What Should Have Been Done to Prevent this Mass Shooting?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This guy came to the attention of the FBI if he was illegal would've been deported. Or I don't know does America even deport people anymore?

Other possibilities, more surveillance, more armed guards, less guns. Database for gun purchases maybe they could've detected he was buying guns and ammo, but then he could've got an illegal black market weapon. So very hard to stop these mass shootings in US, some kind of crack down on guns seems like the answer.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This guy came to the attention of the FBI if he was illegal would've been deported. Or I don't know does America even deport people anymore?

The guy was born in New York and moved to Orlando. His parents immigrated here in the 70's. He wasn't even CLOSE to an immigrant. He was a natural born citizen.

Other possibilities, more surveillance, more armed guards, less guns. Database for gun purchases maybe they could've detected he was buying guns and ammo, but then he could've got an illegal black market weapon. So very hard to stop these mass shootings in US, some kind of crack down on guns seems like the answer.

Yes that does seem like one of the few options left available. I wonder how long the NRA lobby can hold out against the mounting pressure to lock down ease of gun purchasing. Even the Donald has come out in favor of it. Clearly the NRA's pro-gun rhetoric is losing out to reality and Americans are starting to get sick of these constant mass shootings.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes of course I know that. I said if he was an illegal, since you started talking about illegals.

The most obvious answer is that guns must become much more difficult to obtain in USA and semi auto large mag guns propbalby should be banned completely. Significantly reducing the number of firearms would make them more difficult to obtain illegally also. But this will probably take decades to modify the US gun culture.

a reply to: JimTSpock

I don't think they should be banned myself. I think rather we should just tighten up the requirements to buy them. As for large capacity magazines. All you need is a 3D printer and a spring and you can make any size magazine you want. So if we just tighten up the requirements to buy them (things like gun show loop holes) then I'm sure that will go a long way to stopping these things. Plus it still leaves the 2nd Amendment open for buying them.

Keep in mind though that semi-auto rifles like the AR-15 aren't the weapon of choice for the majority of gun violence in this country though. Most gun related crime involves handguns.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MapMistress

Your method of "destroying" ISIS just leads to more terrorists. Also it is bio-warfare and EXTREMELY against the Geneva Conventions. I mean if you think the heat the US took for the interrogation fiasco during the Bush Presidency, the amount of # we'd get for using weaponized diseases would make that look like a traffic citation. Hell you might as well have just suggested we nuke them with your blatant disregard for the Geneva Conventions.
.

That's pretty naive. No one has followed the Geneva Convention since it was written.

France hasn't followed the Geneva Convention. They have bioweapons. Germany hasn't followed the Geneva Convention. They have bioweapons. England hasn't followed the Geneva Convention. They have bioweapons. Russia hasn't followed the Geneva Convention. They have bioweapons. Japan hasn't followed the Geneva Convention. They have bioweapons.

But you propogate sissy talk and suggest that the US shouldn't do it because of something you heard about Bush. How naive can a person be?

Al Queda had chemical and bioweapons. And guess what, ISIS is trying to create them too.

The Geneva Convention is a treaty that has never been followed by those that signed it.

ISIS wants to attack unarmed men, women and children at fast food joints, restaurants and shopping malls. We as Americans have the right to retaliate in an equal fashion. If ISIS wants to kill Americans through food and their eating habits, then Americans have the right to retaliate against ISIS through their food, even if it results in women and children in the crossfire.

And I'm not talking about weaponized Lou Gehrig's, I'm referring to the NATURAL form.

There is no test on the market to test sheep for Lou Gehrig's. No one can prove if ISIS sheep are infected. Plus there dozens of Ivy League doctors who will claim that Lou Gehrig's is caused by head injuries from sports. There's dozens of Ivy League doctors who will claim Lou Gehrig's is caused by genetics.

Therefore, with so much controversy, no one can prove in any court that Lou Gehrig's is caused by prions in sheep. No one can prove how many ISIS sheep might already be infected. And no one can prove if thousands more sheep get infected.

If the US government plays sissy refusing to do it, then some other country (or pharmaceutical company) will do it.

And the point was that Lou Gehrig's would cripple ISIS. No bombs necessary. Crippled ISIS recruiters, shaking and losing motor control... Well... They'd lose their followers. They'd lose their ability to fire guns. They'd lose their ability to make bombs. If all the ISIS recruiters had Lou Gehrig's, they'd lose their followers.

But as long as ISIS keeps telling their followers to attack American fast food joints, restaurants and shopping malls, then Americans have the right to retaliate by attacking ISIS food supply.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: Krazysh0t

some kind of crack down on guns seems like the answer.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: Krazysh0t
then he could've got an illegal black market weapon.