Orlando victims died because they were unarmed ....

[DoctorBarnaby 5]

I AGREE WITH BRANDON .

Orlando Victims Died Because They Were Unarmed - Not Because They Were Gay

Wednesday, 15 June 2016 01:50 Brandon Smith

Numerous liberty movement analysts and proponents, myself included, have been warning about 2016 and the heightened potential for multiple terrorist events. I have written extensively on the history of ISIS, its proven ties to western governments and the disturbing program to forcefully inject millions of Islamic refugees into western nations in the name of dubious “multiculturalism,” allowing thousands of potential terrorists into our borders without obstruction. The reality is that terrorist attacks of small and medium scale are likely to become a monthly or weekly occurrence in the U.S. and the EU as we close in on the end of the year. Get used to the idea, because this problem is not going to go away while our own governments are aiding and even funding the very psychopaths that they are supposed to be protecting people from.

The recent attack at at gay club in Orlando by a self-proclaimed ISIS advocate, killing at least 49 people and wounding at least 53 more, was not at all a surprise. The scale of the attack should have been expected. No one in the U.S. should have assumed anything less given the number of dead during events in Europe.

What is frustrating, however, is that even though these attacks are highly predictable, very few Americans seem to be preparing in any meaningful way to counter them. In fact, I happened across a clip of establishment mouthpiece Bill O’ Reilly the other day arguing that there “is nothing that we can do” to stop such "lone wolf attacks".

Ostensibly, this is an argument against the inevitable push for more gun control by Leftists in the wake of the Orlando massacre; but it also sets a dangerous and false precedent in the minds of the public. The fact of the matter is, the American people CAN stop the majority of terrorist attacks of this nature anytime they wish, without the aid of government or the implementation of unconstitutional gun control measures.

On the “progressive” side of the debate, of course, their only solution is to promote more gun control. They have a habit of exploiting every tragedy in order to defile the 2nd Amendment and dance in the blood of mass shooting victims while furthering their agendas. They could not care less about the people who died, they only care about the political capital their deaths can buy.

In the wacky social justice camp, a “feel good” approach is being pursued. The argument among the cultural Marxists is that we must “turn hate into love,” whatever that means. But the basic strategy seems to be to ignore the glaring problems with Islamic fundamentalism (whether supported by government or not) and blame straight white people for their supposed "colonial privilege" instead.

All camps also seem to be overly focused on the sexual proclivities of the victims. The fact that a gay club was the target has LGBT organizations in a frenzied rush to capitalize on the hate crime train. Of course, the reality that the Left has consistently defended the integration of Islam and western culture is never brought up. I have not yet seen the social justice crowd explain how they can reconcile the jihadist contempt for homosexuals with their supposed concern for the safety of the gay community. I am certainly interested to watch the mental gymnastics in action, though.

Frankly, the sexual “identities” of those killed does not really matter much. Followers of ISIS have not necessarily shown any favoritism to any particular target group. They’ll kill just about anyone, including their own comrades in arms if there is something to be gained by it.

With all the sociopolitical blathering going on in the mainstream media, the core issue has been completely overlooked — why did those people die?

As stated in the title, they did not die because they were gay. ISIS agents kill all kinds of people under a spectrum of motives. They may or may not have been attacked because they were gay (according to former classmates and his ex-wife, Mateen may have even been gay himself), but they died for other reasons.

The victims also did not die because gun control measures are not in place; Omar Mateen passed background checks when purchasing his weapons. No amount of added measures would have flagged him because he had no criminal record to speak of. And, as the ISIS attacks in Paris proved, bad guys can get their hands on guns even in countries with the most stringent gun control laws.

Perhaps the federal government could have stopped Mateen; they had already been watching him for years. But, the feds either ignored the danger or were well aware of the danger and did nothing (this seems to be a constant trend in the history of terrorism in the U.S.). In either case, the government is not going to save you from terrorism, and if your only hope is that you expect the authorities to keep you from harm, you are probably going to die.

Leftists want to direct public interest towards the gay issue. They want to make the Orlando attack a martyr’s cry for the LGBT community and social justice warriors. But the cold truth is that most or all of the people killed in Orlando could have lived — if only they had a logical attitude of self defense.

