The slaughter of gay night clubbers

I'm not even sure it's just tolerance. I can tolerate my neighbour using a drill at 6am. I can tolerate a queue at the bank. I can tolerate traffic.
As for gay people, black people, Muslim people, Chinese people, any kind of people I don't tolerate them, I accept them. It doesn't matter what sexual orientation, race, religion, income, political leaning, etc someone is. The fact is they're humans. We're all humans. We're social animals, we all need everyone else to get through. I needed a Sikh's tax money to get me through school. I needed a Hindu doctor for medical treatment. I needed a German to build my car and an Irish person to build the road to drive it on. I needed a heretic to contribute to science. I needed a gay man to invent the concept of modern computing.

I'm thankful that here in the UK these kind of senseless mass shootings happen so infrequently, every time a news story like this comes from the US all I can think is "Again? Really?"

 

It seems this is a suspected terrorist attack in Orlando with 50 killed, and more injured (as of 2:27 PM local time). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Florida-shoots-20-people-taking-hostages.html

My heart and prayers go out to all my fellow U.S. citizens, anyone, of any nationality, who has ever had to endure the threat of terrorism, and especially the victims' friends, family, and community.

 

We all know what motivated him to do this, I guess that's an elephant in the room. And that elephant is trampling people to death.

An awful tragedy, and I hope that something like this will never happen again. Unfortunately, it's very unlikely that that's a wish that will be fulfilled. Especially when we're too afraid to address the underlying problem.

I'm also one of the cowards crippled by political correctness, like a lot of other Swedes. But I have fragile mental health and I have no power to tackle this problem in a productive way.

But please people of power, please wake up. I like the idea of living in a modern civilization where people aren't killed because of things written in a storybook from the 7th century.

 

F.Y.I. for those not familiar with the latest of this story, or firearms, or U.S. gun laws in general, the shooter did not use an AK-47. That was a mistake reported earlier in the day. Current information shows he carried a .223 caliber AR-15 type semi-automatic rifle and a Glock pistol.



Although cosmetically menacing and military looking, this is not an assault rifle. It is functionally no different than a somewhat low powered hunting rifle. Weapons of this type are legal to own in many, many countries besides the United States. In the United Kingdom and Canada, countries whose gun laws I'm most familiar with, this type of weapon is not particularly difficult to obtain or restricted. While it is arguably somewhat easier to obtain in the United States, it is not onerous get this type of weapon in many countries commonly associated with strict gun control.



Probably the most important distinctions between an AK-47 and this .223 AR-15 are:

• AK-47 is fully automatic (meaning you pull the trigger, and it fires bullets until you take your finger off the trigger or it runs out of ammunition). AR-15 is semi-automatic (meaning you have to pull the trigger for every bullet you want fired).
• AK-47 uses 7.62×39mm ammunition. This AR-15 uses 5.56×45mm caliber ammunition (also known as .223 caliber). The AK-47 round has much, much more stopping power, but at the same time less accuracy and is more difficult to control.

In the United States, while it is legal in most states to own an AK-47, owners must comply with very rigorous federal laws, that are starkly in contrast with general perception of U.S. gun laws. The AK-47 is classified as a Title II weapon in the United States. To purchase one, you are submitted to a background check, have to register the firearm with federal government, get permission from your local law enforcement agency, pay significant fees, and a host of other hurdles. This has been true since 1934. The seller of the weapon is subject to far, far more onerous restrictions. That isn't to say it is impossible to own these weapons (outside of California and New York, which currently ban them). Just that you can't just walk into a store and buy one today, and the shooter would likely have not been able to own one due to his prior legal transgressions and interest from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Data is very sketchy on crimes using legally owned Title II weapons, but they are extremely rare. None of the gun crime in recent U.S. history, decades to the best of my knowledge, was committed with a legally owned Title II firearm.

This .223 AR-15 is a common choice in mass shootings, as are a variety of pistols.

I say all this not to support U.S. gun law. I leave ultimate judgment up to every person, and will be withholding my personal opinions (opinions which may surprise you given this post). I mention this because U.S. gun law is widely misunderstood, and is fallaciously reported on and discussed in the media and politics. Further, firearms in general are widely misunderstood. This misinformation is doubled in times of crisis such as this.

