Even though the system, as currently configured, worked in the case of the Orlando Terrorist, if one of the more popular gun regulations had not been stopped by the NRA & friends, how many people, now dead, would have been alive? One of the more sensible and less intrusive regulations sought by those concerned with making the streets safer from guns is a ban on High Capacity Magazines?
One will never know how many people could have escaped during the few seconds it takes to insert a new magazine? No one will ever know if someone might have been able to tackle the shooter while he as reloading. But one thing is certain, the chance would have been there.
This is also another reason why mass-killing weapons like the AR-15 (the semi-automatic version of the Army's M-16) should be more highly regulated. I am not sure I can go with an outright ban, but there clearly needs to be more control given this is the weapon of choice for mass killers.
You ask an interesting question with many possible answers. The killer was a trained shooter and could probably complete a magazine change in seconds. It probably would not have made much difference in this case.
It would however make a difference if the shooter had no training and the people in the room were able and willing to rush him. However the panic in this room may not have allowed that to happen.
Bottom line is I guess we will never really know if banning high capacity magazines would have made any difference at all. With the recent information coming out on the news it would appear there were several occasions where this nut case could have been taken off the streets including his employer.
I just can't blame the gun or the high capacity magazine for this tragedy. I blame the shooter, his ISIS loyalty, his homophobic tendencies, his employer, and even his father. America just has to wake up and speak up when they see or hear suspicious activity like this shooter had demonstrated for years.
So, OP where do we draw the line between unpopular and troubling speech and that with actions that support the intervention of law enforcement?
Credence2- And there my friend comes the slippery slope. It would be nearly impossible to draw a clear line regarding this issue. Carried to far and we would be nothing but a police state with everyone subject to search, seizure, and arrest for a comment we made. Too far the other way and we fail to take real threats off the streets.
I guess there really is no right or wrong answer is there?
I can't figure how one man can kill 50 people and injure 50 more before having been subdued in some way by somebody with so many people in the tavern?
Panic plus rapid firing plus lax gun laws.
If he didn't have an assault rifle, far fewer people would have died and the odds of subduing him would have gone way up, like the brother of the murdered singer who tackled the shooter a week ago.
promisem - I think like many you are slightly confused about so called assault rifles. They are not full automatic and I have hunting rifles that would be just as deadly and shoot just as fast.
No matter what the gun didn't decide to kill all those innocent people, the shooter did.
I didn't know this until today; the Army has mostly replaced the fully automatic M-16 for the M-4, which has two modes, semi-automatic and 3-round burst; they dropped the fully automatic. Bottom line, the AR-15 is an assault weapon designed to kill lots of people quickly.
Old Poolman, I'm aware that legal assault rifles are not fully automatic, but there are ways of making them automatic.
May I ask why do most recent massacres involve an assault rifles and not hunting rifles?
Old Poolman, does your hunting rifle have a 30-round capacity? I had the impression that many states limit hunting capacity to five or 10 rounds.
Credence2 - From what I understand it was a fairly small room but several of the exit doors were locked. I'm sure the panic was terrible. In reality, had the entire crowd rushed him it might possibly cost a few lives but also save a few lives. I'm not at all sure how I would react in a similar situation though.
It won't happen. The NRA will destroy any politican who tries to regulate assault rifles.
That's what the NRA did the last time Congress passed a ban on them.
I'm sorry, but anyone who's an experienced shooter knows that changing out a magazine takes but a split second. The magazine size doesn't matter.
An experienced, well-trained shooter may take only a couple of seconds to 1) eject the old magazine, grab a new magazine from somewhere on their body, 3) insert the new magazine, and 4) aim and fire with some minimal degree of accuracy.
The experienced, well-trained shooter is NOT your common mass-shooter and it appears Mateen was no experienced, well-trained shooter; he was a gate guard. So, the size of the magazine definitely MIGHT make a difference.
The time it takes to replace a magazine is more than enough time for someone to tackle the shooter.
A shooter who is limited to 10 rounds has to stop shooting twice to replace the magazine versus someone with 30 rounds.
The idea that magazine size makes no difference is ridiculous.
If he didn't have weapons, he would have made pressure cooker bombs, or something worse. The Boston Marathon bombers, 9/11, they accomplish their terror just fine without rifles.
As far was where to put the blame, if you want to assign blame, lets start with who chose to allow him to pursue his course of actions.
