Slashdot Mirror
World Reacts To The Worst Mass Shooting In U.S. History (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Fifty people were killed inside Pulse, a gay nightclub, Orlando Police Chief John Mina and other officials said Sunday morning, just hours after a shooter opened fire in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. At least 53 more people were injured, Mina said. Police have shot and killed the gunman, he told reporters.
The shooter is not from the Orlando area, Mina said. He has been identified as Omar Saddiqui Mateen, 29, of Fort Pierce, about 120 miles southeast of Orlando, two law enforcement officials tell CNN.
Orlando authorities said they consider the violence an act of domestic terror. The FBI is involved. While investigators are exploring all angles, they "have suggestions the individual has leanings towards (Islamic terrorism), but right now we can't say definitely..."
In the discussion on this submission, Slashdot readers reported that Reddit is among the sites that have removed some discussions about the shooter's identity, with one reader even reporting "Posts directing people where and how to give blood have been removed."
The shooter is not from the Orlando area, Mina said. He has been identified as Omar Saddiqui Mateen, 29, of Fort Pierce, about 120 miles southeast of Orlando, two law enforcement officials tell CNN.
Orlando authorities said they consider the violence an act of domestic terror. The FBI is involved. While investigators are exploring all angles, they "have suggestions the individual has leanings towards (Islamic terrorism), but right now we can't say definitely..."
In the discussion on this submission, Slashdot readers reported that Reddit is among the sites that have removed some discussions about the shooter's identity, with one reader even reporting "Posts directing people where and how to give blood have been removed."
Will the jackass who keeps posting spam and saying Slashdot hates gays please leave permanently? The story has been posted, now STFU. Slashdot doesn't hate gays.
Buddhist?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
While investigators are exploring all angles, they "have suggestions the individual has leanings towards (Islamic terrorism), but right now we can't say definitely..."
This statement is about a perp who called 911 and proclaimed himself an agent of ISIS
No matter what you think about the civil rights aspect of our surveillance state, it is increasingly clear that it does not not work.
However, instead of calls to disband it, I'm sure there will be calls to make it even more intrusive. And there is no limit to that. If another event happens, we must not be surveilling the population enough...
It's a good thing all Americans can get guns. Because, you know, protection and all that. Really, this attack as terrible as it was is only a 1/3 uptick in the number of violent gun deaths in America today.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The reason not to act too hasty with a definitive declaration is that more evidence could come to light. What if it wasn't the perp, but someone else spreading disinformation? What if the perp himself was spreading disinformation to try and maximize the impact of his crime? That kind of thing. No, it isn't likely but it is too early to say definitively. Hence the "We think it is this, but can't say for sure." I think that is proper over all. Say what you think, but make sure to keep what you think and what you know clearly delineated.
The PC is the idiots who are either prohibiting discussion of this or worse, blaming American culture and it's supposedly ever-prevelant homophobia.
Queue the left for appeasement of Islam while vilifying gun owners.
Rather than responding to the darkness of terror with the cleansing sunlight of truth and free discussion, major discussion sites like Reddit are shutting down discourse on this major event? This is a grave disservice to everyone who believes in a free and open society. Comments that offer nothing but vitriol, hate, and anger should certainly be moderated, but locking and deleting entire threads because the task facing the moderators is too hard is not the answer.
I cannot imagine what the families and friends of those killed and injured are going through. Instead of politicizing this hours after it occurred, how about everyone take a long moment to focus on supporting those whose loved ones were killed or whose loved ones are still in limbo in the hospital. There will be plenty of time for fingerpointing, anger, and hate later. Showing the best humanity has to offer is the best response to the worst humanity has to offer.
Oh yeah, false flag. You're an idiot.
I'd say that shows very clearly that depending on the cops for protection is a losing strategy. If you want to protect yourself, your friends and loved ones, and innocent people around you, you should carry at all times.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The Quran itself is explicit about its intolerance of homosexuals, atheists, and, to a lesser degree, non-Muslims, and its endorsement of violence and tolerance of slavery. If you are a Muslim, that's the religion you worship and whose morals and politics you approve of. The fact that many Muslims are decent human beings despite their religion doesn't change the nature of the religion itself.
