OPINION: Could The FBI Have Stopped The Terrorist In Orlando?

The FBI was tracking the radical Islamic for many years.

In a news conference an FBI spokesperson stated there is no need for an investigation if the agents did their job well.

Hummm.........3 days before the shooting the killer bought a high powered rifle at a store that also provided rifle training.

No.

Take guns out of the equation and any moron with internet can learn to make a bomb. This is why we see more bombings in places where guns are more restricted. Humans are very good at working out solutions to things like bans. Look at prohibition, war on drugs etc.

But, here is my take on guns. There should be a waiting period and background check. There should be a limit on number of rounds in a clip In CA it's 8 I think. Yes, people can illegally buy larger clips but it's a place to start. Since "assault" is not a type of gun we can't make them illegal. We can make certain characteristics illegal. AR-15 is just an semi auto riffle. What makes rifles more dangerous is when you can load 100 rounds in a clip. If you converted amy rifle to accept that many rounds without reload it is massively destructive.

Gun laws vary so much from state to state. We should adopt common federal laws requiring waiting periods, background check, fingerprints, training. Would all of that stop gun violence? Of course not, but it would reduce it quite a bit IMO. Nobody should be able to walk into a gun shop and buy any gun on the spot.

Banning certain types of guns may help reduce crime in the short run but it doesn't address the fact that sick people will always find a way to do sick things.

I wonder how many people the FBI "tracks"? Probably a large number. Would you have them all jailed? It is a difficult situation for sure, maybe the FBI can learn something from it.

I understand the shooter was a private security guard, what the NRA would have called "a good guy with a gun" - until he wasn't.

This guy strikes me as more of a nut case than an Islamic terrorist.

I'm not a gun owner, but feel the major change needed is to ban assault rifles. The FBI, Homeland Security etc. can't watch us all. Anyone can make a bomb maybe, but it's still not the norm in mass shootings.

I hate the political finger pointing which happens after these things. Occasionally there are psych issues that Republicans point to and say he (she) shouldn't have been released from that hospital, and Dems say they it was because their budgets were cut. I would rather take as much of that out of the equation.

RSX wrote:

I'm not a gun owner, but feel the major change needed is to ban assault rifles.

None of the rifles sold legally over the counter in the US are "assault rifles" This is a term loosely designated for military weapons. Assault riffles have selective firing modes such as single shot, burst (2-3 rounds with one trigger pull) or full auto. This feature allows a soldier to maximize round use. No guns with these features are sold legally in the US. I'm sure they can be obtained through the black market. A market that will rapidly expand when'/if any particular gun is banned.

What makes any gun more dangerous is the ability to hold large numbers of rounds and fast clip replacement. This goes for rifles, pistols (which are almost entirely semi-auto now) or shotguns. A shotgun with high capacity and rapid clip replacement would be far more effective in a scenario such as this florida night club where each shot is really 8.

IMO people's fight should be for limiting maximum clip sizes and better background checks and training. As a gun owner and a gun rights advocate I feel that we fall far short when it comes to common sense solutions. And that's frustrating.

What about high capacity magazines in rimfire rifles (like the 30 rounders I have for my 10-22)?

I think limits will only affect those who choose to live within the law. It does nothing about the millions of high capacity magazines out there or those who choose to circumvent the law to do harm.

I read an article in which the reporter, in Orlando, walked into a gun shop and out with an AR-15 in 38 minutes. Even that was a long wait, apparently because their background checks were backed up... there's been a run on these weapons as is often the case following a mass shooting. In PA a reporter walked into a store and out with an identical rifle in 7 minutes. Somehow in Orlando there's a 3 day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun yet no waiting period for an AR-15. Mind boggling.

Capt Awesome wrote:

I read an article in which the reporter, in Orlando, walked into a gun shop and out with an AR-15 in 38 minutes. Even that was a long wait, apparently because their background checks were backed up... there's been a run on these weapons as is often the case following a mass shooting. In PA a reporter walked into a store and out with an identical rifle in 7 minutes. Somehow in Orlando there's a 3 day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun yet no waiting period for an AR-15. Mind boggling.

The shooter didn't use an AR-15 he used a sig MCX. I'm sure you could buy one of those just as easy. It was widely reported as a AR-15 by numerous news sources right after the shooting. It would be nice if they could actually take the time to investigate facts before reporting them. This was like the Newtown shooting where the number and types of guns changed several times over a period of days. News stations are in such a hurry to break news that they don't seem too concerned if they are even reporting fact vs. fiction.

But I agree with your sentiment. Nobody should be able to buy any gun without a waiting period and background check. It boggles my mind that there are people who disagree with this most basic safety protocol.

