Orlando attack - terrorism suspected

[johnnycando]

Lastly I truly do love you all.

You fight for me I kill for you.

Do not lose sight of the actual root cause people.

If you really think, that guns aren't a force to be reckoned with, then find out how many targets by statistic are neutralized in a war front once mobilization and recon take place via firearm.

That is why, even a .22, is lethal and why we need arms to protect us.

If we lost tanks, aircraft, submarines, or all forms of communication: we could still offer resistance and thwart a ground assualt with a well formulated and communicated mass of just deer rifles and yes, we would need AR semi autos.

Would we prevent a takeover!?

Nope maybe not.

But what would Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, etc do? Argue about guns or be ready to answer the ultimate call and pay the ultimate price if needed.

Never give up the right to save this nation. And never give up the right to give all if needed.

That's what we lack.

Lastly God bless the poor souls of the people taken from us. It was terror. And if it wasn't a gun, it would have been a pressure cooker bomb, or a steel ball bearing who knows what.

The gun was certainly an evil mechanism in this case. But how was he neutralized? Via gun. From a cop. Flesh and blood just like you and me. Imperfect. Liable.

Yet we harness nuclear bombs. One big transgression and 1/3 of the earth can be burned.

I use my guns many times per year for heritage and game. I fill the freezers in a successful year with a bounty of the lords blessings to our family and I pay and donate money to preserve our game and natural resources for my young daughters to enjoy.

A portion of each one of my daughters make up comes from consuming the meat from elk, deer, turkey, dove, and quail.

Please understand our heritage and sport as well as our instruments of protection, not destruction, that the right grants us.

 

[connor_in]

BEAT TEXAS

 

[NorthDakota]

Lastly I truly do love you all.

You fight for me I kill for you.

Do not lose sight of the actual root cause people.

If you really think, that guns aren't a force to be reckoned with, then find out how many targets by statistic are neutralized in a war front once mobilization and recon take place via firearm.

That is why, even a .22, is lethal and why we need arms to protect us.

If we lost tanks, aircraft, submarines, or all forms of communication: we could still offer resistance and thwart a ground assualt with a well formulated and communicated mass of just deer rifles and yes, we would need AR semi autos.

Would we prevent a takeover!?

Nope maybe not.

But what would Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, etc do? Argue about guns or be ready to answer the ultimate call and pay the ultimate price if needed.

Never give up the right to save this nation.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

That was half of my point, though... it would never come to that. The government, as messed up as it can be, wouldn't allow a Tyrant to take the streets of its own country by force. And the members of the military wouldn't let it happen, either. So it's a useless argument to say "we need to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government with our guns!"

And if it DID come to the registered hunters of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia to stand up with their guns and defend the people from our own governemnt... those hunters, even in their crazy numbers, wouldn't have a hope or a prayer against the technology that the government has at its disposal.

Technology is a huge force multiplier, but I know my home I can take you up mountain roads that no tank can go up and down into hollows that with a couple steel cables no drone or helicopter could get into.
I'll show you mountain sides where the right rock being removed could bring the whole thing sliding down. Just like I'm sure you could do at your home for me.
It's the same thing they pulled on us in Vietnam and the Afghanistan people used on the Russians in the 80's using the knowledge of the land to negate superior fire power.
I'll agree with you that the odds of it ever coming to pass are so slim as to be laughable, but we do kind of have a history in this country of civil unrest and to buck authority.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States

 

[BGIF]

Sounds like Canada needs a wall

They are going to make us pay for it.

The Hollywood (the town not the IE guy) Crowd should be willing to pay for it to keep out the Canadians that are getting all the work.

 

[ulukinatme]

This is a joke.

This nation and its liberal beliefs makes a mockery of our 2nd amendment right and sheep argue that because they are sheep, they don't understand why the sheperds and sheep dogs have means to protect...?

Because it's their right to protect their fucking flocks.

Now everyone shut the fuck up and enjoy the rights you are given whether you take advantage of those rights or not.

Because it's your conscience at stake when the wolves growl outside your beloved ones doors and you bring a knife to a gun fight...

And I'll shoot your fucking drone down too.

 

[calvegas04]

This is a joke.

