Should Omar Mateen have been legally allowed to buy a gun on June 10, 2016?

[ag]

As long as anyone else is, he should have been allowed to buy it. There does not seem to have been any disqualifies on this record.

Of course, nobody should have been allowed to buy it in the first place.

[TDAS04]

Not a machine gun. They belong into the hands of the police, national guard and military. And no one else. That has nothing to do with self-protection or hunting.

Agreed.

Even if the second amendment allows citizens to arm themselves, government can still place reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons that private citizens can own.  There is no constitutional right by have any weapon you can get your hands on.

[Mr. Reactionary]

"According to reports, the alleged gunman in Orlando, Omar Mateen, purchased an AR-type rifle and a 9mm semiautomatic pistol legally despite the fact he had been questioned twice by the FBI. There was no open investigation at the time he bought the guns. Mateen was not on the watch list at the time and it is not clear that this bill would have prevented him from purchasing guns."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/dems-renew-push-to-stop-people-on-no-fly-list-from-buying-guns

[Virginiá]

Does the FBI get notified when people who were under suspicion, or still under suspicion / on watchlist attempt to purchase firearms? At the very least they should be notified and the FBI should keep a close eye on them for a reasonable amount of time to make sure things like this don't happen. I'd like to think that there aren't so many current/former persons of interest trying to buy weapons that it isn't feasible to keep an eye on them for an indeterminate amount of time after the fact.

It just bothers me that the FBI had tips or suspicions of some of these shooters (past and present) and yet still ending up with this bs. I'd understand more if the shooters were completely random people never before suspected, but come on now.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Does the FBI get notified when people who were under suspicion, or still under suspicion / on watchlist attempt to purchase firearms? At the very least they should be notified and the FBI should keep a close eye on them for a reasonable amount of time to make sure things like this don't happen. I'd like to think that there aren't so many current/former persons of interest trying to buy weapons that it isn't feasible to keep an eye on them for an indeterminate amount of time after the fact.

It just bothers me that the FBI had tips or suspicions of some of these shooters (past and present) and yet still ending up with this bs. I'd understand more if the shooters were completely random people never before suspected, but come on now.

The problem with all these threads and the ridiculous suggestions contained in them is no one is posting real verified data.

How many people are on these lists?  I mean if you have a list with 200,000 people on it then there simply isn't the manpower to set up a surveillance team every time one of the people on the list sneezes.  There are less than 14,000 special agents at the FBI and they also have other responsibilities.

And how many tips come in to law enforcement?  If you watch local news they get hundreds of tips regarding things like abductions.  I guarantee most of those are BS.  The FBI can't send a full blown team out to thoroughly investigate every tip.

I realize people are upset but please be realistic.  This isn't the movies.

[Virginiá]

The problem with all these threads and the ridiculous suggestions contained in them is no one is posting real verified data.

How many people are on these lists?  I mean if you have a list with 200,000 people on it then there simply isn't the manpower to set up a surveillance team every time one of the people on the list sneezes.  There are less than 14,000 special agents at the FBI and they also have other responsibilities.

Right. I don't know if you are referring to my post with that but I said only when they attempt to purchase a gun. I don't think there would be a large number of instances of that happening, but then again, I don't have the data to back up that assertion. I think it would be reasonable to have them notified so they can make decisions on who to look further into.

This stuff is going to happen no matter what we do, but I wish we could at least try some things instead of Congress just doing nothing every single time. They can even add sunsets to the bills to prevent one side from unfairly obstructing repeal if the ideas/programs don't work.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think the problem goes deeper than whether he was on a watch list or not. I'm rather sceptical toward accuracy of such watch list, since Ted Kennedy himself was accidentally put on a no-fly list. A harmless individual can end up there, while a dangerous extremist is "clear".

What I find most troubling is that he (anybody) was legally allowed to buy a freaking machine gun. It's not a hunting weapon or a simple gun.

Also, I don't know Florida gun laws, but there really should be thorough backround check. I know it's costly and time consuming, but public security is not cheap.


Btw, I live in a country with rather restrictive gun laws. To get a simple hunting rifle you need to undergo an extensive check and you must follow strict rules about keeping it in a safe place. And, needles to say, any gun-related violence here is rare.

[dead0man]

FYI, it was NOT a "machine" gun.  That implies automatic, those are (virtually) illegal in the US.  It was a semi-auto (you know, just like a regular hunting rifle) with scary clothes on.

[Virginiá]

Btw, I live in a country with rather restrictive gun laws. To get a simple hunting rifle you need to undergo an extensive check and you must follow strict rules about keeping it in a safe place. And, needles to say, any gun-related violence here is rare.

There are a number of things we could do, but any time anyone brings up any sort of restriction, no matter how small, you get a outpouring of people bitching and pointing out any and every little reason of why such restrictions or ideas would be burdensome or just bad. Every. Freakin. Time.

