me I don't know anything about guns so idiotic statement right there says you don't know what you are talking about. Personally you are sick everything that comes out of your mouth has a negative connotation its either adding insults to Mexicans and Blacks or commenting about how cute a JP women is or downing JP men!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Your best AK47 clone is the Czech VZ58 aka VZ2000 (CZ) but none of the parts (even magazines) will fit the standard AK47/74 etc.

-Most soft body armor will only stop 9mm, 45cal. You will most likely have some ceramic/metal plates to stop .223 (ar15) and 7.62x39 (AK) and just the shock of those rounds can do damage. A serious round like .270 or 30.06 will go thru most armor and many steels. Even a hot pistol round like 7.62x25, .22 TCM, .357, 44mag will most likely get excellent penetration in body armor. = Body armor only helps, but it keeps getting better. Have seen some dyneema and kevlar backpacks and suitcases that look legit for .223 and maybe 7.62x39

The .223 round shoot flatter (less arc) at a higher velocity and is lighter. You may want that over a 7.62x39mm

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ZaphodJUN. 13, 2016 - 11:08AM JST How about looking in the mirror and checking your own argument? Either people`s beliefs matter, or they do not. In case of Republicans (or NRA members, or any other of your pet hate groups), you completely insist that beliefs matter. You disagree with the belief, so you have no problem condemning the believers.

This is quite simply a lie. I have never insisted that any group of people are bad because of their beliefs about guns. I don't care about people's beliefs. A responsible gun owner who obeys sensible gun laws and doesn't pay NRA lobbyists to obstruct government discussion of rational regulations is just as fine to me as a Muslim who spends their life not practicing violence. I care about facts and reality. The reality is, the US has both laxer gun laws and more gun violence than any other post-modern economy.

But your attempt to invent hypocrisy where none existed may reveal the real tension that underlies this whole argument: I don't recall anyone who is now insisting that the US must "do something" about Muslims making the same demand for Adam Lanza's group when he used his AR-15 to gun down 20 school children. Mass-violence is endemic in America, and yet the people who are now suddenly insisting something needs to be done about Muslims never had much to say when it was non-Muslims murdering scores of Americans. The tension we're seeing is the tension between groups of people who define their morality by the group they see themselves as a member of, and people who define morality by the choices a person takes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Lizz

This guy was the most gun control compliant mass murderer in history, clearing background checks, medical examination, registration and dozens of hours of mandated training but being Muslim he was once again let off the hook by employers and the FBI.

Extremely well stated. Its puzzling to see 'leaders' like Clinton calling for more gun control when this creep is a walking, talking advertisement for the abject failure of so-called gun control legislation.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Extremely well stated. Its puzzling to see 'leaders' like Clinton calling for more gun control when this creep is a walking, talking advertisement for the abject failure of so-called gun control legislation.

Considering the lack of gun-control legislation, this guy is a walking talking advertisement for the inevitable result of a lack of gun-control legislation.

He just proved, without a doubt, that it's too easy to buy guns in America. Something anyone with any sense already knew, is even more blatantly clear than ever.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@therougou "The best chance any single individual has of surviving a situation like this is being sufficiently armed to end the attack"

"So with all the gun-wielding heroes out there, why did it take the SWAT to end this lone terrorist?" The question answers itself. None of the people targeted were carrying.

Somewhere up thread s.o. stated that guns do not save lives and cited a stat that there were only 500 justifiable homicides in a given year. Nonsense. First, at least 500 lives were saved. If a family member of a family of four killed a home invader, then in that one case four lives were saved. But, does the assailant need to be killed to save the life of the would be victim? How many lives were saved by wounding the assailant? How many attacks were averted by the mere presence of a firearm with out even a shot being fired?

@Kuya 808 Why do you assume a gun owner has no training? Can one get a driver's license with out demonstrating the ability to drive. Rights have resposibilities. One who exercises the right of gun ownership has the responsibility to learn how to use it.

If one finds themself in a similar situation, there are no good options, just less bad. the least bad is to drop, draw, acquire target, fire. 53 people died using your method. 53. It would have been less if there were armed people inside the club. Bouncers, for example.

As for the story earlier about the armed citizen who returned fire at a shooter at a mall. Yes, he drew fire to himself and was hit multiple times. But, he is alive and the bullets that wounded him might have kilked other people becuase the shooter would not have been distracted from shooting unarmed targets. Lives were saved by this armed citizen, perhaps even his own.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If Trumps ban was in place (ohh lets say at the beginning of the Reagan Administration) these islamic terrorists like Tashfeen, Omar Mateen and Boston Marathon Bomber wouldn't have happened. Trump is the simple man with (too) simple ideas that won't work even though simple people enjoy listening to Trump and getting excited. Like his 10B dollar wall....where you only need a 10 dollar ladder....or a 5 dollar shovel. Sometimes the solution to something expensive and complicated is an old-tech item invented centuries ago. So take your pick- a ladder or a shovel.

People seem to forget in the future it is projected that the number of Asian immigrants to the USA will outnumber the Hispanic ones.

Also, regarding Trump's ban. In case anyone didn't notice Islam is NOT a country.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Strangerland

Gun control legislation is illegal. Only a Constitutional Convention can legally accomplish what you wish. Except, even after said convention, guns won't just disappear. The bad guys will keep theirs and the good guys will be easy, unarmed targets.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Gun control legislation is illegal

Ridiculous. Gun control already exists, it's just not nearly to the degree it should be.

And even if a constitutional convention is necessary, then one should be enacted.

even after said convention, guns won't just disappear. The bad guys will keep theirs and the good guys will be easy, unarmed targets.

Where exactly do you think the bad guys get their guns? They were originally legal at one point. If you make guns illegal, and put down harsh penalties for possession, it won't take long for them to be severely diminished. The huge portion of the law-abiding population would give theirs up, rather than become criminals themselves, and then the bulk of the rest would disappear over the next few years as police find and confiscate them. With no replacements from legal guns, the criminals also would have less and less guns.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Strangeland:

" If you make guns illegal, and put down harsh penalties for possession, it won't take long for them to be severely diminished. The huge portion of the law-abiding population would give theirs up, rather than become criminals themselves, and then the bulk of the rest would disappear over the next few years "

Oh really now. Like in Europe with its strong gun laws? So Paris, Brussels, Copenhagen etc. never happened, right?

I am pretty agnostic about the American gun debate, but this slogan of the regressive left that a US government can make guns disappear by legislation is simply ridiculous.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ridiculous. Gun control already exists, it's just not nearly to the degree it should be.

