Mass shooting in Orlando - Politics

[Chu Gai]

Something I don't get. The shooter called 911. That goes to the PD. The AG, Lynch comes down and says they're only going to release redacted and edited calls. Under substantial pressure, she reverses herself and now you can hear/read the calls in their entirety. Just what right gives the Justice Department the authority to impose in this way on the local PD?

 

[herbu]

Just what right gives the Justice Department the authority to impose in this way on the local PD?

It is the hallmark of this government. Their success is based on controlling the message. Most people today get their "news" from social media or ABC/NBC/CBS. When these outlets say, "This massacre, like all the others, is the Republican's fault because they're owned by the NRA", it is the only "news" many people hear.

Redacting the 911 call was a normal tactic to change the narrative. Heaven forbid we blame the person/people who actually commit the bad behavior. Let's find a way, every time, to say their behavior is the result of Republicans. Trust us... we're here to help you.

 

[Steve81]

There may be people who saw him with the weapons, but how can they report him for legal activity? Unless they have knowledge of his specific plans, there is nothing to report...They really can't do anything beyond "watching" him until he commits the crime.

In Mateen's case, he was known to be unstable (ask his ex-wife and coworkers) as well as harboring extremist sympathies. That may not be enough for an outright arrest as you say, but if he were being watched closely, there's a distinct possibility he could have been stopped before he ever pulled the trigger. The far greater problem is that the authorities were warned, they had a pretty good idea the guy was trouble, and they still didn't meaningfully act. Heck, the guy shouldn't have even been able to buy a gun given the domestic abuse vs his ex wife if it were reported (or the FBI questioned her), let alone being on an FBI watch list previously.

It's also important to keep in mind the material components for other attack vectors are perfectly legal up until you actually do something with them. Take this attack against another gay bar or this arson attack against a New York night club. Gasoline is a perfectly legal thing to own, drive around with in a container in the back of your vehicle, etc. How does one stop this sort of attack, except with actual intel? How does one stop an attack like the Boston Marathon bombing and similar attacks you can read about here? One might note this part as well

Step-by-step instructions for making pressure cooker bombs were published in an article titled "Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom" in the Al-Qaeda-linked Inspire magazine in the summer of 2010, by "The AQ chef". The article describes the technique as a simple way to make a highly effective bomb. Analysts believe the work was the brainchild of Anwar al-Awlaki, and edited by him and by Samir Khan. Inspire's goal is to encourage "lone wolf" Jihadis to attack what they view as the enemies of Jihad, including the United States and its allies.

Supposing Mateen had a couple of six shooters, speed loaders, and a couple Molotov cocktails (very easy to make, legal components, and an effective incendiary), he could have been just as deadly attacking a jam packed night club at 2AM. Or suppose this guy goes nuts if you don't think a revolver is capable of rapid, accurate fire.

 

[Rickster71]

I think I agree, but I question your wording.
Are you saying that the government manipulates the parties to oppose each other? Because as I see it the parties are the government!

Oh yes, the result of me typing in this forum while I'm really supposed to be working.

The parties are just the 'Front Men,' so to speak.
The Dog and Pony show is to blow smoke, give the appearance Government is effective and on the case.
Get to sheep to argue over what inanimate object is to blame....
This smoke screen will cloud the fact that Governments are really ineffective against terrorism.
While we're still arguing and hand wringing over, "What type of hate it was," the terrorists are totally committed to their cause and will do whatever it takes.
While our college aged students are needing so called 'safe places,' There's are strapping on bomb vests or beheading members of the press or shooting up the Gun Free Zone of Paris, France.
They are committed to die for their cause.

 

[markw]

To add to what Rick said.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/isis-teaches-children-behead-training-camps/story?id=25303940

So much for safe spaces.

 

[psbfan9]

And one more! See if you can spot the commonality.

– Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Registered Democrat and Muslim.
– Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
– Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
– James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
– Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
– Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat
– James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.

And of course, Mateen, a democrat.

While there are modern instances of Far Right Extremists visiting violence, it does seem the majority are Democrats. Strange for a couple reasons.

1) You can't get much more "conservative" than radical Muslims, yet it is the Democrats by in large that defend them.

2) It is the Democrats that claim to be the party of tolerance, yet the majority of murderers and mass murderers identify with them.

Here we go...

Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma Bomber, was also a Democrat.

There's been a lot of talk about how the Orlando shootings were the act of a lone wolf. As information makes itself available, unless we're dealing with a peculiar definition of lone wolf, this does not seem to be the case.

It is the hallmark of this government. Their success is based on controlling the message. Most people today get their "news" from social media or ABC/NBC/CBS. When these outlets say, "This massacre, like all the others, is the Republican's fault because they're owned by the NRA", it is the only "news" many people hear.

Redacting the 911 call was a normal tactic to change the narrative. Heaven forbid we blame the person/people who actually commit the bad behavior. Let's find a way, every time, to say their behavior is the result of Republicans. Trust us... we're here to help you.

See anything hypocritical here?