-----

Once again, my heart goes out to the victims' friends and families.

 

^^^^ THIS is the context we don't get in the media which enables us to make informed decisions which in turn influence lawmakers.

 

I don't get it, because the lack of context and misinformation doesn't help either side of the debate. The gun control advocates look poorly informed to the gun rights advocates, and the gun rights advocates look crazy to the gun control advocates. A little knowledge could make the gun control advocates far more potent in advancing their agenda. A little knowledge could make the gun rights advocates look far more reasonable when advancing their agenda. And maybe, just maybe both sides could find a reasonable compromise. I would think both sides would be clamoring for more, honest education on the realities, not spreading misinformation and platitudes.

Maybe they've all got brain fog because they've been fapping too much. Who knows?

 

In Afghanistan sex with men is haram but boyfuckers get a free pass. All the cops have child porn on their phones and American servicemen have reported hearing the screams of dancing boys in the night. It's their culture, bigot!

 

I am very saddened for the loss of those people in Orlando. As a Christian, I take it upon myself to mourn for the families, and I will keep them in my prayers.

 

I was referring to the hunting rifle style equivalent, not the AR-15 when talking about other countries. While not an issue in the UK, the cosmetic appearance is a problem in many countries, and is currently really freaking out gun control advocates without firearms knowledge in the United States.

I was not aware of semi-automatic, centerfire rifles being prohibited in the UK. Thank you for pointing that out. I don't want to give misinformation myself, as that's what I'm trying to fight. All previous sources of information I've read omit the semi-automatic qualification. That is indeed a more onerous restriction than in place in the United States.

For those unfamiliar with firearms, that means in addition to pulling the trigger for every shot, you must use a mechanism to eject an empty cartridge and/or chamber another round between each shot. Two steps per shot, rather than one step per shot. Centerfire and rimfire are terms used to describe how the bullet's charge is ignited. Centerfire rifles are hit by a pin in the center of the cartridge. Rimfire rifles are hit on the rim of the cartridge. Rimfire bullets are almost universally only used in low calibers, such as the .22 caliber, as the cartridge casing must be thinner, and therefore weaker, to transmit the force of the firing mechanism to the explosive charge inside the cartridge.

A .22 caliber is more than sufficient to kill a human, if not particularly adept at it. Many U.S. gun enthusiasts recommend the .22 caliber for defensive use due to that sufficiency while remaining easy to aim and fire, and it's lower power being safer for innocent bystanders (bullet unlikely to travel through many walls or travel very far). However the general perception of .22 caliber is that it is weak, and that a higher caliber is better. Higher calibers are far more common with creeps like this Omar Mateen.

However, a hunting rifle of roughly equivalent stopping power to the .223 AR-15 is obtainable by most average UK citizens (it would be more difficult in, say, London than rural areas). Just not a semi-automatic one. There are additional hurdles to overcome (licensing, giving an acceptable reason, inspections, et cetera), thus my statement about it being arguably easier to obtain in the United States, but it remains within the ability of most UK citizens.

In Canada, the AR-15 is prohibited as you stated, but a functionally equivalent rifle of a different family (like the second photo I posted) is not. Again, there are a few more hurdles to pass through than in the United States, but the average Canadian could reasonably obtain one. My point for this was to show that the United States is not necessarily an insane wild west for allowing AR-15 rifles. It is far from alone in allowing roughly similar capabilities to citizens.

Perhaps more hurdles in the United States would be wise. Perhaps many of the hurdles in place by other governments are meaningless obstructions. Again, I leave that judgment up to every reader. I merely wanted to point out this issue is not as simple as it is commonly reported.

 

What do you expect when you allow people with a primative ideology such as Islam in your country?Not bashing muslims just Islam.

 

I'm loving your posts, thanks for giving some facts which I had absolutely no knowledge of before. I always thought it was possible to simply buy an automatic weapon off the shelf in the US. Turns out the laws aren't as lax as I had thought!

 

Glad to hear it. No worries! A lot of United States citizens are under the same impression, and nobody in power or the media seem to be informing of the realities, and often deliberately misrepresent those realities.