There was more than one FBI investigation into Omar Mateen, the investigations were shut down under pressure from the State Dept. and DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office because essentially during Obama's Administration Muslims have been given a wide range of protection.
According to recently retired DHS agent Philip Haney: “The FBI had opened cases twice on him, and yet they found no[thing that qualified as strong enough] evidence to charge him; it means they didn’t go through the same basic, analytical process that I went through over a three or four hour period in which I was able to link the mosque to my previous cases,” he told WND on Sunday.
In other words, the FBI couldn't stop Mateen because it was ordered to back off its investigation into his mosque, and him.
Both Clinton as Secretary of State and the Obama administration have a history of enabling Islamic terrorism.
Which reminds me, does anyone still believe that Benghazi and the riots across the Middle East at that time were caused by a YouTube video?
Clinton and Obama are enabling terrorists? That is just more Right wing propaganda. You know that Ken...
WND, as a news source, is rubblish, we know that, too.
How many more massacres with assault rifles are necessary before right wingers acknowledge a problem?
The NRA's mindless opposition to background checks and assault rifle bans get the majority of the blame for these murders.
And for the record, I can't recall this many people being killed by "pressure cooker bombs".
I have no problem with making Semi-Auto Rifles illegal to own for private citizens, I really don't. Between other rifle types, shotguns, and hand guns, you can protect yourself, and your family, and go hunting just fine.
But lets be clear about this, he could have killed even more people with multiple sets of bombs remotely detonated if he was driven to do so.
The Boston Marathon Bombers had planted more than one bomb, at least one of which failed to go off (if I remember correctly) and Timothy McVeigh killed 170 and wounded 660 (if I remember correctly) with his homemade truck bomb.
So yes, we don't need Assault Rifles to be so easily accessible.
BUT yes, he could have killed just as many, if not more, if he were determined and capable of using other means.
The Problem IMO is not the guns, it is that he was suspected of having deep rooted beliefs that made him sympathetic to Terrorists and they allowed him to be able to purchase those weapons anyway... that is a flaw in how the Obama administration has made it so that any Muslim is to be handled with special consideration, even when there is reason to suspect they may harbor deadly intent for Americans and Western civilization.
While the root of the problem is not the guns, our culture has made it easy to obtain rapid fire killing machines. They are already assembled and don't require much knowledge to use. A bomb requires extensive knowledge and effort. It must be built, then stealthily placed with a plan that must be undetected and flawlessly executed. We need to make it harder to carry out mass killings with guns.
Complicated alright , you mean like a can of gasoline and a match ?...........Duh!
I concur, I said that they do not need to be purchasable by private citizens. I think that when someone is considered noteworthy enough that the FBI has investigated them TWO or more times, then when that individual does go and purchase a weapon, it should have raised flags with the FBI, NRA, ATF, etc.
That is KEY, the purpose of those organizations IS to stop these threats before they occur, that they have had their hands tied behind their backs by this Administration is tantamount to the Obama Administration giving Mateen and those like them the green light to pursue their violence unmolested by the authorities meant to stop them.
Omar Mateen worked for G4S, formerly known as Wackenhut which is links to the CIA, it is the largest security firm in the world.
* http://www.infowars.com/omar-mateen-wac … d-the-cia/
He wasn't a lone wolf.
"While the root of the problem is not the guns"
Full stop. Now talk about the root problem.
"We need to make it harder to carry out mass killings with guns."
Reminder that he passed a comprehensive background check and was a security professional. Unless you are suggesting that security professionals should not be allowed to have guns, the point is moot.
He bought an assault rifle. That's the central issue - over and over again.
The ability to purchase guns was not an issue in France or Belgium, yet they suffered similar attacks. What do you suppose the central issue was there?
That's a great question. I'm not familiar with the laws about background checks and the ability to buy assault rifles in those countries, so I can't form an opinion.
But your question led me to look for an explanation. A BBC article I found says that Belgium has had liberal gun laws and a strong black market in the trading of guns.
Interesting information. The black market explains where they are getting their guns from, but it doesn't explain their motivations.
The people committing these atrocities, yes.
Those people are dedicated, trained terrorist intent on defeating the West. (I'm not talking about Orlando.)
It's obvious that they're intent on defeating the West. My question is why? What are their motivations for defeating the West?
