Mass shooting in Orlando, Florida USA 20 dead

[fool]

The obvious ease with which someone on a watch list was able to buy a gun is part of the issue. Yes.

But he wasn't on a watch list was he? Everything I've read said that all the FBI inquiries were closed with no action. He also held a license to be an armed guard in the state of Florida.

 

[annabenedetti]

But he wasn't on a watch list was he? Everything I've read said that all the FBI inquiries were closed with no action. He also held a license to be an armed guard in the state of Florida.

He was on a watch list, and then he was removed. Thanks for that clarification.

Here's the thing, though, if this source is correct: if he'd still been on the watch list, he would have been flagged when he bought the guns, but he wouldn't have been banned from buying them. There's something wrong with that. I can see them not being able to do anything if he's been cleared - but anyone still on a watch list should not be able to buy guns. So that's one change that should be made right there.

 

[patrick jane]

He was on a watch list, and then he was removed.

Here's the thing, though, if this source is correct: if he'd still been on the watch list, he would have been flagged when he bought the guns, but he wouldn't have been banned from buying them. There's something wrong with that. I can see them not being able to do anything if he's been cleared - but anyone still on a watch list should not be able to buy guns.

I agree. That's where we need changes, at the background check level.

 

[Crucible]

As an appreciated gesture DEPENDING on their motive ...

That you're a lost reprobate. That's who aCW 'prays' for on these forums. So you're just.. special

 

[fool]

He was on a watch list, and then he was removed. Thanks for that clarification.

Here's the thing, though, if this source is correct: if he'd still been on the watch list, he would have been flagged when he bought the guns, but he wouldn't have been banned from buying them. There's something wrong with that. I can see them not being able to do anything if he's been cleared - but anyone still on a watch list should not be able to buy guns. So that's one change that should be made right there.

But we don't usually go denying people their constitutional rights if they haven't committed a crime.

 

[annabenedetti]

He also held a license to be an armed guard in the state of Florida.

What about the company that hired him? Shouldn't a background check have shown him as being on a watch list? Or if he was already employed, shouldn't have his employer been notified (or was his employer notified)? I don't know the employment timeline. I can look it up, but am running out of time today and I'll take the chance that you may know.

 

[annabenedetti]

But we don't usually go denying people their constitutional rights if they haven't committed a crime.

I understand that and have argued that repeatedly here - but if someone is under investigation for terrorism, it should surely delay a gun purchase, shouldn't it?

 

[fool]

What about the company that hired him? Shouldn't a background check have shown him as being on a watch list? Or if he was already employed, shouldn't have his employer been notified (or was his employer notified)? I don't know the employment timeline. I can look it up, but am running out of time today and I'll take the chance that you may know.

From what I've read the company knew the FBI was talking to him and they were informed when the inquiries were closed. He didn't do anything that crossed the line or espouse any line crossing. He did beat his first wife and apparently she didn't report it which would have changed the entire trajectory enormously. She was the one that could have changed everything as she was the one that he actually broke the law against. But nobody knew.

 

[Rusha]

a lost reprobate. That's who aCW 'prays' for on these forums.

So did you thank him for praying for you?

 

[fool]

I understand that and have argued that repeatedly here - but if someone is under investigation for terrorism, it should surely delay a gun purchase, shouldn't it?

He wasn't under investigation. And If he was that's not due process, you at least have to accuse him of something. Waiting periods used to be a thing and that would give the Gov. a day or so to decide if they want to charge someone with something but I don't think the courts will allow you to just keep people in limbo for very long. I believe they got rid of the waiting period here in Michigan.

 

[annabenedetti]

He wasn't under investigation. And If he was that's not due process, you at least have to accuse him of something. Waiting periods used to be a thing and that would give the Gov. a day or so to decide if they want to charge someone with something but I don't think the courts will allow you to just keep people in limbo for very long. I believe they got rid of the waiting period here in Michigan.

I have to run, so I'll say this quickly and look for a response tomorrow:

I understood from you that he was off the watch list.

But in my first (I think) response to you I gave a source that said that even if he had still been on the watch list, he couldn't have been banned from buying a gun. So I'm looking at that as an area for improvement. Do you agree? Do you think that a person who is on a watch list, being actively investigated for terrorism should be able to go through with a gun purchase? Do you agree that there should there be an immediate hold, and more intense scrutiny to evaluate a possible threat?

 

[fool]

I have to run, so I'll say this quickly and look for a response tomorrow:

I understood from you that he was off the watch list.

But in my first (I think) response to you I gave a source that said that even if he had still been on the watch list, he couldn't have been banned from buying a gun. So I'm looking at that as an area for improvement. Do you agree? Do you think that a person who is on a watch list, being actively investigated for terrorism should be able to go through with a gun purchase? Do you agree that there should there be an immediate hold, and more intense scrutiny to evaluate a possible threat?

