Homosexuals Slaughtered in Orlando by Islamofascist

Brian Brady Brian Brady 60 Comments

Share

I woke up, early this morning, and read about a massacre in an Orlando night club.  As information became more readily available, my wildest speculation proved true–an Islamofascist staged the mass murder in a gay night club.  His motive seems to be anger at two men kissing in Miami.  Let that sink in.

This didn’t surprise me and it doesn’t surprise Carl DeMaio.  Carl posted this on his KOGO website:

The media is already reporting this attack as “shocking” – it is actually not a surprise. Quite the opposite.  The terrorists will score this one as a “double hit” because it serves a dual purpose of attacking two groups that Islamic radicals hate.

Islamic radicals hate Americans, but they hate gays even more.  In fact, it was only a matter of time before terrorists targeted a crowded gay club in our country.

With the exception of Israel, being gay in a Middle Eastern country places you on a target list for not only discrimination, but physical attack.  Gays are stoned, thrown from tops of buildings, burned, and beat up routinely.

Carl DeMaio will catch hell from Big Gay and the rest of the left-wing radicals for deviating from the narrative:

1- The majority of Muslims are peaceful (an accurate statement but ignores that the peaceful majority is irrelevant)
2- Guns are bad and shouldn’t be owned by anyone other than the police and military
3- Muslims are a minority in America and therefore, the targeting of homosexuals for mass murder can not be called a “hate crime”.

Read DeMaio’s full article.  He calls out the Obama Administration for its hyprocrisy and closes with a cautionary word of advice:

Take note – San Diego has several crowded, busy gay nightclubs.  The attack could have happened here first – and it may very well happen here if we fail to act.

I doubt you’ll read many news articles with the headline I chose to use but facts are facts–Islamofascists are now targeting American homosexuals for extinction.

Share

Comments 60

  1. Speaking of Obama, while he was very quick to emphasize the sexual orientation of the victims, he said nothing (of course) about the religious affiliation of the killer.

  2. Liberal American gays are obsessed with forcing Christian bakers to make gay couples their wedding cakes. Middle Eastern gays are obsessed with avoiding the rooftops of tall building off which Muslim activists toss them with gleeful abandon.

    I wonder if this Orlando massacre might cause American gays to rethink who constitutes a threat, and what their priorities are — perhaps recognizing that Christians and conservatives are NOT their worst enemies.

    Naaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

  3. Hate to say it, but Trump’s statement today was right on.

    We need a moratorium on unvetted immigration from parts of the world that have large populations of murderous lunatics who hate America.

  4. W.C.,

    The gunman was an American, born in New York. How would a moratorium on immigration have prevented this?

    And what about the man arrested in Los Angeles? I didn’t get all the details, but by appearance he didn’t seem Middle Eastern either.

  5. Chris,

    Thanks for adding to the discussion.

    Anyone,

    Please explain the rationale that makes it legal for a civilian to carry an automatic AR 15 that can kill hundreds in mere minutes? Is a weapon like that really necessary to protect home and family?

  6. Hypocrisy,

    Would you make semi-automatic weapons illegal? There are nearly as many weapons in the U.S. as people, and many of them are semi-automatics.
    Who do you suppose would wind-up with those guns if they were taken from law-abiding citizens, and what kind of defensive disadvantage would that put them in? These firearms do have tremendous destructive power…for both good and evil.

  7. Post
    Author
  8. Brian,

    I could be wrong, but it sounded like the weapon used was an automatic, not semi-automatic weapon. As for a direct response to your query? The police do not carry magazines of 100+.

  9. W.C., I agree with you on this one too. Since another lunatic was arrested in California for attempting to do the same thing I suggest that California temporarily ban white guys from Indiana until we can figure out what’s going on. Xenophobia is a natural survival instinct inherent in all humans, Civilized people attempt to let rational thought prevail before fetching the pitchforks and torches.

  10. Craig,

    I would not ban semi-automatic weapons, but I would make it illegal to own a fully automatic weapon and I would restrict the capacity of the magazines.

    Would you be agreeable to any restrictions whatsoever? RPG’s, Kevlar piercing bullets? People on the no-fly list?