We know, we know. Big Brother never has enough control. Amend the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and then come back and talk about actually doing something about the issue. Anything short of that does not advance your cause in the least bit. Unless of course you believe that the foundational law of a country should be optional. The US Constitution is only a "living document" if the process to amend it is utilized. Otherwise it is law by the whims of the mob. This isn't Australia where guns can be confiscated by simple legislation. The Bill of Rights cannot just be whittled away based on the passions of it's most vocal opponents.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Guns have never been allowed in the hands of the citizen in Japan and yet gun crime is not zero in Japan.

Prisons in the US are packed with people caught in possesion of illegal drugs. Bad guys get guns in Europe in violation of European law.

Reality disproves your theory.

Gun control does exist to a certain extent, yes. Some of it follows the law, some of it is under legal discussion. Banning fire arms can not be legally legislated. If you believe that a Constitutional Convention is neccessary, hop to it. Get the ball rolling.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Guns have never been allowed in the hands of the citizen in Japan

You are mistaken. Japanese citizens are permitted to possess firearms for hunting and sport shooting, but only after going through a lengthy licensing procedure.

It's nice living in a place where the likelihood of getting shot is very close to zero. It is a shame those killed in the US do not have that chance.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh really now. Like in Europe with its strong gun laws? So Paris, Brussels, Copenhagen etc. never happened, right?

You obviously haven't looked at the per-capita shooting deaths in these countries as compared with the USA.

An anecdote doth not a statistic make.

I am pretty agnostic about the American gun debate, but this slogan of the regressive left that a US government can make guns disappear by legislation is simply ridiculous.

You know, other than the fact that it's the truth. But admitting it would mean taking away guns, and this is akin to taking away life and liberty in the United States of Assault Rifles.

We know, we know. Big Brother never has enough control.

Ahh, the old 'moderation is bad because of an extreme' argument.

Amend the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and then come back and talk about actually doing something about the issue.

That would be the best thing for all involved. You seem to think I and other anti-gunners have a problem with amending the 2nd amendment.

Guns have never been allowed in the hands of the citizen in Japan and yet gun crime is not zero in Japan.

Care to provide some numbers? I bet not, because if you did, you would realize just how ridiculous this comment is. Gun crime is not zero, so therefore everyone and anyone should be allowed to have guns? Yeah, right.

Prisons in the US are packed with people caught in possesion of illegal drugs.

Drugs and guns are not equivalent. People want drugs, like really want drugs, and physically cannot stop themselves from doing them. Guns are a steel phallus for gun lovers. Yet most gun lovers would prefer to stay within the bounds of the law, and would not be willing to be put in jail for possession of a gun. Drugs are different.

Bad guys get guns in Europe in violation of European law.

In countries with gun control, the numbers are not even comparable to the US.

Any more apples you'd like to compare with interstellar objects that aren't even shaped like an orange?

Reality disproves your theory.

Reality disproves your ridiculous arguments.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Tell me, do rednecks shoot up other rednecks? Isn't black-on-black crime more notorious in america than say, white-on-white crime?

@Misunderstood, oh you seem to have forgotten the motorcycle gang violence. Hell's angels is just the most recognized group though. It's there, you just preferred not to see it. They're as equally thug life as the best of 'em.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

To 2A extremists: Don't you feel infringed from not being able to have military grade weaponry? Isn't the NRA's stance left on this? Because many hate the NRA for being left for not pushing for the enabling of military grade weapon ownership among common citizens. Don't you think so? I would if I were you. Nothing to say about that?

Anyway, machine guns have to be strictly registered and none have been used in a mass murder. So will semi autos like Glocks and ARs. I would push for that.

Go Hillary because Trump just says more guns.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Backscratcher

Yes, shotguns for hunting with the attendant paper work is allowed. As it is for a citizen own a hand gun, but it must be stored under lock and key in the shooting club the citizen is a member of, never kept in the home. But it is not a right, it is a strictly controled privledge of a very, very, very few.

There are exception to every rule.

These legally owned fire arms in Japan are not the source for most of the gun crime in Japan. The only case I am aware of, there may be more especially further back, is when a licensed hunter, who had a history of mental issues, took his shotgun to a fitness center and killed a few people there.

@Strangerland

People are not statistics. Yes, the percapita rate of fire arm death is higher in the US. So what? Are dead French apples and dead Americans oranges? Those people killed by illegal guns in Europe are just as dead as those killed in the US. It being impossible to wish guns away, the only way to protect oneself from such an occurance is to be able to match one's attacker force to force. And it is not truth that you legislate guns away in a nation that already has such a huge number of them. It is not any more true that they can be legislated away than it is that drugs can be legislated away. And again, Congress does have the legal authority to legislate drugs away but it does not have the legal authority to legislate guns away.

But, since you have a fetish for stats, try this. http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

You want to amend the Constitution, what's stopping you? Get to work. Put you money where your mouth is.

What numbers on gun crime do you want, and why? You argue that Forida would have happened if guns were banned. Unless it is demonstratable that banning guns reduces crime to zero, it can not be said that Florida could not have happened. But this focus on only preventing gun crime is really telling. What has happened to violent crime against women in Australia after they banned guns? How about assaults involving blunt objects and broken beer bottles in the UK? Just a couple of examples. Why do you not research to see if the desired outcome is achieved where the policies you support have been put in place? Or, do you just not care about violent crime unless it involves a gun?

In recent news in Japan, a man broke into his girlfriend's house, killed her, her father and seriously injured her mother before killing himself. That family had no hope what so ever of defending themselves. The police were called during the attack and they could not protect this family. The Japanese people have not taken it upon themselves to force their government to allow them to protect themselves. Fine, it is their country. If they want it bad enough, they will earn that right.

Americans have taken it upon themselves and at great expense to secure the right of self defence. The only way to protect oneself and family in such a situation is with a fire arm. The only way to end an active shooter's killing is with a fire arm. Here is what a couple of experts say about the Florida attack. "It could have been over with one round, in the first couple of seconds,” said Henrichs. He noted that several officers appear to have engaged the terrorist—who was not wearing body armor—ineffectively. Unlike the pistol-armed officer who took on two rifle-armed terrorists in Garland, Texas last year, before a responding SWAT officers finished them off, the officers here were ineffective at stopping the attack as it began. “Poor marksmanship allowed this to take place.”

“Your average beat cop doesn’t get training they need for these kind of situations.” She went on to note that citizens who are serious about defensive firearms training often spend a great deal of time and money becoming much more proficient than most police officers, and that “someone with active shooter training might have made a difference” at any point during the attack.