I listen to a fifteen year special forces, anti-terrorists intelligence, (etc.) Tim Kenney. He was in Kuwait about two weeks ago and in talking casually to government representatives, Tim was wondering why there are more of these types of radicalized individuals attacking the West, compared to Middle East countries like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Someone explained that once someone is radicalized in the Islamic religion, they export them. Tim asked what do you mean, you export them? He was told they don't want to keep them because its just a matter of time before they go jihad, so they export them as soon as money allows. They don't want to keep them around, and for good reason, they are like ticking time bombs.
I suppose even Al Qaeda/ISIS doesn't want these guys because they are loose canons.
The goal is to invade, destabilize, and re-colonize the West, convert to their beliefs as Muslims and Sharia law out fear or death. Islam is a death cult. But, I do not believe that is the ultimate goal of the wicked rules of the world. I think these radicalized terrorists are tools for a means to and end.
There are not more terrorist attacks in western countries than in the Middle East.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think colorfulone was referencing specific countries in the Middle East, not the Middle East as a whole. Both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are lower in GTI rank than the U.S., so it would seem to support her point.
She was also referencing a specific type of terrorist, the radicalized individual. Since the GTI score includes all types of terrorists, it's not necessarily representative of radicalized individuals.
If the gun laws were not changed when a whole class of first graders and their teacher were gunned down and killed in Newtown, there is no hope for changing the laws regarding automatic weapons.
I'm sure some people in the U.S. own weapons, but are sane. Unfortunately, many do have mental health issues, are on terrorist watch lists, are homophobes, the list goes on.
Many Republicans and the NRA hide behind the 2nd amendment, but when the founders wrote that, they had muskets, and never foresaw what kinds of weapons people of the future would have. They needed to hunt for food. There is no reason why this cannot be amended to be in tune with the 21st century.
Whether some like it or not. the LGBT community has the same rights as anyone else. This shooter was on a terrorist watch list, and never should have been able to buy a gun in the first place. Islamic terrorists are well known for homophobia, as are Christian fundamentalists. I wonder if any who subscribe to these religions ever really read the books they say they live by?
Other countries have rational gun laws. The U.S. just keeps going backwards. Laws are passed to try to protect people, but bigotry and racism are alive and well. We need to help more mentally ill people, update the watch lists and no fly lists. No individual needs an assault weapon. Now we have another 49 senseless killings.
I don't really disagree with anything you say here. There is merit to having discussions about gun control, mental health issues, homophobia/racism/bigotry, and religious fundamentalism.
However, out of all of those problems, the one most obfuscated, deflected and even forgiven by media and politicians, is Islamic fundamentalism.
One minor clarification:
"This shooter was on a terrorist watch list, and never should have been able to buy a gun in the first place."
He was under FBI investigation in 2014. If I remember correctly, he bought these guns a month ago. Unless they kept the investigation going indefinitely there was no way they'd be able to prevent him from buying those guns.
I appreciate your gracious answer, sometimes I want to post on these forums and end up arguing with somebody awful or brainwashed.
I would think being on an FBI watch list even once should bear more checking out about the person. Even then it's clear the person is thinking of joining groups who want to kill Americans. I know it's a lot of work. I was thinking we should get a Task force to go to Israel and learn from them. They exist in an area where practically everyone wants to wipe them out, and have strict rules about letting people in the country or on a plane.
I don't think the media and politicians forgive the sometimes terrible acts of Islamic Fundamentalism, but agree they don't do enough. We can't as a country ban all the people of one religion, look what happened in Nazi Germany. But surely we can do better.
And although they say these people hate our Western way of life, they usually are wearing New Balance sneakers and T-shirts like American guys do. And although they say they condemn gay people, those who travel in the Middle East say that there are probably more gays there than here.
They just can't be as open about it.
We need to put more pressure on the government to protect us. It's so sad.
Jean, wonderful insight: "I would think being on an FBI watch list even once should bear more checking out about the person. Even then it's clear the person is thinking of joining groups who want to kill Americans."
THIS is the area where things FAILED, or if you are looking for blame... it is here.
Take is a step further, the reason why the FBI backed off and did not place a flag on him (if he tried to buy weapons) is because the Administration (this being Obama and his Secretaries, etc.) have made it a point that the FBI, NSA, etc. are to treat Muslims with kid gloves, they are essentially treated as protected citizens... rather than being targeted because of their religion, under this administration they have been given a free pass. Essentially, the FBI and other agencies had their hands tied. This is the sad truth of the state of our government's protection agencies today... they are all but useless in stopping all but the most obvious and aggressive threats.