I have enough tactical background to recognize a professional shooter. Anyone who can walk into the sheer wall of human chaos that erupts in a crowded building during an active shooter scenario and still be able to achieve the fire discipline necessary to achieve kill shots on 50 people and wound 53 more is highly trained. A random spraying of bullets into a crowd is not going to produce such results. This was the work of a collected and skilled person, or, there were other shooters present that we are not yet aware of.

The ONLY remedy to remove a skilled active shooter (or even most unskilled active shooters) is another skilled shooter. That night in Orlando ended in a bloodbath because there were no skilled civilian shooters, gay or straight, present in the building when the attack occurred.

Now, given, if a terrorist is searching for a soft target, you can’t get much softer than a gay night club. The lack of self defense instinct and a penchant for anti-gun politics make the gay community easy pickings. However, the potential for self defense is present in almost every person as long as proper training is applied.

As I have pointed out in the past, even the FBI admits that the vast majority of active shooter scenarios that are stopped are obstructed by civilians present at the event, NOT by law enforcement. The great lie being perpetuated in the mainstream is that you must have "government training" to handle an active shooter. In reality, civilians are the most common and effective stop measure. Many active shooters will even commit suicide immediately after they meet any resistance from intended victims in order to avoid prolonged pain or capture. You are the first and sometimes only responder when your own life is in danger.

In the end, the danger represented by “lone wolf” terrorism or organized terrorism is energized by the American public’s refusal (on both the Left and the Right) to accept that the only practical solution is an armed and trained citizenry. We can argue for an eternity about “hate crime,” Islamic integration, government vigilance, etc. None of it will amount to jack. Nothing will ever be accomplished. The real debate, the debate that the establishment does not want the American public to entertain, is the debate over our level of personal preparedness.

The mainstream narrative demands that we argue over gun control, multiculturalism, more government and better vetting of potential terrorists. While all these issues are vital for various reasons, none of them confront the greater problem. If Americans are not interested in methods to protect themselves, then all else is futile. Each individual must decide his or her potential safety margin.

The bottom line? If you want better odds of survival, you will arm yourself, you will train regularly to handle active shooter scenarios and you will carry your weapon avidly. If you do not, then YOU are responsible for every consequence that you, and those you care for, suffer down the road.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I'd like to see a simulation (computer or something) where they stuck about 400 plus intoxicated/high people in a group of 500-800, armed a certain number of them as normal citizens, then had a random guy start firing on the crowd. Then see how it plays out. Plus make sure the room is poorly lit with laser and strobe light type action going on also.

My guess is panic + alcohol + drugs = deaths in high numbers also.

At your local Whole Foods or H.E.B it might be a different story. At a night club though, top notch security that is responsible enough to stay sober is the only people that need to be armed.

Or it could end up like the guy in Dallas. Saw a domestic dispute in a parking lot where a guy wounded his girlfriend with a gun and got in his truck to drive away. Guy with gun decided to take matters into his own hands vs calling the police, goes up to the truck and draws his gun (which he was trained) to stop the guy from leaving, and is shot in the head.

[DoctorBarnaby 5]

I'd like to see a simulation (computer or something) where they stuck about 400 plus intoxicated/high people in a group of 500-800, armed a certain number of them as normal citizens, then had a random guy start firing on the crowd. Then see how it plays out. Plus make sure the room is poorly lit with laser and strobe light type action going on also.

My guess is panic + alcohol + drugs = deaths in high numbers also.

At your local Whole Foods or H.E.B it might be a different story. At a night club though, top notch security that is responsible enough to stay sober is the only people that need to be armed.

Or it could end up like the guy in Dallas. Saw a domestic dispute in a parking lot where a guy wounded his girlfriend with a gun and got in his truck to drive away. Guy with gun decided to take matters into his own hands vs calling the police, goes up to the truck and draws his gun (which he was trained) to stop the guy from leaving, and is shot in the head.

The ONLY remedy to remove a skilled active shooter (or even most unskilled active shooters) is another skilled shooter. That night in Orlando ended in a bloodbath because there were no skilled civilian shooters, gay or straight, present in the building when the attack occurred.

Like you , I will make a " GUESS " and say it would not have been any where near 50 dead .

You do know they had security right ? You have read reports of police response times ..... right ?

