Orlando shooting: 2 dead, 6 injured, shooter still loose

[FireCaptain4]

http://www.caller.com/news/2009/nov/...fice-shooting/

ORLANDO, Fla. — Officials searched Friday for a gunman who opened fire in a downtown office building. At least eight people were hurt.

People streamed out of the high-rise building around lunchtime and some told local television stations they had barricaded themselves inside their offices.

Orlando Fire Department District Chief Michael Droege said an unknown number of people were still in the building and could be injured. He said the SWAT team was still trying to pull people out.

"The building is not secure now," he said. "It's still unfolding."

Orlando police spokeswoman Barbara Jones identified the gunman as Jason Rodriguez, 40, and said he might be in a 2002 silver Nissan SUV with license plate D119UX. She said he used to work at the building.

"I would consider him armed and dangerous," Jones said. She said multiple people were hurt but she could not say how many. She said five people were taken to the hospital and another had chest pains but did not go to the hospital.

Gerry Gilgo, who works on the floor where the shooting occurred, told The Associated Press she was meeting a co-worker at the elevators for lunch.

"She yelled there are gun shots! There are gun shots! Get back in your office," Gilgo said.

Will Halpern, an attorney works on the building's 17th floor, was among the last group to be evacuated. He said the lobby was filled with about 20 officers in SWAT gear, carrying assault weapons, ready to search the building.

The Orlando Fire Department told WESH-TV that at least eight people were injured. Interstate 4 was closed in both directions through downtown and nearby schools were locked down.

Rows of ambulances lined up outside the building as police snipers took up positions around the building and officers on foot and horseback searched the area.

Details are still unfolding, obviously, and some of this information may change at any moment.

[Vong]

Two shootings in two days...and people still defend the rights of gun nuts.

[SAI]

Originally Posted by Vong

Two shootings in two days...and people still defend the rights of gun nuts.

EXACTLY what I was about to say. How is it, honestly, that when these things happen in America nobody seems to say...'y'know, maybe we shouldn't let everyone have guns'. It just baffles me.

[ericdraven]

because Criminals would find loopholes and get their guns back if there is a law put in place.

[Venus Venusia]

Yep...and the shooter was fired from the company...in 2007!

[EVILxxx]

Originally Posted by Vong

Two shootings in two days...and people still defend the rights of gun nuts.

If someone there had been armed both of those men would have been shot before they did that kind of damage, and we wouldn't be limiting any rights.

[RustyRazor]

SO the safest place to be is your home.
No guns there.
The most dangerous things there are my collection of katanas.
Come into my home with a gun, leave without your f-ing hands.


I'm not outwardly violent, my friends, I'm just prone to fits of anger when the world pisses me off.

Which is a LOT of the time.

But this gun stuff is getting out of hand, seriously.
How do you truly resolve it?

[screamer581]

Originally Posted by EVILxxx

If someone there had been armed both of those men would have been shot before they did that kind of damage, and we wouldn't be limiting any rights.

I assume you are one of those people that thinks the world be a safer place if everyone carried guns with them, at all times?

If so.... no.

[EVILxxx]

Originally Posted by screamer581

I assume you are one of those people that thinks the world be a safer place if everyone carried guns with them, at all times?

If so.... no.

No not everyone just the people who go through the required courses, background checks, and have been certified to carry one.

[Potter82]

Here's a rather dark question; when people go on shooting rampages, do you think they ever consciously think about racking up a high body count for the purposes of infamy?

These sort of things have happened so damned often, that it's hard to remember the shooting death of only two people for more than a few days.... However, something like the Virgina Tech massacre with its far, far higher body count (30+) will be remembered for a long, long time to come - at least until the next nut kills even more people... I wonder if these killers think consciously about such things while in the midst of the act?

As for the gun control debate, I'm torn. On the one hand guns are far, far to easy to get in the U.S. (i.e. at gun shows) and people should always have to undergo a background but on the other hand if a person is totally set on killing a bunch of people, I'm sure they'll find a way to get a firearm by stealing it or what not...

[screamer581]

Originally Posted by EVILxxx

No not everyone just the people who go through the required courses, background checks, and have been certified to carry one.

I think it is a great idea to bring them to political events, especially when they involve the President. As long as they have been certified of course.

[Shinigami]

No not everyone just the people who go through the required courses, background checks, and have been certified to carry one.

So you think anybody should be able to carry a firearm.

