Orlando attack - terrorism suspected

[Legacy]

Originally Posted by Opus
Background checks already include criminal and mental health history, dishonorable military discharge, immigration status, pending criminal indictments and drug use/history. What additional checks can be added?

As for individuals on watch lists, the Orlando tragedy should indicate how useless they are. Mateen was on the watch list in 2013 and 2014 but was removed because the FBI closed their investigations. But the gun control advocates are willing to ignore the constitution and due process for individuals who are on a watch list.

The gun show loophole is a myth that just won't die. If you buy a gun at a gun show you must submit to and successfully pass a complete background check before you can take possession of the gun. The only time that a background check is not conducted is a sale between private parties. Can this happen at a gun show, of course. But it also happens everywhere else in the country. To say that there is a gun show loophole is a lie and is only repeated to to push the gun control agenda.

What Happened to the $1.3 Billion Congress Approved to Improve Federal Gun Background Checks?

According to 2007 Congressional testimony by Campbell’s colleague Rachel Brand, 3 percent of checks take the FBI’s NICS division more than three business days to complete, and thousands never receive any determination at all. With 8.2 million background checks performed by NICS in 2014, even a small fraction represents a significant number of default proceeds: 228,006 checks exceeded the three-day period last year, resulting in at least 6,000 gun sales to buyers later found ineligible for firearms ownership.

In Campbell’s words, there is one reason the FBI allows default proceeds: “There are certain local records that are not available to the system.” Each state has different standards for what records it keeps, how it keeps them, and what it sends to the background check system. Figuring out the dispositions of criminal charges sometimes requires getting a local court clerk to dig through physical files. Mental health and substance abuse records are often not reported at all, in any form, which has only deepened the puzzle of Houser’s eligibility for gun ownership.[/QUOTE]

Congress agrees: Back in 2008, President George W. Bush signed a bill authorizing more than $1 billion in grants to improve local records reporting. What’s got Campbell confused is why — if there’s so much consensus around the idea that NICS would work better if states did a better job of reporting records to the FBI – almost none of the money authorized in 2008 has actually been released.

Congressional Committees Make Some Gun-Rights Provisions Permanent

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

Wow.
Maybe Savage is right.
Liberalism really IS a suicidal mental disorder.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Wow.
Maybe Savage is right.
Liberalism really IS a suicidal mental disorder.

Wat

 

[Irish YJ]

The quote that you bolded seems to be saying he is American (it's his country) and that he has an understanding of being a minority in this country. Maybe not alienating groups of people would be a good start at reducing angry crazy people from killing a bunch of folks. You guys scoff at BLM, defend Trump's bigotry toward Mexicans and scorn Muslims as if they are all violent terrorists, but you may be the reason they are so pissed off right now.

Let's point to every factor except personal accountability and responsibility of choice/free will. Did everyone's scoffing and bigotry cause him to beat his x-wife too? I'm sure he was screaming about the alienation when he punched her in her face and held her captive. She must have been a Trump supporter right? Dude was straight up a violent loon. And if you have any confusion on Muslim's global view on women, and women's rights, google it.

 

[Irish#1]

Nothing like the threat of new gun laws to drive gun sales through the roof.

Yep!

 

[kmoose]

As for individuals on watch lists, the Orlando tragedy should indicate how useless they are. Mateen was on the watch list in 2013 and 2014 but was removed because the FBI closed their investigations. But the gun control advocates are willing to ignore the constitution and due process for individuals who are on a watch list.

I'm no gun control advocate, but I don't think anyone on a watch list should be allowed to purchase a firearm. I also think that, if they try to purchase one and are denied because they are on a watch list, the government should be required to disclose their presence on that list, and reasoning why they are there. Then the individual can fight their name being there, if there is a reasonable explanation that the government is unaware of.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm no gun control advocate, but I don't think anyone on a watch list should be allowed to purchase a firearm. I also think that, if they try to purchase one and are denied because they are on a watch list, the government should be required to disclose their presence on that list, and reasoning why they are there. Then the individual can fight their name being there, if there is a reasonable explanation that the government is unaware of.

Agreed.

Name on list = can't fly, but can own a gun. Makes zero sense and every one knows it's because the NRA owns these guys.

 

[Irish YJ]

So the peeps on the no fly list. What are they told when they try and buy a plane ticket?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

So the peeps on the no fly list. What are they told when they try and buy a plane ticket?

Not sure the transaction is the problem. It's probably the security check-point at the gates. That's my guess though. Don't know personally.

 

[Irish YJ]

Not sure the transaction is the problem. It's probably the security check-point at the gates. That's my guess though. Don't know personally.

Just not sure how anyone can be denied (plane ride or gun) without some sort of due process. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't even want a no-fly-lister as a neighbor either. Just wondering how it works, and what "proof" if required to deny someone a plane ride.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Just not sure how anyone can be denied (plane ride or gun) without some sort of due process. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't even want a no-fly-lister as a neighbor either. Just wondering how it works, and what "proof" if required to deny someone a plane ride.

It's not "anyone," though. It's a person who's been deemed a potential threat to Americans and national security. Sometimes a person is on that list by mistake, but that's why it's so important to pro-long the "waiting period" and have extensive background checks to prove a mistake was in fact made. This whole "innocent until proven guilty" mindset should not apply to a Watch Lister who wants to buy a gun. A name gets put on the list for a reason and all gun purchases should be suspended until proven that said person is in fact not a threat and was put on the list mistakenly.

Question: How do you feel about the 4th Amendment as it pertains to government spying on Americans in the name of national security?

That's a relevant question because so many people defend the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to Watch Listers IN SPITE OF risks to national security. Why is that?

 

[Irish YJ]

It's not "anyone," though. It's a person who's been deemed a potential threat to Americans and national security. Sometimes a person is on that list by mistake, but that's why it's so important to pro-long the "waiting period" and have extensive background checks to prove a mistake was in fact made. This whole "innocent until proven guilty" mindset should not apply to a Watch Lister who wants to buy a gun. A name gets put on the list for a reason and all gun purchases should be suspended until proven that said person is in fact not a threat and was put on the list mistakenly.

Question: How do you feel about the 4th Amendment as it pertains to government spying on Americans in the name of national security?

That's a relevant question because so many people defend the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to Watch Listers IN SPITE OF risks to national security. Why is that?

If there's enough info for them to be considered a threat to national security, should they be here in the first place?

I don't like the government spying on citizens without due process. I'd rather shut the door on certain countries and deport individuals before giving government free reign to spy on everyone without due process.

 

[kmoose]

If there's enough info for them to be considered a threat to national security, should they be here in the first place?

I don't like the government spying on citizens without due process. I'd rather shut the door on certain countries and deport individuals before giving government free reign to spy on everyone without due process.

Are you going to deport people who are 5th, 6th, 7th generation Americans?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

If there's enough info for them to be considered a threat to national security, should they be here in the first place?

I don't like the government spying on citizens without due process. I'd rather shut the door on certain countries and deport individuals before giving government free reign to spy on everyone without due process.

It's not always about immigrants. Sometimes it's about Americans, legal citizens, who are deemed a threat. Homegrown radicalization is a problem. We need to have a discussion about this.

 

[GoIrish41]

Dude...get a conservative friend and let him read your shit before you hit submit...this comes off pretty fucked up.

There have been 1000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. Best I can tell, two of them were at the hands of Muslims. Yet, we have a massive Muslim terrorist problem, and the 998 others were just random unstable crazies. Coincidently, both of the mass shootings at the hands of Mulsims have happened since Trump -- the Republican candidate for President of the United States -- has made it okay by example to alienate and denegrate people by their race/religion.

So let me see if I got this right -- its okay to continuously antagonize and demonize people who worship Islam, but it "comes off pretty fucked up" when someone suggests that doing so may lead some unstable people who happen to be among the alienated group to react violently (and no way, they are among the random group who has killed multiple people, because, ya know, they are Muslims). What kind of racial/ethnic/religious labels are we going to pin on the people who committed the other 998 mass shootings in the past 2 and a half years? Why is it okay to paint Mulsims with a broad brush? Maybe you should get a liberal friend -- better yet a Muslim or Mexican or African American friend -- to check your posts for hypocrisy before you hit submit.

