Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[Braivo]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

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.  

Right. 1) We have to actually stop the future infux (which is wide open right now) and 2) become far more vigilant with our intelligence services and actually act on the information we receive. This guy was questioned twice by authorities, they knew something was up, but then he was still allowed to get clearance to be a security guard and purchase a gun. 

I also fall on the far right side of the gun debate, I believe if some of the patrons at the club were carrying their own guns things would have turned out much differently. These people had to wait three hours for police to finally bust into the place. 

[phan52]

10 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.

He is using this event to back up his stance about restricting access for Syrian refugees. This has absolutely nothing to do with Syrian refugees, nor does any other terrorist act that has occurred on our shores.

[Braivo]

Just now, phan52 said:

He is using this event to back up his stance about restricting access for Syrian refugees. This has absolutely nothing to do with Syrian refugees, nor does any other terrorist act that has occurred on our shores.

Yet.

[DeadMan]

4 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I also fall on the far right side of the gun debate, I believe if some of the patrons at the club were carrying their own guns things would have turned out much differently. These people had to wait three hours for police to finally bust into the place. 

You do realize there were 3 armed cops there when the shooter originally came in that engaged him, right?

[Lihu]

32 minutes 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.

There won't be easy access to ISIS members.

5 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

You do realize there were 3 armed cops there when the shooter originally came in that engaged him, right?

The shooter didn't pick a place where the patrons are armed. It's different.

He was also trained in security, so he probably had the advantage on the police.

[Braivo]

7 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

You do realize there were 3 armed cops there when the shooter originally came in that engaged him, right?

Yes, but he had element of surprise then. You can only use that once. 

[Lihu]

14 minutes ago, phan52 said:

He is using this event to back up his stance about restricting access for Syrian refugees. This has absolutely nothing to do with Syrian refugees, nor does any other terrorist act that has occurred on our shores.

We don't know.

30 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

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.

That's our freedom. ISIS gives people a reason to escalate the violence.

[Chilli Dipper]

26 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I also fall on the far right side of the gun debate, I believe if some of the patrons at the club were carrying their own guns things would have turned out much differently. These people had to wait three hours for police to finally bust into the place. 

After the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris last year, a pro-gun think tank ran a series of simulations to see how different that shooting would have been if the occupants of that office were armed. None of the civilians were able to make a disabling hit on the attackers, and the only ones who survived were the ones who ran immediately.

You're not a Navy SEAL. You're more likely to hit innocent civilians caught in the crossfire than the attacker. When law enforcement arrives, they aren't going to be able to tell the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad one; you have a gun, and you need to be neutralized.

[drmevo]

Just now, Chilli Dipper said:

After the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris last year, a pro-gun think tank ran a series of simulations to see how different that shooting would have been if the occupants of that office were armed. None of the civilians were able to make a disabling hit on the attackers, and the only ones who survived were the ones who ran immediately.

You're not a Navy SEAL. You're more likely to hit innocent civilians caught in the crossfire than the attacker. When law enforcement arrives, they aren't going to be able to tell the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad one; you have a gun, and you need to be neutralized.

Not to mention, how many more people would be killed from gun violence on a daily basis if it were the norm for people to carry in clubs and bars?  When you are out drinking (maybe not everybody at a bar, but probably most) is not the time to be carrying a gun.  

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Not to mention, how many more people would be killed from gun violence on a daily basis if it were the norm for people to carry in clubs and bars?  When you are out drinking (maybe not everybody at a bar, but probably most) is not the time to be carrying a gun.  

Agree, booze and guns don't mix well.  We may be nearing the point where establishments that don't permit guns must hire armed security and utilize metal detectors to protect their patrons, similar to how sports complexes and stadiums do.  

[drmevo]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Agree, booze and guns don't mix well.  We may be nearing the point where establishments that don't permit guns must hire armed security and utilize metal detectors to protect their patrons, similar to how sports complexes and stadiums do.  

Maybe, but as we have seen here, the armed guards might not even be that effective.  And metal detectors everywhere doesn't seem realistic. It just sucks we are at this point with both sides of the issue miles apart.

[Ernest Jones]

7 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Agree, booze and guns don't mix well.  We may be nearing the point where establishments that don't permit guns must hire armed security and utilize metal detectors to protect their patrons, similar to how sports complexes and stadiums do.  

Ah, yes, Freedom!!! Sounds great.

[Lihu]

45 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

After the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris last year, a pro-gun think tank ran a series of simulations to see how different that shooting would have been if the occupants of that office were armed. None of the civilians were able to make a disabling hit on the attackers, and the only ones who survived were the ones who ran immediately.

You're not a Navy SEAL. You're more likely to hit innocent civilians caught in the crossfire than the attacker. When law enforcement arrives, they aren't going to be able to tell the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad one; you have a gun, and you need to be neutralized.

No, but it's a deterrent. Also, with the right to wear guns comes the responsibility to be able to shoot them correctly. They were talking about having gun training at my wife's school, and most of the people laughed that they wouldn't stand a chance even with one or two guns. The study doesn't take into account people who enjoy shooting and are trained to do so.

The future solution will possibly be a little more disturbing for many non-gun types. Robotic guards with the ability to disable perpetrators wearing level 4 body armor. That much firepower on an autonomous sentient is potentially more scary. Especially if they are hack-able, which is why they would be autonomous. Yuck.

 

42 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Not to mention, how many more people would be killed from gun violence on a daily basis if it were the norm for people to carry in clubs and bars?  When you are out drinking (maybe not everybody at a bar, but probably most) is not the time to be carrying a gun.  

It's not an obvious cause and effect, but even in AZ you need to turn in all firearms at the door of most establishments.

 

39 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Agree, booze and guns don't mix well.  We may be nearing the point where establishments that don't permit guns must hire armed security and utilize metal detectors to protect their patrons, similar to how sports complexes and stadiums do.  

It's not the only solution, but I'm sure people would object to having snipers watching over them.

 

33 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Maybe, but as we have seen here, the armed guards might not even be that effective.  And metal detectors everywhere doesn't seem realistic. It just sucks we are at this point with both sides of the issue miles apart.

The police were completely taken by surprise. That's not likely to happen for a while until we become complacent again.

 

31 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

Ah, yes, Freedom!!! Sounds great.

Without freedom, many things other than guns could be banned. Guns are protected by the 2nd amendment. If this is targeted successfully, then many other freedoms we are entitled might go away more easily. That's the reason why people fight for the 2nd amendment right so strongly. It's not only about wanting to carry guns around like the old west.

 

 

The real issue is the fact that we have the wrong kind of fanatical people. Not sure how to solve this problem?

[drmevo]

Not going to quote your whole post @Lihu, but it strikes me as really......odd.  I wish I could articulate it better, but it just seems so disconnected from the reality of what happened.

[Chilli Dipper]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

No, but it's a deterrent. Also, with the right to wear guns comes the responsibility to be able to shoot them correctly. They were talking about having gun training at my wife's school, and most of the people laughed that they wouldn't stand a chance even with one or two guns. The study doesn't take into account people who enjoy shooting and are trained to do so.

Now, we're getting somewhere. The "if only there was a good guy with a gun" theory begins to hold weight if that good guy with a gun is extensively trained in using a firearm in hostile situations, akin to what police and military go through. Make that a prerequisite for a concealed carry permit, instead of giving one to any meathead who thinks having a gun strapped to his hip makes him a badass, then we're building common-sense policy.

[Lihu]

14 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Not going to quote your whole post @Lihu, but it strikes me as really......odd.  I wish I could articulate it better, but it just seems so disconnected from the reality of what happened.

I'm not sure what parts are disconnected from reality? The issue is we have fanatics who are willing to take other people's lives and their own in the process to make some kind of "point".

We have to stop it at the source, and I disagree with an all out attack on ISIS. It will likely happen and many innocent people will be killed which will just fuel more hatred for our country. This action will just make us look like terrorists to them.

Gun laws will not stop them. Killing the current leadership or organizations will not stop them. IDK what we can do in the current situation? It's tough, and there are no simple answers. If that's disconnected from reality then IDK what to say?

[Dave2512]

6 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Not going to quote your whole post @Lihu, but it strikes me as really......odd.  I wish I could articulate it better, but it just seems so disconnected from the reality of what happened.

People are reporting more in this thread than has been revealed by the investigation, all of it pure speculation. The only thing that could have prevented this is not letting the shooter slip through the cracks.

 

[Lihu]

11 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

People are reporting more in this thread than has been revealed by the investigation, all of it pure speculation. The only thing that could have prevented this is not letting the shooter slip through the cracks.

 

So true. The gunman in this attack was trained. He was on a "hot list". IDK how he slipped through? It seems like tightened security that Trump wants is going to help even if only a little bit.

12 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Now, we're getting somewhere. The "if only there was a good guy with a gun" theory begins to hold weight if that good guy with a gun is extensively trained in using a firearm in hostile situations, akin to what police and military go through. Make that a prerequisite for a concealed carry permit, instead of giving one to any meathead who thinks having a gun strapped to his hip makes him a badass, then we're building common-sense policy.

I agree with your concept. However, the gunman was trained pretty much as you described.

Not sure about the "hot list" he was on, but it seems like people could have watched him and the three police could have been alerted as soon as he walked into the area? He also called 911 just before the shooting. We really let our guard down on this one.

Quote

ORLANDO, Fla. — The gunman who went on a shooting rampage in a popular gay nightclub here shot nearly all of his victims in the first stages of the assault, then was utterly “cool and calm” while he talked by phone to law enforcement officials about further carnage, claimed allegiance to the Islamic State and praised the Boston Marathon bombers, officials said on Monday.