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...
He was radicalized by the NYPD
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And the circle jerk mentality they so love.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
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.
Can't vouch for this, but various sites are reporting...
TFA mentions that Mateen was interviewed by the FBI in 2013 and 2014, but not deemed dangerous. This reinforces my doubts that background checks will ever be very effective in general, whether for terrorism or any other type of bad behavior.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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.
According to the timeline posted by the media, the gunman initially exchanged fire with three cops at 2am. They did not pursue him. 100 cops arrive. They do not attempt to enter. At 5am, the SWAT team finally breaches and kills the terrorist.
That left the attacker with 3 whole hours to kill his hostages. Shades of Columbine, where the police were similarly afraid to respond until they had ridiculously overwhelming force.
Oh yeah, false flag. You're an idiot.
The background check that I had to undergo for my gun license was pathetic. It’s just not enough to search for criminal history, we need an invasive search for mental health issues. In these days of Google and ChoicePoint vacuuming up everything about us, it’s never been easier to gather information.
Why is it I need hundreds of dollars of insurance each year just to drive my car, but I don’t need ANY insurance for my handgun? They both can kill, and one of them is PRIMARILY for killing, so shouldn’t insurance be a requirement?
That would prevent a lot of poor gun owners from owning guns, but maybe this has gotten so out of hand that we need to restrict gun ownership.
I've noticed that when someone lacks any plausible argument, they tend to turn to making up lies about the people they see as their opposition. I don't know if you were fooled by the liar, or you are the liar.
At exactly 7:00 00 AM every Sunday, the Twitter account posts a verse. Why precisely 7:00 AM, never 7:01 or 6:58 AM? Because it's automated, scheduled the week before. So no, the tweet had nothing to do with the shooting that occurred several days after the tweet was scheduled.
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...
Your snark misses a rather huge point - these were not hostages, they were targets.
You're wrong. No editors modded your comment up or down.
Nope. You're wrong.
While the militia did include all free males of military age. The militia was subordinate to civilian authority whether the town council, the sheriff or the governor.
You did not have militia members running off on their own stockpiling guns. A miliita member was expected to drill as a member of the local or state militia, wear a proper uniform and maintain their weapons properly. A militia refusing to recognize civilian authority was considered an insurrection. The "Minutemen" was actually the elite select of the Massachusetts militia.
So, only rich people should be allowed to protect themselves?
What if we said only gainfully employed security guards should be allowed to carry?
Oh wait...
You're welcome to spend as much time as you want as an AC, writing out long-winded diatribes and bolding words if it makes you happy. We are not Reddit so we will allow you to do this as much as you want. Just know that you are wrong, and your posts are pretty stupid which is why people mod you down.
It’s just not enough to search for criminal history, we need an invasive search for mental health issues.
Everyone I know with depression refuses to get help because a single confirmed diagnosis of depression is worse for getting a job and all that than a felony conviction.
All you'd do with that "search" is to increase the number of undiagnosed people with mental issues.
Actually helping people is a better solution.
Learn to love Alaska
Editors didn't mod any of those links up or down. What happened is, of the 300,000 unique visitors per day that view Slashdot, more than a handful decided that you're comments sucked and modded appropriately.
But everyone in America except for a tiny minority of native Americans is an immigrant or descended from immigrants. Timothy McVeigh was descended from genocidal immigrants.
Allow me (different AC) to offer a different conspiracy theory. Taco Cowboy (and his obvious AC posts) is really APK. This posting is really quite similar to the way APK conducts himself and both are batshit crazy.
It is a belief. It is an affirmative belief. It might qualify as a religion or creed depending on how you define those words.
There are traditionally philosophical distinctions made between "strong" (or "positive") atheism vs. "weak" (or "negative") atheism. "Strong atheists" have a positive belief that no gods exist. Most atheists are merely "weak atheists," who don't actively believe in gods -- and may think they sound unlikely -- but don't have an (unprovable) belief in their non-existence. Lack of belief in something doesn't necessarily entail a positive (and equally unprovable) belief in an opposite.
It is a belief because you can't prove something doesn't exist. It's a consequence of logic. All reason is necessarily based on a foundation of beliefs.
This is a bit of a different issue, which is more related to the traditional definition of agnosticism. A traditional agnostic is someone who has a positive belief that the answers to some questions are unknowable. ("Gnostic" refers to knowledge, an agnostic believes that one can't have that knowledge.)
These days the word "agnostic" is often used for weak atheism, but it's actually a separate issue. An agnostic traditionally is someone who believes we CANNOT know whether God exists -- it's just not a question that can be verified one way or another on the basis of normal empirical evidence. (Philosophers sometimes draw a distinction between "strong" and "weak" agnosticism too.)
An agnostic is someone that neither believes in the supernatural nor does not believe in it. They are undecided or uncommitted.
Again, that's not the word traditionally meant. What you're describing is what philosophers and theologians would generally call weak atheism (i.e., lack of a "theist" belief, hence a-theism). Agnosticism is about what we ALL could possibly know on the basis of evidence, and whether we have sufficient grounds to justify belief, not about whether an individual believes or not.