As I've always maintained, I am only in favor of ideas that actually reduce violence, as opposed to ideas that help nothing and serve just to make people / interest groups feel better. But the resistance to meaningful reforms in this country is getting absurd. If I didn't know better, the ultimate goal on the right seems to be having guns as easy to purchase as candy. I'm getting a bit sick of this blind, across-the-board resistance to anything but deregulation. People should be willing to compromise if the ideas have a chance at making things better.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yes.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

The problem with all these threads and the ridiculous suggestions contained in them is no one is posting real verified data.

How many people are on these lists?  I mean if you have a list with 200,000 people on it then there simply isn't the manpower to set up a surveillance team every time one of the people on the list sneezes.  There are less than 14,000 special agents at the FBI and they also have other responsibilities.

Right. I don't know if you are referring to my post with that but I said only when they attempt to purchase a gun. I don't think there would be a large number of instances of that happening, but then again, I don't have the data to back up that assertion. I think it would be reasonable to have them notified so they can make decisions on who to look further into.

This stuff is going to happen no matter what we do, but I wish we could at least try some things instead of Congress just doing nothing every single time. They can even add sunsets to the bills to prevent one side from unfairly obstructing repeal if the ideas/programs don't work.

There is a gigantic gun show loop hole.  Anyone can buy a gun with no background check.  No way for the FBI to even know a sale has happened.

Also there is a very stringent time limit on background checks.  If the FBI doesn't deny a sale within 72 hours the purchaser can just get the gun by default.  There have been cases of the FBI eventually telling a gun store, no way, but too late, the gun buyer is already merrily on their way.

The fact of the matter is from the time of purchase to massacre was week.  A team would have had to been on a plane fairly quickly to get down there and set up 24-7 surveillance.

And I don't know how often people on those lists buy guns at stores that run background checks.

And with all these instances hindsight is 20/20.  People always find warning signs and missed opportunities after the fact.  The problem is a lot of the time these people aren't doing anything illegal right up until the pull out the gun.

You can't have AR-15s lying around and expect peace.  Until Congress takes steps to change that this chaos will continue.  14,000 FBI special agents can't protect us from millions of AR-15s.

[Virginiá]

There is a gigantic gun show loop hole.  Anyone can buy a gun with no background check.  No way for the FBI to even know a sale has happened.

Also there is a very stringent time limit on background checks.  If the FBI doesn't deny a sale within 72 hours the purchaser can just get the gun by default.  There have been cases of the FBI eventually telling a gun store, no way, but too late, the gun buyer is already merrily on their way.

Yes, so maybe require buyers to pick up their gun at a store after a check has been done. Require people to wait for the check to be done before getting the gun, while the govt does what it has to to make the checks quick. These are the things I'm talking about. I'm sure any number of people out there, or even on this forum, would argue somehow these are bad things and come up with a list of excuses. I don't think it's too much to ask to do these things. At the end of the day, if they can pass a check, they can get their gun. It may take a little longer and they may have to drive to a store, but big freakin deal.

I'm so tired of this debate. One side wants to ban guns every time a major shooting happens, and the other wants to do nothing but deregulate further. Same thing every time. Right now it seems Democrats will take what they can get, while Republicans refuse to cede an inch on this.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

After doing some research, in addition to what I've read in this thread, I'm astonished how dysfunctional backround check as performed now are.

[SWE]

Since that would be very out of character for an American Christian, I would certainly be surprised.  

Indeed, American Christians would much prefer to shoot up a Planned Parenthood than a gay nightclub.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Since that would be very out of character for an American Christian, I would certainly be surprised.  

Indeed, American Christians would much prefer to shoot up a Planned Parenthood than a gay nightclub.

In some circles this specimen of a domestic terrorist is considered a "hero".

[Green Line]

Since that would be very out of character for an American Christian, I would certainly be surprised.  

Indeed, American Christians would much prefer to shoot up a Planned Parenthood than a gay nightclub.

The numbers of Americans killed by Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism is a bunny hill vs Mt Everest.  What a strawman.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Since that would be very out of character for an American Christian, I would certainly be surprised.  

Indeed, American Christians would much prefer to shoot up a Planned Parenthood than a gay nightclub.

The numbers of Americans killed by Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism is a bunny hill vs Mt Everest.  What a strawman.

Actually, the numbers of Americans killed by domestic terrorism is greater than any foreign terrorism. But, of course, everybody fixates about those bad Muslims.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Since that would be very out of character for an American Christian, I would certainly be surprised.  

Indeed, American Christians would much prefer to shoot up a Planned Parenthood than a gay nightclub.

The numbers of Americans killed by Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism is a bunny hill vs Mt Everest.  What a strawman.

Actually, the numbers of Americans killed by domestic terrorism is greater than any foreign terrorism. But, of course, everybody fixates about those bad Muslims.

Of course, this attack in Orlando wasn't foreign terrorism. Nor was the Boston bombers, etc, etc. In fact, with the exception of the Charleston massacre, the Sikh Temple shooting and the Oklahoma City Bombing, most of the major mass casualty  incidents (Fort Hood, Boston, Orlando, San Bernadino, etc) were committed by Muslims.

Whether you agree with Trump or are like me and find his proposed Muslim ban retarded, it's intellectually dishonest to perpetrate the myth that it's still 1994 and that militia groups are still a threat. Even if they did exist outside of a handful of Bubbas drinking beer and shooting off their guns in an Idaho trailer park, how many Federal Buildings have they blown up since McVeigh?

[dead0man]

Since that would be very out of character for an American Christian, I would certainly be surprised. 

Indeed, American Christians would much prefer to shoot up a Planned Parenthood than a gay nightclub.

The numbers of Americans killed by Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism is a bunny hill vs Mt Everest.  What a strawman.

Actually, the numbers of Americans killed by domestic terrorism is greater than any foreign terrorism.

Perhaps, if you're really broad with some terms and are counting over the entire history of the US.  But if you shorten that time frame to say, the last 100 years, you're going to need a cite for that claim.

[Green Line]

Since that would be very out of character for an American Christian, I would certainly be surprised.  

Indeed, American Christians would much prefer to shoot up a Planned Parenthood than a gay nightclub.

The numbers of Americans killed by Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism is a bunny hill vs Mt Everest.  What a strawman.

Actually, the numbers of Americans killed by domestic terrorism is greater than any foreign terrorism. But, of course, everybody fixates about those bad Muslims.

Of course, this attack in Orlando wasn't foreign terrorism. Nor was the Boston bombers, etc, etc. In fact, with the exception of the Charleston massacre, the Sikh Temple shooting and the Oklahoma City Bombing, most of the major mass casualty  incidents (Fort Hood, Boston, Orlando, San Bernadino, etc) were committed by Muslims.

Whether you agree with Trump or are like me and find his proposed Muslim ban retarded, it's intellectually dishonest to perpetrate the myth that it's still 1994 and that militia groups are still a threat. Even if they did exist outside of a handful of Bubbas drinking beer and shooting off their guns in an Idaho trailer park, how many Federal Buildings have they blown up since McVeigh?

The Oklahoma City bombing also was not even christian terrorism.  Thats my point.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Since that would be very out of character for an American Christian, I would certainly be surprised.  

Indeed, American Christians would much prefer to shoot up a Planned Parenthood than a gay nightclub.

The numbers of Americans killed by Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism is a bunny hill vs Mt Everest.  What a strawman.

Actually, the numbers of Americans killed by domestic terrorism is greater than any foreign terrorism. But, of course, everybody fixates about those bad Muslims.

Of course, this attack in Orlando wasn't foreign terrorism. 

Yet certain people are tying this to "foreign terrorism".

[Green Line]

Since that would be very out of character for an American Christian, I would certainly be surprised.  

Indeed, American Christians would much prefer to shoot up a Planned Parenthood than a gay nightclub.

The numbers of Americans killed by Christian terrorism vs Islamic terrorism is a bunny hill vs Mt Everest.  What a strawman.

Actually, the numbers of Americans killed by domestic terrorism is greater than any foreign terrorism. But, of course, everybody fixates about those bad Muslims.

Of course, this attack in Orlando wasn't foreign terrorism. 

Yet certain people are tying this to "foreign terrorism".

Domestic Islamic terrorism and foreign Islamic terrorism do not exist in two seperate worlds.  He was radicalized by foreign terrorists (ISIS) and his parents were immigrants.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Many acts that are perfectly fitting the description of "domestic terrorism" are either overlooked, but described as simple murders/shootings.

If the Columbine shooting (any of recent school shootings) was being perpetrated by a Muslim, media would instantly call it a terrorist act, rather than "just" a "school shooting".

[Green Line]

Many acts that are perfectly fitting the description of "domestic terrorism" are either overlooked, but described as simple murders/shootings.

If the Columbine shooting (any of recent school shootings) was being perpetrated by a Muslim, media would instantly call it a terrorist act, rather than "just" a "school shooting".

No, if the Columbine shooters had a political agenda with their shooting they would have been called terrorists. Terrorism requires a political motive, such as the Charleston church shooting, oklahoma city, orlando, etc.  (Oops, looks like 2 of those were done by white guys)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I mean, in terms of motivation, the Colombine killers and Mateen aren't too far apart. They both wanted infamy and got it. The depth of Omar's big political statement was a token mention of isis. He didn't even release a manifesto, lazy sod.