It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Orlando Nightclub Massacre

page: 32
195
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Just thinking, should someone who is on the radar be able to legally own a firearm?




posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carewemust

So, let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying not enough people were killed? The killing only stopped when someone else showed up with weapons.

I'm sure I'm misinterpreting your statement...

TheRedneck


Yes, your misinterpreting it. I said that the 50 killed is just a piece of the overall killing pie that occurs every day on this planet. You get rid of the instruments that hurl the bullets, and you reduce the number of murders significantly.

I haven't checked the latest news, but I'm sure we've had a few murders by gun here in Chicago this weekend.


That kind of thinking is just plain wrong. When you can flip a switch and turn off all criminal behaviors and suddenly make all people loving and benevolent, then law-abiding citizens wouldn't need firearms to protect themselves.

I'm sick of the stupid idea that banning guns will flip the switch.


Is it easier to ban the manufacturing of guns, or to get rid of the personality types who are most likely to use them for murder?

The problem with these discussions is that they get too complicated. If society is really ready for change, it will take action. Otherwise, we'll continue with what we're seeing now. The news media love it, but I don't think anyone else does.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Some things just don't make sense to me.

- Peter King on CNN earlier saying he he had ties to Afghanistan but didn't want to say more. So he WAS on someone's radar?
- The guy having at least some background checks that were clear, being that he was a Security Guard, but he was on someone's radar?.
- What about his meta data? If he has ties to ISIS, a cell phone and a social media presence and he was on the radar - how does this horror even happen?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Just thinking, should someone who is on the radar be able to legally own a firearm?



What does on the radar actually mean? I hope someone can clarify that point.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
CNN reported they have located what they believe to be the shooter's van, and it might contain an IED. Will use robots.
edit on 6/12/2016 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Grimpachi
The shooter is from Port St. Lucie which is a fairly long drive from Orlando. I wondering why he targeted that club so far from his home.


Why indeed.

Roughly a 2 hour drive.

Why this club? Locale, strategic, or something else?

To give himself time to hopefully cool down, or to increase his rage?

Love scorned?

***

ABC just said he was on the radar for a while but no investigation had been opened into him.

a reply to: Stormdancer777


Yes it is one of the most popular and largest gay bars, so seems to me he targeted it


Good point. One of the largest gay clubs around, so perhaps it was symbolic?


This on the radar crap needs to be taken care of, someone needs to take them off the radar


But how?


I don't know but this can't be allowed to continue, if someone is on their radar, then they should do something, anything,


That's the thing, though.

Either our current laws and procedures are inadequate in the absence of real proof, or we violate people's rights also in the absence of real proof. Apparently he *was* an American citizen.

We don't yet know what information they had on this guy, so it's all speculation. If it turns out there *was* enough verifiable information to do something and they didn't, they that's on the authorities. If they didn't have enough information to legally do anything, then there is a break in the system, so perhaps we should make it easier to legally do something even when there is an absence of proof?

If anything he should have been monitored more closely. But how closely, and would that have prevented this?

That's where I was going.

I have no idea.


I understand



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Oh so he was a security officer at one time.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Apparently the nightclub had armed security...I thought this was supposed to stop mass shootings like this, no?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: opethPA

Glad you pointed that out. The answer is because a moving target is hard to hit. I don't want to get into details but that's not an easy feat. So that does beg the question of who. Was he trained? Who/where did he receive training? If done above board, who was he trained with? etc etc



Have you never been into a nightclub on a Saturday night? It's rather jam packed, presuming it's even moderately popular, and people are close together.

So no, shooting into a crowd, whether they're all trying to run (as much as one can run in a nightclub) or not is not exactly a feat of marksmanship.
edit on 12-6-2016 by Shamrock6 because: Typo



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

incorrect as islam is a religious and political doctrine.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

He most definitely was Muslim.



Mateen, 29, lived in Fort Pierce, Fla. He was born in New York to parents of Afghan origin and was a Muslim, Fox News confirmed.

www.foxnews.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: carewemust
Great point, I wouldn`t worry about the muslim terrorists.In the U.S. we have homegrown thugs and terrorists who kill a lot more people everyday than muslim terrorist do.
put it in perspective, how many people were killed in the U.S. last night? How many are killed in the U.S. on any saturday night? How many were killed last week in the U.S.? a lot more than 50 and they were killed by homegrown thugs,criminals and terrorist.
This nightclub massacre is a one off but we have an epidemic of massacres happening every night,every week, every month in america by homegrown murderers,where is the outrage over that? it`s become so common place that the media doesn`t even report most of them.



Most of that is thug on thug drug-related or gang-related criminality. Nobody cares. Let 'em kill each other off. That's why you don't hear it reported constantly. Let Darwinism do its job is what most are thinking deep down.


+8 more 
posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
- how does this horror even happen?


My opinion is that we pussy foot around too much. Profiling works.

If you are dicking around on radical-leaning sites, conversing with radicals and advocating for radical views you are most likely a radical.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Just thinking, should someone who is on the radar be able to legally own a firearm?



What does on the radar actually mean? I hope someone can clarify that point.


They said that he was on some sort of watch list,



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
i wake up to the news of more senseless killing happening in my country... giant sigh

RIP to everyone... We live in such sad times, because we show such intelligence and progress in some areas, but in others, we act like total neanderthals....



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: opethPA

Glad you pointed that out. The answer is because a moving target is hard to hit. I don't want to get into details but that's not an easy feat. So that does beg the question of who. Was he trained? Who/where did he receive training? If done above board, who was he trained with? etc etc



Have you never been into a nightclub on a Saturday night? It's rather jam packed, presuming it's even moderately popular, and people are close together.



So no, shooting into a crowd, whether they're all trying to run (as much as one can run in a nightclub) or not is not exactly a fear of marksmanship.


Have experience shooting living, breathing, moving targets hmmm? Care to elaborate?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Uhmm... Am I the only one who notices that in a picture there are TWO gunmen. One wearing a short weapon, and the other wearing a long trifle??! They can't tell me that the other one isn't a gunman in that picture. He has a long rifle strapped on him.

Yet why is every source I read stating there's just one gunman? It's RIGHT THERE in front of you....
edit on 12-6-2016 by kef33890 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2016 by kef33890 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carewemust

So, let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying not enough people were killed? The killing only stopped when someone else showed up with weapons.

I'm sure I'm misinterpreting your statement...

TheRedneck


Yes, your misinterpreting it. I said that the 50 killed is just a piece of the overall killing pie that occurs every day on this planet. You get rid of the instruments that hurl the bullets, and you reduce the number of murders significantly.

I haven't checked the latest news, but I'm sure we've had a few murders by gun here in Chicago this weekend.


That kind of thinking is just plain wrong. When you can flip a switch and turn off all criminal behaviors and suddenly make all people loving and benevolent, then law-abiding citizens wouldn't need firearms to protect themselves.

I'm sick of the stupid idea that banning guns will flip the switch.


And rightfully so.

I'm sick of the stupid idea that banning people will flip the switch.

One thing that I absolutely stand behind - no further legislation would've prevented this.

Just like no legislation would've stopped Holmes or Lanza. Or McVeigh or... or... or...

People treating this as some sort of epidemic or "isolated incident," are delusional. This # happens all the time.

Living in Chiraq for a period of time from 10p.m. to 4a.m. it was common to hear the constant barrage of bullets and overhear sirens.

I HARDLY saw the media blowing this out of proportion like they do with some of these other events.

Let's face it folks, liberals and conservatives both are staunch in their stance that "no legislation will prevent these things from happening."

So stop #ing when they happen and stop being surprised. It's a tragedy but one that's happened all too often and that hardly revokes any sort of progressive change as to "how we can at least attempt to alleviate some of the issues that lead to mass murderers," but that's hardly a focus on discussion.

This will be used to further fuel the fires of divide... and I have to ask, is that not convinenient?

I called this awhile back, as soon as Americans are saturated and done distracted by the (s)election process - the big bad scary tewwowists are going to be forefronted into the mix.

"Gun control," makes about as much sense as "border control."

It has nothing to do with the actual issue and everything to do with playing the role of an authoritarian that dictates to millions.

This is why Hillary/Trump have so much support. Americans LOVE authority. Can't say one bad thing about the police or the military without the PC crowd coming along to shut it down.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Just thinking, should someone who is on the radar be able to legally own a firearm?



What does on the radar actually mean? I hope someone can clarify that point.


I think it means being on a terrorist watchlist.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: carewemust
Great point, I wouldn`t worry about the muslim terrorists.In the U.S. we have homegrown thugs and terrorists who kill a lot more people everyday than muslim terrorist do.
put it in perspective, how many people were killed in the U.S. last night? How many are killed in the U.S. on any saturday night? How many were killed last week in the U.S.? a lot more than 50 and they were killed by homegrown thugs,criminals and terrorist.
This nightclub massacre is a one off but we have an epidemic of massacres happening every night,every week, every month in america by homegrown murderers,where is the outrage over that? it`s become so common place that the media doesn`t even report most of them.



That's the point I'm making. But more importantly, America doesn't care enough to do anything about it. Not yet anyway. But that time is coming, if the daily killings ever surpass our tolerance level.

But like I've said before, the tolerance seems to increase as we get "used" to these events. I thought that guy who murdered all the children in that school would get firearm manufacturers shut down. But, since then, America dialed up our tolerance to a higher acceptance level. Most likely, Orlando won't change anything either.



new topics

top topics



 
195
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join