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

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
drivenZ's picture

wow, victim blaming? classy. 

The Merovingian's picture

Face it, no one in that place said. ... 'Let's roll!' and went after the shooter.

santafe's picture

Orlando was either a well-scripted hoax or a government Black Op.

Cruel Aid's picture

Gunshop owner alerted the fbi about this guy, so, what, they just let it happen?

Why would they do that, too busy?

Less guns? More fbi the answer?

Stinks bad!

NoDebt's picture

No, because Muslims are exempt from investigation, thanks to Obama's directives to the FBI and other agencies that Muslims are not to be touched.  Again and again, at least since the Boston Marathon Bombers, such people have been on the radar screen but never touched.  It's like the fucking opposite of a miracle.

But it's not by accident.

NOTHING they do or say can be used against them.  Social media posts?  Off limits, can't be considered.  Outright declarations of hatred of America?  Off limits, can't be considered.  Declarations of allegiance to ISIS or other terorist groups?  Off limits, can't be considered.  Until they actually pull the trigger they can't be touched.

They aren't "slipping through the cracks".  Obama is opening the cracks for them to slip through INTENTIONALLY.

Fast and Furious isn't the only Obama program designed to foster violence and death in pursuit of nullifying the 2nd Amendment.


Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) NoDebt Jun 16, 2016 10:26 PM

Obama is flooding Syrian refugees into Rand Pauls hometown of Bowling Green KY.

I was looking at Obama's poll numbers and when he began to bomb Libya 85% of Democrats approved of him as President.

They are sick, they should be removed from this country. They don't deserve America.

nuubee's picture

Also, in most events that were "mass shootings" where civilians fighting back stopped the attacker, they actually managed to stop the attacker without a firearm. Some people just said, "fuck it, I'm tackling this motherfucker," and they did.

johngaltfla's picture

Actually this is a blatant ignorance of the laws. In Florida and every other state that I know of, even if you have your carry concealed permit you CAN NOT carry into a bar. Period.

The police officer that was on duty at the bar was outgunned and wounded in the initial exchange of fire with the Islamofacist. This has nothing to do with being unarmed, it is a practical common sense matter that people are not allowed to carry guns into a place where you can drink. Facts matter. If anything, due to the size of the crowds at this particular bar, the owner should have had at least 2 more off duty police officers there for additional security.

olenumbersix's picture

True in Florida, even with a cwp you can't carry in a bar, or school, or gov building. I heard they were patting people down as they entered the club. Which is why I don't go into bars. I am careful when ever I am out at any place that I would consider a soft target I.E. malls. movies, crowds ect. Even though I do carry (knife and pistol) I try to avoid being a victim. Where I sit, stand. which way I,m facing, knowing where the exits are, and avoiding bad zip codes are some of the common sense things I try to use. Regular trips to the gun range WITH my carry pistol as well as gun training every two years (i don't mean the shit you learn for the cwp ). Still could get zapped. btw I live within a few miles of that club shooting, and 4 people have died in the last 2 years within walking distance of my home.

FreeMoney's picture

Not true in Oregon.

QAre there places I can't carry my handgun concealed? 
AYes. There are several locations in which you cannot carry a firearm, even with a concealed handgun license, including:

  • Any federal facility -- federal courthouses, social security offices, secured areas of airports, airplanes.
  • Posted private property where the owner prohibits firearms possession,  and others.  
  • Many private businesses have conditions regarding the possession of firearms on their premises.  If you violate these conditions you could, under certain circumstances, be subject to arrest under Oregon trespass laws, in which case, if convicted, your concealed handgun licensee would be seized and/or revoked.
  • National parks -- Visitors may possess firearms within a national park unit provided they comply with federal, state and local laws. Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in certain park facilities and buildings, these places are marked with signs at public entrances. 
  • Indian reservations or property -- you may not carry a firearm concealed without the written permission of the tribal judge; this may also apply to certain casinos on tribal lands.
  • Courts -- in a courtroom, jury room, judge's chambers, or adjacent areas that the presiding judge determines should be free of firearms to ensure the safety of litigants, court personnel witnesses, and others. 

PLEASE NOTE: If you plan to carry your handgun, it is important to research the requirements at these locations before you go. Please see the Oregon Revised Statutes for any updated Oregon State restrictions.  If in doubt, contact the facility you plan to visit directly to obtain their policy.

Cruel Aid's picture

This knowledge is out now and the fbi will just ride it out as congress is going to turn tail and run from it.

Too hot to touch in this new world

Edit: or they, congress, are all complicit, thats some serious paranoia

Handful of Dust's picture

Obama blames everyone and everything but himself for this horrendous failure of his adminisitration.He ordered Lowretta and the doj/fbi not to bother muslims. We see the horrible result just as we see crime soaring in NYC, Houston, Baltimore, Chicago, etc where police have been so intimidated by Obama and the doj that they just say "screw it!" and ignore the high crime areas.


The black editor of the Chicago newspaper said that on the radio last week...namely, Obama and the doj need to stfu and let the police do their jobs.

Jeffersonian Liberal's picture

Amazing how powerful the DNC and their stenographers in the US media are in controlling the "narrative."

This is plainly and simply yet another example of the Islamofascists in action.

Obama is letting people with this same ideology into our border by the droves.

This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and everything to do with Obama and the liberals' treasonous agenda of flooding our country with third worlders in keeping with the 1965 Immigration Reform Act.

They know exactly what they are doing and they have a lot of blood on their hands.

Instead of attacking gun ownership in America and exploiting this massacre that they caused, they should be pleading for their lives as they are being dragged to the traitor's gallows (after a fair trial and due process and being found guilty and all that, of course).

Manthong's picture

Smart and prepared people try to avoid gun-free zones.

It’s just a shame that the government tries to force folks into kill-free zones.

airports.. schools.. parks.. banks.. government buildings... all the places a criminal or whack job would go and kill people.

BTW, in the four decades I have owned firearms, not once (happily) has one ever needed to be pointed at someone... and, if you are near me and I am carrying, you are safer than any of the people at that Orlando gay bar. 


Harlequin001's picture

until you decide thet they're not, but then that's precisely the problem isn't it?

Manthong's picture

well. damn... then the problem is if you do not respect your fellow humans...

take your do-good liberal sckepticism and shove it.


.. and stop your frequent kill zone gay bar visits.


and ,, if God forbid, I ever am forced to point one of my firarms at you there will be a just and Constitutional reason for it.

.. but maybe that is just my side of the equation.

..but then again in the course of human events there are always two sides of the equation,


...maybe it might be best to be just and have a little force  to back it up.

... but just is just a four letter word.


get the drift???


it is all a drift now.




Harlequin001's picture

Let's just deal with this shall we?

'then the problem is if you do not respect your fellow humans'. That's wrong. What makes you think I need a gun or believe everyone else should have a gun to respect my fellow humans? And why stop at guns?

Not sure where you get the 'do-good liberal sckepticism' from. Never considered myself much of a do gooder or a liberal but I do have a healthy dose of skepticism pretty much most of the time.

' your frequent kill zone gay bar visits'. Now there you go. That's a big assumption, so I'm assuming that you think it was in some way their fault for being in a nightclub, gay or otherwise.

'if God forbid, I ever am forced', OK, so it's gods fault, but why would you ever be forced? If I argue against firearms in private hands then it's not unreasonable to assume that I wouldn't have one, so on what grounds would you ever be 'forced' to point a gun at me, unless of course, I didn't agree with you?

'there will be a just and Constitutional reason for it' That's my point. I'm, sure you're aware of what the 'just and Constitutional reason' might be, but is anybody else, or is it now only your opinion and your judgment that counts, because now we come on to the real guts of it don't we? 'and have a little force  to back it up." So, if you don't like my point of view, you want some force to back iup yours, so you can exercise your 'just and Constitutional ' judgment as to whether I am even entitled to even hold my point of view or not, and if I disagree with you in any way then we're all now relegated to the 'do-good liberal skeptic who frequent gay bars' which in your mind seem to be associated with kill zones.

Not that there's anything unconstitutional about those who choose to 'frequent kill zone gay bars', and just for clarity, I'm not one of them.

Frankly dude, you are as good a reason as I have ever encountered to ban firearms in private hands.

froze25's picture

Ww, typical radical leftwing logic twisting.  You do realize if you truly believe in what you wrote your mentally ill, right?

FreeMoney's picture

Perspective is everything.

Liberals like you only see guns as a device for attacking and causing death...because that is what you would do with a gun.  100 million plus deaths at the hands of socialists and communists like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ect. prove it.

Harlequin001's picture

Why does everyone want to call me a fucking liberal?

and you don't know my past, so don't assume you do.

TuPhat's picture

Haven't seen you posting for awhile H.  I see you are back.  Too bad but I guess your nonsense is as good as MDB.

Harlequin001's picture

Yeah well, I like to keep an eye on things you know, pop up now and then and make a few comments, and I can do that you know, because no one's fucking shot me yet because I live in a place where private guns are banned, and arseholes can't pull guns out on me in a pub when I tell them what I think of the bullshit they come out with. And you know something else, having no gun alters your views too, because when they become a little 'out of whack' and insulting, arseholes tend to keep them to themselves lest they get 'filled in' so to speak by someone who knows his biggest problem is broken glass, and not some spineless wanker who thinks be's a big guy cos he can go home and get his dads gun.

Life's like that. Amazing, innit?

FreeMoney's picture

Again, Perspective is everything.    You seem to think that anyone carring a gun will seek to solve any disagreement with the gun.  There are over 200 million guns in the USA.  If your perspective was correct, there would be gun deaths by the million here.  As it turns out, this is one of lowest murder by gun places you can live with the exception of Chicago, New Orleans, Washington DC, New York, Philidelphia, Baltimore that just happen to run by Liberals.

Even if you consider yourself conservative, the most conservative of Englishmen tend to very liberal by US standards.  I would know, I am English.

Harlequin001's picture

You've just had 49 people slaughtered by some arsehole with a gun.

I used guns most of my professional carreer, lots of guns, and I still don't think they should be allowed in private hands.

Too many wankers old stick...

Tarzan's picture

Frankly dude, you are as good a reason as I have ever encountered to ban firearms in private hands.

Why, because he's carried a gun for 40 years and never had to use it? 


Let me be the first to say your a first class idiot!  He never said anything close to your insinuation that he needed a gun to back up his point of view.  You made that up! 

Your an idiot because you don't trust your neighbor with a gun, yet think a cop should come running to your aid with a gun when trouble comes your way!

Harlequin001's picture

Go read it again.

and don't make shit up I didn't say.

InflammatoryResponse's picture

and you think "your" and "you are" are the same thing.


so neener neener neener. :)


OldPhart's picture

When I decide they're not, it's because they've proven themselves as an active threat to myself or others in my vicinity.

And that's NO problem.

The moment you become a threat is the moment you pull a gun for no reason.  That's the instant I reach for mine.  If it's pointed at any human being, I'll blow your head off.  If you flip it to clear the action and holster, you live.

If you have even the most rudimentary training, and a healthy aversion to killing random strangers, you are pretty fucking careful about pulling a gun out, because, if you do, you'd better be quite sure that you're about to kill some one.  And I take the thought of that pretty fucking serious and life changing.

The vast majority of us aren't hood rats preening and flashing our guns, hoping to put a cap in someone's ass.  It's the last thing we want to do.

But we will, responsibly (as in we're looking downrange to see what's behind if we miss), if we're forced to.


So take your condescention and doubleshove it up your ass. 

Hopefully, the next mass shooting will include you and there will be nobody like me nearby.

Hold your paper plate and particle board table up as shields in self defense.

froze25's picture

Your mentally ill and should get help. 

drivenZ's picture

"Hopefully, the next mass shooting will include you"


The exact opposite person that I would want to have a gun. Vindictive, irrational and hoping someone across the internet dies in a mass shooting?  you can't make this stuff up. 

TuPhat's picture

Who made you up, drivenz?  All of my best friends have concealed carry permits and I trust them.  I would not trust you with anything.  I had a permit and let it expire.  The constitution gives me the right to carry anyway.

Pickleton's picture

"Vindictive, irrational and hoping someone across the internet dies "


IOW, every libtard in the country shouldn't own a gun.  and you're a fucking liar if you disagree because the libtardian credo is very revenge oriented.

Harlequin001's picture

I have to agree with you there. When you read through this shit, one theme comes to mind, that these are all Constitutionally minded folk who insist on their right under the Constitution to bear arms, the same Constitution that gives me an absolute right to hold views and opinions they don't agree with, and for which, pretty much to a man they would like to see me and anyone else espousing views they don't like eradicated, and preferably with the same firearms they covet so dearly. What a bunch of hypocrtical wankers, all 49 of them

froze25's picture

See, most people don't commit murder randomly. More people should be armed.

Harlequin001's picture

'Most people"

Yeah right. You're a fucking idiot.

Collectivism Killz's picture

Wow, you seem like one of the those agro libtards. Looking at shootings across this country and many of the comments at Mother Jones and Huffpost, I could get behind a movement to disallow firearms ownership for democrats. You know, cause it is all those white rednecks shooting people in LA and Shitcago.

Harlequin001's picture

Evidently, appearances can be very deceptive...

Bumpo's picture

Let's keep one simple fact clear. The only person to stop the shooter, had a gun.

crazzziecanuck's picture

Muslims except from investigation?!  Don't let your hatred of Obama's skin colour get in the way of reality.


I swear the Internet is going to doom humanity.

UmbilicalMosqueSweeper's picture

Hatred of treason and tyranny does not necessarily equate to skin color.

Site's picture

What idiot down votes this common sense statement ?

Dormouse's picture

When will the shooting stop?
When it always does.
When someone else with a gun starts shooting back.

tets up's picture

Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to... Oh.

Armed security is a good plan, armed drunk, high, and horny guys FUCK NO

Dormouse's picture

I didn't say that asshole. I'm merely pointed out that the shooting always continues until someone starts shooting back. That being said, the first people to get shot would be armed security.

tets up's picture

Ok ok. Don't you think armed security could be a deterrent for a shooter? And a reason patrons might feel safer there?

runningman18's picture

The only difference between armed security and armed patrons is a cheap uniform. Why not cut out the middle man? If a shooter has no idea how many people are armed in any given establishment, that is a real deterrent; not low wage security guards.