The more that comes out about this guy, the more I'm convinced that he is mentally ill and has been slowly decompensating for the past several years (he's the right age for it).
Perhaps I should restate for the 50th time that I could give a flying motherfuck I any civilian ever handles a firearm ever again, and certainly NOT automatic assault rifles, and the second amendment is irrelevant. Ive said these things many times.
I just do not feel thisis remotely the key issue in this situation, and people should not be distracting themselves with it because they are too afraid to offend people with the truth.
I'm curious: in your opinion, what should the proper response be? What type of change should the public be demanding after this situation?
Just like they did with the Boston bomber. Besides, you turn up focus on terror "watch list" people and then people cry about discrimination. "OH JUST BECAUSE MY FAMILY IS FROM AFGHANISTAN AND HAS PRAISED THE TALIBAN AND I HAVE CONNECTIONS TO SOMEONE WHK DIED IN A TERROR PLOT YOU TAKE MY RIGHTS??? YOU SURVEIL ME BECAUSE I BOUGHT THE INGREDIENTS OF A BOMB?"
That sounds a lot more like a conservative than a liberal.
I would point out, though, that it's harder to stop these lone wolves that don't have any true terror ties. Boston, San Bernadino, and now Orlando were all attacks carried out by a lone wolf.
I think that being quick to claim that it is an act of terrorism as the media likes to define it and saying it was "an attack against all of us" as I just heard it reported does nothing but trivialize the targeted nature of it as a hate crime.
Regardless of whether or not the guy was affiliated with ISIS or a terror organization or if it was influenced by radical Islam at all (it probably was), it's a terror attack. It's also a hate crime, but it's still a terror attack.
It would have stopped him from buying it legally.
If it is illegal to buy/sell AR-15's supply will go down. That will make them harder to find, more difficult to acquire, and more expensive. Furthermore, the government would not just sit back and hope that nobody is selling illegal weapons: they'd be monitoring that type of stuff, doing everything they can to make sure that type of weaponry doesn't get into the hands of people who shouldn't be buying it.
So first this random ass guy from Orlando with no meaningful connection to ISIS would have to find someone or somewhere selling assault rifles illegally that has flown under the radar of the government, and then he'd have to have the cash for it.
As opposed to right now where he can just walk into a gun store, buy a gun with no questions asked, and walk away.
Do we even now through which means this guy obtained his guns? If he obtained them illegally I don't see how stricter gun laws would have necessary prevented this.
Yeah, he bought them legally.
