Radical Islamic terrorism finds its way to an Orlando nightclub

ParisNair wrote:

People blaming lack of gun control are simply looking for excuses not to blame Islam.

Not me - I think there were a number of factors involved, guns and religion being the top ones of course, but also homophobia (which is largely, though not a hundred per cent, fuelled by religion), hatred (as YourValentine rightly pointed out), etc.

Life's not black and white, and it's not a greyscale either. There are millions of colours, and not being able to see the FIR or the UV doesn't mean they don't exist.

We can all theorise on whether he could've assembled a ... whatever you said (I'm not an expert on that so I've forgotten what it was you mentioned) or whether he could've bought a gun illegally if they were outlawed, but that would've meant assuming he:

* Was clever enough to manufacture a weapon.
* Wasn't lazy enough to give it up hadn't the opportunity been handed to him on a silver tray.

Gun control wouldn't magically eradicate mass shootings (or domestic shootings, or accidental shootings, or hunting, etc) but it'd certainly help.

Expanding from my 'it's not B&W or a greyscale' point/leitmotif, I do think people aren't necessarily ambassadors of the entire group(s) they belong to, either via choice (sometimes theirs, sometimes their parents') or via circumstances (nobody chooses where they were born or their skin colour).

Would he have commited those crimes if he weren't a Muslim? Or if he weren't allegedly a closeted homosexual? Or if he hadn't easy access to guns? Or if he hadn't been born and raised in America? Or if his mum and dad had bought him another ice-cream one day when he was five and accidentally dropped his? We'll never know. What we can know is that:

* Horrible crimes are commited all the time in the name of religion (not just Islam, and that's not the same as defending them or bending over backwards to be politically correct).

* It certainly is bloody tricky to kill 49 people with a baseball bat or a butcher's knife.

* Countries which have made the choice of outlawing guns have a far lower rate of mass-shootings per hundred inhabitants (and that can be and has been mathematically and statistically measured).

* Events in cities like Paris, Brussels, Orlando and New York get a lot more media attention than those in Kenya, Somalia or Guatemala, and it shouldn't be that way.

IEDs - Improvised Explosive Devices :)
In my country, we hear this term a lot. Getting access to a gun legally is not easy here. And, if you are a terrorist, trying to procure a gun illegally is risky..you are exposing yourself to many unscrupulous people and leaving a trail.
So the terrorists get hold of raw material that is easily available at any shopping mall and build a bomb which can have a timer, or a remote controlled trigger...take your pick. So, instead of 49 getting killed by a gun like in America, 100 get killed by a bomb.
I am not making this up. This is how terrorists work here (India, Pakistan). Depending on how the IED has been assembled, the investigators are able to identify which group is behind the explosion. And, unlike in case of a gunman who gets identified and neutralized immediately, catching the bomber takes forever. Sometimes they never get caught even. And when caught, they go through the lengthy justice system on the tax-payer's expense.

* It certainly is bloody tricky to kill 49 people with a baseball bat or a butcher's knife.

* Countries which have made the choice of outlawing guns have a far lower rate of mass-shootings per hundred inhabitants (and that can be and has been mathematically and statistically measured).

I don't think its about number of victims. I'm sure you don't think its somehow better if a terrorist is only able to stab 10 people (or 1 person) than gunning down 50.

ParisNair wrote:

People blaming lack of gun control are simply looking for excuses not to blame Islam.

People blaming lack of gun control are simply putting a chunk of the blame where it belongs. Whatever the fuel for the Orlando massacre, the tool was the easily and legally acquired assault weapon.

Democrats stood for 15 hours on the Senate floor yesterday detailing the effects of these weapons over the past years.

Senator Chris Murphy said: "What unites all of these shootings, from Littleton to Aurora, to Newtown, to Blacksburg to Orlando, is that the weapon of choice in every case is a gun — often a very powerful gun, an AR-15 or an AR-15-style gun that was designed for the military, for law enforcement to kill as many people as quickly as possible."

Radicalization? Mental illness? Hate? Revenge? The motivations behind these attacks absolutely have to be addressed. But so do the means of carrying them out. That's why the weapons used, and the ease of legally obtaining those weapons, are at issue. Focusing on those issues in no way alters or diminishes the focus on the mind-set behind the attacks.