She made very clear to point out that better shooting from the law enforcement officers outside of the club or even hypothetical concealed carriers were not a perfect solution, but would have likely great reduced the number of dead and wounded."

Undeniable truths. If someone in the office of Charlie Hebdo had been armed, far fewer would have died in that office that day. If someone at the concert in Paris was armed, far fewer would have died that day. If someone was armed during the Fort Hood shootings, far fewer would have died that day. If someone had been armed at that nightclub in Florida, far fewer would have died that day.

Don't throw out that "if guns were banned" nonsense. They aren't and can not be in the US and as demonstrated in Europe and the no gun zones in the US, have the exact opposite effect of what you want.

People are not statistics. Each and every victim of all these deserved the right and the ability to protect themselves. And you favor continued denial of those who do not have this right and the denial of this right of those who currently have it, citing statistics as justification. Sick. Especially when statistics show that mass shooting are FAR more likely to occure in gun free zones.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What's the problem (in the USA). You have always had the right to own at home. I understand you can never leave the USA since you would be afraid to be without your gun 24/7 and you cannot have a gun in other countries. If you could bring your guns with you anywhere in the world would you travel to other countries?

Don't you feel unsafe since you are unable to own military grade weaponry? Because that is what you need if someone is coming after you with an AR. What say you?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Kuya 808 Why do you assume a gun owner has no training? Can one get a driver's license with out demonstrating the ability to drive. Rights have resposibilities. One who exercises the right of gun ownership has the responsibility to learn how to use it.

I didn't say that. What I said was that unless a person is proficient in the use of a firearm, returning fire might not be the best option. If a patron of this nightclub was indeed proficient in close quarters combat then by all means go for it. But.... and I will go out on a limb here, I will make the assumption that the average club goer at the Pulse was not a trained pistol fighter. The unfortunate thing is that a lot of people who exercise their right of gun ownership don't live up to their responsibility to receive proper training. If gun ownership was contingent on a demonstration of skills then your comparison to a drivers license would be germane, but the reality is that in many jurisdictions that is not the case.

53 people died using your method

More likely they were gunned down in the mad scramble to escape and not for taking active measures to increase their chances of survival. A properly wielded firearm is a very effective tool for stopping an incident like this but in lieu of that, a cool head and situational awareness can be equally effective in surviving it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A properly wielded firearm is a very effective tool for stopping an incident like this Lakewood Washington four cops gunned down. They were quite trained. What happened? If four cops could not stop this what could we expect a bunch of partiers- many drunk?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Nishikat, read my post up thread. Many cops ARE not properly trained.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Nishikat, read my post up thread. Many cops ARE not properly trained. Again FOUR cops and one gunman.

Should teens under 18 be allowed to carry guns?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Kuya88

How about the bouncers, waiters/waitresses, the people behind the bar? None of them should have been drinking and should know the layout of the venue very well

But even without being too terribly profivient, or even not at all, the patrons having a firearm would have given them a fighting chance. I lost track of it, but one of the victims, a man with the last name of Justice hid in a bathroom stall for at least 33 minutes tweeting his mother. His last tweet, "I'm going to die." If he had a gun, he would have had a fighting chance, especially as he was in a location that allowed him ambush advantage over his attacker. No fighting chance with out a gun, he perished.

@Nishikat

"What's the problem (in the USA). You have always had the right to own at home. I understand you can never leave the USA since you would be afraid to be without your gun 24/7 and you cannot have a gun in other countries. If you could bring your guns with you anywhere in the world would you travel to other countries?"

I have tried twice to answer this, but the mods won't let me. It seems that talking about self defense in the abstract is not off topic while giving real life personal experience is.

You ask if people under 18 sould be allowed to carry fire arms? When my father was a child, he was on his public schools pistol team. Gun safety used to be taught in at least some public schools in the US in the 50's. Not a lot of school shootings during that age either.

Age for carry would be the same for licensing for ownership and use, which is set by each state. In my state, the minimum age depends on the type of firearm. I bought my first at age 16. Wouldn't think of carrying it except to my friend's target range and to reenactments.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

When my father was a child, he was on his public schools pistol team. No, I'm talking about for reliable teen like 16 (who has no juvenile record and is in good standing in society and a good student). Should they be able to carry like an adult?

It's just amazing that people are so paranoid about not having a gun like their lives depend on it then they come to Japan. They then blast "liberals" who want workable gun control. But then they move to a country with NO guns, except for hunting.

But really, those semi autos have got to go. There is almost no practical reason to have them for regular citizens.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So what, four cops taken out by one gunman. The people trapped in the nightclub Sunday morning had absolutely no chance to survive, none. Having their own gun with them would have given them a fighting chance.

"No, I'm talking about for reliable teen like 16 (who has no juvenile record and is in good standing in society and a good student). Should they be able to carry like an adult?" Depends upon the state. "It's just amazing that people are so paranoid about not having a gun like their lives depend on it then they come to Japan. " You misread the situation. It is not that we need to have one with us at times like people seem to need their cell phones, we understand what not being allowed to own them means. We know that there are bad folks in the world and that any other than the most totalitarian of governments are unable to eradicate them, such a government has not yet been foisted upon a nation but I know I would not want to be under it.

They then blast "liberals" who want workable gun control".

There is no such thing as "workable" gun control. How many more have to die like sheep because they are denied the ability to defend themselves as liberals continue to experiment? Most gun control attempts have not only failed but failed miserably. Just take a look at Chicago, or France. " But then they move to a country with NO guns, except for hunting." Thus being shot does not concern me. But I would like to be able to defend myself from the next Mr, Kato. Knives kill you just as dead as a gun. I have a really good reason for wanting the right to bear arms here in Japan but the mods won't let me post it.

"But really, those semi autos have got to go. There is almost no practical reason to have them for regular citizens."

You continue to ignore the primary reason for the second amendmendment, which is to protect the citizens from their own government when it grows abusive. You really must study what brought about the British colonist in America breaking away from their government and the reasons for the Constitution and each of the original ten amendments.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Depends upon the state. yes, or no, should 16-year olds be allowed to conceal carry. It's a simple question

they are denied the ability to defend themselves Do you always carry when you enter the USA?

Clinton is a criminal No, she's not and you can't prove it. I bet you can't make a convincing argument or prove it. She is a great American. Do you actually believe in Trump's wall?

Nishikat Machine guns are a bit harder to handle No, very easy to handle. No, there are mini guns that are portable enough. Wrong

"protect the citizens from their own government" Then why are you in Japan? Someone could attack and kill you any moment. But even so a semi auto is laughable compared to what the government has

Other than killing many gays in a nightclub what good are semi autos for?

