bbauska wrote:Thank you. I wondered, and did not see your answer as plainly as that. Sorry that you had to expend the extra time typing to explain.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Thank you. I wondered, and did not see your answer as plainly as that. Sorry that you had to expend the extra time typing to explain.

Fair enough.

On the subject of terror threats to the USA, I saw these people were caught.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/10/us/wh ... ginia-fbi/

Five more Syrians have been stopped at a Laredo port of entry on Friday. This brings the total number of Syrians seeking to enter the US through our city this week up to 13.

According to Weekly Standard writer and Fox News contributor Stephen Hayes, he himself has been placed on the Department of Homeland Security’s terrorist watch list. Hayes told his Twitter followers about this development Tuesday:

Just informed I’m on the @DHSgov terrorist watch list. Explains why I have been subject to extra screening each of my recent trips. — Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) September 23, 2014


Naturally, when I went to file a “redress” form on the @DHSgov website, as instructed, the form could not be processed. #limbo — Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) September 23, 2014


I suspect I made the list b/c of concerns about #Syria. I took a one-way flight to Turkey in late July (return flight was Athens). @DHSgov — Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) September 23, 2014
@SpeakWithAuthor I was flagged for extra screening on my last two trips. A “selectee.” Called in the TSA supervisor to handle. — Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) September 23, 2014


@SpeakWithAuthor Denied last few times I tried to check-in online. Called the airline — they told me. — Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) September 23, 2014

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Thank you. I wondered, and did not see your answer as plainly as that. Sorry that you had to expend the extra time typing to explain.

Fair enough.

On the subject of terror threats to the USA, I saw these people were caught.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/10/us/wh ... ginia-fbi/

Good catch. Meanwhile, Brussels is on lockdown.

And, pretty much every day there is a story like this one:

Five more Syrians have been stopped at a Laredo port of entry on Friday. This brings the total number of Syrians seeking to enter the US through our city this week up to 13.

Regarding terror lists, we have this kind of efficiency:

danivon wrote:We know why Brussels is on lockdown. I'm still not sure why 2000 people who can't get on a plane can get a gun without triggering on a background check.

And, pretty much every day there is a story like this one:

And? What has this got to do with the subject of how easy it is to get guns in the USA, even if on a terror watch list?

These people must be a real threat though - they presented themselves at the border, and so far check out but have been taken into custody.

Yes, I understand this. But when people on the list find out and they should not be, they can challenge it. And people have been removed from the list as a result of challenges.

NRA has uniformly opposed such legislation as a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process, repeatedly calling into question the list’s accuracy and secrecy and the inability of a person meaningfully to challenge his or her listing. Newly-leaked documents, offering unprecedented insight into the Terrorist Watchlist, vindicate NRA’s position. They also provide an instructive case study of the gun control movement’s increasingly prevalent strategy of undermining due process protections intended to keep the government from arbitrarily stripping you of your rights.

On July 23, the website The Intercept published an article by reporters Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux titled, “The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist.” The basis for their article was a “March 2013 Watchlist Guidance” document, produced by the National Counterterrorism Center.

The guidance report makes clear that the procedure for adding a person to the Terrorist Watchlist simply requires “reasonable suspicion.” In the definition of what constitutes “reasonable suspicion,” the document notes, “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary.” Speaking on this topic, former FBI Special Agent David Gomez told the reporters, “If reasonable suspicion is the only standard you need to label somebody, then it’s a slippery slope we’re sliding down here, because then you can label anybody anything.”

The journalists go on to point out that there are ways around even the low bar of “reasonable suspicion.” Persons can be placed on the Watchlist if they are family members or associates of a “suspected terrorist,” or if the government suspects them of having “’a possible nexus’ to terrorism.” Highlighting the absurdity, the reporters point out, “Because the government tracks ‘suspected terrorists’ as well as ‘known terrorists,’ individuals can be watchlisted if they are suspected of being a suspected terrorist, or if they are suspected of associating with people who are suspected of terrorism activity.”

In a passage that should prove especially chilling to gun owners (who some in government already seek to portray as “rightwing extremists”), the document meticulously explains how government officials should behave in an encounter with an individual on the Watchlist. It instructs the officials to glean as much information from the person as possible and use it in a report to be filed with the federal government. The report should include a person’s “Gun show applications, firearm license, concealed weapons permit, [and] shooting club memberships.”

Scahill and Devereaux followed up the initial Watchlist story with another item on August 5, titled, “Barack Obama’s Secret Terrorist-Tracking System, by the Numbers.” The piece provides context for leaked classified documents, including one entitled “Directorate of Terrorist Identities (DTI) Strategic Accomplishments 2013.”