This nation and its liberal beliefs makes a mockery of our 2nd amendment right and sheep argue that because they are sheep, they don't understand why the sheperds and sheep dogs have means to protect...?

Because it's their right to protect their fucking flocks.

Now everyone shut the fuck up and enjoy the rights you are given whether you take advantage of those rights or not.

Because it's your conscience at stake when the wolves growl outside your beloved ones doors and you bring a knife to a gun fight...

And I'll shoot your fucking drone down too.

 

[Graybeard52]

A psychopath or sociopath would know how to get around a psych evaluation so this jerk passing one doesn't surprise me. They might be sick/crazy but that doesn't mean they're stupid and they can actually be quite cunning.

I do get sick of hearing semi-automatic weapons described as "assault weapons" because the definition is fairly broad and most people associate the term with automatic weapons/machine guns. Also, every since Sandy Hook, the media throws out the term AR-15 or AR-15 type of weapon because it was so broadly covered and the public became familiar with the term. I don't own a gun but I know a thing or two about them and even I wasn't familiar with type of rifle until that happened.

It's sort of like after the Indonesian tsunami when every time a major earthquake happens in an ocean somewhere you frequently hear "A tsunami watch has been issued." I knew what one was long before that happened but I hardly ever heard the term on the news before that happened. The thing is, a tsunami forming depends on the type and severity of the quake. Not all types of earthquakes will cause tsunamis no matter how bad they are. Not all oceanic earthquakes will cause a tsunami.

Gun control didn't stop the Paris rape spree or Charlie Hebdo. It didn't prevent parts of Chicago being a dangerous place to live and you rarely hear on the news about all the people that are shot or killed on any given weekend. There have been more people killed there so far this year than in this attack and while it's conjecture, I doubt that most of the perpetrators used "AR-15 type" weapons. The 9/11 attackers used box cutters and planes. Gun control wouldn't have stopped the WTC bombing in the 90's, the attack on the marine barracks in Beirut in the early 80's or the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.

Anyway, banning guns wouldn't change anything because you can't legislate evil out of existence. It's always existed, it always will and the only thing that has changed over the course of human history is the methodology by which evil acts are carried out. You could confiscate every single privately owned weapon in the country but it wouldn't stop things like this from happening. Islamic radicals are completely happy to throw a bomb together and kill people that way and most don't care if they're killed in the process. I highly doubt that most criminals obtain their guns legally and even if they were banned completely, they would still find a way to obtain one. Prohibition didn't work and making some drugs illegal/"The War on Drugs" hasn't worked. If someone wants something bad enough, they will find a way to obtain it, even if they have to go through the black market.

Do most people *need* semi-automatic weapons? Nah. They don't need cars that go from 0-60 in 4 seconds or 60" inch HDTVs either but they're free to purchase one if they have the means.

I said a prayer for the victims, their families and friends. It's really all you can do.

Anyway, JMO. /end rant

 

[Buster Bluth]

Gun control didn't stop the Paris rape spree or Charlie Hebdo. It didn't prevent parts of Chicago being a dangerous place to live and you rarely hear on the news about all the people that are shot or killed on any given weekend. There have been more people killed there so far this year than in this attack and while it's conjecture, I doubt that most of the perpetrators used "AR-15 type" weapons. The 9/11 attackers used box cutters and planes. Gun control wouldn't have stopped the WTC bombing in the 90's, the attack on the marine barracks in Beirut in the early 80's or the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.

...those aren't good reasons for not making mass murder with guns harder to achieve.

Anyway, banning guns wouldn't change anything because you can't legislate evil out of existence. It's always existed, it always will and the only thing that has changed over the course of human history is the methodology by which evil acts are carried out. You could confiscate every single privately owned weapon in the country but it wouldn't stop things like this from happening. Islamic radicals are completely happy to throw a bomb together and kill people that way and most don't care if they're killed in the process. I highly doubt that most criminals obtain their guns legally and even if they were banned completely, they would still find a way to obtain one. Prohibition didn't work and making some drugs illegal/"The War on Drugs" hasn't worked. If someone wants something bad enough, they will find a way to obtain it, even if they have to go through the black market.

Those aren't good reasons for not making mass murder with guns harder to achieve.