 

[NorthDakota]

It's not "anyone," though. It's a person who's been deemed a potential threat to Americans and national security. Sometimes a person is on that list by mistake, but that's why it's so important to pro-long the "waiting period" and have extensive background checks to prove a mistake was in fact made. This whole "innocent until proven guilty" mindset should not apply to a Watch Lister who wants to buy a gun. A name gets put on the list for a reason and all gun purchases should be suspended until proven that said person is in fact not a threat and was put on the list mistakenly.

Question: How do you feel about the 4th Amendment as it pertains to government spying on Americans in the name of national security?

That's a relevant question because so many people defend the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to Watch Listers IN SPITE OF risks to national security. Why is that?

I wouldn't put it past the current administration to put a lot of conservative folks on said list. We've already seen it with the IRS giving conservative groups a hard time. I doubt future liberal administrations would behave any better.

 

[Bubbles]

It's not "anyone," though. It's a person who's been deemed a potential threat to Americans and national security. Sometimes a person is on that list by mistake, but that's why it's so important to pro-long the "waiting period" and have extensive background checks to prove a mistake was in fact made. This whole "innocent until proven guilty" mindset should not apply to a Watch Lister who wants to buy a gun. A name gets put on the list for a reason and all gun purchases should be suspended until proven that said person is in fact not a threat and was put on the list mistakenly.

Question: How do you feel about the 4th Amendment as it pertains to government spying on Americans in the name of national security?

That's a relevant question because so many people defend the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to Watch Listers IN SPITE OF risks to national security. Why is that?

I agree with this in principle, but the reasons have to be clearly laid out and not up to the discretion of some bureaucrat having a bad day. Just because someone called Hillary and asshole does not make him an threat. You may inherently trust the government, but I've seen things that would make your head spin and can tell you unequivocally that you should not.

As to the rest, I feel that any person willing to sacrifice their freedom for a small amount of security deserves neither.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I agree with this in principle, but the reasons have to be clearly laid out and not up to the discretion of some bureaucrat having a bad day. Just because someone called Hillary and asshole does not make him an threat. You may inherently trust the government, but I've seen things that would make your head spin and can tell you unequivocally that you should not.

As to the rest, I feel that any person willing to sacrifice their freedom for a small amount of security deserves neither.

I don't inherently trust the government, but why do some people inherently trust every single breathing person in this country to own a gun?

 

[IrishLax]

There have been 1000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. Best I can tell, two of them were at the hands of Muslims. Yet, we have a massive Muslim terrorist problem, and the 998 others were just random unstable crazies. Coincidently, both of the mass shootings at the hands of Mulsims have happened since Trump -- the Republican candidate for President of the United States -- has made it okay by example to alienate and denegrate people by their race/religion.

So let me see if I got this right -- its okay to continuously antagonize and demonize people who worship Islam, but it "comes off pretty fucked up" when someone suggests that doing so may lead some unstable people who happen to be among the alienated group to react violently (and no way, they are among the random group who has killed multiple people, because, ya know, they are Muslims). What kind of racial/ethnic/religious labels are we going to pin on the people who committed the other 998 mass shootings in the past 2 and a half years? Why is it okay to paint Mulsims with a broad brush? Maybe you should get a liberal friend -- better yet a Muslim or Mexican or African American friend -- to check your posts for hypocrisy before you hit submit.

There's a big difference between "mass shootings" and MASS SHOOTINGS. Domestic terrorism like that of Sandy Hook, Charlerton, San Bernardino, Orlando, etc. is very different than 3 people getting shot in a gang related drive by. So a lot of the rhetoric is pretty hollow.

 

[Bubbles]

I don't inherently trust the government, but why do some people inherently trust every single breathing person in this country to own a gun?

No one trusts everyone with a gun, and I think you know that. I barely trust my wife with a car, and I most certainly don't trust a lot of people on the road with their cars. That's why we bought very safe cars, drive them cautiously and with respect to others on the road. If we were to start driving aggressively, drinking and driving, hit and run, etc....there are laws in place to punish and prevent us from causing further harm. That's sort of how a civilized society works.

 

[GoIrish41]

There's a big difference between "mass shootings" and MASS SHOOTINGS. Domestic terrorism like that of Sandy Hook, Charlerton, San Bernardino, Orlando, etc. is very different than 3 people getting shot in a gang related drive by. So a lot of the rhetoric is pretty hollow.

I don't know what your cutoff is between mass shootings and MASS SHOOTINGS, but the fact remains that only two were committed by Muslims, and the others -- the vast majority, whatever number you want to remove from the equasion of what mass shootings are -- were not.

Yet still, it seems to be perfectly acceptable to automatically leap to "radical Islamic terrorism," "close the borders," "these people are uncivilized monsters," when statistics show that they, by comparrison to the rest of the population, are not. What is far more likely is that the people who committed these mass murders are just unstable, crazy SOBs who got pushed over the edge for whatever reason ... maybe an increase in open bigotry played a role, maybe not. But, it appears to me that these incidents are just part of what we have let our society become -- there is no point trying to demonize or blame one group over another -- apparently mass murder is an equal opportunity undertaking.

For every Boston Marathon bomber, I'll give you an Okalahoma City bomber. For every Orlando nightclub mass murder, I'll give you a Sandy Hook, or an Aurora, or a Washington Navy Yard, or a Blacksburg. Lots of talk about Muslims not assimilating into our culture. Looks to me like they did -- good and bad. Several posts up someone pointed out that this guy is violent because he beats his wife. Sadly, there is a lot of that in this country. It's not something that is baked in to Islam any more than its baked into American culture. Some people are just violent assholes. I don't think we need to start a religious war because people are too ignorant to separate the crazies from the sane. And, I fear that's where this could be headed if we start calling out "Radical Islamic Terrorism" every time some nutbag who happens to be Muslim does something crazy. The vast majority of Muslims in this country and in the world reject ISIS. Why give them what they want?

 

[goldandblue]

There have been 1000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. Best I can tell, two of them were at the hands of Muslims. Yet, we have a massive Muslim terrorist problem, and the 998 others were just random unstable crazies. Coincidently, both of the mass shootings at the hands of Mulsims have happened since Trump -- the Republican candidate for President of the United States -- has made it okay by example to alienate and denegrate people by their race/religion.

So let me see if I got this right -- its okay to continuously antagonize and demonize people who worship Islam, but it "comes off pretty fucked up" when someone suggests that doing so may lead some unstable people who happen to be among the alienated group to react violently (and no way, they are among the random group who has killed multiple people, because, ya know, they are Muslims). What kind of racial/ethnic/religious labels are we going to pin on the people who committed the other 998 mass shootings in the past 2 and a half years? Why is it okay to paint Mulsims with a broad brush? Maybe you should get a liberal friend -- better yet a Muslim or Mexican or African American friend -- to check your posts for hypocrisy before you hit submit.

LOL, so you are saying this is Trumps fault because he is alienating the muslim community? What about Fort Hood? What about 9/11? This didn't become a problem over the last 9 months.... Note: this does not include Countless attacks on American Embassy locations throughout the world....

* 1993 shootings at CIA Headquarters
* 1993 World Trade Center bombing
* 9/11
* Beltway sniper attacks.
* 2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting
* 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting
* Fort Hood shooting
* 2012 Benghazi attack
* Boston Marathon bombings
* attack on the Curtis Culwell Center
* 2015 Chattanooga shootings
* 2015 San Bernardino attack
* mass shooting at a nightclub in Orlando

2 of these are post Donald Trump announcement for his run for the presidency. What you don't take into consideration either is the activity of the Radical Islamist groups. For example, in 2012, 13 documented Radical Islamic attacks, 2016 at this point... 30....

 

[Ndaccountant]

There's a big difference between "mass shootings" and MASS SHOOTINGS. Domestic terrorism like that of Sandy Hook, Charlerton, San Bernardino, Orlando, etc. is very different than 3 people getting shot in a gang related drive by. So a lot of the rhetoric is pretty hollow.

+1

I wonder how much of that comes from Chicago? Here is an excerpt from an article from last July that has loads of interesting information:

The media and politicians don’t really care about that though. The new “epidemic” is mass shootings, they say, just a few months removed from the previous epidemic of police killings. Those clamoring for change in the wake of another unexpected gun massacre are right: Mass shootings are a problem—in Chicago. The city saw 107 mass shootings last year (2014), defined as having three or more victims. As of July 25 of this year (2015), there have been 192 mass shootings, according to the Chicago Tribune.

America’s Mass-Shooting Capital Is Chicago - The Daily Beast

 

[goldandblue]

+1

I wonder how much of that comes from Chicago? Here is an excerpt from an article from last July that has loads of interesting information:



America’s Mass-Shooting Capital Is Chicago - The Daily Beast

and of these 192 mass shootings I would love to know how many of these acquired their weapons by legal means.

 

[Ndaccountant]

and of these 192 mass shootings I would love to know how many of these acquired their weapons by legal means.

The article alludes to the fact that many are not legal purchases.

 

[NDgradstudent]

There have been 1000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. Best I can tell, two of them were at the hands of Muslims. Yet, we have a massive Muslim terrorist problem, and the 998 others were just random unstable crazies. Coincidently, both of the mass shootings at the hands of Mulsims have happened since Trump -- the Republican candidate for President of the United States -- has made it okay by example to alienate and denegrate people by their race/religion.

Yeah, Muslims loved America before Trump showed up.

So let me see if I got this right -- its okay to continuously antagonize and demonize people who worship Islam, but it "comes off pretty fucked up" when someone suggests that doing so may lead some unstable people who happen to be among the alienated group to react violently (and no way, they are among the random group who has killed multiple people, because, ya know, they are Muslims).

You can say whatever you want about conservatives- we don't go around killing people when somebody says something mean about us. As you have observed, Muslims are known to do that.

What kind of racial/ethnic/religious labels are we going to pin on the people who committed the other 998 mass shootings in the past 2 and a half years?

Whatever labels apply will do.

 

[GoIrish41]

LOL, so you are saying this is Trumps fault because he is alienating the muslim community? What about Fort Hood? What about 9/11? This didn't become a problem over the last 9 months.... Note: this does not include Countless attacks on American Embassy locations throughout the world....

* 1993 shootings at CIA Headquarters
* 1993 World Trade Center bombing
* 9/11
* Beltway sniper attacks.
* 2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting
* 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting
* Fort Hood shooting
* 2012 Benghazi attack
* Boston Marathon bombings
* attack on the Curtis Culwell Center
* 2015 Chattanooga shootings
* 2015 San Bernardino attack
* mass shooting at a nightclub in Orlando

2 of these are post Donald Trump announcement for his run for the presidency. What you don't take into consideration either is the activity of the Radical Islamist groups. For example, in 2012, 13 documented Radical Islamic attacks, 2016 at this point... 30....

How many attacks happened that were not "radical Islamic attacks?"

 

[Monk]

The article alludes to the fact that many are not legal purchases.

Although I agree with the idea that criminals will find a way to purchase guns illegally a lot of the time, does that mean we shouldn't have stricter regulations when purchasing guns legally. Should we not make it a little harder for mentally unstable individuals to walk into any gun store and purchase a firearm with relative easy. I own guns and I in no way wish to take guns away from citizens who deserve to have them. I am for a standard set of regulations which every state has to enforce in order to purchase a firearm. I believe you should have to obtain a permit and take firearm training courses before you can purchase a firearm. These are not hoops that people have to jump through if they want to own a gun for recreational use or home security as you should want that training, but they would be a deterrent for a criminal that would like to commit a crime immediately. Yes, a lot of them probably will still find a way to locate a gun on the black market, but you will probably keep some guns out of the hands of criminals, while making it harder to obtain guns because you have to go through the black market.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yeah, Muslims loved America before Trump showed up.

I'm not saying they loved us before Trump. I'm saying they aren't all Johnny Jihads like you guys pretend they are. There are a whole lot of them who came here to live, and live in peace. Painting peaceful people as terrorists because they are Muslims is ignorant.

You can say whatever you want about conservatives- we don't go around killing people when somebody says something mean about us. As you have observed, Muslims are known to do that.

Is that right? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0

Whatever labels apply will do.

I wonder ... how might this make the problem worse?

 

[wizards8507]

I wonder ... how might this make the problem worse?

Don't be dense. They don't murder infidels because we call them mean names. They murder infidels because their prophet tells them to. The problem with Islamic mass murders is not that they're mass murders who happen to be Islamic. The problem is that Islam is the source of their murderous motivation.