Mass shooting in el paso

tuxy

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Nope doesnt ring right with me. Who sold him the gun? No gunshop is going to sell a gun to a suspicious person and then have the FBI come and revoke their lisence to sell guns the next day. Women dont buy their children guns. I couldnt see how he got an NRA certificate for competency. It doesnt look right to me on alot of fronts.

She bought him the guns against his counsellors advice.
Some people are not good parents.
Who do you think purchased the guns?
Do you think he is acting in the police interview available online?

skooterblue2

tuxy wrote: »

She bought him the guns against his counsellors advice.
Some people are not good parents.
Who do you think purchased the guns?
Do you think he is acting in the police interview available online?

I dont think he purchased the gun. I dont think he acting I definitely dont think he is compos mentis. I definitely think he couldnt pass a ToET exam equivalent or safety exam equivalent.

Guy:Incognito

skooterblue2 wrote: »

The victims claimed there were three shooters at least.

I'd be taking what anyone at that concert had to say with regard to what was going on with a large shovel of salt.

We're not talking about soldiers or cops even, in a gun fight in a warzone. We are talking about civilians in a place they never expected to come under fire, suddenly finding themselves in that situation in the middle of a concert.

I doubt anyone had much of an idea how many shots were fired, where they were coming from and which were shots or echoes.

tuxy

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I dont think he purchased the gun. I dont think he acting I definitely dont think he is compos mentis. I definitely think he couldnt pass a ToET exam equivalent or safety exam equivalent.

Why would the gun store and NRA not show the record to clear that up?
Are you saying the NRA and gun store are in on it? Why would they want to be associated with this? I don't understand the motive.

lawlolawl

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'd be taking what anyone at that concert had to say with regard to what was going on with a large shovel of salt.

We're not talking about soldiers or cops even, in a gun fight in a warzone. We are talking about civilians in a place they never expected to come under fire, suddenly finding themselves in that situation in the middle of a concert.

I doubt anyone had much of an idea how many shots were fired, where they were coming from and which were shots or echoes.

Exactly. In the early days of the reporting on this incident a number of ballistics experts said that people on the ground would have had no idea where the shots were coming from because they would have echoed off buildings and people would just be dropping at random because of the size of the crowd.

It'd seem like more than one shooter in the confusion.

skooterblue2

tuxy wrote: »

She bought him the guns against his counsellors advice.
Some people are not good parents.
Who do you think purchased the guns?
Do you think he is acting in the police interview available online?

Actually he bought the gun himself but there are lot of conflicting things going on. (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article200434884.html)
I dont see how he could have an award for that type of Autism and ADHD get a ROTC award. That doesnt sit right with me.

skooterblue2

lawlolawl wrote: »

Exactly. In the early days of the reporting on this incident a number of ballistics experts said that people on the ground would have had no idea where the shots were coming from because they would have echoed off buildings and people would just be dropping at random because of the size of the crowd.

It'd seem like more than one shooter in the confusion.

Not for the amount of ammo that was dropped in the time period. Also why did he have 60 M16's it seems excessive. I know lads over in the states with 40 different firearms weapons (all legit) but all different. He was a registered Democrat. It just doesnt make sense.

tuxy

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Actually he bought the gun himself but there are lot of conflicting things going on. (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article200434884.html)
I dont see how he could have an award for that type of Autism and ADHD get a ROTC award. That doesnt sit right with me.

The gunshop owners were probably actors.

skooterblue2

tuxy wrote: »

Do you think he is acting in the police interview available online?

I am just watching the video for the first time. I know a little about schizophrenia and a lot about Autism. For a guy with a diagnosis autism, He looks more like a guy with schizophrenia with the whole visions of demons. Schizophrenia and HFA often run within the same families but rarely within the same individual. Where you could have a diagnosis ASD with multiple facets of Autism (Aspergers, Tourettes, Willi Prader, PLD, etc etc). I am not a psychologist but that is not right either.

skooterblue2

tuxy wrote: »

The gunshop owners were probably actors.

and with that I am off to bed for the night.....

skooterblue2

tuxy wrote: »

She bought him the guns against his counsellors advice.

No evidence of this :
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article200434884.html

tuxy

skooterblue2 wrote: »

and with that I am off to bed for the night.....

I guess we will never know who really did buy his guns for him.

briany

I struggle to understand the mindset of these mass shooters, and I suppose it's better that I do struggle.

But what I mean is how they arrive at their specific courses of action. They often have a specific grievance, but their wrath is indiscriminate. They're anti-immigrant, so they shoot anyone they can, as opposed to immigrants specifically. They're anti-government, so they shoot anyone they can, instead of government employees specifically. I think it all points to their hatreds being much deeper rooted than the things they blame.

