Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 11:16 am

GMTom wrote:
I imagine you require a set of laws that achieve 100% safety, and won't accept that laws that limit the probabilities are an improvement over the current situation...

yet you are quick to dismiss the notion that arming guards would help. It didn't help here so it would never help? Ignore the places where it did help, ignore the places where people were completely vulnerable and focus on this one event!?

Well, the fact that it didn't help in this case should at least give you some pause. And maybe prompt you to look for alternative changes that could be made instead. Or at the very least alongside your proposal. Critical thinking should apply.

Laws, and better enforcement of existing laws, and more joined up law enforcement would seem to be where we need to look, frankly. The guy was known. Was he on any watch list? Should he have been? Could that have been used to deny/remove a firearms license?

We cannot make it impossible for terrorists. But we could at least make it harder.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 11:31 am

"Look Twice at People with Muslim Sounding Names" (paraphrasing)

You know that is stereotyping, right?
But I can accept that as good sense. We look twice at people who don't look at us in the eye, we look twice at people who are looking all around, it simply makes good sense to investigate further when a red flag is raised. That is not to say the person who is looking all around is guilty and should be put away, nor is it saying all Muslims are guilty of anything whatsoever, but do look twice!Why is it "wrong" to ignore a red flag when presented!?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 11:44 am

GMTom wrote:"Look Twice at People with Muslim Sounding Names" (paraphrasing)

You know that is stereotyping, right?
But I can accept that as good sense. We look twice at people who don't look at us in the eye, we look twice at people who are looking all around, it simply makes good sense to investigate further when a red flag is raised. That is not to say the person who is looking all around is guilty and should be put away, nor is it saying all Muslims are guilty of anything whatsoever, but do look twice!Why is it "wrong" to ignore a red flag when presented!?

being a Muslim should not be a red flag. It would not only overwhelm your security resources, but it would be seen as discrimination and help radicals convince Muslims that they are oppressed.

However, being a radical Muslim (or a radical white nationalist, or a radical eco-fanatic, or a radical anti-abortionist) should be a red flag.

I notice that the guy stopped yesterday heading to Santa Monica Gay Pride with a bunch of guns and stuff that could be made into a bomb was not a Muslim. He does appear to have been a gun nut though.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Jun 2016, 12:05 pm

Well, perhaps looking at those with Muslim sounding names who purchase semi-automatic weapons goes too far. But this guy had come to the attention of the FBI twice. I am pretty sure even though the contacts had come to nothing they would have liked to know this guy bought an AR-15.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 12:05 pm

being a radical Muslim is not a "red flag" it's a BIG problem! So we have this "built in" warning system and you want us to ignore it? The biggest problem with terrorism (not the only problem, but the biggest) is Radical Islam. We know only Muslims are radicalized but we look the other way?

I say we look at every flag that is raised. If we have a sudden problem with Swedish terrorism, then anyone with blonde hair should be scrutinized. My whole family is blonde, If we have a problem with Christian radicalism, then anyone wearing a cross should be looked at closer. I have no issue with a closer look, nor should they!
I am not saying any rights should be denied, simply a closer look. That only makes sense and looking the other way when a flag is raised is allowing this to happen!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 12:20 pm

tom
yet you are quick to dismiss the notion that arming guards would help. It didn't help here so it would never help
?
Didn't say that. Perhaps there would be occassions where it would ...however its not in any way fool proof. If it became common to have an armed guard, a shooter with a plan would just shoot the guard first..
Besides, the other argument, is that there would be an enormous cost in arming and training and in keeping these people standing around. Some place, like night clubs, have that now. Though usually not armed. But consider what the cost would be for all the soft targets to be constantly guarded ? Every school, mall, public space, subway train ...... Its not a solution.
Though the other thing we absolutely know with certainty is that the more guns, the more chance for gun violence. One of the armed guards might make a mistake or suddenly take leave of their sanity.

There's a reason frontier towns in the Wild West had people leave their guns at the town limit. There's a reason clubs and schools have metal detectors to keep guns and knives out of their spaces. Armed people are tempted to use their weapons if and when provoked or frightened....
Unarmed people usually do less damage and can be subdued by other unarmed people easier.

freeman 3
By the way, how was this guy able to shoot so many people? Over a hundred people with a semi-automatic weapon?

Listen to the sound bitees of the shooting. A round every second. Thats sixty in a minute.... In a crowd of unsuspecting people who initially thought the shots were part of the music.... He came in through one of the exits, cutting off an escape route. he then took hostages and warnedoff the negotiators who reached him by phone.
I do wonder why the armed guard and first two officers didn't pursue him into the club. I think that needs to be explained. . Perhaps the sight of an AR15 made them think about their own lives.

freeman3
Gun control would help and I'm for it but it's not a magical solution when you have a huge border with Canada and Mexico.

Your kidding right?
Most of the guns getting into Canada, and we're having a bit of a gun violent summer for Toronto, are smuggled in from the US. Same thing with Mexico. The US is the source of the guns.

freeman3
The key security issue is how to stop random Muslims intent on large-scale massacre.