[ericdraven]

Originally Posted by screamer581

I think it is a great idea to bring them to political events, especially when they involve the President. As long as they have been certified of course.

oh yeah let's not try and assassinate a black president. where's the affirmative acton?

[screamer581]

Originally Posted by ericdraven

oh yeah let's not try and assassinate a black president. where's the affirmative acton?

I know there is sarcasm in this post, I just don't understand it.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I hate these fucking imbeciles. I hate them for their selfishness. I hate them for their impotence. I hate them for their cowardice. I hate them for the way that their failure permeates their every action right up to and including the nanosecond when every one of these chickenshit motherfuckers puts the bullet through their own head because they can't even take a sliver of responsibilty for their actions. There's never a maniac with the balls to sit down on the steps and say, 'I did this. Do your fucking worst to me'. They count on the fact that the police will mow them down or that they will kill themselves - because there is no drama quite as powerful as the action movie going on in their head They are the deflatus of the world; tiny, insignificant pockets of shit that remind us that the sulphuric smell that we sometimes catch a whiff of is their ugly, burned bodies roasting in hell.

I fucking loathe them for the way that they make the same tired gestures ahead of their sprees. I loathe them for the drama that they try to put into place before they have their "revenge". I despise them for the way that they imagine their last act on this earth will be infamous when, sadly, it is somewhat passe. I abhorr their long-winded, illiterate suicide notes (diatribes) which could easily be replaced with the words: I DID IT BECAUSE I AM A CUNT.

They are boring, pitiful little losers whose "grandiose" final act shows how lacking in imagination the fuckers are.

[EVILxxx]

Originally Posted by Shinigami

So you think anybody should be able to carry a firearm.

All I know is that if I had been at either of those two situations with my sidearm the suspects would have gotten one maybe two shots off before I put two rounds in their chest and one in their head.

[QUENTIN]

Originally Posted by Reigh Kaufman

I hate these fucking imbeciles. I hate them for their selfishness. I hate them for their impotence. I hate them for their cowardice. I hate them for the way that their failure permeates their every action right up to and including the nanosecond when every one of these chickenshit motherfuckers puts the bullet through their own head because they can't even take a sliver of responsibilty for their actions. There's never a maniac with the balls to sit down on the steps and say, 'I did this. Do your fucking worst to me'. They count on the fact that the police will mow them down or that they will kill themselves - because there is no drama quite as powerful as the action movie going on in their head They are the deflatus of the world; tiny, insignificant pockets of shit that remind us that the sulphuric smell that we sometimes catch a whiff of is their ugly, burned bodies roasting in hell.

I fucking loathe them for the way that they make the same tired gestures ahead of their sprees. I loathe them for the drama that they try to put into place before they have their "revenge". I despise them for the way that they imagine their last act on this earth will be infamous when, sadly, it is somewhat passe. I abhorr their long-winded, illiterate suicide notes (diatribes) which could easily be replaced with the words: I DID IT BECAUSE I AM A CUNT.

They are boring, pitiful little losers whose "grandiose" final act shows how lacking in imagination the fuckers are.

C'mon Reigh, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.

As for the gun prevalence thing. I think, sure, if every adult was certified and carried a gun incidents like these would likely end sooner with a lower body count. But you'd also have a LOT more incidents like this if every time someone got pissed off, fired, broken up with, cut off, etc. they were carrying a gun.

[Natty]

Originally Posted by QUENTIN

But you'd also have a LOT more incidents like this if every time someone got pissed off, fired, broken up with, cut off, etc. they were carrying a gun.

Precisely. Guns should be illegal. We've only had a couple of shooting sprees in our country and never one at a school or college whereas there seems to be 2 or 3 a year in The States, it's a shame that they will probably never be banned and shit like this will continue to happen.

[ericdraven]

Reigh,

so everybody is a John Doe from Seven?

[EVILxxx]

Originally Posted by QUENTIN

C'mon Reigh, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.

As for the gun prevalence thing. I think, sure, if every adult was certified and carried a gun incidents like these would likely end sooner with a lower body count. But you'd also have a LOT more incidents like this if every time someone got pissed off, fired, broken up with, cut off, etc. they were carrying a gun.

Which is why i would be in favor of severe penalties for anyone found abusing their right to carry. Severe to the point where you would only draw it out unless you absolutely had to.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Originally Posted by ericdraven

Reigh,

so everybody is a John Doe from Seven?

