Florida Pulse gay club attacked in Orlando

[Hermit]

Well it fills up their trousers.

And makes them look as if they are pleased to see women.

[Scot Dutchy]

Well it fills up their trousers.

And makes them look as if they are pleased to see women.

[Seth]

He should go to Ratskep. Plenty think like him there.

He did go there. Lasted just over a year before being permabanned.

The same tag?

Not sure what you mean with 'tag', but after around 1200 posts he was deemed to be a concern troll. In my opinion 'troll' is almost always just another way of expressing one's intense dislike of / disagreement with the person so described. The only actual troll I recall posting at rationalia had a whole flotilla of sockpuppet accounts, the last of which was 'Chuck Jones', and although he irritated a lot of other members he was harmless.

The name. What we call ourselves. Not surprised at Ratskep. There seems to be three lists of members there. The untouchables on the white list who can literally insult members on the grey list with impunity. The ones like me who ruffle too many feathers especially if you are a not Corbynite or Sandersbro on the grey list. The black list of those heading for the exit by means fair or foul.

Anything you say here is used there as well. Quite pathetic really.

Too fucking right, that!

[Seth]

Crumple wrote:

...but they invest loads of time and effort into educational systems that keep a populace in a torpor...

Nonsense! Media, advertising, some government actions and consumerist ideology may well have that effect, but in general, most educational systems strive to do the opposite, if with little effect...

Wrong. Most educational systems in Europe and the US are dominated by Marxist/socialist ideology and therefore their primary goal is to stupidify students and keep them calm, malleable, obedient and ignorant.

That's why we've got snowflakes at Harvard and Yale.

[Seth]

I don't know what you are saying any more, you've changed your story so many times.

The simple fact is that religion is used as a justification for bigotry and violence by huge number of people. If we got rid of the religion, we wouldn't automagically fix the problem, but we would put a dent in it.

No, you'd just shift the bigotry and violence to some other group identity. The implicit notion that you seem to state that atheism is inherently superior philosophically and morally is entirely unsupported by the evidence as there are plenty of non-theists who do bad things, including non-theists who do bad things using religion as a stalking horse for their evil (like Hitler) and are actually not theists but are merely pretending to be theists because it's a way to garner support for their non-theistic evil agendas.

Just because someone doesn't do bad things 'in the name of" something doesn't make it any less evil and just because bad things are done "in the name of" religion by some persons (however large that group may be) does not make religion inherently a bad thing.

In point of historical fact, religion has been far more beneficial to humanity over the ages than atheism ever has.

Just because you nihilistically believe in nothing beyond yourself and your severely limited senses doesn't mean that you are any better than anyone else or any less likely to do something bad.

Besides, Atheism as you practice it is most definitely and absolutely a "religion" just like any other and your faith in Atheism is just as irrational as is any one else's.

[Seth]

The fact remains that if these drooling imbeciles didn't base their entire fucking lives on some moldy old book this wouldn't have happened.

They don't. This homophobia comes from the here and now, and only in the here and now will it be tackled. Only when people realise that conscious acts cannot arise from unconscious books will we have the wisdom to defeat these murderers. Targeting a book will not reduce the tendency for these events to happen.

for coming for MY guns? Just fucking try it.

After the Dunblane massacre the UK tightened its gun laws. The US should do the same.

Why? It didn't do anything to prevent murder in the UK, why do you think it would do anything to prevent murder here?

[Seth]

It's all here somewhere, but I can't be arsed to dig through almost 11,000 posts. Over 300,000,000 guns, no registry of who owns them or where they are, literally millions of people ready to open fire rather than turn them in, and the beat goes on. think "logistics" and go from there.

If you can find bin Laden in the middle of Pakistan can't you manage gun control?

You're really bad at maths, aren't you.

Here's a basic lesson that might help: 1 < 300 million.

I agree with Lak, think "logistics."

[Seth]

It's all here somewhere, but I can't be arsed to dig through almost 11,000 posts. Over 300,000,000 guns, no registry of who owns them or where they are, literally millions of people ready to open fire rather than turn them in, and the beat goes on. Think "logistics" and go from there.

How did having guns help those people? Or should they have all had them?

Yes, all law-abiding citizens in that room should have had, or at least had the right to choose to have a gun on their person. Unfortunately, Florida law, while quite liberal with respect to CCW permits, prohibits the carrying of firearms into venues that serve alcohol, even if you have a CCW permit. Therefore, nobody but the bad guy...and in this case the ineffective hired security...had a gun.

