Orlando Shootings

[The_Doc_Man]

Folks here will recognize me as a person very much oriented towards gun ownership rights. However, the events in Florida make one thing clear. There is an unnecessary barrier in place that contributed to the Orlando terrorist attack (and there is no other name for it besides "terrorist attack.")

I know that generally there is a barrier between agencies sharing information. However, if someone had shared the fact that the Orlando shooter was on FBI lists as having suspected ties to terror groups, it might have been possible for the gun seller to know that the police should have been notified when he bought an AR-15 assault rifle. There is also the fact that he tried to buy level III body armor (police usually only have level II).

In this day and age, there needs to be a feedback loop. I know that I could buy that kind of weapon given my background, though the truth is that I don't want to. But then again, because of my job, I am already known to the U.S. Government and wouldn't have a problem passing the checks required.

The Orlando shooter got away with what he did because he had worked as a security guard for a while with no incident, and that was available to the gun seller. But the FBI investigations were NOT available. Even if the seller merely had reported the gun sale in a timely manner, SOMEONE might have flagged it - but that didn't happen.

OK, I already KNOW the counter-argument. If he had wanted to buy a gun badly enough, he would have been able to do so on the black market. Or if he were really allied to ISIS, they would have found a way to get him something usable for this kind of attack. However, the point is that he went through normal channels first and got the gun that way.

I'm the last guy you would expect to advocate gun control, but dammitall, we need to have a feedback loop somewhere and we don't. It would not have stopped this attack because of the availability of guns from other sources - but it might have slowed the shooter down enough that someone else COULD have stopped it by letting the shooter know he was back on the radar.

Because there was no feedback loop in the gun-purchase and confirmation process, we have 50 people dead. To those who are gay-bashers, this might seem like a "ho-hum, no loss" situation. But it does sting if you have any humanity left in you. What is that old essay from the WW II era that generally says, "When {my enemy} killed another person, I did not protest. Now {my enemy} is coming to kill me, and who will speak for me?"

 

[ColinEssex]

[Yawn] Here we go again. No need to start a new thread, use one of the old ones on mass shootings in the USA, there are plenty of them.

Good quote from an American on TV, he said "The United States of America is united in hatred". That seems fairly accurate from what we see on TV, blacks are still hated and victimised, gays and lesbians are victimised - basically anyone not white or who has a non conventional bent are victimised.

Any bets how long before the next mass killing in the USA? My guess is within 6 months.

Col

 

[Alc]

Any bets how long before the next mass killing in the USA? My guess is within 6 months.

Pessimistically, I'm going to go for much lower than six, assuming the definition of "mass" is flexible.

I think this latest event has just provided more evidence to all the lunatics out there that if you have a particular dislike of some social group - be it gay people, black people, fellow students, random strangers, or whoever else and if you haven't done anything notably wrong before, then you can easily and legally buy a weapon that will allow any wimp to attack a large group and expect a good degree of success.

The 'guns don't kill people' crowd will never change their viewpoint in spite of overwhelming evidence that a maniac with a gun can do far more damage than a maniac with a knife.

Thankfully, this sort of killing is rare in pretty much every other 'developed' country.

 

[mdnuts]

The 'guns don't kill people' crowd will never change their viewpoint in spite of overwhelming evidence that a maniac with a gun can do far more damage than a maniac with a knife.

Thankfully, this sort of killing is rare in pretty much every other 'developed' country.

Box cutters and chemical sprays put the nation into a mourning yet recovered, gasoline around churches did some horrific things. Fertilizer killed far too many and how many needed to die from rope?

Other 'developed' countries experience terrorism with or without weapons a lot more often than we do and underscores the point that someone wishing to inflict harm - will do so.

 

[Rabbie]

In common with a lot of UK people I find it hard to understand the shear bloody-mindedness of the US gun lobby. From the outside it just seems too easy for nutcases to get hold of lethal weapons in the States.

That anyone outside the military needs an assault rifle is also hard to understand as is also the body armour.

 

[Alc]

Box cutters and chemical sprays put the nation into a mourning yet recovered, gasoline around churches did some horrific things. Fertilizer killed far too many and how many needed to die from rope?

Other 'developed' countries experience terrorism with or without weapons a lot more often than we do and underscores the point that someone wishing to inflict harm - will do so.

Discounting wars (for obvious reasons) name one, just one, developed country TODAY that experiences as many mass killings as the US.

Various Eastern European and African countries - hell, even the UK - has experienced mass killings but ONLY as direct acts of terrorism or during war/civil war.

I ask again, name ONE developed country that experiences as many cases of individual people deciding to kill a group and being able to do it with the ease and regularity that they can in the US?

 

[Steve R.]

ISIS-inspired attacker kills French police officer and streams it on Facebook

In Britain, anti-Semitism endures

Orlando gunman had been on FBI watch list

The events today are not simply limited to so-called (misplaced) hatred in the United States. Hatred, if you look under the stones, is worldwide. In particular ISIS inspired hatred appears to be spreading worldwide through various "lone wolf" style terrorists incidents.

Furthermore, the misplaced mania concerning "hatred" and "political correctness" distract from a fundamental concept. At what point does the State have the authority to throw someone in jail?

In many of these incidents, the eventual perpetrators have (at some historic points) triggered some alarms, but did nothing wrong at the time. Now we are seeing the emergence of bold screaming headlines that are essentially implying that because an "alarm" of some-sort has been triggered that some persons be immediately detained based on some future probability of doing a bad deed. The clear implication of this implied trend is that Western world, if there is continued movement in this direction, will become a police state were anyone can be locked-up for simply appearing to be "bad".

In a sense, the gun control debate is a reflection of this. Those in favor of gun control, seem to believe that the State should define the freedoms and actions that individuals should be allowed to undertake. (Think, soda tax, which may seem laughably trivial, but it does represent one data point in a progressive trend of the State controlling behavior.)

(The trend of the State controlling behavior should appeal to the political correct crowd since they promote criminalizing speech/actions that they unilaterally assert to be offensive.)

 

[mdnuts]

No I don't at all, and I tend to not feed the anti-gun zealots using the 1st Amendment to say it's of more or less important than the 2nd.

However, if you wish - tell me how it's harder to get a box cutter, gasoline or fertilizer than it is a weapon and ammunition.

 

[Alc]

Not one of those links answers the question, though.

In the US, people are frequently killed in large groups by people who wouldn't be able to do so without guns. In the majority of those cases, the shooters have no easy access to illegal guns, meaning that the victims are dead because guns were unnecessarily legally available.

The fact that this latest shooter was a pseudo-Muslim who picked and chose which bits of the Koran to follow is diverting people from the real problem, since the vast majority of the other killers were not.

 

[Alc]

No I don't at all, and I tend to not feed the anti-gun zealots using the 1st Amendment to say it's of more or less important than the 2nd.

However, if you wish - tell me how it's harder to get a box cutter, gasoline or fertilizer than it is a weapon and ammunition.

Gladly, as soon as you provide an example in recent years of a wimp killing as many people using either one of those items as has been done using a firearm.

I'm also not counting threatening someone with a box cutter to make them crash a plane, since - in the only example that comes to mind - it was a trained, coordinated group committing a terrorist act, not a lone wimp with a gun.

 

[ColinEssex]

Apparently, in the USA every WEEK, the equivalent of a jumbo jet full of people are killed just by the gun - not knives or clubs or box cutters (whatever that is).

That's around 350 people a week shot dead in the USA. It's no wonder Americans are so complaisant about it, it's just part of life - tough shite if it happens to you. But it won't because most have their own assault rifle / magnum / machine gun so they can kill any perp whilst praising god.

Col

 

[Alc]

it won't because most have their own assault rifle / magnum / machine gun so they can kill any perp whilst praising god.

I saw someone on a message board saying that the Orlando shootings wouldn't have happened if the barman had been allowed to carry a gun.

So, not only would the 'good guy' have had perfect aim and a spidey sense for imminent danger but he'd also have been able to shoot unerringly in a confined, dark, crowded environment, surrounded by flashing lights, loud music and screaming people. I've heard statements from military and police personnel when nightclub shootings have happened in the past and they generally seem to agree that adding extra firearms to the mix would have done little to nothing to improve the situation and, in some cases, may well have made it worse.

As entertaining as action movies are, I think a scary number of people have difficulty separating them from reality.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Colin, please excuse me for starting a new thread, but I thought this was the "Politics and Current Events" topic.

 

[mdnuts]

Gladly, as soon as you provide an example in recent years of a wimp killing as many people using either one of those items as has been done using a firearm.

I'm also not counting threatening someone with a box cutter to make them crash a plane, since - in the only example that comes to mind - it was a trained, coordinated group committing a terrorist act, not a lone wimp with a gun.

The inevitable movement of goalposts until it's boxed in a particular way to achieve only one possible outcome eh?

You get to define recent years. Do mass killings only matter if it's in the last 2 years? Do they only matter if it's 5 plus or less than 10 but more than 6? When you talk recent years going over the entire history of the world the past 50 years is minuscule. Do we also only limit it to single person and not more than one? Or is two okay but less than 5? or are we intending to say more than 5 is okay as long as it's less than 20 if no uniforms were worn?

 

[Steve R.]

President Obama’s remarks after National Security Council meeting on Islamic State

Obama again duplicity plays the "Law Enforcement Card". Obama claims to want additional measures invoked for the purpose of combating terrorism. Obama stated: "We should give ATF the resources they need to enforce the gun laws that we already have. ... Reinstate the assault weapons ban, make it harder for terrorists to use these weapons to kill us." On the surface that seems reasonable.

Yet when it comes to illegal immigration, which has its own issues; Obama refuses to enforce the law, citing faux "humanitarian concerns" and the need for "executive discretion. Furthermore, Obama seemingly avoids requesting additional resources to make it harder to enter the US.

The job of the President is to enforce the laws of this nation. There are some justified humanitarian needs that require, executive discretion. Nevertheless, Obama actions are disingenuous since he apparently does not have an intent to truly enforce existing immigration law since he seeks to legitimize illegal immigration. For many politicians words are cheap and meaningless. Obama is playing that game. Obtaining the necessary tools to fight terrorism is appropriate, but enforcing existing immigration laws is also mandated.

 

[Alc]

The inevitable movement of goalposts until it's boxed in a particular way to achieve only one possible outcome eh?

You get to define recent years. Do mass killings only matter if it's in the last 2 years? Do they only matter if it's 5 plus or less than 10 but more than 6? When you talk recent years going over the entire history of the world the past 50 years is minuscule. Do we also only limit it to single person and not more than one? Or is two okay but less than 5? or are we intending to say more than 5 is okay as long as it's less than 20 if no uniforms were worn?

The goalposts haven't moved an inch. You and Steve can cuddle up to each other and thanks yourselves all you want, but the original points remain the same and nothing either of you has said has come close to refuting it.

"The 'guns don't kill people' crowd will never change their viewpoint in spite of overwhelming evidence that a maniac with a gun can do far more damage than a maniac with a knife."

Go back in history 10, 20 or 50 years if you want. Outside of wars (and terrorists DO believe that hey are fighting a war), find an example of individuals killing more innocent people using some other method than they have using firearms. I stressed individuals as that is what this thread is about, an individual buying guns legally and going after a group he didn't like. Links to Isis have been suggested but nothing has come to light thus far that suggests what he did was the act of an organized group.

 

[Steve R.]

"The 'guns don't kill people' crowd will never change their viewpoint in spite of overwhelming evidence that a maniac with a gun can do far more damage than a maniac with a knife."

You are using facts in a disingenuous manner. Yes, a maniac with a gun can kill more people, but the problem resides with the person. The progressive left refuses to acknowledge that people are responsible for their own actions. The progressive left promotes that the individual is never responsible, but is simply a victim of an abusive society. The answer for the progressive left is to impose more laws and even bigger government to "solve" all these issues. Soon, to protect your health, you may find it impossible to legally buy a sugary drink.

The soda industry is on the verge of losing one of its biggest battles ever

 

[ColinEssex]

Colin, please excuse me for starting a new thread, but I thought this was the "Politics and Current Events" topic.

Hmmm yes, but using an old thread will hopefully help people to see that all the arguments have been said going back to the Collumbine slaughter.
So there is no point in trotting out the same old lame excuses for carrying and wielding guns. Plus justifying the need for Americans to lust after killing a living creature for fun.

It's just stupid and pseudo macho childishness like wanting to play Cowboys and Indians, with real living creatures to kill for a laugh.
I suppose it's better if (for example) a deer is mortally wounded but not killed so it can take hours to die in agony.

Col

 

[Rx_]

Some of us have "Indians" according to your Hollywood generalizations, or Native Americans as our ancestry. We realize full well what government politically approved actions did to entire unarmed populations. You are free to go learn some history then go dig a hole for your Hollywood metaphor.
Thank You for your consideration.

 

[ColinEssex]

Some of us have "Indians" according to your Hollywood generalizations, or Native Americans as our ancestry. We realize full well what government politically approved actions did to entire unarmed populations. You are free to go learn some history then go dig a hole for your Hollywood metaphor.
Thank You for your consideration.

Aren't "native Americans" called Red Indians then?

What's this about unarmed populations? I get the impression the redskins were a savage lot that scalped the white men and generally caused havoc. Having said that they were later treated badly by the white man a bit like the Abbo's in Australia.

Col