Hostage situation taking place now in Orlando. [50+ dead, suspect killed]
916 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50508508]again, just because he ended up on a watch list wouldn't have stopped him from getting his hands on a gun. You're not supposed to arbitrarily limit somebody's rights just because you think they might be a danger to themselves or others around them without due probable cause and without the safety net of due process.[/QUOTE]
Well arbitrarily limiting one man's rights would be better than 50 people dying.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50508558]Well arbitrarily limiting one man's rights would be better than 50 people dying.[/QUOTE]
There's the fact that he passed all the other background checks before this incident took place and worked as a security guard.
He was a natural born citizen of the United States, and probably had no serious criminal record either, so he'd have easily managed to get hold of a licence.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50508558]Well arbitrarily limiting one man's rights would be better than 50 people dying.[/QUOTE]No it wouldn't, that dystopian bullshit has no place in the United States.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50508581]No it wouldn't, that dystopian bullshit has no place in the United States.[/QUOTE]
neither do citizen-held weapons capable of murdering 50 people before getting stopped
not that the fucking gun nuts will ever understand the difference between simple self defence pistols and mass murder weapons
Jesus Christ I wish people would fucking learn what they're talking about:
[QUOTE=bitches;50508587]citizen-held weapons capable of murdering 50 people[/QUOTE]This is the same as this:[QUOTE]simple self defence pistols[/QUOTE]
We've explained it to you gun-grabbers before, it isn't my fault you're having trouble committing this to memory.
How us the thing he wielded the same as a pistol you know damn well that he is exaggerating by talking about the number of kills
This is what you get when you have politicians running around giving guns away to anything that moves.
My heart goes out to all the people that lost a loved one but why can a suspected isis terrorist legally buy an ar15 and a handgun???
[editline]13th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jitters;50505070]Aren't we just playing right in into ISIS propaganda by (once again) redirecting all our hate on Muslims and the middle east?[/QUOTE]
I don't know about others but most of my hate go towards windowlicker politicians in the US that don't know that giving guns to isis is bad
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50508662][Media]https://twitter.com/LovedayM/status/742102198767616000 [/media][/QUOTE]
This is because firearms are a protected constitutional right. You don't lose your rights for being "watched" or "investigated."
You lose them following a conviction and successful application of due process. The reason why some are placed on no-fly lists without due process is because boarding a commercial airliner is not a constitutional right.
not to mention you are never told that you are being put on a watchlist
if that goes thru, one day you can go buy a gun and they be like "nope sorry, can't do it for some reason" even if you never did anything.
You can ask the fbi "Hey am i on a watchlist??" and they can just lie and go "no lol"
You have no control or notification of watchlists and no-fly lists
road to hell is paved with good intentions.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50508697]This is because firearms are a protected constitutional right. You don't lose your rights for being "watched" or "investigated."
You lose them following a conviction and successful application of due process. The reason why some are placed on no-fly lists without due process is because boarding a commercial airliner is not a constitutional right.[/QUOTE]
Was this isis dude part of a well regulated malitia?
[editline]13th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Wii60;50508706]
road to hell is paved with good intentions.[/QUOTE]
If by good intention is avoiding hundreds of mass shootings then send my straight to hell please.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50508662][Media]https://twitter.com/LovedayM/status/742102198767616000 [/media][/QUOTE]
Oh yea, lets make it so people added to a mysterious list can't exercise their liberties. That's totally a good idea.
I'm not questioning his right to bear arms I am questioning the effectiveness of these lists and the mass surveillance.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50508768]I'm not questioning his right to bear arms I am questioning the effectiveness of these lists and the mass surveillance.[/QUOTE]
No means of surveillance is 100% capable of identifying every threat, all you can do is make the number of attacks carried out as close to zero as possible. Short of being able to know what everybody happens to be thinking at any given time in the world, it's quite simply impossible to stop every sufficiently determined attacker from carrying out their plans, especially if there's a very short time lapse between contemplating the deed and actually carrying it out.