There is a huge difference between BUYING a gun and OWNING a gun. It is easy to come up with ways to control the former, just about impossible to control the latter.

AR15 vs. SIG MCX is a distinction without a difference.
They are chambered for the same round (5.56), will both accept standard AR style magazines, utilize the same mounting hardware, have a standard MIL Spec upper and lower, etc.

In fact, the only real difference isn't a difference at all. The SIG utilizes a Gas Piston types system on the bolt rather than a direct impingement system.

Many high end AR's use the same thing.

Calling it an AR is fine in my book. Unless Sig Sauer is that desperate for publicity.

And for the record, that rifle would not be affected by the "assault weapon ban".

I have guns, and I have a license to carry. I don't really see the need for AR type rifles, but that's just me.

BIS wrote:

Capt Awesome wrote:

I read an article in which the reporter, in Orlando, walked into a gun shop and out with an AR-15 in 38 minutes. Even that was a long wait, apparently because their background checks were backed up... there's been a run on these weapons as is often the case following a mass shooting. In PA a reporter walked into a store and out with an identical rifle in 7 minutes. Somehow in Orlando there's a 3 day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun yet no waiting period for an AR-15. Mind boggling.

The shooter didn't use an AR-15 he used a sig MCX. I'm sure you could buy one of those just as easy. It was widely reported as a AR-15 by numerous news sources right after the shooting. It would be nice if they could actually take the time to investigate facts before reporting them. This was like the Newtown shooting where the number and types of guns changed several times over a period of days. News stations are in such a hurry to break news that they don't seem too concerned if they are even reporting fact vs. fiction.

But I agree with your sentiment. Nobody should be able to buy any gun without a waiting period and background check. It boggles my mind that there are people who disagree with this most basic safety protocol.

I know and was going to mention this, but figured they're similar enough and the AR is the model they purchased in the article... for the ridiculously low price of $664.

People that are on the FBI watch list should not be able to buy any guns. This should be a federal law.

Naz: Any Islamic terrorist is a nut job. When he called 911 he claimed something of the sort=this is for ISIS.

His wife was arrested because she admitted she tried to talk him out of killing all that he hated-gays, blacks, Jews etc. She should of come forth and told authorities after he bought the gun.

HonkyTonkRunner wrote:

People that are on the FBI watch list should not be able to buy any guns. This should be a federal law.

Naz: Any Islamic terrorist is a nut job. When he called 911 he claimed something of the sort=this is for ISIS.

His wife was arrested because she admitted she tried to talk him out of killing all that he hated-gays, blacks, Jews etc. She should of come forth and told authorities after he bought the gun.

ISIS claims are a fad these days. He was a nut job.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/orlando-gunman-omar-mateen-political-extremist-or-repressed-homosexual-20160615-gpjooz.html

I haven't read that he was currently on an FBI watch list. He was investigated in 2013 and the investigation was closed, is what I've read. When was his wife arrested? I hadn't read that either. I'm saddened by it, but kinda don't give a crap about the whole thing. Trump saying it was Obama's fault. Hillary trying to outlaw guns. It's all just political stupidity and an insult to the victims and their friends and families. And, I'm sure, just shit tons of misinformation on the web which people now believe as fact, so I've only been half-assed keeping up with the details. I'll bet my last dollar this wasn't some Islamic terror attack, though. Why would ISIS or one of their killers target a gay nightclub and only a gay nightclub? That's not their M.O.

A thoughtful analysis:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/Extremist_angle_dominates_Orlando_Omar_Mateen_coverage_despite_CIAs_finding_no_links_to_ISIS.html

Banana!! wrote:

I haven't read that he was currently on an FBI watch list. He was investigated in 2013 and the investigation was closed, is what I've read. When was his wife arrested? I hadn't read that either. I'm saddened by it, but kinda don't give a crap about the whole thing. Trump saying it was Obama's fault. Hillary trying to outlaw guns. It's all just political stupidity and an insult to the victims and their friends and families. And, I'm sure, just shit tons of misinformation on the web which people now believe as fact, so I've only been half-assed keeping up with the details. I'll bet my last dollar this wasn't some Islamic terror attack, though. Why would ISIS or one of their killers target a gay nightclub and only a gay nightclub? That's not their M.O.

The source regarding wife being arrested and this nut job being on the FBI watch list was CNN.
For some reason, he made the FBI watch list.

The way I look at it, it comes down to innocent victims being killed and the media, politicians playing on it.

What is going on with frequent mass shootings and bombs?