  11. Post
    Author

    I am less worried about the existence of semi-automatic weapons that I am about Islamofascists’ ability to wage war on gay people.

    Islamofascists completed one attack at a gay night club and LEOs foiled an Islamofascist bombing at a Gay Pride event… in one weekend.

    Y’all are talking about disarming the potential victims now?

  12. Brian,

    It is not an either or problem. I, too am concerned with Islamic terrorist and the white guy from Indiana. I am also concerned that either of those have legal access to weapons that can kill hundreds in minutes, weapons that are unlikely to be owned by any of the victims.

  13. Guns are not the problem, Islam is the problem. Islam preaches the killing of homosexuals. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and ISIS actively kill homosexuals.

    Trump is right. Restrict Muslim immigration to the US. Close the door now and limit the Muslim problem. The Muslims that are born here do not “self radicalize”. As Muslims, they are already radicalized. Islam teaches and practices the killing of Homosexuals.

  14. Dan,

    If Islam is the only problem,
    Please explain the man arrested in Los Angeles.

  15. Hypocrisy:

    Explain how Islam is not the problem. San Bernadino, Boston, Orlando?!

  16. HQ, I doubt an automatic weapon was used. 49 people died in large part because the police decided to wait over three hours before going in. Too many bled out who could have been saved.

    Should I mention in passing that automatic weapons are illegal? Automatic weapons are the boogeyman stereotype hyped by HQ’s gun control crowd — the straw man they love to shoot full of holes and mount over their fireplace. A fireplace they’d NEVER use, of course, but that’s another matter.

  17. HQ,

    An answer to: “Is a weapon like that really necessary to protect home and family?”

    The Second Amendment protects the security of a “free state”. In order to secure a free state, it is necessary to have a functional (they used the term “well regulated”) militia. It is impossible to have a functioning militia if everyone is armed with revolvers.
    In this day and age, the arms that we keep and bear in order to have a functioning militia is a semi automatic, magazine fed, center fire rifle. That is an AR.
    An AR is the exact example of the arms that the Second Amendment is protecting.

  18. Dan,

    Islamic extremism is a problem. I never said it wasn’t. But it isn’t the only problem. The world and its challenges are not as simple you want to make them out to be.

  19. The shooter was a registered Democrat. If Democrats don’t listen to their leaders by not shooting lots of people. Then the Democratic party have a bigger discipline problem within its base, than the GOP establishment has with Trump voters.

  20. Other than Michael who know what he is talking about never have I head some much misinformation about firearms.

    He did not have a fully automatic firearm.

    With 3 hours of shooting time and NO Resistance he had plenty of time to use a 5 round magazine and still take down 100 people.

    When will the the FBI, local police and others realize you cannot negotiate in these situations?

    If I would have asked “Charlie” to sit down and we’ll talk things over I’d be dead. Instead, I killed “Charlie”.

    This is WAR people. You shoot first and ask questions later. To do otherwise people die.

    Rather then list who the muslims dislike it easier to list who they like:
    A few other muslims.

  21. Craig,

    Thank you for your reasonable position. As is the case with the first amendment, it is possible to have reasonable restrictions on a “right” without violating the Constitution.

    Michael,

    I doubt the Framers envisioned AR’s when they were writing the second amendment. Nor do I think they envisioned RPG’s which could also be considered necessary for protection under certain circumstances.

    Richard,

    Every news report I have heard (even those on Fox), reported that the weapon was an automatic and was purchased legally in Florida.

  22. “Every news report I have heard … reported that the weapon was an automatic and was purchased legally in Florida.”

    As far as I know, that is impossible. I’m sure the news has reported that, but those reports may not include simple facts about this rifle.

    Michael Schwartz can correct me or clarify if I’m off on this:

    The AR 15 is a semi-automatic rifle. There are fully automatic versions of the AR, but they are banned in the U.S.

    So, if the shooter bought the gun legally in Florida, he bought a semi-automatic. If he bought an automatic, the sale was illegal.

    If he used a fully automatic AR, he either did not buy it legally, or customized a semi. Which would also be illegal.

    By the way, AR does not stand for assault rifle.

  23. Barry,

    Only repeating what every news agency has reported and I do know that AR is the abbreviation of the company that originally made the rifle.

    Michael,

    If fully automated guns are illegal and the law that makes them illegal is Constitutional, then why can’t government also limit the size of the magazines?

    If the second amendment is really to insure that every citizen is ready to become a well regulated militia in the event of an attack, then it would seem to me that automatic weapons would be much more effective and necessary than semi-automatic weapons. Yet, automatic weapons are illegal. Please explain.

  24. Post
    Author

    HQ,

    You have stipulated that isamofascism is a problem. Let’s stay on topic. Gun ownership in America isn’t a problem. A disarmed populace won’t stop these bad guys from shooting up gay bars

  25. HQ, I suspect you’ve been hearing what you want to hear. What you are hearing is (semi) AUTOMATIC AR 15. Somehow that “semi” gets screened out of your auditory sensor.

    Every report I’VE seen says SEMI-AUTOMATIC. I’m sure some dufus with similar sensory deprivation problems might have heard (and then reported) what you THINK you heard, but rest assured it wasn’t a defender of the 2nd Amendment — it was likely one of the Brady Bunch.

    BTW, not that the media cares about facts, but apparently the shooter did NOT use an AR 15 — “the weapon of choice of mass murderers” according to the media reports flooding the nation. Yes, it was a similar weapon, but the demon AR-15 is more popular with the MSM and fits their narrative.

    HQ, feel free to post some MSM links to articles calling the weapon a fully-automatic firearm. I’d like to see them. I’ve seen many reports, and none which would be called “news” sources called the weapon “automatic.” I’m afraid that most of the reports you “heard” was voices in your own head.

    Costco offers some great deals on hearing aids. But somehow I doubt such auditory aids would help in your case.

  26. By the way, as others have pointed out, the Paris Islamic terror shootings killed more than twice as many people, and France has very strict gun control laws.
    Truly, this has little if anything to do with gun control. What it does have is everything to do with the West’s ongoing war with violent Muslim fanatics.
    About the only thing that could’ve stopped this killer is one well placed and willing armed citizen.

  27. Why do Republicans support allowing folks on the terrorist watch list to own and buy guns? Could it be the massive amounts of NRA money?

  28. Common Sense Statements:

    1. Islamic Terrorism is a problem
    2. I would be safer if the bad guys wanting to harm me thought I might also have a gun.
    3. It should be easier to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
    4. Allowing trained people to carry weapons in “soft targets” makes sense.

    I agree with all of the above.

    More Common Sense Statements:

    1. Islamic Terrorists are not the only threat. In fact, the common thread among San Ysidro (1984), Stockton (1989), Columbine (1999), Sandy Hook (2012), Washington Navy Yard (2013), Santa Monica (2013), Santa Barbara (2014), Charleston (2015), Colorado Springs (2015) and Roseburg, Oregon (2015) is that these are all locations of mass murderers carried out by White Christians.

    2. Weapons who sole purpose is to kill dozens, if not hundreds, as quickly as possible will not be the weapon of choice for a law-abiding citizen wishing to protect himself at the movies.

    3. Weapons like those mentioned above, or at least the high capacity magazines that go with them should be and can be Constitutionally outlawed.

    I also agree with all of those above statements. Why don’t you?

  29. Terrorist watch list Paul? What is a “terrorist”? Who goes on the list? The first thing the government and you leftists would do is put Christians and ex American soldiers on the terrorist watch list.

  30. HQ:
    “I doubt the Framers envisioned AR’s when they were writing the second amendment. Nor do I think they envisioned RPG’s which could also be considered necessary for protection under certain circumstances.”
    The Framers knew what a cannon was. Civilians owned those during the fight against the British. Why is that ok? Because that is what is needed to defend against the threat. For example in the 80s Congress issued Stinger ground-to-air missiles to civilians. The civilians were Afghani and the threat was Russian helicopters. They used the term “arms” to account for variety. Variety when it comes to threat and variety when it comes to changing technology.

    “If fully automated guns are illegal and the law that makes them illegal is Constitutional, then why can’t government also limit the size of the magazines?

    If the second amendment is really to insure that every citizen is ready to become a well regulated militia in the event of an attack, then it would seem to me that automatic weapons would be much more effective and necessary than semi-automatic weapons. Yet, automatic weapons are illegal. Please explain”

    Technically fully automatic firearms are not illegal. They are just next to impossible to own due to all the paperwork and requirements. In CA , the laws against full auto firearms probably are unconstitutional, but it has never been tested in court.
    The next time you hear someone say that the gun lobby won’t compromise…remember full auto rifles. This is one of the many, many, many compromises that side made and continues to stick to. However, it is getting to a point that the compromises are becoming illogical and too much to comply with.
    Magazine capacity is a good example. Turning a normal capacity magazine into a “high” capacity magazine by picking a random number of bullets doesn’t stop criminals, but it does turn normally law-abiding people into felons. So is a magazine ban constitutional? I don’t think so, but it might stand up in the 9th Circuit. The push-back isn’t so much that it is or is not constitutional. The push-back is it is not a solution. I am not going to bet public safety on the inability of an Islamic terrorist to change his magazine. I am also not going to let others risk my safety by not letting me carry the amount of ammunition that my firearm was designed to carry. Why can’t I just change a magazine like a terrorist can? Because I am not the calm one during a life and death situation. The terrorist is.
    I, like the vast majority, am a normal, decent human being who would only consider using a firearm in defense of life.

    More on full auto weapons…the ARs issued in the military today have a selector switch that allows the AR to shoot semi-automatic or “3 burst”. A “3 burst” means you pull the trigger once and three bullets come out; one after the other. They use fully automatic firearms, but it is usually 1 or 2 per squad and are typically not ARs. So, it is a long, long explanation but here are the two basics:
    1. Like I said before, the gun lobby made yet another compromise when it comes to full auto guns.
    2. The minimum firearm it takes to have a functioning militia is a semi auto rifle (like the AR). It takes no specialized training like a machine gun takes. It is the basic tool of a soldier. It is the modern musket.
    ARs are where the line is drawn. The other side wants to move that line so they attack the AR. I’ve heard people point out that many of the recent mass murderers used ARs. The AR is the most commonly purchased firearm today and it has been around for 60+ years. It is extremely common. It’s like saying that drunk drivers prefer using automobiles to do their drunk driving.

    It is difficult to get ALL the details out in a short comment section, but hopefully this answered what you asked.

  31. Drawing equivalency between the religious motivations of the “white Christians” you list above (most were nominally Christian, at best) and recent Muslim attacks is, I think, a bit of a stretch.

    And, again, if weapons can be roughly divided between those designed for entertainment purposes (hunting, target practice, etc.) and defense (yes, killing people!) what sense could there be in limiting law abiding citizens’ access to those of the second kind? And if semi-automatics are fully legal, why do some persist in the rhetorical flourish of calling them “weapons of war” when the only real difference between them and other semi-automatics is aesthetic?

    Magazine capacity seems like a debatable issue.

  32. Michael,

    You stated “Technically fully automatic firearms are not illegal. They are just next to impossible to own due to all the paperwork and requirements. In CA ,”

    Richard stated “Should I mention in passing that automatic weapons are illegal?”

    Barry stated “There are fully automatic versions of the AR, but they are banned in the U.S.”

    So which is it? Are automatic weapons illegal in the United States or not?

  33. Craig,

    I didn’t use the term “White Christian” to imply that they killed because of their religious beliefs. I used it simply to point out that there have been many mass murders committed by non-Muslim terrorists.

    I also never stated that I have a problem with guns that are meant for killing. What I said was that I have a problem with guns that are designed to kill multitudes of people in seconds.

  34. HQ, they are so heavily regulated that they are illegal, for all intents and purposes.
    I know thousands of gun owners personally and just in San Diego. I know 3 people who have fully automatic rifles and they are both profesional dealers. I don’t know anyone who is not in the industry who owns a fully automatic firearm.
    The process to buy one is very expensive and takes at least months, but probably over a year.
    I cannot think of a crime that was committed using full auto firearms except the north Hollywood bank robbery. The firearms they used were illegally altered to shoot fully automatic. Altering a semi auto to make it full auto takes training. I know a lot about guns and I don’t know where to start to make one full auto.
    It’s also important to point out that the north Hollywood robbery happened right in the middle of the federal “assault weapon” ban.

    This article has better details on buying a fully automatic gun: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208100642AA1yRuX

  35. Dan, After we put all the Christians on the watch list they will be transported to FEMA camps for indoctrination. Then we will assign each of you to a negro to be his servant. Then, and only then, will we publicly admit that Obama is indeed the antichrist , who will require you to chant Allah Akbar repeatedly until you fully submit.
    I didn’t make this crap up. I got it all from right wing web sites back in ’08. No one from the right stood up to this crap. That’s why I’ll never vote for a Republican.

  36. Paul: Your own Janet Napolitano did just that in 2009 with returning US soldiers. Not so far-fetched after all. Did she ever take returning soldiers off the terrorism watch list? I wouldn’t trust her if she said she did.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/

    Now that we’ve settled that, let’s get back to Islamic terrorism in the US. This is the REAL threat. Recently Boston, San Bernadino, Orlando. How many more Paul before you admit it?

    Trump is right. He’s the only one calling it for what it is, Islamic terrorism in the US. Islam hates the United States. So stop all Muslim immigration until they can be properly vetted.

    The Homosexuals are finally understanding that Muslims are a FAR greater threat to them than Christians. A gay activist in the following article is voting Trump because he can’t trust the Democrats on Islamist terrorism.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/12/gay-activist-after-orlando-trump-voter/

    PS: Please don’t put me in a FEMA work camp Paul.

  37. Eye Roll,

    And the Hispanic vote and the African American vote and the Women’s vote and the…majority of the American people’s vote.

  38. “Non-Muslim” would be more accurate. In any case, Islamic terror is, worldwide, so pervasive that the phrase is practically redundant.

    The world’s a dangerous place. Law abiding citizens should arm themselves.

  39. Post
    Author

    “Weapons like those mentioned above, or at least the high capacity magazines that go with them should be and can be Constitutionally outlawed”

    At least your approaching this the correct way, HQ. If the Second Amendment should be repealed or altered, have at it. I don’t think I would agree with your amendments but at least you aren’t attempting this illegally

  40. Heres a data plot to add to the conversation:

    Gun Ownership vs. Gun Deaths in OECD Nations

    A few points about the data:

    1.) Notice this is “gun deaths” and not “homicides.” So it includes accidental deaths and suicides. This makes sense to me, as all human life has value. One might argue that suicidal people would simply find another method, but let’s agree that the presence of a loaded weapon allows for impulsive acts. If the alternative is sourcing pills from a doctor, or affixing a rope to a ceiling–other methods would take time and planning. This time and effort can allow moments of reflection that interrupt the impulse. Also, other methods are likely less successful, and may include the prospect of more pain and discomfort–deterrents to following through.

    2.) The countries listed are the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). OECD member nations are a peer group of developed nations. When looking at gun deaths, there are obviously countries like Somalia and Honduras–places without basic education systems or opportunities for gainful employment. Places with corrupt or nonexistent law enforcement or prison systems. The toxic mix of desperation and lawlessness translates to a level of violence and murder we have trouble imagining. Yet widespread poverty in these places means few can even afford a gun, so the death rate is driven by a relatively low number of gun owners.

    Obviously, we don’t share much in common with such places, and including them in the mix isn’t helpful. The OECD peer group shows the relationship of gun ownership to gun deaths among nations with broadly similar educational, economic, and law enforcement conditions. And it shows a strong positive correlation.

    There is no proposal that can prevent all mass shootings. Paris shows that. But that’s missing the point. The value of an idea should not be measured against whether it is a perfect and absolute solution to the whole problem, but rather wether it is better than what we have today.

    In my opinion, guns and vehicles have some interesting similarities. Americans are passionate about our freedoms, and both guns and vehicles are powerful symbols of that freedom. Guns and vehicles are both useful tools in the hands of a skilled and trained operator. I’m the wrong hands they are instruments of destruction.

    So how do we mitigate the risk.

    To drive a car, I have to be a certain age, I have to take professional training. I also have to prove that my vision is good, and that I understand the rules and regulations governing traffic flow. Finally, I have to demonstrate through a practical exam with an expert that I can operate my vehicle safely.

    My vehicle must be registered, and inspected periodically for safety features and to make sure I have not tampered with it in ways that are not allowed. My vehicle also had to be built to standards set by regulation. I am obligated to pay a tax on my vehicle, and prove that I have secured insurance to protect others around me should I make a mistake that results in damage or injury to others.

    If I screw up by driving drunk, not following the rules, or operating in an unsafe way, I can lose my ability to drive temporarily or permanently.

    If I want to drive a motorcycle, a truck, or a taxi, these vehicles represent greater challenges and risks, and so I have to get additional training, more rigorous licensing tests, and meet different insurance standards.

    Guns should be no different.

    No honest person worries that the government is coming to take all of our cars away just because they are regulated and controlled.

    One day this will happen. It makes too much sense not to. My sense is that we aren’t there yet. The body count isn’t yet high enough from mass shootings to tilt the balance toward reason. But it will happen, because the current policies will only lead to more and more senseless loss of life, and at some point, the American people won’t tolerate any more.

  41. Post
    Author

    Islamofascists are trying to exterminate gay people and some of y’all are trying to make gay people defenseless. That’s pretty twisted.

  42. Scoreboard:
    Republicans hold total control of 30 of the country’s 50 state legislatures (60 percent) and have total or split control of 38 of the 50 (76 percent.)
    31 governors are Republicans.
    The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are both controlled by Republicans.
    And all this was done without the Paul Therrio voter block on our side.

  43. Paul, Encinitas Dad, and Hypocrisy: Why won’t you call out the problem of Islamic terrorism in the US? It’s an ISLAM problem, not a gun problem. How many times do the Muslims have to say that they want to exterminate the US, Israel, Christians, Jews, and Homosexuals before you take them at their word?

  44. Brian,

    I am not sure that a change in the Second Amendment is necessary. As I pointed out in a previous post, Freedom of Speech is not absolute and I am not sure that we have a Constitutional right to own absolutely any weapon either. I certainly do believe that any change should be made by the legislative branch, not the executive, and must be ultimately confirmed as Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

  45. Dan,

    I have repeatedly said that Islamic terrorism (not Islam) is a problem.

    Why won’t you admit that it is not the only problem and that there have been many mass murders committed in this country by non-Muslims?

  46. Post
    Author

    “Why won’t you admit that it is not the only problem and that there have been many mass murders committed in this country by non-Muslims?”

    Because it’s off-topic. An Islamofascist (note that we share the distinction from all Muslims), spent 30 days planning and executing a plot to exterminate gay Americans in a private business.

    There are lots of problems in this country (crime, violence, high taxes, bankrupt social security system, failed health care schemes, crony capitalism, etc) but this specific case was an act of war.

    Let’s stay on topic

  47. Dan,

    So far in 2016 in the US there have been 186 mass shootings. A tiny fraction of those are related to radical Islamic terrorism. You could somehow magically solve the Islamic terrorism problem, and we’d barely move the needle on mass shooting deaths and injuries.

    The truth is, we have a Venn diagram of two problems that happen to intersect over Orlando. We do have a radical Islamic terrorism problem and we do need to continue to address it. But that’s the smaller circle in the diagram. The larger circle (i.e. contributing to more deaths) is an outrageous system that allows gun purchases without background checks, and refuses to prohibit people on the no fly list from buying semi-automatic rifles and thousands of rounds on demand.

    Unfortunately, there are no short term fixes for either problem in the Venn diagram. This shooter was born in New York 29 years ago. Which means Trump’s immigration policy is about 40 years too late to affect a similar situation from happening again.

  48. Encinitas Dad: There were 26 Islamic planned attacks or attacks in the US since the beginning of 2015. It is a BIG number and it’s increasing. Islam is the problem.

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/14/massacre-in-orlando-86th-instance-of-islamist-terror-in-us-since-911/

    If there had been 1 person with a gun in the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, many, many people could have been saved. But it was a gun-free zone. In my hometown of Chicago, which has very strict gun control laws, there were 468 murders in 2015.

    http://time.com/4165576/chicago-murders-shootings-rise-2015/

    Many of those people would be alive if they had a gun and could have defended themselves.

  49. 26 terrorism events planned or conducted is a big number. 182 mass shootings actually executed (plus who knows how many thwarted) is waaaaaaaaaaay bigger. Thanks for making my point, though.

    Also, there was an armed, trained, off duty police officer stationed at the front door to the club. He was the first to exchange fire with the gunman but was unable to stop him, so there goes that theory.

    Question for you: if what we really need is more people with guns out drinking, then can you point me to the example that proves this rule? Point us to a city or country at any time in history that you think illustrates the point that arming bar patrons results in a safer more tranquil world. That’s your challenge. Good luck.

  50. Encinitas Dad, I know that more guns = more suicides is a standard gun grabber talking point.

    Only one problem — the U.S. DOES NOT HAVE A HIGH SUICIDE RATE. Japan, which bans guns, has a suicide rate more than double ours.

    Indeed, among the 26 OECD “civilized” countries — ALL of which have much lower rates of gun ownership — the U.S. has the 9th lowest suicide rate.

    Sigh. Facts are such troubling things.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countr

  51. Post
    Author
  52. Richard,

    I think you’ve missed my point, which was that in countries with broadly similar economic development, educational opportunities, and law enforcement capabilities, more guns equals more gun-related deaths over all.

    I mentioned suicides as a component of gun deaths, which some might object to as irrelevant. I made the case for why I think it’s relevant to include.

    Your stats on lower than average suicide rates vs. the OECD is welcome news. However, since our overall rate of gun deaths is among the highest in the OECD, it can only mean that we are making up for it with higher than average gun accident and homicide rates, which isn’t exactly good news.

    Regarding “gun grabber,” do you also stay awake at night in paranoid fear that someone is coming to take away our cars? My thought above was to treat guns like vehicles. Does that analogy not demonstrate that potentially dangerous objects can be successfully regulated without a rational fear that someone will “grab” them?

  53. Brian,

    I always thought it would be an interesting test of “guns don’t kill people” for a benevolent Billionaire to distribute many truckloads of free AR-15s and ammo to non-white folks throughout the Deep South. Just keep pouring in weapons and bullets. At some point, those weapons would become involved in deaths of prominent local citizens.

    I wonder then where the blame would go. Would it go exclusively to the perps who pulled the triggers, or to the Billionaire who simply donated some inert, non-sentient, metal objects?

  54. Brian,

    “Let’s stay on topic.”

    OK. We all agree that Islamic terrorists are bad. That’s the end of that topic.

    I thought this blog was for topics that we don’t all agree on and for taking the discussion in directions that make us think, and sometimes even challenge our own beliefs. Maybe I was wrong.

  55. Encinitas Dad: The question I have is since the off duty cop exchanged gunfire with the Muslim terrorist in Orlando and the Muslim terrorist still got into Pulse, why didn’t the cop follow him into Pulse to keep him from killing people? How many people could the off-duty cop have saved if he had gone into Pulse after the terrorist?

    I think you and I can agree that Muslim terrorists are the problem in the US. Why do you want background checks on ALL gun purchasers but not extensive background checks on ALL MUSLIMS before we let them in the US? Whether it’s tourism or immigration, until we can extensively vet them, as Trump said, let’s put a temporary halt on ALL Muslims coming into the US. Obviously, we did a bad job on vetting Omar’s father, Mr. Seddique, since he did a recent broadcast praising the Afghan Taliban.

  56. Dan,

    How exactly would we identify that someone entering the country is a Muslim?

  57. A good start would be everybody from predominately Muslim countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the others. There is no harm in keeping them out. If we miss a few tourism dollars, oh well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *