Mass shooting in el paso

Varik

skooterblue2 wrote: »

"without probable cause"?
If you are illegal immigrant then you have broken the law. If you are a criminal with a serious record and time served then you have probable cause.

"Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. It protects people from unlawful searches and seizures. This means that the police can't search you or your house without a warrant or probable cause."

For an illegal immigrant they have broken the law and their property could be searched as part of that.

For anyone else priors or time served or such is not probable cause.

skooterblue2

Gatling wrote: »

Right he fired over 1100 rounds of 5.56 rounds killed 58 including himself and injured 422 I don't see anything suspicious about it at all ,he definitely wasn't the best shot barely half his shots actually hit people ,
A proficient shooter could have done a lot more damage being honest ,the AR is a light enough platform with manageable recoil ,100 round mags on full auto more or less makes it even easier ,
He also had bipods , optics and several guns with foregrips.


Just to compare Charles Whitman the Texas university shooter in 1966 only managed to kill 14 and injure 30 in over and hour and a half of his rampage

He wasnt the best shot? those are fairly good numbers for a guy who "sprayed and prayed" The more rounds you fire and the faster you fire the less accurate you are. Well known shooting fact. How was he a "gun fanatic" with such a "poor shot"? All these things like Bipods and optics wont make you that much better if you are "spraying and praying" and a bad shot.

This guy Charles Whitman, does appear to have a solid plan. Now he is a believable character.

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

He wasnt the best shot? those are fairly good numbers for a guy who "sprayed and prayed" The more rounds you fire and the faster you fire the less accurate you are. Well known shooting fact. How was he a "gun fanatic" with such a "poor shot"? All these things like Bipods and optics wont make you that much better if you are "spraying and praying" and a bad shot.

This guy Charles Whitman, does appear to have a solid plan. Now he is a believable character.

Ot all depends doesn't it on how many people were in front of him and how they were positioned in front of him. Do you have to good at something to be a fanatic. I am a football fanatic can not kick a ball to save my life. So if it is so unbelievable what did happen. Shooting did not happen? Figures inflated? Or was there more then 1 shooter and it's been covered up?

Gatling

skooterblue2 wrote: »

All these things like Bipods and optics wont make you that much better if you are "spraying and praying" and a bad shot.

No but they do help with target acquisition ,
He literally just spammed his trigger emptying as many rounds as he could ,


But this is all just dragging this thread off topic there is no conspiracy here .

Midlife

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Stop looking at what is happening and start looking where the final destination is.
They cannot "collect" the weapons so they are moving toward a central firearms registry. This will increase the cost to the point where people cannot own weapons or very few can own one. Look at all the paper work redtape, infrastructure and security to manage a database like that. Who would control that information? Who could access that information and for what purpose?

If they were serious about gun control they would be going house to house for illegally held guns by known criminals and non-nationals. You will find the states with the highest gun ownership per capita (mid west and rust bucket or red states) have the lowest crime rates and the highest crime rates are the high densities urban areas under democrat control. If you know the final destination then its easy to work out the route, one way or the other.

That's the exact idea.

Start by knowing who has the guns. Yes, you have to fill out some paperwork and the data needs to be kept.

Then after that, simply go after the industry. The 21 age for drinking is very well enforced in my experience and that's becasue they go after the barman who serves the alcohol.

You haven't done anything yet about the existing weapons but practically overnight you can stop the production line of guns flowing out to those who are not responsible gun owners.

Of course, there remains all the illegally held guns but if you cut off supply, the numbers of these will dwindle and their cost on the black market will skyrocket. Gradually the problem will abate.

It will take decades to fix but then gradually you introduce penalties for non-registered firearms.

You're not 'taking' anyones guns and way down the line you end up with a registry of all firearms in the country and a serious penalty for anyone who's in posession of an older unregistered firearm.

Overheal

Midlife wrote: »

That's the exact idea.