I miss your point. I will say that I was clearly a bit drunk when I wrote this, though. Late night bowling with some friends. However, as someone whose wife's church is Dunblane chapel - and who was recently married there - I feel quite strongly about the subject.

I guess when you live beside the Dunblane families whose children were murdered by a coward you feel quite strongly about things.

[QUENTIN]

Originally Posted by EVILxxx

Which is why i would be in favor of severe penalties for anyone found abusing their right to carry. Severe to the point where you would only draw it out unless you absolutely had to.

You're arguing about a rational disincentive. I'm talking about when people aren't behaving rationally. Ever seen a bar fight? A jealous boyfriend flipping out? A bad case of road rage? Someone getting fired? A drunk person furious for no discernible reason? I've seen people come to blows literally over cutting in line at a movie queue. There are lots of laws in place about assault, but I'm betting those guys weren't considering the repercussions of the law at that point.

Lots of people are hotheaded. Even more have moments of hotheadedness. People flipping out isn't that rare, but shootings are relatively. As it is, when most people flip out it's limited to screaming, causing a scene, maybe punching someone. If everyone had a gun in those moments, we'd have a heck of a lot more shootings. I think the dramatic increase in overall shootings would far outweigh the benefit of the shootings we have now ending sooner if everybody was packing heat.

[Satans Puppet]

Originally Posted by EVILxxx

No not everyone just the people who go through the required courses, background checks, and have been certified to carry one.

Considering the shooting on the military base was done by a member of the military, they would have gone through some sort of training to be issued that side arm etc.... Checks and Balances are always going to let some nutters through and in todays society, the nutters are seemingly snuffing out the decent folks in society.

[EVILxxx]

Originally Posted by QUENTIN

You're arguing about a rational disincentive. I'm talking about when people aren't behaving rationally. Ever seen a bar fight? A jealous boyfriend flipping out? A bad case of road rage? Someone getting fired? A drunk person furious for no discernible reason? I've seen people come to blows literally over cutting in line at a movie queue. There are lots of laws in place about assault, but I'm betting those guys weren't considering the repercussions of the law at that point.

Lots of people are hotheaded. Even more have moments of hotheadedness. People flipping out isn't that rare, but shootings are relatively. As it is, when most people flip out it's limited to screaming, causing a scene, maybe punching someone. If everyone had a gun in those moments, we'd have a heck of a lot more shootings. I think the dramatic increase in overall shootings would far outweigh the benefit of the shootings we have now ending sooner if everybody was packing heat.

Well let's regulate drinking further then. Say four beers or equivelant maximum even when in your own home. Look I don't think it would be a good thing if everyone carried but to outlaw or seemingly outlaw it just isn't right. Massachusetts has some of the strictest gunlaws in the nation while Newhampshire has some of the most lenient yet our gun crime statistics are pretty close. People aren't losing their cool and shooting up one another there just because they got into some kind of arguement.

[Natty]

Originally Posted by EVILxxx

Massachusetts has some of the strictest gunlaws in the nation while Newhampshire has some of the most lenient yet our gun crime statistics are pretty close.

Well if you look at the statistics within nations in which guns are outlawed compared to America you'll probably agree with me. As I said the whole 'gun-killing-spree' crime seems to be (forgive this phrase I know it's stupid) 'an American thing'. Very, very rarely does it happen elsewhere and it happens in America because guns are so friggin easy to get and easy to use, no one would go on a stabbing spree before turning the knive on themself would they? Your idea of everyone carrying guns but only using them when some psycho needs to be put down just wouldn't work, because people are more ignorant, murderous and selfish than you are and will use their guns to kill others.

Also, in my country, no child has ever shot and killed someone. I hate hearing the stories about elementary school kids who have picked up their parents' pistols and killed them or other children.


I'm happy for everyone to bear arms though:

[QUENTIN]

Originally Posted by EVILxxx

Well let's regulate drinking further then. Say four beers or equivelant maximum even when in your own home. Look I don't think it would be a good thing if everyone carried but to outlaw or seemingly outlaw it just isn't right. Massachusetts has some of the strictest gunlaws in the nation while Newhampshire has some of the most lenient yet our gun crime statistics are pretty close. People aren't losing their cool and shooting up one another there just because they got into some kind of arguement.

