Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
There already are conspiracy theorists on the case. Less than 24 hours and they're already at it. It's quite tempting to rendition them to Orlando and suggest that the locals do with them as they will.
Also, Santa Monica police arrested an Indiana man with a large cache of weaponry who apparently wanted to attend the L.A. Pride festival in West Hollywood
. After what just happened... it's good to see a bullet getting dodged at once.
And after seeing these two among the hateful rhetoric spewed by the GOP and the alt-right... I'm starting to think that this was merely a matter of where, when and by who. The Orlando attack just happened to be the most convenient for the two groups I mentioned and the conspiracy theorists.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotSo, I got over my Facebook feed that Fox News' Bret Baier is saying Hillary is going to pick Tim Kaine as her VP.
Thoughts?
Also, I'm not posting a link because I don't want to give Fox News the views.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Actually, gun store owners are fully within their rights to refuse to sell to someone because they "just had a feeling." At least, in California (which is where I worked in a gun shop). Of course, the customer can then go and find another gun store and try to buy from that one, and sooner or later he'll find someone who isn't creeped out by him, but still, it's better than nothing. The manager of my store would always get on the phone with all the other gun shops in the area and warn them about the guy, since he knew everyone personally.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.You usually find that people are creeps or have something wrong with them after they do something stupid. Not before.
Because the only thing "creepy" about the guy was having Afghani roots and being a Muslim, otherwise you'd need magical mind reading to know if he was up to something.
Inter arma enim silent legesI'm sorry, but delving into their personal lives is very creepy and uncomfortable for anyone. That's a bad thing and does not help at all. As you said, they'll just find another place. It solves nothing and only makes people feel on edge and worse.
The proper solution is to test them to make sure no problems will happen. If they will, they can not just refuse service, but make sure this public information is known to help prevent any violence/casualties. A simple test to keep them in check by making sure they don't easily break under pressure is just plain more safe and comfortable for everyone around.
It's okay to check their criminal history, since that should not be a secret. Then they have a legit excuse to say no. Frankly, saying no to the guy when the best information they have is that he's Muslim reeks of discrimination. They had no reason to say no at this point. Not a single good one.
I'm not justifying the act he did or anything, but there is a point when you need to make it a lawful way to keep guns away from potentially violent people. And going into their personal history, one that should be kept secret unless it's a criminal record, is creepy and frankly unethical.
Exactly. It's of course an issue in a way too, but again, use tests to make sure they won't violently react. That's how you really tell if you can trust them with a gun. Also, wasn't he a security guard, something that's public information? Why wouldn't they think the guy could handle a gun? Unless he was fired or something for extreme violence within the work place, they kind of had no real reason to think he would do this.
edited 12th Jun '16 9:41:13 PM by Irene
Shadow?
It's impractical. You know it, I know it, everybody in this thread knows it.
![]()
Which would require a Constitutional Amendment and the current environment is one where even simple laws can't get passed. A Constitutional Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment is impossible at the current time in the current political environment.
edited 12th Jun '16 9:49:51 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyThat doesn't work.
People will make 'em work instead.
This makes it so cops have to use ineffective weapons against real terrorists.
This doesn't solve anything. Background checks and proper mental testing are honestly the most legitimate solutions since they actually have a decent chance at keeping a gun away from a madman. If a person is pretty barred from having a gun, they're more likely to be kept an eye on if anything slightly suspicious happens. It may not always prevent a death, but it has a far higher chance to than essentially ignoring everyone and not knowing if anyone could have a gun. Outlawing them is useless. Guns are a normal thing. It also ruins hunting, a perfectly legitimate use of guns. And yes, those counts as firearms in every way.
Shadow?
The US isn't other countries, and as 4G said, it requires a Constitutional amendment that's nigh-impossible to pass in the current political environment.
Getting rid of guns will never happen here. It'd also require a severe change to the constitution. One that will never happen because that'd get rid of all legit uses too, which is not really an acceptable outcome. Guns are here to stay.