To bad you were not there to reason with the killer . Maybe get him to lay down his weapon and vote for

Hillary .

How is your Dallas story relevant to the subject matter ? You say the dead man was "TRAINED" in an

attempt to belittle firearm training ...... which consist of much more than shooting paper targets and being

taught how to load and unload your firearm down at the local gun range . People make their own choice

of how much they want to learn .

[aujeff11 6,243]

Agree with Texan. Barnaby, go away. Bar owners and security can carry because they have the best interests of the club and because they're actually sober. And Texan said that security can carry so I don't see the problem here.

No drunken or partying civilian should ever be allowed to carry in the club though. Having a bunch of drunk carriers at a bar might stop a massacre and it might not. It might also increase the number of incidents in the clubs, where jealousy in combination with liquid courage always ends up in a fight. Once the violence increases, nobody will show up and every body will go back to throwing house parties, which is my favorite

[telling tiger 156]

Stupid premise.

If someone cannot understand the implications of mixing firearms and alcohol, the rest of their understanding, means nothing to me.

Asinine.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Y'all are making the assumption that those civilian patrons who might carry would consume alcohol, what if they didn't b/c they are responsible to not drink while carrying??? As far as I know, the security for this bar, nor the operators were armed.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Y'all are making the assumption that those civilian patrons who might carry would consume alcohol, what if they didn't b/c they are responsible to not drink while carrying??? As far as I know, the security for this bar, nor the operators were armed.

If the civilians didn't care to drink because they were packing, why would they go to a bar? Have you ever been to a bar full of DD's? Me neither...

[homersapien 11,812]

Wacko.

Reminds me of the old "All In the Family" episode in which Archie's solution to airline hijacking was to pass out a gun to every passenger as they boarded..... :-\

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Pure idiot "logic".

[quietfan 233]

Orlando's victims died because someone else was armed AND wanted to kill people!

The thread title is the equivalent of blaming a rape victim for her own rape because she wasn't wearing a chastity belt!

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I'd like to see a simulation (computer or something) where they stuck about 400 plus intoxicated/high people in a group of 500-800, armed a certain number of them as normal citizens, then had a random guy start firing on the crowd. Then see how it plays out. Plus make sure the room is poorly lit with laser and strobe light type action going on also.

My guess is panic + alcohol + drugs = deaths in high numbers also.

At your local Whole Foods or H.E.B it might be a different story. At a night club though, top notch security that is responsible enough to stay sober is the only people that need to be armed.

Or it could end up like the guy in Dallas. Saw a domestic dispute in a parking lot where a guy wounded his girlfriend with a gun and got in his truck to drive away. Guy with gun decided to take matters into his own hands vs calling the police, goes up to the truck and draws his gun (which he was trained) to stop the guy from leaving, and is shot in the head.

The ONLY remedy to remove a skilled active shooter (or even most unskilled active shooters) is another skilled shooter. That night in Orlando ended in a bloodbath because there were no skilled civilian shooters, gay or straight, present in the building when the attack occurred.

Like you , I will make a " GUESS " and say it would not have been any where near 50 dead .

You do know they had security right ? You have read reports of police response times ..... right ?

To bad you were not there to reason with the killer . Maybe get him to lay down his weapon and vote for

Hillary .

How is your Dallas story relevant to the subject matter ? You say the dead man was "TRAINED" in an

attempt to belittle firearm training ...... which consist of much more than shooting paper targets and being

taught how to load and unload your firearm down at the local gun range . People make their own choice

of how much they want to learn .

Lmfao. Yup you got me man it's all about belittling and promoting Hillary.

The point is that in a crowded bar, with hundreds of people, with high and intoxicated people, with an individual that is ready to kill, with sporadic lighting, and mass panic by 100's of people, that control is an ILLUSION. The trained individual could possibly take the guy out yes., he could also possibly get taken out just like the individual in Dallas.

[Strychnine 1,804]

In the years I spent as a touring musician, I have been in many bars all over the country. At no point did I ever think: "You know what this bar needs? Armed patrons." There are absolutely people responsible enough to carry a firearm into a bar, and not get intoxicated. There are absolutely people that are not. I have no idea which is more numerous, but I am inclined to suspect the latter.

