Screening Mateen

Great point CCC!

Patting is pretty much a standard all over the world, especially in bars/even concerts to ensure that people do not bring in their own booze. This is to ensure maximized sales inside the venue, amongst other things.

This does make you wonder how did the assailant smuggle in the rifle. Hmmm..!!

Z

cccmedia wrote:

3.  Anything that doesn't fit in your pockets must be checked at the one entrance -- to be held in a secure room or a set of lockers outside the front door.

Unfortunately, no amount of metal detectors, pat down and laws would prevent a crazy criminal with intend to kill to enter a facility that is not heavily protected.

"Mateen approached the Pulse nightclub armed with a .223 caliber AR-type rifle and a Glock handgun. After engaging in gunfire with an officer stationed outside the club, he entered and sprayed the venue with bullets."

English2Francais wrote:

no amount of metal detectors, pat down and laws would prevent a crazy criminal with intend to kill to enter a facility that is not heavily protected.

Are you equally certain that enhanced security at the entrance could not have been a deterrent to a Mateen even deciding to choose Pulse as his target venue?

Video cameras at the exterior connected to monitors inside could conceivably have helped save lives.  Cockpit-quality security doors could theoretically have shut Mateen out before entering the club, limiting most of his mayhem to the entrance area.

cccmedia

You can take as much as security you want but if a maniac start shooting around, kill the  security guy and force himself into the club then you can't do much. 

Be honest: would you go out in a club with heavily security ? Is this not a kind of fake safe feeling? If they need to take that much protection then I feel not safe .
Rather go somewhere else .

Primadonna wrote:

Be honest: would you go out in a club with heavily security ? .... If they need to take that much protection then I feel not safe.

Given the Mateen Massacre and the 15 other mass-shootings about which President Obama has addressed the nation, I would enter a club with such security.  I presume, going forward, that more and more people will feel better and safer about clubs with strong security as opposed to lax security.

That's my honest answer.

cccmedia

I think its time to ban to have the right to buy and wear guns.

cccmedia wrote:

Are you equally certain that enhanced security at the entrance could not have been a deterrent to a Mateen even deciding to choose Pulse as his target venue?

Video cameras at the exterior connected to monitors inside could conceivably have helped save lives.  Cockpit-quality security doors could theoretically have shut Mateen out before entering the club, limiting most of his mayhem to the entrance area.

cccmedia

The more security the better. Multiple bouncers with CCW and CCTV system is good. But it's still not a guarantee that a crazy criminal won't start shooting up the place. In any case, most mass shootings and terror attacks happen in places where there aren't too many people carrying guns unlike police stations and shooting ranges.

Primadonna wrote:

I think its time to ban to have the right to buy and wear guns.

That is not the answer. Guns are banned in France and more than 150 people were massacred in Paris. Turf wars in Marseille with full-auto AK47 and RPG attacks of armored trucks happen every year. Yet, guns are banned.
Mexico is under a total ban and have a murder rate by firearms tremendously higher than the US.

Something tells me if the law-abiding public was unarmed in America there might well be a lot more gun deaths. The gun-toting criminals would have little to fear from armed owners when they break in.

El_Jost wrote:

Something tells me if the law-abiding public was unarmed in America there might well be a lot more gun deaths. The gun-toting criminals would have little to fear from armed owners when they break in.

Indeed. There's a reason why my rural neighborhood doesn't have break-ins, why I leave my vehicles unlocked outside and why we can sleep with open windows.

I find Stefan Molyneux can often give some pertinent viewpoints.

The Orlando Attack: The War on The West | Mike Cernovich and Stefan Molyneux

English2Francais wrote:

Primadonna wrote:

I think its time to ban to have the right to buy and wear guns.

That is not the answer. Guns are banned in France and more than 150 people were massacred in Paris. Turf wars in Marseille with full-auto AK47 and RPG attacks of armored trucks happen every year. Yet, guns are banned.
Mexico is under a total ban and have a murder rate by firearms tremendously higher than the US.