 

[KEW]

In Mateen's case, he was known to be unstable (ask his ex-wife and coworkers) as well as harboring extremist sympathies. That may not be enough for an outright arrest as you say, but if he were being watched closely, there's a distinct possibility he could have been stopped before he ever pulled the trigger. The far greater problem is that the authorities were warned, they had a pretty good idea the guy was trouble, and they still didn't meaningfully act. Heck, the guy shouldn't have even been able to buy a gun given the domestic abuse vs his ex wife if it were reported (or the FBI questioned her), let alone being on an FBI watch list previously.

It's also important to keep in mind the material components for other attack vectors are perfectly legal up until you actually do something with them. Take this attack against another gay bar or this arson attack against a New York night club. Gasoline is a perfectly legal thing to own, drive around with in a container in the back of your vehicle, etc. How does one stop this sort of attack, except with actual intel? How does one stop an attack like the Boston Marathon bombing and similar attacks you can read about here? One might note this part as well



Supposing Mateen had a couple of six shooters, speed loaders, and a couple Molotov cocktails (very easy to make, legal components, and an effective incendiary), he could have been just as deadly attacking a jam packed night club at 2AM. Or suppose this guy goes nuts if you don't think a revolver is capable of rapid, accurate fire.

True that having gas and matches is legal, but an arson attack on a busy night club requires finding a location to start the fire that is effective and out of sight. Assuming typical Florida construction (no basement) I'm not sure where you would start a fire to ensure killing many people.

But I never said that these weapons are the only means for mass killing, just that they are among the easiest and "safest".

 

[Steve81]

True that having gas and matches is legal, but an arson attack on a busy night club requires finding a location to start the fire that is effective and out of sight. Assuming typical Florida construction (no basement) I'm not sure where you would start a fire to ensure killing many people.

Clearly, you're not creative enough to be a terrorist. I can't claim to dabble in arson, but a few thoughts pop to mind. Probably just as well to keep it at that though.

But I never said that these weapons are the only means for mass killing, just that they are among the easiest and "safest".

I understand. Unfortunately, people have proven quite creative in finding numerous easy ways to kill/maim large numbers of people. IMHO, even a national ban on all semi-auto firearms isn't going to solve the problem of violence in this country, even assuming it were politically feasible/at all practical to implement.

 

[Chu Gai]

It's not assault type rifles that are responsible for the daily shootings in places like Chicago.

 

[Chu Gai]

A Chicago reporter went to buy an AR-15 and this is what happened.

 

[KEW]

Clearly, you're not creative enough to be a terrorist.

No worries! I don't need to be creative! An AR-15 and all I have to do is point and shoot!!

I understand. Unfortunately, people have proven quite creative in finding numerous easy ways to kill/maim large numbers of people. IMHO, even a national ban on all semi-auto firearms isn't going to solve the problem of violence in this country, even assuming it were politically feasible/at all practical to implement.

I never meant to indicate a ban would eliminate massacres... only that it would make it a little harder and that these weapons offer a bigger advantage to terrorist than to those wanting to defend themselves as compared to a simpler weapons such as a six-shooter!

 

[Chu Gai]

No worries! I don't need to be creative! An AR-15 and all I have to do is point and shoot!!




I never meant to indicate a ban would eliminate massacres only that it would make it a little harder and that these weapons offer a bigger advantage to terrorist than to those wanting to defend themselves as compared to a simpler weapons such as a six-shooter!

And until such time that the autopsies are completed and they run ballistics and all that stuff, we don't know what weapons including the police are responsible for the carnage, it's premature to assign blame.

 

[KEW]

And until such time that the autopsies are completed and they run ballistics and all that stuff, we don't know what weapons including the police are responsible for the carnage, it's premature to assign blame.

Seriously? So if it ends up that 30 were killed by Marteen and 19 by police are you saying Marteen should not be blamed for this event?

 

[Steve81]

No worries! I don't need to be creative! An AR-15 and all I have to do is point and shoot!!

Not quite. Even with his choice of weapons, Mateen needed to recon the club, evaluate security, etc.
Is that significantly different from what would be needed to commit arson? Absolutely not. More to the point, if one target appears too well defended/infeasible to attack, they simply move on to the next possibility.

I never meant to indicate a ban would eliminate massacres only that it would make it a little harder and that these weapons offer a bigger advantage to terrorist than to those wanting to defend themselves as compared to a simpler weapons such as a six-shooter!

So ordinarily folks should give up all the advantages associated with semi-automatic weapons, things which are genuinely helpful in defensive situations (as opposed to claiming we need machine guns and RPGs for personal protection), and revert to revolvers because a handful of bad guys can potentially use semi-automatic weapons to kill a lot of people? While realizing at the same time that you're only making it "a little harder" for said bad guys to commit mass murder? Obviously I can't say I agree, but at this point I accept that we have a difference of opinion.

 

[Chu Gai]

Seriously? So if it ends up that 30 were killed by Marteen and 19 by police are you saying Marteen should not be blamed for this event?

Absolutely not! Two things are being pushed.
1. Ban assault type rifles.
2. Some form of stricter gun control. From what I saw recently that seemed to be tied into no-fly lists.

