Orlando Attack...ISIS claims it!

[wallytoo]

I'll just go ahead and help you out on your grammatical errors, I'll label with an asterisk to help you out in addition.

"*It's ok. (Capitalize the beginning of a sentence, even though this is an incomplete sentence.) *It'll be worse in *Canada soon. (Capitalize the beginning of a sentence. Canada needs to be capitalized)



*Eventually(capitalize), enough people here will be killed by terrorists and the powers that be will finally decide they can't ignore it. *But(capitalize & comma), *I'd (capitalize) guess we need a few thousand more *U.S.(Really? Didn't capitalize United States..?) citizens to die in terrorist attacks before that happens.



*It(capitalize) is unfortunate for a lot of potential peaceful immigrants. *The(capitalize) terrorists will shut down all U.S. (Twice now..) borders, no aliens to enter legally. *The(capitalize) war is coming, if it isn't here already."


Let me know if I missed any seeing as how we are all human & make mistakes.

one mistake, see below. as to capitalization, that's how i write on the internet. in the purest sense, it is an error in grammar. it might specifically be referred to as an orthography error. my punctuation, spelling, word-usage, and sentence structure are correct. i rarely capitalize, unless a more formal document (on the internet) is required, or where capitalization is needed for clarification. i could have used "US" instead of u.s., because merely writing "us" would have introduced ambiguity to the intended meaning.

indeed, we all make mistakes, including typographical errors. however, coronation is not a typographical error. it is an error in usage. i don't blame my computer, tablet, or others for such errors when i make them.



"it's ok" is not an incomplete sentence. it is equivalent to "it's good", "it's fine", or "it's okay", which are complete sentences.

is that clear enough?

 

[1engineer]

I'll just go ahead and help you out on your grammatical errors, I'll label with an asterisk to help you out in addition.

"*It's ok. (Capitalize the beginning of a sentence, even though this is an incomplete sentence.) *It'll be worse in *Canada soon. (Capitalize the beginning of a sentence. Canada needs to be capitalized)



*Eventually(capitalize), enough people here will be killed by terrorists and the powers that be will finally decide they can't ignore it. *But(capitalize & comma), *I'd (capitalize) guess we need a few thousand more *U.S.(Really? Didn't capitalize United States..?) citizens to die in terrorist attacks before that happens.



*It(capitalize) is unfortunate for a lot of potential peaceful immigrants. *The(capitalize) terrorists will shut down all U.S. (Twice now..) borders, no aliens to enter legally. *The(capitalize) war is coming, if it isn't here already."


Let me know if I missed any seeing as how we are all human & make mistakes.

one mistake, see below. as to capitalization, that's how i write on the internet. in the purest sense, it is an error in grammar. it might specifically be referred to as an orthography error. my punctuation, spelling, word-usage, and sentence structure are correct. i rarely capitalize, unless a more formal document (on the internet) is required, or where capitalization is needed for clarification. i could have used "US" instead of u.s., because merely writing "us" would have introduced ambiguity to the intended meaning.

indeed, we all make mistakes, including typographical errors. however, coronation is not a typographical error. it is an error in usage. i don't blame my computer, tablet, or others for such errors when i make them.



"it's ok" is not an incomplete sentence. it is equivalent to "it's good", "it's fine", or "it's okay", which are complete sentences.

is that clear enough?

Enough.

 

[SL.UG]

one mistake, see below. as to capitalization, that's how i write on the internet. in the purest sense, it is an error in grammar. it might specifically be referred to as an orthography error. my punctuation, spelling, word-usage, and sentence structure are correct. i rarely capitalize, unless a more formal document (on the internet) is required, or where capitalization is needed for clarification. i could have used "US" instead of u.s., because merely writing "us" would have introduced ambiguity to the intended meaning.



indeed, we all make mistakes, including typographical errors. however, coronation is not a typographical error. it is an error in usage. i don't blame my computer, tablet, or others for such errors when i make them.







"it's ok" is not an incomplete sentence. it is equivalent to "it's good", "it's fine", or "it's okay", which are complete sentences.



is that clear enough?

Edited to remove what I said per mod request.

 

[MudPie]

Boston, Paris, San Bernardino, Orlando.

To be continued...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wadle5]

I think it becomes a solid debate when we start attacking grammar and punctuation. . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[1engineer]

I think it becomes a solid debate when we start attacking grammar and punctuation. . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about this guys:

This happened. It is a terrible tragedy. Now, what can the US do to prevent it from happening again? Forget the past. What can we do going forward? Going after ISIS? Gun control? Trump? Clinton? Who will be better at preventing this in the future and why?

