What Should Have Been Done to Prevent this Mass Shooting?

originally posted by: Domo1
Honestly it doesn't seem like much. Perhaps listen to the co-worker who had been complaining about his radical and violent language?

They did. That's why the FBI had him on a terrorist watch list for one year afterwards.

I dont think there is much that can be done without attacking pesky little things like due process...

Holy Carp face batman.. I am stunned by the sheer amount of people that want to start stripping rights from law abiding citizens because of the actions of a nut case.... astounding it really is.

Technology might help, better scans for weapons at the entrance, apps for people to register and let the club know when they arrive, which gives a time so they won't have to wait outside. A panic button that alerts visitors and police, shutting the place down (and an override ofcourse in case of error), some heavy weapons for the bouncers. All public places need that and I'm not saying the club is to blame because of lack of security.

america has had 1260 mass shootings in 1000 days (source).
a society where guns are easily available plays the biggest part.
feel your a bit of a loner at school?
go get mom's guns and shoot as many kids in the face that'll teach them.
but hey, us brits are planning to attack, hence the second amendment, the argument always used to keep guns.

a hideous incident occurred in britain, where radicals, unhappy at the bombing of iraq, ran over and later beheaded a soldier(source), if weapons were easily available in britain, just how many would have been killed that day?
yes, terrorist strikes will happen but, how bad the actual body count will be, depends largely on the available arsenal.

education also plays a massive part.
until dumb americans actually figure out gun ownership isnt a sign of freedom but, a show of what gullible, afraid society they have.
a recent hot topic around here has been over transgender, a quick scan over the threads here shows, around 99% don't even understand the term, with many of those condoning violence towards transgendered types.
however, a nation that rather mourn and find a solution, sees a spike in weapons sales, means it aint happening in any of our lifetimes, or your kids, or theirs...

a reply to: stinkelbaum

Guns are easily available in Britain. The reason that the people who perpetrated the murder of Lee Rigby did not have any, was because for all that the sort of criminal underclass who has access to supply of that sort of thing are certainly morally defunct, they are not unpatriotic, and anyone who can spot a copper at a hundred yards, can usually smell a rat in other ways as well.

They are not LEGALLY available however. The difference between legal and easy is vast.

Well, while technically not an "immigrant" he is 2nd generation from Afghanistan (or is it first generation?). His father is from Afghanistan, supports their Taliban, and thinks he could run for President of Afghanistan. That's as close as you can get to being from a war torn country to me.

I'd say this is undeniable proof background checks are a joke.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Dystopian?

I wrote that up in a hurry thinking you'd parse through the legal logic.
What I'm saying is that there would be "protections", its not an absolute liability type concept, rather its the idea that there would be a burden on the part of say, a mental health practitioner to report someone to the FBI when they talk about and manifest intention to do harm to others. Today you can be locked up for 30 day evaluation if a shrink finds probable cause to believe you're a potential harm to yourself or others. Today, per NBC, Mateen's wife told FBI of his intentions and that he'd purchased firearms. Per usual, they dropped the ball. Under my proposal, she'd be in the clear, she reported his intentions and actions to the FBI.
See: www.nbcnews.com...

So, even today, without the law I propose, some people do the right thing. I think we need a law that would nudge people in proximate relationship to an evil doer to do the right thing, or suffer the consequences.

a reply to: TonyS

The "see something say something" policy is an ok policy by itself. What I'm calling dystopian is when you jail people for seeing something and not saying something. Especially when employing hindsight as evidence of their guilt. That is a severe violation of due process and not to mention a play out of the Nazi Germany playbook.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Well, while technically not an "immigrant" he is 2nd generation from Afghanistan (or is it first generation?). His father is from Afghanistan, supports their Taliban, and thinks he could run for President of Afghanistan. That's as close as you can get to being from a war torn country to me.

I'd say this is undeniable proof background checks are a joke.

Uh... What? Why would anyone even run a background check on this guy in the first place? Are you telling me that 1st generation Americans born in this country are all really from the third world countries their parents moved from? Or is that only the case for Muslims moving here from the Middle East?

The breakdown is the mosques. They are safe there. So many complaints that they are left alone. They are hotbeds for activity. Why are there never stopped terror attacks because an imam spoke up? Because that is true Islam. A follower, someone who may attend and uses is socially may not agree but many times they are not part of the inner circle.

To continue to turn our backs is what they want. The speech my POTUS gave today again praised Islam and denounced extremism. They are the same thing.

a reply to: matafuchs

Mosques? Why would we crack down on the mosques to stop this attack? He was radicalized on the internet. Or are you trying to use this event to push an unrelated agenda?

originally posted by: matafuchs
The breakdown is the mosques. They are safe there. So many complaints that they are left alone. They are hotbeds for activity. Why are there never stopped terror attacks because an imam spoke up? Because that is true Islam. A follower, someone who may attend and uses is socially may not agree but many times they are not part of the inner circle.

To continue to turn our backs is what they want. The speech my POTUS gave today again praised Islam and denounced extremism. They are the same thing.

So you're coming out clearly as being against the First Amendment?

I'd like to see you say that outright.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think the that the good samaritan laws in France and other european ccountries are Nazi like?

Are you aware of the fact that in France for example, the burden to prove innocence is on the defendant? Is that Nazi like?

You either want to take the steps to stop these type attacks, or you don't. Can't have it both ways.

As to the problems with the lists? Solution to that is to drastically shrink the FBI and DHS and contract out those type functions to a third party corporate contractor. The reason I think that is because these alphabet agencies are tied up with Federal hiring and firing regs so bad that they become giant dump sites for incompetents who can't be fired or even made to work properly. In fact in some cases, it pays the employees to work inefficiently so they can't be blamed for anything. Worse, the agencies are saddled with crap regulations directing who they must hire so they are required to hire idiots and incompetents, at best, and others who may well hate the US, at the worst, all in the name of "diversity" and multiculturalism. Believe me............I've had to work around Federal agencies for years.........they're awful.

Actually, the most efficient method might be to contract a foreign company to do these type jobs, like the maintaining the lists and the TSA Airport functions. The chinese for instance are masters of running state "people control" agencies and they do it darned cheap! Look at Foxcon for example.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

....Mateen's wife told FBI of his intentions and that he'd purchased firearms. Per usual, they dropped the ball. Under my proposal, she'd be in the clear, she reported his intentions and actions to the FBI.
See: www.nbcnews.com...

After the attack she mentioned it, not before. I believe you might have misread your own news source there chucko.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If we work backwards from the incident...security on the door could have been more observant. Is it an easy thing to conceal the weapons he was carrying? I don't mean to say they'd be hanging out, it's a genuine question. Would his clothing or way he walked look different to most of the customers?

Is it too soon to have an idea of number of rounds fired? Has anyone an idea for a clueless UK member? What kind of cubic inches would ~100 rounds for a sig-Sauer and Glock 17 amount to?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Radicalized on the internet? Really man, are the edibles where you live that good? He was radicalized since birth. This is not someone who 6 months ago decided his life sucked and used this as an excuse. They ties to known Muslim terrorist is astounding. This was not a lone wolf.

I also mentioned in another thread this is not over. By a long shot.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not sure why you mean I would want to stifle the first amendment. I am openly asking the question to why the leaders of these mosques are not letting authorities know when these people are recognized as a threat. If Islam is against violence they would report it but do not. That is not preventing the freedom to practice your religion. It is protecting your own.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think the that the good samaritan laws in France and other european ccountries are Nazi like?

Are you aware of the fact that in France for example, the burden to prove innocence is on the defendant? Is that Nazi like?

Actually that is false. Napoleonic Code

Status: False, on at least two levels.

First, the Napoleonic Code doesn't say anything about innocence or guilt, or its presumption, or anything that has something to do with criminal law. That's because it's the nickname given to the french Civil Code because it was established under the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte. The french "Code Civil", as any other Civil Code everywhere in the world, deals only in civil matters: property, damages, tort and the like. It has nothing to do with criminal law. The codes that deal with criminal law, and thus with presumption of guilt or innocence are the "Code Pénal" and the "Code de Procédure Pénale".

You will tell me that, in fact, these are the two codes that say that people are guilty until proven innocent ? Well, you would be wrong. You see, just like the American justice system works according to the rules established in the Bill of Rights, the French justice system works under the rules established in the "Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen", which is one of the texts cited in the various french constituions that were drafted over the years, and is thus part of said constitutions. And the Déclaration clearly states, in its ninth article that (quoting Wikipedia) :

"As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law."

In fact, France goes farther than the United States in protectiong the presumption of innocence. While in America, that principle is only applicable in courts, in France, since june 15th 2000, that presumption extends beyond the court. One exemple: many people were outraged here because Dominique Strauss-Kahn was the victim of a "perp walk". That's because, in his own country, he would not have been subjected to that practice. People who are arrested in a criminal case have their faces masked, either by clothes, or by having their faces blurred on TV or in pics. Their names are not given until trial day.

You either want to take the steps to stop these type attacks, or you don't. Can't have it both ways.

I just want to preserve liberty and freedom.

As to the problems with the lists? Solution to that is to drastically shrink the FBI and DHS and contract out those type functions to a third party corporate contractor. The reason I think that is because these alphabet agencies are tied up with Federal hiring and firing regs so bad that they become giant dump sites for incompetents who can't be fired or even made to work properly. In fact in some cases, it pays the employees to work inefficiently so they can't be blamed for anything. Worse, the agencies are saddled with crap regulations directing who they must hire so they are required to hire idiots and incompetents, at best, and others who may well hate the US, at the worst, all in the name of "diversity" and multiculturalism. Believe me............I've had to work around Federal agencies for years.........they're awful.

Actually, the most efficient method might be to contract a foreign company to do these type jobs, like the maintaining the lists and the TSA Airport functions. The chinese for instance are masters of running state "people control" agencies and they do it darned cheap! Look at Foxcon for example.

I have a feeling you are being facetious here.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Radicalized on the internet? Really man, are the edibles where you live that good? He was radicalized since birth. This is not someone who 6 months ago decided his life sucked and used this as an excuse. They ties to known Muslim terrorist is astounding. This was not a lone wolf.

I also mentioned in another thread this is not over. By a long shot.

Oh really? Care to prove any of this? Because your hopes and wishes aren't substitutes for physical evidence. I mean I have the backing of the FBI on my point. FBI and Obama confirm Omar Mateen was radicalized on the internet

The Islamists are masters of using societies freedoms to further their own cause for example you cant restrict Muslims having guns they are Americans too,this will lead to the Wests demise,we are either at war with radical Islam or we are not,its black or white,and in wars it may be necessary for certain individuals or groups to forfeit certain rights.In 1944 if you were of Japanese or German extraction you sure as hell weren't buying any weapon you sure as hell were not getting a security job in fact most likely you were in an internment camp.So its simple if you tick Muslim for religion you dont get a gun until this war is won.