• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

terrorist attack in Orlando gay club - 50 dead, another 53 wounded

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mxnerd said:
Being banned from purchasing firearms is not punishment. Letting innocent people killed by firearms for no reason / any reason is punishment for them.
Click to expand...

You need a reason to be banned from constitutional rights. I am not a fan of doing it without a serious reason.
 
mxnerd said:
So the gun control system requires buyer to commit crimes to be effective, then why on earth to have it at all?

The system is really a joke any way you sliced it.
Click to expand...

Because firearm ownership is a constitutional right.

And if you start controlling people based on what you THINK they might do then you will have fulfilled George Orwells dream.
 
Venix said:
My point is that he could have done the same even if "assault weapons" were unavailable. He would have simply used a legal post-ban AR-15 variant, or a Mini-14 ranch rifle, or a BAR, or a handgun. As I noted earlier, 6 of the 10 deadliest US mass shootings were committed with handguns.

Practically all modern firearms are effective at killing. Proposing that one specific class--or worse, a made-up class like assault weapons--be banned is a waste of time and effort given that thousands of other equally effective options exist. It distracts from discussing real solutions or mitigations to the mass murder issue, if any actually exist.

I'm really not even trying to make a pro-gun point here. I'm just saying that current anti-gun proposals are myopic, guaranteed to fail, and not worth discussing. A position like "ban and confiscate all semi-automatic firearms" is not something I personally agree with, but it at least has a logical basis and could be debated on its merits.
Click to expand...

A pressure cooker bomb in a small area packed with 300 people might have been worse.
 
fuzzybabybunny said:
You really can't think of any other things that we can do, things that other more evolved countries have already done, that have resulted in the near-extinction of this kind of stuff in those countries?
Click to expand...
Why don't you tell us about these more evolved countries and the steps they have taken?

You want to take the easy path. The path that requires no real thought and does not address the root of the problem. Deal with the scary guns and "something" will have been done. When that something doesn't work, then something else will need to happen.

What we are facing is a global threat that wishes to see our nation and its westernized allies destroyed. The actions in Orlando are part of that. Radical Islam, the kind that throws gays off rooftops, that drowns people in cages, that burns people alive, that gouges out eyeballs and skins people alive, that commits countless other atrocities does not care whether you are successful in curbing the sales or use of scary black guns. They just want you dead.

Getting rid of guns will not change the fact that they want you dead. Their God dictates that you be conquered and that if you will not submit that you are killed.
 
mxnerd said:
So the gun control system requires buyer to commit crimes to be effective, then why on earth to have it at all?

The system is really a joke any way you sliced it.
Click to expand...

Policing have long been based on reaction instead of proaction. A crime must be committed before any rights are stripped. Probable crime or thought crime is a very dangerous area to advocate for.
 
bshole said:
Dude, I support banning guns completely. WTF are you babbling about?
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, you own a gun(s). Have you relinquished your weapon(s) yet?

Idiots advocating for banning guns or further gun control just don't get it. This guy could have just strapped a bomb vest on or driven a car through and mowed down a crowd. You liberals are a riot! An evil person will accomplish their mission, guns or no guns. Get that through your thick skull. Anyone who advocates removal of, or threatens my 2nd amendment rights is my enemy and a threat to my personal freedom.
 
mxnerd said:
So the gun control system requires buyer to commit crimes to be effective, then why on earth to have it at all?

The system is really a joke any way you sliced it.
Click to expand...

...

Remember, in America you are innocent until proven guilty. So yes, that's how it works.

I do agree that this guy should have never been allowed to buy guns being on the terrorist watch list though. It doesn't matter if he hadn't committed any "crimes", I assume it takes someone special to get on the list. At the very least, it should have been investigated more thoroughly. That's why these "lists" exist, to raise red flags.

Having these two databases talk to each other would do nothing to take guns away from any semblance of a law abiding citizen.

He would have to work to get his name removed from the terror suspect list if he wanted to legally buy guns.

The fact that he legally bought the guns probably means little... he likely would have been able to obtain them either way. But still, this is a hole that can be easily closed. There's no reason for us to give guns to suspected terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Subyman said:
Policing have long been based on reaction instead of proaction. A crime must be committed before any rights are stripped. Probable crime or thought crime is a very dangerous area to advocate for.
Click to expand...

Taking access to weapons away during the course of an investigation is an entirely prudent and responsible action to take. Don't they do this in... militias?
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
Taking weapons away during the course of an investigation is an entirely prudent and responsible action to take. Don't they do this in... militias?
Click to expand...

their investigation was in the background. they didnt do anything formal because if he were dangerous, they would have tipped him off.
And you cant do anything official without lawyers and lots of paperwork.
 
MongGrel said:
Like I've said before, you aren't telling me anything new.

I seriously doubt one guy with a revolver and speed loaders could have done that kind of damage.

Even a couple Glocks with extended mags.
Click to expand...

umm, the virginia tech shooter had two guns with normal sized magazines. he did loads of damage.
And all of the deaths were from .22's. The wounds were all from 9mm. Think about that for a minute.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
Taking access to weapons away during the course of an investigation is an entirely prudent and responsible action to take. Don't they do this in... militias?
Click to expand...

Let's not be delusional. He'd have gotten a gun some way, if that was his true desire. The other criminals on the street aren't going to go check and see if he's on a terrorist watch list before selling him a weapon. No laws in the world are going to stop these kinds of people.
 