Tony EH

dodderangler wrote: »

I do hunt you clown

I don't care.

Tony EH

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's not a rebuttal. That's a vacuous statement. The facts are that Republicans control 18 out of the 19 poorest states.



Yes I can explain it to you Pete. An African American man got elected and republicans incited hate by criticising him based on two main forms of attack:

• He wasn't born in the US
• He's a Muslim

In other words republican party members criticised Obama based on his perceived ethnicity and immigrant status. Here's how the GOP fan base reacted when he was elected:

<SNIP>

Now Pete I'll give you a chance to reply. You're point is that Obama played a part in identity politics. Can you give me an example of anything Obama did that was like the types of things Trump said about Obama's identity?

You know, I'd forgotten most of that nonsense.

And some people talk about "Trump derangement syndrome". :rolleyes:

Tony EH

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Y'know who restricted gun ownership? Hitler, Mao, Stalin ..... guess what happened next?

Private gun ownership went up in Germany in the 30's. Gun club membership rose too and Hitler Youth members were encouraged to shoot. There were nationwide shooting competitions.

Gun control was actually tighter during the Weimar Republic and before. That was due to conditions of Versailles.

So, no Hitler didn't restrict gun ownership.

Likewise, Stalin didn't do anything much regarding gun ownership in the USSR. Lenin brought in regulations regarding firearms after the revolution and illegal gun possession was severely prosecuted. But in the 20's and 30's, anyone could own a firearm (the vast majority of rural Russians had hunting weapons) and anyone could join firing ranges too. When the war began, however, there was a drive to gather as many firearms as possible and civilian guns were commandeered by the state, because there was a fear of the possibility of a shortage among military personnel.

Lastly, the Chinese never had that big a gun ownership in the first place. At least not in urban areas. In fact, there were numerous militias raised in accordance with Mao's wishes. I can't really speak much about Mao, because there's no verifiable documentary evidence to support the case either way. But, there was an effort to crackdown on unregistered firearms in the 50's. That's not the same as "taking people's guns" however.

Perhaps you should go somewhere else for your history lessons, other than Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones or the rest of their ilk.

batgoat

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Not for the amount of ammo that was dropped in the time period. Also why did he have 60 M16's it seems excessive. I know lads over in the states with 40 different firearms weapons (all legit) but all different. He was a registered Democrat. It just doesnt make sense.

He wasn't a registered democrat... This is more an example of the propaganda machine..

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/florida-shooter-not-registered-dem/

skooterblue2

Tony EH wrote: »

Private gun ownership went up in Germany in the 30's. Gun club membership rose too and Hitler Youth members were encouraged to shoot. There were nationwide shooting competitions.

Gun control was actually tighter during the Weimar Republic and before. That was due to conditions of Versailles.

So, no Hitler didn't restrict gun ownership.

Likewise, Stalin didn't do anything much regarding gun ownership in the USSR. Lenin brought in regulations regarding firearms after the revolution and illegal gun possession was severely prosecuted. But in the 20's and 30's, anyone could own a firearm (the vast majority of rural Russians had hunting weapons) and anyone could join firing ranges too. When the war began, however, there was a drive to gather as many firearms as possible and civilian guns were commandeered by the state, because there was a fear of the possibility of a shortage among military personnel.

Lastly, the Chinese never had that big a gun ownership in the first place. At least not in urban areas. In fact, there were numerous militias raised in accordance with Mao's wishes. I can't really speak much about Mao, because there's no verifiable documentary evidence to support the case either way. But, there was an effort to crackdown on unregistered firearms in the 50's. That's not the same as "taking people's guns" however.

Perhaps you should go somewhere else for your history lessons, other than Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones or the rest of their ilk.

Your right gun owner did go up but not Jews, Masons and "enemies of the state". Hitler was building an army in the disguise of Boys scouts (Hitler Youth, etc etc).

BattleCorp

banie01 wrote: »

It's a semi automatic variant of a rifle designed specifically for military use.

It does what every other semi-automatic rifle does. It's no more dangerous than any other type of semi-automatic centrefire rifle.

Very different story in Ireland where an AR15 requires a restricted license and a magazine capacity of no greater than 10rounds.

You are half right there. It requires a restricted licence but the 10 round capacity only applies to non-restricted firearms. If you have a licence for an AR15 in Ireland, there's no magazine restriction.

Further to that, the issuance of a firearms license in Ireland is quite dependant upon background and mental health checks as well as being of temperate character.