"I don't think its about number of victims. I'm sure you don't think its somehow better if a terrorist is only able to stab 10 people (or 1 person) than gunning down 50. "

This is a very weird statement. Surely it's better if fewer people die in terrorist attacks?

The obvious reason: each death is a life destroyed, and people around the deceased suffer deeply from the tragedy.

Another reason: a terrorist might not think an attack is worth it if he can't kill many people.

Radicalization? Mental illness? Hate? Revenge? The motivations behind these attacks absolutely have to be addressed. But so do the means of carrying them out. That's why the weapons used, and the ease of legally obtaining those weapons, are at issue. Focusing on those issues in no way alters or diminishes the focus on the mind-set behind the attacks.

I would consider it a gun control issue if the gun was obtained legally. You mention ease of obtaining guns illegally. That means flouting rules right? Frankly, other than the fact that guns are available quite easily (legally) in the USA, and that it is big issue, I don't know much about the topic. Anyway, my point is, if not gun, the killer would look for something else to carry out the attacks. It is the motivation/mentality that needs to be addressed. As far as the politicians (especially Democrats) are concerned, they always outdo each other to make the right noises and make sure to stay politically correct.

This is a very weird statement. Surely it's better if fewer people die in terrorist attacks?

The obvious reason: each death is a life destroyed, and people around the deceased suffer deeply from the tragedy.

Another reason: a terrorist might not think an attack is worth it if he can't kill many people.

My poitn was, it does not matter how many die. The people get terrorized and the perpetrator's aim is acheived. And your second statement contradicts the first.
Seriously check out IEDs. There are detailed DIY manuals, even numerous videos on youtube which explain every aspect of making one.

ParisNair wrote:

I would consider it a gun control issue if the gun was obtained legally. You mention ease of obtaining guns illegally. That means flouting rules right?

No. I was discussing the ease of obtaining guns legally because that's how the guns in the mass shootings I mentioned were obtained...and that's why this IS, in large part, a gun control issue.

Sorry, I do see now you mentioned "ease of legally obtaining" but I somehow misread it as "illegaly". I dunno how that happened :D
Then, yes it is a gun control issue, in my opinion too. But not the main reason. And mentioning gun control while completely discounting the main cause does not help in any way.

Yes, the number of people dying matters. The more deaths, the more trauma and lives destroyed. It's a quite cynical thing to say that preventing deaths from terror doesn't matter.

I did not say and never meant that preventing death from terror does not matter, and you now it.

It certainly sounded like it from this comment, unless you meant from the murderers perspective.

"My poitn was, it does not matter how many die."

Also:

"I'm sure you don't think its somehow better if a terrorist is only able to stab 10 people (or 1 person) than gunning down 50."

I sure as hell think it's a lot better if a terrorist is only able to stab 10 people than gunning down 50. 40 lives spared. But maybe I'm not understanding you correctly here either?

OscarJ, ParisNair was saying that the number of victims is not the main factor in creating the terror, he did not say that the victims don't matter :-) If you are afraid to be in a public street because a bomb could explode each second - that is terror. Right now American citizens are more likely to be shot accidentally by a toddler than by a politically motivated murder or killed in a hate crime. However, you can protect yourself from getting shot by your own child by simply not owning a gun. You cannot protect yourself from a random terror attack.

Yeah, I figured it was something like that he meant. But I still feel like the thought of a potential terrorist with a sophisticated weapon, capable of killing more people, is more terrifying.

YourValentine wrote:

...you can protect yourself from getting shot by your own child by simply not owning a gun.

True. But you cannot protect your child from getting shot by other children if they (or their parents) can easily get guns, no questions asked.

....and we have manoeuvred the discussion away from terrorism and back to gun control.

YourValentine wrote:

OscarJ, ParisNair was saying that the number of victims is not the main factor in creating the terror, he did not say that the victims don't matter :-) If you are afraid to be in a public street because a bomb could explode each second - that is terror. Right now American citizens are more likely to be shot accidentally by a toddler than by a politically motivated murder or killed in a hate crime. However, you can protect yourself from getting shot by your own child by simply not owning a gun. You cannot protect yourself from a random terror attack.

Thank you so much for explaining it better than I could.