Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Lessons from Orlando
This is getting to be a regular type of post for me on Ricochet. I am not happy about that fact.
My heart goes out to everyone affected by the horror in the Pulse nightclub, and I join with those who are calling for peace in the wake of this massacre. But I am also preparing for war.
By now, the motive behind the worst mass-shooting on American soil is known, and the motive was radical Islamic terrorism. Again.
Here’s what we know about what happened in Orlando early Sunday morning.
Background Checks Didn’t Stop the Attack
The shooter (who I will never, ever call by his name because he deserves our scorn, not our recognition) had a Florida security guard license, which means he passed quite of a number of background checks based on his previous activities (or lack thereof). He was investigated by the FBI (twice!), but there was not enough evidence to arrest him. If only he’d been a member of a Tea Party group or something similar, then the government would have kept close tabs on him…
“Gun-Free Zones” Didn’t Stop the Attack
Florida law does not permit taking a firearm into a business that makes more than 50 percent of its revenue from the sales of alcohol. The Pulse nightclub was therefore a “gun free zone,” and the shooter ignored that little part of Florida law on his way to commit other, multiple, violations of state and federal laws. Why, it’s almost as if criminals live outside the law and chose to ignore them.
A Good Guy with a Gun Stopped Him
Actually, a whole bunch of good guys. Kudos to the Orlando Police Department and other agencies for the efforts in stopping this attacker in his tracks.
You Are on Your Own
That sounds rather scary, and it is, to some extent. No one likes to think that’s they’re alone in a hostile world, but the fact is, people who wish to do us harm select people who cannot or will not fight back. Take all the steps you can right now to lessen your chances of being a victim of violence. Churches and synagogues have been a target of Islamic terror in the Middle East, and there is no reason to believe they won’t be a target here as well. Keep at least one eye out, and if something doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t.
Have the Will to Fight
In Peter Jackson’s excellent movie adaptation of Tolkien’s “The Two Towers,” Theoden, king of Rohan asks, “What can men do against such reckless hate?” The answer his companion Aragorn gives is both succinct and chock-full of wisdom: “Ride out with me. Ride out and meet them. For Rohan. For your people.”
Fighting a defensive battle on our own soil will not defeat an ideology based in the Middle East. We are facing a global existential threat to Western culture, and it is time for the men (and women) of the west to stop calling ISIS “the JV team” and treat Islamic jihad as the threat it really is.
It’s Not the Guns, Stupid
There are three things needed to commit a crime: Motive, means, and opportunity. The motive was radical Islamic terrorism (again) which does not tolerate Christians, gays, Jews, or intellectuals. The opportunity was a large group of people who fit one of those descriptions who, by Florida law, could not be armed at their location. The means, therefore, was at best tertiary. This is backed up by the fact that in Israel, Islamic terrorists use knives to kill Jews. In Iraq, its car bombs to kill Christians. In Bangladesh, they hack intellectuals and gays to death.
The NRA does not exist in any of those countries, and and yet this kind of terror happens overseas. It’s long past time that our media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) stop blaming the inanimate objects that constitute the means of such massacres, and start addressing the motives and the opportunities.
Published in Culture, Guns, Islamist Terrorism, Politics
Yes. That. If you’re a media person and you really want to learn more about shooting and the people who dig it, just head out to a big USPSA or 3-gun match and you’ll get all sorts of different stories from different people from many different walks of life.
If you want really good content, talk to the lady junior shooters who, as a general rule, are awesome and very good communicators. #shootlikeagirl
It was.
It’s a dichotomy that they seemed to be able to live with without actual Harb.
But I agree that there are differing factions wrt this – so the question is, which faction do my actions strengthen and support and how and why?
Does how I oppose things matter as much as what I oppose?
I am sure the gun-banners are surprised that shooting competitions don’t result in mass fatalities from gun wielding participants going crazy with each other. After all, guns cause violence.
I’d prefer to keep religious freedom, but I think we have to be willing to say that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the Judeo-Christian ordered liberty of western societies. This isn’t new with Islamic terrorism; it’s as old as Islam.
“Kafir” is shorter to type than “non-Muslim.” The implied insult comes from Islam, which so many western leaders inexplicably feel the need to explain and defend. Let’s just say this pope and this president (and past presidents) aren’t the best defenders of the west I’ve ever seen. As I’m often left wondering, “whose side are they on anyway???!”
I think the contrast between how gays are treated in the (formerly) Judeo-Christian west and Muslim societies is relevant, yes. And that religious freedom for Christians is under attack from the Left here, and under mortal attack in Muslim societies there is also salient.
Lots of evidence, but not so much proof (it is called faith).
I would quibble with your formulation – the key is an understanding that my understanding of Truth does not entitle me to dictate to anyone else what they must regard as Truth. This does not mean Truth is relative, only that our understanding of it is always suspect and we do better by being tolerant. My tolerance runs right down to zero, though, when you tell me I MUST believe in Mohammed, AGW or any other damn thing.
Exactly, OMG – I went to the range yesterday with a friend and my son – first trap and then we shot his short-barrel suppressed AR15 – it’s amazing we got out alive.
Hang in there. I’m glad no one you know was hurt — and terribly sorry for those who were.
Of course it’s possible depending on the circumstances. My point was that a single person is not likely to be able to walk into a club full of men and stab over 100 people, killing 50.
Regarding your point about fire, I don’t think it’s a sure assumption that he merely wants to maximize deaths, which arson might have done. I say this because despite the potentially high body counts, Islamists simply aren’t committing arson.
I think there is a type of glamor and black-flag-and-black-rifle chic promoted by ISIS and is becoming associated with the AR-15 in the US. Now I am not blaming the gun. My point is that there is something special for these monsters about going down in a blaze of semiautomatic gunfire rather than methods which offer purely higher body counts. Is it possible that without this fantasy image, would they have less appeal/commit fewer attacks?
Excellent point. I somehow didn’t make this comparison in my head. The only Western culture I’ve known is the version with all the post-World War adjustments already cemented in place. I wonder if someone from 1812 would recognize what we have today as Western culture. Would he say it had “survived” the 20th century?
I would to revise and amend my remarks about the job the Orlando police did here…
It seems they may (MAY) have screwed the pooch here, and rather than follow current active shooter response protocol and entered the building right away, they waited for three hours for the SWAT* team to enter and take out the bad guy, which mean that everyone inside the club who might have been saved bled out and died.
Current training to respond to an active shooter is to set up a semblance of a perimeter and not wait for SWAT. A plan created on the fly and executed with vigor is better in these situations than to let the bad guy have his way until you can respond in force.
The full story has yet to be told here, but stayed tuned.
* Orlando calls them something different, but you get the idea.
I have seen comments on this thread suggesting gun control, semi auto control, and that somehow the idea that CCW holders could have done very little to mitigate this tragedy.
Now you see, as Kevin points out, that when seconds count you only have three hours to wait.
Kevin Creighton: they waited for three hours for the SWAT* team to enter and take out the bad guy
A man with a gun may or may not have been successful in killing, or pinning down this gunman. But it is possible he may have saved lives, possibly dozens or more, simply by returning fire. To claim that it is ‘silly’ to imagine that a man with a gun has a better chance of limiting the number of dead than NO man with a gun is incoherent.
As for me, even if in the end I am unsuccessful stopping or limiting a gunman, I prefer to go down fighting than whimpering in a bathroom waiting to be murdered as I watch others in the room being murdered before me.
And until you can show me evidence that drug control has stopped drugs from being available in America, don’t try to justify gun control on the grounds that a world without guns would be safer. It will never ever happen, it will just disarm law abiding citizens, leaving criminals armed.
It is unlikely that any patron would have been carrying even if permitted as under the laws of most states, because that patron would have had to refrain from alcohol and drugs to remain legal. That said, if guns were permitted to be carried legally even under limited circumstances, it is possible (I speculate) that the possibility of an armed patron may have deterred the nutjob from making the attack in the first place.
One never knows. But that is why I feel safer away from gun free zones. So many citizens now carry that even a nutjob may feel caution. I suspect they prefer easy targets.
I don’t want more guns. Guns in the hands of people who don’t know how to use them do nothing*.
I want fewer victims, and that will be accomplished with an empowered, aware citizenry. They fought back on Flight 93, and saved lives. Rather than hope there’ll be a cop or paramedic around when things go south, I want people who will and can fight back. If that means guns, then guns. If that means tourniquets, then tourniquets. If that means a dozen people rush the attacker and tackle him during a reload, then let’s roll.
* Coincidentally, this is also my opinion on the “militarization” of the police. Having an AR-15 in your patrol car trunk does you SQUAT if you mounted your sighting system on backwards…
I completely agree, carrying a gun you are too inexperienced with to use is worse than not carrying. You will more likely hurt yourself or an innocent bystander.
Anyone who does have a CCW and chooses to carry has a duty and moral obligation to be proficient with that weapon, so my comment was assuming someone with a gun that is reasonably familiar with shooting it and hitting what they aim at.