Or just a waiting period on everyone so no body feels persecuted. Like a week or so?

 

[kmoney]

Or just a waiting period on everyone so no body feels persecuted. Like a week or so?

What does a waiting period really accomplish? :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

It's not too hard to do a brainstorming on this:
Blanket ban on Muslims (except diplomats and country representatives) entering the country for 2 or 3 generations.
Blanket ban on Muslims obtaining firearms.
Amend the law/constitution to define Islam as not a religion, i.e. not benefitting from protections accorded to other religions.
Keep close tracks on on all Muslims having entered the country this generation. (This would perhaps have deterred the possibly lying father of the Florida terrorist from bringing up his son as a good Muslim to beat up his wife and hate America.)
No Muslim charities.

Etc., etc. I am sure you could think of more. Muslims need to be taught that when they come into our countries to live, they leave all aspects of their culture behind them that are incompatible with our own values. There will be no Sharia law practised in our countries, no polygamy, no honour killings or forced female circumcision for starters and no woman should be permitted to wear a full face cover.
It's not difficult to come up with suggestions when you are not inhibited by idealism.

I'm surprised to see these suggestions getting as much support as they are.

 

[kmoney]

There are two ways of looking at the situation with firearms as exemplified by the Orlando shooting.

A. It's an acceptable risk. In the grand scheme of things, you're more likely to be killed by lightening than by a terrorist. (More general gun violence is different of course) This is probably what will be "determined" if nothing else by political paralysis.

B. The risk is unacceptable and we should do *something*. Of course we've already seen a number of posters go the us vs. them route. We already know this won't work as most of the assailants in previous mass shooting have been white males.

What frustrates me is the immediate rush to change things. As if we just had this one thing then it could have been prevented. Tragedies happen. When you give people freedom then they can do bad things with it. That doesn't mean that we can't look at things but I hate the immediate proclamations that we MUST do this or we MUST do that.

- The other choices are:
1. Ban guns entirely and get as many off the street as possible with buyback programs (not likely to happen and likely less effective )
2. Come up with some other kind of regulations. I would recommend restricting weapons with the capacity to be used to kill a lot of people in a short period of time with no breaks for reloading.
3. More guns. This is the NRA answer (which enhances their bottom line since they are in bed with the gun manufacturers.

Generally, I would go with something in #2. Though, #3 could have some truth, if done correctly.

Two major problems with this "solution":
a. It's based on the idea that a minimally trained civilian can take down an armed assailant with his sidearm. In the current case there were 11 trained police officers firing at this guy. It wasn't as if one police officer could walk up and pick him off with a shot or two. Why does anyone think they'll do better in the same situation.
b. Not everyone wants to or can carry a firearm. Gun ownership has been going down, not up. You can't force people to carry firearms unless you want to turn the country into a police state.

I agree that (a) is a concern. One change I think I'd support is more mandatory training in order to have guns.

I predict nothing will come of this unless the house of representatives flips in the next election. If the deaths of 20 little kids couldn't spur people into action, a massacre at a nightclub won't do it. It's a sad reflection of the state of our country and most importantly the Republican party.

At a federal level I'd agree that nothing will happen. Perhaps some local changes, as we did see after Sandy Hook.

 

[drbrumley]

I'm a dope smoking Libertarian musty.

I knew it..:chuckle:

 

[kmoney]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...een-threatened-shoot-school-article-1.2673782

EXCLUSIVE: Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen was a bully who threatened to shoot up his elementary school, former teacher, classmates say

 

[Tinark]

He was on a watch list, and then he was removed. Thanks for that clarification.

Here's the thing, though, if this source is correct: if he'd still been on the watch list, he would have been flagged when he bought the guns, but he wouldn't have been banned from buying them. There's something wrong with that. I can see them not being able to do anything if he's been cleared - but anyone still on a watch list should not be able to buy guns. So that's one change that should be made right there.

Why should being on a watch list ban someone from buying a gun? What happened to due process? If they are guilty of a crime, arrest them and put them on trial.

 

[Tinark]

I have to run, so I'll say this quickly and look for a response tomorrow:

I understood from you that he was off the watch list.

But in my first (I think) response to you I gave a source that said that even if he had still been on the watch list, he couldn't have been banned from buying a gun. So I'm looking at that as an area for improvement. Do you agree? Do you think that a person who is on a watch list, being actively investigated for terrorism should be able to go through with a gun purchase? Do you agree that there should there be an immediate hold, and more intense scrutiny to evaluate a possible threat?

If they are that dangerous and suspected of supporting terrorism and/or trying to commit a terrorist act themselves, arrest them and put them in jail to await a trial.

 

[Tinark]

I'm surprised to see these suggestions getting as much support as they are.

What's surprising about it? The support is quite predictable. You'll find hundreds of examples throughout history.

Most people don't really support liberal democracy. It is under constant threat.