I feel it's important to draw a distinction between an ISIS member and and ISIS sympathiser. So far, is sounds like this man was the latter. A "Lone Wolf" hateful individual who planned and carried out his attack on his own, driven mostly by his own personal hatred of homosexuality - a hatred that probably THEN lead him to identify with ISIS ideology. As opposed to an ISIS "member" who planned an atrocity as part of a cell under the instruction of ISIS superiors.

ISIS will take credit for anything and that's why it's important to be accurate in reporting what has actually happened... There's a REASON they want to take credit, and they should not be allowed to every time a lone psychopath decides to mention IS, Islam or Allah during their attack. It gives people the false impression that they are organising these events, which makes them more terrifying, and so achieves their goal: to spread terror.

...although I completely agree and it's the difference between, 'pledging allegiance' to a terrorist group and being directed by them in an act of terror...I do think that maybe it'll never be known for sure because the FBI have 'cleared' him twice, I believe ..?...as having any connection with ISIS...so would they also ever admit that they completely messed up there and that he was in fact a part of ISIS...

RIP to all victims :( :(

and dont forget the role of religion in legitimising his hatred

1) there is 100s of terrorist organisations why focus on ISIS?

2) they are impossible to kill because we dont know who they are, where they are and more importantly their next step

That bottom pic is me at this thread

https://t.co/gcoAoy3vYD

Check out what The President said only last week!!

main shocking revelation is at 2.00 onwards

:shocked:

I do agree but trying to inspire lone wolf attacks in the West is a big part of the ISIS strategy and something they explicitly encourage so just by carrying out this shooting he is sort of following instructions from ISIS commanders even if there's no direct contact

Exactly

Yes so far, it is that

It certainly lowered the rate of gun crime, we've only had one major shooting incident since so the law is working in hte way it was intended, the laws were introduced to stop another Dunblane from happening and it's mostly worked so far.

If you understood the stats you were throwing about you'd know that the Gun Control laws would never have had much of an effect on murder rates because most murders in the UK aren't committed with a gun. The number of guns per capita in the UK is very low. Like I said before, the gun laws were introduced to stop gun massacres from happening and it's worked mostly.

I'd have thought that, as an American, you would be more tired of these endless killing sprees than anyone else on here. It's kind of sad that you seem to value your guns more than the lives of your countrymen.

PREACH.

Death doll has risen to 59 :(

This will be my last post on this thread.

I don't expect any of you to understand why this has bothered me so much, but oh well. Tibbs never really been the most thoughtful of places.

I understand that some of you are passionate about the gun laws in America and I don't think anyone is denying the fact that more needs to be done to prevent things like this happening. Like not allowing a person who has been known for 'terrorist activity' and 'domestic abuse' to purchase multiple guns from a firearms store. Its unbelieveable.

But to go on and on about gun regulation, arguing with a known troll(s) for pages and pages, the general condescending language of tibb, it just made me so angry. I feel like people on here cared more about arguing and causing trouble than they did about showing respect for the victims of what happened in Florida.

It does look like it was inspired by ISIS if not a direct plan. Across the world there are any number of mentally unstable people that will latch on to that as justification for committing atrocities on whomever they wish. The problem that America has is that with guns so readily available, the amount of damage they can do is potentially much greater. Yes, people can get hold of guns/bombs anywhere, but it requires thought, planning and effort to accomplish. In America, they have the means at their disposal with no preparation required.

Owen speaks volumes here, it's clear that this is homophobic motivated attack

The AR-15 semi-automatic rifle

One of the two guns used by Omar Mateen

3.3 million

AR-15s in the US in 2012 (estimated)

45 rounds per minute

26 people killed by AR-15 in Sandy Hook in 2012

0 days' wait needed to obtain one in Florida

Source: Slate; AR-15.com; Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence


https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2...trip=all&w=940

“This is an instrument of war designed for the battlefield that is marketed and sold to the general public,” said Mark Barden, father of of one of the victims.


Read about this vile thing here: http://qz.com/704939/the-ar-15-is-th...than-a-pistol/

Jesus wept

No wonder he left :rolleyes:

That SKy guy was hell bent on trying to say that it was just a coincidence that he "stumbled into" a 100% LBGT club and wiped out 59 people


what kind of logic?

He speaks perfect sense.. do it Obama while you still can!!

Well done to Owen for getting out of the vipers nest, the guy did target one subsection of society there's nothing wrong or disrespectful about admitting that.. nor was he suggesting he felt any better or worse than anyone else about it.
Heck even the telegraph headline in discussion read gays in the west targeted :/

Regardless of what people think about gun laws, NO ONE should be able to get their hands on this at a gun store. Why does a person need this?!

Yes and he took time to Reload
thats when you get him

This is a big part of the problem, and the major flaw in the "criminals would just get guns anyway" argument.

Yes... Criminals would still be able to get their hands on guns through the black market. However getting a gun like THIS on the black market would cost a small fortune if they weren't being sold to civilians... the guns criminals can easily get hold of through illicit means are generally manually loaded revolvers, perhaps semi-auto handguns, shotguns and smaller caliber rifles. MAYBE something like an UZI or an AK but that would be far, far less common.

The big difference is that with a 6-shot revolver you're going to kill at most 6 people, and more likely one or two people and injure a couple of others, before you have to reload and someone takes you down. With an assault rifle the attack is relentless, more rounds in the clip, fast reload, and it's firing high-impact rounds that are far more likely to kill. These weapons are what make mass shootings possible.

Same goes for murder stats. Yes they can be as high in countries with gun control; if someone decides they want to kill one person, it's relatively easy to kill that person, with any weapon. A knife, a lead pipe, your bare hands... just as easy as using a gun, in some cases easier.

The reason gun controls have little effect on murder stats? Simple - the vast majority of murders are single murders, one individual killing one other individual.

The reason they have even less effect on violent crime stats? Because most reported violent crimes don't involve a weapon of any kind, let alone a gun.

Walk into a crowded room and try to kill people en masse with a knife? Most likely scenario is that you'll kill the first one who is caught unawares and then lightly injure a couple of others in the struggle that follows. No one walks into a room with a knife and casually murders 50+ people. It's just not possible.

So the only relevant statistic to look at when it comes to gun control, is murders that involve multiple deaths. Gun control absolutely does have a drastic effect on those stats.