My main point is that there should be more of those kind of people, not less. Out of 300 people in that bar, if only 3 met those standards, we would have a very different story today and many less dead.
Of course, since bars are posted as ‘gun free’ it was not possible for anyone to legally CCW, so I am not blaming the victims for their vulnerability. Just the lawmakers who created the fish in a barrel scenario.
A bartender or doorman would fit the bill. And everyone in a bar is not drunk or drugged… many are, and obviously those who are out for that kind of night have no business carrying. But since the state bans legal CCW from being exercised in a bar, even the sober patrons were prevented from defending themselves and others.
I have a question and it would a good post if anyone is in the know about it – I’m very upset that the headlines are once again reading “he fell through the cracks”. Once again, like CA, etc. the person is all over the threat radar and they do nothing – are law enforcement and FBI, who are supposed to be monitoring suspicious behavior, being held back by this administration, or are they lacking resources, or have they gotten less vigilant? Isn’t O’s latest stand “see something, say something”? This is a huge concern.
I can carry in a bar, here in Massachusetts? I’m surprised. Thanks for posting this.
Maybe people going into, for example, a church or a nightclub should have to be cleared by detectors monitored by armed guards.
I wonder if our great, free, open society is slowly going to have to revert back to the old town-and-citadel model, in which there is a central fortified area that you can only enter through guarded gates to keep the barbarians out, and the surrounding town is more vulnerable.
I can’t believe the Dems are using this to call for gun control. This bigoted, benighted bozo worked for Homeland Security! Even if nobody else in the entire country were allowed to have guns, HE woulda had one. Oh, ‘cept he wouldn’ta had one even under present law, if the government agencies responsible for screening had done their jobs.
Un
believ
able.
And then, Prez O reminds us that other religions besides Islam are intolerant of gays, too. Yuh–but no member of any other religion has killed 50 of ’em en masse lately–so why bring that up, sir? I guess you’d like America to blame this on Kim Davis.
Ttump’s speech today was just what I wanted to hear.
That’s where it gets interesting…
A few years ago, I hung around/worked at a bar about a mile from Pulse’s location, in downtown Orlando. The owner was a fun, long-haired guy… who was always armed, as near as I can tell. He also kept at least a couple of other weapons on-site (like the shotgun under one of the coolers).
A loophole in Florida firearms law apparently lets business owners have weapons, and (if you look at it in the right light) that includes bar owners.
If someone tried to walk into that place and shoot up the joint, he would have probably been nailed by the owner – and if that didn’t work, one of the several employees who knew how to shoot the shotgun.
Or customers.
On a couple of occasions, that included members of at least one SEAL team and a Ranger or two…
I was in Orlando last month, going to Legoland with my family. We emptied our pockets at the entrance, searched my wife’s bag and wanded all of us with a metal detector. Despite that, the guards never noticed my Boker spring loaded knife, and I carried it all around the park that day.
Morons.
Besides that, creating a perimeter around a “gun free zone” just means they’ll attack the people entering the perimeter. The shootings at the El Al ticket counter a few years ago proved that case.
Ah, there’s so much here. Yes, anybody who is willing to take on the very sobering responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon has a moral and probably legal responsibility to become and stay well – trained. There’s something else that demands some serious soul – searching, even before you embark on that journey. It’s this: Search within yourself – if confronted with a life-and-death situation, are you able to potentially take the life of another? If not, then this journey probably isn’t for you.
I forget who referenced metal detectors at churches. Actually, church – related violence has a special category of its own. Churches are not safe havens, especially, once again, in the jurisdictions where churches are “gun – free zones.”
Finally, for now, anyway, Kate made reference to “reasonable” (I think the word is what she used) restrictions on firearms. The problem is that “reasonable” is a squishy, and never – settled concept. While I agree that there’s no compelling reason for a private citizen to have a cannon, I now believe that the potential “danger” to the public, of a cannon, is outweighed by the danger of of “reasonable” limits to be advanced until nothing of the Second Amendment remains. Isn’t this the very process we see going on with the definition – I use that term loosely – of “assault rifle,” a concept (not to mention the rifle itself) that didn’t even exist 20 years ago?
Check your local law. In NC they recently allowed CCW in bars, but you cannot drink any alcohol.
Sure thing, but it is irrelevant to the State (or should be) whether you or I or neither of us is right about what religious truth (or Truth, if you will) is.
Honestly I’m not even convinced that it’s my business if someone else is wrong (imho) if they don’t actually then act to constrain me living my life as an equal in society.