While I agree with you that there is no need for the average American citizen to own any weapon that can be easily turned into a fully automatic one (such as the AK-47 or AR-15) ... the problem is not that they are legal so much as our government failed to protect us from a KNOWN terrorist sympathizer, and failed to deny him access to such weapons.
I understand your hesitation, Jean. I've had my fair share of discussions that turned into bad arguments, but it's important to keep the discussion going.
I agree with you, anyone who has ever been on an FBI watch list ought to be flagged in a background check - maybe not prevented from purchasing weapons, if those laws do not change, but at the very least keep the suspect on our peripherals. I don't know the legality of such a policy or the resource limitations of the FBI, but it'd be worth looking into.
I also wholeheartedly agree with learning from Israel's example.
"Forgive" is the wrong word. Apologia is more apt. Media and politicians have tried to explain these global attacks by invoking social marginalization, foreign policy, random violence, male bonding, workplace violence, mental illness, violent extremism (what kind?), vicarious post traumatic stress disorder, carbon emissions, droughts, Western bigotry, economic conditions, Western colonialism... anything but the religion. These deflections are accompanied by statements asking people not to demonize a religion, and that to criticize the religion is racist and bigoted against all Muslims etc. I know I'm not the only one that's noticed this pattern, as the apologia gets more and more strained after every attack and becomes less and less coherent.
I don't have many answers to the problem, but by bending over backwards to avoid offense we are preventing any sensible solution from taking place. The longer this dance continues, the less time we'll have to provide sensible solutions, and the more sway we'll give to reactionary forces that may use less sensible means.
It wasn't an issue because you had a terrorist organization supplying the weapons.
In America, unlike Europe, it is very easy to buy almost any type of weapon you want.
In Belgium, here are the rules - In Belgium, civilians are not allowed to possess military weapons, automatic firearms, and their ammunition, concealable firearms, silencers, laser sights, and high capacity cartridge.
Ken, that is a great comment.
Even though I own an Assault Rifle I agree with you. I have hunting rifles and hand guns that could cause just as much damage. Assault Rifles get a bad rap because of how they look.
Your also correct that he could have used other means to kill just as many or more of the people in the club that night.
While my heart's prayers and condolences go out to the victims and loved ones of the murdered and wounded in Orlando. I just cringe to hear that it is the same dogma that the POTUS, uneducated congressmen & women and those who hate guns and focus the blame not on the criminals themselves or the terrorist ideology, but on their obsession to ban guns which only allows criminals and terrorists to operate without opposition and leaves innocent people defenseless.
The Next Time Someone Calls an AR-15 an Assault Rifle, Show Them This
* http://www.ijreview.com/2016/06/627943- … ntent=guns
I mean, really, OP, you single handedly could kill 50 people with a weapon that you have to pull the trigger to have fire each time? As Panther says, it is much more difficult to get the logistics right to create that much mayhem with explosives unless you know what you are doing in such a small space that was the tavern.
As many here seem to be blaming this all on some big terrorist plot, I say that it was just a gay fellow who could have easily been spurned by a lover and went ballistic.
I still have a hard time imagining so many men, sound of wind and limb, being overtaken so easily.
As for the controversy as to how to handle speech, we have a conflict between the 1st and 2nd amendment. And I, for one, would strongly lean away from the concept of police state, because a few rightwingers get spooked because people exercise their right to dissent.
"I mean, really, OP, you single handedly could kill 50 people with a weapon that you have to pull the trigger to have fire each time?"
As far as I'm aware, all of the weapons Mateen used were semi-automatic. He had to pull the trigger to fire every time.
"As Panther says, it is much more difficult to get the logistics right to create that much mayhem with explosives unless you know what you are doing in such a small space that was the tavern."
And yet that supposed difficulty has been surpassed on several occasions, whether that be with "flawlessly executed" bombings or with shootings in areas with high gun control. The problem with this pattern of crime is not the difficulty or the accessibility, it's the motives.
"As many here seem to be blaming this all on some big terrorist plot, I say that it was just a gay fellow who could have easily been spurned by a lover and went ballistic."
Your assessment is blatantly ignoring the religious motivations. If he was a self-hating homosexual, where did the self-hate come from? Why did he pledge allegiance to ISIS?