(And, let me preempt the inevitable tu quoque, roughly the same can be said for Christians, in particular those who delude themselves that the Bible is the literal word of God.)
GP here. Although I agree that state-mandated gun-free zones are deadly and unconstitutional, I do recognize that private establishments are free to set their own rules. Since guns and alcohol do not mix well, its perfectly reasonable for a club to forbid customers from bringing weapons. However, they should also make sure that their bouncers are well-armed and well-trained. Then everyone wins. Well, except the criminals and the gun grabbers.
The two laws you mention ban weapons based largely on APPEARANCE, not functionality, and they don't mention at all the type of guns most often used in murders. You're advocating "scary looking" guns. Exactly what difference do you think a barrel shroud or folding stock would make?
Here's a look at the effectiveness of the "assault weapons" ban from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Was Wounded Knee. Where the US Government killed 150 men, women and children. Over "gun control".
I'd say that shows very clearly that depending on the cops for protection is a losing strategy. If you want to protect yourself, your friends and loved ones, and innocent people around you, you should carry at all times.
-jcr
So you find yourself in a nightclub one day. It's dark, there are flashing lights on the dance floor, and it's packed to the gills with revellers.
Someone pops in the front door with an AR-15 and starts mowing down people. There are roughly 50 - 100 people between you and the shooter. You have your trusty Glock 17 in its holster. Panicked people are shoving towards you, as more people closer to the shooter and going down.
Given the above, how many shots do you get off before you're dead? How many bystanders do you take down before that AR-15 is trained your way when you miss with the first few shots from being jostled by panicking people, and from shooting in a still dark place?
A gun battle in an crowded, enclosed space is just stupid. Bullets frequently don't go where you expect them to go. And a handgun against something like an AR-15 is suicide.
(Not a gun owner, but a decade ago I did have a job where I was trained to use and had to carry a C7 assault rifle)
Yaz
Gosh, you're right. Cowering on the floor and hoping that the attacker will leave you alone is a much better plan. What was I thinking?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Gosh, you're right. Cowering on the floor and hoping that the attacker will leave you alone is a much better plan. What was I thinking?
-jcr
Sorry to break it to you, but sometimes there are lose-lose situations. In this situation, your idea is about as useful as deciding that tossing grenades into the crowd is a better idea than "cowering on the floor".
Real life isn't a cowboy movie. The good guys don't shoot from the hip, their shots don't always land true, their bullets don't disappear into the ether with no repercussions. And they don't always live to go home afterwards, or live their lives with a clear conscience about what they did. Sometimes hiding is the best thing you can do to survive.
Someone who thinks they're going to be a hero by starting blasting away in a crowded place to down the bad guy is no hero. Ninty-Nine times out of one-hundred, they're simply an added danger to themselves and the people around them.
Yaz
Just FYI, since you pulled that "99 times out of a hundred" out of your ass, here's something you should read, and hopefully learn from.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"I am an immigrant. I came from China.
I will say this --- Close down the border"
Not too surprising. In basically any human endevour there's the sociopath come saying "I already got mine, now you can change the rules so no others can!"
Perhaps the world should wake up and realize that the problem isn't muslims.
Wake up! The problem is islam. The ideology is toxic, dangerous and totally incompatible with Western civilization.
So rather than close the borders, close up islam. Close the hate-temples, forbid their religious practices, ban koran, just do not facilitate islam in any way. Stop allowing islam in our sociëty. World-wide. Those who can't live without it, will have to go find a country where it's allowed.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Everyone who is not a native american in the USA is an immigrant, or the child, grandchild, etc. of an immigrant.
Defending a society does not mean closing borders. A society is not a physical entity. Defending a society means enforcing the values that are central to it, and offering those who want to join it the choice of accepting those values, or not getting in.
To make a progressive society, you need to allow some space around the status quo, because new and different impulses can make the society better. New ideas need to come from somewhere. However, you need to remember two things. First, that you still need an idea of what your values are, even if you are ready to let them evolve. You can't replace it with anything goes. You need to clearly and openly and repeatedly state that this value is not up for discussion. In western societies, that is the basic human rights, for example. And secondly, you need to understand when someone is not bringing a slightly different point of view to the discussion, but wants to sabotage the discussion.
