domestic terrorism/tragedy: florida nightclub shooting

Baron Of Hell wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

I guess I was thinking that the 50 people shot to death were the actual victims.

Is there a reason both can not be victims of this guy?

Apparently it doesn't count unless she was shot to death.

She may have been a victim, but she can also share in some of the responsibility.

I say "may" because I have not seen any evidence that she was abused or scared for her or her son's life. Based on his history is it likely she was abused, but let's not jump to all kinds of assumptions like "he threatened her life if she told" until there is some proof.

Assuming she was threaten what would proof of that look like?

A statement from her. Maybe statements from friends or relatives. I don't mean evidence as in Police evidence as some are assuming.

MattDaddy wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:
MattDaddy wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

I guess I was thinking that the 50 people shot to death were the actual victims.

Is there a reason both can not be victims of this guy?

Apparently it doesn't count unless she was shot to death.

She may have been a victim, but she can also share in some of the responsibility.

I say "may" because I have not seen any evidence that she was abused or scared for her or her son's life. Based on his history is it likely she was abused, but let's not jump to all kinds of assumptions like "he threatened her life if she told" until there is some proof.

Assuming she was threaten what would proof of that look like?

A statement from her. Maybe statements from friends or relatives. I don't mean evidence as in Police evidence as some are assuming.

She did make a statement and his ex wife also stated he was abusive to her. I don't think relying on family and friends is meaningful proof of domestic violence. People go out of their way to hide abuse. However, in this case we have a ex wife and her family confirming he was a abusive person. If that doesn't settle your family or friend confirmation why not?

MattDaddy wrote:

Based on his history is it likely she was abused, but let's not jump to all kinds of assumptions like "he threatened her life if she told" until there is some proof.

I don't know what messed up sitcom you are watching, but maybe take it off your Netflix history.

"Lucy, I'm home--Lucy, why are there police here?"
"I'm sorry Ricky, I decided that I had to tell them that you bought an AR-15 and wanted to shoot up a Nightclub."
"But Lucy, didn't I tell you that if you told anyone about my mass shooting plan that I would beat you?"
"No Ricky, I really thought you would, but it must have slipped your mind before work. I wondered if such a threat was sort of implied in an unspoken way. I asked Ethel if this fell under the category of "snitches get stitches" but she and Fred were very clear that if the husband doesn't explicitly threaten his wife with consequences of going to the police and narqing on his terrorist plots he's doesn't get to do anything mean."
"Hehehe, well ok Lucy, I guess you're right. But I'll remember next time! In fact, just to make it official, if you tell the police again I'll beat you so bad you won't be able to go outside for a week."
"That's fair Ricky, you're the best!"

Baron Of Hell wrote:

She did make a statement and his ex wife also stated he was abusive to her. I don't think relying on family and friends is meaningful proof of domestic violence. People go out of their way to hide abuse. However, in this case we have a ex wife and her family confirming he was a abusive person. If that doesn't settle your family or friend confirmation why not?

I haven't seen any statement like that from her, just the ex-wife. I would appreciate a link. All I've seen are articles about how she knew of his plans to some extent, nothing about abuse or threats against her. I did state that because he abused the ex it is likely he did the same to her.

not worth it Yonder.

Abu5217 wrote:

(Aside: when I hit quote, I got the ultra-rare quintuple quote)

gore, I have to call you out on the majority of your post, as it is not based on facts of any sort. What are your sources for your statements as to how women are treated in "much of the Muslim world"?

I will share mine: I have over 400 relatives in Palestine, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and Egypt. Western views on how women are treated in these countries are greatly influenced by outside forces. I can assure you that, while there are certainly gender roles that we would look askance at, women are by and large celebrated by the men in their lives. Now, I will give you Saudi Arabia, and I don't know enough about Afghanistan to comment on it. However, please remember that the Muslim world is not limited to Middle Eastern countries. There are quite a few Muslim nations who have elected women to high (or the highest) office.

Are there areas where atrocities are committed against women? Absolutely. Are women as empowered publicly as men? No, they are not. But to make the blanket claim that the region has "little respect for women's rights and women are repressed throughout" or that they live in "a culture where women were essentially viewed as property" is simply not the case across the board anymore.

Across the board? No. I didn't mean to imply that, I'm sure in some places things are better than others. But the Middle East is generally not the best place to be a woman. Afghanistan, where the shooter's family originated (more), is a particularly disturbing example based on what I have found.

Palestine doesn't seem to be so hot, either, now that they're under Hamas rule.

Was I too harsh in describing women being considered property? Perhaps, but it's clear to me from what I have read that they are in no way considered peers of men, broadly, in the nations from which these people emigrated. To my mind this isn't about, as you put it, women being "celebrated" - it is about them having full equal rights under law and in society.

MattDaddy wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:

She did make a statement and his ex wife also stated he was abusive to her. I don't think relying on family and friends is meaningful proof of domestic violence. People go out of their way to hide abuse. However, in this case we have a ex wife and her family confirming he was a abusive person. If that doesn't settle your family or friend confirmation why not?

I haven't seen any statement like that from her, just the ex-wife. I would appreciate a link. All I've seen are articles about how she knew of his plans to some extent, nothing about abuse or threats against her. I did state that because he abused the ex it is likely he did the same to her.

I'm confused, why do you need anything from her at all? Without any solid proof that he told her everything, why does she need to prove anything to anyone? Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the need to hear details about how she was abused seems very voyeuristic for... basically speculation that she might have been aware/involved that certainly hasn't amounted to enough for police to charge her at this point... so why does she have to defend herself to the public at large?

gore wrote:

Was I too harsh in describing women being considered property? Perhaps, but it's clear to me from what I have read that they are in no way considered peers of men, broadly, in the nations from which these people emigrated. To my mind this isn't about, as you put it, women being "celebrated" - it is about them having full equal rights under law and in society.

Ah yes. As opposed to those enlightened non-Muslim bastions of womandom like:

The Democratic Republic of Congo:

In the eastern DRC, a war that claimed more than 3 million lives has ignited again, with women on the front line. Rapes are so brutal and systematic that UN investigators have called them unprecedented. Many victims die; others are infected with HIV and left to look after children alone. Foraging for food and water exposes women to yet more violence. Without money, transport or connections, they have no way of escape.

Nepal:

Early marriage and childbirth exhaust the country's malnourished women, and one in 24 will die in pregnancy or childbirth. Daughters who aren't married off may be sold to traffickers before they reach their teens. Widows face extreme abuse and discrimination if they're labelled bokshi, meaning witches. A low-level civil war between government and Maoist rebels has forced rural women into guerrilla groups.

Guatemala:

The impoverished female underclass of Guatemala faces domestic violence, rape and the second-highest rate of HIV/AIDS after sub-Saharan Africa. An epidemic of gruesome unsolved murders has left hundreds of women dead, some of their bodies left with hate messages.

Taken from: http://www.feministezine.com/feminis...

Basically, there's some awful countries out there, but as Abu said, it has a lot more to do with tribal/local/societal beliefs than it does which religion people follow. Women are treated like sh*t more or less globally.

MattDaddy wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:

She did make a statement and his ex wife also stated he was abusive to her. I don't think relying on family and friends is meaningful proof of domestic violence. People go out of their way to hide abuse. However, in this case we have a ex wife and her family confirming he was a abusive person. If that doesn't settle your family or friend confirmation why not?

I haven't seen any statement like that from her, just the ex-wife. I would appreciate a link. All I've seen are articles about how she knew of his plans to some extent, nothing about abuse or threats against her. I did state that because he abused the ex it is likely he did the same to her.

I haven't heard anything coming from her specifically, as her father said she wouldn't give an interview to the press (but that a family apology was coming soon). The same article reports that one of her neighbors has said her mother complained about Mateen not letting her visit her family, which fits with his ex-wife's description of how he isolated her.

As much as I wish that the wife had tipped off police earlier, Ive seen first hand the need for the abused to take care of themselves and their children first. My aunt had to hide out for weeks in a homeless shelter when she left my a-hole uncle, and he was pretty persistent in trying to find her. Although she filed a restraining order it was just a paper shield. Abusers are often the worst when their victims leave and I'm sure the wife had to balance cooperating with the police with the very real chance they could not protect her.

jdzappa wrote:

As much as I wish that the wife had tipped off police earlier, Ive seen first hand the need for the abused to take care of themselves and their children first. My aunt had to hide out for weeks in a homeless shelter when she left my a-hole uncle, and he was pretty persistent in trying to find her. Although she filed a restraining order it was just a paper shield. Abusers are often the worst when their victims leave and I'm sure the wife had to balance cooperating with the police with the very real chance they could not protect her.

While good police officers do their best to "protect and serve", a lot of times they are really only able to mop up the damage after the fact. One reason why self defense is so important when every second counts. You do what you have to do to protect yourself and those in your care, even if it sometimes means being selfish or uncooperative.

jdzappa wrote:

As much as I wish that the wife had tipped off police earlier, Ive seen first hand the need for the abused to take care of themselves and their children first. My aunt had to hide out for weeks in a homeless shelter when she left my a-hole uncle, and he was pretty persistent in trying to find her. Although she filed a restraining order it was just a paper shield. Abusers are often the worst when their victims leave and I'm sure the wife had to balance cooperating with the police with the very real chance they could not protect her.

"Often" doesn't do it justice:

Leaving a battering partner may be the most dangerous time in that relationship. Women are 70 times more likely to be killed in the two weeks after leaving than at any other time during the relationship.

Tanglebones wrote:
gore wrote:

Was I too harsh in describing women being considered property? Perhaps, but it's clear to me from what I have read that they are in no way considered peers of men, broadly, in the nations from which these people emigrated. To my mind this isn't about, as you put it, women being "celebrated" - it is about them having full equal rights under law and in society.

Ah yes. As opposed to those enlightened non-Muslim bastions of womandom like:
...

Taken from: http://www.feministezine.com/feminis...

Basically, there's some awful countries out there, but as Abu said, it has a lot more to do with tribal/local/societal beliefs than it does which religion people follow. Women are treated like sh*t more or less globally.

I feel like maybe you're confronting a straw man here. I never claimed that the oppression of women was somehow exclusively a problem for Muslim nations, and I even stated my own belief that the degree to which Islam itself plays any particular role is unclear.

I'd suggest the common threads in most of these places are instability and/or poverty. Whatever particular religion the aggressors have hanging around will then conveniently be used to justify their barbarism and misogyny.

Hmm. Maybe less a straw man, and more just a misunderstanding? I went back and re-read your earlier post, and while I may disagree with some specifics, I'll take back the tone of my post, since it's not well-aimed.

OG_slinger wrote:

Because the law is such that someone has to be convicted of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” or their partners have to slap them with certain domestic violence protective orders before they're not able to purchase firearms.

Given what we know about domestic violence, the law should be changed so that convictions aren't required. If the police are called multiple times to a household for domestic disturbances then everyone knows what's eventually going to happen.

But we live in America and an angry, emotionally stunted man's right to have a gun somehow trumps his partner's right not to get injured or murdered by himeverything.

If I'm remembering correctly, it was this argument that got Clarence Thomas to speak up for the first time in 10 years. His argument was that it shouldn't be legal to deny someone their constitutional right to own a gun for a misdemeanor. I think he was hinting that it should be looked at whether the 2nd Amendment should be cast aside for felony convicts, but that might have just been a rhetorical point he was making. I don't think Justice Thomas was in the right, but I'm not on the Supreme Court.

Tanglebones wrote:

Hmm. Maybe less a straw man, and more just a misunderstanding? I went back and re-read your earlier post, and while I may disagree with some specifics, I'll take back the tone of my post, since it's not well-aimed.

And of course I misunderstood your misunderstanding and erroneously accused you of attacking a straw man, thus closing the miscommunication loop. Sorry I jumped to conclusions

OG_slinger wrote:

There are no "good guys with guns." There are only people who haven't done something horrible with their guns yet.

Funny, that's the same thing Trump supporters say about Muslims.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Funny, that's the same thing Trump supporters say about Muslims.

I'm pretty sure that Trump and his supporters think that Muslims are *actively* trying to kill Americans and bring down our country.

That's a very, very long way from getting so very tired of the Schrodinger's gun owner argument where everyone who owns guns are super awesome patriots who are always responsible and safe with their firearms. Until they aren't.

Then those gun owners are magically transformed into criminals, terrorists, or bad people who are mentally ill, emotionally disturbed, deranged, or whatever so the remaining gun owners can rest assured that they're still one of the good guys and nothing needs to be done because all gun owners are super awesome patriots who are always responsible and safe with their firearms.

OG_slinger wrote:

I'm pretty sure that Trump and his supporters think that Muslims are *actively* trying to kill Americans and bring down our country.

No, there are still plenty that sound like you.

Sorry, I just don't care for being called a future murderer. I guess it's just this quirk of mine.

Am I reading reports wrongly, but I understand that there were 'good guys with guns' at Pulse in the form of armed security guards, and that the killer knew that would be the case because he had worked as one of those armed guards in the past at the same venue.

It seems like the argument falls down at that point.

Yep. Two armed guards was what they reported Sunday. Didn't stop anything.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'm pretty sure that Trump and his supporters think that Muslims are *actively* trying to kill Americans and bring down our country.

No, there are still plenty that sound like you.

Sorry, I just don't care for being called a future murderer. I guess it's just this quirk of mine.

Heck, I didn't even realize I was a future murderer.

IMAGE(https://imgur.com/hbDVGAI.jpg)

gore wrote:

Across the board? No. I didn't mean to imply that, I'm sure in some places things are better than others. But the Middle East is generally not the best place to be a woman. Afghanistan, where the shooter's family originated (more), is a particularly disturbing example based on what I have found.

I agree with you regarding Afghanistan. I have no first-hand knowledge of that nation, but I can imagine that life is pretty lousy for most people there, male or female, with females getting the far worse end of things.

Palestine doesn't seem to be so hot, either, now that they're under Hamas rule.

I will admit that it's been a long time since I have personally been to any part of what is now the Palestinian Territory, but this was not the case when I was there, nor was it the case when my brother and sister visted (far more recently). I readily admit that there are certainly bad situations, and it very well may have gotten worse, as life for most Palestinians has gotten worse as of late.

These two examples are not really representative of the entire region though, since they are two of the four most unstable countries in the region (with Iraq and Syria being the other two), so I imagine life probably is pretty horrible for women there.

Was I too harsh in describing women being considered property? Perhaps, but it's clear to me from what I have read that they are in no way considered peers of men, broadly, in the nations from which these people emigrated. To my mind this isn't about, as you put it, women being "celebrated" - it is about them having full equal rights under law and in society.

And here may be our main point of misunderstanding. While it would be great if all countries in the world treated all genders equally, that is simply not the case. For all of our flaws here in the US, we are far better than most, and we still have a lonnnnnng way to go. Arab society, and Muslim society in general, is quite patriarchal, but that is not always a horrible thing. To put it in a way that perhaps makes sense, most Arab/Muslim families that I personally know are a lot like the stereotypical Italian family, where the man is the outward facing "king" of the family, but everyone knows that the woman is the rock of the home. Many Arab women take a lot of pride in the domestic side of things. I am not saying this is good or bad, but it's how it is. Most of the Arab/Muslim men that I know absolutely adore their wives.

Bruce wrote:

Am I reading reports wrongly, but I understand that there were 'good guys with guns' at Pulse in the form of armed security guards, and that the killer knew that would be the case because he had worked as one of those armed guards in the past at the same venue.

It seems like the argument falls down at that point.

From what I have read (from the Orlando Sentinel) there was an armed off duty cop at the club. Just before the shooting started, he was actually inside the club, rather than at the door, looking for someone who got in with a fake ID. When the shooting started (outside the club entrance) he engaged the shooter. Once he realized that he was far outgunned, he went to his car to radio for backup. At this point the gunman went into the club. When the first backup arrived, they went into the club and got into a firefight with the shooter, who then barricaded himself in one of the bathrooms, with hostages. It was at this point that the police pulled out and called SWAT.

Sources:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/la-na...

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...

I've had some pretty heated arguments with folks about gun control in the past, so I want to start a little more gently than usual:

Even in a best case scenario -- and I don't think this qualifies as such -- the armed guard doesn't really fall under the classic "good guy with a gun" scenario; any would-be attacker will likely take down armed security first, but the (mythological?) "good guy with a gun" via concealed carry would have the element of surprise.

Having said that, the mass shooting itself presents a whole heap of logistical and tactical issues that feel problematic for both sides of the gun ban argument to me. If you're staunchly opposed to banning particular gun types, I really want to hear more proposed solutions from a standpoint of regulating sale; if you want less gun control, how about more gun owner control as a compromise? (e.g. stricter certification and regular enforcement of same for purchase, ownership, and registration)

I'm also curious if gun owners can give this twitter thread a smell test; I think there are interesting points that seem worthy of consideration in a discussion about the logistics of a gun ban, but I don't have sufficient knowledge to know if they're factual.

Paleocon had a summation... somewhere about why AR-15s are so common in mass shootings. (I think this was a different model).

In short, for AR-15s specifically, they're pretty easy to use. Some anecdata for you: A while ago I had the chance to kill some time at a police training range, and a family friend had an AR-15 (and a few other rifles). I'm a decent shot, but have no real experience with weapons in that family, and it did not take me long to get down reloading quickly, basic tactical drills, so on. It's a very easy to use gun.

Compare that to something like the old M1 Garand I learned to shoot with, which kicks like a mule (higher caliber rounds), was much fiddlier to reload. I eventually got pretty good at it, but it took some practice.

Now, once upon a time, I was arguing from a similar place, so I can see where they're coming from. It *is* a fiddly definition, but I think it can be done, *IF* there is the will to do it, and competent people drafting it. Especially if we're willing to say "f*ck all clip loaded semiautomatic rifles".

So, sure, you could compare it to other hunting rifles, and the .223 cartrage is pretty common, but there's a world of difference between a bolt-action (manual action) rifle with an internal magazine (think shotgun), and the civilian version of a rifle meant for assaults and to be easy to master.

Pardon my ignorance but how does a bysyander good guy with C&C pistol (who is grappling with shock like everyone else) stand any chance against an assailant armed with AR15 with lethal intent? I'm no LEO but I would have thought the trained response is to assess and if outgunned you run and call for help just as the off duty cop did. The last heroic effort I'd heard of was the two unarmed and off duty US soldiers who tackled and apprehended the guy with an AK47 on a train in France/Spain (?) but those dudes were conditioned for fire fights and I imagine your average C&C bystander has nowhere near the same level of training and commitment to serve the public.

The practical solution in an AR15 environment seems to be that either everyone needs to carry an armed rifle everywhere. Or, get rid of them all so nobody has a tactical advantage. I can't think of a more disturbing nightclub or any public venue for that matter, than one with guards toting AR15s that would penetrate bodies and walls if a shootout occurred.

Bfgp wrote:

Pardon my ignorance but how does a bysyander good guy with C&C pistol (who is grappling with shock like everyone else) stand any chance against an assailant armed with AR15 with lethal intent?

Maybe not the question you asked, but a citizen with a pistol is, unless they have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of rounds practising what to do when someone shoots at you and creates an extremely stressful situation, likely to miss what they aim at.

There is a reason that the military (and police forces) put their training as close to "real life" as possible. Targets are human shaped, in situations similar to the expected combat situation. It is to drill in the muscle memory. A citizen will not have that muscle memory, so they will, more than likely, *not* do the right thing.