Orlando Nightclub Massacre

originally posted by: JimBielson
I just don't understand those that continue to deny this was anything but terrorism.

I'M NOT DENYING IT! I'M WITHHOLDING JUDGMENT! Can you understand that concept???? [snipped]

a reply to: kosmicjack

We have to many rules and really good laywers in the US.

Have you ever been through a criminal case?

What I mean is it's hard to get a conviction that's why DA's rely so much on leverage and plea bargains.

originally posted by: kef33890
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 rifle??!

Yet why is every source I read stating there's just one gunman? It's RIGHT THERE in front of you....

What picture?

Wow, crazy..I was thinking the other day no mass shootings lately I googled the shooters name and several pictures of him wearing shirts with the NYPD logo..one is a t and the other black, short sleeved with a collar..did this guy have anything to do with NYPD?..too early I know.
My condolences to the victims and their families.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: JimBielson

I'm sure it was very terrorizing for the victims.

Just as rape is terrorizing. As is armed robbery. And murder. And attempted murder. And kidnapping.

Apply your logic and reasoning to the fact (not hyperbole, actual fact) that something being scary does not make it terrorism. Using the US Code definition of terrorism and the crime of terrorism does not make me a sheep or a lefty or whatever other cute name you want to try and throw at me.

Not calling everything scary "terrorism" does not make me a lefty or a sheep or whatever other name you want to try and apply to me. It means I understand there's a difference between legitimate acts of terrorism and the all too trendy trope of applying the terrorism label at every last little thing that happens.

And again, this may well turn out to be an ACTUAL act of terrorism. Nothing I've said can be taken, without extraordinary levels of twisting and spinning, as somehow me saying this is definitely not terrorism.

Information is good.

It does make you a sheep if you dont realize what this was and you need some bureaucrat to tell you want it was. I don't know where you come from but a radical (Insert your name for it) going into anywhere and spraying people with lead is the very definition of terrorism.

This is just as much terrorism as any mass shooting in America.

Again people, the "Official" version of terrorism has been used to convict people of lesser crimes. With reasoning and thoughtful reflection, you too can come to the same conclusion of what most Americans are calling this..

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

Good point.

If he is a citizen, why not? Or can we deny his right before due process?

Or should we change law to not allow citizens on the radar to own (or purchase) firearms even if they had them before they went on the radar?

"On the radar" is such a vague phrase that gives us no information upon which to draw conclusions about what *should* be done.

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

This is an excellent question.

I think a lot of people would be afraid that taking away the right of someone to own a gun because they were on a watch list would mean gun rights could be too easily infringed.

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

No doubt a group of moving targets in an open field or running down a street is hard to hit.

A group of moving targets in a confined space like day a club becomes substantially easier to hit.

The shooter could be the son of Afghan presidential candiate Seddique mateen

originally posted by: kef33890
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....

What picture?

Additionally looking at one pic of anything shouldn't convince you of any facts.

originally posted by: Liquesence

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

Good point.

If he is a citizen, why not? Or can we deny his right before due process?

Or should we change law to not allow citizens on the radar to own (or purchase) firearms even if they had them before they went on the radar?

"On the radar" is such a vague phrase that gives us no information upon which to draw conclusions about what *should* be done.

There are people that are not allowed to purchase guns.

originally posted by: kef33890
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....

What photo?

There was apparently a cop working security or on off duty cop who supposedly traded shots with him.

a reply to: opethPA

Yes, I agree that targets closer and more confined are easier to hit than some outside and moving. Still 50! that's just worth questioning the background of the said perp.

originally posted by: JinMI

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?

Yes, I have experience. No, I don't care to elaborate to you.

The concept of shooting a high powered weapon into a densely packed crowd of people doesn't need much elaboration.

# like this makes me hate humanity all over again.

Do we know anything about this person who did this? Name and background perhaps? I am always curious to know if there were signs and no one stopped it or if they just covered it up really well. Was this preventable? Did anyone else know of this obvious pre-meditated disaster?

a reply to: jhn7537

No these threads are what make ATS one of the best sites for breaking news. Lots of insight, commentary AND vetting.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

don't they usually do security checks when they license security guards? I am asking, because I don't know the answer but I have to wonder... why was someone who was "on the radar" licensed as a security guard and given a gun?
kind of makes me wonder, just how long was he "on the radar" or did they flash their radar onto him after the fact?