Confirmed, the guy was a regular at the gay club for years and liked drag shows and dancing with other men. I guess there's no hatred like self hatred. He also had a Grindr account. That's the gay pickup app for those who don't know. And he had accounts on some other gay dating services. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-pulse-club-regular-patrons-article-1.2672445 Almost invariably the worst homophobes turn out to be gay themselves. Maybe seeing all these other guys having the life he wanted but couldn't have because he was Muslim filled him with rage. Maybe he felt a lot of shame about who he was because of his upbringing.
The shooter's ex wife is now saying that he was gay. A male classmate is saying he asked him out and they used to hit up gay bars. This has got to be really embarrassing for ISIS. Their "hero" is a closeted gay dude who liked to cruise grindr.
You're talking about private sales for a gun that isn't currently illegal. If it was illegal, then a private sale would make the seller liable (which would very likely lower the number of people who would sell vs. current environment). It would also make it easier for law enforcement to run sting operations or gather info on people who were actively trying to buy illegal weapons/ammo.
That's actually not how it works. Existing banned weapons get grandfathered in and can be sold by their owners. You just can't buy any of the banned weapons new from a dealer. With 400M+ firearms already in circulation in the US, many of them semi-automatic rifles, all a ban would do is inconvenience the mass shooter a bit. It probably wouldn't stop anything.
Australia seems to have implemented a successful buyback program to reduce total guns in circulation. I don't see that kind of program being successful here.
France has some of the strictest gun laws, and the Paris attackers had no trouble getting a hold of assault rifles. Norway had one of the world's deadliest mass shootings in 2011 with 77 dead, and they also have strict gun laws. It's nice to think that tough gun laws would have prevented this. In reality, crazy people will still find ways to get weapons. Tougher gun laws are a deterrent, not some magical solution. I support improved background checks. Outright bans will mostly just take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
It work here as well. Many guns come out of circulation but what they found is the people who turn their guns in for cash are the least likely to commit a crime.
Not wanting to piss off angry rednecks with 400M+ guns is a pretty good reason. Also almost no one actually supports outright bans like you're suggesting. I think some very vocal people on the far left are making you think there's widespread support for such a thing. There really isn't. I also feel like giving up our second amendment rights is letting the terrorists win. They hate our way of life and want to see us throw away our freedoms. I was pretty angry after this attack happened. Now that I'm thinking more clearly, I don't like either candidate's solution. I don't want to see guns banned and I don't want to ban an entire ethnic/racial/religious group. Both candidates want to use this attack as an excuse to take away our freedoms.
Ah yes, the bogus paramilitary fantasy. Let's not burst the bubble of all the suckers that shell out money to the gun industry and pretend that they're going to go toe-to-toe with a Hellfire missile. Nobody is giving up second amendment rights with gun control. Standard guns for hunting? Not an issue. Actual weapons for self-defense that aren't automatic or semiautomatic? Not an issue.
It would be pretty hard to defend yourself with something that's not semiautomatic. Taking on the government is a fantasy. But situations where the government totally collapses and there's anarchy are a very real possibility. Look at Hurricanes Katrina and Andrew if you want to see examples of this, or the LA Riots. In that type of situation, I would want some decent protection. I know people who had to fight off murderous looters during Andrew. The cops aren't going to protect you in that type of situation. How could they when there's no power and the cell phone towers are down? A gun is an essential disaster survival tool, up there with canned food and a gas generator.
There is some obvious truth to gun control. If you reduce the total guns in circulation then gun crimes will follow. Also, 60% of firearm deaths are suicide, so you'd save ~22k lives a year instantly. But I don't really put much thought into fantasies. This will not happen in America, not in the next 8 years anyway. The idealists have a better chance of getting their libertarian president.
There is already limitation on what people can own. Fully automatic weapons have been restricted since WW1. Mini gun and Tommy gun homicides are pretty rare.
I'm fine with fully automatic weapons being limited to people with Class 3 permits. Trying to ban semi-automatic weapons is a slippery slope that would result in some of the best weapons for protection being banned. Take the M1911 for instance. Still one of the best handguns ever made. Still one of the best weapons for personal protection, which is why it's still in use after 100+ years. It only holds 7 rounds. But it's semi-automatic.
Is that a serious question? Even highly trained soldiers and police officers have a hard time with single shot accuracy in tense situations. What hope does a civilian have without quick follow up shots? It sounds like the only weapons you think civilians should be able to buy are single shot muskets that take two minutes to reload. Good luck with that when all the bad guys have real guns.
So nobody was able to successfully defend themselves with guns prior to semi-automatics? I bet the most common self-defense scenario that involves the average gun owner doesn't involve many shots fired or even hitting a target.
We could probably curb a lot of these shootings using some technology. Residential guns should all have double action triggers. On top of that, something could regulate the pressure on the trigger every 3 shots. Basically, if you shoot a 30 round clip, it needs to be worth it and a hell of a work out.
You act like semi-automatic is some new technology instead of something that's been around for ~125 years. You're literally talking about going back to the days of muskets. In the present case the security guard had a semi-automatic handgun and engaged with the shooter. Even with many follow up shots he could not put the guy down. What you're talking about doing would leave people defenseless. Please give some concrete examples of defensive firearms that are not semi-automatic. The only one I can think of is a pump shotgun. But liberals would even be opposed to that because it has follow up shots.
Revolvers. Police used those quite effectively for decades, and I'm sure they're still effective today.