Also if the governments were to announce information on every terror plot identified and stopped before somebody could carry it out, i'm sure that list would be longer than those of the successful attacks.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50508640]How us the thing he wielded the same as a pistol you know damn well that he is exaggerating by talking about the number of kills[/QUOTE][QUOTE=gastyne;50508675]I don't know about others but most of my hate go towards windowlicker politicians in the US that don't know that giving guns to isis is bad[/QUOTE][QUOTE=gastyne;50508723]If by good intention is avoiding hundreds of mass shootings then send my straight to hell please.[/QUOTE]You know what? Fuck it, I don't care what anyone has to say about it, I'm going to flat out say that this is a prime example of why we need more guns. Here's a rambling post why I feel this way:
People have precisely two methods of dealing with their peers: talking and fighting, or discourse and force. Demanding I do something is only going to work if you can [U]make[/U] me do something, if I don't respect your authority you either have to convince me or you have to threaten me. Sure it's a bit more complicated than that, you can be my friend and I can do what you want simply because you asked, but I'd argue that this falls under the wider umbrella of "discourse" and our friendship is enough to convince me to do what you want. Really though if I don't like you and you don't like me and you impotently demand I do some such thing I'm going to tell you to fuck off, I have every right to do so. I think you can wiggle just about everything under the sun into those two categories, for example a law to deter crime is an example of force being applied by the state. Laws themselves are just a series of promises of force if you do something wrong, society has determined that these actions need an appropriate response and if you do them then the collective force of the government will stop you.
That's not the world we really live in though, as I said previously people are [I]reluctant[/I] to engage in conflict, so the vast majority of interpersonal conflicts are handled with our mouths rather than with our hands. (figuratively speaking, of course) I think in any reasonably civilized society this is ideal, and I guess society agrees because clocking motherfuckers over the head to get your point across is [U]not[/U] okay and there's laws that say you shouldn't do that. Sure we could have specially designated individuals who's job is to gently chide people when they do wrong but let's be honest, nobody would give a single fat fuck what those assholes say. I mean if they barely recognize the authority of a fucking meter maid why would they bother the state equivalent of a nagging girlfriend? That's all well and good though, those laws we have are backed up by people with [I]guns[/I] which are extremely effective at applying force to other individuals. Guns are great for killing, their whole reason for invention was to kill, and every gun out there has the potential to kill another human; grandaddy's hunting shotgun can kill a man dead just as easily as an AR-15 can.
This is all in spite of the gun control agenda's narrative that the AR-15 is "a killing machine" because it's uncomfortable to say a double-barrel shotgun is on equal terms in that regard. It's also a carefully crafted narrative to keep a very large amount of gun owners complacent, as long as you don't threaten their "hobby" they won't complain.
That's not the point of guns though, not in this context, we're talking about force so what we're really talking about is the [I]potential to kill.[/I] This is something that makes guns an extremely effective tool when you want to make some other motherfucker do what you want, especially if that thing is for them to stop breathing. You can't easily convince somebody to just up and die, telling somebody they should commit suicide is hurtful and insensitive but it isn't at all an effective way to murder somebody. [I]Dialogue will not slay your enemies.[/I] So that leaves guns, these tools of iron and steel and plastic that fire lead and copper and can end a life with surprising ease, these things are the bread and butter of projecting force. One man with a gun can make a hundred without do whatever the fuck he wants, and the entire government relies on the fact that their guns are the biggest and the killiest guns of them all to enforce order. You wouldn't very well fuck with the government now would you? They're so many, you're so few, and they're armed to the goddamn teeth. Those laws society tells the state to enforce are done so through trained individuals willing to risk their life and limb to make sure the collective will of the people is [U]forced[/U] on anyone who would go outside those rules we all agree to follow.
Except that's just the thing, laws are only effective when you, I, and everyone else consent to follow them. When I don't recognize a law and I don't particularly care about the consequences... well, I can do whatever the fuck I want, now can't I? When somebody's ultimate goal is self destruction they can go right into your house, slaughter you and your entire family, [I]your whole street, your entire fucking block,[/I] and no matter how much pleading and begging is done it'll fall on deaf ears. What will stop them though is force, because force does not need consent, it does not need an open mind, if it is greater than or equal to the forced it may triumph and put and end to all of that awful shit.
That's why guns are great, but it's also why gun free zones are awful. When somebody has a gun and they're met by somebody else with a gun, these two people are equal in every way and if they both value their own lives it's only logical that they keep their pieces holstered. I'll grant you it's definitely more complicated than that but there is merit to the phrase, "God made man in his image but Samuel Colt made them equal." That's why a designated zone where only rational discourse is allowed, under the penalty of violence from the state, is a bad, bad idea. When somebody doesn't care (doesn't consent) about the law and their goal is to harm the people inside the zone then they're at a distinct advantage over everyone inside. Almost every single mass shooting (discounting actual crime such as gang violence) has occurred in a gun free zone and I don't think this is a coincidence.
Going off of that turning [U]everywhere[/U] into a such a zone means the state has a legal monopoly on force and anyone who [I]consents[/I] to the law is forced to rely on it to keep them safe. Only the problem is the people who don't consent also now have an insurmountable advantage over everyone else, I think it's fair to say that this terrorist attack is a perfect example of what happens when that's the case. Sure, the state was there to protect those people [I]eventually[/I] but over fifty people still died because they had no way of fighting back. They were shot down without mercy by some bigot with an axe to grind, his agenda was murder and he got to force it on everyone he could right up until somebody else with their own gun came in. Even worse, we're only talking about guns here, if this was truly a disarmed society then the alternatives to violence using a personal firearm are [I]far more deadly.[/I] Bombs are truly indiscriminate and are [I]absurdly[/I] easy to make, they're actually far more easy to construct and use than firearms and are way, way more effective at killing mass amounts of people. Their construction isn't easy to conceal though, and the process of obtaining the materials can be tricky, so the easier option is to just use a personal firearm.
Sure, the guns out there can be used to kill indiscriminately but they have no agenda and they have no motivations. That same weapon he used somebody in the bar could have used, or ten somebodies, or fifty; he could have been shot the moment he walked in brandishing a firearm.
That's why it's important that we maintain these rights and it's important that we don't let shitheads like this guy and his attack [B]on our way of life[/B] to encourage us to restrict them even a little bit. Talking about secret lists and preventing people from exercising this right because somebody in the government somewhere thought that maybe you could possibly commit a crime [I]in the future, or you're merely around somebody who might,[/I] is a gross violation of our rights. This is that road to hell, when you, I, or anyone can be arbitrarily declared outside of the protected class of everyday people means applying force on them, even if it isn't immediately lethal. This is a violation of our 2nd, 4th, 7th, and if you really try some mental gymnastics, 8th amendment rights that were codified in the Bill of Rights as law to save us from such excessive force being rained down on us.
We have our rights and I'm not willing to let them go because some people are afraid of ISIS. I own guns because I'm not afraid, I intend stand on equal ground with somebody if they choose to do me harm.
[editline]I'll just add this too because I thought of it[/editline]
Oh and for good measure I'll just throw this friendly reminder toward any ISIS sympathizer out there who might possibly be reading this (highly unlikely, I know) in here too:
We're the land of the free and the home of the brave, we're full of people from [I]all over the world[/I] and we pride ourselves on these differences. Sure, there might be a heightened level of fear and disgust toward Middle Easterners and Islam, but you know what? Muslims and Middle Easterners are still part of what makes us great. When a hundred years have passed the Islamic State will be yet another failed caliphate and Old Glory will still be flying on every flagpole raised by every patriotic American; a symbol of who we are as a people. We're the best and worst of humanity, a microcosm of the global population wrapped up in a neat little red, white, and blue package armed to the fucking teeth and munching on hamburgers and apple pie.
Right now in Minneapolis the St. Anthony Falls bridge is lit up by a rainbow, and I fully encourage my fellow Americans who are LGBT to thoroughly engage in expressing their sexuality as hard as they possibly can just to piss you off.
Go choke on a bag of dicks and go fuck yourselves, you will [U]never[/U] defeat us.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming. Start monitoring your posts." - Starpluck))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50508662][Media]https://twitter.com/LovedayM/status/742102198767616000 [/media][/QUOTE]
And if they couldn't, it's not like they wouldn't be able to get a gun from an external source.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50508776]No means of surveillance is 100% capable of identifying every threat, all you can do is make the number of attacks carried out as close to zero as possible. Short of being able to know what everybody happens to be thinking at any given time in the world, it's quite simply impossible to stop every sufficiently determined attacker from carrying out their plans, especially if there's a very short time lapse between contemplating the deed and actually carrying it out.
Also if the governments were to announce information on every terror plot identified and stopped before somebody could carry it out, i'm sure that list would be longer than those of the successful attacks.[/QUOTE]
Ok but so far the facts say that mass surveilance isn't effective
[url]https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26801-mass-surveillance-not-effective-for-finding-terrorists/[/url]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/opinion/mass-surveillance-isnt-the-answer-to-fighting-terrorism.html[/url]
The point is not to show that it's not 100% effective, everybody knows that and I think it's kind of a moot point to make, hey look, the sky is blue.
The point is that there is literally no evidence at all in ANY of the recent attacks (SB, Colorado, you name it) that points towards "could have been prevented by better surveilance" .
And this shooting is a prime example of that. The dude was a security officer ffs. He's been on watchlists, he's been quesioned by the police.
Yet I am sure that some reactionary idiot will call for more surveilance.
[QUOTE=Killuah;50508912]
Yet I am sure that some reactionary idiot will call for more surveilance.[/QUOTE]
Considering all the other idiotic shit that's being called for, we might as well add 'more surveillance' to that list.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50508809]*weird essay with every NRA argument ever and worst black/white stance on weapons ever*[/QUOTE]
You still haven't answered "How is the thing he wielded the same as a pistol"
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50508581]No it wouldn't, that dystopian bullshit has no place in the United States.[/QUOTE]
This all depends how you value lives over rights though.
How many times do we hear in these situations "Luckily the perpetrator was gunned down by an armed civilian before he could take untold lives."
How can you argue for more guns=more safety.
USA is the country with most guns per capita than any other country and it has the most mass shootings than any other country.
You don't see this many mass shootings in countries with less guns and that is just so weird isn't it.
To think that less guns means less mass shootings just makes no sense huh.
USA is the country of mass shootings and school shootings
[QUOTE=Killuah;50508912]Ok but so far the facts say that mass surveilance isn't effective
[url]https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26801-mass-surveillance-not-effective-for-finding-terrorists/[/url]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/opinion/mass-surveillance-isnt-the-answer-to-fighting-terrorism.html[/url]
The point is not to show that it's not 100% effective, everybody knows that and I think it's kind of a moot point to make, hey look, the sky is blue.
The point is that there is literally no evidence at all in ANY of the recent attacks (SB, Colorado, you name it) that points towards "could have been prevented by better surveilance" .
And this shooting is a prime example of that. The dude was a security officer ffs. He's been on watchlists, he's been quesioned by the police.
Yet I am sure that some reactionary idiot will call for more surveilance.[/QUOTE]
Paris likely could have, as with Brussels, because Belgian police were even more incompetent than the jihadists. Your sources are just generalist pieces against surveillance which don't look at the realities of the situation.
[url]https://medium.com/@thegrugq/jihadi-gang-warfare-4bc0ba8bd309#.x0abo179v[/url]
[QUOTE][B]Don’t Call Me, I’ll Call You
[/B]
Despite the constant rhetoric about encrypted messengers enabling ISIS operatives to ghost through the European surveillance network, evidence indicates that the Brussels ISIS network made extensive use of normal phone calls. It was a lack of wiretaps and interpreters that enabled the ISIS militants to evade detection.
'Belgian prosecutors’ request to tap the phone calls and emails of the Abdeslam brothers was turned down by police because of a lack of resources' — Source: Politico
The police were not blinded by encryption, but by lack of resources.
[B]Like Fish In The Sea
[/B]
The network enjoyed the “natural security” of a population that was neutral or sympathetic. Neither the Molenbeek nor Schaerbeek communities were actively helping security forces hunt for militants in their midst. Combined with the relatively poor capabilities of the Belgian security forces (few translators for wire taps, fewer Maghrebi speakers, etc), this created a lax operational environment in which even poor tradecraft was enough.
