Orlando massacre

[AI Wessex]

I can't believe nobody has started a thread on this.  Slate has this about Trump's response.  He is a truly sick person.

Some questions about us.

* Why do we tolerate this pattern of extreme violence?
* No one here wants to ban guns.  Does this event change anyone's mind about allowing people to buy and own AR15's?
* Does anyone believe that support of ISIS is the reason he did this? Should we believe what a mass killer says about himself or instead try to figure out what mental illness drives him to act out in this bizarre way?
* What law(s) would you change or introduce to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future?
* Are all mass shootings of strangers acts of terrorism?

Add your own questions...

[D.W.]

I haven't watched Trumps response.  Just his tweets and some headlines so far.


* Why do we tolerate this pattern of extreme violence? Pass

* No one here wants to ban guns.  Does this event change anyone's mind about allowing people to buy and own AR15's?  I don't think I'll ever be up for a ban on weapons based upon cosmetic reasons.  They are hunting rifles which trend towards larger magazine capacity.  Ban all long guns?     Even if you try to ban per magazine capacity, I am not sure someone who has drilled with magazine swapping is going to have their lethality diminished by swapping more often.

* Does anyone believe that support of ISIS is the reason he did this? Should we believe what a mass killer says about himself or instead try to figure out what mental illness drives him to act out in this bizarre way?  One doesn't dismiss the other.  We may want to consider how much propaganda we are willing to give the perpetrators and the causes they claim to support however.  The "truth" of their claims honestly don't matter unless they lead to ways to mitigate violence from these groups in the future.  So... pretty much never?

* What law(s) would you change or introduce to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future?  Primary, remove the laws which ban the carrying of concealed weapons into such establishments.  Secondary, consider restricting purchases of firearms by those one a watch list.  This one is dangerous.  In some respects I think, "If they can have no fly lists without a conviction, why not a no gun list?"  On the other hand, this is removing a right without trial, and that doesn't sit well with me.  They SEEM equivalent from a "common sense" stand point, but the constitution makes it pretty clear they are not equivalent. 

* Are all mass shootings of strangers acts of terrorism?  Pretty much text book in this case.  If a perpetrator leaves zero indication as to their motivations however, No.  Terrorism suggests there is an intent to send a message or promote a cause.

[Fenring]

* Are all mass shootings of strangers acts of terrorism?  Pretty much text book in this case.  If a perpetrator leaves zero indication as to their motivations however, No.  Terrorism suggests there is an intent to send a message or promote a cause.

Just be careful about the fact that a whacko looking to go out in a blaze of glory knows that touching certain key words will get better press, "terrorism" being one of them, and "ISIS" in particular another. Merely claiming to have done the work of ISIS isn't enough to qualify as an act of terrorism unless we're going to call even the use of the word "ISIS" in conjunction with any crime an act of terrorism (I vandalize this wall in the name of ISIS). I think additional research about the person must be done, and if they were part of a terrorist cell, or were planning acts of violence in calculated fashion beforehand, then a case can be made for terrorism. A whacko snapping and choosing a cause du jour to sign off with? I don't really see it. And that's assuming this attack even had anything to do with ISIS, of which I am skeptical.

[D.W.]

Does it keep ISIS in the headlines?  Does ISIS not go, "Cool we applaud this guy, and encourage more to do as he did!"  (Well unless the latest headline about him being gay himself makes them retract that, but who knows, maybe that's an act of redemption to them...)

Pretty much if you cause violence on a large scale and pick a cause, you have perpetrated an "act of terrorism". 

The one thing we DON'T need to do is research their life story and trot it out to everyone so the next person who's on the edge thinks, "Gee look at all this attention.  If I'm going out, I think I'll get me some of that!"  Law enforcement needs to investigate and make sure he's not part of a cell or anything like that in order to stop others.  The media and we as citizens need these suicidal murdering *censored*s to be trivialized if not just die an anonymous death as a nameless monster.  No names in the news unless it's in regards to a manhunt.  No life stories or opportunities for like minded people to spout off their hateful message to a wide audience. 

But nope, we all "need to know", think that by digging deep into their personal lives and history we can "understand" and stop it... somehow. 

Fenring what you are talking about is organized terrorism.  I expect you are correct and it has nothing to do with that.  I expect this was the act by a single individual with zero support or consultation with others.  At the end of the day they are ALL whackos snapping.  That's what terrorism is.  Snapping and seeing violence against civilians as your only option to draw the attention you desire.

[Gaoics79]

* Why do we tolerate this pattern of extreme violence?

 

* No one here wants to ban guns.  Does this event change anyone's mind about allowing people to buy and own AR15's?

The first half of your sentence doesn't seem entirely consistent with the jist of the second half. But if someone were to explain how that AR15 is a uniquely deadly firearm, I think we could have a conversation. On the other hand, I have heard it said by some that the term "assault" weapon is meaningless and there is nothing "military" about an AR15, which means it's just a nasty looking long gun. In other words, what makes it an "assault" weapon is cosmetic, not substantive. So if you want to ban the AR15, you're probably just advocating to ban a whole bunch of semi automatic hunting weapons.

On one hand, I think that as these events become increasingly common, the pressure is going to grow to restrict some of these firearms. I'm not overly sympathetic to the argument that the general citizenry should sacrifice their freedom to prevent attacks that are probably not preventable anyway. But if they keep happening, that's what's inevitably going to happen.

I also think gun control advocates are disingenuous for the most part. I think we don't need to speculate on their motives; you only need to look at Canada for their end game. Yeah, guns are legal here - just make sure your bullets are in a locked safe two towns over and don't even think about using the gun in a home robbery or you'll get charged with "unsafe discharge" or something and the prosecutor will make a deal with the robber to convict the homeowner. Yeah, we know what gun control advocates are really up to.

* Does anyone believe that support of ISIS is the reason he did this? Should we believe what a mass killer says about himself or instead try to figure out what mental illness drives him to act out in this bizarre way?

Your question implies that a priori, we must assume that mental illness is behind the attack. I wouldn't rule it out by any stretch - we have seen examples of people who were probably paranoid schizophrenics commit such crimes, the Gifford shooting for instance. But thus far there's no evidence of that, except for the ex wife's testimony as to his overall "craziness", but even she isn't saying he's actually delusional. I think there's a distinction to be made between someone who is unbalanced, but largely rational and devoted to certain ideology, compared with someone who is flat out delusional.