OK, I understand that you think there should be no gun laws and just buy then like socks at Walmart.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@nishikat "Depends upon the state. yes, or no, should 16-year olds be allowed to conceal carry. It's a simple question." And it is a simple answer. If the citizens of a state say "yes", then in that state, yes. If the citizens of another state say "no", then in that state, no. "they are denied the ability to defend themselves Do you always carry when you enter the USA? " No, but I would if I felt I needed to. For example, when we bought our house in Japan, we had to hand carry ¥1,000,000 in cash for the deposit to the realtor's office in an area we were not at all familiar with. An area that was a lot more run down and darker than any I had ever seen before or since. I would have liked very much to have been packing under those circumstances. But again, you are missing the point. Having the right to do so does not mean that we must exercise that right. Having a right means that I can exercise the right whenever I choose. Not having the right means that I can not choose to do so. But regardless, the only legal way to change it is through a Constitutional Convention. If you feel stongly enough about it, get to work.

"Clinton is a criminal No, she's not and you can't prove it. I bet you can't make a convincing argument or prove it. " Have you read any of the documents released by the State Dept. relating to her server. The server was illegal. Using personal email for government work is illegal, and she did just that. Many of her emails on her private server have not been released by the State Dept. because they are classified, a big time major crime.

" Do you actually believe in Trump's wall?" Do you lock your door at night?

"Nishikat Machine guns are a bit harder to handle No, very easy to handle. No, there are mini guns that are portable enough. Wrong" Have you ever fired a machine gun? A lot less easy to keep the muzzle on target than a semi auto. I do not have a lot of experience with machine guns, but do have a bit with firearms in general. Depends a lot in what you are loading, but I often find that the muzzels of heavier guns do not rise as far off target as with lighter guns. And yes, some machine guns may be portsble, but as the fire more bullets you need to carry more bullets. Bullets ain't light. If you were to read battle histories, you will often find passages concerning ammo depletion in battle. Often quite early in the fight, a unit finds itself not only pinned down but low on ammo and volunteers run through a hail of bullets to fetch ammo. As a child, I always wondered why they just didn't carry more ammo with them. After all, isn't putting massive amount of lead on target what they are there for? Then I had an opportunity to get fitted out in full combat gear with a full battle issue of rounds. Bullets are heavy. Unless the shooter wanted to run out of ammo very early having put large numbers of bullets into each of his targets, he would have to be very disaplined in his firing, which would be much like using his machine gun as a semi auto, our carry a hell of a lot of bullets which would weigh him down conciderably. If I were to carry something like that out, and I am NOT, I would prefer a semi auto. ""protect the citizens from their own government" Then why are you in Japan? " Came for a short stay and now I am pretty much stuck here. Someone could attack and kill you any moment. But even so a semi auto is laughable compared to what the government has" Then we should have more fire power. Other than killing many gays in a nightclub what good are semi autos for? Home Defense aganst any intruder, Defense against any attacker, shooting targets. "OK, I understand that you think there should be no gun laws and just buy then like socks at Walmart." There was a lot less violent crime in the US when this was true.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

How many murders have you witnessed in Japan? Just that one?

OK, so you think that teens should be allowed to carry just like adults. How old minimum. 15? Not about the law but about what you think.

Came for a short stay and now I am pretty much stuck here. You must feel naked without your guns.

Have you read any of the documents released by the State Dept have you seen any handcuffs on her. When I see that i will be convinced. I am not convinced from what you said.

Do you lock your door at night? Yes, but all you need is a ladder. Trump's wall is a joke. 10B$ wall? Just get a 10 dollar ladder. Old tech invented centuries ago will make Trump's wall useless.

Home Defense aganst any intruder How about Japan?

What do you think of metal storm technology in a handgun?

Do you always carry when you enter the USA? " No, but I would if I felt I needed to. Then you would have died in that Orlando nighclub.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Just get a 10 dollar ladder. Old tech invented centuries ago will make Trump's wall useless.

And only 10 cents per bullet for Border Patrol Agents to shoot them as they breach over the line. Wouldn't that be nice, if it were legal. They'd prob stay put in Mexico though . . . where they belong.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And only 10 cents per bullet for Border Patrol Agents to shoot them as they breach over the line.

Yep, if there is anything a 10 year old child trying to sneak over the border for a better life deserves, it's a bullet between the eyes, so they can lie on the ground with their brains oozing out into the sand. Summary execution FTW!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

And only 10 cents per bullet for Border Patrol Agents to shoot them as they breach over the line Murder! You want them to murder children just trying to escape from Central America. Is that correct?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

First of all, my sincere condolences go out to the families and friends of all people to lost their lives during this shooting. However, they say this is the largest terrorist attack ever in the US. Can we go back in History for minute.... I am sure when the founding fathers were taking away the land from the natives, they slaughtered and killed way more people and they would have be considered terrorist from the natives Point of View. Also how many slaves were killed by the "masters" and slave traders not but 300 or 400 years ago. Now about the Guns, the fact is without a repeal or an amendment to the Bill of Rights, the guns will never be outlawed: "Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This is what it always comes back to. Now regulations on sales and registration could be implemented but until each state passes the same regulations or law, you just need to go to another state and buy any gun you want. And since here in Japan, there are no guns, you must know that the blackmarket in the US has many guns and even better than the police guns so it is very easy to get any kind of gun if you really want one.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I am sure when the founding fathers were taking away the land from the natives, they slaughtered and killed way more people and they would have be considered terrorist from the natives Point of View. Too bad American Indians didn't have the sophistication and guns of the white man.

the guns will never be outlawed You think it is impossible to invent a convenient machine machine gun? How about a grenade launcher? Those are pretty portable. And what do you think of future electronic guns and metal storm technology with guided bullets (much more deadly than today's semi autos). Should they be on the open market for consumers?

get any kind of gun if you really want one. Which country are you talking about now? Japan? Can I get a Milkor MGL? Can I get the same thing the military has?

And since here in Japan, there are no guns Why do you stay in Japan if you hate not having guns. I can understand if you are in prison, but are you really forced to stay here?

Should 15-year olds be allowed to carry like adults?

Hillary is a great person. People who say she belongs in jail just don't like her. She is not a criminal. BYT, do you think Obama was born in Kenya? Do you believe the Clintons murdered Vincent Foster?