Requiring more time, money, and effort to commit mass murder weeds some would be terrorists out. I would think conservatives, familiar with government regulations increasing the barrier of entry into markets, would be familiar with this. People want to increase the effort it takes to have the ability to kill dozens of people.

Do most people *need* semi-automatic weapons? Nah. They don't need cars that go from 0-60 in 4 seconds or 60" inch HDTVs either but they're free to purchase one if they have the means.

Bro what?

I said a prayer for the victims, their families and friends. It's really all you can do.

We can do a lot more than nothing.

 

[Irish#1]

...those aren't good reasons for not making mass murder with guns harder to achieve.



Those aren't good reasons for not making mass murder with guns harder to achieve.

Requiring more time, money, and effort to commit mass murder weeds some would be terrorists out. I would think conservatives, familiar with government regulations increasing the barrier of entry into markets, would be familiar with this. People want to increase the effort it takes to have the ability to kill dozens of people.

Let me preface this by stating that I do not own any guns and don't see a real good reason to own a semi-automatic rifle. Having said that, I don't have a problem with people owning guns and believe everyone has the right to own one if they wish. When the constitution was written, there wasn't a national guard, a true army and not much in the way of police. Everyone pretty much had to look out for themselves, thus the reason the 2nd amendment was written. Times have changed and we have police everywhere to protect us, so there isn't the same need to own guns as there was then.

I don't believe making access to guns more difficult is going to stop or weed out some terrorists. The FBI has found many of these attacks have been in the making for a long time. They have an agenda and will stick to it. If the process to get a gun takes longer, they'll adjust accordingly.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Let me preface this by stating that I do not own any guns and don't see a real good reason to own a semi-automatic rifle. Having said that, I don't have a problem with people owning guns and believe everyone has the right to own one if they wish. When the constitution was written, there wasn't a national guard, a true army and not much in the way of police. Everyone pretty much had to look out for themselves, thus the reason the 2nd amendment was written. Times have changed and we have police everywhere to protect us, so there isn't the same need to own guns as there was then.

I don't believe making access to guns more difficult is going to stop or weed out some terrorists. The FBI has found many of these attacks have been in the making for a long time. They have an agenda and will stick to it. If the process to get a gun takes longer, they'll adjust accordingly.

According to news reports this current psycho called 911 before he attacked to report himself. There was also an off duty officer who exchanged gun fire with him on the scene before he went in. Seconds literally count in that situation not minutes.

I firmly believe in a waiting period I have no issue with that. As our resident canadian stated theres been over 100 mass shootings in the states this year so far.
Going by the FBI'S definition of a mass shooting which means 3 or more people including the shooter.
If we use congress' definition of removing gang activity and an indiscriminate attack just looking for the highest body count then we're at 3. FL MI and PA.

So it seems like a waiting period will stop a lot of the emotional out bursts. Someone catches his wife cheating and shoot them and himself types, but sadly like you stated true evil and true terrorists won't be stopped by this. MA has some of the strictest gun laws in the country so those sick bastards used a bomb.

 

[Irish#1]

According to news reports this current psycho called 911 before he attacked to report himself. There was also an off duty officer who exchanged gun fire with him on the scene before he went in. Seconds literally count in that situation not minutes.

I firmly believe in a waiting period I have no issue with that. As our resident canadian stated theres been over 100 mass shootings in the states this year so far.
Going by the FBI'S definition of a mass shooting which means 3 or more people including the shooter.
If we use congress' definition of removing gang activity and an indiscriminate attack just looking for the highest body count then we're at 3. FL MI and PA.

So it seems like a waiting period will stop a lot of the emotional out bursts. Someone catches his wife cheating and shoot them and himself types, but sadly like you stated true evil and true terrorists won't be stopped by this. MA has some of the strictest gun laws in the country so those sick bastards used a bomb.

I think a longer waiting period would prevent some killings that are emotionally based, but obviously only for those who don't already own a gun. I would imagine that number would be relatively small.

I also understand why the NRA is so against any changes. Once they agree to one change, the flood gates open and it will be easier and easier to pass anti-gun laws.

 

[gkIrish]

Mateen was allegedly a patron of the nightclub and used gay dating apps.