In direct answer to your question, no we shouldn't automatically believe what a mass killer says about himself. But nor should we twist ourselves into pretzels trying to avoid obvious motives based on speculation or facts not in evidence. The man was apparently a conservative Muslim who had gone on the pilgrimage and travelled to the Middle East several times. He publicly espoused a desire for "martyrdom" and espoused intense hatred of gay people, which is entirely consistent with his professed ideology. He then called the police during the attack to declare his allegiance to ISIL. Whether or not he had direct training or contact with ISIL, I think the evidence is more than sufficient to suggest that his radical Islamic beliefs and ideology was more than incidental.

* What law(s) would you change or introduce to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future?

It sounds like this guy tried to purchase body armor. The question is, given that he was investigated, maybe he should have been on a watch list of some kind that could have been distributed to gun stores and other retailers of body armor and weapons. At least that's what comes to my mind.

* Are all mass shootings of strangers acts of terrorism?

No, but it's difficult to envision too many scenarios that wouldn't qualify.

[D.W.]

But if someone were to explain how that AR15 is a uniquely deadly firearm, I think we could have a conversation. On the other hand, I have heard it said by some that the term "assault" weapon is meaningless and there is nothing "military" about an AR15, which means it's just a nasty looking long gun. In other words, what makes it an "assault" weapon is cosmetic, not substantive. So if you want to ban the AR15, you're probably just advocating to ban a whole bunch of semi automatic hunting weapons.

I just had a similar exchange with an acquaintance on facebook. 

In doing so I played devil's advocate a bit and said that if one wanted to suggest that "assault rifles" played into people's fantasies of "playing soldier" (or killer / mercenary / jihadist), then that may be something to explore when comparing them to any modern semi-automatic long gun (which they are).  If you want to argue that cosmetics are playing a psychological role in instigating these mass shootings, do so.  Pretending that they are somehow more dangerous, just makes those leery of gun control think you are disingenuous or uninformed.

[AI Wessex]

The first half of your sentence doesn't seem entirely consistent with the jist of the second half. But if someone were to explain how that AR15 is a uniquely deadly firearm, I think we could have a conversation.

My sense is that the bigger the weapon, the bigger the erection, especially when you want to cause mass mayhem.  A 38 snubnose just won't cut it when you want to gun down an entire trapped herd.  The AR-15 was developed for military combat, not for popping deer from a blind.

[Fenring]

Fenring what you are talking about is organized terrorism.  I expect you are correct and it has nothing to do with that.  I expect this was the act by a single individual with zero support or consultation with others.  At the end of the day they are ALL whackos snapping.  That's what terrorism is.  Snapping and seeing violence against civilians as your only option to draw the attention you desire.

If the definition of any nutjob cracking and killing lots of people is terrorism then mass murder and terrorism become synonymous. I'm sure all psychos that commit acts of mass murder can be said to have some motive or another. To me having a motive isn't the issue; it's whether they are deliberately taking steps to aid in some cause. And no, I don't think randomly shouting the words "ISIS!" alongside any old violent crime helps the cause of ISIS. When we look at certain kinds of 'traditional terrorism' the difference becomes evident immediately. People who were promised oil in exchange for strapping a bomb to their chests; people who were recruited by a cell; people who were fighting for a coherent and (to them) attainable goal - those were terrorists. They wanted to use terror to defeat their enemy. ISIS does not defeat America by bombing a gay club, and therefore I conclude that some doofus deciding to do so in not in any material way assisting ISIS, regardless of whether he even thinks he is or not. Even lone operators like the Unabomber were clearly terrorists, because in his case he had a goal, a manifesto, a target audience, and demands. Lack of demands, lack of an actual goal, and lack of directed action (even if self-directed) to me means the individual is just a criminal nutjob but not a terrorist. Random violence isn't terrorism; at least not to me, and not, I think, to the definitions that were used for a long time (until very recently).

Now, the shooter(s) here may, in fact, have been angry Muslims who wanted to do something for ISIS, and I certainly accept that they may have acted with that explicit intent rather than just tacking on "uh...oh yeah, for ISIS!" as an afterthought. But even with explicit thought I have a hard time classifying it as terrorism unless they were actually trying to terrorize someone into doing something. Killing people for being gay is a hate crime, but in and of itself is not terrorism. Killing people for being gay still doesn't become terrorism even if the idea to hate them came from a terrorist group. Being indoctrinated by terrorists isn't the same as being a terrorist. Terrorism isn't a belief, it's a tactic.

[D.W.]

So, in your opinion, in order to be an ISIS terrorist, one must take an action that is obviously a step towards establishing an actual Islamic state?

Or is an attack on what they may see as "corrupt western lifestyle" part of their goals?  Obviously they (ISIS) are encouraging acts of random violence.  Those who act on this are NOT terrorists?  I mean, I'd agree they are pawns, but the distinction is an odd one to me.

Causing chaos and staying relevant on the world stage DOES serve their political and military goals.  Promoting this with little expenditure of resources beyond maybe social media efforts is distressingly savvy in my book.

Now THIS case may not turn out to be motivated by ISIS and it could be an afterthought by someone looking to make as big an impact as possible as part of their suicide, but that doesn't change that ISIS benefits.

[Fenring]

So, in your opinion, in order to be an ISIS terrorist, one must take an action that is obviously a step towards establishing an actual Islamic state?

Yes. This is the only goal ISIS has ever professed to fight for.

Or is an attack on what they may see as "corrupt western lifestyle" part of their goals?

You're talking about ISIS as if it's Al Qaeda. Actually it's not you, it's the media that passed on the message that ISIS is just Al Qaeda 2.0, to the point where a lot of people were confused and thought it was the same group rebranded. They are nothing alike. As so-called Muslim extremists I'm sure they claim to "hate the infidel", but I'm of the opinion that they are not in the slightest bit Islamic, even though they fool Muslims into thinking they are. It's a recruitment tool. But they have never to date, to my knowledge, made any attack on the West with the intent of really harming the West in any way (unlike 9/11). I don't think they materially benefit from bombings like this, and I don't even think on a personal level they care about stuff like that. It's no 'victory for Allah' for them. They have shown time and again that they are after material gains and territory.