The conclusion of my argument isn't that I think guns out to be outlawed. Second amendment and all that. Hunting, any other legitimate purpose. I'm just saying more guns on the streets or more armed people is not the solution to reducing shooting sprees. I'd be curious to see how many people in MA and NH own guns. I think it's just common sense that if you arm a significantly increased number of people, you're gonna get significantly increased gun violence based on increased opportunity. You say you don't think it would be a good thing if everyone carried, so cool, we may be on the same page about a lot of this.

I'm against restricting anything that people do that doesn't directly harm others. But current levels of gun access wind up hurting a lot of others. I support stricter reasonable regulations, similar to what Canada has where gun ownership is at a comparable level but they don't have shooting sprees as a yearly (or now apparently weekly) occurrence. If you have to pass a safety and use test to drive a car, you should have to pass one to own a gun. There's no legitimate purpose for assault weapons except crime, so I'm for a ban on those. Maybe licensed, heavily secured firing ranges can rent them on site if people want to get their kicks. I think waiting periods and background checks are a good idea too and don't like the way gun shows frequently circumvent that. If you need a gun RIGHT NOW, you're probably not hunting and if it's really for protection from an immediate threat, you're better off going to the police than trying to shoot someone.

I think reasonable, qualified adults can own guns but the current prevalence and availability of guns in the U.S. is a problem. I also think it's telling that guns owned for protection are more likely to kill a family member than an attacker and despite supporting it from a sanctity of the Constitution perspective, personally wonder what benefit there is to widespread handgun ownership.

[EVILxxx]

Originally Posted by Natty

Well if you look at the statistics within nations in which guns are outlawed compared to America you'll probably agree with me. As I said the whole 'gun-killing-spree' crime seems to be (forgive this phrase I know it's stupid) 'an American thing'. Very, very rarely does it happen elsewhere and it happens in America because guns are so friggin easy to get and easy to use, no one would go on a stabbing spree before turning the knive on themself would they? Your idea of everyone carrying guns but only using them when some psycho needs to be put down just wouldn't work, because people are more ignorant, murderous and selfish than you are and will use their guns to kill others.

Also, in my country, no child has ever shot and killed someone. I hate hearing the stories about elementary school kids who have picked up their parents' pistols and killed them or other children.

No you don't have shooting sprees, you just have soccer riots.

I can't argue with much about what you say Quentin. We are pretty much on the same page. As far as how many people carry in Mass compared to NH I can say that anyone in New England will tell you the same: Alot of people in NH carry or at the very least own handguns. Much higher than the national average. On the other hand I know a number of perfectly good law abiding citizens who can't get their local police departments to issue them licenses simply because it's discouraged. Granted more gun crimes may occur with less restrictive laws, but other crimes such as robbery may decrease because the perpetrator may think twice if they think there is a good chance their victim is armed.

[ProgWizardry]

Did this incident occur in a gun free zone???

That's impossible. There's no way this could've happened; I don't believe it.
You guys are putting me on.

[ProgWizardry]

Originally Posted by QUENTIN

Ever seen a bar fight? A jealous boyfriend flipping out? A bad case of road rage? Someone getting fired? A drunk person furious for no discernible reason?

Ever had a gun pointed at you? Ever seen one brandished with the intended use of self-defense?
Trust me, you'd hesitate. There is no more effective a deterrent to someone who has utterly flipped their top than the knowledge that their target may use a gun on them(unless they are either on PCP, grotesquely stupid, or totally insane).

Originally Posted by QUENTIN

There's no legitimate purpose for assault weapons except crime

Actually there is. Remember the LA Riots? If you were a shopkeeper then and you were about to be brutally looted would you rather have a Smith & Wesson rinky-dink or an assault rifle?
But that's right, the only ones who should carry assault weaponry are the people who can legally seize your property- you know, government agents.

I think reasonable, qualified adults can own guns but the current prevalence and availability of guns in the U.S. is a problem. I also think it's telling that guns owned for protection are more likely to kill a family member than an attacker

That's because you never hear or read from TV or print media about how many crimes are prevented by people using guns; or how many crimes don't even remotely happen simply by the mere brandishing of a weapon.
If it bleeds, it reads.

and despite supporting it from a sanctity of the Constitution perspective, personally wonder what benefit there is to widespread handgun ownership.

Again, deterrence.

Last time I checked, people in Switzerland are required to own a firearm and to know how to use it and they have been blood free for A LOT o'years.

Bottom line: Prohibition doesn't work folks.

[Natty]

Originally Posted by EVILxxx

No you don't have shooting sprees, you just have soccer riots.

Nice counter-arguement. Seeing as a lot of people die in football riots

[EVILxxx]

Usually in shootings that is the case as well. Virginia tech, Columbine, and FT Hood are the exception not the rule. Most are situations like this (not to downgrade the tragedy or anything). Point being orgies of violence aren't unique to America because guns can be owned the citizenry.

[Preston_79]

Guns akbar!

[Shinigami]

Violence ought to be brushed aside considering our human condition. With or without guns, violence will burn on in whatever variation with whatever tool. My problem with guns has to do with escalation, and having lived enough of my life in bad neighborhoods I've been able to see real living examples of otherwise flowery hippie talking points. Real people accidentally escalate encounters with a mugger or thief by brandishing a weapon and getting themselves or their attacker killed in the process. If the victim pulls a gun and the attacker escalates his assault, that's bad. If the victim pulls a gun and shoots the attacker, killing him, that's also bad. There aren't many good outcomes. Look guys I own a glock because I go traveling in remote desert areas and need to defend myself with something beyond a knife in case of stray dogs or leather red loonies. It's a noisemaker and a helpful tool. Lightweight. But my use of a gun is very different from the use that's being discussed in reaction to this massacre.

It's about elevation and escalation for me.

I would also rather these stories open up discussions about security than about citizen gun rights.

[Natty]

Originally Posted by EVILxxx

Usually in shootings that is the case as well. Virginia tech, Columbine, and FT Hood are the exception not the rule. Most are situations like this (not to downgrade the tragedy or anything).

Sorry dude but I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If it's a response to my comment do you mean that usually people aren't killed in shootings? Is that how Columbine and Virginia Tech are 'exceptions to the rule'?

Originally Posted by EVILxxx

Point being orgies of violence aren't unique to America because guns can be owned the citizenry.

1st: If by 'orgies of violence' you mean football riots then we really only have one every 5 years or so (though they happened all the time in the 70s and 80s, police have since cracked down). The reason for this is that only two groups of fans still fight each other now, West Ham fans and Millwall fans, and seeing as they are in different leagues and can only play each other by chance, it doesn't really occur so much. There are about 3-4 shooting rampages a year in America I believe.

Football riots are kind of like Fight Clubs, they are taken part in by insecure men who need to feel more masculine but no-one is critically injured or killed. Only on two occasions I can think of in the sport's history have such things happened.

2nd: Um, are you sure that's a good thing? I went to the last West Ham v Millwall game and it was a FRICKIN AWESOME experience! You will never catch someone using those words when describing a school-shooting.

You're basically saying that 'violence orgies' don't exist in America because if you have guns, insecure men can simply shoot rather than punch each other

[EVILxxx]

You're right you didn't get my meaning. My point is that the shooting sprees that end up with substantial casualties like the ones I mentioned are very rare and don't occur two to three times a year like you think. Not to mention that America has six times the amount of people as England.

[Natty]

Originally Posted by EVILxxx

You're right you didn't get my meaning. My point is that the shooting sprees that end up with substantial casualties like the ones I mentioned are very rare and don't occur two to three times a year like you think. Not to mention that America has six times the amount of people as England.

Was I also wrong with my final point? Or did I go on about hooliganism for no reason?

OK. Yeah I know the ones in which say, more than 10 people are killed don't occur two or three times a year but still, even when a rampage ends up with two deaths like with this shooting its bad enough. I suppose the population should be taken into account but I still think America would be in a better place socially if guns were illegal.

[EVILxxx]

I'm saying that it isn't just America that has tragedies such as this. I said it isn't unique to America not that we don't have them. Soccer riots were just an example of a violent scenario that can and has occurred in your country, I didn't intend to go into too much depth with it because frankly I don't know much about the intricate rivalries. But realistically guns are far to ingrained in our society to simply make them illegal. Gun laws are stiff but the majority of them apply to the people who are law abiding anyway. Say, extending the waiting period to acquire a permit is only going to affect the people who follow the law in getting the permit. Criminals will obtain their guns illegally anyway because it is illegal for a felon to posses one. I see no reason in a responsible citizen not to own one if they wish and have qualified to do so. You can't always make something illegal because you are afraid that some may abuse the privilege.

[Pentangeli]

Originally Posted by EVILxxx

I'm saying that it isn't just America that has tragedies such as this.

Germany has some of the toughest gun laws in Europe, yet they've still recently had a school shooting or two.