As you said it was the fault of Pulse Nighclub customers because they didn't have guns. The only solution is more guns as you say.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Nishikat

"Do you lock your door at night? Yes, but all you need is a ladder. Trump's wall is a joke. 10B$ wall? Just get a 10 dollar ladder. Old tech invented centuries ago will make Trump's wall useless." Funds have been allocated to build a wall at the southern boarder long ago. It just has not been built yet. If walls and fences don't work, why is there one around the White House? I guess the Berlin wall was a joke too? In fact, most of what Trump has proposed to fight the invasion of illegals has actually been done before. President Eisenhower's policies agains illegal aliens caused millions to self deport. President Carter expelled ALL Iranians during the Iranian hostage crisis. Trump's proposals are neither extreme nor even unique. In fact, I just watched two videos of H. Clinton saying that see supports and voted to fund building physical barriers at the birder with Mexico and that she beleives we must secure our boarders.

If walls are useless then why this. "Security at the Sports Complex during the Democratic National Convention next month will include “no-scale fencing” to enclose the Wells Fargo Center and Xfinity Live!, the Secret Service special agent in charge said in an interview Thursday."?

"How many murders have you witnessed in Japan? Just that one?" WTF!?! Is one NOT ENOUGH for you!?!? Right next door to my house! You are insane. The perp comes to my front door weekly to deliver the kairanban! He killed his grandmother a month after his aunt died under the exact same circumstances! Police didn't protect the grandmother but they will my family!?!? You are way out in la la land.

"Came for a short stay and now I am pretty much stuck here. You must feel naked without your guns." You have nothing to base that statement upon. I do NOT feel naked without my guns and you are very wrong to suggest so. I DO, however, sometimes feel naked knowing that I am not protected by the rule of law.

"Have you read any of the documents released by the State Dept have you seen any handcuffs on her. When I see that i will be convinced. I am not convinced from what you said.". You have an unhealthy trust in the Justice system and a lack of independent thought. All you have to do is a little research into the laws pertaining to the handling of gov. info and the storage of the same and read what the State Dept. has released and it is as clear as the sun after a rain that laws have been broken. But you have no interest, so you will allow yourself to be misled by your prefered sources of misinformation.

Home Defense aganst any intruder How about Japan? Yes, it is insane that people here do not have he right to defend themselves in their own homes here. But it is because they have not earned that right. When a home is invaded, there are only two options, die or kill. In Japan, most die. Killing the intruder gets the home defender arrested in Japan. If my home is invaded, I will choose prison over my family's deaths. Americans have earned the right to protect themselves in their homes, though this right too has long been under assault.

"What do you think of metal storm technology in a handgun?" I have no idea what it is but unless it improves accuracy and or ease of use, I don't see the point.

"Do you always carry when you enter the USA? " No, but I would if I felt I needed to. Then you would have died in that Orlando nighclub."

Upon what do you base that false conjecture upon?

And yes, the only way to protect yourself if you are a situation like the Orlando attack, is to have a firearm. There is no other way. Wishing guns away does not make them go away.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

What is frightening about the US and its many gun advocates, as evidenced by those responding to this thread, is this belief that they have right to do whatever they want, whenever they want regardless of others and its impact on society.

This sense of entitlement reflects the high rates of violent crime in the US not to mention the psychopathic crimes committed by US military personnel based in Japan.

The 'right to bear arms' was enacted over 200yrs ago when firearms took 1 minute to load a single shot. It is woefully outdated and never intended for citizens to go on shooting sprees with military grade assault weapons.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It just has not been built yet. If walls and fences don't work, why is there one around the White House? It's not 2000 miles and guarding it with real people 24/7 is feasible. Again, take your pick- ladder or shovel. But if you want to 100% believe what Trump says go ahead.

The perp comes to my front door weekly to deliver the kairanban! The cops didn't arrest him?

do NOT feel naked without my guns But a murderer comes to your door every week.

No, Hillary won't be busted for anything. Of course she wasn't following perfect procedure but neither were the previous 5 Secretaries including Powell. Worst case she was advised poorly. No crime done. Do you still think that Obama should go to prison for 10 years? It's one thing if you don't like Hillary but if you think she is a criminal you are 100% wrong if there are no cuffs.

But it is because they have not earned that right. Can you explain?

If the nighclub attacker had attacked with a Milkor MGL grenade launcher no gun could have protected from that. Or if he had driven up in a pickup truck with a M2 Browning machine gun mounted on back he could have picked off many many more from a safe distance. Glock vs. Milkor MGL or Glock vs. AK 47. Really, those bar customers would have needed AK47s in order to have defeated that guy.

Sorry to hear you are scared to live in Japan without any guns. Especially with that killer coming to your house all the time and the cops won't do anything. No exit plan? I sure would. Looks like coming to Japan wasn't the best choice, was it?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@nishikat

The statements that Clinton's predecessors did the same have been debunked. The "procedure" she didn't follow is law. She broke the law. Here is a tweet on the topic from Snowden. "Break classification rules for the public's benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President."

It was the H. Clinton campaign that started the rumor that Obama was born in Kenya durring her last attempt to secure the Democrat party nomination.

There are 94 million Americans out of work, I am am sure that many would jump at the chance to be employed manning the wall. If the Chinese can bulid a 13,000 mile long wall 2000 years ago, I am sure we could figure out a way to get a 2000 mile long one done today. Besides, Clinton herself has said on multiple occasions that there should be a physical barrier at our southern boarder and has also said that she has voted to fund it while a senator. In reality, it doesn't need to be a wall the whole distance. Razor wire and the like and natural barriers could be effectively used for much of the distance.

"The perp comes to my front door weekly to deliver the kairanban! The cops didn't arrest him?" Would he still be able to deliver the kairanban to my home if he had been?

"do NOT feel naked without my guns But a murderer comes to your door every week." The lack of protection from the law makes me feel naked. And I am greatly offended by your mocking of a very real and dangerous situation that effe ts not only myself but my family.

"If the nighclub attacker had attacked with a Milkor MGL grenade launcher no gun could have protected from that. ". He was engaged by police officers as he went in. If he stopped to try to fire a grenade into the club, police would have had more time to stop him.

"Or if he had driven up in a pickup truck with a M2 Browning machine gun mounted on back he could have picked off many many more from a safe distance.". Other armed citizens would have been able to take him out from flank or rear as he would have been exposed.

"Glock vs. Milkor MGL or Glock vs. AK 47. Really, those bar customers would have needed AK47s in order to have defeated that guy. " Only if the rest of the public would have been unarmed.

@Nemrut Dagi

"The 'right to bear arms' was enacted over 200yrs ago when firearms took 1 minute to load a single shot. It is woefully outdated and never intended for citizens to go on shooting sprees with military grade assault weapons."

