SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A suspected Islamic terrorist opened fire at a gay nightclub in Florida, killing 50 people and wounding another 53 before he was killed by police. While authorities continue to investigate to determine whether this man had ties to ISIS, the terror organization has not been quiet in praising the attack. This comes three days after ISIS announced they would attack somewhere in Florida. Today's attack marks the largest act of terrorism on US soil since 9/11.
takyon: The gunman reportedly called 911 emergency services to pledge allegiance to ISIS. The President will hold a briefing momentarily. Compare this article to the original submission.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Islamic Terrorist Opens Fire on Florida Nightclub; 50 Killed, 53 Wounded
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 434 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Cum tacent, clamant. When they are silent, they shout. -Cicero
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:35PM
Trump has positioned whatever he says so he 'sounds right'. It is a sales technique. I have not read his book. I have read many others. It is called positioning. Hillary just is not as good at it as he is. Hillary will now 'take a position' while he can say 'I already had one'. It is just political pandering just ignore it.
This was an Islamic revenge attack from a wannabee ISIS guy. He was running around saying "Allah Akbar" as he gunned people down.
Controlling the weapons does nothing. Unless we as a nation decide to change our second amendment and article 8 of the constitution. I do not see that happening any time soon. We have in many ways made guns to be the devil. Instead of teaching the respect and discipline as laid out in our constitution. Congress is once again failing at its job under section 8 of the constitution. Which goes hand in hand with #2 under the bill of rights.
used to repel the recent wave of anti-transgendered hate
When you act like an asshole expect to be treated as one. Tolerance is a 2 way street that some people want to be a one way street.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12 2016, @09:20PM
> Congress is once again failing at its job under section 8 of the constitution.
What? To enforce patents and copyrights? To issues letters of marque? To print money or collect taxes?
> When you act like an asshole expect to be treated as one. Tolerance is a 2 way street that some people want to be a one way street.
Yes, you must tolerate my hate for you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:01AM
If 10% of those people who got gunned down had been armed the terrorist would have been killed just after he started shooting.
The answer to crazies having guns is more sane people having guns, not less guns so that more will die by the next crazy shooter.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @01:33AM
Puerile, James Bond fantasy. If 10% of the club goers had been armed and drew their weapons and fired once the shooting started, many of them would have shot other armed club-goers or even unarmed bystanders. It's even possible that more people might have died. Not only that, but some of your gun-slinging heroes could have then been shot by S.W.A.T once they stormed the club. Hint: Real life doesn't play out the same way as the juvenile power-savior-revenge fantasies inside your own head do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:04AM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Monday June 13 2016, @04:09AM
Puerile, James Bond fantasy. If 10% of the club goers had been armed and drew their weapons and fired once the shooting started, many of them would have shot other armed club-goers or even unarmed bystanders. It's even possible that more people might have died. Not only that, but some of your gun-slinging heroes could have then been shot by S.W.A.T once they stormed the club. Hint: Real life doesn't play out the same way as the juvenile power-savior-revenge fantasies inside your own head do.
In the real world, the shooter would have chosen some other target that didn't have armed people present.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:22AM
> In the real world, the shooter would have chosen some other target that didn't have armed people present.
Incorrect. [thetrace.org]
It’s not the absence of guns, but rather the abundance of victims. If you’re going to do an act like this, you need a certain number of people in one space.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 13 2016, @05:36PM
It’s not the absence of guns, but rather the abundance of victims. If you’re going to do an act like this, you need a certain number of people in one space.
And I don't see evidence of that in the link you provide. It spend more time disproving its own assertions. For example,
For example, out of six mall shootings included in the report, two occurred in malls with gun-free signs, and yet armed citizens attempted to intervene. In the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Oregon, a permit holder confronted the shooter (but did not fire) at the end of the rampage; in the Trolley Square Mall shooting in Salt Lake City, an off-duty police officer helped subdue the shooter. Both men were in explicit violation of gun-free policies — but their presence means that for the shooters’ purposes, those malls were not gun-free zones after all.
Notice in the two cases (of six mentioned gun free zone incidents) where someone in a gun free zone attempted to intervene with a firearm, they stopped the shooting. Then there are two cherry picked situations which allege to show the futility of armed response (a person who gunned down two police officers and an armed civilian as well as the Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shootings where someone at the end almost shot the wrong person). So we're supposed to take seriously the cherry picked cases and ignore the other two situations which showed opposite outcomes.
And of course, the two cherry picked scenarios show the shooters choosing relatively safe targets. A restaurant with no expectation that anyone armed was present or a Walmart (ditto on expectation of number of armed people) for the first shooting. In the second case, the armed person who almost accidentally shot the wrong person was also the first armed person to the scene. So we have the crazy people hitting soft targets just like they supposedly don't do.
In other words, we have a number of examples that supposedly proved one thing while unintentionally disproving other things. You need evidence not some spectacular case of reasoning failure.