I don't think any Dem is trying to outlaw guns. It's a campaign killer no matter what you believe. I was trying to say ban guns that can shoot multiple rounds. Somehow machine guns are banned which must be part of the same logic. That security guard had a gun but he was outmanned as any cop would be. Perhaps if they were both equal, less people would have died unless he had a bunch of loaded guns with him.

RSX wrote:

I don't think any Dem is trying to outlaw guns. It's a campaign killer no matter what you believe. I was trying to say ban guns that can shoot multiple rounds. Somehow machine guns are banned which must be part of the same logic. That security guard had a gun but he was outmanned as any cop would be. Perhaps if they were both equal, less people would have died unless he had a bunch of loaded guns with him.

I'm curious about that security guard. Was he killed? Wounded? Did he retreat in the face of superior firepower?

Nazaretti wrote:

RSX wrote:

I don't think any Dem is trying to outlaw guns. It's a campaign killer no matter what you believe. I was trying to say ban guns that can shoot multiple rounds. Somehow machine guns are banned which must be part of the same logic. That security guard had a gun but he was outmanned as any cop would be. Perhaps if they were both equal, less people would have died unless he had a bunch of loaded guns with him.

I'm curious about that security guard.  Was he killed? Wounded?  Did he retreat in the face of superior firepower?

The security guard was an off duty copy and war veteran. He was outgunned so he maximized loss of life by leading a bunch to safety. He was a hero but could have done more if they had equal weapons

RSX wrote:

Nazaretti wrote:

RSX wrote:

I don't think any Dem is trying to outlaw guns. It's a campaign killer no matter what you believe. I was trying to say ban guns that can shoot multiple rounds. Somehow machine guns are banned which must be part of the same logic. That security guard had a gun but he was outmanned as any cop would be. Perhaps if they were both equal, less people would have died unless he had a bunch of loaded guns with him.

I'm curious about that security guard.  Was he killed? Wounded?  Did he retreat in the face of superior firepower?

The security guard was an off duty copy and war veteran. He was outgunned so he maximized loss of life by leading a bunch to safety. He was a hero but could have done more if they had equal weapons

He also exchanged fire with the shooter, which is why the shooter holed up in a bathroom with a bunch of hostages rather than continuing his indiscriminate shooting into the crowd. I have to imagine it was a lot more difficult for the off-duty cop as well, trying to hit one shooter in a darkened club filled with panic-stricken people running every direction, music, and lights everywhere. Whereas the shooter, with far superior firepower, had only to fire randomly into a crowd.

As for the shooter's ties to ISIS, I don't believe there were any despite his claims on the 911 call. He may have claimed he was doing it in the name of ISIS, but I don't believe he had any contact or support from them... particularly since he also made references to doing it in the name of Hezbollah and Al-Quaeda. Why all three, especially since they're at odds with each other? I can just as easily say I'm part of the NY Yankees but that doesn't make it so.

Capt Awesome wrote:

RSX wrote:

Nazaretti wrote:

RSX wrote:

I don't think any Dem is trying to outlaw guns. It's a campaign killer no matter what you believe. I was trying to say ban guns that can shoot multiple rounds. Somehow machine guns are banned which must be part of the same logic. That security guard had a gun but he was outmanned as any cop would be. Perhaps if they were both equal, less people would have died unless he had a bunch of loaded guns with him.

I'm curious about that security guard.  Was he killed? Wounded?  Did he retreat in the face of superior firepower?

The security guard was an off duty copy and war veteran. He was outgunned so he maximized loss of life by leading a bunch to safety. He was a hero but could have done more if they had equal weapons

He also exchanged fire with the shooter, which is why the shooter holed up in a bathroom with a bunch of hostages rather than continuing his indiscriminate shooting into the crowd. I have to imagine it was a lot more difficult for the off-duty cop as well, trying to hit one shooter in a darkened club filled with panic-stricken people running every direction, music, and lights everywhere. Whereas the shooter, with far superior firepower, had only to fire randomly into a crowd.

That makes sense. From factcheck.org:

Orlando Sentinel, June 13: It was just after 2 a.m. Sunday. Gruler ran toward the entrance after hearing the shots.

He was met by gunman Omar Mateen. Armed with a .223 caliber AR type rifle and a 9mm semiautomatic pistol, Mateen started exchanging gunfire with the officer.

Gruler quickly realized he was outgunned and called for backup. Gruler retreated and Mateen ran further inside the club.

Lt. Scott Smith and Sgt. Jeffrey Backhaus arrived a couple minutes later and rushed into the club. There was another flurry of shots between them and Mateen.

My gut feeling is that he was a fan of ISIS. To me murder is an insane act (most times) so I bet it has more to do with that. I do wonder the extent of his wife's involvement.

This is AWESOME!!