 

[ndcent]

Only one religion kills like this everyday. . and its Islam. Islam is a political idealogy of conquest. It seeks to conquer, kill, and destroy. Under FL law, that nightclub was a gun free zone. Thanks to liberals idealogy those individuals were sitting ducks. Isis claims the attack and Obama still says its because of hate and guns. The shooter shouted allah akbar during the shooting. . .this has EVERYTHING to due with Islam.
Christian Baker:"i wont bake you a weeding cake"
Muslim: "i will shoot you in a gay nightclub"

Whats the bigger danger to the LGBT community?

Research what they do over there to people that are gay. They don't use guns either . . as other members have pointed out they will use a 4 story building, a rock, or a knife.

Im confused about the question. Is sharia law in the Middle East or gun free zones or Christian bakers or liberals the biggest danger to our LGBT community?

Lots going on there, not sure what the specific question is?

 

[wadle5]

Im confused about the question. Is sharia law in the Middle East or gun free zones or Christian bakers or liberals the biggest danger to our LGBT community?

Lots going on there, not sure what the specific question is?

Not a specific question, the last comment was rhetorical. Individuals are going after and investing more time in bakers and worrying about feelings of the LGBT community, but yet we have this religion that preaches violence against it and people ignore it? Sorry for the confusion sir.

 

[ben550]

I don't offhand, but is it really that hard to imagine? I mean, you have from all reports, a very crowded, dark and loud nightclub as the setting. Many didn't even know there were gunshots at first and they were in the same space as the individual. Do I think one person with a gun in the right place at the right time would have possibly helped? Sure. But say 1 in 10 of them had a firearm. That means roughly 30 people inside would then have guns. How would that end up? I mean, emotion is probably the worst thing you could have in situations like that, would you agree? That is where training training training comes into play. They try to teach people when reacting to situations like that to remain emotionless and rational. But even those with tons of training still react emotionally. How can we not expect our average Joe to do that? So you have one gunman and 30 highly charged individuals shooting with another 300 franticly trying to flee. Now as the other 300 who don't have a gun, how do you know which are people trying to help and who is the initial gunman?

1) Emotion is bad for gunfights and conversation. It is present but must be controlled.
2) 10 average Joes with handguns in that night club probably would not have changed the outcome but we will never know.
3) A handgun is a means to save yourself... not save the other 299 in the nightclub.
4) Watch the video of the Police shooting the shooter... You better believe there were bystanders in the nightclub who were hit either directly in that barrage or by ricocheting rounds... So the idea of CCW holders shooting bystanders also applies to the swat teams and police...
5) A firefight especially at night in a crowded place is chaotic for the untrained and the trained. Run the math to figure your odds of survival.

Comedy I know, but as the wise Homer Simpson says, "It's funny because it's true."

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MCI4bUk4vuM" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

Using the daily show as a source does not add to one's credibility... It would be like me quoting Brian Regan to argue my point... Lets leave the comedy skits where the belong... for entertainment purposes rather than intellectual discussions...

Yes, I'm sure this will come under some fire from others as me say take away all guns. I'm not saying that at all. I love guns despite not owning any. I don't think the solution is to take them away. But I also know that adding guns to more people is not the solution at all either. Go out in public. Look at your daily commute. Do people act emotionally? Yes. We are emotional people. I just don't think we have the capacity to be able to handle that as a whole. Does that mean I don't think anyone should be able to carry? No. But let's make sure those that do are as well trained as possible. Could that be someone not in law enforcement? Sure. But again, training. Training. And more training.

1) I would like to see a more stringent process for people carrying weapons. I don't believe in a need to justify a reason for wanting to do so, but I do believe in a need to prove competency, judgement and responsibility before being licensed to do so... And I would say the same for purchasing. No one seems to object to a drivers ed test before being issued a license. Some states have mandatory classes in order to carry, most seem to not have any training required... just prints and a photo...
2) Banning guns is not the answer. Banning certain kinds of guns is not the answer. Just as banning cars is not the answer nor is banning certain kinds of "high performance" cars not the answer to curbing vehicular manslaughter.

 

[wallytoo]

How about this guys:

This happened. It is a terrible tragedy. Now, what can the US do to prevent it from happening again? Forget the past. What can we do going forward? Going after ISIS? Gun control? Trump? Clinton? Who will be better at preventing this in the future and why?

kill first, ask questions later. turn the middle east into glass. proceed radially (meaning outward in all directions) from there for a few thousand miles.

decide to stop being targets/victims.


or, send flowers and candy to the terr......, i mean misunderstood, peaceful practitioners of islam. while we are at it, send them a few billion dollars, too. after all, there aren't any citizens here that could use it. that way, we can have cake, and eat it, too.

 

[JayceeP]

In Raqqa when ISIS determines a man or woman is gay they take them up to the top of a 4 story building and throw them off to their death.