Just like a democracy needs to be wary against people who run in elections and play all the games, but their actual intention is to undo all of that once they are in power, a society needs to be wary of those whose intention is not to add to the culture, but to remove anything that is not theirs.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'm fascinated by how much of this I see in the UK's referendum debate - there are an awful lot of immigrants declaring they want out to stop immigration.
Interestingly there are groups that want out to change immigration, for example, Pritti Patel a Conservative MP for the Brexit campaign wants out so that rather than having large numbers of European migrants, we can instead increase the number of Bangladeshi migrants acting as curry workers (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/minister-priti-patel-quit-eu-to-save-our-curry-houses-a3251071.html). They had an interview with a Malaysian student (who can vote, because she's a commonwealth citizen resident in the UK) who said she will vote out because she wants less Polish immigrants and wants it to be easier for her and other Commonwealth people from countries like Nigeria to immigrate instead.
Personally I'm not the anti-immigration type, it's not affected me negatively and just like every politician that comes into power I realise it creates a net economic good for the countries (something that contrary to the rhetoric has been shown in a number of studies such as that from Oxford's migration observatory, and from the ICL) but I never cease to be amazed at the complete selfish shit fight going on amongst those who are immigrants, and as such I propose that if we're going to close our doors and remove people that the first people we kick out are the intolerant ones, because my country was always built on tolerance and if they don't like that they can fuck off home.
The people that are going to be most surprised though are British natives who are voting out for xenophobic anti-immigrant reasons and are going to get a sore surprise when they realise that it isn't going to decrease immigration for the reasons above. Instead of Poles who are reasonably educated, and have a similar culture and so integrate fairly well they're going to be faced with Pritti Patel's Bangladeshi migrants which will be fun, given that poor integration of nationals from poorer Islamic nations in the UK is the one thing that's created most our nation's anti-immigration sentiment in the first place.
I think it's sad that so many people come to countries like ours to take advantage of the wealth and then would deny it to others. I wonder how much Taco Cowboy will be parroting the closed borders policy when the next step is to also start deporting folks like him back home?
The whole immigration debate is flooded with nonsense and bile from top to bottom including from those who have most benefited from the status quo. The real problem is that sociopaths like him aren't the isolated cases. If we could figure out how to spot them a mile off and deny them entry in the first place then I suspect the whole immigration issue would be a whole lot less problematic, but maybe there's something to that? Maybe people who leave their country behind in the first place are more inclined to be selfish and be the type that just looks out for themselves, whilst those that stay behind and try and fix their country are inherently more selfless in general, hence why we end up with so much hypocritical dross like we're seeing here?
Whenever there's a story on the Internet about an Islamist act of terrorism, the comments will talk about how evil Christianity is.
I am an immigrant. I came from China.
Good for you.
I will say this --- Close down the border
No.
Yes, I am saying this, as an immigrant
Pulling up the ladder behind yourself is a common sociapathic action.
No longer I want to see America suffer
America doesn't suffer because of immigrants.
No longer I want to see any of my fellow Americans killed by someone related to immigrants
By definition that ain't happening. We're all related to immigrants. It's a nation of immigrants.
Yes I know, that moslem fucker was born in America, but if his immigrant parents didn't move to America from abroad he wouldn't have been born inside America and kill innocent people!
Because violence within our borders solely comes from immigrants? No.
In fact immigrants commit far less violence and crime than native born.
I know a lot of folks will send hate mail my way. .
You deserve it.
They will call me a hypocrite. .
Because you are.
They will challenge me to move back to China. .
No I won't.
They will want to see that I, along as all my children, be thrown out of USA.
No I don't.
I know that will happen, but I am still going to stick to what I have said --- "CLOSE DOWN THE BORDERS"
No.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
A lot of immigrants aren't just of the "I've got mine, screw everyone else" but they are also the sorts that have fully embraced their adopted culture. They have fully bought into the system. Quite often they did things in terms of the "straight and narrow". So they are likely going to be more "law and order" types because of that.
Native borns also really don't have any perspective to speak of. They're lazy and apathetic. They may think that there is no point in working too hard or they might simply not realize how good they have it.
This is why countries that can handle immigrants find them useful. They're fresh blood. However, that only helps if the fresh blood is willing to assimilate and be productive.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.