"2. Various arguments that someone on a terror watch list shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.
- While it's very sad that he was able to, the FBI investigated and found not enough evidence to keep him on the watch list. Therefore, he was perfectly "allowed" to buy a gun. Unless you are in favor of putting people on watch lists without sufficient proof (as I'm sure many of you aren't, as the same people against guns are rightfully against awful places like Guantanamo), then we cannot deny rights to someone who is only suspected of being a terrorist.
...
4. Laws and Rights
- Forgetting everything else, this man was a US citizen. Even doing something so awful as this doesn't change that. Until the moment of the crime, he had the rights same as we all do, and we must remember that these rights protect everyone, not just the lawful and the righteous, because to not have equal application of the law and equal rights makes us no longer be a true democracy. "

Absolutely, which is why the access EVERYONE has to these weapons needs to be curtailed.

I vehemently disagree. The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms. The intent is clear when you look at quotes from founders such as Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

The founding fathers did not intend to necessarily create a government that would last forever. Ideally it would, but the goal was that if the government ever overstepped, the people would be able to rise up. I don't know how realistic it is in the modern day, but you can look at even situations like the Vietnam War to show that a superior military doesn't always win a war. I remember DemonOverlord making a comment roughly along the lines of "omg the government has planes and tanks you idiots" in response to this line of thought - true, but that assumes that every member of the military would be on board with bombing or shooting their fellow citizens, which I find very unlikely. I digress.

A common thing I'll hear in response to terror attacks is not to treat/judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. Why should all gun owners then be treated/judged for the actions of a few? As you saw from (I believe) leon's statistics he posted yesterday, a relatively low number of gun owners ever commit a crime. In fact, it's extremely low. I personally know dozens of people who are gun owners, and I don't know anyone who has ever committed a crime with one of their guns.

Mass shootings are very public and involve a lot of loss at once. However, they are still statistically much less relevant than many other types of shooting. I don't ever see you guys cry out for an end to gang violence in Chicago or gun-inflicted suicide by veterans. I'm reminded by a quote by many people throughout history: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

Something I forgot to add in there: the right to bear arms is that: a right. Just as important as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or any other right. I'm against anything that reduces the rights of my fellow citizens. It's why I'm against Obamacare - not because it's "socialist" (it's really not), but because it forces you to buy a product. It's why I'm against invasions of privacy, regardless of whether or not they might save a life here and there by letting the NSA have tons of information on all of us. If we don't protect our rights, then we have lost everything the country is.

@ Santa

It is your logic that is flawed. You are viewing this as a typical gun attack, when the reality is far different. There have been no gun attacks on this scale in the US in the modern age. A handful have been around half the size. Most have casualties in the single figures.

Bomb attacks can be thwarted in the planning stages, but in that they are no different to gun attacks. Bombs are also far easier to construct than you seem to believe. An organisation like IS, and vile organisations like the IRA in the past, certainly have no great difficulties.

As I have pointed out before, you need only look to the London and Madrid and Belgium bombings to see that the scale of such attacks are on a par with the most devastating gun attacks.

"It is your logic that is flawed. You are viewing this as a typical gun attack, when the reality is far different. There have been no gun attacks on this scale in the US in the modern age. A handful have been around half the size. Most have casualties in the single figures."

Was it for lack of trying? Did this guys brown skin let him kill more? No, it isn't different, it was better planned, more aggressively pursued, but it does not change the fact that HE BOUGHT THE GUN LEGALLY. He didn't have to approach someone else to make the purchase, someone that could have been a police informant, unsympathetic good Samaritan or flipped him for a lighter sentence later on, he strolled into a store and bought everything he used in the murder. That is what makes this different from all the other ISIS wannabes that end up getting twenty years.

Bomb attacks are different from gun attacks because you can buy a gun legally, on the other hand it is very difficult to put together all the ingredients and the expertise to build a functioning, effective bomb, especially for a lone wolf (Not ISIS like in France and Belgium) like this guy. This guy isn't the IRA, he isn't even ISIS, he was a lone wolf with ISIS sympathies and the gun allowed him to do this.

And if he didn't have a gun he could have stolen a truck and driven it at speed into a gay pride march. Or he could have hijacked a coach providing LGBT holidays and driven it off a cliff. Or he could have just walked into the club with drugs laced with poison and sold them at a discount. Hell, he could have probably killed more people by handing out free vodka shots containing rat poison.

Killing lots of people is not difficult if you're the sort of person truly dedicated to doing so. Civilians are soft targets, and a lack of guns won't make a damned difference even if it was achievable.

The conflict of religions and civilizations are just a cover for the real issues. If you really think ISIS is religious, they would not do mass killings alienating millions from their self-contradicting ideologies... ISIS killed more muslims than anyone else and everyone in the region knows that...

I wish I had the answer to why people hate others whose ideology is different but I am not God. Oh, whether people believe in God or no, I think that is another thread. Lol.

What I do know is gun control legislation does not work. There are already laws that prohibit taking a firearm into a club like in Orlando. Let's just look at laws all across the United States that prohibit taking firearms into schools, churches, government buildings, theaters and other places where large numbers of people gather. Law abiding people obey those laws. So the hater that wants to kill a lot of people choose what as a target? Those gun free zones where there will be no gun shooting back at him. The hater is free to kill until he runs out of targets or bullets. And politicians set around and put at themselves on the back bragging about their gun free zone legislation.

Our one big advantage is that, despite everything, the bad guys are human. Virtually all of them, when push comes to shove, hesitates, or finds a way to fail.

When Al-Qaida bombed my city no one died. The weekend before the streets were jam packed with people celebrating football success. The weekend after was the same but for rugby. The weekend he chose was largely deserted, and the target he chose was a cafe toilet. Annoyingly it happened to be a favourite cafe of mine, but the important detail is that he could have killed scores, but he didn't.

In terrorist incidents across the world there are countless examples of this. The battle for good and evil rages in the most twisted of souls, and despite everything more often than not good triumphs.

Can you point me to the US rat poison attack, the bus hijacking or the parade ramming that killed 15+ people? After all, the motive is always there, if it was so easy where are the instances? Why don't we go example for example.

"When Al-Qaida bombed my city no one died. The weekend before the streets were jam packed with people celebrating football success. The weekend after was the same but for rugby. The weekend he chose was largely deserted, and the target he chose was a cafe toilet. Annoyingly it happened to be a favourite cafe of mine, but the important detail is that he could have killed scores, but he didn't."

Yeah, because it was A BOMB NOT A GUN. And why wasn't it a gun? Likely because your country controls guns so they are difficult to get. So in order to avoid detection and ensure the blast he placed the bomb in a café toilet. And now, instead of 25 people dead in a killing spree you are whining about not getting your favorite cappuccino. Get it?

It is not the tool the hater used. It's the hate!

so Sgt, it is your opinion that the "hater" could have killed 50 with a knife, or a sword?

Just an old hackneyed cop out, you seem like you are about 15 so hopefully you will grow out of it.

No not at all. Just saying if he didn't hate he wouldn't kill. I am way too old to grow out of it but you can attempt to insult me if you wish. Some people use words as a tool to demonstrate their hate.

Octavious doesn't actually know what he's arguing, only that it's important to do so.

My apologies, Demon. What exactly are you having difficulties understanding?

He probably has problem with you posting evidence for my side of the debate and somehow concluding the opposite of your evidence, as you've been doing from the start.

No Santa, I am just an old hackneyed cop. I have a perspective that allows me to see first hand which laws are effective or not effective.

"I remember DemonOverlord making a comment roughly along the lines of "omg the government has planes and tanks you idiots" in response to this line of thought - true, but that assumes that every member of the military would be on board with bombing or shooting their fellow citizens, which I find very unlikely. I digress."

No, but if civilians are shooting at the politicians/military/other civilians then yes, yes they will use their superior technology to stop you. So this is moot anyway. Lesser threatening civilians have felt greater military brutality.

@Oct I don't see where you get off 'if people want to commit crimes they'll do so anyway'. I've already given my response to your bomb analogy that I don't think you responded to. Like do you disagree with the fact that guns make it easier and quicker to kill people? The fact that you're comparing guns and bombs in the same light and don't think one should be banned greatly concerns me.

do tell officer.

Am I justified to shoot a police officer who I feel is threatening my freedom?

I'm not going to rehash an entire page of debate. There were inaccuracies being said about assault weapons in the US and I corrected them.

However, if you live in the USA, you must understand, banning all guns is impossible. It would literally start a revolution. So, rather than that, let's actually look at what might work? How about background checks for handguns and assault rifles. Lets increase those, eh? Waiting periods. That could help stop a lot of crimes of passion and suicides. Any other creative, non-Second-American-Revolution ideas?

Santa, maybe you should not make life and death decisions just based on how you feel. You might feel different later.

Oh I'm sorry, you aren't 15, you are drunk

Not yet

Would you care to join me for a drink?

Absolutely

"No, but if civilians are shooting at the politicians/military/other civilians then yes, yes they will use their superior technology to stop you. So this is moot anyway. Lesser threatening civilians have felt greater military brutality."

Time and time again, military superiority has proven to be moot when the public at large is sufficiently opposed to it. So long as there are guns, citizens will be able to fight back against a tyrannical government.

"HE BOUGHT THE GUN LEGALLY"

And he could just as easily have bought it illegally. Remember how well Prohibition went?