[D.W.]

I wasn't suggesting it was a 'victory for Allah'.  I was suggesting that a disenfranchised / self-radicalized individual would see a 'successful attack against the infidels' and be motivated to join up.  No matter that the attack wasn't really perpetrated by ISIS.  I'm more cynical than you give me credit for. 

That said, maybe you are right and they don't care and don't try to monopolize on it and I only get that impression from our media?  I can't say it's not a plausible theory.

[Fenring]

That said, maybe you are right and they don't care and don't try to monopolize on it and I only get that impression from our media?  I can't say it's not a plausible theory.

I definitely can't say for certain. But yes, I think our media stands to gain more from labeling something an ISIS attack than ISIS does, which immediately makes me skeptical when every attack is inspected by a fine tooth comb to see if the letters I and S can be found nearby.

[Paladine]

* Why do we tolerate this pattern of extreme violence?
* No one here wants to ban guns.  Does this event change anyone's mind about allowing people to buy and own AR15's?
* Does anyone believe that support of ISIS is the reason he did this? Should we believe what a mass killer says about himself or instead try to figure out what mental illness drives him to act out in this bizarre way?
* What law(s) would you change or introduce to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future?
* Are all mass shootings of strangers acts of terrorism?

1) I don't think we tolerate it so much as we have very different ideas about what causes it and what's likely to fix it, so we're at something of an impasse.

2) I haven't followed this too closely, but it does look to me like his ideology had quite a bit to do with his actions. I think that we should judge each case according to its particular circumstances, and this looks to me more like an ideologically motivated crime than a product of some mental disorder.

3) I don't think this is really a problem law can fix. We have an awful lot of people in this country who are alienated and maladjusted. We can talk about guns or about immigration if you want, but the primary problem, at least to my mind, is that we have so many people who are filled with so much hate or so much confusion that they want to kill as many other people as they can. That's a problem that needs to be fixed by families and communities and religious organizations, by friends and neighbors.

4) No. Terrorism implies an intention to cause fear which itself is generally a means to some other objective. I think that many mass shootings are terroristic, and that this one probably was. But some are just sad, confused people lashing out and trying to take control of something before they die.

[Gaoics79]

If the definition of any nutjob cracking and killing lots of people is terrorism then mass murder and terrorism become synonymous

No not at all. You will note that in the original question you responded to, the question was whether the killing of strangers is usually synonymous with terrorism. When the killer knows the victim, as in a Columbine situation, or in a postal type scenario (even a Marc Lepine style rampage) that is not terrorism because personal motives like revenge muddy the water. You can also envision of course criminal type killings (a mob hit, drug killings like in Mexico) that of course don't count as terrorism. Also, arguably, when someone is just a blatant paranoid schizophrenic (i.e. a "nut" in the clinical sense and not merely someone "unbalanced") then arguably it's not terrorism. For instance, if some paranoid nut thinks that the children he gunned down were CIA spies and he kills them in the name of ISIL, that's arguably not terrorism, or if it is, terrorism isn't really the active ingredient anymore.

But usually a mass murder absent some bona fide mental illness, personal revenge motive, or criminal motive, will be terrorism. The only real question in this case is whether it more properly falls into the "hate crime" silo versus the Islamic terrorism silo. Since I consider mass murders and similar acts motivated by religious or racial bigotry to be also terroristic (Klan lynchings and cross burnings, for instance) then you're just arguing over which flavour of terrorism it was.

And by the way, ISIL absolutely does further its goals when lone wolves carry out its commands (even if not overtly directed from the top), as in this case. These attacks do aid in recruitment, which does in turn aid their objective of building their Islamic state. 

[AI Wessex]

I definitely can't say for certain. But yes, I think our media stands to gain more from labeling something an ISIS attack than ISIS does, which immediately makes me skeptical when every attack is inspected by a fine tooth comb to see if the letters I and S can be found nearby.

Don't leave out the politicians.  Trump has a habit of congratulating himself for predicting events like this immediately after they happen and then later on offers condolences for the victims.  First things first.  I read an article last night with comments by Republican "leaders", none of whom referred to the venue as a gay nightclub or the victims as LGBT, just that it was committed by a terrorist for ISIS.

[AI Wessex]

You will note that in the original question you responded to, the question was whether the killing of strangers is usually synonymous with terrorism. When the killer knows the victim, as in a Columbine situation, or in a postal type scenario (even a Marc Lepine style rampage) that is not terrorism because personal motives like revenge muddy the water.

You honestly don't think there was a "personal motive" in this case?  Many people, including his own father, said that he *hated* gays.  Do you imagine that the Columbine shooters had a personal relationship with every student they gunned down?  I would say the victims were all "classmates".  How about the Sandy Hook shootings?  The key common element in almost all mass shootings is that there are many people in one place who can't escape, not that they are friends, relatives or enemies.

[D.W.]

There is a strong chance there was a personal reason behind this.  Unless the stories that he was in fact closeted and/or bi himself are fabricated.  That's not to say he knew all or even some of these people.  But hating oneself and attacking the people frequenting a place he himself spent time at sounds personal.  Now he may have been conflicted because of his ideology and sexual preferences, so it could be personal, ideological, mental illness and a hate crime all at once.

[AI Wessex]

More info about Mateen:

A new thread in the story of Orlando gunman Omar Mateen. According to multiple patrons of Pulse, the gay club that was the scene of the massacre, Mateen was in fact a regular at the club and also maintained a profile on at least one gay dating app. The reporting, by the LA Times and the Orlando Sentinel is not clear on whether Mateen had sex with other men or whether he was somehow casing the establishment in preparation for his attack. But at least two parts of the story suggests there was more going on than just preparing for the attack.

[Wayward Son]

* What law(s) would you change or introduce to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future?  Primary, remove the laws which ban the carrying of concealed weapons into such establishments.

I don't think you've thought this one through, D.W.  You are advocating that the laws be changed to give anyone the right to bring firearms into "such establishments."