So what? The 1st amendment was written when hand written notes had to be rewritten then hand delivered to the hand set printing press and then sent out on foot, horse back and cart. The third amendment was written at a time when an official of the government would have to be physically quartered in a citizen's home to have access to their personal conversations. Should these also be abolished? If you think so, start working on a Constitutional Convention.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

the rumor that Obama was born in Kenya And you believe that and it frustrates you.

There are 94 million Americans out of work Yes, most are children and old people.

Sorry, not convincing. Clinton is not busted. Just like you thought all these years Obama would be arrested for his crimes in your imagination Clinton will never be. You are just reading false news about her. She's very clean.

The lack of protection from the law makes me feel naked. And I am greatly offended by your mocking of a very real and dangerous situation that effe ts not only myself but my family. Japan sounds like a ticking timebomb. Hurry! Discount tickets are going fast. Feel free to join the 94 million Americans out of work but at least you can reunite with your guns.

she has voted to fund it while a senator. Yes, and it didn't work then. It would be built on sacred India ground.

I am am sure that many would jump at the chance to be employed manning the wall. Who is going to pay for this? And how many snipers (and their spotters) will need to be lined up along the entire 2000 mile wall so they can shoot anyone who jumps over (with their ladder)?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, Hillary is free and clear.

Should portable rocket launchers be allowed for general ownership?

Wow, so amazing people hate Liberal gun grabbers who feel naked with no gun. I understand that. They never want to be in a gun free zone. But the really amazing thing is how they then go to a whole gun free country Japan. Boy if I was tethered to my gun like that 24/7 in the USA I would never come to Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"There are 94 million Americans out of work Yes, most are children and old people." No, that is the number of peole in the US who are of working age and fit to do so but are no longer receiving unemployment benefits due to the expiration of those benefits.

"Sorry, not convincing. Clinton is not busted. Just like you thought all these years Obama would be arrested for his crimes in your imagination Clinton will never be. "

Again, thank you for informing me of my beliefs.

"You are just reading false news about her. She's very clean." The White House Press Sec. has said that the investigstion into her server is a criminal investigation. You are right, however, that she will not be prosecuted but that will be due to politics and not the law.

"The lack of protection from the law makes me feel naked. And I am greatly offended by your mocking of a very real and dangerous situation that effe ts not only myself but my family. Japan sounds like a ticking timebomb. Hurry! Discount tickets are going fast. Feel free to join the 94 million Americans out of work but at least you can reunite with your guns." I am so glad that the murder of my neighbor provides you with so much amusement. You are one sick puppy. Again, you make assumptions about my emotional attachment to my guns that are not based upon fact and are incorrect.

"she has voted to fund it while a senator. Yes, and it didn't work then. It would be built on sacred India ground." Yet Trump is crazy for demanding it but Clinton is not for funding it?

"I am am sure that many would jump at the chance to be employed manning the wall. Who is going to pay for this? And how many snipers (and their spotters) will need to be lined up along the entire 2000 mile wall so they can shoot anyone who jumps over (with their ladder)?"

Who said anything about snipers? And, this seems to be new information to you, we have a border patrol agency that already patrols the boarder. A wall and fence used with natural barriers and and beefed up boarder patrol would do wonders to stem the flood of illegals across our southern boarder. What to you propose to solve the illegal immigration problem?

Forget that last question. As you continue to assign beliefs to me that I do not have and continue to mock the murder/s of my neighbors abd not provide any facts to discuss, I am done with you.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Wow, if I loved guns so much. In other words, if my life happiness was determined whether I could keep my gun with me even sleeping or in the toilet (did you ever watch the movie Unforgiven with Clint Eastwood? - you never know if you need that gun) I would check in advance if I could have a gun in any destination I go. It's like would you go to Japan if there was no Internet there? Of course not- then how on earth did you manage to get to Japan knowing you could not have any guns?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@M3M3M3)

*Regardless of what they may have done in the past, those who are 'slain in Allah's way' (killed while doing what god's work) go straight to paradise without and risk of ending up in hell [Quran (3:169-170)]

The last point is particularly disturbing. This is probably why so many suicide bombers/terrorists turn out to have a very chequered and un-Islamic past of criminality, drinking etc. I wouldn't be surprised if we discover the same thing in this case.*

This is an extremely important point and its been mentioned (and ignored) before. It also explains why many of the 9/11 terrorists were frequenting strip bars and visiting prostitutes before they "martyrd" themselves for Allah. Its instant forgiveness from Allah and a free pass to paradise for any muslim at any time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I am sure when the founding fathers were taking away the land from the natives, they slaughtered and killed way more people and they would have be considered terrorist from the natives

Yes, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, all the founding fathers were out shooting Indians. Right.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The guy planned to murder gay people. Don't think he wouldn't. He was on a mission to harm other humans. THAT is unacceptable.

The weapon used doesn't matter. He could have used many common utensils or vehicles with similar effect. Where is the call to ban all vehicles? More people are killed by vehicles in the USA than by firearms. Ban all vehicles! That would help more people than any gun control.

Knee jerk reactions don't help anyone.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

theFu: "The weapon used doesn't matter. He could have used many common utensils or vehicles with similar effect."

Yeah... ummmm... he could have killed 50 people and wounded 53 others with a fork and a spoon. Why stop there? Why not suggest that he would have also chucked cans of Chef Boyardee at them and done further collatoral damage than even guns could do, or that he could have crashed a hot air balloon into the bar?

"More people are killed by vehicles in the USA than by firearms. Ban all vehicles!"

Vehicles serve a purpose, and hence their name. Do tell us, what is the purpose of guns besides to kill? I dare you to start getting rid of those nasty and dangerous kitchen implements you mention, as well as your car, and start cutting your food and putting it in your mouth with a gun, and then sitting on it and trying to drag yourself across the ground to CostCo to buy some forks when you realize how stupid you've been in getting rid of your car, too.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

More people are killed by vehicles in the USA If there was no license and registration system there would be even more. Many more. Also, cars are getting safer with autonomous technology (in the future we can expect near zero deaths) while guns are getting more dangerous. Just like regulation and cars is important so is it with guns.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The weapon used doesn't matter. He could have used many common utensils or vehicles with similar effect.

That's such bizarre reasoning. This position is the most illogical and delusional of all. The items he chose to take in with him are exactly designed to kill as many people as they can with complete efficiency. Everything in their design is refined and carefully engineered to do so. It's what they exists to do. They are machines to kill with, and nothing else. It's why armies carry them into battle instead of an egg whisk, or carry them into battle as opposed to driving into battle in a Toyota Carolla. They are devastatingly efficient in serving their one, and only, purpose, they have no secondary purpose, and they are the sole reason people with mental issues, or extremist views, or whatever, can kill so efficiently and spectacularly in the United States.

