Terror in Orlando, Florida, USA
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 30, '16 3:54am
Thread Topic: Terror in Orlando, Florida, USA
-
Guns or weapons aren't the first thing that comes to mind when someone is going to a damn club to enjoy themselves. Nobody had any awareness that they were going to get f---ing PWN3D by some Islam possibly penis-loving self-hating radicalized shooter.
Same thing applies to specific places like a grocery shop or your casual buildings or stores. If you want to be a literal p---- and carry a damn weapon and wear a bullet-proof vest wherever you go because you're so "scurred!!!!111" that a person will r3kt the place where you are in, go ahead, but most people don't have a massacre as their main priority to worry about when they go to a place, unless they're extemely paranoid. -
I never implied that they were the first things to come to mind. Nobody gets into a car and expects to get in an accident, we're expecting to get from point A to point B, but we wear a seat belt all the same. It's not irrational to be prepared for the unexpected. You could get mugged, or you could get threatened with a gun, and being prepared for such possibilities is part of being an adult. How you will defend yourself in the event of an unprovoked attack is a serious question you need to ask yourself. And your answer can't just be 'well, I never expected this to happen, so I have no response,' is not good enough. Are you seriously trying to advocate that just because something is unlikely to happen, that we should never prepare for it? What, should we cancel fire drills and remove airbags from cars as well, because no one is expecting to get in an accident?
Besides, this is getting off track. The fact of the matter is, if even one person in that bar was armed, the death count would be significantly lower and that person would be drowning in dick. Removing peoples ability to be armed only encourages massacres like this and makes it harder to be prepared for them. -
Yes, being prepared for the unexpected is great and all and I would advocate or support being well-aware of the unexpected and to go through routined and though out preparations for it.
But I disagree. A massacre inside of a humid, steamy club filled with terrified men and women, a variety of people that are in the vigorous and conflicted moment of climatic and intensified terror and fear of the possibility of losing their lives right at such a sudden moment won't mix well with a death machine such as a simple hand-gun or other array of weaponry. They could do more harm trying to use a weapon under emotions that cloak rationality and concentration, and in a clusterf--- of that situation with many people scattering around, trying to find who's who and who could be the possibly gunman, they could shoot anyone who they might see as a threat that might or might not even be the perpetrator at all. It's all based on arbitrary chance of those many gunshots, it's all up to one or many bullets that fires in either a group of innocent individuals, or the shooter. And I believe, and it might seem completely absurd to you, that if there were even one person in that room that had a gun, there would be even more mortality counts or they wouldn't even use it because fear in that context automatically can give you messages like, "run or find a safe spot or a vitadel" or it can either shock someone into a paralyzed state.
Some humans don't do well in that kind of pressure. -
If you can carry a weapon, do carry a weapon. Unrestriction of guns is only effective when close to everyone carries a weapon and is trained (can shoot a bottle basically).
-
Well, it's just ideological differences at this point, so I suppose we have to agree to disagree. In the end, we can never be certain how things would have gone differently if people had been armed. Personally, I think when it comes to fight or flight, fight will win out. Yes, some humans prefer flight, but some actually do well under that kind of pressure and they're the ones who'd benefit from being armed.
-
people should be affaid of the people behind the gun nit the gun it shelf. the people shooting are the ones who are making the decisions. 49 killed and 53 injured. skmeone them where college grads, high school grads, college goers. they had so much to look foward to.
-
I don't think people should be afraid to walk down the street without being jumped, raped or killed because of who they are. That's plain and simple. People shouldn't have to go to a club with a gun so that they can protect themselves against people who were on the federal watch list and decided to go insane and pledge allegiance to an extremist organization. Sure, if one person had a gun in that club, that would have killed the shooter. But you can't fight hate with hate. That just makes more hate. That man was mentally unstable- the federal government needs to do better screening of the thousands of people on their "watch list". I assume most are mentally stable, but there are thousands of people. Thousands. What's the chance of one or two buying a gun and committing a hate crime? A psych evaluation isn't terribly difficult to do.
Regardless, it was a tragedy that harmed many lives. The families of everyone involved. The people in the LGBT community have a newfound terror for being themselves- as if they didn't before. People of the Islamic faith are probably mortified and disturbed that someone could take such a peaceful religion (which it is) and turn it so extreme. -
>Islam
>Peaceful
How's that Sharia law working out for ya? Still stoning gays and dismembering thieves? Bear in mind that that over 1 billion Muslims believe that Sharia law is the best system of government. A BILLION. Even if it was only half that, that's a f--- ton of 'peaceful' Muslims.
