I ask everyone to keep Orlando in their hearts. In the wake of such senseless violence is when we all must stick together. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/index.html
INoble KnightI18 votesI really hope someone doesn't get offended by the word "prayers" and tries to get this taken down. Stay strong everyone.
Poske6 votes[{quoted}](name=Laughing Fish,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=Jw0esUO4,comment-id=,timestamp=2016-06-12T16:24:08.597+0000)
I ask everyone to keep Orlando in their hearts. In the wake of such senseless violence is when we all must stick together. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/index.html
to bad prayers are useless...
xWaters3 votes[{quoted}](name=Sub HeroCro,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=Jw0esUO4,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2016-06-12T23:27:26.762+0000)
to bad prayers are useless...
If you frown upon the idea of praying for the victims and families of those affected, then I can't comprehend was to why you are here in the first place.
DarkSunSovereign1 votesYou could be doing something more useful with your time, so I'd frown on it.
Iota Theta1 votesYou could be doing something more useful with your time, so I'd frown on it.
For the one who believes in a God that listens to and answers prayers (like me), it's as useful as they can be for the situation. Besides, it can be as simple as "Lord, please be with them." Maybe 5 seconds lost?
Yaśuo Main1 votesPut it as hoping they would be okay, in a more symbolistic way. Better?
Im a christian, so I kinda got offended but since Im a laid back kinda guy, Im not going to flame mega hard.
420 grams4 votesI get what you're doing, but this isn't the site for this.
Jorencice2 votesStop being so grumpy.
Like it really breaks your leauge forumn immersion to see a couple posts talking about thia...
FearEngineer2 votesBut but upvote farming!
Yaśuo Main2 votesProbs gonna be downvoted, but he is kinda right guys.
Roblox has a forum section for this too. ( Off Topic, Which this section should be renamed )
mtman3184 votesThe Religion of Peace strikes again.
EDIT: I see at least 8 people are boating down Denial River.
Narvuntien2 votesThe Religion of Peace strikes again.
Angry man strikes again.
dapositiveviking4 votesthank you for posting this
Narvuntien4 voteswhispers... gun control.
Also...$^@_& people that think its okay to murder people because they are different or their sky god or rather their bronze age (or in this case dark age) book says are abominations. Its the modern world move on from the stupid books they are way way out of context now. Perform your rituals, say your prayers whatever I don't care but you start harming others, you start bullying and making people feel worthless because they are different... now I have a problem.
Iota Theta4 votesLet's be honest, gun control probably wouldn't have changed anything in this situation.
Narvuntien3 votes[{quoted}](name=Iota Theta,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=Jw0esUO4,comment-id=000b0000,timestamp=2016-06-13T12:41:45.589+0000)
Let's be honest, gun control probably wouldn't have changed anything in this situation.
Man investigated by the FBI for links to terrorists easily obtains assault weapons -_-. sure okay if you insist.
I feel he was likely to kill people if he could but 50 people... 50 people!!!! that is mind numbing numbers.
Fritterz3 votesI carry a firearm almost everywhere I go. If there had been a few people carrying, that number would not have reached 50. It sounds crazy and my opinion won't be popular, but here we go...
Iota Theta2 votesMan investigated by the FBI for links to terrorism, but If those links existed like the man claimed and he was denied due to background checks and more gun control, he could've easily obtained the means for this despite laws. Gun runners, black market, a bomb. A law wouldn't have stopped him. It would only stop law-abiding citizens from doing something wrong or something right (like stopping/shooting the man).
As far as the "assault weapon", that's a vague term I have seen a lot of gun control supporters use in these situations. What do you mean by "assault weapon"? Because to me that sounds like a weapon used to assault someone, which can cover a wide variety of things, including pipes, bats, knives, and (for professional boxers and martial artists) a person's own body. So simply saying an assault weapon isn't clear enough.
Now, I'm going to assume that you mean an assault rifle, which is the name of a rifle that...is black and doesn't look like a hunting rifle. They are the rifles typically used by the military and law enforcement. there are also three firing types for assault rifles: semi-automatic, burst, and full auto. Semi-automatic means that for every pull of the trigger, only one bullet is fired. This maies semi-auto's very similar to hunting rifles, and in fact they are legal for civilians to own. Burst is when one pull fires 3-5 bullets, and full auto can fire an entire magazine with one trigger pull, both of which are illegal for civilians. If he used a burst or full auto rifle, then a law would not have made a difference because he probably already had obtained it through illegal means. If it was not a burst or full auto, we should question how he obtained it, because it's possible that he did not go through background checks but instead went through illegal means, which again means that more gun control wouldn't have stopped him. All stronger gun control really does is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire a firearm, which only puts more power in the hands of criminals.
Now, I'm aware that I probably won't change your mind, but this is where I stand on the matter.
Narvuntien2 votes[{quoted}](name=Iota Theta,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=Jw0esUO4,comment-id=000b000000000001,timestamp=2016-06-13T15:07:41.099+0000)
Man investigated by the FBI for links to terrorism, but If those links existed like the man claimed and he was denied due to background checks and more gun control, he could've easily obtained the means for this despite laws. Gun runners, black market, a bomb. A law wouldn't have stopped him. It would only stop law-abiding citizens from doing something wrong or something right (like stopping/shooting the man).
As far as the "assault weapon", that's a vague term I have seen a lot of gun control supporters use in these situations. What do you mean by "assault weapon"? Because to me that sounds like a weapon used to assault someone, which can cover a wide variety of things, including pipes, bats, knives, and (for professional boxers and martial artists) a person's own body. So simply saying an assault weapon isn't clear enough.
Now, I'm going to assume that you mean an assault rifle, which is the name of a rifle that...is black and doesn't look like a hunting rifle. They are the rifles typically used by the military and law enforcement. there are also three firing types for assault rifles: semi-automatic, burst, and full auto. Semi-automatic means that for every pull of the trigger, only one bullet is fired. This maies semi-auto's very similar to hunting rifles, and in fact they are legal for civilians to own. Burst is when one pull fires 3-5 bullets, and full auto can fire an entire magazine with one trigger pull, both of which are illegal for civilians. If he used a burst or full auto rifle, then a law would not have made a difference because he probably already had obtained it through illegal means. If it was not a burst or full auto, we should question how he obtained it, because it's possible that he did not go through background checks but instead went through illegal means, which again means that more gun control wouldn't have stopped him. All stronger gun control really does is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to acquire a firearm, which only puts more power in the hands of criminals.
Now, I'm aware that I probably won't change your mind, but this is where I stand on the matter.
I carry a firearm almost everywhere I go. If there had been a few people carrying, that number would not have reached 50. It sounds crazy and my opinion won't be popular, but here we go...
The problem with your argument is that we actually have evidence that it does work and has worked in other countries.
There are a lot more accidents caused when people travel around with loaded weapons all the time than there are mass shootings prevented. When you have a loaded weapon on you at all times it is easy to go from a tense situation to one where someone gets shot.
Then you have a police force that has to shoot people all the time because they are scared of getting shot because everyone has a weapon.
What happens if there is a shooter then everyone that has a gun starts shooting.. how the hell do they tell who the shooter is?, they will just shoot each other. When everyone has a gun there is no way to tell a criminal apart from an ordinary citizen. Not to mention the dangers of hitting by-standers.. lets have instead of one murderer a whole bunch of people in a gun fight that doesn't sound better to me.
In no other country do people need to constantly live in fear of a mass shooting.. because there just isn't all these guns around. The number of crazy people is the same the number of guns is way way higher.
I can't really say if he could of been stopped, I mean a lot of people got shot and blown up in the Paris attacks (130), with illegal guns. The difference is that was a one off attack, USA has had more mass shootings than days in the year, people, children die in accidental gun deaths and people get shot and killed in neighborhood disputes. on and on and on.
Its just not worth it.....
FearEngineer1 votesFrance's very strict gun laws didn't prevent it from suffering a similar terrorist attack.
But it must be the guns, not the terrorists.
Because people who wanted to break the law by killing others would definitely follow laws about obtaining guns. K.
Narvuntien1 votesFrance's very strict gun laws didn't prevent it from suffering a similar terrorist attack.
But it must be the guns, not the terrorists.
Because people who wanted to break the law by killing others would definitely follow laws about obtaining guns. K.
That is the thing.. its not just one terror attack.... it is never ending gun violence in the USA every single day!... its the accidents and the gun murders of close relatives and neighbors just because they had a gun in their possession already.
If it is illegal then people need to be determined to do it, it takes planning, it takes connections, its not a spit second decision to shoot someone. It leaves a trail that can be followed up by law enforcement. Then if someone walks up to a club with a gun or into a church it is a cause for alarm not an everyday occurrence.
At the very least require people to go through extensive gun handling training give them a learners permit, just like getting a car license, make them sign forms and practice with supervision make them read about how to behave safely with a gun. Make them store it in a safe so their kids can't get it and make them have a separate safe for the ammunition.
Someone that is about to kill themselves is not going to go through all this hassle to get a gun.
There is no more mad men in the USA than everywhere else, it is that the mad men in the USA have easy access to guns.
FearEngineer1 votesI don't disagree with you.
I just don't think this specific case has to do with that, and I would like to see discussion specific to the cause of this incident (Radical Islam, Homophobia) rather than have every conversation hijacked by gun control talks.
Yaśuo Main1 votesI'd expect some sort of civil war if gun control went out for the country.
No matter what really, gun control isn't gonna stop terrorists lol
Edit: The never ending gun violence is people buying guns and then rampaging right? Say, I was a 20 year old man that seemed perfectly normal, with a good house, good pay, so and so. If I buy a gun and start killing people out of the blue, there wasn't really evidence I was planning to do it. Maybe because I snapped? But then, I wasn't a mad man before I got the gun correct?
Now to base this on a real life situation. My grandfather has guns ( about the amount you would probably spy on him for ) and he is perfectly fine. But once gun control goes out, big chance that they are gonna take away the guns he paid for. Even better, they are already doing that to some people with guns. But my opinion may be flawed, as I live in Connecticut. Gun Security is better here. Way better than average, if I may gloat.
Iota Theta1 votesI'm gonna put this here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
It is a study done to test the statement that America has a lot of guns and so it has a lot of murders. The evidence there led to the conclusion that while countries that banned guns have less gun murders, they generally have higher overall murders compared to countries that have less gun control.
With that, I'm going to step out of the discussion in this thread, mainly because I don't believe it's the best type of thread to discuss this, especially when gun control most likely would not have changed the event. I'll keep up with updates, but I probably won't respond, at least not too much.
Guy Fox Teemo1 votesThen why te shit are we the only country with 500+ mass shootings a year????? why doesn't Canada , uk, Australia , have them hmm? Oh that's right because people there have proper background check and most don't even owns gun. Illegal guns are obtained by stealing others fun which are then sold, if there's less guns manufactured = less guns for people to steal (wouldn't be stolen if you weren't stupid and had a safe)
Guy Fox Teemo1 votesWhy are people so against sensible gun laws? Like whats wrong with having a proper back ground check, and a psychological test every few years?
If your a good citizen that follows the laws, it wont affect you at all, some stricter gun control, and gun saftey laws won't do anything. (Should also do a ban on several guns as there only purpose is for killing)
Iota Theta1 votesThere is nothing wrong with background checks. I suppose I should've elaborated more on my view. Gun control has taken on multiple meanings when I hear it. Some say more rigorous checks, some say take all guns away fron civilians. I can see the validity of better background checks, and if Narvuntien meant that, than I am sorry for how I reacted. I would be ok if everyone who wanted a firearm would have to do some type of training. My dad, a game comission deputy, taught me firearm safety for rifles and handguns.
It's the comments that say only the military and law enforcement should have guns that I believe are unconstitutional. Does that make sense?
Yaśuo Main1 votesI think they don't know that Texas I believe, has its own militia ( Or some kind of army )
IcyPepper2 votesIt's appalling the atrocities people commit in the name of hate.
I shall keep them in my thoughts and my heart, and hope that someday the world won't be as dark.
Nami in Bush2 votes[deleted]
Melledoneus2 votesMy friend, there are radical people everywhere. It's not a fundamental issue of religion, but rather our failure to realize that this hatred we brew is what these monsters feed off of.
Yuri By Mail1 votesMine don't. This isn't Facebook you know.
SpiderSexChamber1 votes[deleted]
DorkunedAuras1 votesI wish people would stop having the desire to freaking massacre their fellow man, as if you have the power over another's life like that. We're all people, what gives us the right to go "you're gay, you're dirt while I'm entitled to end your miserable existence because I'm so much better than you in every way". (no this is not a religious comment before people rage at me for that)
Melledoneus1 votesCouldn't have said it better myself. Pointing fingers is never the answer.
That'll do, Fish. That'll do.
Iota Theta1 votesI'll join you in those prayers.