Your view, your argument, is hard for people like me to believe. I have a very hard time understanding how you can convince yourself that there is any kind of sound reasoning it what you write, and what you think. From where I sit here, it's so spectacularly flawed that it is completely absurd. It's a nonsense.

But if this is a common, prevalent view amongst your fellow countrymen, then you are condemned to continue killing each other with spectacular efficiency for a long, long time.

Men kill. Men with gun kill more.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Smithinjapan

Guns do have a purpose. A woman weighing 125 has littke hope of fending off even an unarmed attack by a man weighing 225. The only hope for most women being attacked is to have a firearm close at hand. If the man is armed with a knife, even more so. If he is armed with a firearm, more so still.

The recent home invasion attack here in Japan is a great example. If they were allowed to have and had a firearm, then the death toll in that attack would have been fewer. Probably only the daughter and her attacker, and possibly just the attacker.

But no, heaven forbid law abiding citizens be allowed to defend themselves.

Guns are in the US in very large supply. Banning them will not make them dissapear. Besides, as I have stated many times, the legislature CAN NOT legally ban them. There is only one legal way to do so under US law and that is for the States to call a Constitutional Convention to repeal the second amendment. That is the Law in the US. Any talk of banning guns in the US ignores the legal realities of this, the second of the ten rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I am basically agnostic on the US debate on control, but I find it simply mind-boggling that the regressive left, starting from the top, manages to turn a discussion about islamic terrorism into an discussion on gun ownership. That is so bizarre on so many levels. For example scroll back to WW2. Imagine that the issue of the Nazi invasion of Europe was turned into a discussion about tanks. Tanks are the problem! Because the ideology motiving everyhting must not be discussed. Simply crazy. Seeing how many people fall for this does not make me optimistic.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The recent home invasion attack here in Japan is a great example. If they were allowed to have and had a firearm, then the death toll in that attack would have been fewer. Probably only the daughter and her attacker, and possibly just the attacker. Home invasions are very very rare in Japan. So rare they would make national news. Back west you have always had the right to have a gun in your house in the USA. But we are talking about making the future sales of semi autos.

But no, heaven forbid law abiding citizens be allowed to defend themselves. But wow, if had such deep feelings about gun ownership I would never never live in Japan. I would rather be safe at home in the USA with my precious gun babies. Really! Why would someone who feared for their lives without being with their guns 24/7 not just visit but move to another country where you could not own a gun. It sounds like lack of safety planning.

If guns like the AR do so much damage their future sales should be outlawed. Politicians who have A ratings with NRA should be voted out. It shows Obama is a great president.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Nishikat:

" But wow, if had such deep feelings about gun ownership I would never never live in Japan. "

Are you seriously comparing the highly homegeneous Japanese society with high social coherence and strictly controlled borders with the US? I am rubbing my eyes.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Are you seriously comparing the highly homegeneous Japanese society with high social coherence and strictly controlled borders with the US? I am rubbing my eyes.

No, I am responding to the above poster. Why would someone who feels so vulnerable in a country that does not allow guns stay in such a country like in Japan. Also, please let me know why such deadly guns such as the one used in Orlando are necessary. Are they really practical?- I mean other than if you wanted to use them for mass murder. They are the mass murder's choice, it seems according to statistics. And these statistics show it is very difficult to off so many people if you didn't have such a deadly gun.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It was the worst mass shooting in American history.

I'm sure many Native Americans are a little ticked about this ignorant press corps.

Wounded Knee

By the time it was over, more than 150 men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 were wounded (4 men and 47 women and children, some of whom died later)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Buy a gun. A Long gun, shotgun, revolver, or semi-automatic handgun . . . doesn't really matter. Learn how to use it.

Protect yourself from radical islam because the incumbent administration and the next one (most likely Clinton) WILL NOT protect you.

Heck. . . even a few LGBTers have swung in Trump's direction.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Buy a gun. A Long gun, shotgun, revolver, or semi-automatic handgun Portable rocket launcher? And how about people under 18? They need protection too. The constitution guarantees is.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I am basically agnostic on the US debate on control.... And that was the high point of the post.lol

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And how about people under 18? They need protection too. The constitution guarantees is.

The constitution guarantees it but obama doesn't really care. He would open the US to islamic refugees vetted or not. He doesn't even recognize radical islam.

They people under 18 can tag along with adult armed citizens. Learn the ropes. Like those with provisional drivers licenses, they can drive as long as their "with" an adult licensed driver.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

They people under 18 can tag along with adult armed citizens No, I'm talking about if a group of teens out with no adult around. Teens have a right to defend themselves too.

They people under 18 can tag along with adult armed citizens They get their operator's license at 16. How about also at 16 being able to carry with no adult around.

And how about portable rocket launchers? Shouldn't they be on the open market?

He doesn't even recognize radical islam. But it seems Trump is insulting his way out of the presidency as he hates all non-white people. Fellow Republican leaders even hate him.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And how about portable rocket launchers? Shouldn't they be on the open market?

No they shouldn't. I'm pro 2nd amendment but even I, draw the line somewhere. As far as Military and Law Enforcement, arm them arm themselves with whatever they want. Let the criminals and terrorists know "we" mean business.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm pro 2nd amendment but even I, draw the line somewhere Then you are not pro 2A and this judgement is not up to you. America is not based upon what one man says. It's based on the founding fathers who wrote the 2A which clearly says shall not be infringed. The right to buy a rocket launcher has been settled by the founding fathers so it should be considered an infringement if they are not on sale to the general public. Because if a bad guy is coming after me with a semi auto, I want something bigger and that means rocket launcher to take that bad guy out if he is coming at me and distance is still my advantage (close distance then a fast action pistol- yep, go to cover all possible scenarios including Long gun, shotgun, revolver, or semi-automatic handgun . . . doesn't really matter as you said AND rocket launcher). The founding fathers agree and no real American would even deny what the founding fathers say.

Should 16-year olds be allowed to carry with no adult around?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's based on the founding fathers who wrote the 2A which clearly says shall not be infringed.

Whatever it says, I don't need a rocket launcher nor would I want one.

Should 16-year olds be allowed to carry with no adult around?

If they're properly trained and proficient with firearms and on their own private property -why not? There are lots of american kids who've been around guns their whole life. No biggy.

