ISIS on the move
stay safe Eos
This surprises me to be honest, I thought we've had way worst mass shootings before.
now imagine if everyone at the club had a concealed weapon permit and had their own automatic weapons, no one would have died /s
now watch, nothing will change and gun laws will stay the same
Watch western leaders march together with certain Islamic dictators condemning this terrorist attack and claiming it has nothing to do with true Islam. See, the correct wahhabist way is to behead gays, not shoot them...
gtfo, the nightclub was literally a "gun-free zone"
yeah history tends to exaggerate.
in other news, reddit has gone full-Brussels in censoring the thing
This went from 0 to Godwin's law in record time, nice. Proof that Godwin's law applies to more than just Hitler.
Godwin's law - "if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism."
I don't see any reference to Hitler or Nazism o_O
his comment went from zero to godwin in record time, and no it doesn't apply to more than just hitler.
Because you used the gun law version of Godwin's law so of course there wasn't a reference like that you clod.
The creator himself has applied its use to other things so good job on being wrong.
Just because something is brought up often in response to certain events, doesn't make it an example of extended Godwin's Law. It's only Godwin's Law if it's not relevant to the discussion.
Godwin's Law talks about bringing up the Nazis in a discussion that has nothing to do with them.
Shootings have a lot to do with gun laws. They are a big part of why people want gun control laws. So it's perfectly natural that someone would bring that up in relation to this topic.
Although it turns out that, in this case, the shooter wasn't an example of "in America, any random wacko can walk into a gun shop and buy whatever they want", so the argument isn't particularly convincing.
Godwin stated his law (which is defined by reference to Hitler of Nazism in a discussion) because he saw how frequently and quickly the comparisons were made, and because most of the time it was a highly inappropriate comparison. That's not the case here. Gun laws are directly related to the topic of this thread.
Your definition of 'different versions of Godwin's law' can be applied to literally any statement. The creator's alternate versions are also related to highly inappropriate comparisons. Again, not the case here.
Anyways, I digress.
Horribly terrible incident. As a country, we have a duty to take measures to prevent future attacks, and we should have taken those measures years ago. The most effective actions, as far as I can tell, would be gun legislation.
I personally can't understand how anyone can justify their need to own a military grade weapon. It's mind-boggling that this is even still a debate.
Forgot to refresh, Sapta beat me to the punch. Gun laws that are relevant to this case would be some sort of ban on assault weapons, because as far as I can tell, there are no logical justifications for owning one. But hopefully this massacre has shaken gun rights activists enough to allow some of the other common sense gun laws they'd be more likely to compromise on
Is the specifics of Godwin's law really that important?
I'm personally sick of seeing religiously aggravated shootings going on. I hate to sound like a red-neck shotgun-toting sister-bonking 'murica lover but if these guys are so offended by having their stupid prophet drawn in a Cartoon and can't stomach the fact that we're okay with people being gay they need to shove it up their ass and go the pineapple somewhere else. I can't believe someone would be so backwards-savage as to literally pineappleing go and gun down a bunch of innocent people; do these people really think this is something they're going to be rewarded for, or are righteous for doing? It's pineappleing sickening and I have nothing positive to say about a faith that would literally encourage people to do stuff like this. It's absolute savagery, and I'm really not seeing how any sort of Political Correctness can convince me otherwise.
I'm not sure if we can really expect a bunch of club goers to a) carry a gun b) handle a gun. A gun in this club to combat the terrorist in my opinion may have ended in more harm than help. Even if there was a sober, able bodied, person in the crowd that could handle a gun comfortably, from my understanding a cramped club with a large group of people is not somewhere to try and be a hero. A whole other rant about gun access and gun control could be done here, but I won't. There's no point in arguing how this happened, but that we stop it in the future. My heart goes out to all the family and friends of those were injured and lost, things like this are a subtle reminder that there is still a big dichotomy between the LGBTQ community and the rest of the world.
EDIT: And frankly, it's almost insulting to make assertions and assumptions that if someone had a gun to protect themselves they could still be alive. They could still be alive if we prevented people like this in the first place.
EDIT2: Wow I didn't see the /s. Sorry ;_________;
Last edited by Tay; 2016-06-14 at 07:50 AM.
Honestly whether or not the attacker had a gun wouldn't have mattered.
What mattered is this pineappleer clearly had the intent to kill, and had no qualms about the consequences of doing so; he would have went to any lengths to do this(he literally called the police and bragged about it). Making explosives and bombing up everyone or using some other form of improvised weaponry would have had fairly similar results. I don't think it'd be fair to remove everyone's right to own guns in fear of pomegranateheads like this because it will not go very far to stop them from doing it other ways anyway. I'm not gonna bring up the whole ''guns are necessary for self-defense!'' argument but people should have the right to have firearms(although I think they should have psychological and background checks and have permits for them at all times).
The "/s" in Bryan's post means "I'm being sarcastic". He meant to convey the exact same message you did.
By the same logic, why bother locking your home and car? You know a sufficiently determined burglar will be able to get in.
Yes, determined terrorists will use whatever they can, be it knives or airliners. But that's no reason to make it easy for them.
Also guns are much more flexible than explosives. Explosives don't let you chase down and murder people who survived the initial blast and ran to other rooms or lay on the floor playing dead. How many people did the Boston Marathon attackers manage to kill with their homemade explosives? How many people died from bombs in the Paris attacks, vs. how many people died from gunfire?
This particular slimeball had the psychological and background check and permit for his weapon and job as a security guard. The FBI investigated him - and cleared him. Which is why I said, before, that the whole reflex "we need gun control" response to a shooting is unwarranted in this case. Somebody seriously messed up, to allow this to happen, but it wasn't the legislators.
Locking your home is a different scenario. The issue of locking or not locking your home isn't subject to the controversy and issue of ownership that guns are in. Locking your home is a safe, effortless way of making it harder for a burglar to get in.
Taking away EVERYONE's right to own guns even for those who are well-behaved and only use them for things like hobbies or just for the sake of collecting just to make it a little harder for terrorists to go on killing sprees, when it won't really STOP them from doing it when they REALLY want is an entirely different debate and issue compared to simply locking your house.
Should we take away everyone's porn to make it harder for rapists to have material that may or may not aggravate them to commit rape further?
Should we take away everyone's right to own knives because someone gets stabbed?
Locking your house an entirely different matter.
All in all, I support someone's right to own firearms and do not think removing that right will have any significant impact on killer psychopaths. This guy may have killed -less- people if he didn't have a readily available firearm, but the fact remains that he would have killed and injured a copious amount of people either way; it wasn't the guns that caused that.
|Maplestory "High Five" Private Showcase||Slip's Music Database (GMS v177: The Afterlands)||v.177 â€“ Strange Stories Update Preview|
|[Updated] v.177 â€“ Strange Stories Patch Notes||Rules and Regulations [UPDATED: 2014-09-15]||[KMS]Inkwell Diary # 72 - Night Walker skill preview|
|NXPatcher - Create your own pre-patcher & list of Maple FTPs||Maple Memo: A Better Maple Update||Maplestory 2, Aanyeong|
|Onyx Ring Discussion||[Updated] Maplehood Watch: 7/25 â€“ 8/6||[CMS] Luminous Light/Dark system converted back to KMS version|
|Is NexonNA trying to kill Reboot World?||[Rant] This game's practically dead in terms of actual content.||Beast Tamer discussion thread|