The Gunman pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Let's not pretend this is about gun control.

The problem is radical religion. ISIS plan for lgbt individuals is to genocide them. They don't need guns to kill LGBT people. They do it everyday with gravity, rocks and sharp knives.

Focus on radical religion. Scorn those who talk about the need to tolerate racial multicultural views.

:bat:

I agree. While it probably is true (in my opinion) that there does need to be some level of sensible gun control, it baffles me that during a tragedy like this, the United States is being shamed by many for its lack of gun control, but during the France attack in Paris it was only about "Pray for Paris." One country has much tougher gun laws than the other yet the tragedy is just the same. The implication is this would/might not have happened if there was strict gun contro but, I mean, if this guy got into the Orlando club with an AR-15 and a handgun, chances are he could have got in with multiple small explosives and caused as much or maybe more damage.

 

[wallytoo]

1) I would like to see a more stringent process for people carrying weapons. I don't believe in a need to justify a reason for wanting to do so, but I do believe in a need to prove competency, judgement and responsibility before being licensed to do so... And I would say the same for purchasing. No one seems to object to a drivers ed test before being issued a license. Some states have mandatory classes in order to carry, most seem to not have any training required... just prints and a photo...

driving is not constitutionally protected; it is a privilege, therefore tests for competency should be expected.

i'd be happy with better enforcement of existing laws, and holding people responsible for their actions. why is it that as a citizen with no criminal record, i am forbidden from carrying a sidearm for self-protection in so many places?


i alone am responsible for my handgun. i am solely responsible for who or what i shoot with it, in all circumstances. as you (i believe) pointed out, a citizen doesn't carry to save the lives of others, rather, said citizen carries to protect him/herself. if that citizen shoots/kills/injures bystanders/crowd members in a situation similar to the orlando nightclub attack, that citizen should be prosecuted for it (policemen should be too, if they shoot bystanders/crowd members not participating in the attack). soldiers in combat should be exempt from that, however (my opinion).

 

[ThorInc]

Only one religion kills like this everyday. . and its Islam. Islam is a political idealogy of conquest. It seeks to conquer, kill, and destroy.

You can't be serious, it is not the religion, it is how it has been interpreted by shallow minds. Maybe you should be saying "in the name of Islam" but then is it better to say "kill in the name of money"? I think however that Islam preachs exclusivity and that is inherently dangerous.

Under FL law, that nightclub was a gun free zone. Thanks to liberals idealogy those individuals were sitting ducks.

I can't make this partizan transition as the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc. have done more to limit and violate constitutional/human rights than gun ownership battles and that passed and was renewed across partisan lines. Drones will be killing Americans very soon within the USA in my opinion. Fear will facilitate this...and that fear will be capitalized on

Isis claims the attack and Obama still says its because of hate and guns.

It is about hate, the guns part is just another example of different agendas capitalizing on a political opportunity, sad but seems to be the way of divided politics

The shooter shouted allah akbar during the shooting. . .this has EVERYTHING to due with Islam.

Radical Islam, a bad thing that the Muslim community needs to address and damn soon. Obama is not to blame in totality, personally I think he has physically signed the order to kill (directly) more Muslims than any previous POTUS, i.e. drone assassinations for example

Christian Baker:"i wont bake you a weeding cake"
Muslim: "i will shoot you in a gay nightclub"

Whats the bigger danger to the LGBT community?

Research what they do over there to people that are gay. They don't use guns either . . as other members have pointed out they will use a 4 story building, a rock, or a knife.

I don't really know what this comment means but I will not live in the middle east unless I was being paid a fortune for the risk.

 

[ben550]

driving is not constitutionally protected; it is a privilege, therefore tests for competency should be expected.

i'd be happy with better enforcement of existing laws, and holding people responsible for their actions. why is it that as a citizen with no criminal record, i am forbidden from carrying a sidearm for self-protection in so many places?


i alone am responsible for my handgun. i am solely responsible for who or what i shoot with it, in all circumstances. as you (i believe) pointed out, a citizen doesn't carry to save the lives of others, rather, said citizen carries to protect him/herself. if that citizen shoots/kills/injures bystanders/crowd members in a situation similar to the orlando nightclub attack, that citizen should be prosecuted for it (policemen should be too, if they shoot bystanders/crowd members not participating in the attack). soldiers in combat should be exempt from that, however (my opinion).

You could argue that driving is a "constitutional right" especially in todays world where healthcare is toted as a right...

Traveling (Motoring) on American Roads is a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right, not a State-Granted 'Privilege' by Richard James McDonald (April 7, 2005)

I too agree that better execution of existing laws would serve us better than more laws making it harder for upstanding citizens to exercise their rights.