Pulse is a nightclub.  Which almost doubtlessly means they serve alcohol.

You're advocating giving people the right to bring guns into a bar.

You want people to have a firearm handy when they go out and drink, some of whom will get drunk.  Do you seriously believe that intoxicated people are responsible enough to handle a firearm? 

I don't know the answer to such situations.  But I very much doubt lives would be saved with such a policy.

[Fenring]

You want people to have a firearm handy when they go out and drink, some of whom will get drunk.  Do you seriously believe that intoxicated people are responsible enough to handle a firearm? 

How about an automated pulse cannon turret at the front entrance? Oh, plus the bartender can have a shotgun like in every movie.

[D.W.]

Well now you've hit on an interesting point.  People break laws. 

I do not advocate people being allowed to drink while carrying a firearm.  Strong cold medicine could probably get my CPL taken away.  Would some people still drink?  Sure.  People break laws. 

Should people who refrain from drinking be allowed to bring a weapon into places like this?  Yes, I think they (I) should be able to.

Would it save lives?  It MAY stop some mass shootings from occurring.  It MAY stop some loss of life with defensive use.  Will people get shot because someone broke the law of drinking while carrying?  Probably, yes. 

Will people get shot because they were drunk and assault someone who was not drinking but armed?  Probably, yes.  And that is the reason it may not be a good idea.  Like you I don't know the answer to such situations.  I personally would feel safer knowing law abiding citizens had the option of being armed, safer still if *I* was one of those law abiding citizens.

[D.W.]

You want people to have a firearm handy when they go out and drink, some of whom will get drunk.  Do you seriously believe that intoxicated people are responsible enough to handle a firearm? 

How about an automated pulse cannon turret at the front entrance? Oh, plus the bartender can have a shotgun like in every movie.

It's already a dance club.  Why not "enhance" the strobe lights and sound system to incapacitate the entire damn place with the press of a panic button until the cops can sort out the mess?  What's a room full of damaged hearing and soiled undies / vomit covered shirts compared to a massacre?

[Fenring]

Will people get shot because they were drunk and assault someone who was not drinking but armed?  Probably, yes.  And that is the reason it may not be a good idea.  Like you I don't know the answer to such situations.  I personally would feel safer knowing law abiding citizens had the option of being armed, safer still if *I* was one of those law abiding citizens.

I suppose the drunkenness would be a mitigating factor, but to date I'm not sure if I've ever heard a news story about people opening fire on each other on impulse rage in open carry areas. Maybe I've just missed those stories if they exist, but you'd think such a thing would hit the MSM instantly to prove that carrying firearms makes people belligerent. I've never carried a firearm, but I do have some experience in the world of martial arts/self defence. What I learned there is that people who train to defend themselves tend to be more confident and less eager to prove they're tough. It's people who never trained who tend to puff themselves up like a blowfish. Maybe this doesn't translate precisely to the world of open/concealed carry, but I somehow feel that people packing heat wouldn't so much be a danger to each other. The standard argument against this does bear scrutiny, though, which is that in the event of a shooting, armed civilians might create a deadly crossfire; especially so since if they're not trained as a unit their firing pattern won't be coordinated. In tight quarters that could be an issue, but in a more open space if they're a decent shot it's probably less likely there will be friendly fire casualties. Then again I've read plenty of reports of trained police officers missing virtually at point blank range by quite a lot, so there's that, too.

[D.W.]

I'm more concerned about the drunkard "tough guy" who tries to start a fist fight with someone who is armed.  Or a friend of someone who is armed?

We have an alarmingly high tolerance as a society for this type of assault.  Many see it as harmless or manly. 

You are IMO correct that being (lawfully) armed is like being trained in martial arts as far as a mindset of avoidance of conflict and an tendency towards deescalation.  But if someone won't drop it and doesn't give you the option to withdraw you are put in a dangerous situation. 

Do you defend yourself with your fists only under some fair fight standard of manliness?  Do you let them land a few punches and get it out of the system?  If you do fight what happens if they see your gun?  If they go for it?  There are no good options particularly if they are drunk and belligerent.  For that reason, it may be a good idea not to allow firearms and drunk people to mix, not just potentially drunk gun carriers.

Then again, I'm not a big fan of might makes right and survival of the fittest and testosterone+alcohol induced dominance games.  And that doesn't even get into how things change if the carrier / potential carrier is a woman dealing with potential sexual assault.  So here we are in a setting where, if not in the venue itself, certainly getting to and from your vehicle/home you are probably at a raised probability of encountering a situation you own the weapon for...  And it's banned inside.

[rightleft22]

As we learn more about Mateen I suspect we will find that his linking the event to Issis was physiological, an attempt to justify his actions to himself due to an inability to accept his sexuality. 

[Seriati]

Merely claiming to have done the work of ISIS isn't enough to qualify as an act of terrorism unless we're going to call even the use of the word "ISIS" in conjunction with any crime an act of terrorism (I vandalize this wall in the name of ISIS). I think additional research about the person must be done, and if they were part of a terrorist cell, or were planning acts of violence in calculated fashion beforehand, then a case can be made for terrorism.

This seems to me to be a modern western conceit.  The idea that we have to find a deeper meaning, to reach a ridiculous level of proof, before we make a conclusion about something.  You'll note for instance, that ISIS's response wasn't to say they were going to investigate the shooter's claim and get back to us about whether they were claiming the attack.  It's like we've forgotten an important part about what it means to be human.

Absent a compelling reason, we should take a claim about the killer's motivation at face value.

I thought it was interesting yesterday, when I saw this thread, that AI immediately jumped on trying to control the narrative and make this about gun  control.  One could just as easily go back to the thread on this board where we discussed Trump's ridiculous idea to ban all Muslim immigrants, to see the quite logical arguments that were made that bringing immigrants to this country from countries where they have completely incompatible social beliefs will cause problems, and that the children raised will not always "be Americans".  It's pretty clear that this young man, despite his birth in America, was heavily influenced by a culture and an interpretation of religion that is completely contrary to the generally tolerant culture of America. 

To answer the original questions:

Some questions about us.

* Why do we tolerate this pattern of extreme violence?

