Orlando Nightclub Massacre

I do not know if this will work or not but here's a screen shot of the FB post stating there was more than one shooter...Also, idk if this is true or not.

Link to Photo

originally posted by: DanteGaland
As I said, and I keep seeing it:

Muslim goes on shooting spree = all Muslims are terrorists

White guy goes on shooting spree = lone wolf with mental issues.

It fits the rhetoric, sadly it seems.

When one person of a minority group in the USA does something horrible, it is representative of his/her entire race, gender, creed or class.

When a Caucasian person commits horrific crimes of hate, it is isolated mental illness that is blamed. It's never racism, sexism, xenophobia or a hate crime.

I can't emphasize this ENOUGH.

That's because when a Muslim goes on a shooting spree, the majority of the time it's religious ideologies that motivated him. All the attacks in Europe and America over the past few months have proven that.

When a white guy goes on a shooting spree, the majority of the time it's a lone wolf with a mental illness. Again the majority of attacks committed by white men prove this.

Statistical evidence isn't rhetoric. I can't emphasize this enough.

a reply to: neo96

You do realize that a mass shooting can be terrorism, right?

Or it can not be terrorism.

And terrorism can be a mass shooting, right?

Or it can not be a mass shooting.

Why you have such a hardon for this escapes me.

a reply to: DanteGaland

A terrorist, can only be known by what he is a terrorist.

Ties to Isis, from middle eastern decent and prof of his alliances in the name of his religion.

No, this is not racial profiling or religious profiling this was a terrorist committing a terrorist act against innocent people like a coward.

originally posted by: DancedWithWolves
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

I saw the interview. She hadn't had contact with him or his family in over 7 years. He was violent with her. They were together 4 months. She considered him bi polar. Clearly it was never documented or treated, that we know yet. Sad.

In most domestic abuse cases, there is rarely solid evidence unless she came forward directly after a beating. Most women don't report it, sadly.

a reply to: lovebeck

Anybody who has a magazine that holds 100 rounds is up to no good unless they are in a recreation center; they
want to do a lot of damage.

I don't care about the names or types of guns, nor do I pretend to want to know or understand them. What I do understand is that 50 people were slaughtered last night from one, and if he hadn't had one, not that many people would have died. And blah blah yeah he could have used an IED or whatever. But he didn't. He used a weapon that he accessed and shouldn't have had because we shouldn't have them.

My mind is closed on this issue, so I'm leaving this conversation.

Neo, thanks for being polite.

a reply to: lovebeck

Link doesn't work.

We already know two people were shooting at the beginning. An off duty cop engaged the shooter early on.

a reply to: Shamrock6

right so that seems like the logical solution, to limiting any gun that has the potential to kill a large group of people. limit ammo, limit mag size, limit the manufacturing. keep track of mags, ammo, and guns being sold. it would slow gun violence but i dont think mass shootings are going away anytime soon as anyone can buy as much ammo, guns, and mags as they want. the potential for terrorism is there and most people dont want to do anything about it, unfortunately. so next time you are looking for someone to blame, blame the enablers.

sorry misspoke fixd

a reply to: Shamrock6

I had no idea that somebody tried to stop the terrorist.

Thanks for that information.

a reply to: Konduit

I have to say that I'm quite disappointed in ATS, or at least this thread. I came here after a little lull in ATS time, to try to get some information about what happened and all I have read is complete garbage, name calling, anti gun rhetoric, and ignorant posts.

I have been a member of ATS for quite a long time now and I usually come here for information because apparently unlike most here, I appreciate the time and effort that some members put into reporting the real facts instead of the media hype.

Time to turn on the news, I guess.

I mean really, after reading page upon page in this thread, the only thing I can discern is that it is Obama's(democrat's) fault, Trumps(republicans) fault, and the guns fault..

What the heck happened around here.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Well if people want to play this game,

Fine.

IT's time for RELIGION control.

Everyone has to pass a background check before they get to practice their RIGHT.

It's a FELONY if the say more than one word at a time.

There's a $200 TAX stamp on prayer rugs.

People have to wait 6 months to and feds sign off to make their prayers quieter.

Then after someone abuses their 'privilege' Rinse and repeat.

After all they are the 'same' thing now.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: Konduit
gun control does not mean, take away law abiding citizens their guns. no one is proposing that. what obama and most of the left way is that gun laws should be stricter so that people on watch lists cant buy their guns, or for that matter anyone cant buy guns that can kill 50 people.

What does it matter if one gun kills 50 people, or 50 people with guns kill more than 50 total? As long as guns are readily available, there will be far more than 50 killings a day in the USA. Stopping one radical from murdering a batch of Americans with his gun will barely put a dent in America's murder rate.

a reply to: neo96

So in other words you have nothing to say about what I actually said and are now going off on some ridiculous tangent.

Again.

Got it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So in OTHER words.

ORLANDO was a terrorist attack.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's ludicrous people calling it anything else.

originally posted by: lovebeck

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Thank you.

I'm just really disturbed over these guns. These are not the guns law abiding citizens carry in their cars, or keep on their bed side table to deter intruders and such. These guns aren't to kill a mugger on a city block, they are to kill everyone on the block.

I really hate them, and as I said, I see no place for them in our society except for LE.

Speak for yourself...Why have a weapon if you cannot get to it when and if you need it?

My husband keeps his RIGHT next to our bed, ready to go.

We do not have any little kids, by the way.

Are you deliberately misconstruing my statements simply to argue, or has your reading comprehension bottomed out?
Why don't you take off your blinders and go reread what I actually said.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

They are not... What about all those people, including children who have saved family members or themselves with firearms?... More people are saved from firearms than people are killed with firearms...

a reply to: Konduit

This guy sounds like he was a homophobic who decided to cite ISIS hoping for his virgins as an excuse for his insanity. Think Dylann Roof and his racial terror attacks. Muslim bashing isn't selling here. Just stop.

a reply to: carewemust

youre right it will barely put a dent but it is progress, and considering that guns are made to kill people, as long as anyone has access to them, there will always be gun violence. even if we didnt have access to guns, there would still be attainable illegally, but it would be much harder for criminals and safer than our current "open door" take as many was you want policy we have now. the goal is the least number of gun violence as zero is impossible.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

They are not... What about all those people, including children who have saved family members or themselves with firearms?... More people are saved from firearms than people are killed with firearms...

just wondering if you have statistics for this claim.