Omar Mateen: Gunman was familiar face at club, performer says - CNN.com

 

[phork]

As was pointed out, the assault-style weapon used - and the weapon of choice for mass murderers - is the Sig Sauer AR 15, which was also used in San Bernadino, Aurora, and Newtown. A Bushmaster was used in Sandy Hook. In seven of the eight mass killings since last July, the AR-15 was used. Armalite, owned by the Strategic Arms Corps, makes these assault weapons, which can be acquired through their website or any of the other of their companies' websites.

U.S. Mass Shootings 1986-2016

I was a bit surprised that minorities are half as likely as whites to possess firearms while being more likely to be victims of gun violence.

The demographics and politics of gun-owning households


If we consider self-defense for gun ownership of the AR-15 for instance, U.S. minorities need to significantly increase their gun ownership.

Legally I think is the focus here, but it never occurred to you that white people are armed to the teeth against African Invaders and Spanish Conquerors?

And if our wonderful neighbors to the north outlawed alcohol today, 50 people wouldn't needlessly lose their lives at the hands of drunk drivers in the next 17 days. Where is the outrage? I'd tell you what to do with that problem but that's YOUR problem. Now run off and fix YOUR problems and be glad the American Wild West mentality survived past the 1800's, otherwise you might be speaking German or Russian right now.

LOL WUT

Okay so say we outlaw guns and somehow snap our fingers and make the millions and millions of guns already in circulation disappear. What's your plan when these attacks still don't stop? What do we do when these terrorists switch to knifes like the most recent attack from just a few hours ago? How about bombs like in Boston? Do we ban pressure cookers? Should you need a permit to buy nails at a hardware store? How about box cutters and utility knifes that lead to 9/11? How many things do we need to outlaw and ban before we address the root of the problem.

Even in a fantasy world where gun laws stop criminals from acquiring arms, people intent on causing harm will find a way to terrorize. Idk what the solution to the problem is, but it sure as hell isn't to ignore the perpetrators and blame their weapons of choice.

As Buster has pointed out a few times. Make it hard as hell to have access to them. We all agree you probably aren't going to stop it. But why let a guy like this walk off the street get legal guns and a week later mow down 50 people?

A psychopath or sociopath would know how to get around a psych evaluation so this jerk passing one doesn't surprise me. They might be sick/crazy but that doesn't mean they're stupid and they can actually be quite cunning.

I do get sick of hearing semi-automatic weapons described as "assault weapons" because the definition is fairly broad and most people associate the term with automatic weapons/machine guns. Also, every since Sandy Hook, the media throws out the term AR-15 or AR-15 type of weapon because it was so broadly covered and the public became familiar with the term. I don't own a gun but I know a thing or two about them and even I wasn't familiar with type of rifle until that happened.

It's sort of like after the Indonesian tsunami when every time a major earthquake happens in an ocean somewhere you frequently hear "A tsunami watch has been issued." I knew what one was long before that happened but I hardly ever heard the term on the news before that happened. The thing is, a tsunami forming depends on the type and severity of the quake. Not all types of earthquakes will cause tsunamis no matter how bad they are. Not all oceanic earthquakes will cause a tsunami.

Gun control didn't stop the Paris rape spree or Charlie Hebdo. It didn't prevent parts of Chicago being a dangerous place to live and you rarely hear on the news about all the people that are shot or killed on any given weekend. There have been more people killed there so far this year than in this attack and while it's conjecture, I doubt that most of the perpetrators used "AR-15 type" weapons. The 9/11 attackers used box cutters and planes. Gun control wouldn't have stopped the WTC bombing in the 90's, the attack on the marine barracks in Beirut in the early 80's or the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.

Anyway, banning guns wouldn't change anything because you can't legislate evil out of existence. It's always existed, it always will and the only thing that has changed over the course of human history is the methodology by which evil acts are carried out. You could confiscate every single privately owned weapon in the country but it wouldn't stop things like this from happening. Islamic radicals are completely happy to throw a bomb together and kill people that way and most don't care if they're killed in the process. I highly doubt that most criminals obtain their guns legally and even if they were banned completely, they would still find a way to obtain one. Prohibition didn't work and making some drugs illegal/"The War on Drugs" hasn't worked. If someone wants something bad enough, they will find a way to obtain it, even if they have to go through the black market.

Do most people *need* semi-automatic weapons? Nah. They don't need cars that go from 0-60 in 4 seconds or 60" inch HDTVs either but they're free to purchase one if they have the means.

I said a prayer for the victims, their families and friends. It's really all you can do.

Anyway, JMO. /end rant

Hitting the bolded parts from top to bottom.

No gun control didn't stop the Paris attacks. But what you aren't looking at is the frequency of mass shootings compared to the US vs other comparable nations.

Chicago is a tire fire right now and isn't included in this argument, but I would say the availability of easy access to weapons is a leading cause for concern.

As for getting what people want on the black market, absolutely. But that is a lot tougher than walking off the street. Purchasing a gun like this and within a week wiping out 50 people. Make it harder for people to get this kind of weapon and perhaps he makes a mistake or whatever, but those 50 people would still be alive. As for the knives and box cutter argument, I'd rather you try a mass attack with a knife than a semiauto rifle.

Do most people need semiauto weapons and by extension fast cars and large TVs? I can't even try to start to dignify this with a response.

So all you can do, almost every day, is say a prayer for the victims. Thats all you can do? Your prayers are worthless. They might mean something if there was action being taken. If measures were being put in place to help the cause. "Oh well another shooting, #prayers!" doesn't solve anything.

 

[wizards8507]

Milo Yiannopoulos: Muslim Culture Is Violent « CBS Philly

There are eleven Muslim countries in which I could be killed for being a homosexual. The state penalty is death. One hundred million people live in country where the penalty for homosexuality is death. This is not radical Islam. This is mainstream Muslim society. Look what’s happening in Sweden. Look what’s happening anywhere in Germany, anywhere there are large influxes of a Muslim population. Things don’t end well for women and gays. The left has got to make a decision. Either they want female emancipation and it wants gay rights or it wants Islam. It’s got to pick.

 

[GoIrish41]

Since many are talking about what won't help curb gun violence, let me add that doing nothing will not help. We've done nothing after San Bernadino, Umpqua Community College, Chattanooga, Sandy Hook, Charleston, and all of the other mass shootings that have happened in this country in the past few years ... maybe doing something is better than doing nothing. We've tried nothing and we just keep getting more of the same. The same tired, defeatest arguments keep being made ... the same 2nd Amendment BS ... the same "guns don't kill people, people kill people" nonsense ... as bodies continue to pile up. Hopefully, Orlando will compel us to finally come to our senses and do something for once ... at least try to get our arms around this problem that is leaving a lot of people dead. I worry every time my kids leave the house that they might not come home because some nutjob with access to a AR-15 has had a bad day.

 

[irishnd31]

Lastly I truly do love you all.

You fight for me I kill for you.

Do not lose sight of the actual root cause people.

If you really think, that guns aren't a force to be reckoned with, then find out how many targets by statistic are neutralized in a war front once mobilization and recon take place via firearm.

That is why, even a .22, is lethal and why we need arms to protect us.

If we lost tanks, aircraft, submarines, or all forms of communication: we could still offer resistance and thwart a ground assualt with a well formulated and communicated mass of just deer rifles and yes, we would need AR semi autos.

Would we prevent a takeover!?

Nope maybe not.

But what would Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, etc do? Argue about guns or be ready to answer the ultimate call and pay the ultimate price if needed.

Never give up the right to save this nation. And never give up the right to give all if needed.

That's what we lack.

Lastly God bless the poor souls of the people taken from us. It was terror. And if it wasn't a gun, it would have been a pressure cooker bomb, or a steel ball bearing who knows what.

The gun was certainly an evil mechanism in this case. But how was he neutralized? Via gun. From a cop. Flesh and blood just like you and me. Imperfect. Liable.

Yet we harness nuclear bombs. One big transgression and 1/3 of the earth can be burned.

I use my guns many times per year for heritage and game. I fill the freezers in a successful year with a bounty of the lords blessings to our family and I pay and donate money to preserve our game and natural resources for my young daughters to enjoy.

A portion of each one of my daughters make up comes from consuming the meat from elk, deer, turkey, dove, and quail.

Please understand our heritage and sport as well as our instruments of protection, not destruction, that the right grants us.