First of all, not all of us do.  But the answer here is that we tolerate it because we refuse to acknowledge it and deem our own personal rights to be preeminent even in the face of reality.  It's admirable, and at some fundamental level very right, but is that really satisfying when you face a consequence?  It's like the old argument about personal safety and rape, everyone should be safe no matter how they dress or where they go, but that ideal doesn't make reality safer.

In this case, no one in that club is at any fault, at all.  What I'm referring to is that we tolerate a truly abusive culture/religion is the name of tolerance and even act with hostility towards those who would call it to account in the name of liberalism and tolerance, because we're pursuing in this case a naïve ideal rather than acknowledging reality.

There's no such thing as a "Lone Wolf" attack when it comes to Islamic extremism, it's remote radicalization not independent acting.

* No one here wants to ban guns.  Does this event change anyone's mind about allowing people to buy and own AR15's?

Not to any great extent.  I do think the gun has been deliberately connected to violence at this point, I'd hope purchasers would pick a different rifle, and that the manufacturer would consider retiring the model, but that's more for optics than because it would make anyone safer.

* Does anyone believe that support of ISIS is the reason he did this? Should we believe what a mass killer says about himself or instead try to figure out what mental illness drives him to act out in this bizarre way?

Why not do both?  Absent compelling evidence we should believe what they say about their motives.  They'd really need a truly bizarre personal motive to engage in an active misdirect of this magnitude.  Not to mention, even if they did have a secret personal motive that actually decided the issue it's completely irrelevant when you consider the impact of terrorism as filtered through the media response.  The majority of the damage is irrevocably done in the first 72 hours.

* What law(s) would you change or introduce to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future?

What freedom should we give up for a false sense of security?  How about we don't look just to the law the to fix our problems.  Why not ask members of the Islamic community to help identify individuals at risk for, or that have become radicalized?  Why not encourage psychologists and counselors to reach out to marginalized young men and help them integrate?  Why not encourage everyone do reach out to these young men and bring them back into society?

It's not an accident that this kind of attack is most often propagated by individuals that are disconnected from society, marginalized individuals or that have recently become estranged from social networks.  You don't need a law to address that, you need human to human outreach.

* Are all mass shootings of strangers acts of terrorism?

This has been asked and answered so many times on this board.  Have you never read a single response?

Terrorism requires a connection to a "greater" goal.  If there is no intended message there is no terrorism, there may of course be terror.

Add your own questions...

What's your solution to address the danger of remotely radicalized individuals?

[Seriati]

As we learn more about Mateen I suspect we will find that his linking the event to Issis was physiological, an attempt to justify his actions to himself due to an inability to accept his sexuality.

Which if he was a Christian, we'd uniformly acknowledge and hear calls to condemn Christianity because of its "message of repression" of him as a gay individual.  I have no doubt, that an Islamic man who determines that he is gay is going to have real difficulties in accepting himself, but that is in part because his religion is one of the most extreme on sexuality that exists today.

[NobleHunter]

It's pretty clear that this young man, despite his birth in America, was heavily influenced by a culture and an interpretation of religion that is completely contrary to the generally tolerant culture of America. 

It seems clear to me he was heavily influenced by the culture he grew up in. You know, the one with a fetishistic obsession with guns and that routinely singles out LGBT people for harassment and oppression. This isn't something that can be pinned on some foreign religion. All the necessary ingredients are imbedded in American culture. That this guy got the impression that gay people don't have the right to exist is no surprise considering how that view is promulgated at all levels of american society. Hells' freaking bells, you've spent the last few months arguing people's right to pee.

Sure, things have gotten better but there's still a lot of toxic *censored* about LGBT people in American politics. If you think that doesn't have consequences you're out of your mind.

You don't get to use our dead to justify oppression.

[scifibum]

What I'm referring to is that we tolerate a truly abusive culture/religion is the name of tolerance and even act with hostility towards those who would call it to account in the name of liberalism and tolerance, because we're pursuing in this case a naïve ideal rather than acknowledging reality.

I don't believe this is true.  I don't think there's anyone to speak of who advocates for tolerating abusive behaviors in the name of liberalism. 

Rather, there are people who feel obligated - by intolerant rhetoric on Trump's level of sophistication - to point out that Islam is not monolithic and not uniformly as bad as its most extreme sects or local cultures. 

What I have seen a lot of is this distortion that you have repeated here: that political correctness forbids people from condemning Islam for its fruits.  Get back to me when the Right disavows Christianity because of Fred Phelps.

Which if he was a Christian, we'd uniformly acknowledge and hear calls to condemn Christianity because of its "message of repression" of him as a gay individual.

Uniformly?  I doubt it, and I think it'd be right of Christians who don't oppress and reject gays to speak up and make the distinction if they are being lumped in with Westboro.

[Seriati]

It's pretty clear that this young man, despite his birth in America, was heavily influenced by a culture and an interpretation of religion that is completely contrary to the generally tolerant culture of America. 

It seems clear to me he was heavily influenced by the culture he grew up in. You know, the one with a fetishistic obsession with guns and that routinely singles out LGBT people for harassment and oppression. This isn't something that can be pinned on some foreign religion.

What foreign religion?  His parents taught him on American soil.  The fact, and it is a fact, that anti-gay intolerance is a mainstay of that particular religion, which makes trying to parse "secular" anti-gay sentiment from "religious" anti-gay sentiment a fools errand.

All the necessary ingredients are imbedded in American culture. That this guy got the impression that gay people don't have the right to exist is no surprise considering how that view is promulgated at all levels of american society.

And yet, America has gay pride parades in every major city, and gay clubs in just about every town, and is one of the few countries on earth where one can be openly gay and live a normal life (for the most part).  Name me the one majority Muslim country where you can say the same?

Seriously, if you want to divorce this from religion, name the Islamic country where you'd recommend your gay friends could safely move.

[Seriati]

What I'm referring to is that we tolerate a truly abusive culture/religion is the name of tolerance and even act with hostility towards those who would call it to account in the name of liberalism and tolerance, because we're pursuing in this case a naïve ideal rather than acknowledging reality.

I don't believe this is true.  I don't think there's anyone to speak of who advocates for tolerating abusive behaviors in the name of liberalism.