Anyway, where is the evidence that he was spurned by a lover? You are speculating as much as we are, except you have nothing to show for it.
This person was not identified as a threat by the FBI and that is good enough for me. Unless you want to adhere to fascist, rightwing leanings where every dissenting word in our society could subject you to arrest or harrassment?
Yes, explosives have been used and with devastating effect. But nothing kills as quickly, easily or as realiably as a firearm, I don't think that anyone will debate that.
"This person was not identified as a threat by the FBI and that is good enough for me."
The FBI is not omniscient and they will occasionally fail to detect threats.
"Unless you want to adhere to fascist, rightwing leanings where every dissenting word in our society could subject you to arrest or harrassment?"
How on Earth did you come to this conclusion from anything I said?
No, the FBI is not omniprescient, but the danger of a police state is. I will take my chances with those that subject themselves to the rule of law (FBI) over the lawless Right using situations like this to stifle my 1st amendment rights. In America, anyway, you are innocent until proven guilty.
If the FBI and the procedures used to protect the innocent from unwarranted surveillance and such are not good enough, what are you proposing in its stead?
Where are you getting police state from? What are you talking about, innocent until proven guilty?
I am asking you to talk about the religious motives. This has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty or police states. This has to do with identifying a causality that is rooted in religious fundamentalism.
"If the FBI and the procedures used to protect the innocent from unwarranted surveillance and such are not good enough, what are you proposing in its stead?"
Stating that the FBI is not omniscient does not not mean that I think we should replace it with something else.
I haven't even begun to propose what we should or should not do. I'm asking you, media and politicians to talk about the actual causes of these events clearly and honestly.
From there we can begin to talk about solutions. If we can't even agree to the cause we won't get anywhere.
I am not as concerned with his motives as I am with his action. People can think what they want, I am only concerned when they commit a crime.
I really don't care what Mateen says he is or who he pledges to on the telephone. I do know that for a subscriber to Islam he would have homosexuality unacceptable. Why did he hang around the bars and interact with so many if he had all of this 'self loathing'? This is where we part ways, as I don't buy it.
What makes you think that you could have identified a proper threat under our rule of law that the FBI cannot?
Your alternative to the FBI procedure is the crux of it, isn't it. Since you believe that you have so superior an assessment of our situation, can you answer my question? How would you do it better?
Are you ignorant of your laws or something? When making a judgement on a crime, motive is a primary consideration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_mo … pportunity
If, for instance, someone killed someone, that would be a crime. If a person killed someone accidentally, that would be a crime but punishable less harshly. If a person killed someone out of self defense, that might not be punishable at all.
So you wouldn't care about the motives if, for instance, police officers were unlawfully gunning down African Americans? Or if mobs were unlawfully lynching African Americans?
I stand corrected, you are right about the motive. But the rest of what you put forth is just a red herring.
I know what the motive is with African-American abused in the past. Your assignment of a motive to this case is still conjecture, in my opinion.
"But the rest of what you put forth is just a red herring."
How is it a red herring?
"Your assignment of a motive to this case is still conjecture, in my opinion."
As is yours regarding the "spurned lover" theory. But we're allow to speculate. I have direct evidence from the word of the killer. Your spurned lover theory has what, exactly?
I don't have a problem with you assigning other motives to this particular case, even if you're almost certainly wrong.
What is a problem is when there is a pattern of motives as in previous events, like Paris, Brussels, the Boston bombers etc. and your political leaders (aside from - gasp - Trump) refuse to state their motives.
Can I ask you to stop editing your post after posting to add points of contention? It's annoying making a post only to see that you've added points after the fact.
"Why did he hang around the bars and interact with so many if he had all of this 'self loathing'?"
Repression of sexuality because of personal beliefs does not mean that he would not participate in the gay club scene.
"What makes you think that you could have identified a proper threat under our rule of law that the FBI cannot?"
I never said I could identify a threat, I said the FBI is not omniscient.
"Your alternative to the FBI procedure is the crux of it, isn't it."
No it isn't. I've twice explained to you now that I'm talking about motivations of the crime, not whether the FBI can prevent said crime.
Timbukutu Seminary Presents Ramadhaan Tafseer Course by Abu Taubah
The shooter was radicalized by the Imam that runs that website. It is free for all Muslims. What he is promoting is all about Islam. But, we're not suppose to say that Islam is radical to by PC.
Mateen flew to Saudi Arabia twice.
You got the FBI, the CIA releasing this guy? That should tell you something, shouldn't it?
Taqiyya, Obama attended Madrasa schools and was taught Wahabism.
Quran, "Allah is the greatest deceiver of all" It teaches to lie, Taqiyya.
This was not a homegrown terrorist, that's not what the USA is about.
That is Islam!
Sorry there are many times that I am not allow to reply as the feature is unavailable, so I have to use the chronological approach. So, now you know, so how about 'bottling the acid' please?
My point is I am not sastified that this is a crime of Islamic terrorism, and you have the right to disagree.
I consider 'personal beliefs' a threat when law enforcement says that through action and association it becomes such. This guy twisted his personality around in conflict with his beliefs like a pretzel and yet still was this devout Islamic terrorist .
If you cannot improve upon the identification of a threat, what is the point of this discussion?
So, what is your point about the motivations of the crime. you say that it is Islamic terrorism, I have doubts about that, so where are we now?
"Sorry there are many times that I am not allow to reply as the feature is unavailable, so I have to use the chronological approach."
I understand completely, I had the same problem.
"So, now you know, so how about 'bottling the acid' please?"
There was no venom in my request. I apologize if it came across that way. It is just easier to respond when I get a notification, instead of having to refresh the page for an updated post.
"If you cannot improve upon the identification of a threat, what is the point of this discussion?"
I never said you can't improve identification of threats. We can easily improve in this matter if we identify targets based on motivations. The FBI was already investigating him for ties to Islamic terrorist groups, they just did not have sufficient evidence (though I've seen someone point out that they did have enough evidence but were ordered to stand down).
"you say that it is Islamic terrorism, I have doubts about that, so where are we now?"
I don't know what it will take for you to admit that it was Islamic terrorism. You don't care that the guy pledged allegiance to ISIS so I'm not sure what definition of Islamic terrorism you are operating on. What evidence are you looking for?
As for my need to use the chronological feature this is one of those times.
So, if things are choppy just wait for a minute or two.
If the FBI did not find him a credible threat despite his rantings, why should I?
I don't care what Mateen says, nor do I care what Fox News or the Right wing media says. I have no reason to believe that the FBI would not do its job and arrest or detain this fellow if there were a case that could stick rather than run afoul of civil liberties that people on the 'left', like me, cherish.
I don't deny the possibility of Islamic terrorism, but I won't establish that on the word of a meely mouth nut. If this guy were the authentic article he would have been picked up.
I thought that I would add this link to help clarify my views on this matter
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/14/the_nar … _shooting/
"If the FBI did not find him a credible threat despite his rantings, why should I?"
They didn't find him a threat because they lacked sufficient evidence, not that they had no reason to suspect him.
"I don't care what Mateen says"
*pause to massage head*
Listen, the guy is giving you his motive on a silver platter, and you're telling me you don't care. Please try to recall the previous posts where we establish the motive to be significant in assessing crimes.
"nor do I care what Fox News or the Right wing media says"
Why are you invoking Fox News or the right wing media when I haven't been using them as sources? The only media source I've presented to you has been ABCNews, which is left wing.
"I have no reason to believe that the FBI would not do its job and arrest or detain this fellow if there were a case that could stick rather than run afoul of civil liberties that people on the 'left', like me, cherish."
That's assuming the FBI is omniscient in preventing terrorist attacks. They're not. We've already been over this, I feel like I'm talking to a broken record player.
"I don't deny the possibility of Islamic terrorism, but I won't establish that on the word of a meely mouth nut"
That would be fair if he was only a lunatic. In this case, he is a lunatic using his religion as motivation:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/us/orland … index.html
According to one official, analysis of Mateen's electronic devices showed searches for jihadist propaganda, including videos of ISIS beheading videos and of Anwar al-Awlaki -- an influential American-born imam who worked as a spokesman for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and was killed in 2011.
"He consumed a hell of a lot of jihadist propaganda" online, the source said.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/us/orland … ar-mateen/
"There are strong indications of radicalization by this killer and of potential inspiration by foreign terrorist organizations," FBI Director James Comey told reporters.