The ones who are not trained shouldn't be allowed. Things can git ugly. See vid.

https://youtu.be/cfMzK7QwfrU

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Whatever it says, I don't need a rocket launcher nor would I want one. Again, it's not about you. It's about what the founding fathers say shall not be infringed and all Americans can make their own decisions about whether to buy a rocket launcher or not. Fine, you don't want one. But many Americans do- it's a fact. The founding fathers set this in stone and not being able to buy a rocket launcher would be an infringement.

If they're properly trained and proficient with firearms and on their own private property -why not? There are lots of american kids who've been around guns their whole life. No biggy. No, I'm talking about teens being able to carry just like adults. Should they be able to carry semi autos at 16 if they do all the proper procedures?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

So the founding fathers wrote a 'Free for all'', being aware of semi-sutimatc, automatic, rocket launchers, etc centuries ahead.

At that time it Ias Revolvers and Rifles which were needed for survival/ hunting, etc.

Amendments and law wordings need to be seen from a viewpoint of the times, culture, circumstances, etc when they were created.

I know many countries that have no 3nd amendment but guns are common in private hands, why because their laws are adjusted for the current times.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Should they be able to carry semi autos at 16 if they do all the proper procedures?

No they should not. A couple yrs later @ 18, they can vote and must register for selective service. They could buy a firearm then. No more, no less.

Fine, you don't want one. But many Americans do- it's a fact.

If you say so. I (personally) don't know any Americans who'd want a rocket launcher. A couple Glocks, shotgun perhaps, but nothing as crazy as rpg's or fully auto AK's etc.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No they should not. A couple yrs later @ 18 But that's not fair. How can teens protect themselves if there is no adult around? What you are saying is an infringement and it endangers the lives of teenagers. What if a teenager is about to be attacked after school by another teen with a gun?- it happens every day. As the NRA says gun control does not work so the only solution is for teens to have guns as available as adults.

If you say so. OK, so you agree that rocket launchers should be available to the public even though you personally don't want one. But you are in Japan anyway so you are OK about having no guns at all. Interesting. Again, it amazes me about all these people who are just paranoid 2A types then they choose to live in the ultimate gun free zone known as Japan. It's so funny.

I (personally) don't know any Americans who'd want a rocket launcher. I do. People like the Bundies, for example who are proud brave conservatives fighting tyranny. Organizations such as Second amendment foundation are pushing for more deadly weapons to be available to common citizens and they consider the NRA to be a shameful liberal organization.

Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed and this is set in stone as the founders intended.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But that's not fair. How can teens protect themselves if there is no adult around?

How many gay 16 year olds are showing up in gay bars? Surely the bouncers, working there, turn away patrons who aren't 18 or 21, depending on that particular club's policy.

What you say:

Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed and this is set in stone as the founders intended.

. . . what I hear: "bla-bla-bla-bla-bla-bla . . . "

0 ( +1 / -1 )

what I hear: "bla-bla-bla-bla-bla-bla This is your response to the great founders' statement on guns? The most important people who ever existed in the earth's natural billions of years of history? That is unAmerican. Not only that- it's it's the word of the devil and very ungodly. Trashing the words of the founding fathers is one of the eight deadly sins and is a violation of one of the 11th commandment though ain't shalln't not insult the founding fathers

How many gay 16 year olds are showing up in gay bars? Why are you hung up on gay teenage boys? I'm just talking about 16-year-olds being anywhere and being attacked. They should have the same gun rights as adults because shall not be infringed.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Strangerland:

" I feel for the 99.9999% of American Muslims who are going to have to deal with it, through simple association. "

Where do you get your figures from? Support for Shariah law, which includes the killing of homosexuals, is very high across the muslim world. In Afghanistan, where this family came from, it is is actually at 99%. (Yep, ninety-nine percent). Check out the the Pew poll about this.

Do you think that upon arriving in the US, these attitudes change suddenly? Does the Obama immigration even ask about it?

Pew poll about opinions in the muslim world: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Do you think that upon arriving in the US, these attitudes change suddenly? Does the Obama immigration even ask about it? Paranoia. And this could be the Republican's downfall with Trump's hate of non-whites. Again, Many Republican leaders hate Trump and wish he hadn't run.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Agree with nixhikat.

Which of the original immigrants did adjust/change as soon as they got of the Boat may they be Chinese, Italian, Irish, Jewish, whatever?

Doubt many of your forefathers did and since humanity hasn't changed...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Home invasions are very very rare in Japan. " I am sure the survivors of these attacks take great comfort in this.

"But we are talking about making the future sales of semi autos." No, your talking about something that can NOT be accomplished legally.

"No, I am responding to the above poster." No, you are not. You keep ascribing beliefs to me that I do not have.

"Portable rocket launcher?" Yep. Doesn't mean you can carry it on your person or even in you vehicle, but yes. For the reason of protection against one's own government. For those of you who believe this is strange thinking, study history. More people have died at the hand of their own government than by their fellow citizens.

"And how about people under 18? " If a state says it is "OK" then it is in that state.

"They get their operator's license at 16." Not in my state. The law requires them to either be 18 or if enrolled in school 16. If they drop out of school after getting their DL at 16 and before 18, they lose their DL.

"But it seems Trump is insulting his way out of the presidency as he hates all non-white people." Evidence?

"Should they be able to carry semi autos at 16 if they do all the proper procedures?" You are all ver the map. Sales, carry, ownership. These are different issues. Carry means to have a loaded firearm on your person, safely secured but at hand if needed. You don't carry long arms for defense. You buy them, and keep them at home for home protection. Any weapon, firearm or not, drawn in public should invite the utmost attention. Larger items, for protection against what ever the gov. may wish to apply against its citizens, the same.

"Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed and this is set in stone as the founders intended." If you understand this, why are you arguing against it? It IS set in stone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its Me:

" Which of the original immigrants did adjust/change as soon as they got of the Boat may they be Chinese, Italian, Irish, Jewish, whatever? "

So did the "Chinese, Italian, Irish, Jewish" immigrants arrive with an ideology that is diametrically opposed to the culture and constutution of the country, bringing with them a diametrically opposed culture and set of laws? And were allowed and encouraged to practise that? How about a massive immigration of, say, Nazi party members? Would that be OK with you and should they bring their holy book and their assembly places and start imposing that culture?

That is the issue here, which you try to obfuscate.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

opposed culture and set of laws? Mafia? Christianity? Money (well, we all like money so that one is OK)? SLAVERY???

But guaranteed whatever they brought was diametrically opposed culture and set of laws to the American Indian

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@nishikat

Yes, and if they had been better armed....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who here thinks Sandy Hook was a hoax brought on by the Obama white house.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites