by Joseph P. Tartaro | Executive Editor
Executive Editor Joe Tartaro conferred with CCRKBA’s Alan Gottlieb at the Gun Rights Policy Conference. CCRKBA is one of the organizations that raised red flags about new gun control legislation on Capitol Hill following the Orlando terror attack. (Dave Workman photo)
The unspeakable “terrorist” attack on the Pulse gay bar in Orlando, FL, began at 2:02 a.m. June 12 and the media went into full disaster news mode seconds later. Beginning almost immediately, a stream of reports began flooding the network and cable news channels, the Internet and newspapers.
Journalists raced to get news even as the standoff at the Latin-themed nightclub was ongoing. If you hoped to get facts, you got them hurled at breakneck speed, and much of what you got was—as usual—incorrect. Apparently, the race to grab and hold audiences with “breaking news” is more important than the real facts in any given report.
Needless to say, among the first to react were politicians, particularly the anti-gun, anti-self-defense politicians who never miss a chance to exploit a tragedy. They were inspired by such headlines as “the largest mass shooting in American history” and “the greatest terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11.”
Their demands ranged from banning what they erroneously called “assault weapons” to ripping the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. In between, they proposed a federal ban on gun sales to anyone on a federal watch list as well as a longer waiting period for transaction approval in the NICS background check system
Of course, while targeting one constitutional right they are willing to ride roughshod over all the rest of that document. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guaranteeing “due process” for all citizens and legal residents were quickly ignored. And that’s the big problem with denying access to guns for anyone on a federal watch list.
While nobody seriously wants known or suspected terrorists to have access to firearms, in legal channels or otherwise, the main objection to such a ban being passed in Congress is procedural. The big objection arises among firearms rights groups—and others concerned with all civil liberties—is the way the government builds and maintains those watch lists. When sitting US senators, prominent business people, educators and others are erroneously prohibited from boarding a plane, as has happened all too frequently, there is something seriously wrong with the federal government’s construction and management of such watch lists. As both the National Rifle Association and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have pointed out (see related story elsewhere in this issue), objections to a watch list gun ban would fall away if the lists themselves were managed through due process, and corrections swiftly and permanently made.
All of which brings me back to the culprit in the Orlando massacre. There seems little doubt about his guilt, so I won’t refer to him as a “suspect.” It is clear that he was twice previously investigated by the FBI because of complaints received. Even Disney World security had concerns about his earlier presence in the theme park, enough to raise questions for law enforcement. If that wasn’t enough to warrant him being consigned to some watch list, just how are people’s names added to those lists?
Of course, the investigation is continuing, with some unusual ramifications. For example, there is strong evidence that the shooter’s wife—or others—may have known of his intentions but failed to report to any authorities before he took so many lives.
Needless to say, we can expect more facts to be revealed as the probe continues. Little by little, we are learning more about this monstrous event.
For example, right from the beginning, I was puzzled by the timeline of the event, as well as other lessons to be learned for public, state, local and federal authorities, and the politicians who want to appear to be responding to concerned citizens’ calls for them to “do something.”
While the first news of the Pulse attack came at 2:02 a.m., the attack played out over three hours.
Apparently, limited police presence at the scene of the crime, and an exchange of gunfire with the killer took place in just a few minutes. The shooter was forced to seek cover near or in the restroom block of the establishment.
No patrons could return any fire or attempt to intervene because no patrons were armed; it is illegal in Florida to bring a firearm into an establishment that serves alcoholic beverages, even people licensed to carry. Maybe that’s something that needs fixing, because the Orlando massacre, like almost all other such horrors, was perpetrated in a “gun free” zone.
People frightened by the shooter’s threats could not easily escape Pulse because there were not enough unlocked entrances or exits. One of the first rules for surviving a terrorist-type attack is to run. In Orlando, there was no place to run.
They couldn’t hide, because the killer was avoiding the first police intervention, by hiding in the restroom area—among his intended victims.
So, there was no running, no hiding and no fighting—the pillars of a survival plan.
What facts the media finally got a few days after the massacre explained the three hour siege timeline. Police revealed that the shooter had taken hostages after the first opposition, and that he had threatened to strap them with explosives. They delayed using an armed vehicle to create an entry point for a SWAT team, because of those threats and attempts to negotiate a stand down.
This commentary is written only a few days after the shooting. We’ll keep waiting for more facts to be released.
Meanwhile, let’s remember that the Second Amendment is still our surest defense against such attacks, mounted by terrorists and lunatics.
And while this may have been the worst multiple shooting in US history. It is not the worst mass murder.
That took place in the Bronx Borough of New York City in 1990 when 87 people were murdered at a dance hall—with gasoline and matches, not guns and bullets. No wonder the police were concerned about the threat of explosives.