Well lets see if anyone calls me or anyone else that wants to lay the blame at a problem with Islam a bigot.  There is absolutely no doubt that Islam is abusive of homosexuals in virtually every place it holds sway.

Rather, there are people who feel obligated - by intolerant rhetoric on Trump's level of sophistication - to point out that Islam is not monolithic and not uniformly as bad as its most extreme sects or local cultures.

In fairness, Islam is more monolithic than Christianity, but I agree your point.  There are plenty of Islamic people for whom these acts are repugnant.  The line gets incredibly blurry though when you try and parse through the elements of cultural Islam, where support for less deadly but seriously repugnant practices is often wide spread.

What I have seen a lot of is this distortion that you have repeated here: that political correctness forbids people from condemning Islam for its fruits.  Get back to me when the Right disavows Christianity because of Fred Phelps.

Have you really missed the amount of times he's been disavowed?  The amount of Christians who've condemned him, gone out and counter-protested the Westboro's is staggering.  What exactly are you asking for?

Which if he was a Christian, we'd uniformly acknowledge and hear calls to condemn Christianity because of its "message of repression" of him as a gay individual.

Uniformly?  I doubt it, and I think it'd be right of Christians who don't oppress and reject gays to speak up and make the distinction if they are being lumped in with Westboro.

We'd uniformly acknowledge that his inability to come to terms with his sexuality was connected to his "Christian" religion.  It's repeated over and over and over again on these topics the trauma that "Christians" have inflicted on gay men in particular with respect to their guilt load.  Heck you could just watch the Real O'Neals to see the implications.  That said there are many Christian denominations that openly accept gay individuals but I didn't see any reason to mention that.

[scifibum]

"(for the most part)" speaks volumes, Seriati.  Many, many gay people outside of Muslim families and neighborhoods are frightened to be open about it.  It gets preached on TV that tolerance for homosexuality is going to bring God's wrath down on America.  People are getting disowned by their Christian families over their sexual orientation.  It's only recently that it's begun to be illegal to fire and evict people over this. 

I'm sure that this person's family background and religion was a part of what caused him to hate and want to kill gay people.  But the same beliefs and hatred exist outside of Islam, too, in other pockets and swaths of American culture.  Quit with the broad brush, it makes you look like an idiot. 

[scifibum]

Have you really missed the amount of times he's been disavowed?  The amount of Christians who've condemned him, gone out and counter-protested the Westboro's is staggering.  What exactly are you asking for?

I'm not asking for anything, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in expecting people to hold "Islam" to account for extremism while Christianity is not blamed for extremism. 

Have you really missed all the disavowals of extremism of all stripes?

[Seriati]

"(for the most part)" speaks volumes, Seriati.

It really doesn't.  I could say the same thing about people with pimples in junior high.  The vast majority of homosexual people in this country will not face any risk with respect to their personal safety or disruption to their lives that exceeds the same risks your average high school geek faces.  Anyone who faces any level of personal discrimination with respect to jobs is going to have the full force of the government and, either their local community and the national community, or in a few rarer circumstances, a substantial minority of their local community and the national community on their side.

Pretending that modern day America is not one of the single best places to be in as a homosexual is just silly.  It doesn't have to be perfect to be the best.

People are getting disowned by their Christian families over their sexual orientation.

Yes it happens, and always will, call me when they are getting beheaded as is the case in other countries.  You're also ignoring, deliberately, that the vast majority are not getting disowned by their Christian families.

It's only recently that it's begun to be illegal to fire and evict people over this.

And it's become illegal, to the extent that it is, because we collectively agree it was wrong and unjust.

I'm sure that this person's family background and religion was a part of what caused him to hate and want to kill gay people.  But the same beliefs and hatred exist outside of Islam, too, in other pockets and swaths of American culture.  Quit with the broad brush, it makes you look like an idiot.

Sure such beliefs exist in other places, and if that was the background he had, you'd be joining me in the condemnation.  Why do you think your inconsistency makes me look like an idiot?

[NobleHunter]

Pretending that modern day America is not one of the single best places to be in as a homosexual is just silly.  It doesn't have to be perfect to be the best.

Which says more about the world than America. And neglects that the US is nowhere near the top of the list when it comes to "developed" nations.

[Seriati]

Pretending that modern day America is not one of the single best places to be in as a homosexual is just silly.  It doesn't have to be perfect to be the best.

Which says more about the world than America. And neglects that the US is nowhere near the top of the list when it comes to "developed" nations.

Since we're talking about a specific religion, which when in control of a country makes it not a "developed" nation, that's quite the dog whistle there.

[NobleHunter]

I wasn't aware religion was one of the criteria for "developed."

[D.W.]

You got that backwards.  It's an obstacle not a criteria. 

We're (the U.S.) still considered developed despite that fact, not because of it.

[scifibum]

Sure such beliefs exist in other places, and if that was the background he had, you'd be joining me in the condemnation.  Why do you think your inconsistency makes me look like an idiot?

I am joining you in condemning intolerance and hatred toward gays.  Along with everyone else you're accusing of being unwilling to do so.  You're confusing a refusal to accept overgeneralizations with something else. 

If you think I've ever criticized "Christianity" for being anti-gay, you're wrong.

[AI Wessex]

The idea that we have to find a deeper meaning, to reach a ridiculous level of proof, before we make a conclusion about something.  You'll note for instance, that ISIS's response wasn't to say they were going to investigate the shooter's claim and get back to us about whether they were claiming the attack.  It's like we've forgotten an important part about what it means to be human.

I think this statement is just silly.  Let's say that you want to solve the problem of juvenile delinquent behavior in a community.  Let's just beat the kids into submission and they will be afraid to act out.  Or, we could ask ourselves why so many children exhibit this bad behavior in *this* community, but not in one next to it.  Maybe the problem is lead in the drinking water, a lack of medical services, poor education or employment options or even outright discrimination.  It sounds like you wouldn't be interested to find out.

There's no such thing as a "Lone Wolf" attack when it comes to Islamic extremism, it's remote radicalization not independent acting.

Again, that is a shallow "analysis".  What if a high school student killed other classmates because of a fascination with, say, Slender Man?  Would that student be a "lone wolf"?  Why can't a profoundly disturbed person, like Mateen seems to have been, develop his plans in secret, never communicate with anybody what he planned to do, and then go do it in the name of Slender Man --- oops, I meant ISIS?