What other constitutional right is only able to be executed depending on what state lines you have crossed? How bout the 19th amendment? Should women have to live in 16th amendment friendly states if they want to vote? The 15h amendment? Should African Americans have to live in a 15th amendment friendly state if they want to vote and enjoy citizenship? Seems like the 2nd amendment is the only right where those who want it have to move to a state that will allow them to have it...

Personal responsibility is key. Those who carry do so for themselves and their loved ones... they are not policemen. They are not empowered to interdict and become crime stoppers on behalf of their communities... They are a deterrent to crime but do so passively not actively. Police are active deterrents. Soldiers are held to much higher standards than law enforcement when it comes to rules of engagement. I would agree that the military should have by far the loosest rules of engagement and would only be sent in to areas where those rules could remain relatively loose.

 

[cfranck1]

Rip G.C.

 

[ndcent]

I hope it wasn't insensitive to stock up on 5.56 and pMags today.

 

[wallytoo]

You could argue that driving is a "constitutional right" especially in todays world where healthcare is toted as a right...

i disagree with the premise presented by that author/writer. you do have a right to travel........by foot. you do not have a right to operate a motor vehicle anywhere you choose, with no regulation.

driving is not constitutionally protected in that sense.

 

[Hepar]

1) Emotion is bad for gunfights and conversation. It is present but must be controlled. Completely agree
2) 10 average Joes with handguns in that night club probably would not have changed the outcome but we will never know. Agree to a point. But also could argue that the outcome could have changed quite a bit, but largely on the bad side.
3) A handgun is a means to save yourself... not save the other 299 in the nightclub. A handgun in the right hands, right place, right time etc etc could most definitely have helped. But that's a lot of perfect storms to have to come together
4) Watch the video of the Police shooting the shooter... You better believe there were bystanders in the nightclub who were hit either directly in that barrage or by ricocheting rounds... So the idea of CCW holders shooting bystanders also applies to the swat teams and police... Most definitely agree there too. Which is why I said even with training, there are still many faults
5) A firefight especially at night in a crowded place is chaotic for the untrained and the trained. Run the math to figure your odds of survival. Yep, that was definitely my point there too.

1) I would like to see a more stringent process for people carrying weapons. I don't believe in a need to justify a reason for wanting to do so, but I do believe in a need to prove competency, judgement and responsibility before being licensed to do so... And I would say the same for purchasing. No one seems to object to a drivers ed test before being issued a license. Some states have mandatory classes in order to carry, most seem to not have any training required... just prints and a photo... I also would like to see some more checks and balances in place. And universal ones at that. It does very little good if one can simply walk across a state line and have completely different rules.
2) Banning guns is not the answer. Banning certain kinds of guns is not the answer. Just as banning cars is not the answer nor is banning certain kinds of "high performance" cars not the answer to curbing vehicular manslaughter.
Agree too. But it's looking for an answer to where there is really none. So many different factors and variables in place that no one answer is going to solve them all. I mean, the Oklahoma City bombings were with items you could purchase at a hardware store. People who want to inflict large amounts of violence will figure out a way. But what we can't ignore is that gun specific violence is a very real epidemic. People want to argue we are at war with ISIS/ISIL/Islamic Extremists, but really we are at war with ourselves. Since 9/11 there have been roughly 100 (including the Orlando incident) murders that can be tied somehow to Islamist Extremists. Within that timeframe, roughly 225,000 people were murdered by someone not an Islamic Terrorist. That means IF IF IF you were to be murdered (Roughly a 00.005% chance), you are 4,500x more likely to be murdered by someone other than an Islamic Terrorist. So, who are we at war with? And yes, I know those statistics were murders in general and not gun-specific murders.

Using the daily show as a source does not add to one's credibility... It would be like me quoting Brian Regan to argue my point... Lets leave the comedy skits where the belong... for entertainment purposes rather than intellectual discussions...

I'd actually disagree there. There can be very good points made from comedy, especially being that so much of it is satirical. Keep an open mind. Give it a view. There are some good discussion points in there behind the laughs.

 

[ThorInc]

I hope it wasn't insensitive to stock up on 5.56 and pMags today.

Heck no, just don't buy level 3 armor!

 

[nevada]

it's ok. it'll be worse in canada soon.

eventually, enough people here will be killed by terrorists and the powers that be will finally decide they can't ignore it. but i'd guess we need a few thousand more u.s. citizens to die in terrorist attacks before that happens.

it is unfortunate for a lot of potential peaceful immigrants. the terrorists will shut down all u.s. borders, no aliens to enter legally. the war is coming, if it isn't here already.

its the logical progression.

look at how much freedom Americans have lost over the years, in the name of "security". we are no more secure now than we were before, but we have less freedom....