50 shot dead - Orlando shooting | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

50 shot dead - Orlando shooting

TwistedKestrel said:
Canada DOES have a law that would somewhat have hindered this attack if it were 100% effective, which is limiting rifle magazines to only five rounds.
Click to expand...

LMAO are you for real? I can repair a pinned magazine in 30 seconds with a Dremel. The only reason I don't is that unlike murderous terrorists, I obey the law. I am pretty sure that murdering 50 people and wounding another 50 or so might not be 100% legal.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
LMAO are you for real? I can repair a pinned magazine in 30 seconds with a Dremel. The only reason I don't is that unlike murderous terrorists, I obey the law. I am pretty sure that murdering 50 people and wounding another 50 or so might not be 100% legal.
Click to expand...

Hence the effectiveness caveat. Also, for the purposes of such an attack, it wouldn't be very difficult to just buy them south of the border.

It is possible to increase the effectiveness of such a law by prohibiting receivers that are compatible with common high capacity magazines... but these days you could just 3D print your own magazine.
 
TwistedKestrel said:
Hence the effectiveness caveat. Also, for the purposes of such an attack, it wouldn't be very difficult to just buy them south of the border.

It is possible to increase the effectiveness of such a law by prohibiting receivers that are compatible with common high capacity magazines... but these days you could just 3D print your own magazine.
Click to expand...

Or a receiver for that matter. Another problem is that there are too many legitimate uses for rifles that take those magazines. I have a buddy who helps a friend control coyotes and gophers on his ranch, using a Tavor rifle. I also know guys who took XCR rifles deer and boar hunting. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle among sport shooters in Canada, both DCRA disciplines (like Service Conditions and CQB) and action shooting games (like IPSC and 3gun) and south of the border it's an integral part of keeping the feral hog population in check (once you start firing, you wanna take down as many hogs as possible before those ecological nightmares disperse).

Then you have the actual effectiveness of gun control measures and whether they are worth the trouble. If all those billions wasted on the Long Gun Registry were spent on healthcare, they would have saved more lives than all the gun homicides (mainly committed with illegally owned pistols) combined took.
 
TwistedKestrel said:
Hence the effectiveness caveat. Also, for the purposes of such an attack, it wouldn't be very difficult to just buy them south of the border.

It is possible to increase the effectiveness of such a law by prohibiting receivers that are compatible with common high capacity magazines... but these days you could just 3D print your own magazine.
Click to expand...
That guy had a security license & probably had more access to guns than a regular civilian. Same as that guy that went beserk on a military base.

I remember forwarning people of taking isis seriously when they said they would attack on N. American soil.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
Or a receiver for that matter. Another problem is that there are too many legitimate uses for rifles that take those magazines. I have a buddy who helps a friend control coyotes and gophers on his ranch, using a Tavor rifle. I also know guys who took XCR rifles deer and boar hunting. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle among sport shooters in Canada, both DCRA disciplines (like Service Conditions and CQB) and action shooting games (like IPSC and 3gun) and south of the border it's an integral part of keeping the feral hog population in check (once you start firing, you wanna take down as many hogs as possible before those ecological nightmares disperse).

Then you have the actual effectiveness of gun control measures and whether they are worth the trouble. If all those billions wasted on the Long Gun Registry were spent on healthcare, they would have saved more lives than all the gun homicides (mainly committed with illegally owned pistols) combined took.
Click to expand...

Thank you! Let's put our money where it'll do the most good.

BTW They're starting to have feral hog problems in Western Canada.
 
RockerGuy said:
That guy had a security license & probably had more access to guns than a regular civilian. Same as that guy that went beserk on a military base.

I remember forwarning people of taking isis seriously when they said they would attack on N. American soil.
Click to expand...

Unless it comes out that Daesh gave this guy logistical or financial support, I don't really think they had much of a role in it. Just mutual endorsement. And certainly support wasn't necessary for this to happen - all he needed was a few bucks for legal hardware and a soft target.

The guy's job just illustrates another problem - no kind of reasonable background or character check would have been an obstacle for him.
 
Daesh scum have been pushing for 2 types of terrorist. On one hand, you have well-financed, well-trained, well-prepared killers sent on a specific mission and on the other hand, they've been calling for lone wolf attacks. In any case the best way to deal with them is to kill the top 100 financial backers for terrorist groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda every year. Once the money dries up, they won't be able to prepare complex operations or advertising campaigns. It might cost Canada some LAV contracts, though :cool:
 
I like your plan. 100 dead Saudis and Turks.
 
mmmnaked said:
I like your plan. 100 dead Saudis and Turks.
Click to expand...
Yes. Because nobody inherts that money and feels like avenging their dead. No one ever does that.

It's coming out that he might've been gay himself (as he'd been there a bunch of times over the past few years and was on meeting apps to meet men) and would've have some hard feelings against...well..his own feelings.
 
LePhillou said:
Yes. Because nobody inherts that money and feels like avenging their dead. No one ever does that.
Click to expand...

Well yeah that was his point... how else will you have another 100 Turks and Saudis to kill the following year lol

But jokes aside, the Saudis and Turks really are funding these nutters, and we consider them allies. The world is so backwards.
 
mmmnaked said:
Well yeah that was his point... how else will you have another 100 Turks and Saudis to kill the following year lol

But jokes aside, the Saudis and Turks really are funding these nutters, and we consider them allies. The world is so backwards.
Click to expand...
Nope, the world is set up the way certain people want it to. Definitely not backwards for them, theyre making money off all that fear :)
 
TwistedKestrel said:
Unless it comes out that Daesh gave this guy logistical or financial support, I don't really think they had much of a role in it. Just mutual endorsement. And certainly support wasn't necessary for this to happen - all he needed was a few bucks for legal hardware and a soft target.