Eli said:
...

Remember, in America you are innocent until proven guilty. So yes, that's how it works.

I do agree that this guy should have never been allowed to buy guns being on the terrorist watch list though. It doesn't matter if he hadn't committed any "crimes", I assume it takes someone special to get on the list. At the very least, it should have been investigated more thoroughly. That's why these "lists" exist, to raise red flags.

Having these two databases talk to each other would do nothing to take guns away from any semblance of a law abiding citizen.

He would have to work to get his name removed from the terror suspect list if he wanted to legally buy guns.

The fact that he legally bought the guns probably means little... he likely would have been able to obtain them either way. But still, this is a hole that can be easily closed. There's no reason for us to give guns to suspected terrorists.
Click to expand...

This, assuming he is on the watch list. Keep in mind he's not allowed on a plane but he is only limited by money what guns, how many guns and what amount of ammo.
 
compuwiz1 said:
Let's not be delusional. He'd have gotten a gun some way, if that was his true desire. The other criminals on the street aren't going to go check and see if he's on a terrorist watch list before selling him a weapon. No laws in the world are going to stop these kinds of people.
Click to expand...

Correct but he could get arrested for a failed transaction or more likely robbed by the criminal. This does make it a bit tougher.
 
Eli said:
...


The fact that he legally bought the guns probably means little... he likely would have been able to obtain them either way. But still, this is a hole that can be easily closed. There's no reason for us to give guns to suspected terrorists.
Click to expand...


Unless you're Reagan or Bush or Clinton or Bush jr.


Also, all the government has to do is put anyone they dont like on the Terror Watch List and then no one can buy guns.
Not a good system.
 
Eli said:
...

Remember, in America you are innocent until proven guilty. So yes, that's how it works.

I do agree that this guy should have never been allowed to buy guns being on the terrorist watch list though. It doesn't matter if he hadn't committed any "crimes", I assume it takes someone special to get on the list. At the very least, it should have been investigated more thoroughly. That's why these "lists" exist, to raise red flags.

Having these two databases talk to each other would do nothing to take guns away from any semblance of a law abiding citizen.

He would have to work to get his name removed from the terror suspect list if he wanted to legally buy guns.

The fact that he legally bought the guns probably means little... he likely would have been able to obtain them either way. But still, this is a hole that can be easily closed. There's no reason for us to give guns to suspected terrorists.
Click to expand...

Well there's apparently some reason.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-blocks-bill-stop-terrorists-buying-guns
 
compuwiz1 said:
Let's not be delusional. He'd have gotten a gun some way, if that was his true desire. The other criminals on the street aren't going to go check and see if he's on a terrorist watch list before selling him a weapon. No laws in the world are going to stop these kinds of people.
Click to expand...

This is true, but I do think we can thwart them. I'm sure we can all agree that we shouldn't just hand them out like candy, especially if you're on any kind of lists. That made it super easy for him, and that's unacceptable.

If he would have been forced to the black market for his guns, there's all the more chance he would have screwed up and been found out. It won't prevent all cases, but it should help, and it won't prevent law abiding citizens from getting guns at all.
 
shortylickens said:
Unless you're Reagan or Bush or Clinton or Bush jr.


Also, all the government has to do is put anyone they dont like on the Terror Watch List and then no one can buy guns.
Not a good system.
Click to expand...
When you grant the government power over people you don't like they can just as easily use that power against you.
 
Yeah, apparently the guy manned the front security desk at the court house or something?

Seems to be lots of fail with this one, but I admit it's problematic that he had committed no crimes. I'd like to know more about why he was on "the list".
 
Eli said:
Yeah, apparently the guy manned the front security desk at the court house or something?

Seems to be lots of fail with this one, but I admit it's problematic that he had committed no crimes. I'd like to know more about why he was on "the list".
Click to expand...

I think they need to clean up the "list" and cross it with buying and owning weapons.
 
***MUSLIM MASSACRES AMERICANS***...yet again.

Orlando Shooting Suspect Identified As Omar Mateen, Registered Democrat Of Afghan Descent; Pledged Allegiance To ISIS

The Federal Bureau of Investigation three times interviewed Mateen for having alleged terrorist ties. The FBI learned of Mateen in 2013 after he made inflammatory remarks to coworkers and alleged terrorist ties, said FBI Special Agent In Charge Ron Hopper.

The FBI investigated and interviewed witnesses and Mateen, but closed the investigation. He came to the FBI's attention again in 2014 for making contact with a suicide bomber. Their connection was considered minimal by the FBI, and closed the investigation.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/isis-announced-florida-attack-three-days-ago/
 
IGBT said:
***MUSLIM MASSACRES AMERICANS***...yet again.

Orlando Shooting Suspect Identified As Omar Mateen, Registered Democrat Of Afghan Descent; Pledged Allegiance To ISIS

The Federal Bureau of Investigation three times interviewed Mateen for having alleged terrorist ties. The FBI learned of Mateen in 2013 after he made inflammatory remarks to coworkers and alleged terrorist ties, said FBI Special Agent In Charge Ron Hopper.

The FBI investigated and interviewed witnesses and Mateen, but closed the investigation. He came to the FBI's attention again in 2014 for making contact with a suicide bomber. Their connection was considered minimal by the FBI, and closed the investigation.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/isis-announced-florida-attack-three-days-ago/
Click to expand...

Hi, welcome to page 20.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top