That's the typical situation at every single mass shooting that's ever occurred, anywhere.

Where many law-abiding citizens are armed such mass shootings simply do not occur, and where they are attempted they don't become mass killings because some armed person or persons go to the trouble of shooting the attacker before the "mass" part can get rolling. Nothing dissuades a psychopath from shooting at people like people shooting at him.

I would say that the State of Florida should be held financially liable for damages to any person who was qualified to carry concealed but who was prohibited from doing so by state law, just as the venue owners should be held liable if they privately ban guns in their establishments and fail to provide adequate and effective security measures that completely prevent such incidents from occurring.

[Seth]

(CNN)Authorities took a suspect into custody in West Hollywood, California, after discovering an arsenal in his car that included explosive powder, assault weapons and a camouflage outfit, CNN affiliate KABC reported, citing unnamed authorities. The suspect told authorities that he was there for the Los Angeles Pride festival

What is the right Kind of camouflage for a pride Parade?

Absence.

[Seth]

I agree with Lak that the twisted logic of religious extremism is the culprit here, but it's no use pretending that having easy access to guns doesn't at least make this an easier option for nut-jobs. Having said that, I'm not advocating a "ban the guns" position at all, but just wondering if it might be possible to make it a bit harder for nut-jobs to obtain them...

If you can find a way to "make it a bit harder for nut-jobs to obtain them" without infringing on the rights of non-nut-jobs to obtain them I'd love to hear it.

The problem with all of the "common sense" gun control plans of the anti-gun groups is that their goal is not to make it harder for nut-jobs to obtain guns, it's to ban guns and prevent ANYONE from obtaining them, ever. They (meaning Obama and Hillary among many others) actually revel in such mass killings because they are fodder for their gun-banning objectives. They love to dance on the graves of the dead almost before they are actually dead (it took less than two minutes after the news broke for the anti-gunners to dance a jig) in order to forward their actual agenda, which has nothing to do with respecting the constitutional rights of non-criminals and non-nut-jobs.

[Seth]

they won't win, we'll go on living

Yes, but if I lived in America I would avoid malls, cinemas, airports, stadia, concert halls, anywhere where lots of people congregate with low security in a country bristling with high powered weapons and fucking nutters.

So the terrrrrrists have won. Oh well.

Not if you carry a gun yourself.

[Seth]

they can get machine guns for peanuts.

OUTRIGHT FALSE HOOD!

You have absolutely no idea what you are fucking talking about. It's totally pathetic.

Sure, he shouldn't have used the word machine gun. Presumably fully automatic weapons are difficult (but not impossible) to get in the US. Gang members seem to be able to obtain Uzis without too much trouble, though.

Indeed...in the UK and Australia actually, or had that fact escaped you? Explain how that happened why don't you?

However, it is not hard for a nut-job to obtain a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine, which is all it takes, really...

Indeed. And the solution is many other people who aren't nut-jobs carrying firearms with which to put a stop to any pretensions to massacre such a nut-job attempts. That is in fact the ONLY solution that is in any way effective. Nothing else works, and many things have been tried, but a good guy with a gun has always been and remains the best possible defense against a bad guy with a gun.

[Seth]

Indeed, as I was saying on another forum, the only reason christians are not executing sodomites is that they no longer have the temporal power to do so...
and I bet pope benny would have gladly done it had he been able, mabe even JPII

You're completely full of unfounded hateful shit.

[Seth]

Because the definition of mental illness is an inability to function in normal society. I'd say murdering 50 of your fellow citizens is pretty clear proof that you can't function in normal society.

Depends on how "normal society" is defined. According to Islam, murdering 50 of your "fellow citizens" who happen to be homosexuals is not only "normal functioning" it's a social mandate...or had that rather obvious fact escaped you?

[Seth]

This is just another example of the inability of conservatives to think outside of false dichotomies. If a killer is mentally ill, it has to mean that everyone else with mental illness must be a mass murderer. That's retarded thinking. It's eminently reasonable to make a distinction between different types of mental illness. Just because a fruitcake kills 50 people doesn't mean everyone with depression or anxiety are in line to go on a shooting spree.

Right. So therefore why argue that divesting such persons (much less those who are neither depressed nor anxious) of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms for their own defense is a rational objective?

Better I think to let non-fruitcakes be armed if they choose to be armed so that they can kill those exceedingly rare individual fruitcakes who happen to decide to try to kill others.