I think my shorts just got tighter.

 

[Wild Bill]

Legally I think is the focus here, but it never occurred to you that white people are armed to the teeth against African Invaders and Spanish Conquerors?




LOL WUT



As Buster has pointed out a few times. Make it hard as hell to have access to them. We all agree you probably aren't going to stop it. But why let a guy like this walk off the street get legal guns and a week later mow down 50 people?



Hitting the bolded parts from top to bottom.

No gun control didn't stop the Paris attacks. But what you aren't looking at is the frequency of mass shootings compared to the US vs other comparable nations.

Chicago is a tire fire right now and isn't included in this argument, but I would say the availability of easy access to weapons is a leading cause for concern.

As for getting what people want on the black market, absolutely. But that is a lot tougher than walking off the street. Purchasing a gun like this and within a week wiping out 50 people. Make it harder for people to get this kind of weapon and perhaps he makes a mistake or whatever, but those 50 people would still be alive. As for the knives and box cutter argument, I'd rather you try a mass attack with a knife than a semiauto rifle.

Do most people need semiauto weapons and by extension fast cars and large TVs? I can't even try to start to dignify this with a response.

So all you can do, almost every day, is say a prayer for the victims. Thats all you can do? Your prayers are worthless. They might mean something if there was action being taken. If measures were being put in place to help the cause. "Oh well another shooting, #prayers!" doesn't solve anything.

Chicago doesn't fit the narrative so we should just ignore, huh?

 

[gkIrish]

Milo Yiannopoulos: Muslim Culture Is Violent « CBS Philly

You literally have articles being written about how Christianity is to blame for this by creating a homophobic environment. Then you have articles about how we should not blame Islam for this at all.

I mean, what?

I made this point in another thread: if it's the opposite of white, straight, male, and/or Christian, there are people in this world that are going to defend it.

Islam and Homosexuality are incompatible.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

Since many are talking about what won't help curb gun violence, let me add that doing nothing will not help. We've done nothing after San Bernadino, Umpqua Community College, Chattanooga, Sandy Hook, Charleston, and all of the other mass shootings that have happened in this country in the past few years ... maybe doing something is better than doing nothing. We've tried nothing and we just keep getting more of the same. The same tired, defeatest arguments keep being made ... the same 2nd Amendment BS ... the same "guns don't kill people, people kill people" nonsense ... as bodies continue to pile up. Hopefully, Orlando will compel us to finally come to our senses and do something for once ... at least try to get our arms around this problem that is leaving a lot of people dead. I worry every time my kids leave the house that they might not come home because some nutjob with access to a AR-15 has had a bad day.

You mean like the same old the founding fathers couldn't imagine the guns we have now argument?
Sure I'll concede that the founding fathers didn't imagine a semi auto rifle.
Are you willing to concede that they couldn't imagine the internet, tv, or radio?
So should we start to curb someones freedom of speech cause loser, loners are self radicalizing using those mediums?
There is a happy medium, but the happy medium will never be reached when the first response is always ban all guns.

 

[woolybug25]

I don't get why reasonable people can't agree that we should probably make people currently being watched by the FBI, with mental instability, wait at least a day for an AR-15. You know, maybe run a background check or something?

 

[wizards8507]

You literally have articles being written about how Christianity is to blame for this by creating a homophobic environment. Then you have articles about how we should not blame Islam for this at all.

I mean, what?

I made this point in another thread: if it's the opposite of white, straight, male, and/or Christian, there are people in this world that are going to defend it.

Islam and Homosexuality are incompatible.

And it's not a hard though experiment because we have actual countries where there's no separation of church and state and Islam is the law. Those are the countries where gay people are thrown off of rooftops.

I don't get why reasonable people can't agree that we should probably make people currently being watched by the FBI, with mental instability, wait at least a day for an AR-15. You know, maybe run a background check or something?

This guy would have passed said background check and he bought a handgun with a three day waiting period. He was no longer being watched by the FBI. The problem isn't the system in place, it's that the people running the system (the FBI in this case) are doing a shitty job.

 

[gkIrish]

I don't get why reasonable people can't agree that we should probably make people currently being watched by the FBI, with mental instability, wait at least a day for an AR-15. You know, maybe run a background check or something?