And background checks do work, you know. But they aren't enough all the time. Mental tests are needed too to make it more clear the problem won't happen most of the time.
Look, if you think getting rid of guns will do much at all, they won't. What makes you think their violent attitude won't just use another weapon? Unless we use a mental test to figure out something, they won't ever be on the radar so they can be decently stopped.
The only major mistake with this case is that the FBI didn't immediately keep an eye better on the person who had a gun that they knew not to trust. This isn't even close to the gun shop's fault, especially when they did actually attempt to make sure the person was safe to give a gun to. Likewise, making mental tests mandatory does a lot more, without trying to take away legit usage of guns(many cops do need to have them to protect the peace, and stop madmen from actually killing tons of innocent lives), hunting(exactly what is wrong with appropriate and responsible hunting?), and armies properly having them(war happens, and they are prepared to die. Why shouldn't they have the same fighting chance as everybody else does during war? Seems silly to me to weaken ourselves when unfortunately war is the only answer).
edited 12th Jun '16 9:58:32 PM by Irene
Shadow?So we get other laws through that will restrict the usage and ownership of guns. There's no reason someone should own a handgun, an assault weapon, a high powered rifle, etc. unless their goal is to kill someone.
Just adding more background checks won't stop another mass shooting. This guy got his guns through perfectly legal means, and over 50 people are dead. There is no justification for that.
It's impractical because it's virtually impossible to amend the constitution in this political environment, and it'll continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
It'd be more practical to stop the causes of gun violence, which basically boils down to addressing socioeconomic suffering and mental illness.
To pass an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a two-third majority of both the House and the Senate need to agree to it, and three-fourths of the state legislatures need to ratify it. And that is exactly what would be needed to ban guns in the United States because an amendment needs to be passed to repeal the Second Amendment which protects the right to own guns. Do you seriously believe that a two-thirds majority of both the House and the Senate would agree to ban guns and that 38 states would then agree to ban guns? That is needed to ban guns in the United States.
I would much rather work with dealing with the causes of gun violence and closing loopholes in gun regulations than trying the herculean task of trying to ban guns.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:05:30 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyI think we need to stop dancing around this issue and saying "well, maybe if we wish really hard, people will stop murdering scores of people each week"
We get our politicians to realize that they need to take action and stop appeasing murderers, and we get the constitution amended. There's no justification for letting people kill crowds of innocents. It's time people stop pretending this is just a part of life.
There is that suggestion that the second amendment should mean that you can own guns and that you can carry them with you, but only if you have legitimate business with them. (You would be able to keep them in your own home regardless.) Like, "I'm going hunting at x location" or "I'm going to gun range y."
A knife has a ton of uses aside from hurting someone. A gun is far more limited.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:06:52 PM by Zendervai
It also needs to be pointed out that there are parts of this country where people need guns for survival, not against people but against animals, for hunting and protection. (These are also places where you're more likely to find that respect and safe handling of firearms is drilled into people from an early age.)
A knife can't be used to mow down 50 people in one afternoon. A gun can.
that's a load of bull. People aren't living out in the wilderness amongst violent animals unless they choose to. If one wanders into a populated area, police can handle it, not Joe from down the block.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:07:51 PM by smokeycut
"Nobody owns a handgun except to kill people"-this isn't entirely true, and it's also Dramatically Missing the Point-self defense (which, yes, often involves killing) is a basic human right. I'd argue that the police's right to carry weaponry is simply an extension of the human right to bear arms.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I'm pro-second amendment, but that is a more than a little bit of a strawman.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:09:29 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34

Ah, my bad.
I also just read he's a trained security guard. That's somebody you would trust normally. Domestic problems possibly were ignored since they'd consider him a professional.
Best reason I can think of. I take back what I said about the background check then. Although my key point is that background checks cannot reliably prove they will shoot someone unprovoked or only buy it for murder. If he was able to be hired as a security guard, that means that somebody believed he had self-control out of home. This most likely played a role in the decision. To say the least, they made a bad decision regardless.
edited 12th Jun '16 7:34:59 PM by Irene
Shadow?