I believe this should be compulsory everywhere but they don't want to do that in America.

BattleCorp

joe40 wrote: »

If your friend from vegas was a decent human being he would forfeit his hobby for the greater good.
Even if only one incidence of mass shooting was stopped it would be worth it.
The selfishness of the gun lobby and gun owners are a problem. Glorifying a gun culture will always lead to incidents like this even if the majority of gun owners aren't a problem.

How would a law abiding citizen giving up his right to a firearm be for the greater good?

His gun isn't a danger to anybody, so what benefit is there to him giving it up?

joe40

BattleCorp wrote: »

How would a law abiding citizen giving up his right to a firearm be for the greater good?

His gun isn't a danger to anybody, so what benefit is there to him giving it up?

Lax gun laws are a danger to everyone. That is abundantly obvious.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

How would a law abiding citizen giving up his right to a firearm be for the greater good?

His gun isn't a danger to anybody, so what benefit is there to him giving it up?

Because research in gun control is unequivocal in the conclusion that:

More guns = More shootings
States with stricter gun controls = less mass shootings
States that introduce carry and conceal see a 10-13% rise in gun crime

8-10

BattleCorp wrote: »

How would a law abiding citizen giving up his right to a firearm be for the greater good?

His gun isn't a danger to anybody, so what benefit is there to him giving it up?

Reports are that the el Paso shooter was a law abiding citizen who hadn't previously come to the attention of authorities.

Every criminal commits a crime for the first time at some point in their life. What if that point in time is after they've already been able to legally buy a gun....like this guy did?

James Brown

8-10 wrote: »

There's no republicans in Ireland!

Herr Foley-Walsh might beg to differ...

https://www.independent.ie/ca/irish-news/politics/entirely-inappropriate-anger-as-fine-gael-youth-leader-attends-us-rightwing-conference-38374027.html

banie01

BattleCorp wrote: »

It does what every other semi-automatic rifle does. It's no more dangerous than any other type of semi-automatic centrefire rifle.

In that it is a self loading repeating rifle yes.
Any semi auto will do that..
A rifle will fire bullets. A rifle that can fire 5.56mm in particular 5.56mm FMJ(As opposed to .223 rounds) is firing a round that was designed to maim and injure through cavitation and hydrostatic shock.

However and this is IMO quite a significant difference between the AR platform and nearly everything else on the market in that particular segment.

Is its ease of access to particularly high capacity magazines.
How many other commonly available rifles on the civilian market have such ease of access to high capacity magazines? C-Mag and D-Mag types in particular?

While not directly related to the shootings or how the were carried out, one of the other primary factors that make the AR15 platform attractive is IMO it's extreme modularity.
The receiver, barrel, stock and so much of the rifle platform can be customised to allow 5.56mm to be legally within barrel length constraints while collapsing the stock to allow easier carry.

It is a very light recoil and easy to handle allowing quick and aimed sustained fire IMO.

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are half right there. It requires a restricted licence but the 10 round capacity only applies to non-restricted firearms. If you have a licence for an AR15 in Ireland, there's no magazine restriction.

Thanks BC!
Everyday is a learning day
I had genuinely thought that only .22lr could be had with unrestricted magazine capacity in Ireland.

Not that I have any belief that ownership of such a weapon is a risk to the public in Ireland and I don't want anyone to infer that I am advocating for such.

I do feel shooters in Ireland have quite enough regulation to deal with as is

banie01

steddyeddy wrote: »

Because research in gun control is unequivocal in the conclusion that:

More guns = More shootings
States with stricter gun controls = less mass shootings
States that introduce carry and conceal see a 10-13% rise in gun crime

I do think that a caveat needs to be placed on the numbers demonstrating the above that it really is only in the context of the United States and gun ownership that they are true.

Harry Palmr

Well this is helping



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/06/texas-police-galveston-white-officers-black-man-horse-rope

A police department in Galveston, Texas, has apologized after two white officers on horseback led a black man through the city’s streets on a rope.


Photographs shared on social media show Donald Neely, 43, flanked by two mounted police officers. Neely’s hands are bound behind his back, and one of the officers is holding an attached thick blue rope.

Following widespread criticism and outrage, Galveston police said it would end the practice.

The police department said in a statement: “We understand the negative perception of this action and believe it is most appropriate to cease the use of this technique.”

Overheal

That has nothing to do with the shootings, despicable though it may be.

Harry Palmr

If you think that you are wrong.

SeanW

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Well this is helping


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/06/texas-police-galveston-white-officers-black-man-horse-rope

What exactly does this have to do with mass shootings?