Mass shooting in Orlando, Florida USA 20 dead
- Thread starter fool
- Start date
musterion
Well-known member
Don't really care what you think, to be blunt. You're heartbroken, I know. But it's okay because I don't care.
Amen.
Waiting around for a solution that will appease everyones' sensitivities isn't working out at all.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You figure it out.
Your clip:
"Death is the sentence. We know. There's nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence. Out of compassion, let's get rid of them now."
Your coreligionists:
Send them all back to Africa.
musterion
Well-known member
And?
BTW, I didn't know of this old poll until you posted it. Ask me how I voted. Go on, ask, since you can't quit me.
Psst. Afghanistan isn't in Africa. :listen:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Get over yourself already.
I don't care if you knew about the poll or not. The fact remains that the poll result from your coreligionists exists.
musterion
Well-known member
You get over me. Quit replying all the time to someone you "hate."
We (believers, not you) will each stand before and answer to our Master, on our own. Not based on what others thought or voted.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Who says I "hate?" Or are you lying again?
And you don't get to be all thread nanny over me. I'll post where and what I want.
And the fact remains: your coreligionists in that poll match up neatly with the Imam.
We should send them back to Africa anyway. They can take Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton with them. :idunno:
musterion
Well-known member
By the way, I voted no. Surprised? Yeah, you're surprised. Now you're conflicted. You still despise me but now find yourself strangely attracted (more than before) that you can't pigeonhole me with that poll. Hmm...complex. Intriguing. You want to figure out what makes me tick. Maybe, you wonder, do I want to know what makes you tick? No, I'm such a bad boy, you just can't let yourself care again, be hurt again. But...maybe...you can be the one to "fix" me? Dare you try? Yeah, Ann, I know exactly what you're thinking:
Prove me wrong. Ignore me forever. I can't give you what you want.
Prove me wrong. Ignore me forever. I can't give you what you want.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Uh huh. So nutballs like you and serpent:duh: are just veritable bastions of love while condemning the victims of such a massacre based solely on where they happened to be at the time.
Oh, and quit projecting onto me as well if it's all the same...
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I don't care why they were in any given bar frankly. They didn't deserve to be massacred and they sure don't deserve your bile ridden condemnation either.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I'd just as much 'convert' to Islam as I would your gormless brand of whacko fundamentalism tripe Musty. You have no idea whatsoever if you think anything resembling the paranoid delusions you labour under have any place in reality where I'm at.
Go back to your "chav" crap ya big crank.
:freak:
Alate_One
Well-known member
There are two ways of looking at the situation with firearms as exemplified by the Orlando shooting.
A. It's an acceptable risk. In the grand scheme of things, you're more likely to be killed by lightening than by a terrorist. (More general gun violence is different of course) This is probably what will be "determined" if nothing else by political paralysis.
B. The risk is unacceptable and we should do *something*. Of course we've already seen a number of posters go the us vs. them route. We already know this won't work as most of the assailants in previous mass shooting have been white males.
- The other choices are:
1. Ban guns entirely and get as many off the street as possible with buyback programs (not likely to happen and likely less effective )
2. Come up with some other kind of regulations. I would recommend restricting weapons with the capacity to be used to kill a lot of people in a short period of time with no breaks for reloading.
3. More guns. This is the NRA answer (which enhances their bottom line since they are in bed with the gun manufacturers.
Two major problems with this "solution":
a. It's based on the idea that a minimally trained civilian can take down an armed assailant with his sidearm. In the current case there were 11 trained police officers firing at this guy. It wasn't as if one police officer could walk up and pick him off with a shot or two. Why does anyone think they'll do better in the same situation.
b. Not everyone wants to or can carry a firearm. Gun ownership has been going down, not up. You can't force people to carry firearms unless you want to turn the country into a police state.
I predict nothing will come of this unless the house of representatives flips in the next election. If the deaths of 20 little kids couldn't spur people into action, a massacre at a nightclub won't do it. It's a sad reflection of the state of our country and most importantly the Republican party.
A. It's an acceptable risk. In the grand scheme of things, you're more likely to be killed by lightening than by a terrorist. (More general gun violence is different of course) This is probably what will be "determined" if nothing else by political paralysis.
B. The risk is unacceptable and we should do *something*. Of course we've already seen a number of posters go the us vs. them route. We already know this won't work as most of the assailants in previous mass shooting have been white males.
- The other choices are:
1. Ban guns entirely and get as many off the street as possible with buyback programs (not likely to happen and likely less effective )
2. Come up with some other kind of regulations. I would recommend restricting weapons with the capacity to be used to kill a lot of people in a short period of time with no breaks for reloading.
3. More guns. This is the NRA answer (which enhances their bottom line since they are in bed with the gun manufacturers.
Two major problems with this "solution":
a. It's based on the idea that a minimally trained civilian can take down an armed assailant with his sidearm. In the current case there were 11 trained police officers firing at this guy. It wasn't as if one police officer could walk up and pick him off with a shot or two. Why does anyone think they'll do better in the same situation.
b. Not everyone wants to or can carry a firearm. Gun ownership has been going down, not up. You can't force people to carry firearms unless you want to turn the country into a police state.
I predict nothing will come of this unless the house of representatives flips in the next election. If the deaths of 20 little kids couldn't spur people into action, a massacre at a nightclub won't do it. It's a sad reflection of the state of our country and most importantly the Republican party.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
anna's pointing out the fact that many of your far right brethren support killing homosexuals. Most people of the sane variety would regard that as extreme, somewhat verging on the psychotic even. No bloody wonder you wanna prance away from the fact.
Cretin.