[Wayward Son]

I won't address any particular argument (mainly because the conversation is moving so quickly, by the time I type up a response I'm already 2-3 posts behind ), but I think this article has some pertinent facts to consider: Stop Exploiting LGBT Issues to Demonize Islam and Justify Anti-Muslim Policies.

For instance, the article references a Pew Poll in 2015 that shows that Muslims are more accepting of gay marriage and homosexuality in general than evangelical Christians, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.  It also points out that while Muslim countries internationally are deeply anti-homosexual, so are many Communist and Christian-majority countries.  So Muslim norms are not particularly far-out from the norm.

Islam, like other religions, is not as accepting of homosexuality and other LGBT issues as I feel they should be.  But there is no reason to single them out compared to any other religion with similar attitudes.

[Seriati]

Islam, like other religions, is not as accepting of homosexuality and other LGBT issues as I feel they should be.  But there is no reason to single them out compared to any other religion with similar attitudes.

Wayward, the reason to single them out is the level of violence that Islam brings to the table.  Take me up on my challenge, show me the majority Muslim country where you would recommend you gay friends could move safely.  It's trivial to find majority Christian countries where they could do so.

There's a certain level of acceptance and tolerance that in a modern world should be deemed a baseline.  Countries that fail it shouldn't get a pass, nor should you erroneously set the "baseline" at a standard so high that only a couple countries meet it.  That's an aspiration, not a reality.

[TheDeamon]

The standard argument against this does bear scrutiny, though, which is that in the event of a shooting, armed civilians might create a deadly crossfire; especially so since if they're not trained as a unit their firing pattern won't be coordinated. In tight quarters that could be an issue, but in a more open space if they're a decent shot it's probably less likely there will be friendly fire casualties. Then again I've read plenty of reports of trained police officers missing virtually at point blank range by quite a lot, so there's that, too.

Which isn't to mention "fog of war" and other chaos inducing elements there, for both the "good citizen" and law enforcement.

You have a would be mass shooter walk into an open area with 15 people in it, and 5 other armed people in close proximity to the area, but not in it(so they didn't see the event start). Mass shooter opens fire, takes out multiple people before the first "good citizen" responder turns up, finds the shooter, and opens fire... Just in time for the second armed "good citizen" to arrive on the scene in turn to see the first responder shooting at someone.

What does he(the second armed responder) do? Wait and see what he does next, or drop him on the spot while there's a clear shot?

Further complicating factors are multiple shooter scenarios where the armed good citizens end up in a fire fight with the shooter(s) and a later arrival confuses them for being one of the "shooters." Then bring Law Enforcement into the mix, and you can end up with one hell of a SNAFU happening in short order that is going to take some time for the LEOs to sort out. Assuming the good citizens survive to tell their side.

[scifibum]

Islam, like other religions, is not as accepting of homosexuality and other LGBT issues as I feel they should be.  But there is no reason to single them out compared to any other religion with similar attitudes.

Wayward, the reason to single them out is the level of violence that Islam brings to the table.  Take me up on my challenge, show me the majority Muslim country where you would recommend you gay friends could move safely.  It's trivial to find majority Christian countries where they could do so.

There's a certain level of acceptance and tolerance that in a modern world should be deemed a baseline.  Countries that fail it shouldn't get a pass, nor should you erroneously set the "baseline" at a standard so high that only a couple countries meet it.  That's an aspiration, not a reality.

Of course the devil is in the definitions of "baseline", "pass", and "standard". 

I'm not at all OK with established churches anywhere.  It's a bad system.  My baseline looks similar to the bill of rights in this country, and my standard includes the civil rights act + protections for LGBT people. 

But while I don't approve of Islamist governments, what to do with that disapproval is a much different question.  I think we need to require immigrants to agree to live by the standards we have here for freedom and tolerance, but it's a much thornier problem to impose any standards on other countries.   

I'd go as far as saying that our leaders should condemn lack of religious freedom everywhere that it exists, and exert peaceful pressure to support basic human rights wherever they can.  I'm not sure what more we can or should do about the problem of intolerance toward gays in Islamist countries.  I do think that when it comes to our own safety from terrorism, trying to blow up all the terrorists is probably never going to work.  So is this giving a pass to countries that fail to meet the baseline?

[Seriati]

The idea that we have to find a deeper meaning, to reach a ridiculous level of proof, before we make a conclusion about something.  You'll note for instance, that ISIS's response wasn't to say they were going to investigate the shooter's claim and get back to us about whether they were claiming the attack.  It's like we've forgotten an important part about what it means to be human.

I think this statement is just silly.  Let's say that you want to solve the problem of juvenile delinquent behavior in a community.  Let's just beat the kids into submission and they will be afraid to act out.  Or, we could ask ourselves why so many children exhibit this bad behavior in *this* community, but not in one next to it.  Maybe the problem is lead in the drinking water, a lack of medical services, poor education or employment options or even outright discrimination.  It sounds like you wouldn't be interested to find out.

I think you find it silly because you didn't understand it.

In your "example" (which utterly fails to be remotely equivalent on any discernible basis), the equivalent would be in the parents in the community came forward and told you the reason why the delinquency was occurring, en masse, and you refused to accept it as the "real" reason and insisted on wasting time and resources on researching and disproving pet theories instead.

There's no such thing as a "Lone Wolf" attack when it comes to Islamic extremism, it's remote radicalization not independent acting.

Again, that is a shallow "analysis".

It's not an analysis in the way to which you are responding.  It's more a statement that politicians label attacks as "lone wolf" attacks to disclaim their own responsibility for failing to adopt intelligent policies with a chance to prevent them.  They're essentially claiming that there was no way they personally could have predicted it, or done anything to prevent it.  It's the same idea that the panic about violent anarchists used to engender.  It's however, a failure of ours that we refuse to acknowledge that these attacks are connected.

I mean look at the President's pressers from today.  Claiming that he's tired of talking points rather than comprehensive strategy dominating the terrorism discussions and claiming that the words we use to label it aren't controlling.  He's just flipping the true narrative on its head.  It's his lack of any comprehensive strategy and his refusal to acknowledge the cause of the problem that are at issue.  An air attack on ISIS is not a comprehensive strategy.