Regarding Salon's article, this articulate comment echoes my sentiments:
"Much of the logic in this article is specious. The author states that most of the hate crimes in the USA against LGBT people are not being committed by Muslims. That is obviously true. However, since Muslims make up less than 1% of the total US population, it would be astonishing if it were otherwise, and the point being made here is pretty meaningless.
The author makes a comparison between the church massacre in South Carolina and that in Orlando. She suggests that, just as the racist shooting in Charleston turned the nation against those who fly the Confederate flag, there is "little doubt" that the latest killings will lead to what she terms a "darkening of attitudes" towards all those who are prejudiced against LGBT Americans - such as conservative Christians.
Once again, the logic is flawed. Unlike Charleston, the murders in Orlando were not committed by a racist from a Christian background who claimed to be acting on behalf of all white people. They were committed by a Muslim from a middle-eastern family, and are, sadly, much more likely to lead to a "darkening of attitudes" towards those of a similar ethnic and religious background to the killer.
The author disputes that the gay nightclub was chosen at random. I have not heard anyone - conservative or liberal - make any such suggestion. It is surely not news to anyone at this stage that Islamic fundamentalists are violently homophobic. In case the author has not noticed, they have shown themselves ready to execute gay men and women for their sexual orientation in regions where Islamism holds sway. For fundamentalist Muslims any form of homosexuality is anathema, and its toleration in the West is viewed as palpable evidence of our corruption. In other words, it is quite possible for the Orlando atrocity to be both a homophobic crime, and an attack on Western secular values.
The author suggests that there is really very little "wiggle room" between Islam and Christianity when it comes to anti-gay bigotry. However, she is prepared to concede that there is a difference between Islamic and Christian fundamentalism "if the issue is violence". I would suggest that, in the present context, that is a fairly vital distinction, and one that is central to any informed debate.
The author claims that "Christian extremists" in the USA "suppress women and gays and anyone who doesn't share their views". That sweeping assertion might carry more weight if it were accompanied by an open acknowledgment that even fundamentalist Christians do not advocate throwing gay men off the tops of high buildings, or executing them in the market place." - JohnMcM
Really? He pulled the trigger more than 100 times with complete accuracy? He didn't modify his assault rifle? Were you there?
Not sure how many times he fired nor what amounts to "complete accuracy." All I know is the guns he used, and they're semi-automatic. That means he had to pull the trigger to fire every time.
I was not there, no. Were you? What evidence do you have that he modified his weapon?
In listening to the reports of the gunfire, it was clearly not automatic, at least for that clip.
Credence, consider the reports from the victims. Several said they were lying on the floor as he stood over them and shot people next to them, and in at least one case shot the person telling the story ... three times. They didn't say whether they were on the floor because they were wounded or not.
One hid under other bodies and survived, another was texting is mother telling her "he is coming' and "I am going to die"; he died.
Assault rifles get a bad rap because they are the weapon of choice in mass shootings.
OK, well said, but he didn't kill people with bombs, nor did the shooter in Connecticut or Virginia Tech or all of the other massacres use bombs. They are using assault rifles because of their magazine size, rapid fire power and ease of access.
The noted gay, libertarian, gun rights advocate Tom G. Palmer, is calling for LGBT citizens to arm themselves. He wrote a very good article that I agree with whole heartedly.
The NRA reached out to the LGBT community weeks ago to warn them that they were targets for Islamic terrorists. I had the same intelligence 1 1/2 weeks before the Orlando shooting took place.
* http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tom- … ?cid=bitly
I am outraged because this massacre of Americans was preventable!
Some of the LGBT liberals are blaming the NRA. I just don't know if people can get any more ignorant, but I guess we will see. Do you think they will keep on advertising that they are a gun free zone (sitting ducks) and demand more gun control? Most likely.
God bless them anyway, and bless them in big way... Wake them up, Lord!
I know I am a bit off topic, but I needed to share.
Magazine sizes made no difference here , even limiting to ten rounds ,especially given that they can be changed in mere seconds ,- seconds ! My first reaction , being an avid shooter and knowing the gun controversy would again raise its ugly head , is that almost as much damage could be done with a knife and a fast moving attack mode or obviously , a pressure cooker like in the Boston Marathon massacre .
As usual though , the topic will be the ease of acquiring a gun , and again the "assault weapon" . My question will go to this though : When will the media driven , politically backed reactionary message of a know it all public be , What was the cause ? To me ,the ultimate wake -up call is going to be finding the realization that terrorism will never end , Why ? because it works so well to raise the awareness of the public to "the cause" , whatever that cause may be .