Start by knowing who has the guns. Yes, you have to fill out some paperwork and the data needs to be kept.

Then after that, simply go after the industry. The 21 age for drinking is very well enforced in my experience and that's becasue they go after the barman who serves the alcohol.

You haven't done anything yet about the existing weapons but practically overnight you can stop the production line of guns flowing out to those who are not responsible gun owners.

Of course, there remains all the illegally held guns but if you cut off supply, the numbers of these will dwindle and their cost on the black market will skyrocket. Gradually the problem will abate.

It will take decades to fix but then gradually you introduce penalties for non-registered firearms.

You're not 'taking' anyones guns and way down the line you end up with a registry of all firearms in the country and a serious penalty for anyone who's in posession of an older unregistered firearm.

I’m not particularly a gun nut, but I’m a nutshell, nothing you just said has any hope in happening. For lots of reasons, many of them being the constitution

martingriff

Overheal wrote: »

I’m not particularly a gun nut, but I’m a nutshell, nothing you just said has any hope in happening. For lots of reasons, many of them being the constitution

All the constitution says is you have a right to bare arms it does not say what arms. Given when it was written they meant muskets. Also the constitution can be changed. Has been 23 times

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

Ot all depends doesn't it on how many people were in front of him and how they were positioned in front of him. Do you have to good at something to be a fanatic. I am a football fanatic can not kick a ball to save my life. So if it is so unbelievable what did happen. Shooting did not happen? Figures inflated? Or was there more then 1 shooter and it's been covered up?

Well you know how you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice Practice Practice.

I never suggested the shooting never happened! Did you say it never happened?

Overheal

martingriff wrote: »

All the constitution says is you have a right to bare arms it does not say what arms. Given when it was written they meant muskets. Also the constitution can be changed. Has been 23 times

That musket talking point is dated as hell, and frankly not valid.
Good luck changing 2A

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

All the constitution says is you have a right to bare arms it does not say what arms. Given when it was written they meant muskets. Also the constitution can be changed. Has been 23 times

What was in mind in the writing was tyranical government and home protection. You want to face off an invader into your home armed with black powered musket with a miniball? Are you sure you wouldnt rather a shorty shotgun with a strobe light considering that he could possibly have a 1911 or Glock?

Midlife

Overheal wrote: »

I’m not particularly a gun nut, but I’m a nutshell, nothing you just said has any hope in happening. For lots of reasons, many of them being the constitution

How. You still have the right to bear arms.

Overheal

Midlife wrote: »

How. You still have the right to bear arms.

I’d respond with a lengthy essay but surely there’s just a straight gun control thread for such a protracted side topic.

skooterblue2

Overheal wrote: »

That musket talking point is dated as hell, and frankly not valid.
Good luck changing 2A

You also have to take into account the massive manufacturing giants and exporters like Colt, Remington, Mosberg, Beretta Century and all the foreign investments with tooling that arent going to go down quietly.

skooterblue2

Overheal wrote: »

I’d respond with a lengthy essay but surely there’s just a straight gun control thread for such a protracted side topic.

Define "gun control"?

Decent citizens with background checks and three day cooling off period?
or
Only the Government and Criminal, who dont observe the law?

Overheal

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Define "gun control"?

Decent citizens with background checks and three day cooling off period?
or
Only the Government and Criminal, who dont observe the law?

The former can happen. The latter will not.

mcmoustache

Midlife wrote: »

How. You still have the right to bear arms.

It's more to do with the way that the Supreme Court has interpreted the second amendment. They have interpreted it in very broad terms in the past and are unlikely to change that given their current composition. So whatever about what we think about that line in the amendment, the only interpretations that matter are those of the Supreme Court.


Manic may be able to explain this in more detail as he is better informed on this than I am.

Overheal

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's more to do with the way that the Supreme Court has interpreted the second amendment. They have interpreted it in very broad terms in the past and are unlikely to change that given their current composition. So whatever about what we think about that line in the amendment, the only interpretations that matter are those of the Supreme Court.