I have many police officers and military veterans in my family. In the United States, because of that, there are few people more likely than I to have been exposed to the variety of guns available to be owned by a private citizen, and I've never even seen an automatic weapon in person, much less know anyone who owns one. Part of that is being in California, which is one of the most restrictive states for firearm ownership, but AK-47s are not exactly commonplace or easily obtained anywhere.

The big difference between the United States and everywhere else is "the right to bear arms" is codified in our founding documents, right along with free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, et cetera. Most other countries do not have firearms so highly or explicitly codified.

That being said, all of those "rights" do have numerous restrictions. You can't, for example, run into a crowded theater and shout "FIRE!" if there isn't a fire and claim freedom of speech should somebody get hurt in the chaos. You can't sacrifice people or animals in the name of your religion. And on, and on, and on. The same goes for the right to bear arms. You can't get rid of guns, without some Constitutional footwork, but it's not a free-for-all, and many restrictions exist. It's just more difficult to implement new restrictions here than most anywhere else.

Once again, whether more restrictions are needed or not is up to everyone reading. This is informational only, not me trying to push an agenda either way.

 

*sigh* More evidence that media and politicians are terrible at reporting facts related to guns. It seems anything that looks black and scary is a fully automatic military weapon, designated AR-15.

The Orlando shooter did not use an AR-15. He used a Sig Sauer MCX.



While practically speaking, this Sig Sauer MCX isn't much different than the AR-15, it is an entirely different weapon, with entirely different mechanisms, and not an AR-15 in any way, shape, or form.

Here are the similarities between this MCX and the AR-15:

• It can shoot 5.56×45mm ammunition.
• It has the same magazine capacity.
• It's black.
• It looks vaguely similar to weapons carried by military guys in movies and television.

Banning AR-15s, or components for AR-15s, as many have called for in the wake of this shooting would have no effect on the availability of this rifle. If you are an advocate for gun control, please realize the differences and research the topic before crafting legislative ideas. A blanket ban on AR-15s won't stop anything. Perhaps more restrictions are justified and called for, than are presently in place. But the restrictions need careful consideration and crafting, unless your position is a complete ban on all guns. In that case, you're fine.

Once again: This is to inform readers so they can make up their own minds and opinions on gun laws and availability. I am not advocating any particular agenda. I just want everyone's decided agendas to be backed by facts.

 

Please forgive me, but if you're intolerant and unaccepting like this, how are you any different from the horrible man who did this? The only difference is that most people with this thought aren't going to go out and shoot Muslims. This man and his affiliation is very intolerant and unaccepting of homosexuality and homosexuals. That being said, we can replace "homosexuality" with "Islam" and "homosexuals" with Muslims and we get pretty much a similar concept.

This person did a horrible thing, and his group is a spawn of hate. But this doesn't mean we should become another hate-filled animal too.

*Disclaimer* I am in no way wanting to start an argument, I'm justing point out that this ideology is flawed and hateful.

 

I think that as long as a persons beliefs doesn't lead to them doing harm to you, then yes. However this must be based on the individual in question. For example, if a colleague following X religion attacks you because you following Y religion and their religion commands it, then this can be an individual case and should be treated as such until the religion is studied.

Similar to my last answer. However this is debated. A lot of people claim that religions like Islam and Christianity are hateful, violent, intolerant, and support things like slavery and murder yet verses exist in their respective texts arguing this.

Which I do.

This is a scenario:
"A person named Bob receives a revelation from a being claimed to be the creator of the world. He states that Jews, Muslims, and Christians received his teachings and have distorted them, and that Bob has been chosen to gather an army to massacre these followers to usher in the truth."
I think that for a religion like this, like my first answer, it explicitly states for the murder of certain groups of people, and its followers would most likely cause harm because it explicitly states that you must kill A, B, and C. In that case it isn't even a matter of "western culture" (which in itself is debatable) but moral ethics. A religion like this shouldn't receive hate (because we wouldn't be better now would we?), but the ideology of violence should be discouraged and followers should be taught that this is incorrect.

But this is an entirely different matter, as then we get into the debate of it being a religion..

or a cult.