Anyway, I totally agree that people shouldn't be afraid to walk down the street. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and self protection is paramount to survival. This has been true since the very first cave man. Now you say that there are thousands of mentally stable people on the governments watch-list and that most are mentally stable, but what if that's not true? What if there are thousands of people out there who are a real danger to others? What if there are tens of thousands? You want the government to keep a personal eye on every one of them? You and I both know they can't do that without becoming a police state. Or at least, more of a police state.
Also, you can totally fight hate with hate. Hate is not inherently bad. Even Jesus hated things. I hate that there are starving people in the world, so I try to change that. It all depends on knowing where to draw the line. -
Since this is turning into a religous thing, I'll bring forward the Sikh philosophy.
Firstly, violence is an important part of Sikhism. One of the five articles of faith in Sikhism which a devout Sikh is expected to carry is the Kirpan, which is a blade of varying sizes.
However, (I can't remember which of the gurus said all this, citation needed) this is not intended for inciting violence. It is part of the Saint-Soldier role which sikhs are expected to fulfill. Helping wherever possible, but if somebody needs to be defended then they should not hesitate from violence, assuming it is used only as a last resort. This is substantially different from Buddhism and (I think) Jainism.
Now bear in mind that the founding Sikhs had Muslim problems. The punjab faced many attacks from them. They did fight back however. They were willing to do what was necessary to defend themselves and others. However, the gurus did not advocate hate against the people attacking them. There are many things which point to the contrary. They often treated the people they injured and captured incredibly well. The Sikh holy text has hymns written by muslims in it. Sikh langar accepts people of all religions. And numerous other examples of Sikhism being accepting of muslims.
Upping the Kirpan from a knife to a gun is perfectly reasonable, it will be what the person attacking you will likely have. Additionally, defending those being attacked does not mean that you hate the attackers belifes or even the attacker. It is merely stopping the attacker, through violence if that is the only way possible. This is not fighting hate with hate, it is stopping hate from harming others.
(this post went off on tangent, sorry guys) -
Aren't Sihks still required to carry swords in public, or was I misinformed? I've never actually thought that they could upgrade their weapon.
Man, Sihks are so cool. It's a shame they're such a minority. -
I must note I am no expert on Islam. I only know what I've read and researched for a compare contrast paper in English class. I didn't go to in depth about it, just learned the basics of the religion. So I must admit, I don't know too many of their laws. And I'm not saying the government needs to keep watch of them, per say, but administer the care that they need mentally. No, nothing f---ing insane like asylums- but there are plenty of medications available and plenty of institutions available. After all, we are able to institutionalize someone (I believe) if they're found clinically insane or mentally unwell.
I suppose I need to be more specific on fighting hate with hate. For example, I hate how animals are tested on. Now, theres an organization (Unsure of the name) that uses explosives and violence in order to "stop" animal testing. There are many things I find personally incorrect about this approach.
1. It uses violence to fix violence. That doesn't say anything about your moral values. If you're trying to state against violence, it's hypocritical to use it to "prove" your claim, per say.
2. It's quite obviously illegal. If you're trying to end animal testing, you should focus on making laws against it- not breaking the law in the name of it. This is also hypocritical.
Apply this to the present idea as you wish.
Anyways, as for the shooting, it is quite clear that security will be very high at any LGBT celebrations, clubs, etc. As the Orlando shooting has caused much tension within the LGBT community. -
An important aspect of Sikhism is that the gurus teachings is not meant to be used like a set of laws but more like a teacher and is up to some interpretation. If something is said by one of the Gurus it is important to look at not just what they said but why they said it. This reason behind why they said it can often be applied to more situations and adapts better as times change.
I would personally think that Sikhs should carry the best weapon available to them due to my personal intrepetation of this. I've seen several Sikhs in america who are armed but I'm not sure wether they carry their kirpan with them as well. Due to the accepting nature of Sikhism, Sikhs believe that even people of other religions can go to heaven, I doubt that they'd frown upon someone doing this. -
I was near orlando when it happened
-
49 dead
I blame the muslim terrorists -
Ah.
Thanks, Geek, you da best.
I'd recommend doing some research on Islam. I personally think Mohammad was a genius, the way he united the middle east by taking parts of existing religions and molding them to benefit himself was amazing.
Also, the FBI interviewed and closely tracked Omar for nearly ten months before the shooting and decided he was ultimately harmless. If someone can act perfectly normal for that length of time, well enough to fool the FBI, how can we even know to treat their mental problems? How can we administer care to someone who we can't even know needs it?
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