I also saw today where someone labeled it as a lie to claim that Clinton wants to ban guns.  It's interesting in a world where you can't label someone as potentially a terrorist because it could be seen as religious discrimination, you somehow seem to believe you can keep guns out of the hands of the "potentially dangerous" by any means other than keeping them out of all hands.

[Gaoics79]

 

Rather, there are people who feel obligated - by intolerant rhetoric on Trump's level of sophistication - to point out that Islam is not monolithic and not uniformly as bad as its most extreme sects or local cultures

This is where you're wrong. While it is true that the vast majority of Muslims would not personally shoot up a gay club or murder cartoonists, every poll I have seen from the Muslim world suggests that the vast majority hold that such behaviours should be illegal and punishable by prison if not death.

So mainstream muslims would not shoot a gay man in the head, but might advocate for the State to do so for them. I am going to be curious about how this attack plays in the Muslim world. They might condemn the attack the way that, say a Western audience might condemn the murder of a violent criminal but they won't be shedding too many tears for the victims who they would consider to be degenerates and probably deserving of their fate. If you're asking why that distinction matters, ask yourself how far mainstream people in our society go to protest prison rape of pedophiles. Even people who abhor such acts won't exactly be marching into the streets to stand up for those they consider vile and depraved. They might even secretly approve.

ISIL may not be mainstream Islam but Wahabbism and its cousins, which is ISIL's base ideology, certainly are mainstream in many countries and clearly hold significant sway. Read the polls if you doubt that.

But on the subject of this attack, it appears that the shooter may have had personal issues of his own and might even have been a closeted gay. In answer to your post Al suggesting that any hate crime could be considered "personal" I think that's a stretch. Of course anyone who shoots up a roomful of strangers must have had personal reasons. No human being kills purely for ideology like some programmed robot. Yet we can distinguish between quasi personal shootings like Columbine where the killers knew their attackers directly and may have sought revenge for some perceived slight, versus someone shooting up a church full of black strangers hoping to provoke a race war. Even if we discovered that the shooter was half black and may have had some personal issues accepting himself, ideology cannot be ruled out as a determining cause nor should we try to sweep it under the rug and say that only the shooter's personal demons are at issue.

[AI Wessex]

Islam, like other religions, is not as accepting of homosexuality and other LGBT issues as I feel they should be.  But there is no reason to single them out compared to any other religion with similar attitudes.

A general response to this question and what I consider a narrow (and shallow) attempt to understand why Mateen shot up the club is that we have a deep-seated need to know who our enemies are.  Making a snap decision that he did it because of ISIS is exactly that sort of narrow and shallow way to comprehend this incomprehensible act.

Very few Americans would have supported going to war in Iraq if they were told that Iraq was *not* an imminent or near-term threat to the US, that they had *nothing* to do with the WTC attacks, and did *not* have WMD.  We didn't have any extensive public debate about those things, but in fact all of those things were true.  We (that is, our government and complicit media and social organizations) insisted that they were a threat, were somehow involved in the WTC attacks and did have WMD.  If that wasn't enough to convince you that we needed to remove Saddam from power, look how poorly he treated the people of his own country.  Why did we have to rush in to save them if we ended up causing so many to be killed and/or displaced?  Why did we care about them enough to invade their country to save them, but not care enough to make sure they were safe afterward?

When we hear about the next mass killing like the ones in Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, San Bernadino, Charleston or Orlando, we should stop asking what reason the shooter(s) gave and instead ask what is the cause of the disease that leads them to their action.  Were any of the shooters in those massacres *not* mentally disturbed?

[NobleHunter]

Wayward, the reason to single them out is the level of violence that Islam brings to the table.  Take me up on my challenge, show me the majority Muslim country where you would recommend you gay friends could move safely.  It's trivial to find majority Christian countries where they could do so.

That's only because many Christian countries are securely secular. The more Christian the government, the less likely I would recommend gay people to move there. Which dumps the US pretty far down the list of acceptable countries, btw; if they even stay on the list depends on how the election goes. It's also highly contigent on where in the US.

Pretending the US is exceptional on LGBT rights ill serves your argument.

[AI Wessex]

In your "example" (which utterly fails to be remotely equivalent on any discernible basis), the equivalent would be in the parents in the community came forward and told you the reason why the delinquency was occurring, en masse, and you refused to accept it as the "real" reason and insisted on wasting time and resources on researching and disproving pet theories instead.

No, you're willing to accept "a" reason and not willing to find out if it is "the" reason.

I also saw today where someone labeled it as a lie to claim that Clinton wants to ban guns.  It's interesting in a world where you can't label someone as potentially a terrorist because it could be seen as religious discrimination, you somehow seem to believe you can keep guns out of the hands of the "potentially dangerous" by any means other than keeping them out of all hands.

Why bother having any gun laws at all?

[Fenring]

The idea that we have to find a deeper meaning, to reach a ridiculous level of proof, before we make a conclusion about something.  You'll note for instance, that ISIS's response wasn't to say they were going to investigate the shooter's claim and get back to us about whether they were claiming the attack.  It's like we've forgotten an important part about what it means to be human.

Absent a compelling reason, we should take a claim about the killer's motivation at face value.

Have you seen Natural Born Killers? The aesthetic scenario in that movie doesn't resemble a suicide bomber or active shooter, but the principle is the same, which is that anyone knowingly operating in an environment with crazy media coverage of everything will have a self-aware approach to their own PR and glorification of what they do. It's pretty well-known that people or animals that know they're being observed act very differently, and knowing you're making the news all over the country is basically macabre theatre. In NBK Mickey and Mallory are made out to be all sorts of things, including folk heroes, fighting 'for' some cause, and so forth, when in fact none of that was true but they jumped on those key words for the purpose of publicity. So yes, I do think it's germane to address whether ad hoc claims about some cause are really purposeful or whether they're publicity stunts. It's not enough to merely take the guy at his word because then you fuel the fear machines on both sides of the political fence for no reason other than to help them do their own recruiting in a partisan political squabble.