If the assault rifle wasn't the primary means of killing the people, and FBI stats point out that rifles are way behind when it comes to murder, then what is the point of focusing on it? Because it looks nasty?

WRT No.2, it wouldn't have mattered in Orlando, Sandy Hook, Boston, and others.

I know people want to do something, something that will prevent another such massacre from occurring. Right now there's a lot of finger pointing. I'm just saying the autopsy and forensic analysis, when completed, will be very informative.

 

[KEW]

Not quite. Even with his choice of weapons, Mateen needed to recon the club, evaluate security, etc.
Is that significantly different from what would be needed to commit arson? Absolutely not. More to the point, if one target appears too well defended/infeasible to attack, they simply move on to the next possibility.

I was addressing my lack of creatively at not readily knowing how to ensure a high kill rate via arson.

So ordinarily folks should give up all the advantages associated with semi-automatic weapons, things which are genuinely helpful in defensive situations (as opposed to claiming we need machine guns and RPGs for personal protection), and revert to revolvers because a handful of bad guys can potentially use semi-automatic weapons to kill a lot of people? While realizing at the same time that you're only making it "a little harder" for said bad guys to commit mass murder? Obviously I can't say I agree, but at this point I accept that we have a difference of opinion.

Fair enough. And for the record I have a semi-automatic pistol. However, it is not designed to quickly kill 10's of people and pierce body armor.

 

[herbu]

See anything hypocritical here?

No. What?

And from our Attorney General yesterday...
Loretta Lynch: "Our most effective response to terror is compassion, unity, and love"

Cool.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Unfortunately, people have proven quite creative in finding numerous easy ways to kill/maim large numbers of people. IMHO, even a national ban on all semi-auto firearms isn't going to solve the problem of violence in this country, even assuming it were politically feasible/at all practical to implement.

I don't think I need to point out that the difference between firearms and other materials used to attack people...but I will. Whereas, things like gasoline, knives, vehicles and pressure cookers have well-established legitimate purposes, firearms are used either to shoot at targets or kill a living being. So, I don't think it's helpful to say "Well, if we're going to ban X-type firearm, we should also ban pick-up trucks". It's a fine example of reductio ad absurdum.

Personally, if I thought my neighbourhood was sufficiently dangerous to justify firearms for the purpose of self-defence, I would say that it's time to move.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/guns-self-defense-study_n_7608350.html

 

[Steve81]

Fair enough. And for the record I have a semi-automatic pistol. However, it is not designed to quickly kill 10's of people and pierce body armor.

A semi-automatic pistol can kill every bit as quickly as a semi-auto rifle. As a point of fact, the Virginia Tech shooter used semi-auto pistols, and committed the deadliest shooting (32 dead) the country had seen at the time. I don't believe any of his victims were wearing body armor, nor were the patrons of Pulse for that matter. Of course, some pistol rounds can penetrate some body armor, and some rounds are specifically designed to pierce things like steel car doors, windshields, etc.

I don't think I need to point out that the difference between firearms and other materials used to attack people...but I will. Whereas, things like gasoline, knives, vehicles and pressure cookers have well-established legitimate purposes, firearms are used either to shoot at targets or kill a living being.

So personal/home defense, hunting, and recreation aren't "legitimate uses"? I'd also be hesitant to qualify the Huffington Post/The Violence Policy Center as a totally unbiased source. The study in and of itself only looking at people actually killed as a result of self defense. As opposed to murderers, people defending themselves aren't actually trying to kill an assailant. If the bad guy runs away/surrenders after the gun is drawn, or receiving a single non-lethal hit, that's not counted in that study. That's a pretty big flaw in my book if you're trying to qualify how often firearms are used for self defense.

So, I don't think it's helpful to say "Well, if we're going to ban X-type firearm, we should also ban pick-up trucks". It's a fine example of reductio ad absurdum.

Not exactly. The point of mentioning other methods of violence isn't that we should ban them as well. It's that even if we ban all firearms, violent/mentally ill people aren't going to change, and they'll still have numerous methods available to them to kill/injure others. Conversely, banning firearms means depriving law abiding citizens of a very powerful tool for self defense. Not a great trade for accomplishing so little IMHO.

Personally, if I thought my neighbourhood was sufficiently dangerous to justify firearms for the purpose of self-defence, I would say that it's time to move.

Many people don't have that option.

 

[Steve81]

So personal/home defense, hunting, and recreation aren't "legitimate uses"? I'd also be hesitant to qualify the Huffington Post/The Violence Policy Center as a totally unbiased source. The study in and of itself only looking at people actually killed as a result of self defense. As opposed to murderers, people defending themselves aren't actually trying to kill an assailant. If the bad guy runs away/surrenders after the gun is drawn, or receiving a single non-lethal hit, that's not counted in that study. That's a pretty big flaw in my book if you're trying to qualify how often firearms are used for self defense.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't believe it morally superior for a case like this
to end up like this case because a relative handful of people will abuse firearms if they gain access to them. It means we need to employ the tools and technology at our disposal to do our best to keep those bad guys from gaining access. Unfortunately, even that seems to be a challenge for lawmakers anymore.