I am a supporter of concealed carry, but I also think many of its supporters have an unrealistic expectation of the skills of the average shooter. Shooting is a practiced and perishable skill. I spend a ton of time at the range, it is my favorite hobby. I see how many average shooters struggle for speed and accuracy in perfect, unstressed conditions in broad daylight. Could they improve? Sure, but that takes time, effort, and expense. Most people are not willing to devote the time and money it takes to really get "skilled" at shooting. Engaging an active shooter that is indiscriminately shooting people is not something I expect the average shooter to do successfully and without making the situation worse when the situation is a dark room filled with smoke, erratic lights and lasers, and panicking people.

[telling tiger 156]

http://www.theonion.com/americanvoices/more-states-allow-guns-in-bars-18248

[quietfan 233]

As a fan of personal freedom, I am fine with the 2nd Amendment. As a fan of reality, I think too many pro-gun advocates like the author of the opening article are living in a Hollywood fantasy of heroic vigilante justice.

I don't want to live in a "Wild West" environment where disputes are routinely resolved though violence. It is highly unlikely that a significant portion of the U.S. population is going to be well trained in military/police/S.W.A.T.-type tactics, including the calm rational analysis and situational awareness needed in a shooting scenario--a few hours on the range just does not create those skills. It more likely that a large group of armed civilians will end up shooting themselves and others in a chaotic melee of panic. I know A LOT of people that own guns (I'm a 58-year Alabama resident!), some who conceal carry with or without a permit, and some who only hunt. Very few of those--the few that are actual cops or military--would I want to be around in a shoot-out in a darkened, chaos-filled, crowded room with other shooters (and I'm referring to my friends).

"Old West" justice was sometimes necessary in the old west simply because the reach and resources of official courts and law enforcement were limited in the frontier. That does not mean individual vigilante justice was more effective than government action in those areas where governmental authority was present. We can look at gang shootouts in our inner cities today and see the result of a bunch of armed but panicked/angry/emotional civilians opening fire on each other: random destruction, missed targets, collateral damage, and frequently dead or wounded innocent bystanders. And if shooting were to break out in a crowded bar/airport/mall, how does one tell the good guys from the bad guys once 'everyone' draws their guns and starts looking for other armed targets, assuming them to be 'the bad guys'?

'But if everyone were properly trained...!' is not a satisfactory response in my opinion. It is unrealistic to believe that most of the gun-toting population is going to spend the time/money needed to receive much training (again, I live in Alabama and I'm familiar with the attitude of significant portion of the gun-owning population around here). More hours on the range may improve one's chances of hitting a target, but it will not give one the tactical reasoning/observational/planning skills needed to handle an actual life threatening combat situation, nor the emotional preparation to respond coolly and calmly in the face of deadly force. That's why LE officers and professional soldiers spend weeks/months in full-time training followed up with rigorous regular practice to hone those skills. It's ridiculous to think civilians can develop those skills in a few short classes.

There are over 300 million people in our country. In a population that large, situations like Orlando, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, or Columbine, while shocking and attention grabbing, are proportionally very rare and uncommon (although apparently more common in the U.S. than in many other western democracies who have stronger gun control laws. ...hmmmm). Mass shootings are terrible and to be prevented. But the occasional psychotic madman is no reason to turn our streets into an armed camp, nor to teach our children that violence is normal or acceptable and that armed response is something they should prepare for daily.

[maxwere 82]

This is a progressive fallacy baptized in conservative rhetoric. (the mere presence of certain weapons will insure positive or negative outcome) It's not enough to simply be armed. Citizens need to effectively know how to use the tool in specific scenarios to meet and effectively trained force (to not inflict more harm).

Secondly, there's a difference between arming everyone and removing "gun free" status. All but 2 of these shootings since 1951 occurred in advertised "gun free zones". The theory is that it is a signalling device for the perpetrator. Logically, that shooter would simply pick another place though.

Homer makes a great point. Conservative libertarians need to learn to make great narrative art to advance their own message just like progressive writers of AITF:

[maxwere 82]

As a fan of reality

I think Vanilla Ice has more fans.

As and example, 3 days ago a toddler was killed by an alligator. A horrific ordeal to be sure. Since that time ~9000 unborn have been terminated in the US and ~375k worldwide (an outcome which the pro-choice movement generally deems undesirable). More proof that symbols (not statistics) rule the world.