It wasn't a random Muslim at Virginia Tech. At Newtown Connecticutt. At Colorado Springs. At Umpqua Community college in Oregon. At Charlston SC. Nor in Isla Vista California.
And if you beleive this mans ex-wife, he had mental health issues that make him more alike many of the shooters in the incidences I just listed than a hardened extremist Islamaic terorist.

If you make laws that encourage and enforce responsible gun ownership by everyone, as I listed, you'll keep guns out of many peoples hands who shouldn't have them. Including Muslims.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 12:50 pm

You didn't say that? Oh yes you did!
Freeman gave the suggestion and you immediately said it was a bad idea because it didn't work in this situation. We can point to many places where an armed person shot the culprit yet you ignore those, we can point to a great many examples where attacks happen where armed people are simply not allowed and you did not point that out as well.
So yes, yes you did exactly as I said. Instead of saying you didn't say what you did, clarify it! But to deny what was indeed stated is not the answer.

I can pint to many other examples that were not Islamic Extremism but the majority certainly are.

Here's where we do agree
The border the US shares with Canada doesn't much matter
But Mexico DOES if we were to put a severe crimp in gun laws, they would stream across that border just as marijuana now does. You also point out the biggest problem in gun control. The US has far too many illegal guns, Canada has stricter laws and a freaking international border and still you have trouble with our guns. Yet stricter laws will suddenly make them go away here where they already are?

If I could start a new country that had no guns already prolific, I too would make some very strict gun control laws! But you can buy a gun as easily as you can buy marijuana, both are illegal but both are easily purchased. Is it wise to allow your criminals to be armed and take away the right of decent people to defend themselves?

Freeman is being a realist and accepting the laws are not going to change things much. Yes, we can tighten this and tweak that. Yes we can (and should) better enforce laws already on the books, but the uber-restrictive laws simply will not help and quite frankly could harm more than help. So move on to what can work!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Jun 2016, 1:14 pm

Ricky you're kidding right? If guns can come in from US to Canada they can go the other way. And probably even more from Mexico.

I was much more willing to talk about gun control when it involved random nuts getting ahold of weapons. Talking about gun control when a guy declares allegiance to ISIS....something seems wrong about talking about gun control in that situation. An enemy has declared war on us and we're going to talk about gun control...that's nonsense. We should have gun control for other reasons, not because Muslim extremists are attacking us. It's the wrong time to talk about gun control, except to the extent specifically targeted at preventing Muslim extremists from getting guns, if that is even possible.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 1:21 pm

GMTom wrote:being a radical Muslim is not a "red flag" it's a BIG problem! So we have this "built in" warning system and you want us to ignore it? The biggest problem with terrorism (not the only problem, but the biggest) is Radical Islam. We know only Muslims are radicalized but we look the other way?
Twaddle. Was Timothy McVeigh radicalized by Islam? Was the Unabomber? The guy who shot up the Oregon clinic? The guy who attacked the Holocaust Museum in DC?

Besides, not all Muslims have a Muslim name, necessarily. And some non Muslims have Arabic names.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 2:00 pm

tom
You didn't say that? Oh yes you did

Quote me.
I get so tired of you telling me what I said. And getting it very wrong.
I said
That solution didn't work in Orlando.

But I did no say.
It didn't help here so it would never help?

As you accuse me of saying..

Tom
We can point to many places where an armed person shot the culprit yet you ignore those,

I'll bet you can't find examples where the culprit was stopped before they were out of ammunition or leaving.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... aws-213222
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 2:01 pm

rickyp wrote:fste
1. The weapon used was not an "assault weapon."


The madman who killed at least 50 people and wounded 53 others at an Orlando club early Sunday was armed with an AR-15-type rifle. It’s the same style of weapon used to slaughter 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., in 2012.
Earlier that year, James Holmes used an AR-15 to murder 12 people and wound 70 in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

Regulations on magazine capacity for the weapon vary from state to state, but it can fire 45 rounds a minute.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2670739


So what?

That is written by morons. No one, not even a Navy Seal, can put out 45 rounds a minute and do anything more than spray the air. Every round fired requires a trigger pull, which will cause the weapon to kick, which necessitates aiming again.

Again, no human being alive can fire 45 meaninful rounds in a minute.

Further, nothing you posted means the weapon is "an assault weapon." It was a semi-automatic rifle.

fate
2. What specific gun control laws would have prevented this slaughter?

I imagine you require a set of laws that achieve 100% safety, and won't accept that laws that limit the probabilities are an improvement over the current situation...


No, I said what I said, not what you said.

So if you want 100% safety you'd require
a complete and effective prohibition on fire arms. Like in Australia.


Americans who want that can migrate.

Anything less than that might not be 100% certain. And I'll guess that your argument is that a complete prohibition isn't possible, due to the 2nd Amendment which seems to be more important that the right to everyone living ones life in security and safety...


Wrong. Again, you hosers don't like the 2nd Amendment, fine--stay out of the USA. For the rest of us, just let us defend ourselves instead of having to rely on government.