People colloquially use the label atheist when they mean a person that atheist or agnostic since to them both are guilty.
Agreed, though as I noted -- there are even more distinctions that you make. Using these terms the way philosophers would, it's quite possible to be a gnostic atheist (i.e., a person who has a positive belief that God by definition doesn't exist and believes that he has certain knowledge of this fact), or an agnostic theist (i.e., a person who believes that God exists, but believes it is outside the possibility of science to prove it), or even other stranger combinations.
Most people are agnostic no matter how much say they are atheistic and will readily prey when faced with imminent death.
This is again a separate issue. If I were dying of starvation, I'd definitively prey on animals to survive... sure.
.2A .22 is a relatively low powered rimfire cartridge.
An AR-15 is not a .22, it is a center fire rifle, commonly available in .223 (not to be confused with .22) 5.56x45mm .300, 7.52x39mm 5.45x39mm .45ACP 5.7x28mm 6.5mm 6.8mm .50 and .458
There probably are some AR-15's manufactured in .22 calibre, but it most https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... isn't "common".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Do you have any statistics to justify the tacit assumption that most mass shootings are perpetrated by recent immigrants or the descendants of recent immigrants?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"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!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
This is obviously still you dude. You should change the tone of your messages if you're to remain anonymous.
One would have thought that one of the special people would have a greater degree of self control.
Requiem for the American Dream
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
Why should society be progressive?
It's a choice, I didn't it's the only choice, but if you made that choice (and western societies have), you can't be regressive in one selected area. That's like being a virgin, but only on Mondays.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There is a crucial difference between atheism and religious belief: the importance of evidence. If a god were to appear and demonstrate their existence in an empirically measurable way then atheists would mentally move them from the category of things that don't exist to things that do, though they would likely no more 'believe' in the god than they believe in a chair. Things that are measurable can be safely assumed to exist (for a purely utilitarian definition of 'exist').
There are an infinite number of things that don't exist. Atheists don't typically go around enumerating all of them any more than a Christian goes around enumerating all of the Egyptian, Norse, Roman, and so on gods that he or she doesn't believe in.
I'm slightly astonished by people who find it easy to disbelieve hundreds of religions and superstitions that have precisely as much evidence supporting them as their own are unable to understand how someone else disbelieves one more than them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
>To some, the word God means essentially "nature", or "natural laws", which makes the atheist's position untenable.
Nope, that kind of Spinozan view is, in fact, a form of atheism (and one I find quite appealing myself). It's not a worship - merely a wonderment at something bigger than yourself, many notable atheists regularly express Spinozan views. De Grasse Tyson for example frequently speaks of the sense of wonder he feels when studying the cosmos - that's Spinozan thought.
It differs from religion in being devoid of worship - it does not personify those forces. Recognizing a real universe greater than ourselves and our small part in that universe with a sense of wonder and astonishment is beautiful and a driving motivation for science - but it is fundamentally NOT religion and does not require any believe in things that aren't there. You could call it spirituality without the need for spirits.
And a key aspect is this: because there is no personification of these forces, they cannot be given authority - and thus nobody can claim to act in the name of that authority. People who do the latter always and without exception abuse the power that they thus acquire.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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?
I'm pretty sure a properly configured HOSTS file would have prevented this tragedy
Whenever there's a story on the Internet about an Islamist act of terrorism, the comments will talk about how evil Christianity is.
So "a tiny minority of native Americans" were spontaneously generated in the Americas?
Pretty cool.
No brain, no pain.
I was under the impression that systemD was the correct way to stop this
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
thats not what they are saying though, they are saying close the borders.... and make sure everyone comes in the way I had to. level playing field and all...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
When the authorities gave their first press briefing after the Orlando shootings, they had a local imam speak. He spoke at length about how no one should immediately think this was a Muslim nor should they think he was linked in any way to ISIS. What he did not do was condemn the murders. Not one word about how horrific they were, how it was wrong, etc etc. I kept waiting for him to condemn the act, but he never did.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The Lt. Governor of Texas tweeted to indicate they reaped what they sowed. He later removed the tweet but the Country and the world has a right to know.
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.
"Posts directing people where and how to give blood have been removed."
While straight-up removal of such posts may not be the best approach, the intent behind such removals is likely honorable.
Donated blood needs to be screened for infectious diseases and otherwise processed before it can be used; it generally takes at least a couple of days before blood from a donor's arm can get to a patient's bedside. The blood that helps the victims of the Orlando massacre isn't the stuff that the Red Cross collects today and tomorrow; it's the blood that was donated last week or the week before. And blood has a limited shelf life--creating a big oversupply now doesn't help unless there's an enormous disaster in the next few weeks.
Donating blood now might make the donor feel good about themselves, but it's not actually a particularly constructive thing to do. If you want to help, put a reminder in your calendar to donate blood in two or three weeks, after this glut has made its way through the system. Or donate blood when the Red Cross (or whichever agency handles blood products in your jurisdiction) indicates a shortage. Better yet, get in the habit of donating blood regularly--help maintain a stable blood supply over the long term.
~Idarubicin
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.