Here is an interesting finding... There is a lot of propaganda about gun control. So much so that the truth has been lost. The National Rifle Association (NRA) would have you believe that guns stop murders. The gun control lobby would have you believe that gun control reduces murders. They are both wrong. Gun bans have always had the same effect once implemented: none. They do not create a (sustained) period of increased murders, nor do they reduce the rate of homicides. The gun control crowd is currently stomping their feet and screaming “No, it reduces violence! I’ve seen the statistics.” What you probably saw were studies that point to reduced instances of “gun murders,” not murder. The pro-gun crowd is screaming that gun bans cause crime. At least this is grounded in reality. Typically, there is a spike in murders immediately after a ban, but it is short lived. http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/ United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing. Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007. see similar things at link...
of course I don't expect a single lefty here to change their opinion based on facts. they just keep arguing ban guns... control guns and never stop til we have no way to defend ourselves against runaway govt.
Facts: number of mass shootings in Australia since their strict gun control laws enacted (20 years on): zero. Amount of overall gun violence in Australia since the gun control laws: down 50%.
also from the article above. Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations. Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. These figures aren’t a secret. Why would the governments of these nations want a disarmed populace? For the answer, it is best to look at a nation that has had long-time gun bans that is currently relaxing their laws. Russia recently relaxed its firearms laws. For the first time in recent memory, a Russian citizen can carry a firearm. The prohibited items speak volumes about what a government’s motive behind disarming the population is. Russia has allowed “smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas.” That’s almost everything, what is still banned? Rifles. So the Russian government has made it clear that the real objective is to remove rifles from civilian hands. The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government. http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/
getting back to the topic. I find it interesting that some of the guys are implying the terrorist was gay. I think they should actually dramatize this and make it a big deal. If I were the LGBT community... I would make this guy out to be so gay that no other terrorist would ever commit acts of terror against them. like the story of General Black Jack Pershing..... One important thing to remember is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell. Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks against the United States and it's interests by, you guessed it, Muslim extremists. So General Pershing captured 50 of the terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists. The soldiers then soaked their bullets in pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc. They let the 50th man go. And for about the next 42 years, there was not a single attack by a muslim fanatic anywhere in the world. http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/historical/fl/Gen-Black-Jack-Pershing-vs-Muslim-Terrorists.htm
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/sam...gh-capacity-penis-substitutes-they-call-guns/ "high capacity penis substitute" lol
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...requented-gay-nightclub-used-gay-dating-apps/ It looks like perhaps the killer was gay and was perhaps embracing Islamic fundamentalism to help absolve or eliminate his gay tendencies. Evidence is building from a variety of sources that Orlando jihadi Omar Mateen, who murdered 49 people at gay nightclub Pulse, was himself gay, or had “gay tendencies,” as his ex-wife put it. Strangely, the ex-wife claims FBI agents asked her not to share this detail with the media. That report comes from the New York Post, which in turn reports on an interview Sitora Yusufiy gave a Brazilian TV station, with her current fiancé translating her remarks into Portuguese. According to Yusufiy, who was married to Mateen for three months in 2009, the Orlando murderer had “gay tendencies,” and was once called “gay” by his father in her presence. Most remarkably, Yusufiy said “the FBI asked her not to tell this to the American media.” ...
One thing occurs to me that could dramatically reduce the chances of this happening again. Think it through: Ok, the hand gun can be hidden, but it is probably not so simple to hide a rifle in summer clothes. Where was the doorman/bouncer? The fact that he chose to go there late, meant that his research showed that he could get through the door, perhaps even being able to walk from the parking lot into the bar with both weapons relatively in plain site. In conclusion, there always has to be someone at the door, especially near last call.