Maybe its not the answer but it would help a lot. How many times I read accidental killings by children who "found" a gun? How many times to come? How many times people shoot on others to claim it is self defense but it wasn't? How many times argues get out of control and someone shoot?

The situations you described were terrorist attacks and its a total different situation.
In the Netherlands it happen once if I am correctly but not by terrorist but by a young man who had mental disabilities. Ironic enough he had a licence to carry a weapon in a shooting club. And practical no one carries a gun in the Netherlands. Same for Jordan as its not allowed.
One time there was during a wedding celebration in a hotel a killing by a bomb. Since than the security is leveled up in malls and hotels but still to laugh about.
Mexico is in my point of view totally different as it is a corrupt and drugs related with powerful gangs where money and power rules.

English2Francais wrote:

El_Jost wrote:

Something tells me if the law-abiding public was unarmed in America there might well be a lot more gun deaths. The gun-toting criminals would have little to fear from armed owners when they break in.

Indeed. There's a reason why my rural neighborhood doesn't have break-ins, why I leave my vehicles unlocked outside and why we can sleep with open windows.

I think it totally depends at the area where you live in.

Primadonna, I respect your point of view and I can understand where you're coming from. But we already have over 40,000 gun laws in the US. The bottom line is that law-abiding citizens who do no harm to others will abide by the law. All the others, inclulding Mateen, do not care about not being able to buy a gun at the store or have a 10 rounds capacity limit on a magazine. They will get guns, they will kill people and police will come to fill paperwork when all is said and done. The accidents you mention account for a miniscule number of accidental deaths in the US compared to 50,000 accidental deaths from motor vehicles, 15,000 falls, 7,000 poisoning, 6,000 drowning, etc...

I understand the knee-jerk reaction as I am horrified by all these senseless killings, but taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is not the answer and will achieve absolutly nothing. I want to see solutions from our leaders that will impact us positively, not smoke and mirrors.

Looking at some recent news items on this shooting I'm hearing that it took some three hours before the police could intervene. There were upwards of 300 odd people in the club and during this time apparently no one was able to make a video or even a photo or two of what was going on. I find this hard to believe.

El_Jost wrote:

Looking at some recent news items on this shooting I'm hearing that it took some three hours before the police could intervene. There were upwards of 300 odd people in the club and during this time apparently no one was able to make a video or even a photo or two of what was going on. I find this hard to believe.

Agreed. There are a lot of inconsistencies. And like pointed in the youtube link you posted above, between the firefight outside the club, shooting 102 people and another firefight with the SWAT team, he had to carry at least 500 rounds of .223 plus several more hundreds rounds for the Glock, which I suppose to be a .45, plus all the mags. I carried similar number of ammo before and I can guarantee you that it is very heavy and not very practical to move around for long. Impossible, I wouldn't say so, but definitely tremendously challenging.

Just as the world does not get any safer with nuclear weapons (despite most of them being under control of rationally acting politicians), it does also not get any safer with guns or other tools made for killing people (even though most of them belong to law-abiding citizens).
Please stop the nonsense of saying otherwise!

beppi wrote:

Just as the world does not get any safer with nuclear weapons (despite most of them being under control of rationally acting politicians), it does also not get any safer with guns or other tools made for killing people (even though most of them belong to law-abiding citizens).
Please stop the nonsense of saying otherwise!

Obviously we disagree on this issue and you are entitled to your view on firearms. But I would still like to understand what me owning an AR15 causes the world to be less safe and how that constitutes a nonsense. I understand that people fear what they don't know, but it still doesn't make this type of actual nonsense (world less safe because E2F owns a gun) true.

People (including you) tend to react irrationally in some situations. That is unsafe if a gun is involved.
It is obvious from the seemingly endless stream of lunatic killing sprees in the USA that this is true. Not having a gun at hand will prevent most of it, as shown by the situation in Europe or most of Asia (where the people aren't any less crazy, but life is more peaceful).