They did not have particularly good tradecraft. The only thing they seemed to have done correctly was to do (at least some of) their meetings face to face, rather than over the phone. You know, as friends do. Really, the biggest enabler of the network was the poor resource constrained Belgian police work. They had massive luck in operating in a country that is totally incapable of handling a large gang.
o Belgium is dysfunctional, hampered by bureaucracy, and practically paralysed
o It is hampered by serious systemic problems stemming from chronic underfunding and poor management
o There is no clear policy/plan/process on how to handle returnees or suspected militants
o They had (have?) limited capabilities, such as few/no Maghrebi speakers, very few arabic speakers, few wiretaps, and reliance on the US for SIGINT capability (which is slow due to liaison status + classification issues)
The European ISIS network got lucky. The Belgian police had limited capability to detect them, and the population was not actively working against them.
The militants did not need good tradecraft, the police were, very literally, not listening. I maintain that the lax operational environment in Belgium was the single greatest contributing factor to the success of the network. Until that is changed, there is the chance of further attacks.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Killuah;50508923]You still haven't answered "How is the thing he wielded the same as a pistol"[/QUOTE]
[img]https://angstadtarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/angstadt-arms-udp9-bronze-sig-brace.jpg[/img]
What are "generalist pieces" ?
How does a blog of some dude basically promoting his own craft and buisiness "look at the realities of the situation" ?
There is literally no substance in what you quoted.
[quote]You know, as friends do. Really, the biggest enabler of the network was the poor resource constrained Belgian police work. [/quote]
How? It even says they did face to face talks in the very same paragraph???
[quote] Belgium is dysfunctional, hampered by bureaucracy, and practically paralysed[/quote]
So the solution is to implement a massively complicated surveilance operation? FiveEyes is a massive juggernaut of bureaucracy.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50508809][long af rambling]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming. Start monitoring your posts." - Starpluck))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
...I don't even see where the flaming is. Dafuq
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Derailing" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
They did SOME face to face talks. Can you read? You really are the worst poster on this entire forum, aren't you? And yes, believe it or not, people who work in security generally have a better grasp on this especially long after the even when facts have actually been gathered. The point is, they would have been caught if there was proper surveillance from Belgian police because they were incompetent. There wasn't for a multitude of reasons.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50508809]*fucking essay*[/QUOTE]
Your country just broke the depressing record of its most lethal mass shooting. A country that has a disproportionate amount of gun violence and incidents when compared to other countries. And you're straight-facedly yelling that the solution that what we need is 'more guns'.
Could you complete the stereotype by yelling 'GAWD BLESS AMERICUH'?
[QUOTE=waxrock;50508984]...I don't even see where the flaming is. Dafuq[/QUOTE]
I think Starpluck just looked at the bottom of the reply and saw "Go choke on a bag of dicks and go fuck yourselves."
Shamefully, that's exactly what I did, and probably what other people did. They reported him without reading the wall of text.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Derailing" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50509002]I think Starpluck just looked at the bottom of the reply and saw "Go choke on a bag of dicks and go fuck yourselves."
Shamefully, that's exactly what I did, and probably what other people did. They reported him without reading the wall of text.[/QUOTE]
I mean, honestly I skipped to the end too. But the "you will [U]never[/U] defeat us" bit kinda throws a wrench in that.
Anywho, it's hard to say what the proper solution to this is, but it sure as hell isn't "moar guns".
This mass shooting happened on my birthday and despite it being a good day for me, I couldn't keep this off of my mind. It's disgusting that even to this day, people are so intolerant to the LGBT community. My thoughts go out to the victims and their friends and families.
I still don't see why anyone can just go and buy guns in the usa.
If you seriously don't care about people dying left and right all the time then I have as much respect for you as the terrorists that commit these vile crimes.
If you want to put an end to this type of voilence, there is only one solution, heavy restrictions on gun availability or even banning.
I'd be in favor of banning it but I know that it wont happen what with all the crazy gun nuts you guys have running around shooting things.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.