[DoctorBarnaby 5]

I must admit I was not aware that most people who go to night clubs get drunk beyond their ability to know right from wrong .

And I would have to agree that a bunch of drunks with firearms is not a good idea . Actually a bunch of drunks is not a good idea in any circumstance . Seems like the police should just sit in front of these places to be sure nobody tries to drive when they leave unless they can demonstrate they are not impaired by alcohol , or other drugs for that matter .

Actually if a person proves to be impaired by alcohol or other they should be assessed on site by competent law enforcement to insure they are not a danger to themselves or others before they are allowed to proceed of their own will .

As stated by others , the only reason people go into these places is to get drunk or high on something .

I don't no why things like alcohol and tobacco are legal . The death toll and lives destroyed attributed to just those two things ( either directly or associated with ) is staggering . We could stop this particular plague of death upon America by banning just these two things .

If we really want to save countless lives and alleviate much human misery in this country can we in good conscious not take action against these purveyors of suffering and death ??

[AUTUmike 79]

This thread is taking quite an unusual path...

[AURaptor 1,137]

Agree with Texan. Barnaby, go away. Bar owners and security can carry because they have the best interests of the club and because they're actually sober. And Texan said that security can carry so I don't see the problem here.

No drunken or partying civilian should ever be allowed to carry in the club though. Having a bunch of drunk carriers at a bar might stop a massacre and it might not. It might also increase the number of incidents in the clubs, where jealousy in combination with liquid courage always ends up in a fight. Once the violence increases, nobody will show up and every body will go back to throwing house parties, which is my favorite

Not talking about drunken , partying yahoos w/ guns.

What about bar owners or those behind the bar having access to self defense weapons ? Or even ( gasp! ) a responsible citizen at a bar who doesn't hammer down beers and shots, but only goes there to socialize ?

But that's not the issue here. The ISSUE is actually...

[cooltigger21 0]

Agree with Texan. Barnaby, go away. Bar owners and security can carry because they have the best interests of the club and because they're actually sober. And Texan said that security can carry so I don't see the problem here.

No drunken or partying civilian should ever be allowed to carry in the club though. Having a bunch of drunk carriers at a bar might stop a massacre and it might not. It might also increase the number of incidents in the clubs, where jealousy in combination with liquid courage always ends up in a fight. Once the violence increases, nobody will show up and every body will go back to throwing house parties, which is my favorite :)/>

Not talking about drunken , partying yahoos w/ guns.

What about bar owners or those behind the bar having access to self defense weapons ? Or even ( gasp! ) a responsible citizen at a bar who doesn't hammer down beers and shots, but only goes there to socialize ?

But that's not the issue here. The ISSUE is actually...

Guns are the essence of self reliance. Self reliance is anathema to the left. They don't like it and don't believe in if. It's why we're constantly told by the smart people on here to not try and use one to defend yourself or your property because you should rely on the police to protect you.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Self reliance is anathema to the left

[homersapien 11,812]

Idiotic post even for you.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Agree with Texan. Barnaby, go away. Bar owners and security can carry because they have the best interests of the club and because they're actually sober. And Texan said that security can carry so I don't see the problem here.

No drunken or partying civilian should ever be allowed to carry in the club though. Having a bunch of drunk carriers at a bar might stop a massacre and it might not. It might also increase the number of incidents in the clubs, where jealousy in combination with liquid courage always ends up in a fight. Once the violence increases, nobody will show up and every body will go back to throwing house parties, which is my favorite :)/>

Not talking about drunken , partying yahoos w/ guns.

What about bar owners or those behind the bar having access to self defense weapons ? Or even ( gasp! ) a responsible citizen at a bar who doesn't hammer down beers and shots, but only goes there to socialize ?

But that's not the issue here. The ISSUE is actually...

"What about bar owners or those behind the bar having access to self defense weapons ? "

I answered this question in the same post that you're relying to...

[quietfan 233]

As a fan of reality

I think Vanilla Ice has more fans.

You're probably right:

[homersapien 11,812]

As a fan of reality

I think Vanilla Ice has more fans.

You're probably right:

https://scontent-dfw...8d1&oe=57CED772

That's been clinically demonstrated btw.