I think most people would agree to that.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Tragedy doesn't have a single moral. It can be about many things. This is also true — and if it leads to a bit of mutual respect by the competing sides in the war to own the narrative that emerges from a tragedy like the one in Orlando, Florida, then it's also a good thing. Maybe we'll get more sensible gun laws and more resources for mental illness and a better system for monitoring jihadi groups.

But would any of those actions, even if worthy, have prevented this particular massacre? An explanation isn't the same as a diagnosis. And even a diagnosis doesn't imply a cure.

Omar Mateen was a Muslim, and he was clearly inspired by Islamic State propaganda. But he wasn't especially devout, and when the FBI looked into his activities in the past, they found no real ties to any radical organization. Was there any legitimate reason for the state to have taken action against him on the basis of his political views? If so, what was it? Meanwhile, we're already fighting the Islamic State on the battlefield — with how much success being a subject of headed debate. But Islamism isn't an organization, much less a state; it's an idea (and not a particularly coherent one). How do ideas "cause" actions? How do you know when they will do so and when they won't? And if an idea is your enemy, how do you "defeat" it? And even if our goal is merely to cordon off our homeland from abhorrent ideas, short of a home-grown equivalent of the Great Firewall of China, how is that to be done?

Much the same holds for hatred of gays as an explanation. The Orlando massacre certainly looks like — among other things — a massive hate crime against gay people. Mateen was disgusted and enraged by open displays of same-sex affection, and seems to have targeted the club for that reason. But this — hatred or fear of varieties of sexuality — is a feeling. How do you know when it will lead to action? And even so, what are you to do? Feelings can be repressed, by an individual — and their expression can be suppressed, by the state. But can they be "defeated?" Even in Mateen's own case, it looks like his murderous antipathy was of relatively recent vintage. If a man can go from being friends with a drag queen to murdering dozens for their sexual orientation, what hope is there to "end hate?"

Guns, at least, are physical things. They can be controlled — to some degree. But to what degree? Mateen had no criminal record. He passed a federal background check. He had been employed in private security — so even if you passed laws requiring more stringent training before one could acquire firearms, he would likely have passed it. The particular guns that he used could be banned, and it's surely worth looking at ways to reduce the lethality of mass shootings by limiting magazine size and the like. But that's likely the limit of what could be achieved short of a revolutionary change in our national relationship with firearms.

People are also physical things. Goldberg doesn't mention immigration as one of the narrative threads in play, but of course a certain presidential candidate showed no such hesitancy. And, indeed, in a world where America accepted no refugee immigrants, Mateen's father would not have come to America, and so Mateen would not have been born an American citizen, and been in a position to perpetrate his crime. But of course, he came decades ago, back when the Soviets were fighting in Afghanistan. At that time, the Afghans were our allies. With his delusions of being a candidate for the Afghan presidency, Mateen's father sounds like a Central Asian Rupert Pupkin, but that doesn't change the objective fact that his country was invaded and brutally occupied by America's chief adversary, nor the fact that we were actively arming his countrymen to aid them in their fight. Keeping Afghan refugees out would have made as much moral sense as closing the door on our Hmong allies (who, incidentally, proved their successful assimilation to American culture by producing their own mass-shooter).

And then there's mental illness. One is tempted to say that anybody who could commit such an atrocity must have been insane. And yet, that's an after-the-fact diagnosis. What indications of insanity predated the massacre? A former co-worker said he made frequent racist and homophobic comments, was "unhinged and unstable," and stalked him via text. Should the police have taken precautionary action? Well — ask any female journalist about the difficulty getting any kind of protection from cyber-stalkers. Is there any reason to believe that Mateen would have sought help for his (possibly steroid-induced) psychological problems? And in the absence of his own initiative, how would he have gotten help?

I am not trying to be fatalistic. There may well be patterns to the kinds of mass shootings that America is plagued with, or to the identities of the people who move from sympathy with jihadi aims to lone-wolf violence, or to any of the other factors that this tragedy was "about." If we find those patterns, they may be the basis for policy changes that could prevent future such tragedies. But a pattern emerges from data, not from a narrative.