Profiling PEOPLE who represent threats is the key. Instead, our government refuses to look at radical Islam as a threat--even when its adherents commit murder in the name of their God.

I'm thinking laws like this would start to have an impact on deaths by gun over time.
And that would be a good thing.


All of your suggestions are exactly the sort of restrictions Democrats propose--on the road to negating the Second Amendment. They won't work and Americans won't put up with them.

We will have a civil war before your ideas are implemented--gun rights supporters vs. enemies of guns. Somehow, I think those who don't like guns will lose that battle.

Responsible gun owners won't have a huge problem with registration, insurance or certification.


Wrong. They won't like the increased cost in return for nothing but your "word" that bad guys will stop using guns.

And as you'll argue, (criminals) won't follow the law. But if found with illegally held weapons, could be convicted. And if arrested for illegal ownership, we don't have to wait for them to actually shoot the weapon... before acting. There are metal detectors everywhere these days. If what they find results in arests and confiscation.... they'll be more effective.


Right. So, set up a police state to catch crooks?

Would any of the ideas you've suggested stopped this Islamic terrorist in Orlando? The answer is "no," even if you can't figure that out.

But even this isn't pefect safety. However, the inability to reach perfection isn't a reason to not try to improve safety.


But, heaven forfend we should actually try to stop the PEOPLE who commit crimes by identifying dangerous behavior, right?

Does France have strict gun control laws? California?

The problem isn't a lack of laws. It's a lack of identifying an ideology bent on murder and curtailing that ideology.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 2:10 pm

freeman3
Ricky you're kidding right? If guns can come in from US to Canada they can go the other way. And probably even more from Mexico.


But they don't come from Canada or Mexico. Which both have more stringent gun laws than the US.
The guns in Canada or Mexico are almost wholy (Canada) and largely (Mexico) of US origin.
http://www.eldailypost.com/news/2015/07 ... s-cartels/

freeman3
I was much more willing to talk about gun control when it involved random nuts getting ahold of weapons. Talking about gun control when a guy declares allegiance to ISIS....something seems wrong about talking about gun control in that situation. An enemy has declared war on us and we're going to talk about gun control...that's nonsense. We should have gun control for other reasons, not because Muslim extremists are attacking us. It's the wrong time to talk about gun control, except to the extent specifically targeted at preventing Muslim extremists from getting guns, if that is even possible


Of the last 10 mass shootings only 3 were by Muslims. And this last guy, his wife says, had mental health issues. As did one of his coworkers. ISIS may have only been a token.
Because like the 7 other mass shootings, the culprit was mentally unstable first and foremost. (Leaving San Bernadino out as an exception)
But here's the thing, if gun control is improved through responsible gun ownership laws, all are affected equally. The mentally unstable young man in the thatre in oregon or the mentally unstable young man in the Florida club.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 2:12 pm

danivon wrote:
GMTom wrote:"Look Twice at People with Muslim Sounding Names" (paraphrasing)

You know that is stereotyping, right?
But I can accept that as good sense. We look twice at people who don't look at us in the eye, we look twice at people who are looking all around, it simply makes good sense to investigate further when a red flag is raised. That is not to say the person who is looking all around is guilty and should be put away, nor is it saying all Muslims are guilty of anything whatsoever, but do look twice!Why is it "wrong" to ignore a red flag when presented!?

being a Muslim should not be a red flag. It would not only overwhelm your security resources, but it would be seen as discrimination and help radicals convince Muslims that they are oppressed.

However, being a radical Muslim (or a radical white nationalist, or a radical eco-fanatic, or a radical anti-abortionist) should be a red flag.

I notice that the guy stopped yesterday heading to Santa Monica Gay Pride with a bunch of guns and stuff that could be made into a bomb was not a Muslim. He does appear to have been a gun nut though.


Being a radical Muslim should be a red flag--that's where we agree.

FYI: the guy in Santa Monica was heading to West Hollywood. No, he was not a Muslim, but standby. He was "bisexual" and had a history of criminal action. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 2:20 pm

fate
The problem isn't a lack of laws. It's a lack of identifying an ideology bent on murder and curtailing that ideology.

You aren't seriously suggesting that the FBI and intelligence agencies aren't trying their damndest to identify potential extremists? And that they don't have enormous resources to do so?
They interviewed the Florida shooter twice....

The problem is, that even when they identify someone, they can't stop these people from buying weapons. And they certainly can't afford 24 hour surveillance over everyone.
Besides, the muslim extremists are still a minor subset of the mass shootings, and an even much smaller subset of the deaths by gun violence.

The choke point to stop guns getting into irresponsible hands is at the sale point. The way to qualify who is an appropriate owner of guns is through responsible gun laws like I've suggested.

No one appreciated the cost of improving car safety in the sixites and seventies. But the improvements in the safe operation of cars by increased regulation, design and enforcement have been remarkable. It should be the same with cars.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Jun 2016, 2:21 pm

fate
He was "bisexual" and had a history of criminal action.

Was he a radicalized bisexual?