Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[jsgolfer]

Just now, newtogolf said:

No, if you read my earlier posts I said the FBI screwed up.  The guy should have never been approved to own any gun, no less become an armed security guard.  

The current Federal law requires an FBI background check on all gun purchases.  Somehow this guy wasn't flagged for additional review despite being the subject of 2 FBI investigations, the problem isn't the law it's the execution of it, just like it is with TSA.  

On the nose, but it is far easier to blame the weapon than the person pulling the trigger or the system that let him purchase it in the first place.  And for all we know, he had these things well before he was a suspect in anything or he could've received it from one of his security buddies if he wanted to.

1 minute ago, Dave2512 said:

It's a thread about the tragedy not home defense.

Very tragic event. 

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, phan52 said:

You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. First of all, there is zero evidence that I am at a higher risk at home than a gun owner and actual self-defense gun use in the home is extremely rare. In FACT (there's that pesky word again), the evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home exponentially increases the likelihood that a household member or a friend will be a victim of that firearm.

Right just as having a drivers license and owning a car exponentially increases the likelihood that you'll be cited for drunken driving.  

[phan52]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Right just as having a drivers license and owning a car exponentially increases the likelihood that you'll be cited for drunken driving.  

A car was not designed as an offensive weapon, it was designed to transport people and things. We have enacted many laws to improve the safety of cars. You also need a license and insurance to drive a car. That argument has been posited by the gun lobby for years and it is the definition of a false equivalence.

Oh, and I will never be cited for drunken driving because I don't drink and drive. So the chances of that happening is relatively the same as somebody in my family being harmed by a firearm.

Edited June 13, 2016 by phan52

[Silent]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

The issue is not the guns themselves as much as the desire for someone to go out and kill this many people.

He could have taken a Scimitar, Broadsword or Katana and killed or injured just as many people. Regardless, he was trained to kill, and had the motive to kill.

The problem is the fact that he had an organization to look up to to even think of killing so many people.

 

That doesn't really answer my question. Which was why mass shootings happen on a daily basis in the USA. Curious what you guys think is the reason that you go from shooting to shooting, with a few really big ones every year. There has to be something (or a couple of things) you can do to stop it from being a almost daily newsitem. In Holland (okay, small country) I remember just 1 mass shooting in my entire life, which is more than 30 years. And no, we don't have a lot (read: none) knife and sword massacres in return. Terrorists you won't stop every time, but let's be honest: most of your mass shootings have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

[Chilli Dipper]

11 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

No, if you read my earlier posts I said the FBI screwed up.  The guy should have never been approved to own any gun, no less become an armed security guard.  

The current Federal law requires an FBI background check on all gun purchases.  Somehow this guy wasn't flagged for additional review despite being the subject of 2 FBI investigations, the problem isn't the law it's the execution of it, just like it is with TSA.  

Dylann Roof should have never been allowed to own the guns he used to shoot up that Charleston, either. The reality is that partisan gridlock in America is making it hard for government agencies to do their jobs. So, do you and I ever learn to get along?

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, Silent said:

That doesn't really answer my question. Which was why mass shootings happen on a daily basis in the USA. Curious what you guys think is the reason that you go from shooting to shooting, with a few really big ones every year. There has to be something (or a couple of things) you can do to stop it from being a almost daily newsitem. In Holland (okay, small country) I remember just 1 mass shooting in my entire life, which is more than 30 years. And no, we don't have a lot (read: none) knife and sword massacres in return. Terrorists you won't stop every time, but let's be honest: most of your mass shootings have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

It's a question no one likely has a comprehensive answer to.  My take on it is we are a country that affords freedoms and privacy to everyone while supporting diverse cultures and viewpoints that lead to conflicts.  

I also don't believe we do a very good job with those who are mentally ill.  It's a major stigma here, so many are permitted to self manage their mental illnesses or not seek treatment at all. Anyone that can murder innocent people suffers from some mental illness that is not being properly managed.   

[Chilli Dipper]

3 minutes ago, Silent said:

That doesn't really answer my question. Which was why mass shootings happen on a daily basis in the USA. Curious what you guys think is the reason that you go from shooting to shooting, with a few really big ones every year. There has to be something (or a couple of things) you can do to stop it from being a almost daily newsitem. In Holland (okay, small country) I remember just 1 mass shooting in my entire life, which is more than 30 years. And no, we don't have a lot (read: none) knife and sword massacres in return. Terrorists you won't stop every time, but let's be honest: most of your mass shootings have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

First, it takes a lot of energy to hack up a person with a sword, and that weapon has a much smaller effective range than a gun. A wacko with a katana is going to tire himself out long before he does the same damage as a wacko who just has to pull the trigger on a semi-automatic.

Second, any person who shoots dozens of people in a public place is a terrorist.

[mdl]

37 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Yes we did. Go try and buy ammonium nitrate. Go try and buy a large amount of fertilizer. The ATF will be knocking on your door in a flash.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/02/nation/la-na-ammonium-nitrate-20110803

+1

[newtogolf]

10 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Dylann Roof should have never been allowed to own the guns he used to shoot up that Charleston, either. The reality is that partisan gridlock in America is making it hard for government agencies to do their jobs. So, do you and I ever learn to get along?

In this case I think we do get along.  The current Federal laws allow the FBI to flag individuals for additional review before they are permitted to purchase a gun.  This is a Federal law that is applicable in every State.  If government employees and FBI agents who are responsible for maintaining the database don't do their jobs, individuals slip through the cracks, just as when TSA agents don't do their jobs, harmful objects are allowed on airplanes.  

If Mateen was flagged for review he would not have been approved to purchase the guns in the store the day he went in to purchase them.  He would be required to go back days later after his file was reviewed and a decision was made.  Obviously this was a screw up because he was allowed to become an armed security guard as well as own guns.  

[Silent]

4 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

First, it takes a lot of energy to hack up a person with a sword, and that weapon has a much smaller effective range than a gun. A wacko with a katana is going to tire himself out long before he does the same damage as a wacko who just has to pull the trigger on a semi-automatic.

Second, any person who shoots dozens of people in a public place is a terrorist.

Your first: that kind of was my point obviously. I was reacting to someone who stated that if a terrorist really wanted to kill a bunch of people, he could have taken a sword or knife or whatever also. Well, yes he could.. but like you said, that never would be as 'effective'

Second: I think you know what I meant with the 'seperation'. Terrorist do those things out of a (twisted) ideoligy, 'regular' shooters mostly don't. If you want to prevend those things, you have to know why people commit those shootings. Different reasons why, might mean different solutions. 

[14ledo81]

1 hour ago, phan52 said:

I again respectfully disagree. An AR-15 is an assault weapon There is no other use for it other than as an offensive weapon. Offensive = assault. It has zero defensive/protective use. It is designed to kill people quickly and efficiently, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

 

27 minutes ago, phan52 said:

You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. First of all, there is zero evidence that I am at a higher risk at home than a gun owner and actual self-defense gun use in the home is extremely rare. In FACT (there's that pesky word again), the evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home exponentially increases the likelihood that a household member or a friend will be a victim of that firearm.

But getting back to the point of the thread, if there were common sense gun laws in this gun-crazy country that guy would not have been able to legally get his hands on that weapon, which is designed to kill people quickly and efficiently. It wasn't designed for hunting or home defense.

 

Your source for these "facts"....??...

---

The "fact" is that an AR-15 is not different (functionally) than any other semi-automatic rifle.  They simply "look" like they can do more.

[Lihu]

21 minutes ago, Silent said:

That doesn't really answer my question. Which was why mass shootings happen on a daily basis in the USA. Curious what you guys think is the reason that you go from shooting to shooting, with a few really big ones every year. There has to be something (or a couple of things) you can do to stop it from being a almost daily newsitem. In Holland (okay, small country) I remember just 1 mass shooting in my entire life, which is more than 30 years. And no, we don't have a lot (read: none) knife and sword massacres in return. Terrorists you won't stop every time, but let's be honest: most of your mass shootings have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

We pride ourselves on our freedom. Unfortunately, many people abuse their freedoms.

This is one reason why Trump is so popular. He's looking at restricting access hoping to reduce some of this type of violence. Events like these just solidify his stance.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

We pride ourselves on our freedom. Unfortunately, many people abuse their freedoms.

This is one reason why Trump is so popular. He's looking at restricting access hoping to reduce some of this type of violence. Events like these just solidify his stance.

The numbers are also a bit manipulated in that Obama had changed the definition of mass killing from 4 people to 3 and where it previously excluded murders associated with other crimes it no longer does so this contributes to the higher numbers than we'd seen in the past.

[Dave2512]

2 minutes ago, Lihu said:

We pride ourselves on our freedom. Unfortunately, many people abuse their freedoms.

This is one reason why Trump is so popular. He's looking at restricting access hoping to reduce some of this type of violence. Events like these just solidify his stance.

Can't restrict American citizens. This killer was born here and Trump has no plan for things like this. Nobody does it just happens.

[Elmer]

34 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

On the nose, but it is far easier to blame the weapon than the person pulling the trigger or the system that let him purchase it in the first place.  And for all we know, he had these things well before he was a suspect in anything or he could've received it from one of his security buddies if he wanted to.

Very tragic event. 

"but it is far easier to blame the weapon than the person pulling the trigger or the system that let him purchase it in the first place."

The shooter pulls the trigger, the semi-automatic enables the shooter to kill quicker.
The system that allowed the shooter to buy his weapon is the same that allows you and me to buy ours!

Once again he was an american citizen, and even thought on the watch list, no law could prevent him from buying the guns!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-live-omar-mateen-was-taken-off-a-terrorist-1465772737-htmlstory.html

From all reports the shooter was investigated twice, however the FBI was unable to verify a link between ISIS and the shooter!

" And for all we know, he had these things well before he was a suspect"

We do know, he bought these shortly before the shooting.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-shooter-bought-weapons-nearby-gun-shop/story?id=39817471

This is why facts work better than hyporbole!

[Chilli Dipper]

1 minute ago, Dave2512 said:

Can't restrict American citizens. This killer was born here and Trump has no plan for things like this. Nobody does it just happens.

We don't need to worry about about a few thousand people an ocean away, willing to tolerate mountains of red tape to get away from the chaos in their own countries. The biggest threats to our security are already here.

[Braivo]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

So when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building, did you blame al Qaeda? Radical Islam? Did you blame Muslims for Aurora and Columbine? How about Sandy Hook? 

You can wage your personal war on a religion, but don't include me. I see radical Christians doing the same thing at Planned Parenthood clinics. I see white bigots shoot up Charleston Churches.  You want to pin it all on one group. That is what is weak. I pin it on the hate that everyone is generating. Bigotry, homophobia, they are all part of that. 

We've done nothing for a long time and things have not improved. Time to start putting our heads together, all sides, and find a solution.

I find it interesting that others infer hate in my words when there is none. Nearly all of my comments on this thread and the Presidential election thread are done to simply point out facts and express my opinions on the subject. I may disagree with others' opinions, but I never attack them. I am amazed at how quickly the tone becomes so heated, it is unfortunate. 

I have never once said I had a problem with a religion. I have a problem with radical Muslims, particularly those that are part of ISIS, who have declared war on the Western world. We must deal with this threat appropriately and I do not see how limiting access to guns will diminish this threat. 

The only solution I see is to keep the enemy from entering into our country in the first place. 

[newtogolf]

1 minute ago, Braivo said:

I find it interesting that others infer hate in my words when there is none. Nearly all of my comments on this thread and the Presidential election thread are done to simply point out facts and express my opinions on the subject. I may disagree with others' opinions, but I never attack them. I am amazed at how quickly the tone becomes so heated, it is unfortunate. 

I have never once said I had a problem with a religion. I have a problem with radical Muslims, particularly those that are part of ISIS, who have declared war on the Western world. We must deal with this threat appropriately and I do not see how limiting access to guns will diminish this threat. 

The only solution I see is to keep the enemy from entering into our country in the first place. 

That solves future problems but it doesn't address those who have already moved here thanks to the weak immigration policies by current and past administrations.