We make sense of the world by telling stories; our brains are hard-wired for narrative. That's why politics takes the shape it does — because we need to tell stories to engage emotionally. But policies should be driven by data, not anecdote. Plenty of perfectly sensible policy reforms that would do real good would not have prevented this tragedy, and plenty of policies that may seem justified as the only way to have prevented it are actually wild overreactions. Let's use our hearts to heal the wounds. Let's use our heads when it comes to crafting the response.

Could anything have prevented the Orlando massacre?

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

I don't get why reasonable people can't agree that we should probably make people currently being watched by the FBI, with mental instability, wait at least a day for an AR-15. You know, maybe run a background check or something?

Mentally unstable people are already prohibited from owning a fire arm.
But unless they were committed by a court it will never show up on a background check.
As far as the FBI watch list since they run NICS I always assumed that if someone was trying to buy one who was on their list they'd just return a more information needed and delay the purchase.

 

[woolybug25]

And it's not a hard though experiment because we have actual countries where there's no separation of church and state and Islam is the law. Those are the countries where gay people are thrown off of rooftops.


This guy would have passed said background check and he bought a handgun with a three day waiting period. He was no longer being watched by the FBI. The problem isn't the system in place, it's that the people running the system (the FBI in this case) are doing a shitty job.

Do you think he would have passed a standard mental health evaluation?

 

[wizards8507]

Wooly, to answer your question more directly, I'd be fine with that as long as there was no cost to the purchaser. For example, for a pistol permit in Connecticut:

$70 local authority fee
$17 federal fingerprint / background fee
$50 state fingerprint / background fee
$70 state pistol permit fee
$60 Phase I pistol safety course
$120 Phase II pistol safety course

That's ~$400 in order to practice my constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms before I even think about actually purchasing a gun. People want to talk about corruption at the NRA, guess who's the exclusive provider of the pistol safety courses? Sure, I can afford this, but I shouldn't have to. The Left likes to suggest that requiring folks to spend an hour at the DMV to get a free photo ID is overly burdensome and keeps the poor from voting. What about the burden on the poor if they want to carry a firearm?

 

[wizards8507]

This is a journalist at Politico.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If Mateen was closeted because of his father's strict religiosity, that would make him a lot like someone on the religious right.</p>— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) <a href="https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/742710520374022144">June 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[woolybug25]

Wooly, to answer your question more directly, I'd be fine with that as long as there was no cost to the purchaser. For example, for a pistol permit in Connecticut:

$70 local authority fee
$17 federal fingerprint / background fee
$50 state fingerprint / background fee
$70 state pistol permit fee
$60 Phase I pistol safety course
$120 Phase II pistol safety course

That's ~$400 in order to practice my constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms before I even think about actually purchasing a gun. People want to talk about corruption at the NRA, guess who's the exclusive provider of the pistol safety courses? Sure, I can afford this, but I shouldn't have to. The Left likes to suggest that requiring folks to spend an hour at the DMV to get a free photo ID is overly burdensome and keeps the poor from voting. What about the burden on the poor if they want to carry a firearm?

I agree with that. Not only for your reason, but I'm a firm believer that mental health evaluations should be covered by all insurance and part of everyone's overall health plan. Mental health issues are sadly ignored in our country and the root cause to many of our societal issues.

I think it would be pretty easy for the government to work with our nations top mental health evaluators to come up with standard written tests that could be given as part of the background check. Giving people a free option for mental health evaluations. If someone cannot pass the written tests, then they would have to get approval from a mental health advocate (now at their cost) before applying again.

I'm not sure why this is something that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Wild Bill]

I agree with that. Not only for your reason, but I'm a firm believer that mental health evaluations should be covered by all insurance and part of everyone's overall health plan. Mental health issues are sadly ignored in our country and the root cause to many of our societal issues.

I think it would be pretty easy for the government to work with our nations top mental health evaluators to come up with standard written tests that could be given as part of the background check. Giving people a free option for mental health evaluations. If someone cannot pass the written tests, then they would have to get approval from a mental health advocate (now at their cost) before applying again.

I'm not sure why this is something that hasn't happened yet.

I would not oppose a mental health evaluation. My only question is how do we handle those who properly treat their mental health deficiency? Do we assume the treatment will continue and give them a pass or are they immediately excluded once diagnosed.