According to information obtained by the reporters, the Watchlist contains 680,000 individuals, with those plus a further 320,000 comprising the broader “Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment,” or TIDE. The journalists explain, “Of the 680,000 people caught up in the government’s Terrorist Screening Database… more than 40 percent are described by the government as having ‘no recognized terrorist group affiliation.’” The article also quotes New York University Brennan Center for Justice Fellow and former FBI agent Michael German as stating, “You might as well have a blue wand and just pretend there’s magic in it, because that’s what we’re doing with this—pretending that it works.”

These revelations should put to rest the idea that the Watchlist should play any role in determining a person’s firearm eligibility (or the ability to exercise any other fundamental right, for that matter). However, the push for Watchlist-based gun legislation is instructive in what it reveals about the gun control movement’s larger strategy.

But the no fly list, and the information from which it is derived also contains people who are actual threats to the USA.

Marc Adler, president of Allan Adler, a Boca Raton consulting firm that specializes in firearms, said legally taking a handgun out of the country involves reams of paperwork and approval by numerous federal agencies.

“The export of firearms is very heavily regulated,” Adler, who questions how the gun could have legally left the country, told the Palm Beach Post.

“The only way I think it can happen would be some type of illegal transfer.”

Century Arms — which describes itself as North America’s largest importer of surplus firearms and accessories — has faced scrutiny before.

The company was linked to the 1980s-era Iran-Contra scandal when a long-time employee told a U.S. Senate committee the firm had supplied arms, including rockets and grenades, to the Contras in Nicaragua.

In 2011, the Palm Beach Post reported the company made a killing in arms deals — trading in pistols, sniper rifles and assault weapons, sometimes with the help of “unauthorized brokers.” The report was based on secret diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks.

freeman3 wrote:Since stringent gun control is impossible I think we have to move towards having at least one well-trained armed person at every large public gathering (schools, arenas, theaters, clubs,etc.). That sounds like a daunting task...but what other choice is there? Every city and every state should identify possible targets and we need to fund staffing of identified targets with well-trained personnel that can engage terrorists and other gunmen.

danivon wrote:The Orlando killer was a US citizen with a firearms license, but was known to the FBI.

A former Fort Pierce police officer who once worked with 29-year-old Omar Mateen, the assailant in an Orlando nightclub shooting that left at least 50 dead, said he was "unhinged and unstable."

Daniel Gilroy said he worked the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift with G4S Security at the south gate at PGA Village for several months in 2014-15. Mateen took over from him for a 3 to 11 p.m. shift.

Gilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim. Gilroy quit after he said Mateen began stalking him via multiple text messages — 20 or 30 a day. He also sent Gilroy 13 to 15 phone messages a day, he said.

"I quit because everything he said was toxic," Gilroy said Sunday, "and the company wouldn't do anything. This guy was unhinged and unstable. He talked of killing people."

Gilroy said this shooting didn't come as a surprise to him.

Since stringent gun control is impossible I think we have to move towards having at least one well-trained armed person at every large public gathering (schools, arenas, theaters, clubs,etc.). That sounds like a daunting task...but what other choice is there? Every city and every state should identify possible targets and we need to fund staffing of identified targets with well-trained personnel that can engage terrorists and other gunmen.

rickyp wrote:freeman3

Since stringent gun control is impossible I think we have to move towards having at least one well-trained armed person at every large public gathering (schools, arenas, theaters, clubs,etc.). That sounds like a daunting task...but what other choice is there? Every city and every state should identify possible targets and we need to fund staffing of identified targets with well-trained personnel that can engage terrorists and other gunmen.

That solution didn't work in Orlando.
The Orlando nightclub had an off duty police officer. Armed. Who engaged the shooter outside the club. And was joined by two othe police who were nearby.
Apparently, they were outgunned and did not pursue the shooter into the night club.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orland ... -timeline/

Why is stringent gun control impossible?
Compared to the costs of arming, training and paying hundreds of thousands of guards in schools, malls, theatres, night clubs, to mostly just stand around ... The costs of responsible gun onership laws would be paltry. And probably incurred mostly by those wishing to possess guns responsibly.
...enforcing responsible gun ownership would be much easier and would prevent many people from their crimes. Armed guards wouldn't be that effective if Oralndo is an indication.
Banning assault rifles, for instance, would limit the carnage in a situation like Orlando.

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.

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...