Manic may be able to explain this in more detail as he is better informed on this than I am.

There’s just so much pulp that it’s exhausting to rehash the matter constantly. But yes SCOTUS decision has a lot to do with it, not just Congressional apathy.

tuxy

skooterblue2 wrote: »

What was in mind in the writing was tyranical government and home protection.

But is a well regulated militia necessary to defend your home in the U.S and would that militia armed with rifles be a match for the U.S military if it was controlled by a tyrannical government?

skooterblue2

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's more to do with the way that the Supreme Court has interpreted the second amendment. They have interpreted it in very broad terms in the past and are unlikely to change that given their current composition. So whatever about what we think about that line in the amendment, the only interpretations that matter are those of the Supreme Court.


Manic may be able to explain this in more detail as he is better informed on this than I am.

Trump has just appointed 130 judges and 2 Supreme court Judges, more than any other president in History. Cant see that happening for quite some time.

Overheal

tuxy wrote: »

But is a well regulated militia necessary to defend your home in the U.S and would that militia armed with rifles be a match for the U.S military if it was controlled by a tyrannical government?

Iraqis held out pretty good.

Varik

Midlife wrote: »

How. You still have the right to bear arms.

You're thinking of it from the wrong side.

It isn't about what they allow you, it's about what limits are place on the government. The rights are inalienable. They have the right, and the government can not infringed on it.

skooterblue2

tuxy wrote: »

But is a well regulated militia necessary to defend your home in the U.S and would that militia armed with rifles be a match for the U.S military if it was controlled by a tyrannical government?

Would you honestly like to depending on the Police anywhere? I certainly wouldnt. There is a lot more to soldiering than just guns. obviously if the army turns up with spotter plane, Lazer designator and a truck load of 81mm mortars in support then it is game over. There are certain terrains that where technology doesnt give you an advantage and equipment fails. But for local defence the Militia can be a wonderful asset.

skooterblue2

Overheal wrote: »

Iraqis held out pretty good.

The Afghans drew them into the mountains where the tanks couldnt go. They caught the Armoured vehicles with road side IED and blew the wheels/tracks off and then attacked with infalades of fire on the tanks. It is an impossible terrain to work with and the carbon fibre in the helicopter blades was being patched up with Duck tape. The tanks were choking at the air intakes. It was a disaster. Meanwhile the loads of black market AK's were making their ways to the fighters.

tuxy

Wako might be a better example of a militia taking on the government on home soil.

Overheal

Plus like any good civil war the military would have defectors.

skooterblue2

Overheal wrote: »

The former can happen.

That is already in place. When you see gang bangers and drug dealers and gangs being shot with weapons they are all stolen or illegally held. This is the real problem. The problem is not the majority legally held fire arms by decent citizens for sport and home defence.

Overheal

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is already in place. When you see gang bangers and drug dealers and gangs being shot with weapons they are all stolen or illegally held. This is the real problem. The problem is not the majority legally held fire arms by decent citizens for sport and home defence.

Yet in many cases of mass shootings the gun is legally held.

skooterblue2

Varik wrote: »

You're thinking of it from the wrong side.

It isn't about what they allow you, it's about what limits are place on the government. The rights are inalienable. They have the right, and the government can not infringed on it.

they cannot take away your gun but they can screw with your ammo imports and supply and charge you a dollar a round with tax.

tuxy

Do countries with high level of legally held firearms have higher rates of gun violence?
Or is it the other way around inherently violent cultures also have high levels of legally owned guns.

skooterblue2

Overheal wrote: »

Yet in many cases of mass shootings the gun is legally held.

You need to ask deeper questions on why that is? Its is nearly all of the cases. It is a fraction of the shooting that happen everyday in America. Yet they pursue the legally held fire arms. Why is that?