The guy's job just illustrates another problem - no kind of reasonable background or character check would have been an obstacle for him.
Click to expand...
They had no role in it but the idea that is dangerous. He called 911 & talked about isis
 
Jesus, when will the people realize that they do NOT have the 'right' to won guns. Especially semi-auto and handguns. It's a privilege, plain and simple. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anywhere "you have the right to bear arms". It was written in a time where they were carrying musketts for gods sakes. Not these high tech tools of death. Anyone who thinks the 2nd amendment gives them the 'right' to bear arms is only interpreting the amendment to suit their wishes and that's **** fact.

Guns do not offer protection as most think. You and your family are statistically in more danger if you have guns. The amount of crimes fought off by gun-wielding civilians is so minute it's barely worth arguing about. In close-quarters, either running, skill in self-defence will do more good than a gun. You don't need guns to protect yourself against the government. Ya, maybe back when the constitution was written, but nowadays if the government wanted to turn against the citizens there would be a military coup. It's all unrealistic fantasy drummed up by us, where we have no real conflict in our lives. Only movies and video games that make us feel oh-so over-confident. We are delusional enough to think "if only the people at the club had guns on them." go **** yourself. There's only one option. Saves lives, or keep your guns. It's that ****ing simple.
 
The doormen at the club were armed....

I think the problem is how easy it is to get them...because Canadians have the right to own them, it's just a more difficult process.

As Jon Oliver said in an argument with a pro-gun nut, (paraphrasing), 'you say anti-gun laws don't work, so we don't need them, so does this mean that we shouldn't have anti-drug laws since drugs are still on the street?"

They need better background checking and training before giving away those weapons away.
The ease of access makes it an option in people's minds where as it's not as much an option in other jurisdictions because of all the hoops you have to go through.
 
defeater905 said:
Jesus, when will the people realize that they do NOT have the 'right' to won guns. Especially semi-auto and handguns. It's a privilege, plain and simple. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anywhere "you have the right to bear arms". It was written in a time where they were carrying musketts for gods sakes. Not these high tech tools of death. Anyone who thinks the 2nd amendment gives them the 'right' to bear arms is only interpreting the amendment to suit their wishes and that's **** fact.

Guns do not offer protection as most think. You and your family are statistically in more danger if you have guns. The amount of crimes fought off by gun-wielding civilians is so minute it's barely worth arguing about. In close-quarters, either running, skill in self-defence will do more good than a gun. You don't need guns to protect yourself against the government. Ya, maybe back when the constitution was written, but nowadays if the government wanted to turn against the citizens there would be a military coup. It's all unrealistic fantasy drummed up by us, where we have no real conflict in our lives. Only movies and video games that make us feel oh-so over-confident. We are delusional enough to think "if only the people at the club had guns on them." go **** yourself. There's only one option. Saves lives, or keep your guns. It's that ****ing simple.
Click to expand...
The right to free press and free speech also didnt include radio television and internet...whats your point? Sorry but that's a retarded statement. The amendments reflect current times, 100 years ago and 100 years from now.

And as for the government being able to stomp out civilians at will, you forget who the military is comprised of... US citizens. Your assumption that the men and women of the armed forces would fight against their own countrymen is deeply flawed. A coup will lead to civil war. The thought of being an unarmed civilian during a civil war is bloody frightening.
 
Last edited:
mmmnaked said:
Well yeah that was his point... how else will you have another 100 Turks and Saudis to kill the following year lol

But jokes aside, the Saudis and Turks really are funding these nutters, and we consider them allies. The world is so backwards.
Click to expand...

Are you also suggesting killing off the Christian supporters of such terrorist acts?

[video=youtube;c-kr6tN12ug]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-kr6tN12ug[/video]
 
I don't feel like watching that video. If by supporters you mean a group of people who actively support (via funding or other means) terrorist acts then yes of course, off with their heads. Christian, Muslim, red brown green it doesn't matter.

If they're merely speaking up favourably of terrorist acts after the fact, they should at the very least be watched closely.
 
mmmnaked said:
I don't feel like watching that video. If by supporters you mean a group of people who actively support (via funding or other means) terrorist acts then yes of course, off with their heads. Christian, Muslim, red brown green it doesn't matter.

If they're merely speaking up favourably of terrorist acts after the fact, they should at the very least be watched closely.
Click to expand...

Merely speaking up after the fact? Or exhorting them to do better next time?

He explained to his flock that he wanted to tell them what the Christian response should be to news of the murder.

"When people ask me if I'm sad that 50 sodomites died. Here's the problem with that, it's like the equivalent of asking me, hey, are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today? Uh, no, I think that's great," he said. "I think that helps society. You know, I think Orlando, Florida's a little safer tonight," he stressed.

"The tragedy is that more of them didn't die, I'm kind of upset he didn't finish the job, because these people are predators, they're abusers," he added.
Click to expand...
 
LePhillou said:
Yes. Because nobody inherts that money and feels like avenging their dead. No one ever does that.
Click to expand...

If he tries to avenge the dead by continuing to finance terrorists, his name will eventually get called up until a surviving heir realises that financing terror might be a tad harmful to one's health :cool:
 
And then... there's the question of friendly fire. How many of the 49 were killed by police bullets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom