Orlando Shooting

Poll Shows the Partisan Gulf in Views of Orlando Attack's Causes

Yet all sides seem to support one really terrible solution.

|

A new Gallup poll verifies what your Twitter and Facebook feeds have likely already told you: The way Americans' view the Orlando gay bar attack varies very widely depending on their political affiliation.

When Gallup asked Americans whether they saw the attack in Orlando more as an incident of Islamic terrorism or as an incident of "domestic gun violence," the majority of Republicans said it was terrorism, while the majority of Democrats said it was domestic gun violence. The numbers weren't close either: 79 percent of Republicans said terrorism; 60 percent of Democrats said that it was primarily domestic gun violence. Independents were split nearly evenly between the two. No wonder we're seeing the two sides seemingly arguing past each other.

Shooting cause poll
Gallup

The two explanations are not exclusive to each other: Both could be true. In fact it seems very much likely to be the case. From what new information we are learning about Omar Mateen, Islamic ideology increasingly became his outlet to justify violent inclinations and tendencies. Yet only six percent considered the possibility that the two could equally be true. Though to be fair, the poll question didn't present both as an option. Six percent volunteered that the explanations were equal.

Sometimes having such a huge divide isn't a bad thing. Having Democrats and Republicans in such profound disagreement helps serve as a bulwark against the passage of bad laws or the implementation of bad policies. But further polling leads to a strange place. The disagreement here is somehow leading people to believe that the best solution to prevent future attacks is exactly the proposal that violates Americans' rights to due process in addition to their right to bear arms: Allowing the federal government to deny gun purchases on the basis of simply being suspected of ties to terrorism, regardless of whether people are ever charged with any crimes.

A full 80 percent of those who were polled by Gallup said they think banning gun sales to people on the federal no-fly terrorism watch list would be very or somewhat effective in preventing future mass shootings in America. There is very little difference in poll numbers based on partisanship in support of such a measure: 75 percent of Republicans think it would be effective, along with 84 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of independents.

Solutions poll
Gallup

Looking at those poll numbers it's very easy to see why Democrats are pushing this type of legislation, even though there are even those on the left who know full well there are some very, very bad consequences to tying the right to express one's civil liberties to whether or not they are viewed by the government as potentially dangerous. Activists from disparate groups as Black Lives Matter to citizen militia organizations have been viewed as potential domestic terror threats.

My guess, though, is that the average American doesn't see any likelihood that such a rule would personally, individually affect them or the people they care about. It's akin to the idea that Americans are increasingly aware of the likelihood that innocent people have been executed as a result of having a death penalty, yet many people support it anyway. If a number of people don't believe it's likely they or people they care about are ever going to face this type of injustice, they may care less about the unintended consequences in the name of preserving public safety.

Thus, despite the massive dichotomy between what Democrats and Republicans believe is the reason behind Mateen's attack, many people on both sides believe that those who end up on the no-fly list have a reason to be there. And if they're not supposed to be there, obviously a number of Americans are fine with the unintended consequences, probably because they don't think they'll be the ones punished.

Read more of Gallup's poll results here.

NEXT: 'Brexit' Vote Trending Toward 'Leave' Side

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. New poll confirms that a larger majority of Dems than of Reps are complete idiots.

    This is shocking.

    1. The dumb party has a better grasp on reality than the crazy party.

      1. I thought Dems were the evil party?

        1. Dumb/Crazy/Evil party?

        2. Reps are the Crazy/Dumb/Evil Party
          Dems are the Dumb/Crazy/Evil Party

          Just like the parties themselves, the only real difference is how you arrange the words.

    2. Sharia Law is at issue. If you don’t see it, you’re not paying attention.
      The Progressives will use any crime, tragedy or outage to further their control of society.

      the Radical Islamists and Progressives have that in common.

  2. Classic pincer strategy. We were so focused on protecting the Second Amendment that we were caught unawares when authoritarianism outflanked us and drove in to attack the Fifth.

    1. They’ve also been attacking the First, the Tenth, the Fourth ? pretty much all of them, actually.

      It doesn’t help when people on “your side” (politically speaking, that would be the GOP since it’s the only major vehicle that can oppose the left) are simultaneously shredding the Constitution on their own ways.

      1. pretty much all of them, actually.

        If only troops were quartered in Omar’s house, this would have been prevented!

        The Third Amendment isn’t a suicide pact!

        1. WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND CHILDREN SO MUCH?!

          1. why do you hate lowercase letters so much? why are you oppressing the size-challenged characters?

            1. HEY!! Clint Eastwoodchipper’s letters are black, so you have no right to criticize them!! Color ranks higher on the Almighty Stack than Casing.

        2. I just got orders and moved to Hawaii. I’m all for being quartered in one of the beach houses in Kailua.

  3. I have always supported gun ownership but have never actually owned a gun in my life.. this sort of shit is making me want to go buy one this weekend..

    Any advice for a first gun? something I won’t blow my dick off with..

    1. Rule 1 – never point it at your dick or any other body parts.

      Go borrow or rent one at a range. Rifles and carbines are much easier to hit targets with in relatively short order.

      Where do you live?

      1. Yeah, I got some buddies that shot. i’ll try to tag along. Davenport, Iowa

        1. Seems like your handle should be creamed corn, instead

          1. Blah.. corn is only good on the cob and in tortilla form.. mashed potatoes is god’s food

            1. corn […] tortilla

              You monster

            2. There is this thing called bourbon, you know.

        2. Sounds like a place it should be easy – compared to us trapped in unfree states like NJ.

          1. yeah, laws won’t be a problem.. they are more relaxed here than even Texas

      2. This. Go rent a glock, XD, and S&W shield in 9mm and see what you like the best.

    2. Avoid anything that fires .22lr. The other pants-shitters have been hoarding it since Sandy Hook.

    3. Rifle, shotgun or handgun? If you just want one for shits and giggles, pick up a used 22 rifle or handgun. They are cheap to buy and cheap to shoot, and you can have a blast wasting an afternoon plinking cans. If you want the option of using it for more than target practice, then it’ll depend on what you want to do.

      1. Whatever is useful when we have a credit and currency collapse.. 🙂

        1. You’ll want one of each

        2. In that case, a 12 gauge shotgun, a 9mm or .45 handgun depending on your preference, a small rifle in something like .223 or .243, and a medium bore rifle in something like .30-06 or .308, and a .22 of some description. That’ll get you started on a well rounded arsenal, fill in the gaps later as you find what you like.

          If you’re looking for a fun way to spend time with guns, see if any of your friends will take you trap or skeet shooting.

      2. Rifle, shotgun or handgun?

        Why not all three?

    4. Sensible advice for any new gun owner, no matter what you get: don’t point it at your dick 😉

    5. something I won’t blow my dick off with..M/i>

      Watch this.

      1. And learn to use tags.

    6. Guns are like martial arts: a million people will rush to tell you whichever one you bought is the wrong one. This can make it a real pain in the ass to decide. Taking classes for safety and learning effective form is a great idea if you have no experience.

      For self defense, your general categories are pistol, rifle, and shotgun. A pistol you can use for concealed carry if you decide to start doing that. A shotgun will have more one shot stopping power than any of the others, but limited magazine capacity (topping out around 7+1 for tube fed). An AR or other modern sporting rifle (MSR) has great magazine capacity, much lower recoil compared to a shotgun, and roughly 2.5 times the muzzle energy of a pistol. A good defense quality pistol will run you $375-600, you should be able to get a shotgun for $300-350, and MSRs can be as cheap as $600-700.

      There are some people agitating for a evil black rifle ban, so if you have interest in one and the prices are still reasonable now might be a good time if you have the cash. I bought a Spikes in 2011 for about $960 to my door and have been extremely pleased with it. You can definitely get a quality AR for less though.

      1. I would like to offer that most MSR are a horrible choice for self-defense if you live in a neighborhood or have little ones. Over penetration can be an issue.

        I don’t personably feel the need to keep a loaded firearm next to the bed, but if I was going to it would be a shotgun with some bird shot followed up at the end of the tube by some #4 shot.

        1. I think it depends on the person. My ex wife could not handle my shotgun well, it was too long, too front heavy, and the recoil was too much for her. The AR she shot 3″ groups offhand at 25 yards all day long like a breeze. And again, MSRs are still available at reasonable prices and might not be foreever. I’m not a panic buyer, but if you don’t have one and want to it makes sense to buy when they are $700-$1,000 if there is a risk they could go to $1,600 to completely unavailable due to ban. This is not the same as saying it’s the best tool.

          If you have to make the choice to deploy lethal force you’re already in a bad place. In my mind surviving the encounter comes first. Avoiding harm for innocent bystanders is important but comes secondary in priority to surviving. Also, any projectile that will penetrate deeply enough to get to bad guy vital organs will also penetrate several layers of sheet rock easily. It seems a moot point to me that a 5.56 round may pass through a few more sheet rock layers before stopping, especially considering the terminal effectiveness drops off steeply once the projectile is slowed below 2,700 fps.

          I think loading birdshot for self defense is very ill advised. It may cause lots of pain but can’t be relied upon to stop a determined attacker. If the effect you want is lots of pain but not massive trauma sufficient to stop a lethal threat a shotgun is not the right tool to achieve your effect. Thanks for offering your thoughts!

      2. Except if you reply to the martial arts question with the answer of “Bartitsu”. Then you’re decision is to awesome to criticize.

    7. Get a boom stick and a .45.

      1. In other words, man-periods like the author experienced.

      2. Guy’s a little bitch-boy.

    8. Everyone has a personal preference, and the guns of course have different behaviors.

      I would recommend something that fires cheaper calibers of ammunition, so that you can literally have more bang for your buck. The more practice you get, that better it is.

    9. I have always supported gun ownership but have never actually owned a gun in my life.. this sort of shit is making me want to go buy one this weekend..

      I am solidly in this camp. Nothing has ever made me want to buy a gun more than how much people want me to not have the right to own one.

    10. There are two questions everyone should ask themselves before purchasing a gun:

      1. What do you want it for; how do you intend to use it [target practice, personal protection, concealed carry]?

      2. How much do you want to pay?

      As others suggest, go to a range and try some out [many have rentals, mostly Glocks–bc they hold up and seldom require much attention]; try the various calibers: .22 for ‘plinking” and learning is a common choice, but ammo has been hard to find since 2012 and has about doubled in price, so 9mm is a good choice and costs as little as $10-$11 box for 50, and is more than adequate for self defense.

    11. Get a .22. Develop basic shooting skills. Then scale up.

    12. I picked a Springfield XD for my first pistol. Still have it and like it. But there are a lot of choices out there now. I second the idea of renting and comparing. Would also look at the CZ P07 or P09 if I was in the market for a first pistol.

  4. One potential upside of this torches-and-pitchforks call for the no-fly list to proxy as the no-gun list is that when common criminals and ordinary people start getting shunted to the list en masse, maybe it will give enough grist to civil liberties organizations to force some transparency and due process onto that hideous beast.

    1. You’re a cup-half-full kind of guy, aren’t you?

      1. More of a two-parties-one-cup kind of guy, but yeah.

    2. Not to go all Irish on this, but given how law enforcement treats racial and ethnic minorities it’s almost certain that the “No Fly No Buy” list will be dominated by non-middle class white people. The disparate impact civil rights issue will eventually get the civil rights groups to notice. They might hate the second amendment, but some of them will probably hate the government discriminating against Arabs, Blacks, and Hispanics more.

      1. non-middle class white people

        I assume you mean people who are not middle class and not white. Assuming Arabs don’t count as white.

        1. The protected ethnic classes are African Americans (including recent immigrants from Africa and Caribbean islanders), Hispanics (including German descendants of Nazis hiding out in S.A. and Spaniards), Native Americans, Eskimos and native Islanders. Everybody else is white including Arabs.

      2. The answer to this disparate impact problem is, of course, to ramp up restrictions on gun sales to white people until the data evens out.

      3. Yeah. Now we don’t have to only resort to “Gun controls in the past were used to intentionally prevent minorities from defending themselves” and can simply use “Gun controls IN PLACE RIGHT NOW are used to intentionally prevent minorities from defending themselves”.

        Though I’ve seen at least one liberal respond to the accusation that it strips the rights of specifically minority people by essentially saying “But this is the only way we can get the Republicans to support gun control!!” as if that alone justifies such discrimination.

        I wonder how far that logic leads… would the left still be for gun control if the gun control was just openly “non-whites can’t own guns”. Would even openly racist laws be okay because gun control is just THAT important??

    3. the ACLU’s tried. the furthest they’ve gotten in five years is now you’re notified if you’re put on the list. still no judicial redress however.

      1. Adding this sort of consequence to the list would probably open the door to judicial redress. Which is exactly why the FBI does not want to go down this road.

        1. Indeed, Thomas.

          Marc Sageman, a former CIA counterterrorism analyst and current academic researcher of terrorism: “[T]here is no indication that the government has assessed the scientific validity and reliability of its predictive judgments or the information that leads to those judgments, nor has it used a scientifically valid model for predicting, and accounting for, the rate of error that might arise from those predictive judgments. Due to these failures alone, the government’s predictive judgments cannot be considered reliable….”

          “Without a ‘scientifically validated process’, Sageman asserted, the government’s judgements about who does and does not pose a terrorist threat to aviation ‘amount to little more than the ‘guesses’ or ‘hunches’….”

      2. And that only even is beneficial to you if YOU are the one on the list. You’re still screwed if a person who shares your name ends up on the list, like that eight-year-old.

  5. Poll proves people line up with their “team” and that most people are idiots regardless of said team.

  6. I guess this poll confirms that the presence of guns makes Democrats lose touch with reality.

    1. Presumes facts not in evidence – that they were in touch with reality to begin with.

    2. They’re more of a talisman that forces them to reveal their true nature.

  7. My guess, though, is that the average American doesn’t see any likelihood that such a rule would personally, individually affect them or the people they care about.

    “Liberty for me, not for thee.”

    Shocker.

    1. It’s not like the average American goes around posting jokes about feeding government officials into woodchippers, so they know they’re not going to be put on a list. At least as long as they don’t visit any websites that feature commenters making jokes about feeding government officials into woodchippers, I mean.

      1. Until they refuse to let a warrantless government official* into their home. Then they’ll experience “The List.”

        *Not necessarily a police officer, just any government worker.

  8. But everyone agrees that gay Muslims shouldn’t be armed, right?

    1. Clearly – they’re supposed to be thrown off a tall building then stoned

      /Imam.

  9. I really, really, really hope they bring back the House UnAmerican Commitee Hearings. And they target gay Muslims. That would be SOOOO fun to watch!

    1. Because it should target Christians and gun owners, amirite, comrade?!

      1. I’ll hold your hand during the intensest part of the grillings.

        1. You’ll have to let go of Obama’s dick first.

          1. No he prefers head, wise ass. (Plus I need a free hand to ‘take care of business’, if you know what I mean.)

    2. I think Gingrich was calling for just that very thing a day or two ago. I think it was him.

    3. “And they target gay Muslims.”

      Ah shit, is bisexual Baha’i too close?? Am I gonna be targeted too??

  10. So up is down, down is up. Democrats have rabidly endorsed the government’s Orwellian no-fly lists, and Republicans have become mildly skeptical of them.

    1. The progressives are becoming unhinged as Obama starts limping around and quacking like a duck.

      Without a Social Justice Warrior in Chief and only Hillary Clinton’s moral authority to guide them, they’re getting all kinds of crazy. I think that accounts for half of what people are calling Trump Derangement Syndrome, at least on the left.

      Trump is critical of the Iraq War, so yesterday, we get stories about how the progressives are defending the Iraq War.

      They don’t know if they want to go to war against ISIS or not. They’re just running around in circles talking about homophobia and hate like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off.

      That’s the problem with having your whole agenda grounded in defending whatever Obama wanted to do (no matter how contradictory) for eight years. The Democrats had no spine before Obama was elected (see Pelosi, Feinstein, Hillary, Reid, and the rest of the Democratic establishment signing off on everything the Bush Administration wanted to do in the War on Terror for examples), and they’ll go back to having no direction on any issue once Obama is gone.

      There is just no good reason why the Democratic coalition should stick together. The UAW/Teamsters and illegal immigrants? Environmentalists and farmers? Black Lives Matter and Police Unions? It’s a coalition built on culture war wedge issues. After Obama, it all comes crashing down.

      1. After Obama, it all comes crashing down.

        I’ve had that daydream too.

        1. The cultural revolution is always unsustainable.

          It’ll fade into the background.

          It was always there before. It just came to the foreground under Obama.

          No way Hillary can inspire that kind of thing.

          She has the moral authority of a mafia don.

  11. This poll about preexisting biases doesn’t confirm my preexisting biases, so it must be inaccurate.

  12. Um…

    I don’t see the real reason as an option.

    How about…

    Was the Orlando incident caused more by puppies or bunnies?

    It’s nearly as accurate.

    1. Okay, what was the real reason?

      1. ISIS! No, Hezbollah! No, Al-Nusra! No, Obama!

      2. Okay, what was the real reason?

        That some nut-job lost his shit and killed a bunch of people?

        Tragic, yes. Sometimes bad shit happens to good people. But that’s the price one pays for living in a free society. Punish the perp (if able), plant your dead and get on with living.

        Fucking people trying to gain politically on the backs of the dead. It’s shameful. From all sides.

        1. Comments like that make me seriously consider reasonable gun control restrictions. I mean, you really don’t need an AK-47 to take out a guy with one.

          1. No, you don’t. It has been done most impressively with pistols [Cho used a Glock 19 and a Walther p.22 at VA Tech] and simple shotguns designed for hunting [Alexis used one at the Navy Yard]; so ban the scary “black” rifles and the recurring nightmares will employ those “less lethal” guns and then move on to ban those too…that is the problem with that lack of logic, and certainly lack of knowledge about firearms that is characteristic of so many in media, and blogs [get the hint?].

        2. So, you maintain it nothing to do with radical Islamic terrorism? Even though he stated that was his motivation? And his father is an Afghan who was connected to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and preached hatred of America? Interesting.

          1. Yes. Frank claims that. He really is that fucking stupid. Dajja is just here lying and trolling. Frank is that dumb.

            1. Go easy on my pal Franky. He didn’t bomb me today and if we are really nice then maybe he won’t bomb be tomorrow either.

          2. So, you maintain it nothing to do with radical Islamic terrorism?

            But he wasn’t affiliated with terrorist organizations. He was investigated for it TWICE and nothing came of it…because there was nothing to it. It was his deluded fantasy. He wanted to be, but that’s because he was batshit crazy.

            There are 320M people in this country. A certain percentage of them are deluded whack-jobs who don’t know it’s wrong to harm other people. That is reality.

            The why makes no difference as there is nothing you can do to stop it without shitting all over the constitution and civil liberties.

            Do you want to be safe or do you want to be free?

            1. I’ll be your friend, Franky.

            2. I tend to assume radical islamic terrorist groups are primarily composed of deluded whack jobs.

          3. It does have to do with Islamic terrorism insofar as that is what he claimed as motivation. But I have yet to see any evidence that he was directed or supported by any terrorist group. So for now, I think it is fair to say that the best explanation is that some nut-job lost his shit and killed a bunch of people and that a personal enthusiasm for radical Islam was one of several factors that motivated him.

          4. This is just armchair stuff of course, but I think it was most likely that this guy was basically a one-off, not really affiliated with anybody in any usual understanding of the term. I suspect he was an unstable attention whore that decided to do an ostentatious suicide and, being Muslim, knew that linking what he was going to do/did up with those groups would ensure maximum attention and impact.

            1. Agreed, but I am curious to find out more about the wife’s involvement.

          5. If I kill a bunch of people and claim it is due to my hatred of the New York Yankees, does that mean that Red Sox fandom is to blame for their deaths?

        3. Tell us Frank, what caused the Killing Fields or the Holocaust?

          Yes, Murderous ideologies attract murderous people.

          Your stupidity has now crossed the line from annoying and sometimes amusing to being offensive. It is one thing to be stupid. It is another thing to be willfully stupid and lie and excuse acts of real evil.

          1. Yet another SJW trying to play the “I’m offended” card to silence others…

        4. “Tragic, yes. Sometimes bad shit happens to good people. But that’s the price one pays for living in a free society.”

          By itself, that statement makes freedom sound like a bad thing. What not compare it to the price we pay for tyranny?

          And I don’t think the Miami massacre was necessarily a consequence of freedom.

          Everyone should read this portrayal of the murderer in this Wall Street Journal article:

          http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-…..1466127324

          They’ve got elementary yearbooks where other kids were singling this guy out as insane and violent.

          1. They’ve got elementary yearbooks where other kids were singling this guy out as insane and violent.

            So what’s your proposal, Ken? Should we start punishing people for thought crimes? Lock em’ up before they’ve actually committed a crime because they might at some point in the future? Where does that rabbit hole take you?

            What’s your solution, Ken?

            1. Cheer on the kids who act crazy – this way their self-esteem will remain strong and they will grow up to become productive citizens like you.

            2. Just because I think the cures are worse than the disease doesn’t mean I need to make light of the disease.

              That’s not the way to make friends and influence people in the wake of tragedy.

              And, furthermore, like I said, I’m not convinced that freedom was directly responsible for this tragedy.

              If he’d used a shotgun in a crowded enclosed area, it may have been even more devastating. If he’d used a bomb or simply set the place on fire, it may have been even more devastating.

              “Tragic, yes. Sometimes bad shit happens to good people. But that’s the price one pays for living in a free society.”

              Let’s not insist that this massacre was the direct result of freedom.

              Yeah, I’d rather suffer another 9/11 than forgo the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, torture people, or give up any of my other Constitutional rights, myself. One of the reasons is because the results of a lack of freedom are worse than the results of freedom.

              America, fuck yeah! Got kicked in the teeth? Well that’s just too fucking bad–suck my dick and lick on my balls–cause that’s what freedom is all about?

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M

              If that’s what you’re saying, then you’ve gone too far. I appreciate people who are steadfast about freedom in the face of tragedy, but you can go too far in that. Libertarianism isn’t necessarily about being callous to the suffering of others.

              1. Ken,

                I didn’t think FdA was “blaming” freedom. I thought he was responding to those who are calling for stronger security measures and especially those who are advocating “pre-crime” type law enforcement.

                Perhaps he’ll clarify his statement for you.

              2. Sorry, Ken, this IS about freedom and the fact that in the USA we don’t lock people up for what they might do in the future.

                If the truth hurts, so be it. Life is full of pain.

                And I notice you didn’t answer my question.

                You posted:

                They’ve got elementary yearbooks where other kids were singling this guy out as insane and violent.

                What would you have done based upon that information that would have prevented the shooting?

                1. If you read through the article, there were times before when he threatened to indiscrimately shoot people.

                  “At a barbecue in the spring of 2007, Mateen erupted when his hamburger touched a piece of pork, something he considered a religious affront. He told the class he ought to kill all of them, recalled Susanne Coburn Laforest, 61, who attended the barbecue as a trainee. Mateen told his classmates not to laugh at him because this was serious and “was going to come back and shoot us,” she said.”

                  Not long after, Mateen was sitting in his car in the parking lot as classes were about to resume, when authorities swarmed the auto and escorted him off the property. An official told cadets Mateen had threatened to bring a gun on campus, according to Clinton Custar, who was attending the academy at the time and saw the incident from a classroom window.

                  This was at a police academy!

                  Did he have a gun? Even if he didn’t, why weren’t charges pressed against him for making violent threats?

                  1. Pressing charges would have been racist, because Muslim.

                  2. While I’d love to read the article, I’m not buying the WSJ to do so.

                    But from what you posted, yes, sounds like a nut to me.

                    He told the class he ought to kill all of them

                    Mateen had threatened to bring a gun on campus

                    why weren’t charges pressed against him for making violent threats?

                    Context matters. I have no idea the context. People here make “threats” in jest all the time. This is Monday morning quarterbacking. If cops were to arrest people for every empty threat their would be more people in jail than out. Threats need to be credible and meet certain criteria to be actionable (I’m no lawyer, so ask one).

                    1. Weird trick, you can bypass their paywall by copying the url, putting it into a Google search, and then clicking on the result of that search.

                    2. Their online security’s almost as bad as Clinton’s.

                2. FdA-

                  Sorry, Ken, this IS about freedom and the fact that in the USA we don’t lock people up for what they might do in the future.

                  Tell all the sex offenders being held under “civil commitment” after finishing their sentences.

          2. And I don’t think the Miami massacre was necessarily a consequence of freedom.

            Not necessarily a consequence of freedom. But it is something that can happen when there is a certain degree of freedom. Unless he was insane and violent in a way that should have landed him in prison, but somehow didn’t, I don’t know what else could have been done if you value freedom primarily.

            1. Like I said, he could have burned the place down.

              To my eye, the insanity seems more of a proximate cause than freedom.

              1. For sure. I don’t think it even makes much sense to say that freedom is the cause of any event. Freedom is just the absence of constraints and coercion.

    2. Hey Frank! Thanks for not reluctantly and without malice-aforethought bombing your favorite gay Muslim today!

  13. First, they came for the felons, and I did not speak because I was not a felon.

    Then they came for those with VA disability and someone overseeing their finances, and I did not speak because I wasn’t stupid and didn’t have a “bad back”.

    “History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” ~ Mark Twain

  14. Yes indeed: Obama has succeeded in dividing and tearing this country apart like nobody before in our history.

    And even with his wild success in this regard, he’s still not yet satisfied either.

    1. Yes. It’s all Obama’s fault. Once he’s out of office we can right this ship and get back to those glory days pre 2008 again!

      God the DERP is strong on the interwebs

      1. Of course it’s not Obama’s fault, we all know anything bad that ever happens with foreign policy, the economy, terrorism, etc. etc. has nothing to do with Obama or his policies. He is, however, responsible for anything good that may have occurred during his term.

        This is known.

      2. Good call, Eric. We libertarians were all about GWB!

    2. A feature, not a bug. This was always his intent, Divide and conquer.

      1. Derpety-derp-yokelderpian-derp.

        1. Be careful out there in the gay bars; ISIS is on a rampage.

          1. Good Call. I’ll stay out of them till Obama’s out of office and we’re all safe.

  15. A full 80 percent of those who were polled by Gallup said they think banning gun sales to people on the federal no-fly terrorism watch list would be very or somewhat effective in preventing future mass shootings in America.

    Well, then — that settles it.

    “Would you volunteer to be placed on the federal no-fly terrorism watch list if it might be somewhat effective in preventing future mass shootings in America?”

    1. Was the follow-up question:

      How do you feel about the 5th Amendment?

      1. My lawyer has advised me not to comment.

      2. “I refuse to answer. I know my rights!”

        1. “I refuse to refresh, too!”

  16. Obviously the fault was the guy’s own father, who taught the kid to rejoice on 9/11. (And yes I’ll give Trump credit for nailing that one.) He was stuck in a loveless marriage having to raise a kid he despised. He knew daddy hated him and he wanted out, and he decided to take a few people out with him. Actually he hoped to kill all of them so they couldn’t report he once tried to pick them up. Foiled again, I’m sure he’s thinking as they hand him his 72 raisins.

    1. If only we could put both Seddique and you on the next ship headed out to Guam. Or better yet, Midway Island.

      1. And the alligator – if they ever catch him. I heard someone saw him twist himself into the shape of the ISIS flag after he snatched the kid.

  17. Thus, despite the massive dichotomy between what Democrats and Republicans believe is the reason behind Mateen’s attack, many people on both sides believe that those who end up on the no-fly list have a reason to be there. And if they’re not supposed to be there, obviously a number of Americans are fine with the unintended consequences, probably because they don’t think they’ll be the ones punished.

    And do they also believe that if you aren’t guilty, the DA wouldn’t Indict you or the cops wouldn’t suspect you?

    1. Absolutely. The primary reason the atrocity that passes for a justice system in this country has been able to plod on as long as it has is exactly that.

    2. Except Freddie Gray. Or Trayvon … Or every other black kid that gets killed by police. Then the government is all screwed up and needs to be fixed.

  18. The alligator was an ISIS operative too!

  19. Apparently a gun-store owner alerted the FBI regarding Omar Mateen.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlan…..d=39901107

    1. “See? Being on a watch list is no big deal.”

    2. Which is yet more proof that one cannot preemptively stop crime from happening in a free society. You cannot take away people’s rights BEFORE they actually do something wrong and call yourself an American.

      Get over it. (Not you personally, Drake)

      1. Conspiracy laws are just unAmerican. So we can’t take away people’s rights until they do something? So I can go out and hire someone to murder my wife and the police can’t arrest either of us until he actually tries to kill her?

        Just stop it Frank. Can you not shit all over criminal law with your ignorance? Can there just be one area of knowledge you don’t rape?

        1. Wait, where did he say that conspiring to murder someone isn’t doing something wrong?

          Maybe there was enough evidence of conspiracy available before the attack that the FBI could have done something, but I haven’t seen it.

          1. John doesn’t need me to say it. John reads minds. He knows what you are thinking and presents it as incontrovertible fact.

            I have no idea why anyone bothers respond to him. When I’m tempted, I yell at a wall. It’s more rewarding.

      2. Which is yet more proof that one cannot preemptively stop crime from happening in a free society.

        And even if you made society unfree to stop crime, there’s no guarantee. Remember Andrei Chikatilo from the USSR?

        Likewise, in India with its strict gun control, the Mumbai attackers brought their AK-47s with them via boat.

      3. Which is yet more proof that one cannot preemptively stop crime from happening in a free society.

        One also can’t preemptively stop crime from happening in an unfree society. Logically, the less free the society, the more crime that can’t be preemptively stopped. The more government you have, the more crime you have.

        OK, maybe there is a critical mass of government where a certain amount of government can provide the lowest possible crime rate. But it’s obvious we’ve gone far beyond that theoretical point.

    3. Maybe it’s my libertarian confirmation bias talking, but the Orlando thing is increasingly looking like a colossal fuck up of epic proportion on the government’s part.

      1. It always is.

  20. IN other news, 60 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of Americans are functionally retarded. I don’t care what your opinions are about what to do about this if anything. But anyone who thinks what happened in Orlando is not Islamic terrorism is either lying or retarded. What the hell is wrong with people?

    1. OH GOD I HOPE WE HAVE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON ISLAMIC TERRORISTS IN OUR MIDSTS.

      1. You are the lying example. Frank is the retarded example.

        1. I wonder if they will serve hors deuvres or if should pick up a little lunch at Dirksen North.

    2. Or…. we could blame it on an unhinged-closet case who killed a bunch of people who represented that which he yearned for but couldn’t have. Then deflected the blame to something the masses would believe.

      1. Eric | 6.17.16 @ 12:35PM|#

        God the DERP is strong on the interwebs

        1. Good one. Critical analysis is so overrated when you could just use your lizard brain instead, eh WTF?

          1. Eric | 6.17.16 @ 12:40PM|#

            Derpety-derp-yokelderpian-derp.

            1. That’s what the crocodile was saying as he eyed the child. Hmm…..

              1. Don’t look at me, I was the walrus.

            2. Don’t you have some heavily shit upon pants to clean? Or have you become used to the stench by now?

              1. That shit you smell is coming from your poor excuse for a brain.

      2. Or we could say that a religion that says it is not just okay but a duty to murder gays attracted an unhinged closet case who did just that. Wow, an anti gay religion attracted someone who hated gays. Who could have seen that coming.

        Next you are going to tell me that Nazism attracted people who hated Jews and Slavs or that Communism attracted people who hated bankers. I guess ideology and religion has nothing to do with any of this.

        1. Lefties use that same argument against Christianity you know.

          1. Yeah, all those mass-murdering Christians we have running around these days killing because their religion tells them to. And the fucking pope calling for jihad against the west.
            Sickening.

            1. Actually yes, the mass murdering “Christians” kill lots more Muslims than the reverse. But really it’s the Western Secular Caliphate (there aren’t many Christians left these days). And yes the Pope is just as bad – he’s the highest level proponent of the drug war in the world.

              1. “Actually yes Christians kill more people, but actually no cause they aren’t really Christians, but actually yes cause the pope caused people to kill other people in the drug war via a long chain of intermediate steps”.

          2. If Christianity said that people should murder gays and Christians started doing that, they would be right. The problem is that it doesn’t and Christians are not murdering gays. Muslims are.

          3. Lefties use that same argument against Christianity you know.

            Eric, I completely support your position but I suggest not engaging the troll. John is a mendacious cunt and is not worthy of a response.

            Just my .02

          4. Lefties use that same argument against Christianity you know.

            Eric, I completely support your position but I suggest not engaging the troll. John is a mendacious cunt and is not worthy of a response.

            Just my .02

          5. Lefties use that same argument against Christianity you know

            Call me when Christians start mass-murdering civilians and i’ll condemn their actions just as vocally.

        2. The Nazis and Communists didn’t commit mass murder because of their ideology, they did it because they were crazy losers; their ideology had nothing to do with their actions. This is known, John.

          1. The Trumpkins didn’t commit mass murder because of their ideology, they did it because they were crazy losers; their ideology had nothing to do with their actions. This is known, WTF.

            1. Actually, the Trumpkins didn’t commit mass murder, did they?

              1. Not yet – but we got ’em on ‘pre-crime’.

    3. I keep waiting for TPTB to declare all mass murderers mentally ill by definition.

      No more need to search for motives or influences.

      1. Whatever else he was, he also had mental issues–going back to grade school.

        “A Life of Violent Threats Paved Way for Orlando Attack”

        “Again and again for much of his life, Omar Mateen let people know he was a violent, dangerous person capable of murder. Repeatedly, he wiggled out of trouble, distracting officials with a beguiling charm, a feigned stupidity or some other tactic.

        A look at Mateen’s troubled life, based on interviews with officials and people who knew him, as well as documents, reveals that on at least a dozen occasions, beginning when he was in grade school, he gave clues in a public setting that he was capable of mayhem.”

        http://tinyurl.com/hblpsja

        It’s perfectly possible for people to be both crazy and Muslim.

        And surely there’s a difference between Muslims who murder dozens and Muslims who don’t. If so, I don’t suppose it’s unreasonable to blame the insanity rather than the Islam.

        1. Not every Nazi worked in a death camp or would have done so if they had been asked. Yes, crazy religions and ideology depend on crazy people to do the dirty work.

          Would this guy had murdered 50 people if he hadn’t been Muslim? I doubt it. Islam took a fucked up nasty guy and gave him a reason to be a mass murderer. Do you Adolph Eikman would have been out murdering people had Nazism not giving him a reason and the ability to do so?

          1. “Do you Adolph Eikman would have been out murdering people had Nazism not giving him a reason and the ability to do so?”

            No ideology gave this murderer the ability. He didn’t get direct assistance or training from ISIS.

            At different times, he claimed affiliation with both ISIS and Hezbollah, who are violently opposed to each other–and fighting each other directly in Syria.

            As far as the reason to go on a killing spree, he might have found another outlet for his violence eventually. Others have certainly done so without Islam.

            Regardless, although I’m not willing to go so far as FdA and suggest that murderous sprees are simply the price of freedom, I would rather keep the First Amendment and religious freedom and free speech intact–even if it means that some religions make some crazy people more prone to this sort of thing.

            Ask me how I feel about an ideology that says that gun ownership is a fundamental right because we need to be well-practiced in the use of our weapons in case it becomes necessary to overthrow an oppressive government. Some people might conclude an ideology like that might make some crazy individuals more violent, push them over the edge so to speak. Gosh, I hope a tragedy like the one in Miami never happens because of an ideology like that, but if it does, I suppose I’ll argue that people have a right to believe what they want to believe and advocate what they want to advocate anyway.

            1. I wish that reason.com had an upvoting system for comments, because your last paragraph there is just perfect.

        2. Is strict religious adherence a mental illness or a cause of mental illness or a symptom of mental illness?

          I’d rather take the Szasz approach and say mental illness is mostly an excuse and certainly othering. Can’t the guy just be a murdering piece of shit?

          If people were actually serious about root cause analysis, they’d find the root cause is “socialism”. Aka belief in TOP. MEN.

      2. Sooner or later all males will be considered mentally ill by definition (when we all know it’s females that are the crazy ones).

    4. Please everyone.

      We all know that the real cause of this tragedy was that Mateen once gazed upon a Confederate flag, and once listened to the extreme rhetoric of Sarah Palin and Bill O’Reilly.

      Besides, like the Charlie Hedbo victims, the Pulse victims clearly brought this on themselves by openly practicing a gay lifestyle, knowing full well that Muslims would find that offensive.

      And it’s all Trump’s fault for calling for a ban on Muslim immigration.

      1. Correct on all counts. You left off, however, that many conservatives oppose gay marriage, which is functionally the same thing as calling for the mass murder of all homosexuals, so he was just taking the beliefs Republican party to their logical conclusion.

      2. I thought it was Trump telling Moslems to kill Mexicans.

  21. What’s a jihadi got to do to get some recognition around here?

    1. Don’t go after gays. They are a little too quick to ‘turn the other cheek’. And if anyone should have known it’s this guy.

    2. Commit your attack in some other country where they won’t try to blame it on everything other than your being a jihadi.

  22. According to the FBI, gun homocides are at a 51 year low, even as gun ownership has increased. Of course the left isn’t afraid to exploit a tragedy to push their agenda.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..1-year-low

    1. homocides

      That is a quality johno right there.

    2. That’s why the left says “gun violence”. You know, made up bullshit like “alcohol-related accident” because you had a six pack in your grocery bags in the trunk.

    3. Actually the numbers you linked to are for homicides, not just gun homicides, but they probably track each other closely — anybody have data on that?

  23. “Gun violence” is a code word. Or code phrase really. But I use “code word” because it is itself a code word. Well a code phrase. Ok dog whistle.

    Anyway the left is frantic to control the narrative on this one, given how easily it might be construed to support, say, an anti-Muslim demagogue. They’ll be redefining the word “is” before they ever admit anything that might help Trump.

  24. Just another example at Reason of loving the poll that gives the answer you like (it was true that it was both domestic violence and terrorism), but when it’s an answer you don’t like (deny weapons purchases to those suspected of links to terrorism)? Well, then, Americans are just wrong, even if that one shows no partisanship.

    You forget to mention polls, Scott, that say nearly 90% of Americans want further background checks. 90%!!

    I’m sure you think your smarter than nearly all other Americans as well.

      1. How many of those people think that most purchases happen without a background check?

        With the media’s anti-freedom propaganda, I wouldn’t be surprised if people believe that machine guns can be bought without a background check at gun shows.

        1. Joe is an angry retarded midget from Boston. He no doubt believes all of that.

    1. Fuck off Joe. No one cares.

    2. I’m sure you think your smarter

      Heh.

    3. “Just another example at Reason of loving the poll that gives the answer you like”

      Did you read the same post I did?

      It’s saying that people see this tragedy through their own partisan goggles.

      If you’re claiming there’s some kind of unanimity because people are universally against murdering the innocent by the dozen, then I’m gonna suggest maybe you’re looking at things from your own biased perspective.

      1. From the blurb:

        “Yet, all sides seem to support one really terrible solution.”

        Yeah I did read it. Did you?

        1. You understand the terrible solution is denying rights to people on the terrorism watch list, right?

          And people are put on that list because–no one knows why. It’s a secret. Telling you why would be a risk to national security.

          I accept banning “assault weapons” as a solution better than I understand banning people on the terrorist watch list.

          There’s no court. There’s no warrant. There’s no jury. There’s no testimony. There’s no defense.

          It’s Kafkaesque.

          I guess I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I shouldn’t.

          1. Not my point at all. once again, Reason cites a poll they agree with, and all is good and correct. When a portion of the poll, if not another poll altogether, says something they disagree with, then the American people are wrong, and just don’t understand the facts.

            Just a wee bit selective.

            1. Reason “agrees” with the poll in that they think it accurately represents what people think. They disagree with the people in thinking it.

              Like if there were a poll that said something like “78% of people support [insert dumb policy of choice here]”, you could AGREE with the poll that yes, 78% of people believe that WITHOUT agreeing that the majority is RIGHT.

              Reason HERE is merely agreeing that the majority thinks the way the poll reflects, whether or not they are right to do so.

              You apparently think that if you agree that a majority agrees on something, you also MUST agree with the majority. That’s dumb.

    4. CONSENSUS!

    5. Hi Jackalant! I like your suggestion of stripping people of their Constitutionally protected rights simply by having an unaccountable bureaucrat add their name to a secret list without any ability to challenge it before or after. I think we should expand that to speech, religion and property, as well!

      1. Hell, didn’t already Obama sign a law a few years back saying he could detain citizens indefinitely? National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, if I’m not mistaken.

      2. You’re surprised a bureaucrat supports more bureaucracy?

    6. 90% of voters routinely choose Team Red or Team Blue so the obvious answer is yes.

  25. “My guess, though, is that the average American doesn’t see any likelihood that such a rule would personally, individually affect them or the people they care about.”

    that’s basically it in part.obviously the overriding motivator is fear. fear explains why you give a government that you don’t trust, and think does a lousy job the power to limit your constitutional rights based on suspicion alone.

    furthering the quoted part of what i read though, i’d say that it comes in two forms. 1) people who hear the word “terrorist”, along with “gun”, and then their brain shuts down. 2) sort of like what you said…there are people who genuinely believe in their hearts that you can deny bad people rights while not sacrificing your own. it manifests itself in the examples you gave, but i prefer the classic, which is that anyone who hires a lawyer is guilty, or take the 5th and you obviously have something to hide. i mean, why tell the police they need a warrant if you didn’t do anything wrong?

    fear not only gives the government all the access they need, but does so that people don’t even want to know the details. just make me feel safer yesterday! the aftermath of 9/11 is actually a great example. you had people (even in government) openly calling dissenters unpatriotic. and of course, nothing bad ever happened again because of uncle sammy.

  26. OT: Flares launched into players and staff’s faces at the Euros.

    Croatia, fuck yeah!

  27. The two explanations are not exclusive to each other: Both could be true.

    Domestic gun violence as a cause of the shootings? That’s the question, not whether Mateen had innate violent tendencies.

    And gun violence as the cause of the shootings makes no sense in this case. It could only potentially make sense if Mateen was protesting against gun culture in the US (he wasn’t) or had suffered from gun violence himself (he hadn’t). So, no, domestic gun violence is not one of the causes. Period. Regardless of what people believe.

    From what new information we are learning about Omar Mateen, Islamic ideology increasingly became his outlet to justify violent inclinations and tendencies. Yet only six percent considered the possibility that the two could equally be true.

    Sliding from the question about “domestic gun violence” to an assertion that both can be true because of “Maleen’s innate violent tendencies” is buying into the gun-grabber fantasy that guns cause violent tendencies.

  28. One more:

    Asking whether the massacre was an act of domestic gun violence is dishonest. It was, definitionally, and casts no light on the cause of the shooting (unlike the other question on Islamic terrorism). The “rotating” questions are apples and oranges.

    The only reason to ask the gun violence question is to get politically useful results to push the gun control agenda.

    1. Enjoy the irony, RC. TOP. MEN. hate gun violence and do everything in their power to ensure that it increases.

    2. Note how neither the left nor the right call it “domestic gun violence” when a cop shoots people without provocation.

  29. I am amazed at how many people would winningly give up a Constitutional right with no due process or even a chance to defend yourself. Why would you let the government simply designate you as a threat.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.