Mass shooting in Orlando

[MissJM1]

How sad. Inside a gay nightclub, they say there are hostages and the shooter could have an explosive

As suicide bombers have proved you don't need a gun to kill scores of people very swiftly.
And no, gun control will of course not prevent terror attacks as illegal guns, I understand, are readily available for those in the nous.

BUT it would help if not every person who decides to follow some radical philosophy were able to get ahold of guns quite so easily.
ISIS likes to spread its radicalising pernicious poison quite randomly around the world, using social media, happily allowing any confused or ill person to do their work and then take credit. These attacks are often not carefully planned and arranged by ISIS.

Gun control wasn't the talking point for Paris & Brussels because Europe hasn't had over 100 mass shootings this year and didn't have over 300 last year.

And if there is a major difference between Europe & the US apart from gun control that might be relevant, then what is it?

And this is why I am very glad we have such tight gun laws here in the UK.

I agree with stricter gun controls and agree that it makes lone wolf attacks less likely but I just don't understand why this is the main talking point tonight instead of the types of discussions that took place after any of the other attacks.

okay, about the history of the 2nd amendment: It's your fault. yes YOU. You British lot.

...Who garrisoned British soldiers with the colonists (who had to feed them as well, out of pocket). The colonists resented this so the British said "No Guns" to minimise trouble between the garrisoned soldiers & colonists... Colonists who were descended from religious zealots who went to the colonies to live without (religious) authoritarianism imposed on them from outside own community. Then the British govt was trying to stamp its authority on the colonists after all.

The colonists believed that they needed protection against marauding natives (the wars with natives were barely out of living memory). Colonists reckoned British soldiers would run away not defend homesteads to the death. That's why the 2nd amendment treats household guns as essential for self-defence. And we have a history of little faith in govt.

======
I hate guns, but have to point out that IRA did a great job doing horrid damage in UK, gun control or not.

==========
In UK, Quakers were among the leading religious groups advocating for gay marriage. Branches of Episcolians in USA advocated gm, too.

Let's hope these discussions are alongside others on radicalisation. Perhaps there could also be discussions on stopping Islamists from murdering homosexuals.

Nothing stops attacks. I think people are talking about making them more difficult to instigate.

notnob
Precisely my point on the previous page.

Well funded at least in part by Americans actually.

That's why the 2nd amendment treats household guns as essential for self-defence. And we have a history of little faith in govt.

But you are harking back to events from the 18th century as justification for current laws. One of the problems with radical Islam is that it too harks back to events and writings from hundreds of years ago.

I think the way this is being reported indicates this is different to the Paris attacks. I would be surprised if Isis organised this, it seems more likely that this was someone who was inspired by Isis. If this is the case, discussions about both gun control and religion are very important.

Yes, 18th century Bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are sacrosanct. They will never be repealed.

Most amendments are subject to interpretation, though. You can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, 1st amendment or not (free speech). Some states have gun control laws that are not in conflict with 2nd amendment, it is possible to do something. Florida is a real pro-gun state, sadly.

The Boston marathoner bombers did horrible damage without guns. Nutters are hard to protect against. :(

I think this journalist is correct:

Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
25. It's important to understand the role so-called "Lone Wolves" play in ISIS' mission of spreading terror, which is often misunderstood
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
26. As early as 2014, ISIS explained that anyone could carry out an act of terror in their name. "Do not ask for permission," Adnani said
7:14 PM - 12 Jun 2016
557 557 Retweets 244 244 likes
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
28. Idea is simple: ISIS floods the internet with their gory propaganda hoping to incite anyone inc the mentally unwell, then claims credit

I think historical reasons for the Right To Bear Arms are all very interesting and true, but surely history marches on? And what may have been a radical idea at the time (also quite self-serving of course!), namely that common men may carry firearms, is now no longer of benefit to the society at large.

Nothing can ever protect absolutely against a determined nutter.

But even the Lone Wolves of these recent attacks carry one common thread.

And I agree with whoever said upthread claiming religion as 'nothing to do with it' is dodging the core of the problem.

The is an Australian stand-up comedian who does an interesting routine about the Bill of Rights. He stresses the word amendment over and over - because the word amendment indicates that something can be altered. Indeed, aren't certain later amendments repeals of earlier ones? E.g. the 18th prohibits alcohol, and the 21st repeals the 18th?

I don't want to get into a row over this. I am not American, and your laws and customs are your own concern, not mine. Plus as you say, there are other ways to do damage. No guns were involved in 9/11.

I think that Sandy Hook would have to have been the turning point for any significant change to guns laws. That didn't do it, so quite frankly I don't think anything else will.