In addition, it is widely acknowledged in the mediation and conflict resolution scene that answering a threat or aggression in kind is NOT the right way to a peaceful solution. I don't see why this should be different with guns in private life!

@ Beppi
Just to confirm!  Is that "answering a thread" or "answering a threat"?
It changes the meaning a lot.

Of course I meant "threat" - sorry for the non-native-speaker mistake and thanks for pointing it out. I will edit my post accordingly.

We're going completely off topic, although I understand that people who don't know/are afraid of guns are mixing terrorist/criminal activities and the constitutional freedom of gun ownership by law-abiding people.
Last comment of my freedom to own guns before this thread goes too far.

First, I will not take responsibility for people's criminal acts because I own a gun. I am not responsible for these acts and should not suffer consequences because of these evil people. Period!

beppi wrote:

People (including you) tend to react irrationally in some situations. That is unsafe if a gun is involved.

You do not know what you are talking about. I know dozens of people who own guns. I'm a gunsmith, competition shooter, gun collector, gun club organizer and a hunter. I spent most of my life around guns and the gun culture. I meet countless shooters of all ages, gender, race, social background and origins. None of them ever committed a crime with a firearm, none of these hundreds of firearms have ever been fired at people over decades. This myth about having a firearm at home is dangerous is absurd and the facts and numbers simply dismiss that myth. And don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to gun and gun ownership. I guarantee you that I know this environment and culture more than you do.

People who act irrational and grab a gun, knife, hatchet, crowbar, hammer, baseball bat, etc... and assault people with any these are sociopath with mental illness and should be locked up at best. Again, they will kill, guns or not, period. This is a fact. The Boston bombing used no guns, 9/11 used no guns.

beppi wrote:

It is obvious from the seemingly endless stream of lunatic killing sprees in the USA that this is true. Not having a gun at hand will prevent most of it, as shown by the situation in Europe or most of Asia (where the people aren't any less crazy, but life is more peaceful).

The US is not even in the top 10 countries of gun-related death:

All the countries where gun-related crimes are more prevalent than the US have far stricter gun laws and less private gun ownership. The fact that global medias only focus on gun crime in the US make it look like this is the most dangerous place in the world related to gun crimes. I guarantee you that there are worse places and definitely more dangerous countries to live in the world. These, again, are facts, not opinions.

beppi wrote:

In addition, it is widely acknowledged in the mediation and conflict resolution scene that answering a threat or aggression in kind is NOT the right way to a peaceful solution. I don't see why this should be different with guns in private life!

Home invasions happen. This is a fact of life. When 5 dudes show up in your living room at 3am, some armed, what are you gonna do? Negotiating so they don't murder you and rape your wife? You can't offer them anything they can already take. You can't just call 911 and wait for help to come. I really hope that it doesn't happen to you, but in this situation, the best option IS an AR15 or similar home defense device. Any law enforcement, self defense instructor and other professionals in this field will agree with me.

I will end this discussion that is going off topic. The original post is talking about the terrorist attack in Orlando by a radical islamist and how he managed to get in the night club.
Let us remember that he was on multiple watch lists, he was interviewed twice by the FBI, he had ties (at least over the internet) to terrorist organizations and talked about jihad for many years. Yet, he was able to go free and was approved by the federal government to get a security license and a firearm license. The Government dropped the ball on this, not my constitutional right to own a firearm. Let's place the blame where it belongs, criminals, radical islam and federals... not me.

.

English2Francais wrote:

<span>[Post under review]</span>

Moderator, please explain.

@English2francais

Simple.
The moderators are reviewing your post.

stumpy wrote:

@English2francais

Simple.
The moderators are reviewing your post.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. 

Getting back to the subject of Orlando.

Bebbi I know you mean well but I don't share your views on gun ownership or use.
No amount of being 'non aggressive' would have stopped the Orlando shooter. However, someone carrying a gun might have been able to take him out while he was changing magazines. That would have saved people's lives.

And banning guns only takes them out of the hands of trained, law-abiding people. Criminals and madmen will still have them ... as we saw in Britain only yesterday.

Hi everybody,

Each of us has our own point of view about this sad situation but let's avoid arguing with each other please.

It would be great if this topic does not become a political one as well, we are not apt to deal with such matters.

Lets go back to the initial topic now and thank you all for your participation.

Priscilla

I'm always amused by the "You can't ban guns because there was a shooting in a country that bans guns" argument.

One has to look at how many people are killed by gunfire over a period of time, say a year or ten years, then see if gun control is likely to make a difference.

I'd also suggest you need to look at other social issues within any given society, perhaps the percentage of a given country's population in prison at any given time, and how many murders there are in that country, including and excluding gun related deaths.

You'd also have to look at accidental shootings, say committed by children, as this is likely to give you an ideas as to how firearm safety is viewed in any given place.

The party political answers are almost always the wrong ones, usually based on a silly ideal instead of logic.

English2Francais wrote:

Mexico is under a total ban and have a murder rate by firearms tremendously higher than the US.

Oops, forget to suggest drug abuse is a potential issue that could be a factor in gun crime.
If there is a serious drug dealer infestation, will that lead to more violent crime?

The Economist, a source of usually well-researched and argued articles that is read by many political decision makers, writes on http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac … re-florida :

The Economist wrote:

A brief note here about pesky facts. One of the favourite ploys of pro-gun lobbyists in America is to claim that Australia and Britain have been plagued with violent crime since each of those countries endured a big gun massacre and responded by tightening gun laws dramatically. The pro-gun lobby's numbers do not add up. Australia outlawed assault rifles, semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns. Australia has not had another mass shooting since its laws changed in 1996, and a University of Sydney study shows that firearm homicide rates fell 7.5% per year after the introduction of the new laws, with no offsetting rise in other homicides. Australian robbery and break-in rates have also fallen since 1996.

As for Britain, the number of violent assaults in America is comparable to those of other western countries, yet murders are much more common. Guns are used in two-thirds of all murders. Americans are five times as likely to be murdered as Britons but over 40 times as likely to be murdered with a gun.

Oh, and is violence seen as an acceptable solution to an argument in any given country?
If so, easy access to firearms will make a bad situation worse.

Apologies if I contributed to make that thread go 
We all have different views on different topics and that's a good thing.
To go back on target (pun half-intended), we can all agree that the Orlando terrorist attack was a terrible tragedy as was the senseless murder of that politician in the UK yesterday. I just wish that all this violence would stop.

English2Francais wrote:

we can all agree that the Orlando terrorist attack was a terrible tragedy as was the senseless murder of that politician in the UK yesterday. I just wish that all this violence would stop.

The "terrorist" attack in the US has been under some debate since we found out his ties to extremist groups were mostly in his mind and he was far more likely to be a sad case of a man who couldn't accept his own sexuality rather than an ISIS fanatic.
Still, that's a bit of a moot point if you happen to be dead or he killed your friends and family.
As for the lady in the UK, a pointless idiot with a weapon gained another victory for blind stupidity on that one.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it so there's no ambiguity as to my position.
Mass killers of all political shades are pointless twits.
There's loads of real suffering in the world caused by hunger, disease and a whole host of natural problems, but these twits insist on creating more.

Their stupidity is mind boggling.

Fred wrote:

I've said it before and I'll repeat it so there's no ambiguity as to my position.
Mass killers of all political shades are pointless twits.
There's loads of real suffering in the world caused by hunger, disease and a whole host of natural problems, but these twits insist on creating more.

Their stupidity is mind boggling.

I couldn't agree more 

Interesting stuff, cheers

Hi everybody,

This is to inform you that we have removed some posts ( political and off topic posts ) from this thread.

Thank you,

Priscilla