Right now , I am watching a televised press conference about the trauma center in Orlando where all of the gunshot victims were taken . I am just a bit annoyed that one , they are patting themselves on the back before the bodies are even buried , two , the police are doing the same thing , three the politicians will jump the" band wagon " too ,from proposals for "new " gun controls to , more resources for terrorism investigating , FBI background checks , and asking the public to be more aware of your surroundings .
But what will change ---Nothing ! Americans will be more in danger of these attacks in the future - America's culture though , tends towards the glory grabbing , look at all the 9/11 movies , books , tales and so forth . The romance of drama , the profiteering of Hollywood . The Michael Moore's , the political millage for the mayors of the cities that will propel the vertical rise of more American stupidity . What will change ? Nothing? ..........I know ,all you leaders out there , lets blame it on a video !
ahorseback - All great points in your comment. OK, people should be more aware of the possibility of attacks by terrorists. If they still have no way to protect themselves they are still just victims.
It is projected that there will be more of these attacks against what the terrorists term as "Soft Targets". What is a soft target? Any gun free zone where the terrorists can shoot people like fish in a barrel with no resistance and no threat to themselves.
Of course many are immediately blaming the NRA and assault rifles. If everyone carried an assault rifle and knew how to use it these attacks would stop. An armed society is a peaceful society.
It MIGHT not have made a difference here, although you don't know that it wouldn't have; common sense is clear that there will be situations where it will make a difference.
The perfect weapon , first choice of all mass shootings in history
Everyone should "google " up" The Happy Land " nightclub fire in the Queens ?, 1990 , a disgruntled guy who had been dating the bartender Poured Gasoline in the only stairway leading to the outdoors ! Killed 87 people ! While the exit doors were locked , Tell him he cannot have a large capacity magazine !
I'm sure that will work out !
Why not a ban? Outside of police or the military, can you name a legitimate purpose for such a weapon?
There is some talk about a "No Gun Watch List " now , something separate from normal American citizens restrictions or even FBI background checks , as a gun owner , That I can agree with . It is however STUPID to not have someone on a terror watch list AND to give a terrorist a free pass because he hasn't done anything yet ! The FBI failed in this case, incredibly so!
Worse , is the fact that right now his # 2 wife is being investigated for knowing of that shooters entire terrorist plot ! AND there are no charges for her knowing about his plans -as long as she didn't help him in the act ? She broke no laws ? Please ..........! Failure #2
IT is not only the failure of the FBI , allowing a potential terrorist and their family , friends and possibly the mosque leaders these freedoms , IT IS THE FAULT OF EVERY COWARD THAT KNEW THIS GUY WAS A DANGER , and did nothing ! But how in the world are more gun laws going to change the lax attitude of the FBI or the Dept. of Homeland Security , or an administration that seems as responsible for this as the perpetrators are ?
And now President Obama essentially has a temper tantrum about Donald Trump? ..... At least he is finally showing some anger about terrorism , even if misdirected !
As a Conservative, you should understand very well and support that in America, a person has no legal duty to help another in trouble. So what legal duty did she have in reporting anything?
Since I am not a Conservative, I don't support that view, but that is your law at the moment.
The FBI failed because its hands have been tied by a very sympathetic and protective Administration that demands it's agencies not offend or target anyone because of their religious ties or sympathies to known terrorists, so long as they do not act out on them. And when they do act, it is too late.
by Don Bobbitt2 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby...
by Mike Russo2 months ago
Ask the 59 people who were killed and the 525 people who were wounded and all of those who were traumatized by this horrific event, if we need gun control. Why does any civilian need access to assault weapons? The...
by Ralph Schwartz4 days ago
I've been reading and listening to the debate on gun control over the past day. I keep hearing a repeating theme from those who feel guns need to be banned - its for the safety of children. Yet, those same...
by Scott Bateman4 months ago
They seem to be getting very popular in this country, both for sport and for committing mass murders. Why should I buy one?
by Scott Bateman19 months ago
Why do gun extremists think that the 30-round assault rifle magazine size is no different than 5-round rifles or even shotguns?The video below shows a shooter at a college with a shotgun who killed one person, wounded...
by Mike Russo7 hours ago
Our thoughts and prayers are with you and the victims is not enough to stop these senseless killings.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.